Discussion:
OT true - TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
Add Reply
a425couple
2017-02-23 20:15:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017

The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.

Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone, the
region around a star where liquid water could form on a planet's surface,
making them excellent contenders for the evolution of life. One world lies
farther out, and is likely icy, while the three closest to the star are
heated by its temperatures.

Earth's seven sisters

In 2010, Michaël Gillon, an astronomer at the University of Liège in
Belgium, and his colleagues began monitoring the sun's smallest neighbors
using the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) in
Chile. They looked for so-called transits - when the light from the star is
dimmed by a planet passing between it and Earth. Because low-mass stars are
dimmer than their sun-like siblings, it's easier for astronomers to spot
planets around them.

When Gillon and his colleagues turned their telescope to the star now known
as TRAPPIST-1, they found that it faded at regular intervals. In 2016, the
team announced the presence of three Earth-like worlds around the star.
These planets orbited their star every 1.5, 2.4 and four Earth-days,
respectively, making them between 20 and 100 times closer to their star than
Earth is to the sun. Although the star produces nearly a thousand times less
radiation than the sun, the worlds are most likely still too hot to hold a
significant amount of liquid water at the surface, although some could be
present, the researchers said.

The finding encouraged Gillon and his team to keep investigating. They
continued to study the intriguing star with the European Southern
Observatory's (ESO) ground-based TRAPPIST and the Very Large Telescope (VLT)
in Chile, as well as NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and other instruments.

In February 2017, the team announced the discovery of four more planets. The
worlds are currently known as TRAPPIST-1b, c, d, e, f, g and h, moving in
order outward from the star. The observations, published in the journal
Nature, revealed that all seven are terrestrial planets.

"This is an amazing planetary system - not only because we have found so
many planets, but because they are all surprisingly similar in size to the
Earth," Gillon said in a statement.
Characteristics of the seven TRAPPIST-1 worlds, compared to the rocky
planets in our solar system.
Characteristics of the seven TRAPPIST-1 worlds, compared to the rocky
planets in our solar system.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Potential habitability

TRAPPIST-1 is about 40 light-years from Earth. It lies in the constellation
Aquarius, but it is too dim to be seen by the naked eye or even visually
with large amateur telescopes, according to the ESO. It is only about 8
percent the size of the sun, and it's much cooler, redder and dimmer.

All seven worlds have orbits that would fit inside of Mercury's, but they
experience much cooler temperatures. TRAPPIST-1c, d and f receive
approximately the same amount of energy as Venus, Earth and Mars,
respectively.

Each of these three rocky worlds could potentially harbor liquid water on
its surface - a key ingredient for life as we know it.

"Looking for life elsewhere, this system is probably our best bet as of
today," said Brice-Olivier Demory, a researcher at the University of Bern in
Switzerland and an author on the most recent paper.

In the coming years, telescopes such as NASA's James Webb Space Telescope,
scheduled to launch in 2018, have the potential to detect the atmospheres
and temperatures of these recently discovered worlds, thus helping
scientists better understand how welcoming they might be for life.

With a star roughly 80 times as large as Jupiter, the TRAPPIST-1 system
bears a strong resemblance to the massive gas giant and its four Galilean
moons - Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. The moons take between 1.7 and 17
days to orbit Jupiter. Both systems have an orbital configuration in which
the orbits of the planets are connected; when TRAPPIST-1b travels around its
sun eight times, the next three orbit five, three and two times.

"This resemblance suggests that the TRAPPIST-1 planets and the Galilean
moons formed and evolved in a similar way," Ignas Snellen, a professor of
astronomy at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, wrote in an
article in the journal Nature.

That could have intriguing implications for the seventh satellite,
TRAPPIST-1h, which is too far away to keep water in liquid form by relying
only on its sun. The gravitational pull of Jupiter and the other moons is
thought to be responsible for maintaining a liquid ocean on Europa, despite
the lack of solar heating. Io, Ganymede and Callisto are also suspected of
hiding water beneath their crusts by the same means. The TRAPPIST-1 system
could hold four potentially habitable planets instead of three. [Gallery:
The 7 Earth-Size Planets of TRAPPIST-1 in Pictures]

Just the beginning

TRAPPIST-1 also has strong implications for the abundance of Earth-like
planets in the universe. The transit method used by the team only works if
the planets and the sun line up. According to Snellen, that means anywhere
from 20 to 100 times as many planets remain unseen, hidden because they
don't cross between the two stars.

"Finding seven transiting Earth-size planets in such a small sample suggests
that the solar system, with its four sub-Earth-size planets, might be
nothing out of the ordinary," Snellen said.

Gillon and his team will widen their search with the Search for Habitable
Planets Eclipsing Ultracool Stars project, which will use four ground-based
telescopes to study 10 times as many faint stars. And in March 2018, NASA
plans to launch the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, which will spend
two years hunting for planets around some of the brightest stars in the sky,
though none as dim as TRAPPIST-1.

Ultimately, scientists say these seven newly identified Earth-size worlds
offer the best bet yet for finding life outside our solar system.

"Why are we trying to detect Earth-like planets around the smallest and
coolest stars in the solar neighborhood? The reason is simple: Systems
around these tiny stars are the only places where we can detect life on an
Earth-size exoplanet with our current technology," Gillon said in 2016. "So
if we want to find life elsewhere in the universe, this is where we should
start to look."

Additional resources

TRAPPIST-1 website
TRAPPIST Telescope Network
ESO TRAPPIST website

http://www.space.com/35806-trappist-1-facts.html
David Johnston
2017-02-23 21:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
If you play real hard with the greenhouse effect.
a425couple
2017-02-24 00:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
If you play real hard with the greenhouse effect.
Hmmm. So many unknowns, or things only conjectured.......

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/23/keys-to-life-scientists-explain-how-newly-discovered-exoplanets-could-be-habitable.html
"NASA
Keys to life? Scientists explain how newly-discovered exoplanets
could be habitable
By Rob Verger Published February 23, 2017
About 40 light years from Earth, there is an intriguing system with a dim
red
star and seven alien worlds rapidly orbiting it.

And what makes the find so exciting is that three of those planets are in
the
"Goldilocks zone" of the star: the just-right place where liquid water could
exist on a planet’s rocky surface.

The announcement of the discovery around the star called TRAPPIST-1,
made yesterday by NASA, is a reminder of the ultimate question: is there
life in the universe besides what we know of on Earth?

And could any of these TRAPPIST-1 planets— especially the three in the
habitable zone— have the right ingredients for it to develop?

“The news is wonderful, and has been since last year, when the first three
planets in this system were discovered,” Dimitar Sasselov, a professor of
astronomy at Harvard University, and a researcher who focuses on studying
the origins of life in his lab, told Fox News. “This just confirms what we
started theorizing already in the past two years: [which] is that our
galaxy, our universe, is just full of places which could sustain life, and
where life could emerge.”

Part of the reason the news is wonderful is that the system lends itself to
being studied by astronomers in the next couple years— and not way down the
line— Sasselov said. The three planets in the habitable zone of this star
are promising because their rocky surfaces could support liquid water, which
is essential for life as we know it.

Plus, if the planets are indeed rocky, they could contain the six right
elements in the right concentration for life, Sasselov said: stuff like
carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen.

David Kipping, an expert on exoplanets and an assistant professor of
astronomy at Columbia University, said that his first reaction to the
discovery was to be “extremely excited.”

The star that the seven planets are orbiting is a very common one called a
red dwarf— it’s small, dim, and cool compared to our own sun, but it could
also burn for a very, very long time: somewhere on the order of a trillion
years, or even longer, Kipping said.

“When we look for potentially life-bearing planets, there’s really one thing
we’re looking for, and that’s liquid surface water,” Kipping told Fox News.
Of course, in order to have surface water, the planet needs to have a rocky
surface, and he said that the planets seem likely to have that. Another
point in their favor? There are three planets in the system that would be at
the right temperature for liquid water to exist.

“That doesn’t prove they're definitely capable of supporting of life,” he
said. After all, one or two of the three planets could be like Venus in our
solar system, which has nasty conditions. But still, three planets is better
than two or one, odds-wise. “With three bites at the cherry, you have to be
optimistic that there’s a good shot one of them has the potential to be
Earth-like.”

He added: “As far as we know right now, I’d say there are no show-stoppers
to stop life from living on these worlds.”

NEW NEIGHBOR: SCIENTISTS DISCOVER CLOSEST HABITABLE EXOPLANET

There are a couple factors to consider, though. Astronomers will have to
study the star further (it could have emitted a lot of radiation when it was
young, for example), as well as the masses of the planets and the shape of
their orbits (to see how elliptical they are) to figure out how conducive
they could be for life. The next step, Kipping said, will be to look for
biosignatures on the planets using a telescope. (The James Webb Space
Telescope, launching in 2018, will be an important resource for
astronomers.)

Lisa Kaltenegger, as associate professor of astronomy, and the director of
the Carl Sagan Institute at Cornell University, said that one aspect to
consider with this “small red sun” is that the levels of ultraviolet light
could be high, although life could perhaps shelter in a hypothetical ocean.

“I think finding many planets, multiple possible habitats, around one star
is great news for the search for life,” she said, pointing out that the news
made her feel motivated. “Because that just means we're getting more places
to look. And it’s just a numbers game— we already have a lot of stars with
planets, now if we have a couple of planets per star, the odds are ever in
our favor, hopefully.”

Follow Rob Verger on Twitter: @robverger
p***@hotmail.com
2017-02-24 05:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-02-24 13:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
Ewwww.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2017-02-24 14:12:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
It will probably be difficult for them to prevent it, since everyone else will
talk rings around them.

John Savard
Robert Bannister
2017-02-25 01:14:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I won't
ask about Starmaker.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Lynn McGuire
2017-02-25 01:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I won't ask about Starmaker.
C. S. Lewis called the interstellar distances between planetary systems "God's quarantine system".

Lynn
J. Clarke
2017-02-25 01:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I won't
ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
a425couple
2017-02-25 03:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
Good One!!!
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I won't
ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
Yes, sadly, to your "While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science".
Tis a pity.
Bias & prejudice are at all ends of the spectrum.

But of course, often, people just think, those who
think differently, HAVE to be stupid !
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-25 08:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one or more
of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have no indigenous
sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow non-Catholics to
settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I won't
ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It's in fashion now, but ISTR they were sceptical
that land existed south of the equator and could
be visited. Because of the belt of fire around
the planet.

Or am I thinking of the Mekon?
<http://www.dandare.org/dan/aliens/mekon.htm>

Anyway - for us, habitable means oxygen means
existing plant or equivalent life to make it -
or does it count if we have to terraform it
and install life ourselves?
Quadibloc
2017-02-25 10:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-02-25 15:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-25 17:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
And yet they have apologised to Galileo. In 1992.
By your argument, there was no change of mind
about his case.

I was worried when Google handed me:

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/02/22/catholic-church-seemingly-reverses-apology-to-galileo/

But it appears to be a quite complicated joke,
comparing where people and furniture are supposed
to stand in a Catholic ceremony, to the Ptolemaic
epicycle system, and perhaps retrograde motion
specifically.

Or, given that there are diagrams, it's a sort of
response to "XKCD".
J. Clarke
2017-02-25 18:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <4e69b763-2456-4d94-b6d3-4c259d3144f7
@googlegroups.com>, ***@excite.com
says...
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
And yet they have apologised to Galileo. In 1992.
By your argument, there was no change of mind
about his case.
For what exactly did "they" apologize? I can't
find any official statement about it, only news
reports that say "they apologized".

And as far as I know there has been no change of
mind about whether he was properly convicted.

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant
physicist and by relying on different arguments,
Galileo, who practically invented the
experimental method, understood why only the sun
could function as the centre of the world, as it
was then known, that is to say, as a planetary
system. The error of the theologians of the
time, when they maintained the centrality of the
Earth, was to think that our understanding of
the physical world's structure was, in some way,
imposed by the literal sense of Sacred
Scripture...."

It's a rather weak apology if you call it an
apology at all.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:28:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4e69b763-2456-4d94-b6d3-4c259d3144f7
@googlegroups.com>, ***@excite.com
says...
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed
since the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned
its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
And yet they have apologised to Galileo. In 1992.
By your argument, there was no change of mind
about his case.
For what exactly did "they" apologize? I can't
find any official statement about it, only news
reports that say "they apologized".
And as far as I know there has been no change of
mind about whether he was properly convicted.
"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant
physicist and by relying on different arguments,
Galileo, who practically invented the
experimental method, understood why only the sun
could function as the centre of the world, as it
was then known, that is to say, as a planetary
system. The error of the theologians of the
time, when they maintained the centrality of the
Earth, was to think that our understanding of
the physical world's structure was, in some way,
imposed by the literal sense of Sacred
Scripture...."
It's a rather weak apology if you call it an
apology at all.
Note that the heliocentric model of the solar system was first
formalized (though not actually invented) by Copernicus (who would
have been a Catholic Bishop, if he'd wanted it), not Galileo. And
his work on the subject was only published at the request of two of
his friends, on a bishop, the other a cardinal, who feared such
important work would be lost if not published. (And was dedicated
to the Pope, which was illegal with explicit permission from the
Pope, at the time.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gene Wirchenko
2017-02-27 03:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:28:31 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Note that the heliocentric model of the solar system was first
formalized (though not actually invented) by Copernicus (who would
have been a Catholic Bishop, if he'd wanted it), not Galileo. And
his work on the subject was only published at the request of two of
his friends, on a bishop, the other a cardinal, who feared such
important work would be lost if not published. (And was dedicated
to the Pope, which was illegal with explicit permission from the
Pope, at the time.)
Eh?

Should that "... with explicit permission ..." have been "...
without explicit permission ..."?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 03:07:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:28:31 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
[snip]
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Note that the heliocentric model of the solar system was first
formalized (though not actually invented) by Copernicus (who
would have been a Catholic Bishop, if he'd wanted it), not
Galileo. And his work on the subject was only published at the
request of two of his friends, on a bishop, the other a
cardinal, who feared such important work would be lost if not
published. (And was dedicated to the Pope, which was illegal
with explicit permission from the Pope, at the time.)
Eh?
Should that "... with explicit permission ..." have been
"...
without explicit permission ..."?
Yes.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed
since the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned its
lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
And yet they have apologised to Galileo. In 1992.
By your argument, there was no change of mind
about his case.
And? A political move, hundreds of years later, that isn't at all
connected to what happened at the time.

Retards like you, with your blind, stupid hatred of religion you
are incapable of understanding, is why it was a mistake.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Don Kuenz
2017-02-25 17:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
The heart of the debate is that Copernican heliocentrism doesn't fit
into Aristotelian cosmology. Here's the most pertinent Biblical
passages (in reverse order to enhance flow and readability).

Jb 26:7 He stretches out the North over empty space,
and suspends the earth over nothing at all;

Jb 9:6 He shakes the earth out of its place
and the pillars beneath it tremble.

In the most prosaic facile sense, "pillars" denote simple vertical
structures. In an more thoughtful imaginative sense, "pillars" describe
a much more interesting phenomena.

General relativity is one of the pillars of modern physics. It
governs the large-scale phenomena of the cosmos - from planetary
orbits in the solar system to stars and galaxies - as well as
the evolution of the universe as a whole.

Yet another pillar, quantum theory (which governs the properties
of matter on microscopic scales), is at least as fundamental.
Developed in the early 20th century, it forms the basis of
elementary particle physics, governs the behavior of atoms, and
lays the foundation of solid state physics. Wherever we go, we
meet its applications - from laser pointers and CD players to the
transistors in electronic devices.

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/quantum

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
J. Clarke
2017-02-25 18:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@crcomp.net>, ***@crcomp.net
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
The heart of the debate is that Copernican heliocentrism doesn't fit
into Aristotelian cosmology. Here's the most pertinent Biblical
passages (in reverse order to enhance flow and readability).
Jb 26:7 He stretches out the North over empty space,
and suspends the earth over nothing at all;
Jb 9:6 He shakes the earth out of its place
and the pillars beneath it tremble.
In the most prosaic facile sense, "pillars" denote simple vertical
structures. In an more thoughtful imaginative sense, "pillars" describe
a much more interesting phenomena.
General relativity is one of the pillars of modern physics. It
governs the large-scale phenomena of the cosmos - from planetary
orbits in the solar system to stars and galaxies - as well as
the evolution of the universe as a whole.
Yet another pillar, quantum theory (which governs the properties
of matter on microscopic scales), is at least as fundamental.
Developed in the early 20th century, it forms the basis of
elementary particle physics, governs the behavior of atoms, and
lays the foundation of solid state physics. Wherever we go, we
meet its applications - from laser pointers and CD players to the
transistors in electronic devices.
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/quantum
Thank you,
It wasn't about the physics. It was about
Galileo pissing off the Pope. Galileo
apparently had people skills on the same order
as those of Sheldon Cooper. The Pope disagreed
with him and his response was to try to make the
Pope look like an idiot. The Pope took
exception to this and, well, the Pope then had a
lot more power than the Pope today.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed
since the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned its
lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
The heart of the debate is that Copernican heliocentrism
doesn't fit into Aristotelian cosmology. Here's the most
pertinent Biblical passages (in reverse order to enhance flow
and readability).
Jb 26:7 He stretches out the North over empty space,
and suspends the earth over nothing at all;
Jb 9:6 He shakes the earth out of its place
and the pillars beneath it tremble.
In the most prosaic facile sense, "pillars" denote simple
vertical structures. In an more thoughtful imaginative sense,
"pillars" describe a much more interesting phenomena.
General relativity is one of the pillars of modern physics.
It governs the large-scale phenomena of the cosmos - from
planetary orbits in the solar system to stars and galaxies
- as well as the evolution of the universe as a whole.
Yet another pillar, quantum theory (which governs the
properties of matter on microscopic scales), is at least as
fundamental. Developed in the early 20th century, it forms
the basis of elementary particle physics, governs the
behavior of atoms, and lays the foundation of solid state
physics. Wherever we go, we meet its applications - from
laser pointers and CD players to the transistors in
electronic devices.
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/quantum
Thank you,
It wasn't about the physics. It was about
Galileo pissing off the Pope.
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to arrange
as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and he was very
good at it.
Post by J. Clarke
Galileo
apparently had people skills on the same order
as those of Sheldon Cooper.
More so. Sheldon Cooper is largely clueless about "normal" people's
feelings. Galileo was apparently quite the expert on how to
humiliate people.
Post by J. Clarke
The Pope disagreed
with him and his response was to try to make the
Pope look like an idiot. The Pope took
exception to this and, well, the Pope then had a
lot more power than the Pope today.
And Galileo, when told his work disagreed with the Bible, generally
responed with "then the Bible is wrong," which is a direct
challenge to the government of the day. Even then, had he not
pissed off the wrong people, nobody would have cared. So he had a
chat with the inquisision, in which he was told "don't do that
again," and he promised he never would. And immediately went back
to the same tricks, which got him put on trial a second time.

Galileo was as skilled at being as asshole to the wrong people as
he was at science.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-02-26 14:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to arrange
as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and he was very
good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?

I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope Urban VIII perceived
Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems_ as being a
caricature of himself. However, the accounts I have read did not state that he
was _correct_ in doing so.

But to clarify my initial comment:

It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the rule of Kim
Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of them in public.

However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin and Kim Jong-Il
were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in the days of Galileo, acted in a
manner contrary to that portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified
by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 14:52:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to arrange
as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and he was very
good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope Urban VIII perceived
Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems_ as being a
caricature of himself. However, the accounts I have read did not state that he
was _correct_ in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
Post by Quadibloc
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the rule of Kim
Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin and Kim Jong-Il
were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in the days of Galileo, acted in a
manner contrary to that portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified
by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Cryptoengineer
2017-02-26 16:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to arrange
as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and he was very
good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope Urban VIII
perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the Two World
Systems_ as being a caricature of himself. However, the accounts I
have read did not state that he was _correct_ in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the rule of
Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin and Kim
Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in the days of
Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that portion of the Eternal
Law of God which is exemplified by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against the
plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't found
guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of being
'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being heliocentrism.

But yeah, like many celebrity scientists then and now, he had
poor people skills.

pt
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 18:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to arrange
as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and he was very
good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope Urban VIII
perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the Two World
Systems_ as being a caricature of himself. However, the accounts I
have read did not state that he was _correct_ in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the rule of
Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin and Kim
Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in the days of
Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that portion of the Eternal
Law of God which is exemplified by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against the
plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't found
guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of being
'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being heliocentrism.
And if the Pope hadn't told the Holy Office to
make a project out of ruining his life, would he
have been tried at all?

Note that he sentence starts out "Whereas you,
Galileo, the son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,
Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year
1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding
as true the false doctrine....." 

Note that part--"holding as true". If he had
not "held as true" then there would have been no
issue.

The full sentence can be found at
<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/g
alileo/condemnation.html>

In essence it says that "you held your opinion
to be true, you were told to knock it off, you
didn't knock it off, so this time we're
serious--go to your room and sit in a corner
until we tell you you can come out."
Post by Cryptoengineer
But yeah, like many celebrity scientists then
and now, he had
poor people skills.
pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to
arrange as public a humilation of his critics as he could,
and he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope
Urban VIII perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the
Two World Systems_ as being a caricature of himself. However,
the accounts I have read did not state that he was _correct_
in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the
rule of Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of
them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin
and Kim Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in
the days of Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that
portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified by the
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against the
plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't found
guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of being
'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being heliocentrism.
And, of course, "trial documents" are *never*, *ever*, *ever* even
slightly influenced by politics, or by personal grudges on the part
of powerful people, not in any way, hell, it's not even remotely
possible.

Dumbass.
Post by Cryptoengineer
But yeah, like many celebrity scientists then and now, he had
poor people skills.
And they got him in trouble, though not nearly the trouble that
legend (and propaganda) would have us believe.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Cryptoengineer
2017-02-27 01:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to
arrange as public a humilation of his critics as he could,
and he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope
Urban VIII perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the
Two World Systems_ as being a caricature of himself. However,
the accounts I have read did not state that he was _correct_
in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the
rule of Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of
them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin
and Kim Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in
the days of Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that
portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified by the
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against the
plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't found
guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of being
'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being heliocentrism.
And, of course, "trial documents" are *never*, *ever*, *ever* even
slightly influenced by politics, or by personal grudges on the part
of powerful people, not in any way, hell, it's not even remotely
possible.
So, you're conceding that the pope and the church lied about their
motivations.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 03:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very
important friends. His normal method of dealing with
criticism was to arrange as public a humilation of his
critics as he could, and he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope
Urban VIII perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning
the Two World Systems_ as being a caricature of himself.
However, the accounts I have read did not state that he was
_correct_ in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the
rule of Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of
them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin
and Kim Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in
the days of Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that
portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified by
the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against the
plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't found
guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of being
'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being
heliocentrism.
And, of course, "trial documents" are *never*, *ever*, *ever*
even slightly influenced by politics, or by personal grudges on
the part of powerful people, not in any way, hell, it's not
even remotely possible.
So, you're conceding that the pope and the church lied about
their motivations.
Do you have a point? Can you name any politician, ever, who hasn't?

And you're agreeing - again - that I'm right.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-27 21:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to
arrange as public a humilation of his critics as he could,
and he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope
Urban VIII perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the
Two World Systems_ as being a caricature of himself. However,
the accounts I have read did not state that he was _correct_
in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the
rule of Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of
them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin
and Kim Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in
the days of Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that
portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified by the
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against the
plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't found
guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of being
'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being heliocentrism.
And, of course, "trial documents" are *never*, *ever*, *ever* even
slightly influenced by politics, or by personal grudges on the part
of powerful people, not in any way, hell, it's not even remotely
possible.
So, you're conceding that the pope and the church lied about their
motivations.
I think it's best to be amused, and regretful, at
the consequence of a suggestion having been made
that the Catholic church is one of Terry's weak
points. And also of engaging him on the subject
of bullying. Is it his birthday and I forgot?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 23:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7,
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very
important friends. His normal method of dealing with
criticism was to arrange as public a humilation of his
critics as he could, and he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope
Urban VIII perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning
the Two World Systems_ as being a caricature of himself.
However, the accounts I have read did not state that he
was _correct_ in doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under
the rule of Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made
fun of them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that
Stalin and Kim Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like
the Pope in the days of Galileo, acted in a manner
contrary to that portion of the Eternal Law of God which
is exemplified by the first amendment to the Constitution
of the United States of America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
Well, that's your interpretation. It goes directly against
the plain reading of the actual trial documents. He wasn't
found guilty of being a jackass. He was found guilty of
being 'vehemently suspect of heresy', said heresy being
heliocentrism.
And, of course, "trial documents" are *never*, *ever*, *ever*
even slightly influenced by politics, or by personal grudges
on the part of powerful people, not in any way, hell, it's
not even remotely possible.
So, you're conceding that the pope and the church lied about
their motivations.
I think it's best to be amused, and regretful, at
the consequence of a suggestion having been made
that the Catholic church is one of Terry's weak
points. And also of engaging him on the subject
of bullying. Is it his birthday and I forgot?
And here comes Bobbie, humping my pantleg out of lonliness.

Again.

Heh.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-02-26 17:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem is the bullies of this world.

I would like bullying to be selected out of our species, posthaste.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 18:14:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <64e484c1-3e42-418d-9e68-874dcb2acca6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem is the bullies of this world.
I would like bullying to be selected out of our species, posthaste.
The thing is, the bullies usually win the fight
and are careful to have witnesses who will
support their side of the story.

It's amazing how stupid smart people can be.

I don't like bullies, but the solution is to
maim the little shits, not insult them so they
maim _you_.
Quadibloc
2017-02-26 20:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
I don't like bullies, but the solution is to
maim the little shits, not insult them so they
maim _you_.
Oh, I agree with that. It's just how to do that _legally_ that is the hard part.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 11:14:40 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
I don't like bullies, but the solution is to
maim the little shits, not insult them so they
maim _you_.
Oh, I agree with that. It's just how to do that _legally_ that
is the hard part.
Only if you are stupid. Which, BTW, you are.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem is the bullies of this world.
I would like bullying to be selected out of our species, posthaste.
Then who would be left to act out your insane, violent fanstasies
regarding People Who Are Not White?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-02-27 07:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Then who would be left to act out your insane, violent fanstasies
regarding People Who Are Not White?
I am opposed to discriminating against people because of their skin color.
Why should that matter, would it clash with my drapes?

The people I have problems with are, for example, Muslims who bully Coptic
Christians for not being Muslims. Bullying other Muslims who aren't bullies
for not being Christians would be *emulating* the ones I am against, not
opposing them.

The trouble is that innocent Muslims may end up being affected, as they are
in Palestine, by the measures taken with limited means to contain the
bullies. This is a _problem_ that needs careful thought. Before the
terrorists force our hand, and we have to act without time to do so in a
measured fashion.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-02-27 08:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Then who would be left to act out your insane, violent fanstasies
regarding People Who Are Not White?
I am opposed to discriminating against people because of their skin color.
Why should that matter, would it clash with my drapes?
The people I have problems with are, for example, Muslims who bully Coptic
Christians for not being Muslims. Bullying other Muslims who aren't bullies
for not being Christians would be *emulating* the ones I am against, not
opposing them.
The trouble is that innocent Muslims may end up being affected,
And by "may" you mean "will inevitably". There is no way of carrying
out war that doesn't involve collateral damage.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 16:33:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 5:18:48 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Then who would be left to act out your insane, violent
fanstasies regarding People Who Are Not White?
I am opposed to discriminating against people because of their
skin color.
You keep saying that. Usually in the same post as you advocating
nuking People Who Are Not White.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2017-02-27 09:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem is the bullies of this world.
I would like bullying to be selected out of our species, posthaste.
Well, as specified above, the problem started with "belittling"
intellectual bullying. So it looks like BOTH participants need to be
selected against.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 16:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem is the bullies of this
world.
I would like bullying to be selected out of our species,
posthaste.
Well, as specified above, the problem started with "belittling"
intellectual bullying. So it looks like BOTH participants need
to be selected against.
It's entirely arguable that agression is a requirement for all living
things.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Joseph Nebus
2017-02-28 04:32:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Well, as specified above, the problem started with "belittling"
intellectual bullying. So it looks like BOTH participants need to be
selected against.
I've come to see intellectual bullying as the worse sin, though
that may just be a result of my having seen and faced more of it since
I grew up and turned out to be a quite tall person.
--
Joseph Nebus
Math: Reading the Comics: Trivia Edition http://wp.me/p1RYhY-19y
Humor: How Dry I Am http://wp.me/p37lb5-1wU
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4186c98c-9622-42aa-b2c7-
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to
arrange as public a humilation of his critics as he could,
and he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope Urban
VIII perceived Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the Two
World Systems_ as being a caricature of himself. However, the
accounts I have read did not state that he was _correct_ in
doing so.
And that is the problem with the Sheldon Coopers
of the world. They'll belittle a bully and then
be shocked when they find their head in the
toilet, and then the justice system has to clean
up the mess.
They believe that real life, especially where bullies are
concerned, has *rule*, and they are strictly followed and
enforcable. They often whine about it while the toilet flushes
their glasses down the sewer.
Post by J. Clarke
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the
rule of Kim Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of them
in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin
and Kim Jong-Il were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in
the days of Galileo, acted in a manner contrary to that portion
of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified by the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
First, the Constitution is not Divine Writ.
Second, regardless of whether free speech is a
divine right or not, the point remains that
Galileo was put on trial for being a jackass,
not for believing in science.
We still have letters between various Church officials debating the
best way to present heliocentrism, as evidence mounted to support
it, so as to avoid public unrest (of the sort that results in
widespread rioting, that is). With no word of actually
*suppressing* it. Galileo's book was never unavailable in its
abridged form (which only had a handful of changes, to remove
references to the Bible being wrong).
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-02-27 07:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
We still have letters between various Church officials debating the
best way to present heliocentrism, as evidence mounted to support
it, so as to avoid public unrest (of the sort that results in
widespread rioting, that is).
Ah, this is an interesting part of history.

I had always thought that the question of heliocentricism was settled only by
Newton; then, finally, there was a _reason_ to prefer the Copernican system,
because it would be consistent with how the planets could behave as ordinary
physical bodies.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 16:33:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 5:14:06 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
We still have letters between various Church officials debating
the best way to present heliocentrism, as evidence mounted to
support it, so as to avoid public unrest (of the sort that
results in widespread rioting, that is).
Ah, this is an interesting part of history.
I had always thought that the question of heliocentricism was
settled only by Newton; then, finally, there was a _reason_ to
prefer the Copernican system, because it would be consistent
with how the planets could behave as ordinary physical bodies.
The final proof required calculus, but everybody knew which way to
bet before Galileo died.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-02-27 07:46:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
They believe that real life, especially where bullies are
concerned, has *rule*, and they are strictly followed and
enforcable. They often whine about it while the toilet flushes
their glasses down the sewer.
It certainly is mistaken to believe that all humans strictly respect the rights
of other humans.

But I don't view complaining about humans who fail to respect the rights of
others as whining.

Unfortunately, implanting something into everyone's brain so as to nip bullying
in the bud in every instance carries the risk, as we see from so much sad
historical precedent, of a bully writ large, a tyrant, getting control of the
implants. The balance between liberty and security is a seemingly eternal
problem.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 16:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 5:14:06 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
They believe that real life, especially where bullies are
concerned, has *rule*, and they are strictly followed and
enforcable. They often whine about it while the toilet flushes
their glasses down the sewer.
It certainly is mistaken to believe that all humans strictly
respect the rights of other humans.
Or that there are rules which will be followed.
But I don't view complaining about humans who fail to respect
the rights of others as whining.
Depends on how you do it. In your case, yeah, it's whining.
Unfortunately, implanting something into everyone's brain so as
to nip bullying in the bud in every instance carries the risk,
as we see from so much sad historical precedent, of a bully writ
large, a tyrant, getting control of the implants. The balance
between liberty and security is a seemingly eternal problem.
It would be inherently bullying, as are all your insane, violent
fantsies. Thankfully, you are irrelevant, and nobody will ever take
your seriously.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Johnston
2017-02-26 20:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to arrange
as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and he was very
good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
I am aware from accounts of the history of this that Pope Urban VIII perceived
Simplicio in the _Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems_ as being a
caricature of himself. However, the accounts I have read did not state that he
was _correct_ in doing so.
It is quite true that under the rule of Stalin, or under the rule of Kim
Jong-Il, no sane person would have made fun of them in public.
However, this fact in no way diminishes the fact that Stalin and Kim Jong-Il
were criminal tyrants, who, like the Pope in the days of Galileo, acted in a
manner contrary to that portion of the Eternal Law of God which is exemplified
by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
How ridiculously pretentious.
Quadibloc
2017-02-26 20:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good sense or otherwise
is not in any way relevant to an attempt at a moral defense of the conduct of the
Catholic Church and its representatives in the matter.

A Scientific American article trying to exculpate the execution of Giordano
Bruno - after all, his claim that the stars were suns stemmed from Hermetic
occultism, not science - fails in the same way.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-02-26 21:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good sense or otherwise
is not in any way relevant to an attempt at a moral defense
Morality is irrelevant to the factual issue of whether the Catholic
Church was, much less is, institutionally opposed to the advancement of
scientific knowledge. It is a digression.
Robert Bannister
2017-02-27 00:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good sense or otherwise
is not in any way relevant to an attempt at a moral defense
Morality is irrelevant to the factual issue of whether the Catholic
Church was, much less is, institutionally opposed to the advancement of
scientific knowledge. It is a digression.
The Catholic Church has always been much more concerned about its
dignity than science or the morality of its priests. The recent Royal
Commission into child sexual abuse in Australia has produced some
shocking admissions. It's not that the Church really condoned abuse, but
they thought their ancient prerogative of being the only authority to
deal with their priests more important than anything else. With Galileo,
it was the Pope's dignity, not anti-science.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Quadibloc
2017-02-27 07:29:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Morality is irrelevant to the factual issue of whether the Catholic
Church was, much less is, institutionally opposed to the advancement of
scientific knowledge. It is a digression.
Ah. Well, I don't make much of a distinction between "institutionally opposed to
the advancement of scientific knowledge" and "evil", which explains my confusion.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-02-27 09:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
Morality is irrelevant to the factual issue of whether the Catholic
Church was, much less is, institutionally opposed to the advancement of
scientific knowledge. It is a digression.
Ah. Well, I don't make much of a distinction between "institutionally opposed to
the advancement of scientific knowledge" and "evil", which explains my confusion.
Probably. After all, those are two totally different things. Also you
couldn't find any rulers in that timeframe who took well to being called
"Simplisimus"
Quadibloc
2017-02-27 07:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Morality is irrelevant to the factual issue of whether the Catholic
Church was, much less is, institutionally opposed to the advancement of
scientific knowledge. It is a digression.
My initial reply was that my confusion is explained by my not making much of a
distinction between "opposed to the advancement of scientific knowledge" and
"evil". Which Google Groups _may_ have lost, but I think there is just a delay
in displaying it.

On further reflection, however, I think I can be more specific.

It would not occur to me to accuse the Catholic Church of being "opposed to the
advancement of scientific knowledge" for the _sake_ of preventing the
advancement of scientific knowledge. (I remember reading a science-fiction
story where a Catholic-Church-like institution outlawed mixing cement to
prevent defensible fortresses from being built, and then it was overthrown
retroactively creating an alternate universe...)

It had a problem with heliocentricism, specifically, because of a conflict with
a literal interpretation of Scripture. Much as even today a number of
Protestant denominations have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural
Selection.

Given the *existence* of the Inquisition, I did not think it was controversial
that the Catholic Church *was*, even if it is no longer, willing to _initiate
force_ to maintain its _control over people's minds_. I abominate tyranny as
well as bullying.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 22:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <159a4a1d-dd2a-4797-8365-8bfb32a4d3d8
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good sense or otherwise
is not in any way relevant to an attempt at a moral defense of the conduct of the
Catholic Church and its representatives in the matter.
A Scientific American article trying to exculpate the execution of Giordano
Bruno - after all, his claim that the stars were suns stemmed from Hermetic
occultism, not science - fails in the same way.
No "moral defense" is needed. Galileo knew the
law, he broke the law, he was reminded of the
law, he kept on breaking it, he was given plenty
of chances, he continued to break the law, so
what were they supposed to do?

Maybe in your mind the law that states that you
can't present your opinions as fact without
first clearing it with the Church is wrong, but
the fix is to get it changed, not ignore it.

And it hasn't been changed, all that has changed
is the ability of the Church to punish--all they
can do now is kick you out.

As for Bruno, his claim that the stars were suns
has no relevance whatsoever.

First, the idiot was a priest--he'd been through
all the training, he'd been through all the
procedures, he knew the doctrine, he knew the
law, and he persisted in violating it, in major
ways.

Second, he was equal-opportunity--he pissed off
the Catholics, he pissed off the Lutherans, he
pissed off the Calvinists, if there had been any
significant atheist presence he would no doubt
have pissed them off and if he had gotten far
enough east he would likely have succeeded in
pissing off the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and
Shintoists. Pissing people off was what Bruno
_did_.

Third, his "scientific" views were a minor side
issue. Any one of denying the divinity of
Christ, the existence of the Trinity, or the
virginity of Mary would have been enough and he
went for all of those and a lot more besides.
And he used his status as a priest to try to
sell it. When told to knock it off he refused,
over and over again, moved into non-Catholic
territory, when the non-Catholics finally got
sick of him he came crying back to the Church
and the Church wasn't having it.

Quite frankly, I see Bruno as a Darwin Award.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <159a4a1d-dd2a-4797-8365-8bfb32a4d3d8
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 1:28:43 PM UTC-7, David
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good
sense or otherwise is not in any way relevant to an attempt at
a moral defense of the conduct of the Catholic Church and its
representatives in the matter.
A Scientific American article trying to exculpate the execution
of Giordano Bruno - after all, his claim that the stars were
suns stemmed from Hermetic occultism, not science - fails in
the same way.
No "moral defense" is needed. Galileo knew the
law, he broke the law, he was reminded of the
law, he kept on breaking it, he was given plenty
of chances, he continued to break the law, so
what were they supposed to do?
Maybe in your mind the law that states that you
can't present your opinions as fact without
first clearing it with the Church is wrong, but
the fix is to get it changed, not ignore it.
I believe you've just prefectly described the entire anti-Trump
movement.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-02-27 07:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:45:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
Post by J. Clarke
Third, his "scientific" views were a minor side
issue. Any one of denying the divinity of
Christ, the existence of the Trinity, or the
virginity of Mary would have been enough and he
went for all of those and a lot more besides.
Huh. Sounds like a Unitarian.

For Unitarians, the divinity of Christ (in the sense of "God's
begotten son," not God Himself) and the virginity of Mary are
available options, not required doctrine, and the Trinity is right
out.

Once when we lived in Kentucky the new preacher from Allensville
Baptist stopped by to introduce himself. I invited him in for tea and
let him start his pitch for why we might want to come on over the
ridge to his church on Sunday morning, the way all our neighbors did.

I said we weren't Baptists.

He said that didn't necessarily matter, and asked what denomination we
were.

I said (wanting to keep the answer simple and inoffensive) that we
were Unitarians.

He said as how he wasn't familiar with Unitarianism, and asked how the
doctrine might differ from what they believed at Allensville Baptist.

I said, "Well, as the name implies, Unitarians reject the doctrine of
the Trinity, where Baptists are all Trinitarian."

He stood up and said, "Thank you for the tea, but I'll be going now."

I watched to make sure he got out of the driveway okay, as it was kind
of rutted, and after that I never saw him again.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
William Hyde
2017-02-27 20:02:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:45:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
Post by J. Clarke
Third, his "scientific" views were a minor side
issue. Any one of denying the divinity of
Christ, the existence of the Trinity, or the
virginity of Mary would have been enough and he
went for all of those and a lot more besides.
Huh. Sounds like a Unitarian.
The groups which later formed the various Unitarian churches did exist at the time, in Poland at least, but I suspect he was an Arian.

Though I confess that the differences between Arians and Unitarians escape me, and some Unitarians are called Arians (as opposed to Socinians), if they believe that Christ existed prior to being born on Earth.

Newton was that kind of Arian/Unitarian, but he was discreet about it, because while he lived in a more civilized state than Bruno, at the least he would have lost his professorship, been exiled back to his estate, or worse.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Once when we lived in Kentucky the new preacher from Allensville
Baptist stopped by to introduce himself. I invited him in for tea and
let him start his pitch for why we might want to come on over the
ridge to his church on Sunday morning, the way all our neighbors did.
I said we weren't Baptists.
He said that didn't necessarily matter, and asked what denomination we
were.
I said (wanting to keep the answer simple and inoffensive) that we
were Unitarians.
He said as how he wasn't familiar with Unitarianism, and asked how the
doctrine might differ from what they believed at Allensville Baptist.
Words fail me.

William Hyde
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-02-27 20:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:02:19 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:45:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
Post by J. Clarke
Third, his "scientific" views were a minor side
issue. Any one of denying the divinity of
Christ, the existence of the Trinity, or the
virginity of Mary would have been enough and he
went for all of those and a lot more besides.
Huh. Sounds like a Unitarian.
The groups which later formed the various Unitarian churches did exist at the time, in Poland at least, but I suspect he was an Arian.
Though I confess that the differences between Arians and Unitarians escape me, and some Unitarians are called Arians (as opposed to Socinians), if they believe that Christ existed prior to being born on Earth.
I've never met an Arian Unitarian; the Christian Unitarians I've known
were all Socinians, as I understand it. The Transylvanian Unitarians,
as opposed to the Unitarian-Universalists, are definitely Socinian.
Post by William Hyde
Newton was that kind of Arian/Unitarian, but he was discreet about it, because while he lived in a more civilized state than Bruno, at the least he would have lost his professorship, been exiled back to his estate, or worse.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Once when we lived in Kentucky the new preacher from Allensville
Baptist stopped by to introduce himself. I invited him in for tea and
let him start his pitch for why we might want to come on over the
ridge to his church on Sunday morning, the way all our neighbors did.
I said we weren't Baptists.
He said that didn't necessarily matter, and asked what denomination we
were.
I said (wanting to keep the answer simple and inoffensive) that we
were Unitarians.
He said as how he wasn't familiar with Unitarianism, and asked how the
doctrine might differ from what they believed at Allensville Baptist.
Words fail me.
Well, one doesn't actually need much of a background in history or
theology to be ordained as a Southern Baptist preacher. I mean, some
of them HAVE the background, I don't mean to belittle them -- I have a
friend who's a Southern Baptist minister who teaches at a very
respectable college in the upper Midwest -- but it isn't a
requirement.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Kevrob
2017-02-27 23:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:02:19 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Words fail me.
Well, one doesn't actually need much of a background in history or
theology to be ordained as a Southern Baptist preacher. I mean, some
of them HAVE the background, I don't mean to belittle them -- I have a
friend who's a Southern Baptist minister who teaches at a very
respectable college in the upper Midwest -- but it isn't a
requirement.
When I'm in a snarky mood, I often refer to the Reverend Mr.
Bubba T. Bubba, who graduated from his Unca Bubba's Bait Shop and
Bible College. Not every Baptist minister goes to, let us say,
Baylor.

Kevin R
David DeLaney
2017-02-28 07:31:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
The Transylvanian Unitarians,
as opposed to the Unitarian-Universalists, are definitely Socinian.
... and to kill them permanently you need to drive a question mark through
their hearts?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Well, one doesn't actually need much of a background in history or
theology to be ordained as a Southern Baptist preacher. I mean, some
of them HAVE the background, I don't mean to belittle them -- I have a
friend who's a Southern Baptist minister who teaches at a very
respectable college in the upper Midwest -- but it isn't a
requirement.
Some of them are pretty young for what many Christians think of as a 'preacher'
too - like late teens. Reminiscent of the Mormon "Elders" who couldn't legally
drink yet even if they were allowed to by the religion. So they may not even
had -time- to acquire such a background.

Dave, musical earworms: Hello!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-02-28 07:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:31:07 -0600, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
The Transylvanian Unitarians,
as opposed to the Unitarian-Universalists, are definitely Socinian.
... and to kill them permanently you need to drive a question mark through
their hearts?
Sigh.

There are two real places named Transylvania; Bram Stoker didn't make
it up. One of them is in Rumania, though it's mostly ethnically
Hungarian -- after WW2 the Allies (mostly Stalin) gave it to Rumania
to punish the Hungarians for being Fascists. That's the one where the
Transylvanian Unitarians are from. Other than denying the Trinity,
they don't have all that much similarity with Unitarian-Universalists,
though the UUA has sort of adopted them as friends across the sea.
That's also where Stoker put Castle Dracula, though the real Prince
Vlad Dracula's capital was actually in Wallachia, on the other side of
the Carpathians.

The other Transylvania is in central Kentucky; it's the name Daniel
Boone gave to the area, as Indian names were not fashionable at the
time and the Marquis de Lafayette hadn't yet announced the visit
that's responsible for all the French names in the area (e.g., Bourbon
County, Fayette County, Paris, Versailles). At the time, pre-Stoker,
vampires were not associated with Transylvania. The name was dropped
when the state was admitted as Kentucky rather than Transylvania, but
there's still Transylvania University and a few other relics.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Well, one doesn't actually need much of a background in history or
theology to be ordained as a Southern Baptist preacher. I mean, some
of them HAVE the background, I don't mean to belittle them -- I have a
friend who's a Southern Baptist minister who teaches at a very
respectable college in the upper Midwest -- but it isn't a
requirement.
Some of them are pretty young for what many Christians think of as a 'preacher'
too - like late teens. Reminiscent of the Mormon "Elders" who couldn't legally
drink yet even if they were allowed to by the religion. So they may not even
had -time- to acquire such a background.
This guy was young, but not THAT young; I'd guess him at early to mid
twenties.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Quadibloc
2017-02-28 11:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From an annotated copy of Dracula, while the wealthy landowners ruling Transylvania then were Hungarians, even then the majority of the people were ethnic Romanians, then known as "Wallachians".
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good
sense or otherwise is not in any way relevant to an attempt at a
moral defense of the conduct of the Catholic Church and its
representatives in the matter.
A Scientific American article trying to exculpate the execution
of Giordano Bruno - after all, his claim that the stars were
suns stemmed from Hermetic occultism, not science - fails in the
same way.
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in the first
episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno wasn't executed for
his scientific beliefs. He actually was a violent, dangerous heretic.
Fairly classic example, in fact.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-02-27 00:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's good
sense or otherwise is not in any way relevant to an attempt at a
moral defense of the conduct of the Catholic Church and its
representatives in the matter.
A Scientific American article trying to exculpate the execution
of Giordano Bruno - after all, his claim that the stars were
suns stemmed from Hermetic occultism, not science - fails in the
same way.
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in the first
episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno wasn't executed for
his scientific beliefs. He actually was a violent, dangerous heretic.
Fairly classic example, in fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully justify burning people to death.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 03:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:21:42 AM UTC+11, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 1:28:43 PM UTC-7, David
Post by David Johnston
How ridiculously pretentious.
That may be. But my point should be clear: that Galileo's
good sense or otherwise is not in any way relevant to an
attempt at a moral defense of the conduct of the Catholic
Church and its representatives in the matter.
A Scientific American article trying to exculpate the
execution of Giordano Bruno - after all, his claim that the
stars were suns stemmed from Hermetic occultism, not science
- fails in the same way.
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in the
first episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno wasn't
executed for his scientific beliefs. He actually was a violent,
dangerous heretic. Fairly classic example, in fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully justify burning people to death.
If you watn to criticize the Catholic Church, you should do so for
things they actually *did*, rathre than the insane, hateful
fantasies of people who are *far* more irrational today than the
Church is.

Otherwise, you just look *stupid*.

But then, it's not just a look for you, is it?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Mart van de Wege
2017-02-27 10:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in the first
episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno wasn't executed for
his scientific beliefs. He actually was a violent, dangerous heretic.
Fairly classic example, in fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully justify burning people to death.
Well, no, that goes without saying.

However, if you insist he was burned to death for his scientific
insights, you're an ahistorical jackass.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 16:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mart van de Wege
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:21:42 AM UTC+11, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in
the first episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno
wasn't executed for his scientific beliefs. He actually was a
violent, dangerous heretic. Fairly classic example, in fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully justify burning people to death.
Well, no, that goes without saying.
However, if you insist he was burned to death for his scientific
insights, you're an ahistorical jackass.
Christ, now you're made *Marty* look like the smart one.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-02-27 19:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Mart van de Wege
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:21:42 AM UTC+11, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in
the first episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno
wasn't executed for his scientific beliefs. He actually was a
violent, dangerous heretic. Fairly classic example, in fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully justify
burning people to death.
Well, no, that goes without saying.
However, if you insist he was burned to death for his scientific
insights, you're an ahistorical jackass.
Christ, now you're made *Marty* look like the smart one.
When NdGT's version of 'Cosmos' came out, we went through this discussion.
I wound up looking into the history, and one thing was pretty clear. NdGT
really did clean Bruno up to a major degree. The guy seems to have been a
flaming asshole who pissed off anyone who tried to do him a favor.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-27 18:18:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:36:43 PM UTC-5, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Mart van de Wege
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:21:42 AM UTC+11, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in
the first episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno
wasn't executed for his scientific beliefs. He actually was
a violent, dangerous heretic. Fairly classic example, in
fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully
justify burning people to death.
Well, no, that goes without saying.
However, if you insist he was burned to death for his
scientific insights, you're an ahistorical jackass.
Christ, now you're made *Marty* look like the smart one.
When NdGT's version of 'Cosmos' came out, we went through this
discussion. I wound up looking into the history, and one thing
was pretty clear. NdGT really did clean Bruno up to a major
degree. The guy seems to have been a flaming asshole who pissed
off anyone who tried to do him a favor.
I looked into this history, too, and *you* are being
unrealistically generous to Bruno. There does not seem to be a
single group of people he ever *didn't* piss off the point of
wanting to kill him.

Glad you agree that Hamish is full of shit.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Mart van de Wege
2017-02-28 11:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Mart van de Wege
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:21:42 AM UTC+11, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Contrary to Neil theAss Tyson's anti-Catholic propaganda in
the first episode of the rip-off of Cosmos, Giordano Bruno
wasn't executed for his scientific beliefs. He actually was a
violent, dangerous heretic. Fairly classic example, in fact.
Yeah, disagreeing on matters of religious beliefs fully justify
burning people to death.
Well, no, that goes without saying.
However, if you insist he was burned to death for his scientific
insights, you're an ahistorical jackass.
Christ, now you're made *Marty* look like the smart one.
Well, apparently I am smarter than the resident pooh-flinging monkey, as
he can't even copy/paste right.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:10:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And a *lot* of other people, many of whom had very important
friends. His normal method of dealing with criticism was to
arrange as public a humilation of his critics as he could, and
he was very good at it.
Oh. And the relevance of this is exactly what?
Apparently, that you are stupid and clueless as to how politics
affects, well, pretty much everything.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed
since the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned its
lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
The heart of the debate is that Copernican heliocentrism doesn't
fit into Aristotelian cosmology.
There's also the fact that Galileo's work (much less Copernicus')
made significaly less accurate predictions of planetary movements
(because it assumed perfectly circular orbits) than the Ptolemaic
tables (which were based on thousands of years of observation). It
wasn't until Newton invented calculus that this was resolved.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2017-02-26 03:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It wasn't until Newton invented calculus that this was resolved.
One could be a nit-picker about who invented calculus, but maybe
it is better to leave nits be.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 04:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <36559687-0fad-4065-a63b-0e8c43c80c21
@googlegroups.com>, ***@my-deja.com says...
Post by Kevrob
It wasn't until Newton invented calculus that this was resolved.
One could be a nit-picker about who invented calculus, but maybe
it is better to leave nits be.
Kevin R
In any case, Kepler worked out and published the
laws of planetary motion before Newton was born.
Newton figured out the _why_ of it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 06:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:30:31 PM UTC-5, Gutless
It wasn't until Newton invented calculus that this was
resolved.
One could be a nit-picker about who invented calculus, but maybe
it is better to leave nits be.
Indeed, apparently, it was invented more or less simulataneously by
at least two people. But it was Newton's version that was applied to
heliocentrism.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Johnston
2017-02-25 18:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such.
Pfeh. No. His crime was calling the Pope a moron.
Titus G
2017-02-25 19:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since the time of
Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
Yes. The rigorous Catholic approach to the evidence based scientific
method is clearly demonstrated by their investigations into miracles
when conforming sainthoods.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Titus G
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed
since the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned its
lessons from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such. The Catholics still
don't allow that. In a sense science in
Catholicism is more rigorous than in the secular
world--it isn't just evidence based, but also
has to stand up over time.
Yes. The rigorous Catholic approach to the evidence based
scientific method is clearly demonstrated by their
investigations into miracles when conforming sainthoods.
And? Is it your conention that *everything* can be explained by
science right now? There there has never been a single thing happen
that can't be explained? There is no practical difference "God" and
"random chance." It's all a matter of perspective.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4f537d9a-31ee-4302-82d0-4deaaf07aec6
@googlegroups.com>, ***@ecn.ab.ca says...
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since
the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons
from that.
Actually it hasn't. Galileo's crime wasn't
"science", it was stating something as being
Truth without going through the process for
establishing it as such.
Actually, to be specific, what he got in trouble for was teaching
that the Bible was wrong. In so many words. Twice.

Well, that, and being a first class asshole to anyone who dared
question him in any way. Mostly the latter. Don't publicly
humiliate people who have friends in high places, and challenge the
authority of the government at the same time.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
It certainly is true that the Catholic Church has changed since
the time of Galileo, having - eventually - learned its lessons
from that.
Nothing that you know about Galileo and the Catholic Church is true.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-25 21:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:21:06 PM UTC-6, David
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23,
2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years
from Earth, hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely
rocky worlds the size of Earth and smaller. The star boasts
not only the largest number of Earth-like worlds in a
single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the
habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one
or more of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have
no indigenous sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow
non-Catholics to settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I
won't ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
The Catholic Church pretty much paid for the Renaissance, and the
Age of Reason. Everything (bad) we know about the Catholic Church
and science today is Martin Luther's propaganda, little of which
had any basis in reality. (He had some pretty nasty anti-semetic
screeds, too.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Cryptoengineer
2017-02-26 02:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:21:06 PM UTC-6, David
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years
from Earth, hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely
rocky worlds the size of Earth and smaller. The star boasts
not only the largest number of Earth-like worlds in a
single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the
habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one
or more of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have
no indigenous sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow
non-Catholics to settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I
won't ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
The Catholic Church pretty much paid for the Renaissance, and the
Age of Reason. Everything (bad) we know about the Catholic Church
and science today is Martin Luther's propaganda, little of which
had any basis in reality. (He had some pretty nasty anti-semetic
screeds, too.)
At this point, I need to point out that criticising the Catholic
Church is a reliable Berserk Button for GUCS, despite his
repeated assertions not be connected to it.

I've called him out on the Galileo case several times over the
years, pointing to official Vatican documents on the matter,
which make it clear he was punished for thought crime. His
non-credible response is that they are forgeries.

To descend to his NSFW level: I don't know how much priest-cock
GUCS sucked while growing up, but it must have been a lot.

pt
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 02:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years
from Earth, hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely
rocky worlds the size of Earth and smaller. The star boasts
not only the largest number of Earth-like worlds in a
single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if one
or more of the planets prove in fact to be habitable and have
no indigenous sentient life-forms, will the Trappists allow
non-Catholics to settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence? I
won't ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
The Catholic Church pretty much paid for the Renaissance, and the
Age of Reason. Everything (bad) we know about the Catholic Church
and science today is Martin Luther's propaganda, little of which
had any basis in reality. (He had some pretty nasty anti-semetic
screeds, too.)
At this point, I need to point out that criticising the Catholic
Church is a reliable Berserk Button for GUCS, despite his
repeated assertions not be connected to it.
I've called him out on the Galileo case several times over the
years, pointing to official Vatican documents on the matter,
which make it clear he was punished for thought crime. His
non-credible response is that they are forgeries.
To descend to his NSFW level: I don't know how much priest-cock
GUCS sucked while growing up, but it must have been a lot.
pt
Why is it so important to you?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 02:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February
23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40
light-years from Earth, hosts at least seven
exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest
number of Earth-like worlds in a single system known to
date, but also the most planets that could host liquid
water on their surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within
the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if
one or more of the planets prove in fact to be habitable
and have no indigenous sentient life-forms, will the
Trappists allow non-Catholics to settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its
existence? I won't ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
The Catholic Church pretty much paid for the Renaissance, and
the Age of Reason. Everything (bad) we know about the
Catholic Church and science today is Martin Luther's
propaganda, little of which had any basis in reality. (He had
some pretty nasty anti-semetic screeds, too.)
At this point, I need to point out that criticising the
Catholic Church is a reliable Berserk Button for GUCS, despite
his repeated assertions not be connected to it.
I've called him out on the Galileo case several times over the
years, pointing to official Vatican documents on the matter,
which make it clear he was punished for thought crime. His
non-credible response is that they are forgeries.
To descend to his NSFW level: I don't know how much priest-cock
GUCS sucked while growing up, but it must have been a lot.
pt
Why is it so important to you?
Precisely. It's the perfect storm of his blind hatred of religion,
especially the Catholic Church (maybe he's projecting on that abuse
thing), and his masturbatory fantasies about me, that rise to the
level of obsession. He *can't* help himself.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 02:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Bannister
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:21:06 PM UTC-6, David
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40
light-years from Earth, hosts at least seven exoplanets,
most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth and smaller.
The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the
most planets that could host liquid water on their
surfaces.
Of the seven planets in TRAPPIST-1, three lie within the habitable zone,
One important question that I have not seen addressed: if
one or more of the planets prove in fact to be habitable
and have no indigenous sentient life-forms, will the
Trappists allow non-Catholics to settle there?
Will Catholics and Fundamentalists even accept its existence?
I won't ask about Starmaker.
Why would Catholics not? While it's fashionable
to paint Catholics as anti-science the fact is
that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic
priest who got promoted to head of the Vatican
Academy of Science because of it. Further the
Vatican has an astronomy program and operates
one of the finest telescopes in the world.
The Catholic Church pretty much paid for the Renaissance, and
the Age of Reason. Everything (bad) we know about the Catholic
Church and science today is Martin Luther's propaganda, little
of which had any basis in reality. (He had some pretty nasty
anti-semetic screeds, too.)
At this point, I need to point out that criticising the Catholic
Church is a reliable Berserk Button for GUCS, despite his
repeated assertions not be connected to it.
You're so *easy*.
Post by Cryptoengineer
I've called him out on the Galileo case several times over the
years,
And I've been right each time. And you've admitted it each time.

And you will again.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-02-26 14:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Everything (bad) we know about the Catholic Church
and science today is Martin Luther's propaganda, little of which
had any basis in reality. (He had some pretty nasty anti-semetic
screeds, too.)
You are quite right about Martin Luther having pretty nasty anti-Semitic
screeds.

However, I'm surprised to hear that our view of the Galileo affair came from
Martin Luther, since he said of Copernicus "the fool would overturn the whole
science of astronomy".

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-02-26 23:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:22:15 PM UTC-7, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Everything (bad) we know about the Catholic Church
and science today is Martin Luther's propaganda, little of
which had any basis in reality. (He had some pretty nasty
anti-semetic screeds, too.)
You are quite right about Martin Luther having pretty nasty
anti-Semitic screeds.
However, I'm surprised to hear that our view of the Galileo
affair came from Martin Luther, since he said of Copernicus "the
fool would overturn the whole science of astronomy".
The view that the Catholic Church was (and is) anti-science comes,
originally, from Luther. He may well have hated Galileo, too, but
there was nobody, and nothing, he hated more than the Papacy,
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-23 21:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.

(2) While everyone's talking about TRAPPIST ...
what should some other Big Dumb Projects in science
bé called, from a sci-fi reader or watcher's point
of view? How about a "Search for Extraterrestrial
Recipe Lists In Nearby Galaxies"?
Kevrob
2017-02-23 23:12:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.
(2) While everyone's talking about TRAPPIST ...
what should some other Big Dumb Projects in science
bé called, from a sci-fi reader or watcher's point
of view? How about a "Search for Extraterrestrial
Recipe Lists In Nearby Galaxies"?
What purpose would that serve?

"Knowledge of Near and Inter-Galactic Hankering for Terrans?"

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-24 20:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.
(2) While everyone's talking about TRAPPIST ...
what should some other Big Dumb Projects in science
bé called, from a sci-fi reader or watcher's point
of view? How about a "Search for Extraterrestrial
Recipe Lists In Nearby Galaxies"?
What purpose would that serve?
"Knowledge of Near and Inter-Galactic Hankering for Terrans?"
Good point.

"Automatic System In Mimicry Of", um - "Vage-earners"?
David DeLaney
2017-02-26 09:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
(2) While everyone's talking about TRAPPIST ...
what should some other Big Dumb Projects in science
bé called, from a sci-fi reader or watcher's point
of view? How about a "Search for Extraterrestrial
Recipe Lists In Nearby Galaxies"?
What purpose would that serve?
it's a cookbook ... a multimillion-lightyear-old COOKBOOK!
Post by Kevrob
"Knowledge of Near and Inter-Galactic Hankering for Terrans?"
Atomic, dude!

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2017-02-26 14:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
(2) While everyone's talking about TRAPPIST ...
what should some other Big Dumb Projects in science
bé called, from a sci-fi reader or watcher's point
of view? How about a "Search for Extraterrestrial
Recipe Lists In Nearby Galaxies"?
What purpose would that serve?
it's a cookbook ... a multimillion-lightyear-old COOKBOOK!
Post by Kevrob
"Knowledge of Near and Inter-Galactic Hankering for Terrans?"
Atomic, dude!
Uhhh... 5,000 thumbs up?

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-24 04:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.
...Oh, what a fool l am.

I meant, the first star.
Post by Robert Carnegie
(2) While everyone's talking about TRAPPIST ...
what should some other Big Dumb Projects in science
be called, from a sci-fi reader or watcher's point
of view? How about a "Search for Extraterrestrial
Recipe Lists In Nearby Galaxies"?
James Nicoll
2017-02-25 14:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.
...Oh, what a fool l am.
I meant, the first star.
Proxima seems to have one and only planet but it is in Proxima's
hilariously tiny potentially habitable zone. Lalande 21185 also
appears to have a planet in its habitable zone (although it may
be just a bit too close to the inner part of the zone). Those are
the closest and iirc 4th closest systems to us. Dim as well, which
means the goldilocks zones are small targets.

So, Earthlike planets in potentially habitable zones seems to be a
thing. A common thing, perhaps.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Robert Carnegie
2017-02-25 17:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.
...Oh, what a fool l am.
I meant, the first star.
Well, my little joke half-works, so I'm not
complaining (perhaps that's you). What I
actually suspected was that at publication time,
they picked the best star they found with planets,
and called that star TRAPPIST-1 (after the beer,
I now read).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1>
says, however, that it's the /first/ star in
their survey where planets were found.
And, I suppose, TRAPPIST-0.001 to 0.999
were busts.
Cryptoengineer
2017-02-25 19:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
(1) They were pretty lucky to hit this on the first
planet they looked at, I'd expect around No. 334334
or something.
...Oh, what a fool l am.
I meant, the first star.
Well, my little joke half-works, so I'm not
complaining (perhaps that's you). What I
actually suspected was that at publication time,
they picked the best star they found with planets,
and called that star TRAPPIST-1 (after the beer,
I now read).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1>
says, however, that it's the /first/ star in
their survey where planets were found.
And, I suppose, TRAPPIST-0.001 to 0.999
were busts.
I feel compelled to mention that the system is tiny - the star is less
than twice Jupiter's diameter, and all 7 planets have orbits less than
half the size of Mercury's.

Also occultation can only find a small ( < 5%) of planetary systems.

pt
a425couple
2017-02-24 16:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
TRAPPIST-1: System with 7 Earth-Size Exoplanets
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 23, 2017
The ultracool star TRAPPIST-1, located about 40 light-years from Earth,
hosts at least seven exoplanets, most likely rocky worlds the size of Earth
and smaller. The star boasts not only the largest number of Earth-like
worlds in a single system known to date, but also the most planets that
could host liquid water on their surfaces. -----
http://www.space.com/35806-trappist-1-facts.html
http://www.space.com/35811-life-on-trappist-1-earth-like-exoplanets.html

What Would Life Be Like on the TRAPPIST-1 Planets?
By Calla Cofield, Space.com Staff Writer

The TRAPPIST-1 system is home to seven planets that are about the size of
Earth and potentially just the right temperature to support life. So how
would life on these alien worlds be different than life on Earth? Here are
some of the major differences.
Amazing night-sky views

Perhaps one of the most dramatic things that visitors to the TRAPPIST-1
system would notice is the view of the other six planets in the sky. In some
cases, a neighboring planet might appear twice as large as the full moon
seen from Earth. [Images: The 7 Earth-Size Worlds of TRAPPIST-1]

"If you were on the surface of one of these planets you would have a
wonderful view of the other planets," Michaël Gillon, an astronomer at the
University of Liège in Belgium and an author on the new paper, said in
describing the discovery. "You wouldn't see them like we see Venus or Mars,
like dots of light. You would see them really as we see the moon. . You
would see the structures on these worlds."


This chart shows the size of the TRAPPIST-1 star and planets compared to
Jupiter and some of its large moons.
Credit: ESO/O. Furtak



All seven of the known planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system orbit closer to
their star than Mercury orbits the sun. The innermost planet and the
outermost planet are almost 30 times closer together than Earth and Venus at
their largest separation.

The reason these seven planetary siblings can fit into such tight orbits is
because their parent star is an ultracool dwarf star. It's about 2,000 times
dimmer than the sun, and only slightly larger than the planet Jupiter.

Three of the known planets orbit the star in what's known as the "habitable
zone," or the region around a star where the planet could have a surface
temperature right for liquid water. The position of the habitable zone is
different around each star - on a very dim star like TRAPPIST-1, which
radiates significantly less heat than the sun, the habitable zone lies much
closer to the star.

But there's no guarantee that a planet in the habitable zone of TRAPPIST-1
can host liquid water on its surface. Without an atmosphere, water won't
remain a liquid in space. For example, on comets (which don't have
atmospheres), water ice sublimates directly into a vapor when it is heated
by the sun.

Perpetual twilight

Even though the seven known planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system orbit extremely
close to their parent star, the natural lighting on these planets would seem
very dim to a human visitor.

Ultracool dwarf stars produce significantly less radiation than sun-like
stars, and most of TRAPPIST-1's light is radiated in the infrared
wavelengths rather than visible wavelengths, according to Amaury Triaud of
the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge in England, a
co-author on the paper describing the discovery.

TRAPPIST-1 would be able to warm the air on the surface of the seven
planets, but the daytime skies would never get brighter than Earth's skies
just after sunset, suffusing the world in a salmon-colored light, Triaud
told reporters on Tuesday (Feb. 21).
This artist's rendition imagines what the seven planets of the TRAPPIST-1
system might look like.
This artist's rendition imagines what the seven planets of the TRAPPIST-1
system might look like.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Short years, eternal days (and nights)

The TRAPPIST-1 planets take almost no time at all to make one complete orbit
around their parent star. Six of the planets make a complete an orbit in
anywhere from 1.5 to 12.4 days. (The most distant planet's orbital period is
thought to be about 20 days).

That means one "year" (or what scientists call the orbital period) on most
of these planets is less than two weeks on Earth. But the orbital period of
these planets is slightly upset by their neighbors.

"[The planets] tug and pull each other as they go orbiting around their
star," Sean Carey, manager of NASA's Spitzer Science Center at Caltech in
Pasadena, California, said during a NASA news conference on Wednesday (Feb.
22). Using the Spitzer Space Telescope, scientists were able to see the
seven planets each time they passed in front of the dwarf star, or what's
known as a transit.

"What that does is it changes the timing of the transits a little bit, as
the planets are tugging each other, so they (the transits) aren't happening
as regularly as you would expect without the tug," Carey said.
A travel poster for the TRAPPIST-1 system. Planets in the system would
undoubtedly offer great night sky views.
A travel poster for the TRAPPIST-1 system. Planets in the system would
undoubtedly offer great night sky views.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Even though the years are short in the TRAPPIST-1 system, the days would be
very long - almost eternal, because the according to the scientists behind
the discovery, it's very likely the seven planets are tidally locked,
meaning that one side of each planet is always facing the star. The moon is
tidally locked to Earth, which is we see only one side of our lunar
companion (at least from the ground).

There's some debate about whether or not a tidally locked planet could host
life. Some tidally locked planets might be uninhabitable because the side
facing the star would become extremely hot, while the other side would grow
extremely cold. But some models show that if the planet's atmosphere can
dissipate heat across the planet's surface, then life could still find a
welcoming home there.

To learn more about the differences between the individual planets in the
TRAPPIST-1 system, check out this Space.com gallery.

Follow Calla Cofield @callacofield. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and
Google+. Original article on Space.com.
Greg Goss
2017-02-26 11:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Even though the years are short in the TRAPPIST-1 system, the days would be
very long - almost eternal, because the according to the scientists behind
the discovery, it's very likely the seven planets are tidally locked,
meaning that one side of each planet is always facing the star. The moon is
tidally locked to Earth, which is we see only one side of our lunar
companion (at least from the ground).
Might the planets tide-lock to each other rather than to the star? I
seem to recall that Venus is tide-locked to Earth with a hugely larger
separation.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
John Dallman
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Might the planets tide-lock to each other rather than to the star?
I seem to recall that Venus is tide-locked to Earth with a hugely
larger separation.
That idea was considered, but seems to have been overturned in 1979,
according to the reference in the Wikipedia article.

John
Loading...