Science and Religion

[Native]

I read that thread, but it mostly seemed to consist of very liberal re-interpretation of ancient mythology in light of current knowledge - nothing to really indicate that ancient knowledge of cosmology was superior to current knowledge. Do you have anything more concrete?

I wrote in the linked article that:

The Standard Explanation of the Solar System formation.

The Solar System is assumed to been made in a local cloud of gas and dust which coalesked via "gravity" into the pre-solar sphere until the pressure was to big and the Sun exploded into small bits and pieces which again via "gravity" coalesked into planets.

Despite of the Solar System location in the Milky Way, modern cosmology don´t consciously connect the formation with the formation and motion in the Milky Way. Modern science assumes the Sun to hold the "gravitaitional center" because of the orbiting planets but they don´t make the same assumptions/conclusions regarding the center of the Milky Way around which the entire Solar System is orbiting. In this way modern science misses the real explanation of the Solar System formation.

The Egyptian (and the entire cultural mythology) explanation of the Solar System formation.
As noted above, the Egyptian Story of Creation deals with the pre-conditions and factual creation of the Milky Way and it´s central Light of Creation, named Atum-Ra, from where "all things is created in the Milky Way". Here the Egyptians, as with all other cultural stories of creation, locate the creation in the Milky Way center from where everythhing is created, and this of course includes our Solar System.

This is to me very concrete as an evidence of an "lightyears" advanced knowledge in ancient cultures.

Modern science just mentions "a ramdom cloud of gas and dust" but the ancient cultures locates the formation in the galactic center, thus also explaining the formation of the Solar System because, "everything is formed from the galactic center, represented by the formative force, symbolized by Atum-Ra and the Egyptian Mother Goddess, Hathor, who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere.

I admit it can be somewhat difficult to grasp the mythical language, but for instants having a "cosmic Mother Goddess" of creation to describe this cosmic formation, is to me a nice example of describing the creation, because it speaks directly to the human mind as a familiar way of creating new life and giving birth on the cosmic scale.

 

[Native]

Edit:

Modern science just mentions "a ramdom cloud of gas and dust" but the ancient cultures locates the formation in the galactic center, thus also explaining the formation of the Solar System because, "everything is formed from the galactic center, represented by the formative force, symbolized by Atum-Ra and the Egyptian Mother Goddess, Hathor, who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere.

The Egyptian Myth, as well of others, for instants the Norse Myth of Creation with it´s Ragnarok Myth, also describes the eternal formation and even the principle stages of elements and their qualities which participates in this eternal process of formation - dissolution and re-formation cycle in the Universe. All quite contrary to the consentual (and to me highly speculative) ideas in modern science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I wrote in the linked article that:

This is to me very concrete as an evidence of an "lightyears" advanced knowledge in ancient cultures.

But it isn't, it's just extrapolation of interpretations and meaning - there's nothing to indicate that the knowledge they were actually expressing related to cosmology as we currently understand it today.

Modern science just mentions "a ramdom cloud of gas and dust" but the ancient cultures locates the formation in the galactic center, thus also explaining the formation of the Solar System because, "everything is formed from the galactic center, represented by the formative force, symbolized by Atum-Ra and the Egyptian Mother Goddess, Hathor, who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere.

Again, this is just wild interpretation. You take a mythology that mentions ones thing, compare it to something in modern science that is entirely unrelated, and make the unfounded assumption that one refers to the other. What evidence do you have that suggests that these concepts are one and the same?

I admit it can be somewhat difficult to grasp the mythical language, but for instants having a "cosmic Mother Goddess" of creation to describe this cosmic formation, is to me a nice example of describing the creation, because it speaks directly to the human mind as a familiar way of creating new life and giving birth on the cosmic scale.

But how on earth do you relate such concepts to modern cosmology? If you're just going to entirely re-interpret what they are referring to, you can make practically anything they wrote or believed mean anything. The fact remains that we simply know more about cosmology now than we did in ancient times, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And a good science should not be in conflict with religion as in their Stories of Creation.

I see you don't understand what science means. Perhaps you should look into it before continuing to make claims about it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Edit:


The Egyptian Myth, as well of others, for instants the Norse Myth of Creation with it´s Ragnarok Myth, also describes the eternal formation and even the principle stages of elements and their qualities which participates in this eternal process of formation - dissolution and re-formation cycle in the Universe. All quite contrary to the consentual (and to me highly speculative) ideas in modern science.

So it isn't just re-interpreting ancient mythology to fit modern scientific understanding, you're also re-interpreting ancient mythology into something that doesn't fit modern scientific understanding and asserting it's true anyway.

How, exactly, do you know it to be true if it isn't supported by the science?

 

[Polymath257]

And what data in what theory/hypothesis would that be?

An extra term in Einstein's equation. he put it there because it gave extra solutions to a certain conservation of energy issue. The CC has been something considered since about 1915. It wasn't until fairly recently that it was found to match the observational evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes to the first sentense

BUT: "When intelligence evolved . . . " is indeed questionable. On this stage, our ancestors have had several thousands of years of empirical physical inhereted knowledge of the creation as well as intuitive and spiritual experiences of the ancient known part of the creation.

Yes, today cosmological science has, for the time being, superceded religion as a method of knowledge, but this assumed "intelligence" has mostly become speculations instead of the intuitive wisdom our ancestors posessed.

I predict the modern cosmological science soon to be outdated and on it´s way to the bin, and the next evolution in cosmology will be the Plasma Cosmology in an Universe governed by the Electromagnetism.

https://www.electricuniverse.info/


Sorry, Plasma Cosmology was an idea from the 1980's that never got off the ground because it simply doens't match the facts.

Personally I have the ancient mythological knowledge lightyears ahead of the modern cosmological speculations and assumptions.

Sure. of course you do. Line up the Nobel Prize.

 

[Polymath257]

And what data in what theory/hypothesis would that be?

An example:

Hubble Finds Evidence For Dark Energy In The Young Universe

I recall when the initial supernova graphs showed the acceleration. People had largely neglected the CC for about a century, thinking it wasn't useful. Turns out it is.

But the supernova data is far from being the only source of information on dark matter. We also see evidence from the microwave background radiation.

 

[Native]

But how on earth do you relate such concepts to modern cosmology? If you're just going to entirely re-interpret what they are referring to, you can make practically anything they wrote or believed mean anything. The fact remains that we simply know more about cosmology now than we did in ancient times, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Well there you go, grasping nothing before you really understand what I´m writing regarding the comparisons between ancient and modern cosmology.

- It has to be said as well that I rejects some of the modern cosmology as pure speculations and tries to get it all together by analyzing the contradictions and problems in modern science and compare these to what the ancient myths describes and illustrates.

So in some cases opponents of my thoughts are rejected when they post replies containing traditional cosmological arguments.

 

[Native]

So it isn't just re-interpreting ancient mythology to fit modern scientific understanding, you're also re-interpreting ancient mythology into something that doesn't fit modern scientific understanding and asserting it's true anyway.
How, exactly, do you know it to be true if it isn't supported by the science?

Yes it is really. But it is also a re-interpretation of modern cosmology to fit the ancient myths, if you like. This is what "comparisons" are all about isn´t it? And that´s what I´m trying to do.

You of course cannot judge if ancient myths fits to modern cosmology if you have no or just a little clue of what ancient myths of creation are all about, can you?

And if you´re unaware of the cosmological problems, contradictions and pure unnatural specualtions in modern cosmology, you even cannot judge the ancient myths of creation if they possibly corrects the modern cosmology, can you?

 

[Native]

An example:

Hubble Finds Evidence For Dark Energy In The Young Universe

I recall when the initial supernova graphs showed the acceleration. People had largely neglected the CC for about a century, thinking it wasn't useful. Turns out it is.

But the supernova data is far from being the only source of information on dark matter. We also see evidence from the microwave background radiation.

Once again modern cosmology confuses supernovaes to be of gravitational matter, but it´s just simple discharges of light just as with the Sun. This is why modern cosmology sometimes observes several glimses from the same star. And it cannot possibly explode several times in a row, can they?
The CMB fluctuates and it isn´t evenly distributed, so you can put all kinds of speculative "dark elements" and forces in the "holes".

 

[wellwisher]

Much of what we know in modern cosmology is connected to advances in technology. It is not necessarily connected to advances in the human mind. If we took away all technology; telescopes, sensors, rockets, computers and satellites, from modern cosmologists, and they were not allowed to use any previous theory that stemmed from any previous technology, they would be in the same boat as the ancients.

Einstein said that references were relative. This was extrapolated to mean that there is no absolute reference in the universe. Based on your reference, you can see things, differently. The relative reference of the ancients was based on the earth, using only data that the natural sensory systems could observe. They inferred as best they could with that data. They added gods to the theory to give it dynamism. This was like modern dark energy and dark matter, which also cannot be seen in the lab, but is being used to add dynamism.

Things changed when the earth reference was assisted by technological advances in optics by Galileo, who used these new idea in physics to design and develop a telescope. This added anomalous data, to the sensory data of the earth reference, from which a different earth needed to appear, based on inference. This inference led to an earth reference based on a round earth.

As technology advances, new anomalies appear, compared to what could be inferred based on previous technologies.

One big problem, connected to modern cosmology, is connected to some of the new anomalies due to advances in technology and observation. This is connected to the reference addendum called dark matter and dark energy. These have never been seen in the lab to make sure they are real. They are needed, since the previous theory, before the new anomaly, could not fully take into account the new data. This addendum was added, but it has as much lab proof as the god, Helios.

There is an explanation for this Dark World Mythology within cosmology. It is connected to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and a wave tradition that misuses the theory.

In the original theory of Special Relativity, there are three relativistic parameters, mass, distance and time, all of which change with velocity. Unfortunately, in cosmology, the only data we can measure, from the deep universe, with all our technology, is connected to energy signals. Energy is wavelength and frequency or distance and time. We cannot directly measure mass and relativistic mass. We have to infer the mass and relativistic mass from energy signals. Or relativistic mass has to be measure, indirectly, in terms of distance and time; energy signals. The result is an improper mass-energy balance for the universe, that now requires a fudge factor that cannot be seen in the lab.

Let me give a simple example to show the affect. Say you were on a train that was moving at 40 mph. The only data you can use is connected to what you see; energy. You cannot use any other sensory system that is connected to mass, such as momentum or touch. Since reference is relative, you assume you are stationary and the scenic background is moving. You can see this. Again you can't use touch or feelings of momentum since our technology can't measure anything directly connected to mass.

If the scenery was indeed moving, the energy requirement would be huge, since the earth, as far as you can see from the train, has a lot of weigh. Yet you are told that only 10,000 gallons of fuel have been used. This makes no sense, unless there are invisible energy in the universe, that makes up the difference. This is dark energy in a nutshell. It is an imaginary energy source, that is inferred, due to the way we collect data, that does not allow directly measuring mass affects with sensory systems, besides the eyes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well there you go, grasping nothing before you really understand what I´m writing regarding the comparisons between ancient and modern cosmology.

I asked you to present evidence, and what you presented was insufficient. It's not my fault you provided something that isn't very compelling. If you have better evidence, present it, or if the problem is that I'm jumping to conclusion before I "really understand", then why not try explaining better or in more detail?

- It has to be said as well that I rejects some of the modern cosmology as pure speculations and tries to get it all together by analyzing the contradictions and problems in modern science and compare these to what the ancient myths describes and illustrates.

So in some cases opponents of my thoughts are rejected when they post replies containing traditional cosmological arguments.

In other words, you reject what modern cosmology says but still believe you have firm basis on which to assert that ancient people knew more than modern cosmologists?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes it is really. But it is also a re-interpretation of modern cosmology to fit the ancient myths, if you like. This is what "comparisons" are all about isn´t it? And that´s what I´m trying to do.

So you admit you're just committing a sharpshooter fallacy?

You of course cannot judge if ancient myths fits to modern cosmology if you have no or just a little clue of what ancient myths of creation are all about, can you?

The examples you have given thus far have been poor.

And if you´re unaware of the cosmological problems, contradictions and pure unnatural specualtions in modern cosmology, you even cannot judge the ancient myths of creation if they possibly corrects the modern cosmology, can you?

I asked you a question: How, exactly, do you know it to be true if it isn't supported by the science?

 

[Polymath257]

Once again modern cosmology confuses supernovaes to be of gravitational matter, but it´s just simple discharges of light just as with the Sun.

Um, no. It isn't. The specifics of the spectral curves over time show the difference. 'Simple light discharges' simply don't provide the amount of energy actually seen in supernova.

This is why modern cosmology sometimes observes several glimses from the same star. And it cannot possibly explode several times in a row, can they?

Again, you misunderstand what is being said. When more than one image is obtained, it is because of gravitational lensing from a galaxy between us and the more distant object. This allows more than one path for the light, so we see the object in more than one direction. The nice thing? This phenomenon was predicted long before it was first observed and the observations match the predictions.

In other words, our ideas actually work in the real world.

The CMB fluctuates and it isn´t evenly distributed, so you can put all kinds of speculative "dark elements" and forces in the "holes".

Another misunderstanding. The CMBR is uniform to one part in 100,000. There *are* fluctuations, but those were also predicted (I even recall when the *lack* of observation of such fluctuations was starting to cause concern). And those fluctuations give a huge amount of information about the early universe, from which our modern precision cosmology can be deduced.

So, do you have *any* evidence that anyone prior to, say, 1900, had *any* idea about this stuff?

 

[Native]

Much of what we know in modern cosmology is connected to advances in technology. It is not necessarily connected to advances in the human mind. If we took away all technology; telescopes, sensors, rockets, computers and satellites, from modern cosmologists, and they were not allowed to use any previous theory that stemmed from any previous technology, they would be in the same boat as the ancients.

Agreed to that. But it doesn´t mean our ancestors were without the neccesary means and observable skills in otder to plot the celestial motions.

They added gods to the theory to give it dynamism. This was like modern dark energy and dark matter, which also cannot be seen in the lab, but is being used to add dynamism.

No it wasn´t. When our ancestors gave male and female names til the forces, these were observable, either direct or via intuitive and spiritual skills. They weren´t as stupid as modern cosmologist to invent things which wasn´t there.

As technology advances, new anomalies appear, compared to what could be inferred based on previous technologies.

Isn´t this a simple contradiction of terms? Modern techology are supposed to provide better and clear results, so the some of the anomalies must be ascribed to looking at cosmos with the wrong cosmological model.

One big problem, connected to modern cosmology, is connected to some of the new anomalies due to advances in technology and observation. This is connected to the reference addendum called dark matter and dark energy. These have never been seen in the lab to make sure they are real. They are needed, since the previous theory, before the new anomaly, could not fully take into account the new data. This addendum was added, but it has as much lab proof as the god, Helios.

Dark matter was purely invented because of the discovery of the galactic rotatiton curve which showed an orbital motion wich caused scientists to conclude "the stars to flow away from the galaxy".

This conclusion was in fact correct, also after the mythical explanation of the formation in the galaxy where the overall formation takes place in the center of the galaxy and slings the stars away and out via the barred structure and further out in the galactic surroundings.

Here the scientsits completely failed the scientific method of revising or discarding a theory when contradicted. Instead they just added an invisible dark force in order to save their contradicted gravitational theory and it´s attached calculations.

There is an explanation for this Dark World Mythology within cosmology.

I certainly don´t hope you use this term seriously as counting for Mythology as such.

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed to that. But it doesn´t mean our ancestors were without the neccesary means and observable skills in otder to plot the celestial motions.

They certainly had the means to plot what they were able to observe without telescopes, etc. Which means they could be aware of, at most, a very, very small part of our galaxy.

No it wasn´t. When our ancestors gave male and female names til the forces, these were observable, either direct or via intuitive and spiritual skills. They weren´t as stupid as modern cosmologist to invent things which wasn´t there.

Two problems here: modern science doesn't invent things that aren't there. it uses observations to determine what is there and uses math to help understand it.

Second, 'intuitive' means pure speculation, and 'spritual skills' is a nonsense phrase. What the ancients could see was limited to visible light from nearby sources (most visible stars are within about 1000 light years of us).

Isn´t this a simple contradiction of terms? Modern techology are supposed to provide better and clear results, so the some of the anomalies must be ascribed to looking at cosmos with the wrong cosmological model.

And the results *are* better and better. But, as our abilities to measure more and more accurately improve, we detect phenomena not seen with less precise methods. So, we can predict with much more accuracy the motion of planets than we were, say, 400 years ago.

Dark matter was purely invented because of the discovery of the galactic rotatiton curve which showed an orbital motion wich caused scientists to conclude "the stars to flow away from the galaxy".

That was only the first bit of data supporting the existence of dark matter. There is much, much more than that now. And, your statement that scientists concluded that 'stars flow away from the galaxy' is in error: no such conclusion has been derived. In fact, quite the opposite.

This conclusion was in fact correct, also after the mythical explanation of the formation in the galaxy where the overall formation takes place in the center of the galaxy and slings the stars away and out via the barred structure and further out in the galactic surroundings.

Given your previous mistaken characterization of what science found, this can be mostly ignored. But, in addition, it is simply physically impossible.

Here the scientsits completely failed the scientific method of revising or discarding a theory when contradicted. Instead they just added an invisible dark force in order to save their contradicted gravitational theory and it´s attached calculations.

I certainly don´t hope you use this term seriously as counting for Mythology as such.

This, from someone who denies the existence of gravity. Sorry, but if that is part of your belief system, it can be ignored right from the start. No matter what the ancients did or did not say.

 

[Native]

I asked you a question: How, exactly, do you know it to be true if it isn't supported by the science?

By the very logics in my descriptions of the ancient Myths of Creation and by the comparisons between ancient and modern knowledge I provides.

This STILL is dependent of your patience and efforts to get into the explanations and look for the logics - and eventual obviously flaws.

I don´t have any expectations of being understood by the entire modern cosmological society some time soon. But I hope for thoughtful individuals here and otherwhere to see the possible and factual knowledge of our ancestors.

 

[Polymath257]

By the very logics in my descriptions of the ancient Myths of Creation and by the comparisons between ancient and modern knowledge I provides.

This STILL is dependent of your patience and efforts to get into the explanations and look for the logics - and eventual obviously flaws.

I don´t have any expectations of being understood by the entire modern cosmological society some time soon. But I hope for thoughtful individuals here and otherwhere to see the possible and factual knowledge of our ancestors.

Sorry, but logic alone is *never* enough to establish the truth of a proposition about the real world. There are too many ways logic can go wrong.

 

[Native]

Two problems here: modern science doesn't invent things that aren't there. it uses observations to determine what is there and uses math to help understand it.

So modern science didn´t invent "dark matter" and "dark energy"???

Second, 'intuitive' means pure speculation, and 'spritual skills' is a nonsense phrase. What the ancients could see was limited to visible light from nearby sources (most visible stars are within about 1000 light years of us).

No it doesn´t! Please do your research of definitions before launching your false preconceptions!
---------------
/ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: intuition
the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"
synonymer: instinct, intuitiveness;
------------------

That was only the first bit of data supporting the existence of dark matter. There is much, much more than that now. And, your statement that scientists concluded that 'stars flow away from the galaxy' is in error: no such conclusion has been derived. In fact, quite the opposite.

I don´t care as long as the initial conclusion of the galactic rotation anomaly wich lead to the first idiotic invention of "dark matter "was incorrect.

Given your previous mistaken characterization of what science found, this can be mostly ignored. But, in addition, it is simply physically impossible.

Oh yes? What about being updated in the new cosmological science instead of being helplessly stuck in your outdated conventions? Milky Way galaxy likely formed inside out

This, from someone who denies the existence of gravity. Sorry, but if that is part of your belief system, it can be ignored right from the start. No matter what the ancients did or did not say.

Yes, you better ignore what I´m writing here. You could be in the risk of loosing your outdated and cemented scientific identity.