Evidences against Standard Cosmology

[ecco]

When science/educated scholars have no clues of the ancient mythological descriptions of what our ancestors observed around them, they simply reject the mythical telling as superstitious nonsense.

The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

More nonsense. The writer of Genesis expanded on stories of local floods to make a point about the vengefulness of their new god. There is nothing in Genesis that alludes to the milky way.

The Great Flood myth is a celestial mythical telling of the Milky Way and that´s the reason it is told all over the World as the Milky Way are observable all over the world.

Simple mythical logics all over the places.

Deadly local floods were also all over the place. That was true then, it is true now. I'm sure that, to many people in Banda Aceh, it seemed like the whole world was flooded.

If your "Ancient knowledge" asserts that the biblical Genesis flood refers to the milky way, then that is just another nail in its ridiculous coffin.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
By logical considerations: The law of EM cannot logically be split up in three different areas.

Hmm...

Electromagnetism: Faraday's law, Ampere's law, Lenz' law, & Lorentz force

Four laws of electromagnetism that you should know

1. Faraday’s law of induction
2. Lenz’ law
3. Lorentz force
4. Ampère’s circuital law

So what? This doesn´t change the basic EM quality and how it works in all EM-frequencies.

Native said: ↑
NONSENSE! Why on Earth would I post a video if it wasn´t for being watched?

Because the title of the video, taken out of context of the contents of the video, would seem to bolster your ongoing assertions about EM revolutionizing man's knowledge of the universe.

My OP title fits very nicely to Sabines video title! Regarding an EM connection, you´re simply worshipping your own prejudices.

Native said: ↑
You´re completely twisting my argument!
I said if scholars are unaware of the mythical symbolism and language, they´re projecting there own ignorance and describing ancient knowledge to be of superstitious matters.

No, you said...

Native said: ↑
And in their ignorance, they determine it to be "superstitious" because they can´t find the natural explanations, which to a large extend contains both astronomical and cosmological contents and natural explanations.

And if you were able to analyse and combine these two sentences, you´ll find they deal with the same subject: Mythical ignorance and superstitious thinking of ancient mythical texts.

n either case, you are asserting that the scientists who assert that "ancient knowledge" is woo, do so because they are ignorant. They are not. They have researched your "ancient knowledge" and found there is nothing to substantiate the reality of it. Hence, my term - woo.

If they don´t know anything of the astronomical and cosmological contents in ancient myths, all they get is ignorant woo and superstitious conclusions.

 

[Native]

More nonsense. The writer of Genesis expanded on stories of local floods to make a point about the vengefulness of their new god. There is nothing in Genesis that alludes to the milky way.

If you´re taking the text in Genesis literally, you also have to believe the Flood to have covered the entire Earth - and to believe in a Noah Ark with a pair of all animals. And to believe that god frequently take revenge over humans.

But maybe you take such woo to be a fact?

Deadly local floods were also all over the place.

Of course so. But no one which covered the entire Earth as claimed and interpreted in the bible.

If your "Ancient knowledge" asserts that the biblical Genesis flood refers to the milky way, then that is just another nail in its ridiculous coffin.

It rather is a nail in your empty mythical coffin which leads you to believe in literal biblical nonsense and divine woo revenges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you´re taking the text in Genesis literally, you also have to believe the Flood to have covered the entire Earth - and to believe in a Noah Ark with a pair of all animals. And to believe that god frequently take revenge over humans.

But maybe you take such woo to be a fact?


Of course so. But no one which covered the entire Earth as claimed ion the bible.

It rather is a nail in your empty mythical coffin which leads you to believe in literal biblical nonsense and divine woo revenges.

ecco has no such religious beliefs. He was just trying to tell you how wrong you are. That you do not take Genesis literally only makes your nonsense marginally less ridiculous.

 

[Native]

ecco has no such religious beliefs. He was just trying to tell you how wrong you are.

I am perfectly capable to discern what "ecco" believe or not, thank you.

That you do not take Genesis literally only makes your nonsense marginally less ridiculous.

Well go ahead yourself and explain the "Genesis Flood" and see if you can do this without ridiculing yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am perfectly capable to discern what "ecco" believe or not, thank you.

Well go ahead yourself and explain the "Genesis Flood" and see if you can do this without ridiculing yourself.

You demonstrated that you cannot do so. The Genesis flood is merely a flood myth. Adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Do you think that you can do any better?

 

[ecco]

My OP title fits very nicely to Sabines video title! Regarding an EM connection, you´re simply worshipping your own prejudices.

OK, then. Tell me what part of the video has a connection to your versions of EM (replacing gravity, etc.) Please quote from the video (paraphrasing is OK and show the approximate timestamp).

And in their ignorance, they determine it to be "superstitious" because they can´t find the natural explanations, which to a large extend contains both astronomical and cosmological contents and natural explanations.

You assert they are ignorant because they can not find the "natural explanations".

They and I would assert that they can not find the "natural explanations" because there are none.

And if you were able to analyse and combine these two sentences, you´ll find they deal with the same subject: Mythical ignorance and superstitious thinking of ancient mythical texts.

Again, you are making assertions with no basis in reality. You are just expressing your opinion about the scientists.

If they don´t know anything of the astronomical and cosmological contents in ancient myths, all they get is ignorant woo and superstitious conclusions.

Why do you assert that they know nothing of the astronomical and cosmological contents in ancient myths? Have you discussed their research with them? When someone comes up with a new "version of stuff" in RF, I need do only a cursory examination to see if it falls into the scientific or woo bucket. That is because I have done detailed investigations in the past on similar stuff.

Once I did some digging on ghosts, it wasn't necessary to do a whole lot of digging on poltergeists.
Once I researched God and Jesus, I didn't need to do any digging before knowing what bucket to put Allah and Mohammed and Baháʼu'lláh into.

 

[ecco]

If you´re taking the text in Genesis literally, you also have to believe the Flood to have covered the entire Earth - and to believe in a Noah Ark with a pair of all animals. And to believe that god frequently take revenge over humans.

I don't take the text of Genesis literally. I take the text of Genesis to be what the writers wanted to convey.

To some degree, they wanted to convey their versions of stories that were handed down from generation to generation orally.

To some degree, they wanted to convey their concepts of a single God who laid down the laws and was vengeful when those laws (His Will) were violated.

They expanded on the stories of local floods and invented Noah, etc, to make a point. A lot of rain or many big waves can cause a local flood, but only Their God was powerful enough to flood the entire world.

When Their God got pissed, He wiped the slate clean and started over.

Of course so. But no one which covered the entire Earth as claimed and interpreted in the bible.

See above.

It rather is a nail in your empty mythical coffin which leads you to believe in literal biblical nonsense and divine woo revenges.

Again, just in case you missed it, I do not "believe in literal biblical nonsense". I believe the authors conveyed what the authors wanted to convey.

I'll stand by this...
If your "Ancient knowledge" asserts that the biblical Genesis flood refers to the milky way, then that is just another nail in its ridiculous coffin.

 

[Native]

You demonstrated that you cannot do so. The Genesis flood is merely a flood myth. Adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Do you think that you can do any better?

I´ve already explained this here #35Native, Saturday at 11:42 AM - but apparently you´re not oriented of the thread contents before intervening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´ve already explained this here #35Native, Saturday at 11:42 AM - but apparently you´re not oriented of the thread contents before intervening.

No, I am aware of your rather silly beliefs about myths. The problem is that you have no reliable evidence for this belief. You cannot support your claim at all. As a result your explanation fails when compared to any other explanation that can support their claims.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
My OP title fits very nicely to Sabines video title! Regarding an EM connection, you´re simply worshipping your own prejudices.

OK, then. Tell me what part of the video has a connection to your versions of EM (replacing gravity, etc.) Please quote from the video (paraphrasing is OK and show the approximate timestamp).

You´re going in circles. We´ve been there before.

If you can´t combine Sabines conclusions with my initially comment yourself, there is nothing I can do about this.

Native said: ↑
If you´re taking the text in Genesis literally, you also have to believe the Flood to have covered the entire Earth - and to believe in a Noah Ark with a pair of all animals. And to believe that god frequently take revenge over humans.

I don't take the text of Genesis literally. I take the text of Genesis to be what the writers wanted to convey.

So, you don´t have any independent thoughts of what they conveyed? As for instants a total water covered Earth?

I'll stand by this...
If your "Ancient knowledge" asserts that the biblical Genesis flood refers to the milky way, then that is just another nail in its ridiculous coffin.

How can you tell if you believe in the literal Flood Story which assumedly covered the Earth?

 

[Native]

No, I am aware of your rather silly beliefs about myths. The problem is that you have no reliable evidence for this belief. You cannot support your claim at all. As a result your explanation fails when compared to any other explanation that can support their claims.

I fully understand if your cultural religious heritage have lead you to give up on the mythical contexts and its overall meanings, but at least you could show up some more curiosity and constructive interests when somebody have alternate explanations which possible could give you back a natural and genuine interest.

Anyway, I can´t use your outright rejections to anything at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fully understand if your cultural religious heritage have lead you to give up on the mythical contexts and its overall meanings, but at least you could show up some more curiosity and constructive interests when somebody have alternate explanations which possible could give you back a natural and genuine interest.

Anyway, I can´t use your outright rejections to anything at all.

Nope, that won't work. The burden of proof is still on you. You cannot dodge it with false claims about others.

 

[ecco]

You´re going in circles. We´ve been there before.

If you can´t combine Sabines conclusions with my initially comment yourself, there is nothing I can do about this.

If I can't!?! Seriously? I'm not the one making nonsensical assertions, you are.

So, bottom line, there is nothing in the video that supports your EM silliness.
So, bottom line, you posted the video just for the value of the title, not the content.

That is something we've all seen creationists do also.

 

[ecco]

So, you don´t have any independent thoughts of what they conveyed? As for instants a total water covered Earth?

They used the term "water". They used the words "fountains" and "wells". They used the word "covered".
Somehow, you think they meant to convey something about the milky way.

It just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

How can you tell if you believe in the literal Flood Story which assumedly covered the Earth?

I'll ignore the question since I know English is not your first language. Perhaps you would care to rewrite it.

 

[joelr]

If you´re taking the text in Genesis literally, you also have to believe the Flood to have covered the entire Earth - and to believe in a Noah Ark with a pair of all animals. And to believe that god frequently take revenge over humans.

The cosmology of the Israelites was completely different and yes the water was literal. The Earth was not round and the water for the flood was stored in the heavens.
The visible parts of space, stars and planets were below the water storage area and they believed they could see the lower part of heaven. All of the stars were a small area below heaven and the water.
They had no cosmology of a galaxy or milky way. The cosmic sea was literally water above heaven.

 

[Native]

You cannot dodge it with false claims about others.

How can you tell if there is anything false as you outright reject the religious and mythical approaches? Is this all you can do? If so, just leave the subject as you´re of no use to my conversation.

 

[Native]

If I can't!?! Seriously? I'm not the one making nonsensical assertions, you are.

So, bottom line, there is nothing in the video that supports your EM silliness.

For the 117th time: I never mentioned the EM! You´re going astray in your own fantasy.

I bet you even haven´t yet understood Sabine Hossenfelders video OP.

That is something we've all seen creationists do also.

More of your astray fantasy as I´m not a creationist.

 

[Native]

They used the term "water". They used the words "fountains" and "wells". They used the word "covered".
Somehow, you think they meant to convey something about the milky way.

It just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

Yes, doesn´t it!?

Try to combine this "genesis water" references with Noah Ark and the drowned Earth and se if you can get your literal explanations even sillier.

I'll ignore the question since I know English is not your first language. Perhaps you would care to rewrite it.

OH, I see! maybe this is why you don´t understand most of my posts?

 

[Regiomontanus]

New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

Sabines abstract:
“This video's topic is close to my own research, cosmology. The current standard model of cosmology rests on the "cosmological principle" - the idea that the universe looks, on the average, the same everywhere. Alas, it doesn't look good for the cosmological principle. Just what does the evidence say and, if it holds up, what does this mean? At the end of this video, you'll know”.

Content:
0:00 Intro
0:43 Sponsor Message
1:41 The Cosmological Principle
5:58 Trouble for the Cosmological Principle
10:20 What does it mean?

My comment:
More and more evidences against Standard Cosmology shows up when trying to get the cosmological dots together and it seems that many theories are based on "speculative boys toys" ideas and methods.

Sabine Hossenfelder predict a huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology in the near future, and so do I.

When it comes to the matter, it all will show up to confirm the most specified ideas in the ancient Stories of Creation, which speak of an infinite and eternal Universe with constant changes of formation, dissolution and re-formation, thus confirming the laws of energy conservation.

I listened to the following podcast recently and it reminded me of this thread:

"What's Beyond Physics?"

Closer To Truth

"What's fundamental, changes" - I really like (and largely agree with) the comments of the first guest, Lawrence Krauss.