lundi 26 mai 2014

The Colegio is not for Future Guardia Civil, but for Children and Grandchildren of Guardia Civil

1) HGL's F.B. writings : The Colegio is not for Future Guardia Civil, but for Children and Grandchildren of Guardia Civil, 2) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : On NY Dailynews

Friend, status
Male students should focus on their studies, and women should do their laundry for them, among other things.

[Got an error when trying to look up what I link to:]
NY Daily News : Spanish Students fight college ban on doing their own laundry

[Vital info: colegio in Spanish is not like college in US, it is more like Junior High School]
Actually, I think its a good thing for a man to learn to do laundry and other household jobs...maybe his vocation is the single life? or what about when his wife has a baby? or wife is sick? and...married life maybe the vocation for most...but not for all.
It is vital for men to know how. 6 mos after Luke was born, I went down w hepatitis. 6 weeks of total incapacitation. Thank God Jim knew how to care for 2 wee babies & myself.
Seriously. This is not feminism, it is common sense.
Yeah, we cannot always do all our husbands stuff for them.
Hubster was in the Navy, so he already knew how to wash & iron his clothes, sew buttons & insignia, etc.
HGL (me bumping in among the ladies)
Probably the laundry is done by employees. NOT by female students.

[Bad guess, see later down]
Why are the guys banned from these laundry rooms? It doesn't really say. Is it a joke? Is it because they mess things up? lol The article just leaves out some pertinent info, it seems.
"At Duque de Ahumada de la Guardia Civil college men must find women to do their laundry for them."

I had not read the article.

I supposed it was a somewhat luxurious college. Where students are supposed to study and pass laundry to employees.

NOT Guardia Civil and NOT getting not therefore employed women to do it. I will try to ask if it was an april fools joke or if this online is a satire site.

If NOT, there is a serious homophobia - in the sense we need the word for - going on. LIKE thinking men who are able to do their laundry are pansies.

If the following comic book exists, the site is not satire:

[Error while trying to look up link, same online publication:]
Ms. Marvel, aka Muslim teen Kamala Khan from Jersey City, set to make historic comic book series... The new Ms. Marvel is set to make a Hulk-sized impact on the comic book industry. Marvel Comics’ “Ms. Marvel #1” hits comic store shelves Wednesday, introducing readers to a new Muslim American super heroine whose secret identity is sixteen-year-old Kamala Khan of Jersey City.

Ah, the article from the Guardian makes a bit more sense:

Students at Spanish college fight ban on men using washing machines
Madrid residence threatens to expel male students who do their own laundry – they are told to find female friends to do it instead
Ashifa Kassam in Madrid
The Guardian, Saturday 3 May 2014

The no male laundry rule could date from times when conditions where a bit like what I was wondering about. BUT how come it was kept when female students were admitted?

"It's not the only antiquated rule that the students object to, he said. Male students are not allowed to enter rooms of female students, while others have complained about difficulty receiving visitors, "as if it were a prison instead of a residence" where students pay €465 (£380) a month. Any student looking to change the rules, through taking action against management, risks immediate expulsion."

This is a rule which DOES make sense once there are female students there.

And look what was perhaps a bit overlooked in the medium we were watching first:

"On Saturday, the Guardia Civil said the laundry was set up years ago at the request of female students, to allow them to wash their undergarments.

While males could not use the washing machines, it said all students had access to an off-site laundry service, the cost of which was included in their monthly fees."

THIS actually makes sense. Some female students might have objected to washing their laundry in same washing machines as men not of their family. THAT would make sense plus the off site laundry service would fix any inconvenience.

NY Daily News caught redhandedly in giving just one side of the story, when the other is to be had.

Unless the story of the Guardian was updated with extra info had on Saturday AFTER NY Daily News linked to it, but I saw no sign of the Guardian story having been updated after publishing, and that is standard in online publishing. Including my blogs.
I remember the Marines coming back to the States from Okinawa miss having Mama-San washing their laundry and cutting their hair. And just having her do their laundry freed up a bit of time to focus on other things.
Actually, they are not Guardia Civil.

I thought they were because it was the Guardia Civil Union that was demanding change of rules. BUT the college is for the sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of Guardia Civil.*

The beginning is girls and boys can both get laundry done.

NEXT girls ask for laundry machines so they can do more laundry. THe machines are calculated for the girls and boys who use them are stopping girls from having their laundry wishes met. HENCE punished.

OBVIOUSLY since boys have become more squeamish over a little dirt since back then.

How about banning coed? [=Co-Ed]

AND if the rule against boys visiting girls' rooms is outdated**, I hope that Spanish judges are generous about requests for juvenile marriage. In reality they are NOT and the rule is not so much outdated as unrealistically inadequate if there is one school for both.
Link to Papal Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri
EWTN : DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI (On Christian Education)
Pope Pius XI
Encyclical promulgated on 31 December 1929
Quote from it:
65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.


68. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

69. Recalling the terrible words of the Divine Master: "Woe to the world because of scandals!"[45] We most earnestly appeal to your solicitude and your watchfulness, Venerable Brethren, against these pernicious errors, which, to the immense harm of youth, are spreading far and wide among Christian peoples.
* See this quote from Guardian Article:

Male students at the dorm, which caters for the children and grandchildren of Guardia Civil officers, are instead instructed to quietly pass their clothes to female friends to be washed.

The association that represents Guardia Civil officers is demanding that the rule be changed.

** See this quote:

It's not the only antiquated rule that the students object to, ... said [Francisco Cecilia, of the Unified Guardia Civil Association]. Male students are not allowed to enter rooms of female students, while others have complained about difficulty receiving visitors, "as if it were a prison instead of a residence" where students pay €465 (£380) a month. Any student looking to change the rules, through taking action against management, risks immediate expulsion.

Francisco Cecilia had been interviewed by El Mundo.

lundi 12 mai 2014

Attacked on "Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel" Subject Again

1) Barry Cunliffe's theories and mine (Celts and post-Babel), 2) Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins, 3) Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog, 4) Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup, 5) Atta and Fadar, 6) Thrown Out of Group, 7) Answering LAM, 8) Attacked on Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel Subject Again

CG, alias Cushla Geary* (status or thread head in group)
via Ancient History Encyclopedia

One of the more ridiculous biblical stories that form part of the "creation bloc" of myths is that of the Tower of Babel. It claims all languages on earth derive from the curse placed by god on the people of Babel that prevented them from understanding each other.

It is, of course, humbug of the highest order.

Languages, like humans, have evolved. This map traces the evolution of the Indo-European tongues from which many modern languages derive. Not from a god-blasted hubristic tower in the Mesopotamian basin, but from some ancient group of peoples living far, far to the North of that region. Who, in their turn, had evolved their speech from yet earlier ancestors.

Languages evolve - they are not created.

Evolution of a different kind, yes - but never "creation".

Indo-European Languages
by Cristian Violatti
published on 05 May 2014

Quotation from the article: "The Indo-European languages are a family of related languages that today are widely spoken in the Americas, Europe, and also Western and Southern Asia. Just as Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian are all descended from Latin, Indo-European languages are believed to derive from a hypothetical language known as Proto-Indo-European, which is no longer spoken.

It is highly probable that the earliest speakers of this language originally lived around Ukraine and neighbouring regions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia, then spread to most of the rest of Europe and later down into India. The earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity is believed to be around 3400 BCE.

Since the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language did not develop a writing system, we have no physical evidence of it. The science of linguistics has been trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language using several methods and, although an accurate reconstruction of it seems impossible, we have today a general picture of what Proto-Indo-European speakers had in common, both linguistically and culturally. In addition to the use of comparative methods, there are studies based on the comparison of myths, laws, and social institutions."
Explain the Klingon language, then.

[Was created by men.]
Interesting point CG about the origin of the Proto-Indo-European language. his ties in nicely with the Black Sea Flood, the probable source of the Biblical Flood myth.
Yes - it may well do so, although I think the language had already begun to spread well before that period.
This proves the spread of languages from the region of Babylon, just as it is recorded in scripture. AC The Indo-European languages are a sub-set of all languages. All of the others had a last common ancestor prior to IE. So, no not as recorded in scripture.
MSP: for goodness sake read the article before making silly claims! That is not where this language is thought to spread from - it arose far to the north of that region, in the Caucasus/Ukraine area. In any case, it is by no means the original tongue, but is itself evolved from an early language/s. There was no tower of babel - the bible story is a fable. Humans had been communicating in spoken languages long, long before any of those legends arose.
Except for Esperanto.
Esperanto is now only spoken in Esperance, Western Australia.
That's possible CG but the Black Sea flood was around 5,600 BCE so 2,000 years before the earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity. As the Semites had their origins around the Black Sea it seems a good possibility that the Tower of Babel myth was connected with the divergence of the language from that region.
MK, what makes you think the Semites originated around the Black Sea? And have you read Ryan and Pitman or Wilson on the Black Sea flood?
The BLACK SEA FLOOD did happen, but geologist disagree exactly when it happened. Some say 5600 bc, others say 7500 bc. Some say it was dramatic, others say no. It could have been the source of the great flood story, to a degree.. My take is the biblical flood is a metaphor for baptism of the earth, first the water, then, baptism by fire, hence the lyric to the old gospel song, "the fire next time" ..
"evolution of a different kind" - there are some similarities, similar mechanisms, isolation of a population, drift,... even sideways evolution as words are borrowed. And extinctions. We can trace the journeys of the Polynesians across the Pacific by the evolution of their language. In the abstract it is not so different.
Why is it oldest language isnot even more than 10,000 yrs old?
SV, what's your evidence for thinking that?
Wikipedia : List of languages by first written accounts

Can you show me list way older ?
True, writing is rather recent (but so are televisions) but can infer from the rate of linguistic evolution that spoken languages are far older.

[Problem I am adressing is how much such inferences are really worth. Especially as proof for evolutionism, since linguists making them are often anyway evolutionists and believe the evolutionist time scale, like Cro Magnon find dated to 20,000 B. C. - And some inferences they do make are based on that.]
What is oldest I just asked 2x?

Klingon? Minion?
Kemit Amenophis
This book describes a more global perspective about the origin of all languages :

Amazon : The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue Paperback
by Merritt Ruhlen (Author)

[It is a highly speculative work by Merrit Ruhlen. I have previously commented briefly on it and tried to contact him. I do however accept more or less his list of 32 language families, my reservation being on whether they all originated in parent languages or some - like Indo-European notably - as failed esperantos influencing diverse languages, like Medieval Latin did to Western European Languages.]
SV: Nor does it support either the Tower of Babel legend or a 6,000-year old humanity.

Looks good, Kemit. I love this topic.
THM, alias Tony Hackenslash Murphy**
Have a look out for a book by malacologist Steve Jones called 'The Language of the Genes', which is precisely about how the evolution of organisms is mirrored by the evolution of language. A cracking read, if you like that sort of thing.
What does linguistics have to do with...evolution? Is this SV for real?
Well yes of course pls don't tell me humans did not leave any language for the past million yrs?

[I later saw both Kain Karrion and CG describe SV as a troll and require me not to go "full SV".]
CG !

Let me highlight a distinction for you:

"Just as Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian ARE all descended from Latin, Indo-European languages ARE BELIEVED TO derive from a HYPOTHETICAL language known as Proto-Indo-European, which is no longer spoken."

They could also have added that it was never written down while spoken.

Apart from my highlight, it is from the site.

Tower of Babel does NOT deny that French and Spanish both descend from Latin. One can however ask whether "evolved" is a good description of that descent. Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations.

Also, in language change creation does play a role, just as in costume. Trousers have been intelligently designed, and so has the new tense/mood known as conditional in Romance languages.

Kemit Amenophis The definition for "biological evolution" may be similar to the general word "evolution". However, Biological evolution is a new concept. Maybe it needs it's own word so that lay people do not get confused?

Kemit Amenophis, even so called "Cultural Evolution" like the supposed one between palaeolithic and neolithic and metal age technologies is very incomparable to linguistics. Latin was not a rudimentary language because it lacked the conditional. No rudimentary languages have ever been found, even with people having rudimentary technologies.

CG, again: "we have today a general picture of what Proto-Indo-European speakers had in common, both linguistically and culturally. In addition to the use of comparative methods, there are studies based on the comparison ..."

Etc. Are you aware that Proto-Indo-European language as well as other items (including original homeland) have been reconstructed several times over? Are you aware that Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher with his successors is a set of languages they created quite as much as Tolkien created Quenya and Sindarin, basically? Several times over for each too. Earliest reconstructions close to Sanskrit, latest close to Klingon.

Can you refute my theory that Indo-European common vocabularies and grammar originated as a failed Esperanto?
SV, the evidence from comparative linguistics is more than sufficient to confirm the existence of Proto-indo-European even without a single written record in that language.
JL, even if it was directed to SV, I am answering too. Comparative linguistics is not hard evidence like a building of a builder. It is an art of guess work. The main stream fashion has been for a proto-language, but Trubetskoy argued the Sprachbund hypothesis - languages getting MORE similar due to speakers living as neighbours and many being bilinguals.

There are THREE natural explanations for similarities between non-identic languages, and guessing about unrecorded past is picking and chosing. Latin to Romance = common origin. Balkan to Greek and Roumanian = neighbourhood. Church Latin to West European of Classic Chinese to East Asiatic languages = common admired model.
Kemit Amenophis
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Your thesis omits languages from the rest of Asia and the Pacific, the New World, and Africa. The study of a "mother tongue" is a very recent advancement in linguistic studies
Hans-Georg Lundahl's thesis is, I think, edging towards announcing that all languages derive from the confusion following the destruction of the mythical tower of babel. All his comments on any subject are very Euro-centric, and geared towards trying to demonstrate a) his erudition and b) the veracity of a rather primitive variety of Catholicism.

Gets boring, Hans-Georg, all that chewed up language and those truncated ideas. Best to formulate a coherent comment, post it, and wait for a response from someone.
True,Hans-Georg Lundahl, it's not hard evidence like a building, but neither is most of what passes as "knowledge" with us, since most of it is derived by inference and leaps of faith-such as your knowledge of my existence, for which you have no hard evidence. I think there is strong evidence that long before writing there was an ethnic group of speakers of Proto-Indo-European, that this common language by diversification in different localities evolved into different families, from time to time hybridized by borrowed terms. The main point is that the story of the Tower of Babel is a much weaker hypothesis.

[I am ashamed not to have answered this intelligent answer, but I missed it over the abuse of people like CG and KK]
Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently takes exception to my use of the word "evolved" when describing language, and demands whether costume has "evolved" ("... Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations....")

First: evolution has more than one sense - it is not only applicable to biological evolution, but to the gradual changes apparent in societies, languages - and costume.

Second: the evolution of costume is not something voluntary, but is governed by as many variables as the evolution of architecture or art, and is intimately bound up with every facet of an evolving culture or civilisation.

What I wrote in the OP was: "...Languages evolve - they are not created. Evolution of a different kind, yes - but never "creation"...."

I made no mention of mutations, or of any other technical factor involved in biological evolution. Nevertheless, my original thesis still stands: languages change, are transformed by many different external pressures, adapt to circumstances, change when a group of humans is isolated from the main body of its common language, and evolve new forms, new grammar, new words to suit circumstances and discoveries - mimicing the manner in which biological evolution functions.

Which is not at all surprising, since language, communication of some form, is an integral part of the development of a species.

[Does that look like biological bias to anyone?]
Kain Karrion
there are similarities in language because god was lazy when making all of them

[Omitting two of their words]
"Second: the evolution of costume is not something voluntary, but is governed by as many variables as the evolution of architecture or art, and is intimately bound up with every facet of an evolving culture or civilisation."

I do very much not agree costume has evolved. It has changed.

I also did not claim the over all sum of changes is voluntary. Each one change is.

It is also a voluntary act to reverse an over all sum of changes. IF one person does, it is voluntary on the part of others to:

  • imitate him
  • laugh at him


  • think it odd and quaint.

In a novel one Michael Herne after playing a role in a costume play make sthe choice of not changing back from the Medieval costume. In the book the first reaction is shaking heads and things like that, then he gets more and more people hearing his explanation that Medieval costume is nicer to wear than early 20:th C. costume. If you care to read it, it is by Chesterton and is called The Return of Don Quixote.

Now, in real life I have made the choice to ignore the last three changes in Swedish official grammar.

1870 some even wanted to change the word "svensk" to "svänsk", did not last, but the default spelling of the one mid front unlabialised short vowel changed from "e" to "ä", as also in a few words like "der" > "där" and also long mid more open front vowel after j as in "fjeder" > "fjäder". This was because respelling "gerna" to "gärna" marked solidarity with Danes against "Germans". Danish "gærne", German "gerne". Now, I agree Danes were attacked unjustly, in the end, but I do not agree Austrians were very much to blame. And I do not agree the equation "Prussians = Germans".

So, I retain the "e" in places where modern Swedish has non-etymological "ä". 1906 Swedish intellectuals made two bad choices - rewarding Carducci with the Nobel Price and changing the four spellings of the v sound (two for English w in comparable words, the other two for v were both involving an f) into just v. There are still eight ways to spell j-sound or jod ("yod" even, when we spell the word "yaught").

And I retain the plural conjugation of the verb, abolished in 1950 by Social Democrats.

I think this is a voluntary refusal to participate in changes that were voluntary on part of those suggesting them or even ordering them. And that thereby I have shown that following the suggestions (1870's) or even orders (1906, 1950) is also a voluntary and reversible thing.

In costume, slit arms and slit trouser legs were high fashion for about a century, say 1450 - 1550. That was reversed.

Now, the thing in my objection is, the so called "sound laws" were to begin with sound changes, also voluntary. Some of which were generalised, and are therefore registered by linguists as sound laws, some of which are reversed and are therefore not registered at all.

So, in a sense yes, change in language as well as in costume is voluntary. Modernity is voluntary and Amish rejection and other possible or actual rejections of it are voluntary too.

Nothing in this mimics the way evolution is supposed to have evolved new organs or from microbe to man.

There is a sense in which one can speak of "cultural evolution" (from Moustérien to La Tène Iron Age, for instance) in which the change is supposed to denote evolving progress from an initially rudimentary state. In that sense we do not see any linguistic evolution. One has tried to reconstruct it, for instance the "language of the great apes" in Tarzan and French without certain grammatical categories (grammar of "Pal Ul Don" imitated in a Modern language's words) in Rahan. But it has not been found as anyone's native language.

In that sense we do not even agree that Moustérien stone age culture was an original rudimentary state of human technology.

What it does in some way mimic about biology is something Creationists are not contesting. Great Danes and Chihuahuas have a common ancestor. "I think it was a dog" as Kent Hovind said about it.

(Or, more properly, a pair of dogs)

Kain Karrion, at this "there are similarities in language because god was lazy when making all of them"

First of all. Yes, God made all of those there were just after Babel. I totally disagree with Jews who claim that God allowed each of seventy demons to make each a language for each his people. God made all seventy or seventytwo.

Second of all. God did NOT make all 6000 we have today. Languages have certainly diversified and also coalesced since the Tower of Babel.

Third. Similarities can have been intentional on God's part to allow people some comprehension when starting out in neighbourhoods. But there are, as said, three natural explanations for why any two langagues are similar. Not just one supposedly mimicking evolution from a common ancestor.

Kemit Amenophis, "Your thesis omits languages from the rest of Asia and the Pacific, the New World, and Africa. The study of a "mother tongue" is a very recent advancement in linguistic studies."

Not really. That Latin was the mother tongue for diverse Romance languages was obvious to the Middle Ages. Note well that Dante distinguished Medieval Latin (not identic to mother tongue) from original Roman tongue. But he did identify "French, Latins [Occitans] and Spaniards [with Italians southg of Lombardy]" a speaking more or less same tongue, but as saying yes like oil, oc and si.

I was giving examples and I was not filling out every detail of my thesis.

The concept of analysis of Sprachbund phenomena (as in Balkans) or of Hyperstrate phenomenon (as with Classic Chinese or Medieval Latin) is, if so, at least an even more recent advance in linguistics, and one I am not neglecting just because you are.

If there were 70-72 languages just after Babel, and if now there are 32 major families, some coalescence through either Sprachbund, or acceptance of common Model Languages must have occurred. I do not think wholesale disappearance of any of the 70 odd languages can be theologically justified. Merely naturally speaking that is also possible and is the solution of CMI site of creationists, where I disagree in this detail.
[makes a commentabout thermodynamics, obviously belonging to another thread.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: ferankly,[sic] i don't give a flying fuck what you think about costume - except that your ignorance of the meaning of the word evolve, and its application to the history of the garments we ware is an indication of the quality of the rest of your verbose offerings.

Be assured: costume, like art and architecture - and language - evolves in the very real meaning of that word. As does biological life, albeit via an organic, rather than sociological process.

BTW: I'm an atheist - arguing that there is anysuch thing as a god, that that god made anything, that the bible has any relevance to the evolution of life, that your particular religion has any more validity than any other religion, is a waste of time. Particularly when you offer no persuasive argument to support your position.

I think you suffer from that wonderfully evocative disorder [sic] known as Dunning-Kreuger [sic] Syndrome [sic]. I might actually have given you the benefit of the doubt, and thought of you as a fundamentalist catholic (ghastly concept) if not for that fatuous nonsense about costume - it's evident you haven't a bloody clue about cultural anthropology - or the history and significance of clothing.

[It is Dunning Kruger and it is a phenomenon, not a disorder or syndrome. It is also a two way deal, she is only referring to one aspect.]
She then changes words with RT and says :
I think it may have been wasted effort, though, Richard. This one (Hans-Georg Lundahl) seems to be another Mark Meier, but less well informed.)
You might find this of interest Richard:

[Link about theormodynamics also irrelevant for this thread.]
CG, what exactly is YOUR academic specialty, since you so confidently say I have no clue about history of costume and a few more things?

@RT were you trying to answer another thread? I mean, this one was so not about Thermodynamics. Either for or against evolution.

@CG since I actually do think of myself as a Fundamentalist Catholic (or rather as an Integrist one), I wonder why you feel that the concept is ghastly. Might it be that we have some kind of fundamental ideological disagreement which makes you fundamentally inept to make any kind of psychological statement about me with any kind of due objectivity?

Oh, I looked up Dunning Kruger. To me it seems you might have something like it. You are certainly NOT a linguist, for instance.

Nor, as far as I can see, any expert of what happened to costume between Romans and Greeks wearing Himation and Toga and Moderns wearing Jackets.

Nor very self observing about your own choices of clothing - or very observing of anyone else's.

And, yes, I just said very clearly that you have shown yourself incompetent in this domain to someone who as it happens - and not just because it is me - is really competent.

You see, these are questions I have studied for years - and in Academia I have rarely been denied a good grade at my exams in Latin, Greek and a few more. Very involved in observed changes of culture during Middle Ages. A period for which we have written and pictorial records - unlike the prehistory of Australia (well, excepting some pictorial) and a few more like that.

As to Dunning Kruger, I found this interesting ideological connexion on the wiki:

Although the Dunning–Kruger effect was put forward in 1999, Dunning and Kruger have noted similar historical observations from philosophers and scientists, including Confucius ("Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."), Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision", see Wikiquote), and Charles Darwin, whom they quoted in their original paper ("ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge").

Confucius was a near atheist. Charles Darwin may not have been downright atheist or he may have been so, but he was close and he promoted atheism. Bertrand Russell dedicated himself to promoting atheism. If they do not bow down to God, they bow down to something. That something is in their case Human Competence. And this makes it religiously important to them to have some Human Competence (sacred thing to them!) evaluating Human Competence (bowing down to a false one would be idolatry to them). Very well illustrates that men who cease to believe in God are not left believing Nothing, but will believe Anything. Including the oracle of the dog or the sacred bulls of Bashan.

Kain Karrion
Hans-Georg Lundahl one of my good friends was a linguist, lanuage evolved, you don't know what the word evolve means clearly, and it seems you also cannot discern sarcasm

"Nor, as far as I can see, any expert of what happened to costume between Romans and Greeks wearing Himation and Toga and Moderns wearing Jackets." costume or clothing?

also, lets assume you were correct about costumes being different and thee were drastic changes, that is not how language works, in fact, we have evidence of language observing, how many words were added to the english language by william shakespear

how do you explain new words for new things if not for evolution of language?
I am sorry, but that one of your good friends either was not here on the debate, as he would have supported me, on each of my principled objections. He might have preferred the scenario given, but he would have been honest about me having a point.

New words for new things are very much NOT what linguists mean by evolution of language when they use this misnomer. You are NOT a linguist like that good friend of yours.

Now, costume or clothing, I am neither US American nor English. I think it is used by English when referring to the phenomenon as changing. It is at least a defensible usage, considering the usage of "costume drama" rather than "clothing drama" when you dress up in Medieval or Renaissance or Toga for the play.

Now, back to CG :

"Hans-Georg Lundahl's thesis is, I think, edging towards announcing that all languages derive from the confusion following the destruction of the mythical tower of babel."

It is not edging towards it. It presupposes it. Your grasp of someone else's argument is ghastly. If your English teacher already was grading reading comprehension, and he gave you good grades, either you have deteriorated or your teacher was biassed or bribed.

"All his comments on any subject are very Euro-centric,"

Europe in the Middle Ages happens to be what I have most knowledge of.

[OK, some Old Testament history with contemporary events to that like War or Troy, as well.]

"and geared towards trying to demonstrate a) his erudition"

Anyone who argues and has erudition is demonstrating it in some way. but anyone who argues with a heart, as I do, is not arguing first and foremost for the sake of demonstrating it.

"and b) the veracity of a rather primitive variety of Catholicism."

That should NOT have been item b, it was and remains my prime priority. And I take primitive as a compliment.

I am a Catholic like Chesterton and Belloc were Catholics. I am a Catholic like JRRTolkien would have been unless he had been seduced by misrepresentation of Humani Generis in getting away from taking Genesis as literal fact.

I am a Catholic like St Robert Bellarmine or like St Pius X was a Catholic.

Please spare me the Robert Barron version or the Bergoglio version!
Hans-Georg Lundahl why would a linguist agree with your mistaken concept of a word, that seems irrational
'Tower of Babel does NOT deny that French and Spanish both descend from Latin. One can however ask whether "evolved" is a good description of that descent. Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations.'

Since this seems to be the root of your malfunction, perhaps it's worth addressing it, because it's as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice.

When we talk about the evolution of costume, we are actually talking about evolution in the same sense as in biology. Fashions are not restricted to cultures, and you find very much a mix and match attitude to garment choice, and this has always been the case. The analogue of gene mutations in this instance would be things like the addition of accessories, zips, etc. Beyond that, you get a mixing of local variations spreading via an analogue of genetic drift, all the way to fixation, in the form of blue jeans being a universal, along with the 'little black dress', etc.

Language is exactly analogous to this, with many languages borrowing words for things that they have no word for. Even the words themselves mutate under regional accents, and the meanings mutate so that they can end up meaning exactly the opposite of what they originally meant. The characters are the letters, the words and phrases (memes) are the genes, and these are all subject to mutation in one form or another.

So yes, evolution is exactly the right word to use in both cases, and it occurs in all three cases.

Neither credentials nor any amount of study are remotely relevant when you're talking shit. Language, fashion, the biosphere; all evolve, and with evolution meaning pretty much the same thing in every case. In biological evolution, the only distinction is that the definition requires a degree of precision such that it defines precisely what it is that changes over time, namely frequencies of alleles. Other than that bit of precision, the term evolution applies equally well and with the same definition in all three cases.

[On his profile it says he is chief cook in a kitchen. Some Dunning Kruger effect, perhaps ?]
A bit after this
the linguistic and philosophical discussion became very diluted with abuse from partly CG, but foremost KK. He called me snake, liar, and a few other nice words. Since he cannot even dare use his own name, I am not smudging it to the public by stating this fact. He said I had gone « full SV » and in this subject I take that as a compliment.

I did however point out to THM that a mutation is involuntary and that no change in linguistics is (except for that at Babel, which he would consider mythical). I also asked what the Hell he meant by malfunction. It is a Hellish mistake to take Atheism and Evolutionary beliefs as a proper function of Man.
A bit later still
I have been verbally abused by Kain Karrion and I see CG is on the intellectual level of non-linguistics that she can take "evolution from Anglo-Saxon to Middle English, from Middle English to Modern English" as support of languages really evolving in a sense really parallel to her point of biological evolution. In that sense even Creationists claim evolution happens. Like common ancestor "dog" evolving into Chihuahuas and Great Danes. (Hat tip to Hovind, hope he is out soon!)

* Cushla Geary, a k from here, commenting under Maryam Namazie:

I dream of a secular democracy, with a constitution that mandates absolute separation of state from church, mosque, temple, or synagogue; that allows complete freedom to worship as you please – with the proviso that such worship harms no-one, and refrains from exhorting others to do harm in the name of their gods. Where all religious organisations pay taxes like any other corporate body, and cartoonists can lampoon them as they please, and we can all laugh at each other.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, where Islamist idiots rioted in Sydney last week, and their white supremacist counterparts threaten to hold a retaliatory riot this weekend, it is the recipe as before: screaming and rampaging by people (usually male) who feel insulted because someone, somewhere, doesn’t think as highly of something or other, as they do.

Faugh! Contemptible degenerates!

Freethoughtblogs, Maryam Namazie, Nothing is Sacred:
Bravo Charlie Hebdo
Sept 20, 2012

** Tony Hackenslash Murphy, a k from here:

I would finally like to extend my gratitude to the following:

Richard Dawkins, for bringing us together.
PZ Myers, for his input and clear head.
Josh and Andrew, for their work.
The moderating staff, for theirs.
The members of RDF, for their allegiance and loyalty.
The members and staff of rationalia, for their hospitality and understanding.
The members and staff of the league of reason, for their hospitality.
And all of the above, for educating me.

[My emphases]

Reciprocity: When You Fight Yourself
25 February 2010

After I left group
Hans-Georg Lundahl posted link and said
And for your info "Open Debate" is really and truly NOT a realistic even, let alone truthful description of this group. Cushla Geary and Kain Karrion have gone onto a kind of pseudo crusade to prevent any real discussion.
Cushla Geary
Ego-tripping, Hans-Georg Lundahl? Making a barely comprehensible, and all but entirely unsupported assertion in a facebook group discussion does not mean anything to the world at large - particularly when it is self-evidently the ravings of an eccentric obsessive. Blog away - no doubt you've got some followers, but I shouldn't think they're likely to offer much in the way of intellectual criticism of your rantings. The Tower of Babel? Stuff and nonsense, you foolish man - we're adults in here: we gave up fairy tales and fables long ago.
Richard Tetlow
That blog is butthurt to the brink of buttsuicide. It's just whinging. Retreating to a safe place to lick your wounds. It serves no educational purpose whatsoever. What is it with this Christian persecution complex?
Kain Karrion
hqns, you keep whining about no one debating, i refuted all your points, you haven't acknowledged it
he had said
Kain Karrion
"so called sound laws" what in the fuck does that mean
It means that
I call "sound laws" a misnomer. I regard them as fashions. And if he in comment numbers close to above last of 356 still has not got it, it is not debating that I call his interference when I try to have a debate with more intelligent people than himself.
Other issue
Cushla Geary
BTW: did that barely literate gorf Hans-Georg Lundahl go off to play with himself, or did the men in whit coats come to take him away?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thanks for the slur, Cushla Geary, illustrates your level of culture.

Anyone having legitimate concerns and being tempted to listen to her, I needed a coffee break.
Other issue
Kain Karrion
since your coming late, its pretty simple, we are watching him devolved into a sherwin, all were missing as far as i can tell is the annoying laugh
Cushla Geary
And seriously, people - the man's a nutjob! Also: if he has any formal academic qualifications I'll eat mine stewed with gravy! Although I suppose he miiiiight have some kind of night class diploma in ancient languages that has become addled along with his brain!

And yes, whoever saif that - he went full sherwin. One should *never* go full sherwin!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have no degree. I do have five years worth of exams. Not available on paper to prove it though.

Have not much against Sherwin Valerio.
Kain Karrion
and this is how we know you are a problem, a troll, and have no place being in serious discussion
Cushla Geary
Guess that^^^ says it all!
Kain Karrion
why do you think i said i was treating you like him, gregory
Hans-Georg Lundahl
People who complain about "trolls" are pretty often orkish.
Cushla Geary
That would be hansel-gregory, Kain Karrion

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kain Karrion is one example.

(Plus some people even hate real names as they are ...)
Kain Karrion
Hans-Georg Lundahl you are aware that no one is taking you the least bit seriously, i am trolling you, have admitted it multiple times, yet i have still refuted every fucking argument you've made? because you, handsoap, are a deciever

oh yea, i absolutely hate my real name, i changed it back to the surname after because shelby proved the point that not everyone knew karrion was the surname

its not even my real name, its a stage name, so i get to choose which goes where

but yea, i clearly hate the way i made it, how observant of you to notice happy meal

[Meant my real name.]
Two questions ...
How did he know I hate it when I lack - intelligent - discussion? Why is he presuming anyone will call such behaviour that?

Two Updates

Why I was dubious of Cushla Geary’s specialty in Academics :

When I saw that Cushla Geary was very critical of any Creationist comment, and very eager for scientific accuarcy, I offered her an opportunity to debunk my creationist blog if she could :

Creation vs. Evolution

Specifically messages and message groups (always giving a link that links to others in same group) on :

Cushla Geary would not be bothered with all these technical details, she said she was « bored » and called it « religious rantings ». Obviously for the one and only reason that I accept explanations involving God – He is not very often directly mentioned in the links given above.

So, she was not interested in discussing any technical points on the subject itself. Can she have been a scientist in these sciences ? If so shed id not show it. She was then interested, as per me, ONLY to make a parallel argument, and she made it from linguistics in such a way as to show she was not a linguist herself, though she had read about the subject.

She was also interested in whether I « knew anything at all », i e in writing me off as a « barely literate gorf ». Reminds me of people overdoing belief in expertise, like the « new Mark Studdock » (Tom Nichols), whom I adressed here :

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.

She may – and specifically her friend « Kain Karrion » may – have thought of a request for debate given in my FAQ page for another blog :

FAQ Fr/Eng

I had however said there:

I believe in serious debate … serious debate is debating seriously, and debating seriously is debating where there is serious (not necessarily violent - as said!) opposition.

What I got there does NOT replace what was taken from me when the MSN Group Antimodernism was taken down :

MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : What was MSN Group Antimodernism?

These guys were more like on a « Crusade » to stop Creationism from being rationally defended.

Are the Cushla’s the same ?

I wrote one with same names plus hyphen and other name. I think she is niece or sth. Shed id not answer. Not sure.

samedi 10 mai 2014

Internet Trouble and Pontifical Malfaisance, plus a Trap in Discussion

Diagram of angle to alpha Centauri in two positions NOT involving known distance to sun in the geocentric scenario:

Friend, status sharing:
[part of share:] "Here is a hint: don't hold up a piece of paper for an internet picture."

Photo of lady looking like Mrs Obama, holding up a piece of paper saying:

My Husband
has killed more
young girls than
Boko Haram
ever could.
My comment:
is that Mrs Obama?

Btw, I have let myself been photographed with pieces of paper containing urls to my blogs. Can photoshopped versions have circulated or be still circulating?
Probably non-spoof identified:
Any non-spoof photo of me
holding a cardboard sign would include a url to my blogs. Unless it was old enough to be to my Antimodernism site or saying:


Now, to the main dish:
AN, status
8 May, 16:32.
Just tried to log in to my account at the Catholic Answers Forum and got this. I assume my offence was that I posted about the upcoming Mic'd Up show about The principle

Forum Message
Your account has been locked for the following reason:spam
This change will be lifted:Never
10 May
  • 1) tried to comment and couldn't.
  • 2) wrote a thing
  • 3) looked around at other status update and found something else that I didn't find
  • 4) wrote a thing again.
My first status/comment:
Has someone taken away all the comment threads or is someone giving my computer a bug of it?
My second:
It seems someone has also taken away comments and comment function on FB elsewhere.

I commented on a tweet by "Pontifex" from 28 april, namely that:

  • it was against the word of God to say "inequality is the root of social evil"
  • it is worse than nepotism if a pontiff gives an indulgence for reading HIS own blog or twitter account (as you know monetary alms were taken off indulgences lists at Trent because of a slighter resemblance to simony).

NOW that comment is gone. Is it just my account or is it every account?
Hans-Georg, I'm seeing all the comment threads
Rick DeLano
Which ones are missing?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
None now. They were an hour ago from the computer I was using.
Rick DeLano
OK. Question: Do we know the distance from Earth to Sun?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, insofar as we know the angle of sunshine on moon. And insofar as we know the angle of sunshine to Jupiter or Neptune we can know the distance there to. It is similutaneous triangulation. Pure geometry.

NOT so with so called parallax. Because there there is a movement involved and we do not know that Earth rather than sun + star are moving.

We do also know the distance in lightminutes: eight from sun to earth.

That is why distance measures in light days make sense even without believing alpha Centauri is as far as four light years away.
Rick DeLano
Doesn't matter whether the Earth is moving, or the sun and star are moving. Geometry is the same in either case.

We know from simple geometry that Alpha Centauri is much more than a light day away. This is certain.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No. Dirty little nag, you did not do your homework yesterday.

ANGLE is the same, but we do not know that sun and star move in same distance, which means that the known length (yes that is necessary for triangulation of lengths, I did that in high school!) is outside the relevant triangle.
Rick DeLano
Calm down, HGL. Not necessary to become nasty. This is an intellectual discussion.

The issue of distance, as I have already told you, is relevant *only* to the extent that we can calculate the distance to Alpha Centauri, completely, given a known distance between Earth and Sun.

You have already admitted we know the distance to the Sun. The rest is simple geometry.

Do you deny the validity of geometry?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not when you ignore the same correct argument over and over and over by mere assertion. It was an intellectual discussion years ago, when you and Sungenis ignored it. Now you are still ignoring it and asking me to take that as an intellectual discussion. And since distance to SUN is OUTSIDE the triangle earth - star position a, same star position b, the distance to Sun is irrelevant to correct geoemtry and trigonometry. Learn maths before teaching it!
Rick DeLano
Excuse me, HGL. This assertion: "distance to SUN is OUTSIDE the triangle earth - star position"- is false. A triangle consisting of Earth/Sun/Alpha Centauri can be constructed. Do you deny this?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It could if you had angle of sunlight on alpha centauri or angle of starlight on sun.
Rick DeLano
No. It can be constructed very easily. Take Earth. Or Sun. Or Alpha Centauri. Make a dot. Connect a line from that dot to each of the other two. Notice that we have a triangle. Do you deny this?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Works on paper. Works equally on paper whatever distance you allot to alpha C from Sun and Earth.
Rick DeLano
We agree that it works on paper.

It is not correct that it works on paper whatever distance you allot to Alpha Centauri, since we notice that there is a precise degree, measurable, by which Alpha Centauri changes its position wrt Earth, over the course of a year.

This precise degree is, if memory serves, 0.75 degrees of arc.

Would you like me to check, or do you admit this>?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In order not to allow a confusion of terms: I do not agree that the triangle on the paper can give you the angle of sunlight on alpha Centauri or the angle of alpha Centauri light on Sun.

The angle of α Centauri 0.76 arc seconds is not involved in a triangle involving the sun. It is involved in a triangle involving earth - star in two positions.
Rick DeLano
Precisely; that is, parallax is observed in the amount of 0.76 seconds over the course of the year. This gives us, as a matter of simple geometry, the distance to Alpha Centauri. The result is certain. Do you deny this?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I deny your honesty or coherence in using "precisely" there.
Rick DeLano
I certainly see no evidence of dishonesty in my agreeing to your terms precisely.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did very much not agree to your proposition, nor does it follow from the ones I agreed to.

Update : What about a triangle involving – simultaneously – Earth, Sun and Star ?

Between Earth and Sun, as I admitted, distance can be known.

The problem with such a triangle is that it does not involve the known angle of what is called « parallax » so it gives us one distance (Earth to Sun) and one angle (between Sun and Star as seen from Earth). Two of the six quantities.

How so it does not involve the known angle ? That known angle is in fact between, not two sides of the triangle, but between two versions of the side Earth to Star. So that side of the triangle is wavering between for instance Christmas and St John’s Feast at Midsummer by a variation of – in the case ofα Centauri – these 0.76 arc seconds. But that is the temporal wavering of one of the sides, not any angle within the simultaneous triangle. And unlike for the case when Sun is at angles with Moon or Jupiter, the lacking angles, as said, cannot be measured. For α Centauri is not a reflecting body on which you can measure angle of reflected sunlight. Nor is the Sun a reflecting body on which you can measure the angle of reflected α Centauri-light. As already said./HGL

One more update:

NG blogs > Phenomena: No Place Like Home
Here’s What Exoplanets Really Look Like — For Now
by Nadia Drake

Relevant quote:

We know of more than 1,700 exoplanets. But most of these planets have been detected indirectly, by the way they darken their stars’ faces, their gentle tugs on their home stars, or by the effects of their gravity on distant starlight.

In other words - they have been concluded from Newtonian mechanistic explanations rather than seen.

I posed some questions in a comment I posted, which has not been published, as yet.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ioannes Georgius Lundahl
May 16, 2014

“Discovered in 2008, planet 1RXS 1609 (upper left) is about eight times as massive as Jupiter and orbits a sun-like star about 500 light-years away”

Its massivity is, I suppose, partly a conclusion of apparent size calculated with the distance of 500 lightyears, right?

“An exoplanet (red spot), orbits the brown dwarf 2M1207 (centre), about 230 light-years from Earth. 2M1207b is five times more massive than Jupiter”

Mutatis mutandis dito, right?

“Planetary system HR 8799 and its four planets are roughly 129 light-years from Earth. The planets are all bigger than Jupiter.”

And so on?

“Controversial planet Fomalhaut b, with less than two Jupiter-masses, circles the star Fomalhaut, 25 light-years away.”

Mass calculated from mass of star (apparent size calculated by distance, right?) calculated by Newtonian mechanics for orbits, right?

“HD 106906b orbits a star 300 light-years away. At 11 Jupiter-masses, HD 106906 b is pushing the upper limits of planetary masses.”

Second method [of the two I mentioned above] of calculation of 11 Jupiter masses, I presume?

“Planet GJ 504 b is about four Jupiter-masses and orbits a sun-like star 57 light-years away. In visible light, the planet would be magenta”

Not visible / in visible light? How do we know it is there?

“Gas giant GU Psc b, announced May 13, is 2,000 times the Earth-sun distance from its star.”

That distance is of course calculated from the calculated distance from us to its star?

vendredi 9 mai 2014

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation + Small Universe (is "Parallax" Really Parallactic?)

AN (status) :
Someone at the Geocentricity group just posted this: "Just finished reading an excellent post where Rick DeLano takes Ethan Seigal to task on his own blog. Scroll down the page to find where Rick jumps into the discussion. I haven't finished following all the links he posted but I'm looking forward to reading further about such a fascinating topic - The CMB showing that Earth clearly has a preferred location in the universe."

Starts with a Bang : So… the Earth is 6,001 years old now?
Posted by Ethan Siegal on January 3, 2011

I notice that pre-Planck (this discussion was in 2011), opponents had a standard list of explanations for the 'axis of evil'. I think they assumed that Planck would help them to explain it away. BTW- Mark Wyatt updates the thread in March 2013 with the Planck data confirming the WMAP & COBE observations. As usual, the opponents at this point are reduced to ad hominems.
"Because the only way the Cosmic Microwave Background is meaningful in any way is if you accept the Big Bang picture of the Universe, where it’s many billions of years (13.7, to be precise) old!"

He meant the only way he could make it meaningful.

St Augustine said something somewhere of heat generated by movements of stars or planets and about waters of heaven being there to cool it ... Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be generated by the movement of stars.

[From link above, just one of several images.]

If red stuff = more intensity of radiation, then this could be because we are dealing with stars generating more heat because moving faster. Or?
Rick DeLano
The CMB is either the left over radiation from the Big Bang, or else it is the ambient radiation of the total emissions of stars, quasars, BlLac's, X-ray emitters, etc. Under *either* assumption, the astonishing alignments with the equinox and ecliptic are simply devastating- undereither assumption, there should be no discernible pattern in the CMB at all. And *certainly* not one pointing our a special direction which would lead any observer in the universe smart enough to build telescopes to…well. To the one place in the universe we *know* there are observers smart enough to build telescopes.
Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed/appreciated Rick's responses to the article's author in the comment section and think it's significant that between 2011 and now, he was not able to refute Rick's explanations which poked significant holes in the article.
Rick DeLano
I bet the film on the Axis. 95% of the cosmological community was sure Planck would debunk it. The smartest guys said it wouldn't.

It didn't.

Which is one very important reason why "The Principle" has been subjected to the hysterical disinformation campaign we have seen, and this is only the beginning. We are the most important film out there right now, because the most dangerous- by far.
It's ironic that so many people who supposedly respect science are exhibiting the most anti-scientific behavior when it comes to this movie. I bet all the negative press will greatly increase the number of people who see it. All the hand wringing and ad hominems have made me curious enough that I just bought Robert Sungenis' book. I look forward to the film's release!!
Rick DeLano
and a few months and counting; believe it or not since we are accustomed to hear from the NWO's religion that the earth is billions years old it become difficult to accept the real age of the earth. Added to this, we are bombarded day and night with the same data so, when some one comes with young earth it is very hard to believe it. PS not for me. God bless

As for the universe' size, we don't know because as I stated above "we do not know what is light," it follow that light cannot be used to measure distances and sizes. The numbers of the stars are known to God alone. So it follows that the size of the universe is, also, too known by God alone. God bless
There is quite a more humdrum reason why we cannot know that the size of the universe is as big as purported:

a) Heliocentrics use the halfyearly movement observed as 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri as a PARALLAX

b) if that is not the case, stars being moved by angels are moved in time with the sun but not necessarily at same pace of movement, so triangulation tells us nothing: you cannot triangulate the remaining quantities from one known angle and no known distance.

Hence, the greatest size we may truly be certain of is the distance to the furthestmost objects reflecting sunlight at a visible angle.

And even there I am not quite sure if objects moving faster than light (supposing it has the speed calculated) are not wrongly triangulated, since six hours earlier they were at 90° angles from where now, and if so there comes a speed of angular movement at which these angles may be relevant for correct assessment of planetary distance.
The universe is a little less than a light day in size. Hope that helped you guys.
Rick DeLano
All due respect, it helps us not at all, Steve, unless you can prove it.
He need not prove it. One needs only prove that the opposite cannot be proven. Like that 13.5 billion lightyears from only one end to earth cannot be proven.

There are TWO proofs of very big universe.

Category A starts off with parallax, stating α Centauri must be - oh yeah? - 4 light years away, because it is really not moving - oh no? - because it is really earth that is moving - quoth the heresy that Galileo renounced.

Category B is that stars have minimum sizes. How so, minimum sizes? A Chihuahua size is probably minimum for a dog. We know that because we have seen Chihuahuas at very close hand and other dogs as well. We have NOT seen stars that close at hand.

The reason given is that stars smaller than Jupiter in mass would imply that Jupiter could not exist as having that mass of mainly hydrogen, since otherwise it would have, like the stars, self ignited. Because, you know, self ignition through stars having a critical mass which self ignites, is the ONLY way in which stars could POSSIBLY have come to shine. Tell that to CERN before they waste more money in trying to produce fusion energy in mcuh smaller masses than that of earth!
Rick DeLano
"He need not prove it. One needs only prove that the opposite cannot be proven."-- the opposite can be, and has been proven.

Parallax is an observational fact. The question of whether it is the earth or the firmament that is moving is a legitimate scientific question, but the fact is that Alpha Centauri shows a parallax, and, therefore, the universe is larger than a single light-day.
Eh, no. The question is not whether α Centauri shows a movement or not, it does. The question is whether that movement is wysiwig or parallactic behind the appearance. What is more behoving to an almighty creator who is also honest?

If it is wysiwig (off my beat !), it is not parallactic and thus tells us nada about alpha Centauri's distance.
Rick DeLano
To the contrary. It is certainly parallactic. The only question is whether the cosmos is moving about a fixed Earth, or the Earth is moving in a fixed cosmos. The trigonometry is precisely the same in either case; that is, a parallax is observed.
Obviously, if it is wysiwyg - sorry for wisiwig spelling mistake - it means someone or something is moving alpha Centauri for aesthetic purposes. Like an angel in the Biblical world view - unless you think St Thomas was mistaken and that stars really have angelic souls.

The triginometry (sic - as said!) is NOT the same if the known distance is or is NOT involved in the triangle.

Rick DeLano
The trigonometry is exactly the same, if we indeed employ the term light day, which the original post did.

Given: the concept "light day". Given: observed parallax of Alpha Centauri. Trigonometric certainty follows: the universe is larger than one light day.
I have made a few diagrams over trigonometry:

hglwrites : Geo vs Helio

In the one case, the distance of the yearly movement IS involved in triangle because that of the earth. In the other case the distance of the yearly movement is NOT involved in the triangle because that of the sun.
Rick DeLano
Sorry, Hans George. (sic !) This is not correct. The geometry is precisely identical whether the Earth is taken as fixed, or the star is taken as fixed.
It is not - unless you can PROVE (how?) that the star is making the "parallax" in exactly the same distance as well as same time with the Sun.

Do. Your. Homework.
Rick, sorry I took so long from last post to respond. (Had to sleep) I actually can prove that the universe is less than 1 light day in size. But the format here does not allow for that type of depth . I can use God's Holy Word to easily prove the size of the Universe. (From a believers point of view)(A Christian point of view) Without a true belief in God's Word, without the Holy spirit inside you, my proof texts will be meaningless. So non-Christian will just block at what I have to present.

To add to my last statement. A geocentric universe has to be small in order to work from our observable perspective. If people keep talking about light years, then nothing makes sense from a geocentric perspective or a Biblical perspective.
I would say the Universe would not be many light days across, if Adam and Eve saw all the stars on Friday evening which had been created on Wednesday. However, it suffices they could see Sun, Moon and two planets, they might have seen the fixed stars later in their stay in Eden.

I would say the minimum might be one light day from here to Heaven. The maximum would be 3 and a 1/2 light years (Christ rising up from His throne and getting on horse if riding at speed of light for Harmageddon and doing this when challenged by Mr or Mrs 18*37).

Harmageddon - heard the battle itself is not there, just the troop mustering before - but you know what I mean, and that statement could be wrong.

Speaking of which - wasn't Wagner and weren't Odinists in some way prophetic about that ride of Apocalypse 19 in this context:

Wagner - RIDE OF THE VALKYRIES - Furtwangler

Of course, the Odinists were probably just plagiarising the Apocalypse or such content of it as they got by word of mouth - or their Sibyl was forced to tell truth by God's overruling her demons.
Rick DeLano @SM
"A geocentric universe has to be small in order to work from our observable perspective."

No it doesn't.

"If people keep talking about light years, then nothing makes sense from a geocentric perspective or a Biblical perspective"

Yes it does

"I actually can prove that the universe is less than 1 light day in size. But the format here does not allow for that type of depth . I can use God's Holy Word to easily prove the size of the Universe."

Then do so.
Rick DeLano @me/HGL

"t is not - unless you can PROVE (how?) that the star is making the "parallax" in exactly the same distance as well as same time with the Sun"

it is not the same "distance".

It is the same angular relationship. This requires no proof. It is self-evident; in other words, it is what we *observe*, apart from any assumption. The angular relationships between Sun, Earth, and Alpha Centauri are exactly the same regardless of whether we take the Earth as fixed, and the cosmos in motion, or whether we take the cosmos fixed, and the earth in motion. Guaranteed.
Rick, isn't this exactly the point Einstein was trying to make?

Einstein's quote: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolomy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could used with equal justification. The two sentences: "the sun is at rest and the Earth moves", or "the sun moves and the Earth is at rest", would simply mean to different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, p.212.)

I appreciate the intellectual honesty of this heliocentrist.

Subversive Thinking : Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Robert Sungenis on the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: Reflections on the importance of philosophical pressupositions in science
I will try and get you my proof texts . It's hard to put them on this kind of forum. I will do my best...
Rick DeLano @CB
Yes! I saw the same article and liked it so much I put it up on my blog:

Magisterial Fundies : How A Heliocentrist Views "The Principle"
Thank you Rick, there are some great comments under your blog post as well,
Time lapse video shows us that the Sun,Moon,and Stars rotate around us once every 24hours. Their moving at the same pace across the sky. If the stars are more than 1/2 to 1 light day from us, then the speed that stars would need to be moving would be beyond clear observations from earth .

The universe is small.

All the stars are the same distance from us. If the stars were separated by millions of light years from each other and US, then everything would be different every night, the constellations would not stay together or keep there place in the sky. The universe is extremely smaller than we have been taught. Real observable science shows us that light years are imagination of secular scientists who don't believe in a uniquely created earth and universe with us at the center. They believe in a Hugh universe that was a cosmic accident. We are not an accident.

God separated the water below from the waters above. The place between the waters is the firmament. God placed the Sun, Moon, And stars in the firmament. The are for lights, signs, appointed times. The stars are just beyond what people incorrectly call our solar system. Then the waters that are above, then we have what Paul in Corinthians called the 3rd Heaven. Where God is.
^^ agent provocateur?
Rick DeLano @LC
I think he's just trying to work things through, Larry. After all, the Scriptures say, it is the glory of God to hide a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out
Rick DeLano @SM
"Time lapse video shows us that the Sun,Moon,and Stars rotate around us once every 24hours. Their moving at the same pace across the sky."

no, it is the firmament that is moving, and carrying them along with it.

"If the stars are more than 1/2 to 1 light day from us, then the speed that stars would need to be moving would be beyond clear observations from earth"

Where is that in the Bible, SM? It seems to me you are introducing the secular notion of a constant speed of light, which is limited according to the Special Theory of relativity. You need to know that SR applies only to inertial frames, and rotating frames (such as the firmament) are *non-inertial*. General Relativity applies to non-inertial frames, and under GR, the centrifugal forces involved allow objects to move at much higher than "c". Check this:
Rick DeLano’s quote/reference :
"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)
Rick DeLano @SM again
So there is absolutely no biblical or scientific evidence to support your theory, Steve
I understand that the speed of light is not a constant. That was exactly my point. But, since STARS are all at the same distance from us, They all need to be moving at speeds that would not cause an altering of our visual perception of them. They are all moving at exactly the same speed. Since they are less than a light day from us, there speed can easily be L

Less than light speed. I don't believe we have gravitation. I believe we live in a universe that is electromagneticly connected. Also, the theory of relativity has been proven false multiple times, in a variety of different repeatable experiments.

The makeup of our universe is clearly layed out in scripture. As I pointed out before. Since I have no way of measuring the distance to the furthest planet out, we can use secular measurements, which still puts our universe at less than a light day, given the biblical model of our universe.
HGL (ignoring for now relativity and sticking with more basic stuff, perhaps) @Rick DeLano
"it is not the same 'distance'. It is the same angular relationship. This requires no proof. It is self-evident; in other words, it is what we observe, apart from any assumption."

Rick, ONE ANGLE is NOT enough to triangulate.

To triangulate, you need:

  • out of the three sides and three angles
  • at least three of the quantities


  • to get a length you need among the three at least ONE known length.

To have one known length, either that is the distance between earth and earth. You and I agree it is NOT. OR, you assume star is moving same length as the sun is. Which is the precise assumption I am challenging, how do you pretend to know that?

"The angular relationships between Sun, Earth, and Alpha Centauri are exactly the same regardless of whether we take the Earth as fixed, and the cosmos in motion, or whether we take the cosmos fixed, and the earth in motion."

Even if you could guarantee that the movement of alpha Centari was parallel to that of the sun, so that the angles were the same but in opposite direction, you would still have only three angles and no distance. UNLESS you assume it is not just same plane but also same distance as sun.

In this tirade [CB will challenge this word, see below] you smuggled in an assumption: that the movement of alpha Centauri was part of the movement of the Cosmos. And how do you know THAT?
"If the stars were separated by millions of light years from each other and US, then everything would be different every night, the constellations would not stay together or keep there place in the sky"

SM, why?

Because they would fall apart?

EVEN at a distance beyond furthest distance triangulated "in solar system" it would at the great speeds fall apart unless God kept it together in a marvellous way.

"The stars are just beyond what people incorrectly call our solar system."

Agreed, basically. With two provisos.

1) Exoplanets (I think a few have actually been seen, not as most of them just concluded) must have an explanation why they reflect no sunlight.

2) Solar system may even be an accurate description, provided one says, like Tycho Brahe, that Earth is within it, but not moving with it. In but not of.

"Time lapse video shows us that the Sun,Moon,and Stars rotate around us once every 24hours. Their moving at the same pace across the sky. If the stars are more than 1/2 to 1 light day from us, then the speed that stars would need to be moving would be beyond clear observations from earth ."

If a star is moving around us and is exactly one light day away from us, then its light would reach us from same angle as where it is right now, but the light was emitted when it was there yesterday.

Same if it is two light days away. [The light being then emitted 48 h. ago, etc.]

"The stars are just beyond what people incorrectly call our solar system. Then the waters that are above, then we have what Paul in Corinthians called the 3rd Heaven."

You are assuming that the firmament above which the waters are is the same as the firmament of the stars. I think "waters above the firmament" mean above the earth atmoshphere or perhaps even solar system (within which we are but of which we are not). They are observed by spectrography as water molecules and hydrogen molecules in interstellar matter.
If I may, using words like "tirade" is counterproductive to maintaining civil discourse.
… you may not have noted, but Rick was a bit less than civil to me, and I did not just call it a tirade, I also answered it as an argument.

I have been pointing this trigonometric fact out to Rick DeLano's colleague Robert Sungenis some while ago.

deretour : But, Mr. Sungenis!
Hans, I've followed this thread closely and have not found Rick DeLano to be anything but respectful. I could be wrong though, maybe you could copy and paste something he said to prove me wrong. All I was pointing out is that using words like tirade are disrespectful and dismissive and should be avoided, especially in light of Philippians 2:3 and other passages.
what I took as a tirade was his nagging about an argument of his that he thought I had not grasped, when in fact I had ALREADY refuted it.

Of course, if you did not understand my refutation, you would probably agree with him and find it stupid and disrespectful of me to call his nagging nagging.
Again you become disrespectful and dismissive by suggesting that my agreeing with Rick's argument could only be because I don't understand your refutation. You may be convinced by your own arguments, but please don't assume that those who aren't as equally convinced are unintelligent.

You appear frustrated that he doesn't find your "refutation" satisfying but that's no reason for disrespect. Telling someone to "Do. You. Homework" while also referring to their responses as "tirades" and "nagging" are not appropriate for a Catholic group, or anywhere respectful discussions are held.
Peace in Christ
OK, I am not and was not assuming you were stupid.

I was and am basically assuming you prefer "understanding" Relativity to understanding a real science like Geoemtry or specifically its part Trigonometry.

If you do not like my attitude, fine, I was not precisely asking for your internvention.

I will not give you "peace", I think you come recently from something like Pentecostals and have too much left of their manners and are treating Rick DeLano as if he were our pastor. Newsflash, he is not, neither mine nor yours. We were having a discussion as equals, same as he was with you. Your reading of - was it Philippians - is severly Puritanical. I am not buying into it. Can that close off OUR little side track now, please?
Back to the main theme:
I like your response HANS,. So maybe I will have to recalculate to just a few light hours... LOL
I think one even number of light days would be somewhat in line with God's veracity.
I read what you said about the waters above. I'm not going to say either of us is right or wrong. But I tend to think that there is water above the Stars also, and this is why when observed through a telescope it gives astronomers a warped view of things and they come to wrong conclusions like parallax. Just a thought...
SM, thank you! I like the attitude.
I thought this group was geocentrict who love God's Word and the discussion of these beliefs. I have found many (not all) who claim to be geocentric, and yet they use pseudo science and secular scientific mathematical gobbletigook to back up their opinions. If you believe we live in a geocentric universe great. We know that secular scientists have lied about heliocentricism. Why would you use their fake math and positions about the size of the universe, light years, galaxies, etc... to back your position of a geocentric universe. You can easily use the Bible and what God Has said, real math, and true observable science to PROVE your position about a geocentric universe.
There is a bunch of maths which does add up with the Word of God. Like trigonometry requiring three magnitudes of which at least one length to make a distance measure. And from earth what we have is an angle, no more (speaking of α Centauri and such).

A Correspondence with an Adherent of Capitalism

He used the FB mail to keep it discreet, I will abbreviate his name, as usual in such cases. As far as I know he is a medical practitioner* and not a public person at all. He started the correspondence with a mail that referred to one of our combox exchanges, I did at first not know which one.

I apology if you misunderstood me. but Hans to get some idea where you are at I have a question for you. QUESTION do you believe that you were born to have a free will? yes or no will do
No, if I misunderstood you, you cannot apologise for that, but only for being unclear. Was I born to have a free will? Very clearly YES, and I hope I still have one. What has that got to do with ANYTHING we have discussed?
the reason I ask the question is because all other forms of political and philosophical reasoning boils down to only one philosophical and political belief that is in the nature of man and that is capitalism every man and woman want to capitalized on their abilities through there free will whereas all other political and philosophical does not allow man to have his freewill
Wrong, Capitalism does NOT allow every man and woman to capitalise their abilities. I just told you, big business has closed down so many small business and thereby prevented the former owners to continue to capitalise their abilities.

One of your perks with being a medical doctor (as I presume) and a free practitioner (as I presume) is that you can, free from a boss and a large administration capitalise and even more importantly use your own capabilities to their best. Whereas a boss and an administration would hamper you. Capitalism has landed lots of people in your position in non-medical lines of business into the less comfortable position of having a boss and an administration to adapt to.
Capitalism allows every human being to freely choose to be the very best you can be. but now if you are talking crony capitalism you might have a point. to prove my point study after study have proven that if you ask anybody on the street if I give you this Million dollars would you take it? and 99.9% of everyone that was given that choice said yes and why is that because every human being is a capitalist at heart regardless of any philosophical or political belief. lets take something so simple and small as your boss or manager asking if you wanted a cost of living raise would you take it? of course you and I would. why? because we want to capitalize on the opportunity of making more money in order to make living a lot better for ourselves and our family. Hans do you see where I am going with this? that is why I always say to people that don't believe in Capitalism "okay I will believe in any other from of political-ISM so long as I am at the top of the food chain and am able to call the shots deal?" with that comment they now get it !! they realize that at the top of every political-ISM there has to be someone who is the top capitalist calling the shots for everyone else. Mao Stalin Pol Pot Mussolini and Franco and all the rest were capitalist at the top of their political belief system they capitalized on their opportunity and called the shots. do you understand now. do you think Karl Marx went out into the fields and picked berries with all the rest of his country men and women or do you think he stayed home and If he wasn't reading or writing or drinking or having sex with his wife and daughter he was working? the answer is NO think about it.
"Capitalism allows every human being to freely choose to be the very best you can be." About as truthful as "Communism gives to each according to his needs and takes from each according to his capacity" - i e not truthful at all.

"but now if you are talking crony capitalism you might have a point." Thank you. I think I have.

"to prove my point study after study have proven that if you ask anybody on the street if I give you this Million dollars would you take it? and 99.9% of everyone that was given that choice said yes " I would first want to know from whom. And if it had to be a million rather than less. The studies you refer to are from US which has a culture where Jews and Protestants have inculcated that Catholic detachment from money is totally unrealistic and in fact mad. You do not really mean that the studies have proven, you mean they have shown. And some things shown are not valid proof. That includes what psychological studies show. Kinsey report does not prove sex habits of US Americans, it proves the kind of people who would answer such a question were giving lewd answers. These might have been wrong answers, but anyway, the ones who answered were hardly representative.

"because we want to capitalize on the opportunity of making more money in order to make living a lot better for ourselves and our family." Sure, but for my part not at each and every price. If I got a million on my account for writing well, that is fair. If I got it on condition not to write, I would reject the offer. Because it would make me less useful for general human society, less pleasing to God and more likely to pull down a curse on my family and myself.

"that is why I always say to people that don't believe in Capitalism "okay I will believe in any other from of political-ISM so long as I am at the top of the food chain and am able to call the shots deal?" with that comment they now get it !!" A system should not be judged according to how it is on the top of the food chain, but according to how it is to the lowliest of the innocent, to the least of the brethren of Christ. Distributism is about AVOIDING the kind of food chain that the sea has between plancton at the lowest and sharks at the highest.

"Mao Stalin Pol Pot Mussolini and Franco and all the rest were capitalist at the top of their political belief system they capitalized on their opportunity and called the shots." First of all, I am not denying they capitalised for themselves. So does any political ruler in some way, monetary or non-monetary. That said, you cannot compare living as a poor person under Franco or Mussolini to living under Mao. In Italy and in Spain you were encouraged to have your little shop. You were not deprived of ownership of what you owned. Those who were already rich were not despoiled, but they were impeded from ousting the poor self employed and small employers from the market (in 1960's Franco went Capitalist and lots of farmers were driven out of their land in favour of more efficient agriculture, alas). And, if you were a big employer, you were not allowed to totally underpay your workers or neglect the needs of the retired ones. That is NOT comparable to living under Mao in a Lao Gai. China is making money out of Lao Gais. But when Franco had forced labour applied to whom he considered war criminals, it was to erect a monument over all the fallen - both sides. Valle de los Caidos. Not comparable at all.

"do you understand now. do you think Karl Marx went out into the fields and picked berries with all the rest of his country men and women" You STILL seem to be under the very strange illusion that anyone criticising Capitalism is a Marxist. No, I do not think that. But even if Che Guevara actually did that, I do not care I am still not a Marxist. But YOUR behaviour of trying to bully me into accepting your views reminds me very much of a Trotskyist I used to know. It did not work for him, will not work for you. But Trotsky was launched from New York to the Russian Revolution. Either Capitalists were doublecrossing WoodrowW ilson, or Woodrow Wilson was as dishonest to the Czar as the Kaiser was, who let Lenin pass through Berlin. Where the Zeus altar, the seat of Satan was already then and is to this day.

As to Marx, I agree with José Antonio in one of his speeches: he was a talented Jew, who saw the PROBLEM of Capitalism, but NOT the SOLUTION to it. I also agree with Lyndon LaRouche that he severely underestimated the role of USURY (lending 100€ and getting 106€ back a year later, for instacne), in impoverishing the already poor and enriching the already rich. And, as he underestimated the role of usury, he put it down to private property instead, that was his faulty analysis even of the problem.

* In one of the combox debates, he had told a friend, that as some ask people coming with lung cancer or heart problems if they smoke his first question to someone with uterus cancer and a few more conditions is if they have had abortions. It is usually medical practitioners who ask that sort of question to anyone./HGL