| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Shaktyai" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2007 01:57:38 AM |
| Object: |
Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
Can anyone explain me why 400 years after Galileo's death 99.99 % of
the people still believe that Galileo was the one who discovered that
the earth and the other planets are revolving around the sun ?
Why is there so few people even among the physicists that realize that
the Galilean relativity states that there is no such thing as a
preffered referential ?
Why is there so few people even among the physicists that realize that
to claim that the planets are revolving around the sun is as false as
to claim they are revolving around the earth ?
Why is there so few people even among the physicists willing to use
the proper statement:
In the heliocentric Galilean referential all the planets have an easy
to describe orbit which is elliptic. While in the geocentric Galilean
referential they have a complex orbit.
Is there anyone out there who knows the reasons why the Galilean
relativity is so poorly understood ?
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
31 Mar 2007 05:08:45 AM |
|
|
"Shaktyai" <Fabrice.Allais@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1175324257.960491.300800@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Can anyone explain me why 400 years after Galileo's death 99.99 % of
the people still believe that Galileo was the one who discovered that
the earth and the other planets are revolving around the sun ?
Only if you can explain why 102.3% of morons invent their own statistics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shaktyai" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
31 Mar 2007 05:56:45 AM |
|
|
On 31 mar, 12:08, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
"Shaktyai" <Fabrice.All...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175324257.960491.300800@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Can anyone explain me why 400 years after Galileo's death 99.99 % of
the people still believe that Galileo was the one who discovered that
the earth and the other planets are revolving around the sun ?
Only if you can explain why 102.3% of morons invent their own statistics.
I have already lost twice my bets and must pay a beer to a couple of
friends. Every year the students are as stupid as the year before;
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Drake" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
05 Apr 2007 07:48:46 PM |
|
|
Doesn't this deserve some kind of Posting of the Month award for truly
massive and unwavering wrongness? I mean, even if it's deliberate, it's an
achievement.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:57:38 UTC, "Shaktyai" <Fabrice.Allais@gmail.com>
wrote:
Can anyone explain me why 400 years after Galileo's death 99.99 % of
the people still believe that Galileo was the one who discovered that
the earth and the other planets are revolving around the sun ?
Well, it doesn't seem that hard: he was the one who got into deep doo-doo
with the authorities over the matter. That gets you a lot of publicity,
and for a long time if many people decide that this kind of thing
(persecuting people who speak out) is some kind of pattern.
And of course, the 99.99% figure is pulled out of someone's *****. Just
25,000 people in the USA who have heard of Copernicus? Even my fellow
Americans aren't quite that consistently stupid. Anyway, there are more
than that many Polish-Americans in Hamtramck alone!
Why is there so few people even among the physicists that realize that
the Galilean relativity states that there is no such thing as a
preffered referential ?
That's funny, my impression from 100% of the physicists I've dealt with is
that 100% of them know it well, and plenty of them will mention it at the
drop of a hat. Or of a mention of either theory of Relativity. Though of
course, obviously, Galileo didn't say a thing about accelerated frames and
the transformations between them.
Why is there so few people even among the physicists that realize that
to claim that the planets are revolving around the sun is as false as
to claim they are revolving around the earth ?
Odd: hardly ever met one who didn't understand that better than I do. For
certain values of "false", that is.
Why is there so few people even among the physicists willing to use
the proper statement:
In the heliocentric Galilean referential all the planets have an easy
to describe orbit which is elliptic.
And here I keep having to respond to Kepler fans who state (quite
correctly) that Galileo didn't do ellipses and (not so correctly) get all
huffy about it.
While in the geocentric Galilean
referential they have a complex orbit.
Duhh. I guess nobody understood that till now. BTW Kepler called it a
pretzel.
Is there anyone out there who knows the reasons why the Galilean
relativity is so poorly understood ?
I know: the same reason that molds were able to grow on the Moon to turn
it into green cheese.
--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
06 Apr 2007 07:54:29 AM |
|
|
"Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote in message =
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-Sj1m37vBzGOH@localhost...
Doesn't this deserve some kind of Posting of the Month award for truly =
massive and unwavering wrongness? I mean, even if it's deliberate, =
it's an
achievement.
=20
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:57:38 UTC, "Shaktyai" =
<Fabrice.Allais@gmail.com>=20
wrote:
=20
Can anyone explain me why 400 years after Galileo's death 99.99 % of
the people still believe that Galileo was the one who discovered that
the earth and the other planets are revolving around the sun ?
=20
Well, it doesn't seem that hard: he was the one who got into deep =
doo-doo=20
with the authorities over the matter. That gets you a lot of =
publicity,=20
and for a long time if many people decide that this kind of thing=20
(persecuting people who speak out) is some kind of pattern.
=20
And of course, the 99.99% figure is pulled out of someone's *****. Just=20
25,000 people in the USA who have heard of Copernicus? Even my fellow=20
Americans aren't quite that consistently stupid. Anyway, there are =
more=20
than that many Polish-Americans in Hamtramck alone!
=20
=20
Why is there so few people even among the physicists that realize =
that
the Galilean relativity states that there is no such thing as a
preffered referential ?
=20
That's funny, my impression from 100% of the physicists I've dealt =
with is
that 100% of them know it well, and plenty of them will mention it at =
the=20
drop of a hat. Or of a mention of either theory of Relativity. Though =
of=20
course, obviously, Galileo didn't say a thing about accelerated frames =
and
the transformations between them.=20
Yes he did.
"It took Galileo many years to arrive at the correct expression of the =
law of falling bodies, which he presented in Discorsi e dimostrazioni =
matematiche intorno a due nove scienze/Discourses and Mathematical =
Discoveries Concerning Two New Sciences (1638) as:
s=3D1/2at2
where s is speed, a is the acceleration due to gravity, and t is time. =
He found that the distance travelled by a falling body is proportional =
to the square of the time of descent."
=
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0003841.html=
http://exploringdata.cqu.edu.au/ws_galil.htm
He knew.
=20
=20
Why is there so few people even among the physicists that realize =
that
to claim that the planets are revolving around the sun is as false as
to claim they are revolving around the earth ?
=20
Odd: hardly ever met one who didn't understand that better than I do. =
For=20
certain values of "false", that is.
=20
=20
Why is there so few people even among the physicists willing to use
the proper statement:
In the heliocentric Galilean referential all the planets have an easy
to describe orbit which is elliptic.=20
=20
And here I keep having to respond to Kepler fans who state (quite=20
correctly) that Galileo didn't do ellipses and (not so correctly) get =
all=20
huffy about it.
"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the =
tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of =
independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon =
on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." =
-- Galileo.
He was wrong that time.=20
"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the =
extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost =
philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and =
invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, =
to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope." -- Galileo.
He was right that time.
"I wish, my dear Dan Drake, that we could have a good laugh together at =
the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the =
foremost philosophers of this newsgroup? In spite of my oft-repeated =
efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a =
glutted adder, to look at the stars with my computer."
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
=20
While in the geocentric Galilean
referential they have a complex orbit.
=20
Duhh. I guess nobody understood that till now. BTW Kepler called it a=20
pretzel.=20
=20
=20
Is there anyone out there who knows the reasons why the Galilean
relativity is so poorly understood ?
=20
=20
I know: the same reason that molds were able to grow on the Moon to =
turn=20
it into green cheese.
Ah... I see. I have often wondered since we know the Moon
is made of Gouda, how it ever became green.
=
http://students.jmc.ksu.edu/ugrad/anniew/dsc/adoptacow/images/gouda_img.j=
pg
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2006/images/red%20moon.jpg
=20
--=20
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
31 Mar 2007 12:19:33 PM |
|
|
Shaktyai wrote:
Can anyone explain me why 400 years after Galileo's death 99.99 % of
the people still believe that Galileo was the one who discovered that
the earth and the other planets are revolving around the sun ?
[snip blather]
The Church of Rome gave Galileo great press. You don't know *****
about the facts nor about statistical reportage. Why does everybody
refer to him by his Christian name not his surname? It's always
"Madame Curie" but never "No-Panties Marie."
Hey git: It's called the "Copernican solar system." Does that give
you a hint? Everybody else makes do.
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
<http://imagesource.art.com/images/products/large/10274000/10274574.jpg>
1551 AD
<http://www.wisegorilla.com/images/solarsystem/copernican%20solar%20system%20atlas%20coalestic%201660.jpg>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
01 Apr 2007 06:57:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
--
"kAre har boz nist kharman kuftan
gAve nar mikhAhado marde kohan"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
01 Apr 2007 07:55:31 AM |
|
|
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
01 Apr 2007 08:25:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
--
"When the question is if he was a fag or a god,
you hide the facts like Baha'is do."
- Maleki
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
01 Apr 2007 07:25:54 AM |
|
|
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
01 Apr 2007 09:17:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 07 12:25:54 GMT,
wrote:
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
The mother of Western mind speaks.
Who asked for your worthless credit. I'm saying a lot
of you Westerners are crooks. Including the best and
most famous among you. Does "Newton" sound familiar?
It's in your culture and upbringings. And Moslems don't
like it. They look down on you mainly for this reason.
But you must hear it from your "Iran Analyst" to
believe it, I guess. Well, they're as crooked as
yourselves, so... . Bug off, I've made promisses to my
sweetheart and don't want to break them. You know what
and where you direct my thoughts.
--
"Ashpaz ke dotA shod Ash yA shur misheh yA
binamak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
02 Apr 2007 05:41:32 AM |
|
|
In article <1u0dbjgeyii99.18g0egafa1ea1.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 07 12:25:54 GMT,
wrote:
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
The mother of Western mind speaks.
Who asked for your worthless credit.
You did.
I'm saying a lot
of you Westerners are crooks. Including the best and
most famous among you. Does "Newton" sound familiar?
It's in your culture and upbringings. And Moslems don't
like it. They look down on you mainly for this reason.
But you must hear it from your "Iran Analyst" to
believe it, I guess. Well, they're as crooked as
yourselves,
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due. Until papers are written based
on the archives in your libraries, nobody, including you,
will know which and what ideas were documented by people
of Islam. From what I've read, the culture wasn't very
interested in history so didn't write about it. Doing
this knowledge mining requires scholarship and serious
study in addition to having access to archives.
<snip>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
02 Apr 2007 08:31:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1u0dbjgeyii99.18g0egafa1ea1.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 07 12:25:54 GMT,
wrote:
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
The mother of Western mind speaks.
Who asked for your worthless credit.
You did.
I'm saying a lot
of you Westerners are crooks. Including the best and
most famous among you. Does "Newton" sound familiar?
It's in your culture and upbringings. And Moslems don't
like it. They look down on you mainly for this reason.
But you must hear it from your "Iran Analyst" to
believe it, I guess. Well, they're as crooked as
yourselves,
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due. Until papers are written based
on the archives in your libraries, nobody, including you,
will know which and what ideas were documented by people
of Islam. From what I've read, the culture wasn't very
interested in history so didn't write about it. Doing
this knowledge mining requires scholarship and serious
study in addition to having access to archives.
So, Freak, what has Islam contributed in the past couple
of centuries? Reveling in "the glory of the ancients"
has no value to anyone. That sort of thing is very much
like the childrens' taunts "my dad can beat up your dad."
Can you actually bring anything currently worthy of our
attentions to the table? Western civilization has been
hemmoraging new ideas during the same period your people
were following Lawrence, and others like him, on camels.
Perhaps Allah has tied your hands. How many times a day
do you have to stop doing anything productive to eat rug
while you pray to him? Do you think he lives in Mecca?
Why is Allah so jealous of your time anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
02 Apr 2007 07:36:34 AM |
|
|
In article <2db05$461105c4$4fe719b$5233@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
wrote:
In article <1u0dbjgeyii99.18g0egafa1ea1.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 07 12:25:54 GMT,
wrote:
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
The mother of Western mind speaks.
Who asked for your worthless credit.
You did.
I'm saying a lot
of you Westerners are crooks. Including the best and
most famous among you. Does "Newton" sound familiar?
It's in your culture and upbringings. And Moslems don't
like it. They look down on you mainly for this reason.
But you must hear it from your "Iran Analyst" to
believe it, I guess. Well, they're as crooked as
yourselves,
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due. Until papers are written based
on the archives in your libraries, nobody, including you,
will know which and what ideas were documented by people
of Islam. From what I've read, the culture wasn't very
interested in history so didn't write about it. Doing
this knowledge mining requires scholarship and serious
study in addition to having access to archives.
So, Freak, what has Islam contributed in the past couple
of centuries? Reveling in "the glory of the ancients"
has no value to anyone. That sort of thing is very much
like the childrens' taunts "my dad can beat up your dad."
Can you actually bring anything currently worthy of our
attentions to the table? Western civilization has been
hemmoraging new ideas during the same period your people
were following Lawrence, and others like him, on camels.
Perhaps Allah has tied your hands. How many times a day
do you have to stop doing anything productive to eat rug
while you pray to him? Do you think he lives in Mecca?
Why is Allah so jealous of your time anyway?
I just finished Robert Silverberg's biography about the Darius
stone. I'd never heard of that monument before rescuing this
book. There is a sect of Islam that would have destroyed
that stone and any "history" of its forebears. That is
why Islam doesn't get much credit...so far. It has severe
NIH (not invented here) syndrome built into its primary
religion tenets.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 12:36:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <2db05$461105c4$4fe719b$5233@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
wrote:
In article <1u0dbjgeyii99.18g0egafa1ea1.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 07 12:25:54 GMT,
wrote:
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
The mother of Western mind speaks.
Who asked for your worthless credit.
You did.
I'm saying a lot
of you Westerners are crooks. Including the best and
most famous among you. Does "Newton" sound familiar?
It's in your culture and upbringings. And Moslems don't
like it. They look down on you mainly for this reason.
But you must hear it from your "Iran Analyst" to
believe it, I guess. Well, they're as crooked as
yourselves,
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due. Until papers are written based
on the archives in your libraries, nobody, including you,
will know which and what ideas were documented by people
of Islam. From what I've read, the culture wasn't very
interested in history so didn't write about it. Doing
this knowledge mining requires scholarship and serious
study in addition to having access to archives.
So, Freak, what has Islam contributed in the past couple
of centuries? Reveling in "the glory of the ancients"
has no value to anyone. That sort of thing is very much
like the childrens' taunts "my dad can beat up your dad."
Can you actually bring anything currently worthy of our
attentions to the table? Western civilization has been
hemmoraging new ideas during the same period your people
were following Lawrence, and others like him, on camels.
Perhaps Allah has tied your hands. How many times a day
do you have to stop doing anything productive to eat rug
while you pray to him? Do you think he lives in Mecca?
Why is Allah so jealous of your time anyway?
I just finished Robert Silverberg's biography about the Darius
stone. I'd never heard of that monument before rescuing this
book. There is a sect of Islam that would have destroyed
that stone and any "history" of its forebears. That is
why Islam doesn't get much credit...so far. It has severe
NIH (not invented here) syndrome built into its primary
religion tenets.
Hopefully they are presently in their dark ages, and
will recover sensibility sooner than later. For the
moment, they have nothing to be bragging about.
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 04:53:21 AM |
|
|
In article <98f2d$46133972$4fe75a0$29774@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <2db05$461105c4$4fe719b$5233@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due. Until papers are written based
on the archives in your libraries, nobody, including you,
will know which and what ideas were documented by people
of Islam. From what I've read, the culture wasn't very
interested in history so didn't write about it. Doing
this knowledge mining requires scholarship and serious
study in addition to having access to archives.
So, Freak, what has Islam contributed in the past couple
of centuries? Reveling in "the glory of the ancients"
has no value to anyone. That sort of thing is very much
like the childrens' taunts "my dad can beat up your dad."
Can you actually bring anything currently worthy of our
attentions to the table? Western civilization has been
hemmoraging new ideas during the same period your people
were following Lawrence, and others like him, on camels.
Perhaps Allah has tied your hands. How many times a day
do you have to stop doing anything productive to eat rug
while you pray to him? Do you think he lives in Mecca?
Why is Allah so jealous of your time anyway?
I just finished Robert Silverberg's biography about the Darius
stone. I'd never heard of that monument before rescuing this
book. There is a sect of Islam that would have destroyed
that stone and any "history" of its forebears. That is
why Islam doesn't get much credit...so far. It has severe
NIH (not invented here) syndrome built into its primary
religion tenets.
Hopefully they are presently in their dark ages, and
will recover sensibility sooner than later.
This won't happen if extremists are allowed to play with matches.
For the
moment, they have nothing to be bragging about.
There were two countries we visited that were working on building
stuff rather than destruction: Turkey and Morocco. The "let's
revert back to olden days which never existed" flavors of the
religion are working on undoing all that.
What I find strange is people thinking that all they have to do
is one unusual thing and then expect cudos for the rest of
eternity. The only people who get this kind of credit are those
who keep working at making stuff work.
/BAH
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 06:39:59 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:36:57 -0500, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
Funny, I always thought that the premise underlying religion was to
explain death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 09:39:58 AM |
|
|
Ben Newsam wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:36:57 -0500, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
Funny, I always thought that the premise underlying religion was to
explain death.
If that's all it takes to improve your life....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 06:08:36 AM |
|
|
In article <kj37139teene3dfqrfbtp9ce3f8e55kkl8@4ax.com>,
Ben Newsam <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:36:57 -0500, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
Funny, I always thought that the premise underlying religion was to
explain death.
Nope. That's how a religion maintains control.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 12:47:45 AM |
|
|
In article <98f2d$46133972$4fe75a0$29774@DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <2db05$461105c4$4fe719b$5233@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
...
I just finished Robert Silverberg's biography about the Darius
stone. I'd never heard of that monument before rescuing this
book. There is a sect of Islam that would have destroyed
that stone and any "history" of its forebears. That is
why Islam doesn't get much credit...so far. It has severe
NIH (not invented here) syndrome built into its primary
religion tenets.
Hopefully they are presently in their dark ages, and
will recover sensibility sooner than later. For the
moment, they have nothing to be bragging about.
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
Unfortunately, the first often leads to the second. Nothing special
about religions in this respect, true for all ideologies and belief
systems in general. A sense of certainty is never risk free.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 12:51:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <98f2d$46133972$4fe75a0$29774@DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <2db05$461105c4$4fe719b$5233@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
...
I just finished Robert Silverberg's biography about the Darius
stone. I'd never heard of that monument before rescuing this
book. There is a sect of Islam that would have destroyed
that stone and any "history" of its forebears. That is
why Islam doesn't get much credit...so far. It has severe
NIH (not invented here) syndrome built into its primary
religion tenets.
Hopefully they are presently in their dark ages, and
will recover sensibility sooner than later. For the
moment, they have nothing to be bragging about.
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
Unfortunately, the first often leads to the second. Nothing special
about religions in this respect, true for all ideologies and belief
systems in general. A sense of certainty is never risk free.
But then, neither is a sense of uncertainty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
04 Apr 2007 01:15:44 AM |
|
|
In article <2f349$46133cf2$4fe75a0$29851@DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <98f2d$46133972$4fe75a0$29774@DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <2db05$461105c4$4fe719b$5233@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
...
I just finished Robert Silverberg's biography about the Darius
stone. I'd never heard of that monument before rescuing this
book. There is a sect of Islam that would have destroyed
that stone and any "history" of its forebears. That is
why Islam doesn't get much credit...so far. It has severe
NIH (not invented here) syndrome built into its primary
religion tenets.
Hopefully they are presently in their dark ages, and
will recover sensibility sooner than later. For the
moment, they have nothing to be bragging about.
The premise underlying religion(s) is to improve life,
not to control or diminish it.
Unfortunately, the first often leads to the second. Nothing special
about religions in this respect, true for all ideologies and belief
systems in general. A sense of certainty is never risk free.
But then, neither is a sense of uncertainty.
Most true.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
08 Apr 2007 11:23:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 07 10:41:32 GMT,
wrote:
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due.
I was pointing out that Copernicus was a crook. It is a
very different statement. And interestingly what
followed (and follows all the time) showed that all
generations up until now, in West, and including yours
and you, have been crooks by the probing of this test.
We don't seek some ruffians' approval/disapproval of
one of our merits. We do point out anytime we wish that
a ruffian does not have that merit in him.
Needless to say, the statement you made reduced you to
your *****. Women who think/blab like that display two
separate things vividly. One, the fact that they're
only good for a transient *****; two, that they're quite
accessible for it. All my life I transiently fucked
them, then threw them away. A _lot_ of them. Until
three years back when I found one who always lives in
the large picture. I'm still with her! Bug off.
--
"harche begandad namakash mizanand
vAy be ruzi ke begandad namak"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
09 Apr 2007 05:40:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1tm39e7p78ldv$.o2tq2lxc6g8l$.dlg@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 07 10:41:32 GMT,
wrote:
You were complaining that Western texts didn't give credit
where credit was due.
I was pointing out that Copernicus was a crook. It is a
very different statement. And interestingly what
followed (and follows all the time) showed that all
generations up until now, in West, and including yours
and you, have been crooks by the probing of this test.
If a culture wants another culture's recognition for its
accomplishments, destroying the latter is not the way to
do it.
<snip yet another attempt using sexual threats to win discussion>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
02 Apr 2007 01:01:01 AM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 7:17 am, BioFreak <BioFr...@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 07 12:25:54 GMT,
wrote:
In article <isdsl9x5jvq2$.dsw4u9syv1eo....@40tude.net>,
BioFreak <BioFr...@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:31 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
BioFreak wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:19:33 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Nicolaus Copernicus, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," Nuremberg,
1543
He was a crook. He plagiarized just about everything
that there is in that book. Half of it from an Arab
scientist (Ebne Shater), the other half from the
Iranian Nasireddin Tusi.
Your past is Dark, baby. You don't even want to look
back.
Interesting (an perhaps a religious) reaction!
I tried to bring it from the horse's own mouth (SciAm
1985). You don't know Arabic to be anymore perceptive
of solid proof of that. Comfortable I guess, for you
Westerners.
Until the libraries and their contents are available to non-Muslim
people, none of those records are going to make into general
human knowledge. Since Islam defines this kind of stuff for
Islamic eyes only, nobody in that region is going to get credit.
/BAH
The mother of Western mind speaks.
Who asked for your worthless credit. I'm saying a lot
of you Westerners are crooks. Including the best and
most famous among you. Does "Newton" sound familiar?
Her point is valid. Your alleged "proof" that these things were
"stolen" resides in places not available to those you call
"Westerners". Since the "proof" is not available to "Westerners" for
inspection, why should "Westerners" take it seriously?
If it is available, but only in Arabic or "Persian", why should it
be taken seriously by those who do not read those languages? Do you
seriously claim that they cannot be accurately translated? That would
doubtless surprise those who brought algebra to the West.
It's in your culture and upbringings. And Moslems don't
like it. They look down on you mainly for this reason.
Why should non-Moslems care what Moslems do or do not like? Moslems
do not care what non-Moslems do or do not like. That's in your
culture, and non-Moslems look down on you for it.
But you must hear it from your "Iran Analyst" to
believe it, I guess. Well, they're as crooked as
yourselves, so... .
And you can prove this assertion how?
Bug off, I've made promisses to my
sweetheart and don't want to break them.
Have you married her? If not, have you as a faithful Moslem promised
to kill her should you get her pregnant?
You know what and where you direct my thoughts.
I am amazed that your thoughts are so easily directed by others. I
thought you capable of greater self-discipline.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
08 Apr 2007 11:30:58 AM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2007 23:01:01 -0700, wrote:
Her point is valid.
Stay in your desert. The everyday site of insects and
dried plants may cure you.
--
Beauty is in the blindness of the believer."
- Kevin Solway
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
08 Apr 2007 04:53:21 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 9:30 am, BioFreak <BioFr...@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On 1 Apr 2007 23:01:01 -0700, wrote:
Her point is valid.
Stay in your desert. The everyday site of insects and
dried plants may cure you.
I recently moved to the Pacific Northwest; it's rather wetter and
hence more fecund than the desert. More common here are the sight of
large mammal and avian predator predator/prey relationships within
what the locals call a rainforest.
There is more than one kind of natural beauty...
I require no "cure"; an accusation based on evidence that is
unavailable for inspection is logically equivalent to one based on no
evidence at all.
I might have "accused" your parent culture of "stealing"
refrigeration, electrification, for that matter the use of iron rather
than bronze, but by now you should know me well enough to know that I
know better; those are material trappings not tied to any particular
culture.
I do find it sad that your parent culture has not "stolen" (read
"figured out how to incorporate") the most truly valuable invention of
the West, the concept that questioning authority can (note not
necessarily "always will") lead to greater wisdom.
Your parent culture can no longer (as it once did) support the
intellectual environment that fosters that sort of curiosity; it has
gotten trapped in demanding unthinking acceptance of the dictates of
unquestioned authority; any deviation is ruthlessly suppressed.
Example, Salman Rushdie. His nearest Western analog, Jonathan Swift,
was laughed at and derided but was never under officially sanctioned
death threat. Perhaps one day Islam will advance to the point it can
not only tolerate such questioners but actually benefit from them and
come to appreciate more than one kind of intellectual beauty.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
08 Apr 2007 06:40:15 PM |
|
|
On 8 Apr 2007 14:53:21 -0700, wrote:
I require no "cure"; an accusation based on evidence that is
unavailable for inspection is logically equivalent to one based on no
evidence at all.
Ahh.. You do. You know about it more than you deserve.
You've been tearing apart the copy of Tusi's work in
your possession, page by page, and selling each page
high price in various private bid gatherings! Some of
it even took place last year.
So yes you do require it.
I told you this before in here and nobody of course
understood it. Science is in the wrong hands as long as
you Westerners are its main forerunners. This matter
will get grossly rearranged and corrected. It has to.
--
"tu poshtemun hichkas nist, harchi hast tu
moshtemuneh."
- Jalal Ale-Ahmad
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
09 Apr 2007 03:10:22 AM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 4:40 pm, BioFreak <BioFr...@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 14:53:21 -0700, wrote:
I require no "cure"; an accusation based on evidence that is
unavailable for inspection is logically equivalent to one based on no
evidence at all.
Ahh.. You do. You know about it more than you deserve.
"More than you deserve" by whose reckoning? Knowledge and wisdom
belong to those that can grasp it. I certainly grasp enough to dismiss
claims of "cultural theft" as racist and therefore irrelevant to my
pursuit of both.
You've been tearing apart the copy of Tusi's work in
your possession, page by page, and selling each page
high price in various private bid gatherings! Some of
it even took place last year.
That's collectoritis, not science or math; erotica from the time and
region draws higher prices (though I suppose you'd rather not discuss
frinst Sa'di or Hafiz).
And why do you hold up a traitor to Islam? Tusi did after all submit
to Hulagu Khan merely because he was tired of living in caves.
I told you this before in here and nobody of course
understood it. Science is in the wrong hands as long as
you Westerners are its main forerunners. This matter
will get grossly rearranged and corrected. It has to.
Not with Mullahs in charge, and you know it.
"tu poshtemun hichkas nist, harchi hast tu
moshtemuneh."
- Jalal Ale-Ahmad
Oh, very funny. So an Iranian cannot integrate a new worldview and
publishes the tale of his failure. Why are those who can do so not
published? Because those who control the presses within Islam do not
want it known that it is possible.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
09 Apr 2007 06:55:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:40:15 -0500, BioFreak <BioFreak@FakeAddress.com>
wrote:
I told you this before in here and nobody of course
understood it. Science is in the wrong hands as long as
you Westerners are its main forerunners. This matter
will get grossly rearranged and corrected.
Not if the "other lot" get in. Then you'll get taken out and shot. In
the interests of science, of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Drake" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Galileo die for nothing ? |
05 Apr 2007 07:50:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:19:33 UTC, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Why does everybody
refer to him by his Christian name not his surname? It's always
"Madame Curie" but never "No-Panties Marie."
Umm, Leonardo. Raphael. Dante. Michelangelo -- and if you see a reference
to Michelangelo Buonarotti, it's probably to the painter's nephew!
--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
