The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:58 am

Subject: Members mythical interest in the TBP?

When thinking of the use of ancient myths in the TBP in order to support the EU and PC, I´m wondering how many members are working with analyzing the (mythical) theory of the hypothesized "ancient polar configuration"?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:14 am

Subject: The formation of the Solar System

A very interesting TBP video
Eugene Bagashov: Creator’s Second Hand | EU2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsItU6getrY

My video comments to the formation of our Solar System:

Norman Nelson
In 18:26 the formation of the Solar System is dealt with. The Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and it´s formation should logically also be explained as an integrated part of the Milky Way formation. If hypothezising the Solar System to have been formatted in the galactic center and left this via electromagnetic and centrifugal forces in a helical motion, the orbital Solar System motion in the galaxy, as well as the rotational momentum of the Sun and the planets and their moons, should also be explained as having gained the overall momentum from the galactic center.

(This was posted in a watching pause at the 18:26 timestamp)
Norman Nelson
In 35:06 this hypothesis is mentioned and I think this is very important for the EU and PC theories.

Here my Mytho-Cosmological understanding and explanation of the Solar System formation was confirmed by Eugene Bagashov as a plausible possibility.
Norman Nelson
OBS. The Solar System formation in the Milky Way center can also be confirmed by the numerous cultural Myths of Creation. Read for instants the Egyptian story of creation in the Ogdoad - and combine this with the Egyptian goddess Hathor.

The Ogdoad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In ... _mythology
Goddess Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor#Re ... nd_symbols

Here Ra and Hathor creates everything (together with the other primeval creative forces) in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way.

This is very important also for the overall mythical interpretation in the TBP, where the actual interpretation of the Creation Myths deals with planetary matters only because of ignoring the Milky Way Myths.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Mar 29, 2016 12:22 am

Norman wrote:Subject: Members mythical interest in the TBP?

When thinking of the use of ancient myths in the TBP in order to support the EU and PC, I´m wondering how many members are working with analyzing the (mythical) theory of the hypothesized "ancient polar configuration"?

The ancient myths are testimony, and are used by those studying them to try to piece together history.

It just so happened that there was a confluence between what the myths are describing, and EU theory.

The Saturn model is an impossibility in the gravity only standard model, but because we now know that the Universe is also electric, and by EU theory the Saturn polar configuration model is a distinct possibility, so EU theory supports the Saturn model. Not the other way around.

EU theory also provides an explanation for the thunderbolts of the Gods, which also came from the myths.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:27 am

@Paul,
You replied:
It just so happened that there was a confluence between what the myths are describing, and EU theory.

I somewhat agree if you are thinking of THE STRICT SCIENTIFIC part of the Electric Universe Theory
The Saturn model is an impossibility in the gravity only standard model, but because we now know that the Universe is also electric, and by EU theory the Saturn polar configuration model is a distinct possibility, so EU theory supports the Saturn model. Not the other way around.

I agree that the gravity model is impossible on all accounts. The Saturn Model derives from interpretations of myths where the names of the Roman pantheon (Milky Way) deities of creation, historically was given to planets.

This confusion of Milky Way myths of course demands the EU theory to electrically construct an idea of juggling the planets and their moons forth and back in the Solar System.

Such a Saturn Model is of course impossible to prove, since both the used myths and their correct celestial connections are disconnected by the planetary (mis)interpretations.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:26 am

As I understand the story of what happened. Talbot came up with the Saturn polar configuration model. In telling his story plasma physicists recognized his "thunderbolts" and identified them as plasma formations. This made an impression on Peratt, who was the top plasma physicist then, and motivated him to do a global study of petroglyphs and rock art, as such large structure would have to appear different from different angles (i.e. from different places around the world). Peratt went all around the world chasing down the rock art and logging it all into a central computer for analysis. Peratt's study strongly confirmed the model, that it was witnessed, and recorded, by ancient people all over the world.

Peratt suffered greatly because people thought, "Such a Saturn Model is of course impossible to prove".

Peratt discovered that formation, and it was even named after him, and is called the Peratt Instability. And here was this Talbot guy describing them as see by men long ago. It is no wonder Talbot's theory immediately interested him, and motivate him to study that new aspect of his instability formation.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:04 am

Hi Paul,
comingfrom wrote:As I understand the story of what happened. Talbot came up with the Saturn polar configuration model. In telling his story plasma physicists recognized his "thunderbolts" and identified them as plasma formations. This made an impression on Peratt, who was the top plasma physicist then, and motivated him to do a global study of petroglyphs and rock art, as such large structure would have to appear different from different angles (i.e. from different places around the world). Peratt went all around the world chasing down the rock art and logging it all into a central computer for analysis. Peratt's study strongly confirmed the model, that it was witnessed, and recorded, by ancient people all over the world.

I think you description here is pretty much what happend.
Peratt suffered greatly because people thought, "Such a Saturn Model is of course impossible to prove

Your quote here is out of context. It should be;
Such a Saturn Model is of course impossible to prove, since both the used myths and their correct celestial connections are disconnected by the planetary (mis)interpretations.

Peratt discovered that formation, and it was even named after him, and is called the Peratt Instability. And here was this Talbot guy describing them as see by men long ago. It is no wonder Talbot's theory immediately interested him, and motivate him to study that new aspect of his instability formation.

I dont deny that plasma figures in laboratories can take different shapes as shown here -
http://www.theplasmaverse.com/verse/squ ... lyphs.html

Bus, as with the Saturn Model itself, different Rock Art symbols (and texts) are cherry picked and other symbols and texts are either overlooked or directly ignored because they dont fit the theory or even directly contradicts this.
Rock Art Sweden.Wheel Man.jpg

Swedish Rock Art.02..jpg

Swedish Rock Art.Man and Celestial Pole.jpg
Swedish Rock Art.Man and Celestial Pole.jpg (28.98 KiB) Viewed 2194 times

Why aren´t these Swedish rock art images in the Peratt and Talbott library? They really should be, because they all resembles the saturnian figure which revolves around the celestial pole.
Swedish RockArt and Egyptian Seth..jpg
Swedish RockArt and Egyptian Seth..jpg (18.02 KiB) Viewed 2194 times

Another Swedish rock art image compared to the Egyptian god, Seth, both representing the revolving prime Milky Way celestial deity. These two significant saturnian images can be immediately given gendered names which fits the mythical texts of the prime god.
Northern Hemisphere.04.jpg
Atlas image of the northern Milky Way figure.
Northern Hemisphere.04.jpg (22.42 KiB) Viewed 2194 times

Egyptian God Seth.02.jpg

Also these two significant saturnian images can be immediately be given gendered names which fits the mythical texts of the prime Saturnus god if working with the Roman story of creation.

Why don´t David Talbott chose such obvious celestial and mythical figures to illustrate his revolving saturnus polar configuration? Because of the Roman naming of planets, many mythcal scholars have gone far astray in their mythical interpretation and their astronomical ideas.

Of course, Peratt don´t have these Rock Art images in his collection, because they don´t look like anything he can produce in his laboratory.

Our ancestors weren´t that stupid to give gendered names to planets, which just was/is "wandering stars". Our ancestors of course only gave gendered names to celestial figures which have distinctive human-like features, and here the Milky Way figures on both hemispheres qualifies excellently.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:33 pm

Thank you, Norman.

Why don´t David Talbott chose such obvious celestial and mythical figures to illustrate his revolving saturnus polar configuration?
You'll have to ask Talbot that question. Or just make up your own answer.

Of course, Peratt don´t have these Rock Art images in his collection, because they don´t look like anything he can produce in his laboratory.
I don't know if Peratt had those in his data collection. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

Our ancestors weren´t that stupid to give gendered names to planets
Not like us, huh?
Only modern science must be that stupid to have used the names of gods for the planets and moons.

But give them a break,
you hadn't taught them yet, that all these names actually belonged to the milky way first.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:34 am

Hello Paul,
Thanks for your reply.
But give them a break, you hadn't taught them yet, that all these names actually belonged to the milky way first.

This is the most strange part of it all. Just by reading and comparing the relevant myths and sticking firmly to the context and the logics, anyone could come to the conclusion that the superior pantheon deities belongs to the Milky Way realms and not to planets.

The Roman goddess Venus and the Greek goddess Aphrodite is equal to the Egyptian goddess Hathor who specifically is associated with the Milky Way. Link to Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

What then are the Occam Razor-logics regarding the Roman goddess Venus? Does she then logically belongs to the planets or to the Milky Way? What does it then mean that planets in the Roman Empire were given COMMEMORATION names AFTER the Roman Pantheon of the creation?

The Milky Way goddess Hathor has a "complex relationsship" with the Egyptian god, Atum-Ra who is the first fiery light to be created in the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, where it is stated here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In ... _mythology
Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things and brought order to the universe.

What can one then logically deduce from the "complex relationsship" between Milky Way goddess Hathor and the Egyptian god, (Atum)-Ra?

Are we then talking of goddess Hathor = planet Venus goddess which "created all other things in the ancient known part of the Universe"? Or are we talking of Milky Way deities/creative forces which creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe as clearly stated in the Ogdoad?
Olympus.Helios.Pantheon.JPEG.jpg
The mythical Mount Olympus/Heliopolis/Pantheon

In the latest "Discourses on an Alien Sky #19 | The Myth of the World Mountain -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HywOBkgBB0k - it is concluded that it is planet Saturn which is the first entity to be created and aligned on the hypothezised "polar configuration", because of the SoaAS-hypothesis and interpretation of Ra = The Sun, which is interpreted to be planet Saturn.

The video topic of "The Myth of the World Mountain" is interpreted to deal with the Earth rotational axis, but this "polar configuration of planet idea" could have/should have been avoided and falsified if reading and comparing the myths of the World Mountains and sticking firmly to its context.

Take the Hindy myth of the Mount Meru - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru#Hindu_legends
Mount Meru of Hindu traditions has clearly mythical aspects, being described as 84,000 Yojan high (which is around 1,082,000 km (672,000 mi), or 85 times the Earths's diameter), and having the Sun along with all its planets in the Solar System revolve around it as one unit.

Regardless of the distance accuracy, the sentense: " . . . having the Sun along with all its planets in the Solar System revolve around it as one unit" can only mean one thing: The mythical World Mountain Meru resembles a central point around which, the entire Solar System is orbiting - which only can be the Milky Way center, according to factual observations.

That is: The Milky Way orbital motion around the mytho-cosmological "World Muntain" is misinterpreted to represent the rotation of the Earth axis and inserted in the SoaAS-hypothesis of "the polar configuration".

This is of course a huge distortion of both the myth and its astronomical and cosmological facts. And this idea is even inconsistent with the video claim of planet Saturn to be the first in the creation, even before the Earth was created to provide a rotational axis scenario for planet Saturn.

Summary: Myths and explanations of the Milky Way issues are interpreted in the SoaAS-hypothesis to deal with planets only - despite that factual mythical text can be found which tells quite another and logical story.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:26 am

Subject: Solar System Electric Connections

In an interview on “Guns and Butter” – https://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter- ... albott-343 - “Understanding Our Solar History”, David Talbott (amongst other issues) speaks of the electric conditions of the Sun and its dependence of the overall electric conditions in the Milky Way arm where the Solar System is positioned. (Timestamp 47:00)

As the Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation, the system must subsequently also be an integrated part of the Milky Way formation. This is evidently described in numerous Stories of Creation, as my former posts explains, but the mythical interpretation in the TBP doesn´t consciously connect to this story of creation.

In the TBP, the Stories of Creation i.e. “The Milky Way Formation” and its prime deities = electric forces and symbols of creation, are interpreted to deal with planets only and hypothetically aligned in “a polar configuration”, which subsequently becomes an interpretative substitute for the Milky Way formation and rotation.

Again and again: The Roman commemoration naming of the planets after their prime pantheon deities, confuses scholars and distorts both the myths and their cosmological meanings.

That is: The strict scientific part of the Electric Universe Theory and the mythical TBP interpretation of the Milky Way formation is on a grave course of collision. This is a huge pity since a correct mythical interpretation of the numerous Stories of Creation otherwise could be a huge support for the scientific part of the EU.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby moses » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:41 pm

What if there was a big expulsion of matter from the centre of our galaxy and an associated explosion, sometime in our ancient past. The explosive front might increase the electrical activity of each stellar system it passes through and thus each such stellar system would emit more light in a decaying fashion.

The effect would be that the Milky Way would have become very much brighter for a time. The centre of our galazy might have been like a second Sun for a time. More thought is needed abut this idea including the catastrophic implications and whether the catastrophe caused by this came before of after the galactic core lit up.

But this might explain an obsession with the Milky Way.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:57 pm

When I look up at the Milky Way, I simply fail to see how it could inspire the myths of the comet like behavior for Venus, or of the mountain of the gods. ~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:43 am

Hello Mo,
Thanks for your reply.
moses wrote:What if there was a big expulsion of matter from the centre of our galaxy and an associated explosion, sometime in our ancient past. The explosive front might increase the electrical activity of each stellar system it passes through and thus each such stellar system would emit more light in a decaying fashion.

The effect would be that the Milky Way would have become very much brighter for a time. The centre of our galazy might have been like a second Sun for a time. More thought is needed abut this idea including the catastrophic implications and whether the catastrophe caused by this came before of after the galactic core lit up.

But this might explain an obsession with the Milky Way.
Cheers,
Mo

My perception of the formation of the Solar System is that this was once formatted in the luminous Milky Way center and left this as an assembled glowing sphere which centrifugally divided into planets and their moons early when leaving the galactic center. In this way I can follow your "expulsive argument", which, BTW, also is confirmed by the biblical "expulsion from the Garden of Eden".

Im not an expert in electromagnetic charge and force, and I don´t know if a galactic outburst could have some orbital influence on the planets in our Solar System, but If so, this should affect ALL planets in the system and their moons and not just those few selected planets which are mentioned in the "polar configuration theory".

And if so, what should then be the galactic cause when the planets left the assumed polar configuration? I think this theory have huge scientific unsolvable problems in itself, without using myths in the hypothesis.

Well, this is not my problem as such. When including the symbols and texts of the Milky Way Mythology which scholars to a large extend have forgotten, I cannot find mythical evidences of such a polar configuration in the numerous Stories of Creation.

Olympus.Helios.Pantheon.JPEG.jpg

Of course ancient people had a huge obsession with the Milky Way luminous center as being the center of creation in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:39 am

Hello Paul,
Thanks for your reply.
comingfrom wrote:When I look up at the Milky Way, I simply fail to see how it could inspire the myths of the comet like behavior for Venus, or of the mountain of the gods. ~Paul

Regarding "the comet like behavior for Venus", neither can I. :D (Remember, we are talking of the mythical Venus which provides interpretative suggestions to planet Venus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_%28mythology%29) (I am aware of the observed tail of planet Venus)

The contours of the Milky Way doesn´t look anything like a comet. But the femalish looking Milky Way woman has a long hair which is interpreted as a comet in combination with some other forceful attributes of the Milky Way goddess.
Southern.04.jpg
Milky Way Goddess, the Roman goddess Venus
Southern.04.jpg (21.63 KiB) Viewed 2069 times

Regarding the Mountain of the Gods and Goddess, I earlier posted this:
Take the Hindy myth of the Mount Meru - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru#Hindu_legends

Mount Meru of Hindu traditions has clearly mythical aspects, being described as 84,000 Yojan high (which is around 1,082,000 km (672,000 mi), or 85 times the Earths's diameter), and having the Sun along with all its planets in the Solar System revolve around it as one unit.

This can only be logical and astronomical understood as dealing with the Milky Way center and it´s mythical central "Cosmic Mount" as illustrated here:
Olympus.Helios.Pantheon.JPEG.jpg
The Mountain of the God and Goddess describes the Milky Way Center.

It is in this galactic realms the primeval deites of creation are positioned. It can of course be difficult to understand the mytho-cosmological symbol of "a mountain in the Sky" and it also demands some knowledge of the creation story where the "first firm land rises from the primeval waters" in the Milky Way center.

The mythical "primewal waters" corresponds to "a floating cosmic cloud of gas and dust" which undergoes an assembling and formation of gaseous and metallic elements in the Milky Way center, thus "rising the first firm land" on the Cosmic Mound.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby moses » Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:31 pm

Hi Norman, thanks for your words,
EU has it that quasars are emissions from galactic cores. It is standard astronomy that a proportion of galaxies have explosions from their cores. So it is far from unreasonable to consider the possibility that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has had such an explosion.

In December 2004 there was a GRB (gamma ray burst) and the huge Indonesian earthquake just 44 hours apart. Now if we propose that a galactic core explosion would be similar to that GRB but millions of times more powerful then we can start to guess the effects on the planets and stars of every stellar system hit by the explosive front. So I am guessing that the stars in these stellar systems would become much brighter, and their planets could easily be moved out of their regular orbits.

For the people on Earth one postulates sudden massive ground movements with enormous tsunamis to follow shortly afterwards. Although there is the chance that much smaller bursts could have preceded this big one, allowing people to prepare underground. Then the Sun would explosively burst forth causing mass extinction of life on this planet. After this there would have been a difficult survival period and chaotic planetary orbits.

Perhaps these survivors found two suns in the sky and a very bright Milky Way. So maybe the stories, myths, started there. The Milky Way would have been prime in these stories but soon there were the planetary interactions to incorporate in the stories.

Where the Earth was orbitally before all this is unknown and whether there was some sort of civilization before this is also an open question. The actual event would have to be the Younger Dryas. Saturn seems to have come into the story after the event. Other catastrophic events would have occurred with the interaction of Earth with other planets.

A rough outline,
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:11 am

Hello Mo,
Thanks for your "rough outline" :D
moses wrote:1) EU has it that quasars are emissions from galactic cores. It is standard astronomy that a proportion of galaxies have explosions from their cores. So it is far from unreasonable to consider the possibility that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has had such an explosion.

2) In December 2004 there was a GRB (gamma ray burst) and the huge Indonesian earthquake just 44 hours apart. Now if we propose that a galactic core explosion would be similar to that GRB but millions of times more powerful then we can start to guess the effects on the planets and stars of every stellar system hit by the explosive front. So I am guessing that the stars in these stellar systems would become much brighter, and their planets could easily be moved out of their regular orbits.

3) For the people on Earth one postulates sudden massive ground movements with enormous tsunamis to follow shortly afterwards. Although there is the chance that much smaller bursts could have preceded this big one, allowing people to prepare underground. Then the Sun would explosively burst forth causing mass extinction of life on this planet. After this there would have been a difficult survival period and chaotic planetary orbits.

4) Perhaps these survivors found two suns in the sky and a very bright Milky Way. So maybe the stories, myths, started there. The Milky Way would have been prime in these stories but soon there were the planetary interactions to incorporate in the stories.

5) Where the Earth was orbitally before all this is unknown and whether there was some sort of civilization before this is also an open question. The actual event would have to be the Younger Dryas. Saturn seems to have come into the story after the event. Other catastrophic events would have occurred with the interaction of Earth with other planets. Mo

# 1: I agree in this, but instead of "explosions", I would call these "electric discharges".

# 2: Have anyone calculated the needed powers which could have moved the planets and their moons forth and back their orbits? Is the causal connection between the GRB outburst and earthquake scientifically proven?

IMO, the galactic gamma rays is a result of the fluent electromagnetic circuit in the galaxies, but of course it can change somewhat "up and down" according to the formational input of gas and matter and extra galactic electricity into the galactic core.

And again: A sufficient outburst should have affected ALL planets in the Solar System and not just the selected planets Saturn, Venus and Mars.

# 3: I wonder: To what extends do you include interpretations and explanations of the creation myths in your hypothetical outline here?

# 4: I guess you refer to the Sun and planet Saturn here?

# 5: Some cultures are much older than the Younger Dryas, so it is really out in the open air how old their told creation stories are.

IMHO, "the catastrophic hypothesis" is a mix of "human fear of natural disasters" (which of course have occurred from time to time) and a mythical interpretation of the immense cosmic powers of the deities of creation = the cosmic creative powers, which unfortunately are scholarly ascribed to planets because of the Roman Pantheon commemoration naming of the planets.

Just think of this basical issue:
Is it reasonable that our ancestors gave gendered names to planets? How could they possibly imagine human gendered shapes from a nocturnal "wandering star"?

It takes at least a star constellation to imagine a gendered shape in the Sky and of course, the most obvious shape in the night Sky, is the crescent Milky Way contours which is culturally magined all over the world as gendered humans and animal shapes, (and other images) seemingly revolving around the celestial poles on both hemispheres.
North and South.02.Horizontal.jpg
Northern (male god Saturnus) and southern (female goddess Venus) hemisphere contours of the Milky Way

- If we are talking of "galactic influences", here galactic gamma rays, as a ruler of the Solar System which is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation, it is IMO logical to include the Milky Way Mythology in the numerous cultural Stories of Creation and this is exactly what one can read and conclude by the former posted examples in this topic.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest