If there is a better newsgroup for posting AI-generated SF stories,
please let me know.
If there is a better newsgroup for posting AI-generated SF stories,
please let me know.
A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!
On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
<snippo, answered by others>
A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!
<snippo meaningless stuff>
Huh, nothing left.
I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their frustration.
Otherwise, they might just as well be using tiny angelic beings or
very small unicorns instead. If you are going to make stuff up, why
not make stuff up that looks neat?
On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
<snippo, answered by others>
A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!
<snippo meaningless stuff>
Huh, nothing left.
I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their frustration.
In article <Hidden-20260106183020@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
If there is a better newsgroup for posting AI-generated SF stories,
please let me know.
Many desktops locate the recycle bin to the upper left. Simply deposit plagiarism engine slop there, hit recycle, then delete your softare,
and (if you own it) set fire to the computer. Easy peasy!
On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:
On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
<snippo, answered by others>
A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!
<snippo meaningless stuff>
Huh, nothing left.
I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.
Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:46:18 -0800, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:
On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
<snippo, answered by others>
A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!
<snippo meaningless stuff>
Huh, nothing left.
I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.
Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.
I would bow to your superior knowledge, were it not for the fact that
"of course" is a statement of belief, not of fact.
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.
When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.
When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use if >>different dimensions are posited.
There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use if >>>different dimensions are posited.
There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.
I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these
many people or cite a source for the assertion?
On 1/8/26 08:54, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:46:18 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:
haveI hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.
Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.
I would bow to your superior knowledge, were it not for the fact that
"of course" is a statement of belief, not of fact.
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.
When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.
New evidence supports changes to and wholly new approximations of the
observations. My knowledge may not be superior to your knowlege as I
been preoccupied not with the Super Collider results but with the >mind-bending
results of the astronomical time travel involved in finding earlier and >earlier
galactic-like formations back at the time which, if the Big Bang theory
is somewhat
correct, before the universe allowed the propagation of light or >electromagnetic
radiation to proceed.
The Universe may not be explicable to the minds attempting it becausethey
are the products of the Universe. While clever tools both physical and >mental are
employed to study the present and past Universe we do not have as yet
and may
never have the capability to understand what the hell is going on in the
fullest
sense. If dimensions beyond our apprehension are involved then it
becomes even
harder to understand the Universe.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.
There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:if
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
itdifferent dimensions are posited.
There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.
I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these
many people or cite a source for the assertion?
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
All of these (so far) unconfirmable ideas, supersymmetry and extra
dimensional theories, have very nice mathematical properties which solve
many heretofore difficult problems, like infinities that show up in
equations where they have no right to be. Mind you, if I'd spent my
career working on supersymmetry I'd be getting pretty antsy about now
given that we've yet to find a single supersymmetric particle.
In regular electrodynamics, if you treat an electron like a
perfect point, its electric field gets insanely strong the
closer you get, and the energy in that field just blows up to
infinity. That basically means the theory breaks down at super
small scales.
String theory flips that idea and says that what we call
"particles" like electrons aren't points at all - they're
these tiny strings that stretch a bit, so interactions aren't
happening at one exact spot. That spreads things out and gets
rid of those nasty infinities.
When people actually go through the math carefully, they find that
the theory only fully works if space has extra dimensions beyond
the usual three, so it ends up living in a higher-dimensional world.
New results from the Large Hadron Collider in 2025 really threw a
wrench in supersymmetry. They didn't find any of the new particles
SUSY was supposed to predict - no heavier versions of known particles,
even way up in the mass range. So most of the versions of SUSY
that were meant to fix big physics puzzles, like why particles
weigh what they do, just don't match what we're seeing anymore.
I thought Galileo also offended by claiming that various "celestial
bodies", allegedly made of the Fifth Element, were in fact very large
rocks, made of the mundane elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).
Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these many people
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use >>>>if different dimensions are posited.
There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that
it was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth
actually went around the sun instead if the other way around. What
got Galileo in trouble was claming that it actually did.
or cite a source for the assertion?
Well, Copernicus is the obvious answer to that one, but a number of
folks followed him.
--scott
Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend" >heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Charles Packer wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these many people >>>or cite a source for the assertion?
This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use >>>>>if different dimensions are posited.
There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that
it was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth
actually went around the sun instead if the other way around. What
got Galileo in trouble was claming that it actually did.
Well, Copernicus is the obvious answer to that one, but a number of
folks followed him.
--scott
Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend" heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 09:37:57 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend" >heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:absolutely
I thought Galileo also offended by claiming that various "celestial >>bodies", allegedly made of the Fifth Element, were in fact very large >>rocks, made of the mundane elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).
Yes, although to be clear I don't think he actually said it was
true that this was the case, he only suggested that it was apossibility.
Later on the idea that the heavens were made of ordinary materials and
follow the same physical laws as here on earth turned out to be a huge
winner for Newton.
Of course, another way to look at this is that we're all made up of
star stuff from the heavens. This seems a better approach personally.
Later on the idea that the heavens were made of ordinary materials
and follow the same physical laws as here on earth turned out to be
a huge winner for Newton.
There is an essay between Ptolemy and Copernicus that points out
that, if you take Plato's description of the demiurge forming the
planets around the central fire and compare the ratios of their
distances from such fire to the ratios of the mean distance of the
actual planets from the Sun, they agree well enough to suggest that
Plato is, in fact, a heliocentrist.
GALILEO by Carroll
...
There was a conflict between Galileo and the Inquisition,
but it was a conflict between those who shared common
first principles about the nature of scientific truth
and the complementarity between science and religion.
In the absence of scientific knowledge that the Earth
moves, Galileo was required to affirm that it did not.
However unwise it was to insist on such a requirement,
the Inquisition did not ask Galileo to choose between
science and faith.
IIRC from my reading it quite a while back, [Copernicus] presented
it more as a demonstration that a heliocentric system would be
simpler than Pt[e]lomy.
The Universe may not be explicable to the minds attempting it
because they are the products of the Universe.
Don wrote:
GALILEO by Carroll
...
There was a conflict between Galileo and the Inquisition,
but it was a conflict between those who shared common
first principles about the nature of scientific truth
and the complementarity between science and religion.
There is only ?complementarity? between science and religion if you
believe that there is some kind of ?complementarity? between paying
attention to evidence and disregarding it.
In the absence of scientific knowledge that the Earth
moves, Galileo was required to affirm that it did not.
However unwise it was to insist on such a requirement,
the Inquisition did not ask Galileo to choose between
science and faith.
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him to
make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know what is.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him
to make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him
to make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying to
deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Don wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him
to make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying to
deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
The RC Church is made of of Human beings. Human beings make mistakes. They thought they were trying to save Galileo from serious error and
they were
wrong and have now admitted it.
Let us with the magnanimity of several centuries forget about the RCC's
errors. Then deal with the errors of today as we are being pushed in the
USA toward a strange idea that Christianity is the American religion instead of the religion of lots of Americans. White Christian Dominion over the secular
laws of the Constitution must never be allowed. Baptists in the 18th
Century
implored Mr.Jefferson to separate Church and State as they were being taxed to pay for the Anglican churches which the British Crown had imposed.
I understand that several European nations still apply taxes to the maintenance of state sponsored churches.
Why unless of course they are historical monuments?
On 1/17/26 18:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying
to deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
The RC Church is made of of Human beings. Human beings make
mistakes.
They thought they were trying to save Galileo from serious error ...
... and they were wrong and have now admitted it.
Then deal with the errors of today as we are being pushed in the USA
toward a strange idea that Christianity is the American religion
instead of the religion of lots of Americans. White Christian
Dominion over the secular laws of the Constitution must never be
allowed.
On 1/17/26 18:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him
to make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying to
deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
The RC Church is made of of Human beings. Human beings make mistakes.
They thought they were trying to save Galileo from serious error and
they were
wrong and have now admitted it.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:59:05 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
IIRC from my reading it quite a while back, [Copernicus] presented
it more as a demonstration that a heliocentric system would be
simpler than Pt[e]lomy.
The problem is, he still insisted that the planets moved in perfect
circles around the Sun. So it?s hard to see how the calculations could
in fact have been any simpler or more accurate.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:41:40 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:the
There is an essay between Ptolemy and Copernicus that points out
that, if you take Plato's description of the demiurge forming the
planets around the central fire and compare the ratios of their
distances from such fire to the ratios of the mean distance of the
actual planets from the Sun, they agree well enough to suggest that
Plato is, in fact, a heliocentrist.
As I recall, according to that theory, the ?Central Fire? was not
Sun; the Sun also revolved around that ?Fire?, along with theplanets.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 20:30:47 -0800, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/17/26 18:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him
to make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying to
deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
The RC Church is made of of Human beings. Human beings make mistakes. >> They thought they were trying to save Galileo from serious error and
they were
wrong and have now admitted it.
The RC church claims to be run by the Vicar of Christ, who is
infallible.
Weasle-wording won't work.
And "tried to muzzle Galileo" is not necessarily a major problem,
provided it refers to keeping him from spreading his beliefs, since
Freedom of Speech did not exist at the time. And possibly not tenure
either. It is pointless to apply to particular events of the past the standards of today as if the standards of today were somehow the only standards possible.
At least, not where the uneducated masses were concerned. Before the Counter-Reformation, the old Roman tradition of letting the
(relatively few) educated men think and say what they liked as long as
they kept it to themselves prevailed.
And I don't know that Voltaire is particularly trustworthy on this
sort of issue. He was rather ... biased ... IIRC.
It can be hard to tell. Even reading the source isn't always
definitive: I read Pascal's /Provincial Letters/ as part of the set
known as The Great Books of the Western World/ and learning nothing
about Jansenism (which he was defending). Interestingly, the online
Catholic Encyclopedia (which, being from the 1930s, was a good guide
to the Roman Catholicism in which JRR Tolkien was instructed) was no
clearer (except for the fact that every good RC hated them).
What is amazing is how tone-deaf the scientists are. You would think
that, after their persecution of Wagener, they would realize that
dogmatism and bad behavior are /not/ the prerogatives of religion, but
are freely available to anyone.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 22:40:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The problem is, he still insisted that the planets moved in perfect
circles around the Sun. So it?s hard to see how the calculations
could in fact have been any simpler or more accurate.
Every planet (other than the Earth, of course) had one fewer circle
in Copernicus than in Ptolemy.
The main circle of the Earth made them unnecessary.
And "tried to muzzle Galileo" is not necessarily a major problem,
provided it refers to keeping him from spreading his beliefs, since
Freedom of Speech did not exist at the time.
It is pointless to apply to particular events of the past the
standards of today as if the standards of today were somehow the
only standards possible.
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially
when they feel the organization is being challenged?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking him
to make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying to
deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 20:30:47 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 1/17/26 18:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying
to deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
The RC Church is made of of Human beings. Human beings make
mistakes.
That?s not how they portray themselves. The Pope is ?infallible?,
remember! They are acting on behalf of an ?almighty god? who doesn?t
make mistakes!
They thought they were trying to save Galileo from serious error ...
No they weren?t. They were quite prepared to torture him to death just
to preserve the unquestioned dominance of their own doctrine.
... and they were wrong and have now admitted it.
Where have there been such admissions? You still hear people (like the
one I was responding to) trying to minimize the wrongness of that they
did. As though it was Galileo?s fault for refusing to disown plain
scientific evidence or something.
It got to the point that he'd claim official Church documents
describing the trial were forgeries.
From Wikipedia:
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the
Inquisition had erred in condemning Galileo for asserting that the
Earth revolves around the Sun. "John Paul said the theologians who
condemned Galileo did not recognize the formal distinction between
the Bible and its interpretation."
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 17:01:25 -0500, Cryptoengineer wrote:
From Wikipedia:
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the
Inquisition had erred in condemning Galileo for asserting that the
Earth revolves around the Sun. "John Paul said the theologians who
condemned Galileo did not recognize the formal distinction between
the Bible and its interpretation."
So, what happened to those who committed those crimes, against
Galileo, Giordano Bruno and others? Did they die and go to heaven? Or
does the Pope?s ruling mean they?ve now been moved to hell?
Also, what about those Christians who broke away from the Catholic
Church? Do they accept that the Pope speaks for them, too? Have they
said as much? Or are they still unrepentant about what their
predecessors did to Galileo?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:58:44 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially
when they feel the organization is being challenged?
But they claimed then, and claim now, to be following the dictates of
a deity who cannot make mistakes.
On 1/18/2026 1:26 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:58:44 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially
when they feel the organization is being challenged?
But they claimed then, and claim now, to be following the dictates of
a deity who cannot make mistakes.
The usual hand-wavium response to that is "we simple humans don't
understand God's plan".ÿ In other words, its all our fault, never God's.
On 1/18/2026 1:26 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:58:44 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially
when they feel the organization is being challenged?
But they claimed then, and claim now, to be following the dictates
of a deity who cannot make mistakes.
The usual hand-wavium response to that is "we simple humans don't
understand God's plan".
On 1/18/2026 1:26 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:58:44 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially
when they feel the organization is being challenged?
But they claimed then, and claim now, to be following the dictates of
a deity who cannot make mistakes.
The usual hand-wavium response to that is "we simple humans don't
understand God's plan".ÿ In other words, its all our fault, never God's.
On 1/18/26 08:50, Paul S Person wrote:him
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 20:30:47 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/17/26 18:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
He was shown the instruments of torture. If that?s not asking
toto make a choice (in a not-so-subtle way, at that), I don?t know
what is.
Careful there, lest you look like a Voltaire thumping scientistic
disciple who buys this bush-league bullscat ...
Yes, the Christian revisionism is alive and well, and still trying
mistakes.deny that they ever tried to muzzle Galileo. They did.
The RC Church is made of of Human beings. Human beings make
They thought they were trying to save Galileo from serious error and
they were
wrong and have now admitted it.
The RC church claims to be run by the Vicar of Christ, who is
infallible.
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially when
they feel the organization is being challenged?
Weasle-wording won't work.
Sure it does just listen to CBS News.
And "tried to muzzle Galileo" is not necessarily a major problem,
provided it refers to keeping him from spreading his beliefs, since
Freedom of Speech did not exist at the time. And possibly not tenure
either. It is pointless to apply to particular events of the past the
standards of today as if the standards of today were somehow the only
standards possible.
The standards of yesterday may have been more tolerant but today no
tolerance for deviationists from the Trump executive orders is to be >allowed.
Physically intersexual individuals no longer exist due to an early EO.
At least, not where the uneducated masses were concerned. Before the
Counter-Reformation, the old Roman tradition of letting the
(relatively few) educated men think and say what they liked as long as
they kept it to themselves prevailed.
And I don't know that Voltaire is particularly trustworthy on this
sort of issue. He was rather ... biased ... IIRC.
Definitively.
It can be hard to tell. Even reading the source isn't always
definitive: I read Pascal's /Provincial Letters/ as part of the set
known as The Great Books of the Western World/ and learning nothing
about Jansenism (which he was defending). Interestingly, the online
Catholic Encyclopedia (which, being from the 1930s, was a good guide
to the Roman Catholicism in which JRR Tolkien was instructed) was no
clearer (except for the fact that every good RC hated them).
All those confusing schools of thought were to be eliminated but many
thrived.
What is amazing is how tone-deaf the scientists are. You would think
that, after their persecution of Wagener, they would realize that
dogmatism and bad behavior are /not/ the prerogatives of religion, but
are freely available to anyone.
Indeed they are freely available to everyone but when you have a
multi-million dollar corporation behind you with loads of voluteers your >dogmatism and bad behavior are reinforced tremendously. But that is
what you get with most forms of organized religion. Even relatively >unorganized religion can lead people to folly.
I think it is all due to the influence of Eris/Discordia in human--
affairs. Discordians remain relatively unorganized aside from the
Illuminati which may show up from time to time. LDD.
On 1/18/2026 1:26 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:58:44 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Did I not say they are human and make lots of mistakes expecially
when they feel the organization is being challenged?
But they claimed then, and claim now, to be following the dictates of
a deity who cannot make mistakes.
The usual hand-wavium response to that is "we simple humans don't
understand God's plan". In other words, its all our fault, never God's.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 183:53:14 |
| Calls: | 188 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 80,210 |