Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[gnostic]

Again, the discoveries in the modern "timeline" dosn´t work with the ancient people perception and NO ONE really knows what our ancestors could observe beyond the local part of the Universe.

True, about the local part of the universe.

What is false that you claiming what occurred at the Milky Way’s centre.

All that ancient people see on Earth, without the telescope, is only a fraction of the Milky Way, hence only a very limited locality of the Milky Way.

All the stars that we can see, are actually very close to the sun. The furthest star any human can see through the naked eye, is V762 Cas, which is visible from Cassiopeia constellation.

V762 Cas is less than 17,000 light years away from Earth. The galactic centre of the Milky Way is about 25,000 light years the Solar System.

If you were to look at the sky tonight, you will only see between 2200 and 2600 stars, depending on if you live nearer to the polar or to the equator, or in the northern hemisphere or the south - so it depends on your geographical locality. And the total stars visible on Earth, is less than 9100 stars.

We cannot see stars that are further than V762 Cas. So the millions of stars that are closer to the Milky Way’s centre are invisible to us, without the aid of a telescope.

We can only see the Triangulum Galaxy (3 million light years) and Andromeda Galaxy (2 million light years) because they are not stars, and Triangulum is the most distant galaxy we can see.

 

[Native]

True, about the local part of the universe.

What is false that you claiming what occurred at the Milky Way’s centre.

All that ancient people see on Earth, without the telescope, is only a fraction of the Milky Way, hence only a very limited locality of the Milky Way.

-------------
Gnostic, if you look carefully what is going on in this image of the Milky Way, the double bars can ONLY be made by a central motion from within the Milky Way center, out in the bars and thus further out in the galactic arms. This motion is biblical explained by the "expulsion from the Garden of Eden", from the center where everything is created, symbolized by the Tree of Life and by examining the astrophysical imagery of the Milky Way thoroughly and logically, one can only confirm this biblical explanation. (Especially as the Standard Cosmology has been directly contradicted in the factual motion in the Milky Way)

Besides this, astrophysicists have observed several stars which are revolving around the so called "black hole", of course without being swallowed by this hole which just is a "funnel of star birth". The formative motion STILL goes from within the galactic center and outwards as described earlier.

In the Norse mythology we have a Midgaard Serpent which encircle the entire Midgaard, which is the place where people live i.e. the Earth. In several cultural myths of creation, the Milky Way is symbolized as a big Snake, Serpent and Dragon and the contours of the Milky Way white/grey band goes all around the Earth. So the Norse Midgaard Serpent myth fit logically to the factual observation.

On both Earth hemispheres you can observe about half part of the Milky Way band which is constituted by millions/billions of stars, but of course you are right that we cannot observe all these stars clearly with our naked eyes. This is why ancient people also named/symbolized the Milky Way band as a "river in the night Sky".

The "weakest point" regarding how ancient people observed the entire Milky Way galaxy and its formative processes, is in fact also the strongest. Of course people on the Earth southern hemisphere could observe the light of the Milky Way center in the Sagittarius constellation directly with their eyes, but - if spiritually opened - anyone on the northern hemisphere could also get this knowledge by spiritual visions of the creation in the Milky Way. (In the old and New Testament there are several examples of such a direct cosmic communication).

IMO the entire creation is governed by electric forces and everything is made by this electromagnetic force, including humans. Spiritual visions of the creation speaks directly to our minds if we are open for this kind of communication and there really are no cosmic boundaries for this kind of communication.

I know from lots of discussions on this matter that it is VERY HARD for modern humans to understand that sensitive humans from all over the world have understood much more than we modern humans give them credit for, but personally I am convinced in my perceptions and interpretations.

I´m very pleased with our discussion here and I hope you can get as much out of it as I do

 

[Polymath257]

--------

I notice that you lean your head very much to the ideas in the Standard Cosmology and its hypothesis about the formation of the Solar System formed by a local cloud of dust and gas which suddenly decided to collapse under it´s own gravitational forces - without explaining the dynamics itself.

Except, of course, that we *do* model the dynamics as well as observing said dynamics in regions that are forming stars today.

The Standard Cosmology operates just with gravitational attractions, collapses and explosions and as such this Standard Cosmology only operates with 1/4 of the fundamental forces and ignoring the rest 3/4 part of the dynamics and it´s cosmic explanations.

The strong and weak forces are *nuclear* forces and not relevant on a cosmic scale (except to explain the fusion reactions inside of stars). The E&M force is relevant for plasmas such as are found in many nebula. But gravity is *by far* the dominant force operative at cosmic scales.

Take for instants the topic of the problem with the Galactic Rotation Curve and it´s "astrophysical anomaly": The Standard Cosmology was expecting all the stars in our galaxy to orbit the galactic center in the same manner that the planets orbits the Sun i.e according to the gravitational laws. but this was wrong. all stars orbits the galactic center with the same orbital velocity compared to the galactic center and the gravitational laws were directly contradicted.

First, the velocity curves were not measured for the Milky Way because of the difficulty of doing such measurements from inside the galaxy. instead, these were based on observations of other spiral galaxies (elliptical galaxies have a more chaotic velocity profile).

Then some astrophysicists got confused because with such an orbital motion, the stars would be slung out of the galaxy and then they thought there must be a central force in our galaxy or some "dark matter" which prevents the stars to fly away out of the galaxy. The astrophysicists were contradicted and shown a different pattern of motion and all they could think of was to invent some forces in order to fit their (contradicted) calculations and hold onto the gravitational ideas.

This is an incorrect description of what happened. There were also attempts to modify the laws of motion, particularly of gravity. These were described as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) and were a propsed alternative to the dark matter hypothesis for quite some time. Unfortunately, MOND and the relativistic version (TeVeS) are not consistent with the observations of gravitational lensing in galactic clusters and the separation of matter from the points of lensing.

Ergo: The motion of stars in our galaxy was/is not understood by modern astrophysicists, so HOW did our ancestors understand and explain the formative forces in our galaxy? Well, the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, spoke of a condition of "primordial elements in the primordial waters" with different but complementary qualities which came together and this formats the "first fiery entity" in the center, called Amun-Ra, representing the central Milky Way light and NOT the Sun.

The Egyptian Milky Way Mother goddess, Hathor" was/is closely connected to Amun-Ra and "together they formed everything in the ancient known part of the Universe". That is: The creation took place as a pre-condition of dust and gas which came together in a center and from there, everything were created and spread out as the observable contours of the Milky Way and its stars.

That is again: Where the modern cosmological science was proven wrong by concrete observations regarding the formation and motion in our Milky Way, the ancient understanding of the formation and motion in our galaxy was/is correct. The formation and motion in our galaxy takes place in the center and form there everything was/is moving away from the center, just like water droplets from a rotating two arm garden sprinkler which BTW very much looks like the barred structure in the Milky Way. This explanation is the ONLY possible way to explain the formation and starry motion in our galaxy - and our ancestors knew and were correct in their cultural telling of the Creation.

Wow. Not even *close* to being correct in terms of galactic dynamics. Nor, for that matter, a valid description of what our 'ancestors' thought or knew. They certainly had NO knowledge of the center of our galaxy.

My method here was/is to read the ancient telling of the creation of the then known part of the Universe and then I took the astrophysical problem in the Standard Cosmology with the so called "abnormal rotation curve" in our galaxy and compared both explanations. Of course these comparisons are logical since we are talking of the same cosmological conditions in the creation.

Not even close.

I am as honest as I can be and evidently our ancestors were much wiser that some of the modern cosmological science comes up with.

I think this is attempting to read modern understanding (falsely) into writings made by the ancients.

We modern people are used to all kinds of modern cosmological instrumental inventions which shows us lots of cosmological images, but It really doesn´t take much instruments in order to plot the seasonal movements of the Sun and when observing the nocturnal imagery of the stars, we discover a point where the stars seemingly revolves around.

How does this relate to the Milky Way at all? The point where everything seems to revolve around is the projection of the axis of the Earth into the sky to the north pole. That is *solely* due to the rotation of the Earth, which is completely unrelated to that of the Milky Way.

You really just have to have a stick in a circle and mark the solar motions with some stones or other sticks which marks the shadow lengths of the Sun and you have plotted the entire image and interaction of the Sun and the Earth. Besides these physical observations, our ancestors also got spiritual visions of anything small and big - and here the modern inventions of instruments and fuzz can be a direct hindrance and shut up the spiritual connection which we all have - and I certainly have got my part of cosmic visions.

The evidence of the ancient knowledge is embedded in their cosmological myths and in their symbolism, but this is all in vane if the ancient myths aren´t taken seriously and not just taken as ancient mumbo-jumbo and hearsayings.

For the ancients, the sun was one of the planets: it 'wandered' in the sky just like Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn (Mercury and Venus were more limited). And yes, charts of these motions are ancient knowledge, upon which Ptolemy based his geocentric model of the universe. But it should be noted that the ancient understanding was that the planets and stars were attached to the 'dome' of the sky which was at most a few million miles away.

 

[Polymath257]

True, about the local part of the universe.

What is false that you claiming what occurred at the Milky Way’s centre.

All that ancient people see on Earth, without the telescope, is only a fraction of the Milky Way, hence only a very limited locality of the Milky Way.

All the stars that we can see, are actually very close to the sun. The furthest star any human can see through the naked eye, is V762 Cas, which is visible from Cassiopeia constellation.

V762 Cas is less than 17,000 light years away from Earth. The galactic centre of the Milky Way is about 25,000 light years the Solar System.

If you were to look at the sky tonight, you will only see between 2200 and 2600 stars, depending on if you live nearer to the polar or to the equator, or in the northern hemisphere or the south - so it depends on your geographical locality. And the total stars visible on Earth, is less than 9100 stars.

We cannot see stars that are further than V762 Cas. So the millions of stars that are closer to the Milky Way’s centre are invisible to us, without the aid of a telescope.

We can only see the Triangulum Galaxy (3 million light years) and Andromeda Galaxy (2 million light years) because they are not stars, and Triangulum is the most distant galaxy we can see.

The *vast* majority of the stars we can see without telescopes are within a thousand light years. Andromeda looks more like a 'fuzzy' star and Triangulum is remarkably difficult to spot, even from a dark site.

I have seen a report that one quasar was visible (without telescopes) during an outburst, making it by far the most distant object visible to the unaided eye.

 

[Polymath257]

-------------
Gnostic, if you look carefully what is going on in this image of the Milky Way, the double bars can ONLY be made by a central motion from within the Milky Way center, out in the bars and thus further out in the galactic arms. This motion is biblical explained by the "expulsion from the Garden of Eden", from the center where everything is created, symbolized by the Tree of Life and by examining the astrophysical imagery of the Milky Way thoroughly and logically, one can only confirm this biblical explanation. (Especially as the Standard Cosmology has been directly contradicted in the factual motion in the Milky Way)

Sorry, but this is just wrong from a galactic dynamics perspective. Barred spiral galaxies like our own are pretty common in the universe and there is NOT a 'motion' out of the bars and into the rest of the galaxy. I won't comment link with the myth of Eden for diplomatic reasons.

Besides this, astrophysicists have observed several stars which are revolving around the so called "black hole", of course without being swallowed by this hole which just is a "funnel of star birth". The formative motion STILL goes from within the galactic center and outwards as described earlier.

Actually, we *have* observed stars being swallowed by the central BH. And no, the motion is *around* because of gravity, not outward.

In the Norse mythology we have a Midgaard Serpent which encircle the entire Midgaard, which is the place where people live i.e. the Earth. In several cultural myths of creation, the Milky Way is symbolized as a big Snake, Serpent and Dragon and the contours of the Milky Way white/grey band goes all around the Earth. So the Norse Midgaard Serpent myth fit logically to the factual observation.

On both Earth hemispheres you can observe about half part of the Milky Way band which is constituted by millions/billions of stars, but of course you are right that we cannot observe all these stars clearly with our naked eyes. This is why ancient people also named/symbolized the Milky Way band as a "river in the night Sky".

They symbolized it as a river because, from the Earth in a dark sky, that is what it looks like. Most people these days never see the splendor of the Milky Way as it was seen everywhere not all that long ago. Light pollution has removed this site from us.

The "weakest point" regarding how ancient people observed the entire Milky Way galaxy and its formative processes, is in fact also the strongest. Of course people on the Earth southern hemisphere could observe the light of the Milky Way center in the Sagittarius constellation directly with their eyes, but - if spiritually opened - anyone on the northern hemisphere could also get this knowledge by spiritual visions of the creation in the Milky Way. (In the old and New Testament there are several examples of such a direct cosmic communication).

Sorry, but this is also just wrong astronomically. NOBODY could observe the light from the center of the Milky Way directly. The intervening gas and dust prevents such. And Sagittarius is easily seen from most places in the Northern Hemisphere. In fact, I was looking at it a couple of days ago.

IMO the entire creation is governed by electric forces and everything is made by this electromagnetic force, including humans. Spiritual visions of the creation speaks directly to our minds if we are open for this kind of communication and there really are no cosmic boundaries for this kind of communication.

Electromagnetism is not the same as spiritual. We do understand E&M well. It is relevant astroniomically in plasmas in nebula, in stars, and in some other galactic processes. But gravity is *by far* the more relevant force for galactic dynamics..

I know from lots of discussions on this matter that it is VERY HARD for modern humans to understand that sensitive humans from all over the world have understood much more than we modern humans give them credit for, but personally I am convinced in my perceptions and interpretations.

I´m very pleased with our discussion here and I hope you can get as much out of it as I do

I don't think it is hard to understand. I just think the notion is false.

 

[Native]

The strong and weak forces are *nuclear* forces and not relevant on a cosmic scale (except to explain the fusion reactions inside of stars). The E&M force is relevant for plasmas such as are found in many nebula. But gravity is *by far* the dominant force operative at cosmic scales.

--------
Just explain to me how gravity seemingly works differently in our Solar system compared to the formation and motions of stars in our Milky Way.(And don´t mention "dark matter" which haven´t been found and never will)

Sorry, but this is just wrong from a galactic dynamics perspective. Barred spiral galaxies like our own are pretty common in the universe and there is NOT a 'motion' out of the bars and into the rest of the galaxy. I won't comment link with the myth of Eden for diplomatic reasons.

-----------------
Apparently you are not a jour!

Milky Way stars move in mysterious ways - https://phys.org/news/2010-11-milky-stars-mysterious-ways.html
Quote:
“Rather than moving in circles around the center of the Milky Way, all the stars in our Galaxy are travelling along different paths, moving away from the Galactic center. This has just been evidenced by Arnaud Siebert and Benoit Famaey, astronomers at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory, and by their colleagues in other countries. This strange behavior may be due to perturbation caused by the central bar and spiral arms of our Galaxy, forcing stars to leave their normal circular course and take an outward path.

Most galaxies, including our own Milky Way, are spiral-shaped and stars are distributed in a thin disk rotating around the galactic center, with areas divided into spiral arms or elliptical regions such as the central bar. Due to gravity, the spiral arms move through the disk in the form of density waves. For over twenty years, scientists believed that the potential impact of these density waves on stellar velocities in the Milky Way was insignificant in comparison with the circular motion of the stars in the galactic disk. This belief has now been blatantly proved wrong by an international team including several researchers from the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory: near the Earth, stars move towards the exterior of the Galaxy at an average speed of around 10 kilometers per second, which is considerably faster than previously thought”.
-------------
You see? I´m correct in my intuitive perceptions of the Milky Way barred structure and of my claims of an outgoing motion from the center - and so were/are our ancestors according to my interpretation of the creation myths. Of course astrophysicists are calling this motion to be mysterious as Standard Cosmology has learned them otherwise.

IMO you have to rethink the entire Standard Gravity Cosmology and pay more attention to the logics in my explanations as well to what ancient people knew about the formation in the Milky Way.

Edit: I reject the gravitational comments in the article and focus on this correct statement: "Rather than moving in circles around the center of the Milky Way, all the stars in our Galaxy are travelling along different paths, moving away from the Galactic center".

 

[Polymath257]

--------
Just explain to me how gravity seemingly works differently in our Solar system compared to the formation and motions of stars in our Milky Way.(And don´t mention "dark matter" which haven´t been found and never will)

That's the point: it *doesn't* work differently. That is why a simple change in the dynamics isn't enough to explain the observations: some sort of extra matter is required. And yes, dark matter has been observed: it has effects on gravitational lensing and on the cosmic background radiation that have been observed. What we do not know is what it is made from, although there are several possibilities. We can even map out the location of dark matter based on the gravitational lensing effects.

-----------------
Apparently you are not a jour!

Milky Way stars move in mysterious ways - https://phys.org/news/2010-11-milky-stars-mysterious-ways.html
Quote:
“Rather than moving in circles around the center of the Milky Way, all the stars in our Galaxy are travelling along different paths, moving away from the Galactic center. This has just been evidenced by Arnaud Siebert and Benoit Famaey, astronomers at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory, and by their colleagues in other countries. This strange behavior may be due to perturbation caused by the central bar and spiral arms of our Galaxy, forcing stars to leave their normal circular course and take an outward path.

Most galaxies, including our own Milky Way, are spiral-shaped and stars are distributed in a thin disk rotating around the galactic center, with areas divided into spiral arms or elliptical regions such as the central bar. Due to gravity, the spiral arms move through the disk in the form of density waves. For over twenty years, scientists believed that the potential impact of these density waves on stellar velocities in the Milky Way was insignificant in comparison with the circular motion of the stars in the galactic disk. This belief has now been blatantly proved wrong by an international team including several researchers from the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory: near the Earth, stars move towards the exterior of the Galaxy at an average speed of around 10 kilometers per second, which is considerably faster than previously thought”.
-------------
You see? I´m correct in my intuitive perceptions of the Milky Way barred structure and of my claims of an outgoing motion from the center - and so were/are our ancestors according to my interpretation of the creation myths. Of course astrophysicists are calling this motion to be mysterious as Standard Cosmology has learned them otherwise.

IMO you have to rethink the entire Standard Gravity Cosmology and pay more attention to the logics in my explanations as well to what ancient people knew about the formation in the Milky Way.

Edit: I reject the gravitational comments in the article and focus on this correct statement: "Rather than moving in circles around the center of the Milky Way, all the stars in our Galaxy are travelling along different paths, moving away from the Galactic center".

Typical velocities for stars close to the sun are on the order of hundreds of km/sec, so this motion outwards at around 10 kn/sec produces a *spiral* motion, not a motion directly outwards as you are claiming. And it is due to the effect of the density wave in the arms going past. Again, that is NOT like a sprinkler system, which you seem to be imagining. All of this is due to ordinary gravity from that density wave, NOT from E&M sources.

Oh, galactic dynamics isn't an aspect of *cosmology*, which involved *large* scale structures in the universe, not things as small as galaxies.

 

[Native]

That's the point: it *doesn't* work differently. That is why a simple change in the dynamics isn't enough to explain the observations: some sort of extra matter is required. And yes, dark matter has been observed: it has effects on gravitational lensing and on the cosmic background radiation that have been observed. What we do not know is what it is made from, although there are several possibilities. We can even map out the location of dark matter based on the gravitational lensing effects.

------------
Oh, come on! You cannot say it is the same gravitational dynamics which works on the planetary motions as with the stars in our galaxy since the orbital motions are different. Our Solar System is a part of the galactic motion too, you know? How can "gravity" work differently in the same cosmic location???
"Dark matter" was invented in order to compensate for the different motion found in galaxies and it hasn´t been found anywhere - and your "gravitational lensing" is just a normal refraction of light in the atmospheric surroundings of the so called "lense" as observed everywhere else where light is shining trough gaseous and metallic matter.

Typical velocities for stars close to the sun are on the order of hundreds of km/sec, so this motion outwards at around 10 kn/sec produces a *spiral* motion, not a motion directly outwards as you are claiming. And it is due to the effect of the density wave in the arms going past. Again, that is NOT like a sprinkler system, which you seem to be imagining. All of this is due to ordinary gravity from that density wave, NOT from E&M sources.

_----------------
Again, with the reference to my example of a two arm garden sprinkler, the outgoing motion of course is a spiralling/radial pattern since the central part of the Milky Way from where stars ar formed, are rotating. Never the less the motion of stars is OUTGOING from the galactic center as it also is said in the linked article.

Your "density waves" again refers to the abnormal idea of "gravity" whereas the motion itself is a plain centrifugal effect from within the Milky Way center. An expansive motion which STILL affects the Solar System itself and even on the planetary and lunar distances in the Solar System.

Oh, galactic dynamics isn't an aspect of *cosmology*, which involved *large* scale structures in the universe, not things as small as galaxies.

In my world "cosmology" includes everything in cosmos and I don´t differ between large or small.

 

[Polymath257]

------------
Oh, come on! You cannot say it is the same gravitational dynamics which works on the planetary motions as with the stars in our galaxy since the orbital motions are different. Our Solar System is a part of the galactic motion too, you know? How can "gravity" work differently in the same cosmic location???

Our solar system moves around the center of the galaxy as a unit. The motions within the solar system are not linked in any way to the overall motion around the galaxy. The scales are completely different.

The difference is that most of the mass of the solar system is concentrated at the sun, while the mass for the galaxy is distrubuted in a disk. That changes the specifics of the dynamics even though the same law of gravity is active.

"Dark matter" was invented in order to compensate for the different motion found in galaxies and it hasn´t been found anywhere - and your "gravitational lensing" is just a normal refraction of light in the atmospheric surroundings of the so called "lense" as observed everywhere else where light is shining trough gaseous and metallic matter.

No, it is not. There is a separation of the point of lensing and the matter that we can observe. So it is NOT simply refraction of light going through matter, It *is* the result of gravity acting on the light going past. Microlensing can, as I have said, be used to map out the locations of dark matter in galactic clusters. This *is* a detection of dark matter. And, as I have also pointed out, the total amount of matter (dark and ordinary) affects the background radiation in ways we have measured and that confirm the amount of dark matter as measured by velocity curves and gravitational lensing.

_----------------
Again, with the reference to my example of a two arm garden sprinkler, the outgoing motion of course is a spiralling/radial pattern since the central part of the Milky Way from where stars ar formed, are rotating. Never the less the motion of stars is OUTGOING from the galactic center as it also is said in the linked article.

There is a radial *component* to the motion, but that main motion is transverse: an orbit. the article points out that the density wave is what produces the radial component.

Your "density waves" again refers to the abnormal idea of "gravity" whereas the motion itself is a plain centrifugal effect from within the Milky Way center. An expansive motion which STILL affects the Solar System itself and even on the planetary and lunar distances in the Solar System.

Nonsense. The scale of the solar system is way, way to small for such effects. The density waves are hundreds of light years across. The solar system is less than 1/1000 of a light year.

In my world "cosmology" includes everything in cosmos and I don´t differ between large or small.

In spite of such differences being relevant.

 

[Native]

Our solar system moves around the center of the galaxy as a unit. The motions within the solar system are not linked in any way to the overall motion around the galaxy. The scales are completely different.

The difference is that most of the mass of the solar system is concentrated at the sun, while the mass for the galaxy is distrubuted in a disk. That changes the specifics of the dynamics even though the same law of gravity is active.

The Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion and formation. Of course there is a link in this integrated motion, but the Standard Modellists of course can´t see this link because they are brought up with the explanation of a "local cloud of gas and dust which suddenly decided to collapse by its own weight in a pre-sun which again exploded" and later on assembled planets and their moon in the orbital disk-like shape. How can an explosion of a spherical shape end up with a flat orbital pattern of planets?

No, it is not. There is a separation of the point of lensing and the matter that we can observe. So it is NOT simply refraction of light going through matter, It *is* the result of gravity acting on the light going past. Microlensing can, as I have said, be used to map out the locations of dark matter in galactic clusters. This *is* a detection of dark matter. And, as I have also pointed out, the total amount of matter (dark and ordinary) affects the background radiation in ways we have measured and that confirm the amount of dark matter as measured by velocity curves and gravitational lensing.

The Standard Modellists are so hard wired up in all their cosmological confusions that they observe dark matter everywhere - But to my knowledge no one knows what dark matter is and subsequently no one can explain how it works and how it looks. All "gravity explanations" derives from some cosmic surroundings which isn´t understood.

There is a radial *component* to the motion, but that main motion is transverse: an orbit. the article points out that the density wave is what produces the radial component.

---------------
You don´t get it do you? Imagine a rotating two arm garden sprinkler where the droplets are spiralling out and away and then you get the picture of the motions in the Milky Way. I don´t care about your "density wave" since its´all plain centrifugal right from within the galactic center.

 

[Darkstorn]

To that i'd say, stop projecting?

 

[Polymath257]

The Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion and formation. Of course there is a link in this integrated motion, but the Standard Modellists of course can´t see this link because they are brought up with the explanation of a "local cloud of gas and dust which suddenly decided to collapse by its own weight in a pre-sun which again exploded" and later on assembled planets and their moon in the orbital disk-like shape. How can an explosion of a spherical shape end up with a flat orbital pattern of planets?



The Standard Modellists are so hard wired up in all their cosmological confusions that they observe dark matter everywhere - But to my knowledge no one knows what dark matter is and subsequently no one can explain how it works and how it looks. All "gravity explanations" derives from some cosmic surroundings which isn´t understood.


---------------
You don´t get it do you? Imagine a rotating two arm garden sprinkler where the droplets are spiralling out and away and then you get the picture of the motions in the Milky Way. I don´t care about your "density wave" since its´all plain centrifugal right from within the galactic center.

All I can say is 'Show your calculations'. otherwise, I'll rely on the 'standard model' whose calculations work.

 

[gnostic]

"Dark matter" was invented in order to compensate for the different motion found in galaxies and it hasn´t been found anywhere - and your "gravitational lensing" is just a normal refraction of light in the atmospheric surroundings of the so called "lense" as observed everywhere else where light is shining trough gaseous and metallic matter.

You realise that you sounds hypocritical, don’t you?

You say that dark matters are invention of scientists, simply because you have not seen dark matters.

AND YET, you have no problem with believing in man-made myths about the Egyptian cow goddess Hathor or the Norse Midgard Serpent, created by men with no understanding of the Universe relationship how nature work, who spin superstitious stories of the supernatural.

You have not seen the celestial cow, nor the Midgard Serpent, but you readily believe in them...you trust in the make believe stories.

And worse still, you use your pseudoscience interpretations of your myths, as if they were factual.

You tell us you don’t accept dark matters because no one seen dark matters, but you want us to accept the Tree of Life, Hathor and Midgard Serpent as being real, but which no ones have seen. Double standard, much?

You are being ridiculous with what you are trying to push people to believe in your version of cosmology.

 

[we-live-now]

I think a person can make a huge mistake in
making too much of a single word in something
that is not in the original writing and fully
understood in the context of the time.

The bible was not written by a team of lawyers
and grammarians, and it was not written by "god".

It is ambiguous, incomplete, approximate,
contradictory; it is poetry, folk wisdom, myth,
semi historical with much magic realism*,
it is the product of many authors and much
revision.

You know that, right? What you are doing is
like trying to appreciate a rose by studying the
refractive index and fluid pressure.

*a literary or artistic genre in which realistic narrative and naturalistic technique are combined with surreal elements of dream or fantasy.

Dually noted.

Or by appreciating my wife by dissecting her body.

 

[Audie]

Dually noted.

Or by appreciating my wife by dissecting her body.

Uh, kind of weird, but, yeah, I so totally would not do that.

 

[gnostic]

Native.

I don’t think you understand the nature of metaphors and symbolic meanings in myths.

They can have many different meanings, because the nature of symbols and metaphors are literally open to interpretations.

And there are many ways to interpret any myth. When it come to it, ideally, there are essentially no right or wrong to interpret any myth. But I don’t believe that’s true.

So trying to understand the original context is the best road to take, because you are trying to understand the culture as they are. That’s the best way to interpret the myth, with as minimal interpretations as possible.

You just happened to have your own interpretations by trying to mix your cosmology of the ancients, with some (badly misrepresented or flawed) modern science. That to me is definitely the wrong way to interpret any myths. Myths are not science and not history, so it shouldn’t be treated as such.

Hypothetically, if you were to meet the ancient astronomers of different cultures and had tried to explain to them your concepts and your interpretations of their respective myths, they will mostly not understand your views, let alone accept what you are saying.

When I read ancient myths, I’ve tried to understand the original contexts of their storytelling, without trying to putting too much modern concepts, like natural science.

There may be some interpretations involved, on my part, because some interpretations are unavoidable (for instances, interpreting artworks that have mythological themes, or piecing together different sources to different versions of the myths, in these cases, interpretations are sometimes unavoidable), but I do my best not to use modern science when I read these wonderful myths, because I know that was never intentions of the original authors.

But you really don’t care. You just willy-nilly twist the myths all out of contexts. Your contexts that the ancient people would most certainly not have understood.

You are doing exactly the same things as Genesis creationists do, you tried to twist both myths and science into one big ugly mess.

 

[Native]

All I can say is 'Show your calculations'. otherwise, I'll rely on the 'standard model' whose calculations work.

Oh, yes? Show me the Standard Model calculations on the formation in our Milky Way. Remember then, that the calculations have to obey the laws of energy conservation and describe the entire dynamics of formation and motion.

 

[Native]

You realise that you sounds hypocritical, don’t you?

You say that dark matters are invention of scientists, simply because you have not seen dark matters.

-----------
Anyone who don´t understand "a point of view" easily judges other to by hypocritical.

No, I don´t say that "dark matter" is an invention because I haven´t seen "dark matter". I claim dark matter to be an invention caused by the fact that scientists expected the starry motions in our Milky Way to orbit the "massive black hole" in the same pattern and after the same laws as planets orbits the Sun on which the gravity model and laws was hypothesized.

In their big surprise of being directly contradicted by the observation that all stars orbits the galactic center with the same velocity regardless of distance to the center, scientists hypothesized/concluded that such a uniform motion would sling the stars OUT of the Milky Way.

(Right here in this stage, scientists were on the right track in understanding the factual/actual motion in the Milky Way)

But instead of rethinking the contradicted Standard Model, they invented "dark matter" in order to fit the cosmic observations to the directly contradicted gravity laws of celestial motion.

And ever since "dark matter" (and "dark energy") has become a scientific crutch which is used all over the places in cosmological matters where the scientists cannot explain what they are observing. For over 100 years the ghost of "dark matter" has haunted modern cosmology and it never will be found because it is just a thought in the mind of confused scientists.

According to the ancient knowledge of creation, this is an eternal circuit of formation and life and of course this even goes for the formation and motion in galaxies. Comparing to this ancient knowledge, modern science is hopelessly behind in the overall understanding of the Universe.

 

[Native]

I don’t think you understand the nature of metaphors and symbolic meanings in myths.

They can have many different meanings, because the nature of symbols and metaphors are literally open to interpretations.

And there are many ways to interpret any myth. When it come to it, ideally, there are essentially no right or wrong to interpret any myth. But I don’t believe that’s true.

So trying to understand the original context is the best road to take, because you are trying to understand the culture as they are. That’s the best way to interpret the myth, with as minimal interpretations as possible.

--------------
Regarding interpreting the cosmological meanings of a myth, there isn´t many ways to interpret this, but just ONE. You just have read the myth and it´s contents and context. If you for instants read of an Egyptian goddess which is said to resemble the Milky Way, you have to take this literary and by reading of the qualities and attributes of the goddess, you can make your conclusions.

Just as you state here:

So trying to understand the original context is the best road to take, because you are trying to understand the culture as they are. That’s the best way to interpret the myth, with as minimal interpretations as possible.

--------------
The minimal interpretation of a Milky Way goddess is to conclude that this myth deals with the Milky Way, right?

You just happened to have your own interpretations by trying to mix your cosmology of the ancients, with some (badly misrepresented or flawed) modern science. That to me is definitely the wrong way to interpret any myths. Myths are not science and not history, so it shouldn’t be treated as such.

-----
No I don´t have my own interpretations. I just take the myths seriously and hope to find the collective interpretation and meaning. And in order to underline the cosmological myths, I´m trying to underline these cosmological myths with some discoveries and cosmological ideas from modern science, which isn´t a crime is it?

Hypothetically, if you were to meet the ancient astronomers of different cultures and had tried to explain to them your concepts and your interpretations of their respective myths, they will mostly not understand your views, let alone accept what you are saying.

----
How would you know this if/since you apparently don´t take the ancient myths for granted???

When I read ancient myths, I’ve tried to understand the original contexts of their storytelling, without trying to putting too much modern concepts, like natural science.

---------
Read my reply again on the Hathor Goddess example again. If a myth CLEARLY speaks of astronomical and cosmological topics, you of course have to hold onto this context in order to understand the myth. If an ancient myth deals with Milky Way issues, it is anybody's right also to compare this myth with modern science:

IMO you can easily put all kinds of modern cosmological ideas into ancient myths of creation (and vise versa) and see how ancient knowledge and modern science support, differ or even contradicts each other.

But you really don’t care. You just willy-nilly twist the myths all out of contexts. Your contexts that the ancient people would most certainly not have understood.

You are doing exactly the same things as Genesis creationists do, you tried to twist both myths and science into one big ugly mess.

-----------
If I didn´t care, why do you then think I keep on replying in this thread? And I haven´t specifically elaborated on the Genesis here, so don´t place such a strawman in your reply.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, yes? Show me the Standard Model calculations on the formation in our Milky Way. Remember then, that the calculations have to obey the laws of energy conservation and describe the entire dynamics of formation and motion.

And they do *when* dark matter is included.