Testing the Velikovski Heritage

[Plasmatic]

- It´s a little bit more complicated than that. In my opinion, the mythical arcetypes is "standing entities" which are cosmical "left overs" from the past which can be "looked" back at all time - a kind of a "Hubble looking back" phenomenon, really. But:

- Before I continue: How do you feel for "spirituel = intuitive learning mumbo jumbo theories"? Have you sometimes maybe learned something from your dreams or have experienced other strange out-of an-other-world-things?

- Looking forward to your answer and next questions!

Do I understand from your comment and question that your model posits that the "mythical archetypes" were recieved initially by the ancients by "looking back", as in a sort of "spiritual=intuitive learning"? Also can you clarify if your model posits that humans recievied said spiritual intuitions post "creation" event? [it seems superfluous to ask as one wouldnt need this if one was present to observe said event but...]

[SpaceTravellor]

Hi Plasmatic,

Do I understand from your comment and question that your model posits that the "mythical archetypes" were recieved initially by the ancients by "looking back", as in a sort of "spiritual=intuitive learning"?

With an slightly editing/adding of "loking back" to more like "looking in to", yes.

Also can you clarify if your model posits that humans recievied said spiritual intuitions post "creation" event?

Firstly: It is not MY model, but "the native/mytho-cosmological model".

Secondly: Yes, in a way they could look beyond the Creation. By spiritually "looking in to" (via trance, out-of-body-travelling, vision quests etc.) the Creation in general terms, they got the intuitive knowledge of the basical interactions between the 4 elements of water, fire, air and soil = the atomaric: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and different heavier matter-element and thereby they could see how these elements generally interacts but also how these works in for instants in a galaxy creation.

Many mytho-cosmological stories begins with: In the beginning there was nothing but a great dark watery (hydrogen) gap = before creation of someting. Then the fire/light (a cosmic explosion) took place and turned on a gloving light (plasma) in the airy and soily cloud. This caused a swirling and concentrating effect in the cloud and the faster the swirl rotated, the more it became heated until it all melted together and exploded horisontally out of the rotation axis in the swirling sphere, spewving larger melted spheres of different mix of the 4 elements out from the center. These different melted larger and minor spheres became different stars, planets and moons and even mini galaxies inside the bigger one.

That is: The section above are telling of a cyclic event of a general cosmological assembling and distribution which are the general and basical law in the Universe. It is cyclic and holistic - and this cosmical assemling and distribution rules out the orthodox laws of gravity and a lot of other modern theories and hypothesis.

But maybe more of this later - if I haven´t scared you away from this subject with the mumbo jumbos . . .

- The difficult thing in understanding the mytho-cosmological explanations is of course to learn to read the mytho-cosmological telling and their use of symbols. And if one have the opinion that the myths are just mumbo jombo, one/we can just forget it.

NB: If you maybe become very scientifically with your questions and answers, please note my signature note about language.

[Plasmatic]

O.K. putting this first issue aside for now:

the basical interactions between the 4 elements of water, fire, air and soil = the atomaric: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and different heavier matter-element and thereby they could see how these elements generally interacts but also how these works in for instants in a galaxy creation...........
In the beginning there was nothing but a great dark watery (hydrogen) gap = before creation of someting. Then the fire/light (a cosmic explosion) took place and turned on a gloving light (plasma) in the airy and soily cloud. This caused a swirling and concentrating effect in the cloud and the faster the swirl rotated, the more it became heated until it all melted together and exploded horisontally out of the rotation axis in the swirling sphere, spewving larger melted spheres of different mix of the 4 elements out from the center. These different melted larger and minor spheres became different stars, planets and moons and even mini galaxies inside the bigger one.

Do you have any evidence beside your proposed "looking into" to support this model of physics?

That is: The section above are telling of a cyclic event of a general cosmological assembling and distribution which are the general and basical law in the Universe. It is cyclic and holistic - and this cosmical assemling and distribution rules out the orthodox laws of gravity and a lot of other modern theories and hypothesis.

Can you support this proposed "cyclic" laws of the universe? What observations can you direct me to in support of this cosmology/physics? Surely you don't expect mere assertion to unseat theories that are founded in observation and can be shown physically to be supported? Declaring "the ancients said so according to this interpretation" cant be the whole of what your basis for the physics part is,huh?

[Plasmatic]

Another question. The central premise seems to be that the depictions the ancient myth tellers crafted were reconstructing the milky way as shown on your star atlas. Do you maintain that the Milky way once looked this way to earth bound observers? Or did they get the posited atlas like perspective of the milky way from "looking into" "spiritually"? I ask because Ive never seen an actual image of the Milky way that looks like the atlas map.

Simply put, can an earthbound observer see something that looks like your atlas maps when looking at the Milky way?

[SpaceTravellor]

Plasmatic,
You wrote:

Do you have any evidence beside your proposed "looking into" to support this model of physics?

Do you believe in mytho-cosmological evidences?

Can you support this proposed "cyclic" laws of the universe?

I just did with my description - what do you think of it - if you will be so polite?

What observations can you direct me to in support of this cosmology/physics?

Take a meditation and a very close and long look here http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html and take a close look at the Milky Way bars, the looks of the arms and the general swirling movement. What does this tell you?

Then ad: New stars that still are born in the center of our galaxy, where everything - "even light" supposedly should be sucked in and away.

And then, if I dare: Ad the my mytho-cosmological description of the Story of Creation (Which deals with the Milky Way Myths - of course until later, is just my claim) and the telling of "Expelsion out from Eden".

Until later

[SpaceTravellor]

@Plasmatic,

Another question.

Please link to the picture in question.

[Plasmatic]

Do you believe in mytho-cosmological evidences?

For physical models one might reflect on mythical data as adding to an already formulated and observation based hypothesis. But to base a physical hypothesis on "spiritually"revealed myth alone.....

I just did with my description - what do you think of it - if you will be so polite?

So you are claiming that your epistemic method for physical hypothesis is simply assertion? You cannot point out any physical observations that support a "cyclical" "law" in the universe as described?

Please link to the picture in question.

Im referring to the one in your avatar/animation http://www.native-science.net/Animation.Explanation.htm and the ones so related. The ones you posit are a better fit shape wise for saturn/cronos, the cosmic river,encircling serpent,ship of heaven,mother goddess,squatter man etc.

[SpaceTravellor]

@Plasmatic,
From this post:
SpaceTravellor on Jul 27th, '09, 10:35
I´ve asked you 3 specific questions and give you some suggestions - I have a personal rule of 5 unanswered questions and then I just stop because I will not be a part of a dialog that devellops to 2 monologues.

You have 2 more to go.

[Plasmatic]

I assume you mean this post: @3:35

Plasmatic,
You wrote:

Do you have any evidence beside your proposed "looking into" to support this model of physics?
Do you believe in mytho-cosmological evidences?
Can you support this proposed "cyclic" laws of the universe?
I just did with my description - what do you think of it - if you will be so polite?

What observations can you direct me to in support of this cosmology/physics?
Take a meditation and a very close and long look here http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html and take a close look at the Milky Way bars, the looks of the arms and the general swirling movement. What does this tell you?

Then ad: New stars that still are born in the center of our galaxy, where everything - "even light" supposedly should be sucked in and away.

And then, if I dare: Ad the my mytho-cosmological description of the Story of Creation (Which deals with the Milky Way Myths - of course until later, is just my claim) and the telling of "Expelsion out from Eden".

Until later

I have avoided answering the last 2 questions because [1.] I am still forming my opinion and need more information.Since I haven't read all of your info, I am giving you opportunities to answer direct questions.I did in fact answer the first question.

[SpaceTravellor]

OK Plasmatic,

I´ll hold my horses until you come back with

A. Your meditaton over and your views on my mytho-cosmological description of creation.
B.

Take a meditation and a very close and long look here http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html and take a close look at the Milky Way bars, the looks of the arms and the general swirling movement. What does this tell you?

Then ad: New stars that still are born in the center of our galaxy, where everything - "even light" supposedly should be sucked in and away.

And then, if I dare: Ad the my mytho-cosmological description of the Story of Creation (Which deals with the Milky Way Myths - of course until later, is just my claim) and the telling of "Expelsion out from Eden".

I cannot go on unless I get a fair an open-minded answer to A+B.

[Plasmatic]

by SpaceTravellor on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:05 am

OK Plasmatic,

I´ll hold my horses until you come back with

A. Your meditaton over and your views on my mytho-cosmological description of creation.

Well this seems rather silly but....heres my take so far:

1. Your theory of "spiritual" origin is completely arbitrary and could not in any way be made scientific,i.e. provable .

Many mytho-cosmological stories begins with: In the beginning there was nothing but a great dark watery (hydrogen) gap = before creation of someting. Then the fire/light (a cosmic explosion) took place and turned on a gloving light (plasma) in the airy and soily cloud. This caused a swirling and concentrating effect in the cloud and the faster the swirl rotated, the more it became heated until it all melted together and exploded horisontally out of the rotation axis in the swirling sphere, spewving larger melted spheres of different mix of the 4 elements out from the center. These different melted larger and minor spheres became different stars, planets and moons and even mini galaxies inside the bigger one.

2.Your insertion of "hydrogen" is completely unsupported. Which is why I asked you if you had physical evidence for your assertion.

3.I know of no "gap" in myth. Are you referring to a "void"?

4.What text suggest a "cosmic explosion"?

5.What mythical and physical evidence do you have for explosions causing " a swirling and concentrating effect in the cloud and the faster the swirl rotated, the more it became heated until it all melted together and exploded horisontally out of the rotation axis in the swirling sphere, spewving larger melted spheres of different mix of the 4 elements out from the center. These different melted larger and minor spheres became different stars, planets and moons and even mini galaxies inside the bigger one".


Basically you have here blind unsupported assertion,with no mythical or physical evidence offered. Your citing a picture of the milky way with stars does in no way serve to prove your "description. You have little to no causative hypothesis and you have presented no evidence except "spiritual dreams/visions told us so,just trust me".

.

B.
Take a meditation and a very close and long look here http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html and take a close look at the Milky Way bars, the looks of the arms and the general swirling movement. What does this tell you?

Then ad: New stars that still are born in the center of our galaxy, where everything - "even light" supposedly should be sucked in and away.

And then, if I dare: Ad the my mytho-cosmological description of the Story of Creation (Which deals with the Milky Way Myths - of course until later, is just my claim) and the telling of "Expelsion out from Eden".

1. A picture by itself is not an argument or hypothesis.

2.Your comment about "being sucked in" is only relevant to someone who buys into the nonsense of black holes.

3.Your "mytho cosmological description" is unsupported and arbitrary so far.

4. You dont seem to understand the basic way which propositions are set forward or proved. You make absolutely unsupported propositions and then say "therefore" this follows. Whats worse is the comparisons you make with images to the "star map".

Your theory begins with "spiritual revelation" and is "supported" by dissimilar comparisons of imagery one could not have from any other source than "spiritual dreams /visions" etc. No earth bound observer could have the perspective you posit was the source of mythical reconstruction.

There is nothing scientific in your model whatsoever so far as Ive looked.

[Plasmatic]

Ivar, in your model of pressure/gravity what is keeping my connected to the earth? Are ther mini explosions and invisible spiraling clouds of gas and dust pushing me to the earth?

[SpaceTravellor]

@Plasmatic,
May I recommend you not to use the word "silly" when you argue on the Forum?
This did it for my part, so I´ll set full stop here

[Plasmatic]

@Plasmatic,
May I recommend you not to use the word "silly" when you argue on the Forum?
This did it for my part, so I´ll set full stop here @Plasmatic,
May I recommend you not to use the word "silly" when you argue on the Forum?
This did it for my part, so I´ll set full stop here

Your call Ivar,but just in case you misunderstood....What I was referring to was the insistence that I tell you what I think of your ideas before answering the questions I asked pertaining to said ideas. "Im not going to tell you what my model is in particular, until you tell me what you think of it"