Sunday, October 5, 2014

How Susan met Rose E. Pole

Meanwhile, Aunt Alberta had seen the corpse of Jill, and gone to it, since she had been a close friend to Eustace those last years, especially that last year. She was not alone, there was a man with a girl, probably his daughter, since she reminded of him. They also reminded her of Jill Pole.

"Relatives of Jill, I presume? You must be the uncle and cousin, Paul Edward and Rose Ellen, I presume? My condoleances!"

"And you are," said Paul Edward, "the mother of Eustace, Alberta?"



And Alberta insisted on inviting them to a treat, then and there, nearest tea room, an ice cream and soda for Rose and tea with cake for herself and Paul. THey simply had "to take a pause from the grieving" as she put it. Strictly vegetarian and the tea room chosen as very certainly not a pub were they served any strong drink. You know her principles, and keeping low calory intake was not one of her strictest. As she was asked where Harold was, she explained there was some chance she was staying in Sevenoaks for the night, so he had been sent to arrange with the hotel - including for Susan.

Paul Edward was the divorced father of one daughter, he had also been lodging Jill and giving her an English as opposed to exotic education, while her parents were digging for bones somewhere all over the world, whereever there was a good dig to be made. Later they were among the veteran staff of Mary Leakey when she was a widow. This arrangement, while Experiment House was still open, lasted during holidays - hols as they said back then - but after it closed during terms too.

Jill had taken archery lessons for Susan, as said, but Rose - even now only thirteen - had been deemed too young to do so. Rose Ellen was silent, thought of her dead cousin Jill, thought of her mother, divorced and in asylum, and did not know which hurt most.

She liked the ice cream, but as you can imagine did not fully enjoy it. Now and then she cried.

That is where they were when the Spivvinses had invited Susan to the same place. And that is where Rose Ellen Pole and Susan Pevensie first met and made friends.

After Alberta did the introductions (not meaning Rose got the fact that Susan's last name was Pevensie, as shall be explained), Susan sat down at their table next to Rose and turned to her. The Spivvinses understood and paid her tea and sandwich. Themselves getting some at another table. And Su and Rose sat and talked at one end, while Alberta and Paul - soon joined by Harold - talked at the other end.

The first question Rose asked was:

"How was Jill as an archery pupil."

"The kind of archer that if there had been a shooting of arrows, she would have survived better than a train crash - even if her opponents were good warriors."

And this for the first time brightened up the face of Rose since she had heard the bad news same morning.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Nathan Coon and Spivvins

Nathan had prepared his little speech pretty carefully. And especially all the gestures. The tone. He had not reckoned on Lucy practically converting everyone of hers among the now deceased, just in the nick of time, nor on it showing thanks to rosaries and scapulars. She had not reckoned on the smile of her face giving Susan the comfort she really needed. He had not reckoned in Susan feeling guilt for having betrayed Lucy to him.

If psychologists get away with treating people, it is partly because anyone complaining seriously can usually be shut up and rendered thereby less credible and often enough even more uncomfortable than under his therapy.

It is also because their patients see them as the strong person. So that when reliance in such a one fails, it is at least not replaced by a stronger confidence in the patient himself or in what he stands for.

This they regularly reckon on. When they are wrong about a peaceful and modest person, they often refuse to see the evidence. Their superiority over their patient as to mental strength is so much a religion to them that if there is evidence for the contrary, they block it out. This was actually Nathan Coon's religion even more than his involvement in the Lodge of Tash. To him, they were simply his therapists, odd as that may seem to someone retaining his sanity more than therapists do.

And if the person they were treating as a patient is not peaceful and modest, if there is a quarrel, if they see evidence of something having gone wrong, they have a real swiftness in reinterpreting that new evidence as evidence of the patient "compensating" (for a real and really felt inferiority) in unrealistic and untenable ways. And as long as many people living ordinary lives and many people occasionally bossing over such support them, the therapists are often lucky enough to become right in such a supposition, even if they were not to start with, when the conflict broke out.

Nathan Coon arrived at Sevenoaks. He soon was at the scene of the trainwreck. He bit his lips when seeing some bodies were smashed. With some relief he spotted Susan as she was talking with the Spivvinses.

He made a sign to her as she sighted him. "Oh both!" she sighed. She imagined he was going to offer some comfort she very clearly did not need from him.

She had this agreement with him. Probably nearly everyone going to a therapist had it back then. Except those often locked up or closely wateched over by others. You see, according to the deal she had no need to acknowledge she was going to therapy to people not aware of that. Back then such an admission would have felt much more shameful than now. These days films are nearly supposed to include a therapist, but back then that was not done in comedy or adventure, more like, if at all, in heavy films and even there hardly for the hero. So, to hide her not quite genial situation she had no need to tell strangers about him.

She had once or twice suspected him of not keeping his - unspoken - part of the bargain but of instead telling strangers about her behind her back. One or two new acquaintances suddenly just had dropped her - suspiciously enough in conditions that she might have been making a good impression on them by the first meeting, but they may have dropped out because of learning precisely such a thing. However, she was submitting herself to therapy and this had not stopped her from drowing these thoughts in a gush of confidence for him. Now, beside her sister's body, there was no such gush. Just an "oh bother" - even without such suspicions.

Then there was a short feeling of triumph as she recalled she had a choice. She could either go to him and pretend he was some other kind of acquaintance - or turn away the head and thus signal him it was absolutely not the right moment. She choose the latter alternative and turned her head back to the Spivvinses, the young Spivvins and the taxi driver from yesternight.

"So you were saying?" she said (and she had genuinely lost track of it while seeing Nathan Coon) with a most radiant smile. Like the one she had used when speaking to her best friend "George" to get rid of a bothersome but fortunately shy admirer.

Unfortunately for her, Nathan Coon was not a shy admirer. He bumped in from behind, touched her shoulder ever so gently, told her calmly and gently: "Susan, we would need to talk one of these days - it's quite alright if it isn't now, but ideally before the funeral ..."

Tom Spivvins, fortunately for her, seemed to grasp her discomfort with this person, especially when she also ever so gently got her shoulder away from under his hand (with a shudder and feeling of relief as he was forcved to let her go in order not to make a scene). He stepped forth to more or less protect her integrity, a bit like his uncle had done to protect her against the cruel war hero last night.

"Sir, I do not know who you are in general or who you are to her, but she seems to mind your company."

Nathan had a routine for situations like this one. Susan knew it partly from when Peter had tried to protect Lucy - and when he had failed, mainly due to her. But this time he varied it.

"I am her uncle."

As this did not duly impress young Spivvins, as his uncle stepped forth and added "you don't look like it ..." he quickly got himself out of that question by adding:

"Her uncle by marriage. She is the niece of my late wife. We had been looking after her since the day when ... well, frankly, she had a nervous breakdown."

Susan was angry but too flabberghasted by the dishonesty. Was he going to tell the story of Lucy, which was dishonest even about her? She tried to open her mouth, couldn't when he just continued:

"We had to consult a psychiatrist. No, no, it's not that bad she is not going to therapy," he said with a dishonesty blatant to her. "She was locked up for a week." (Hey, yes, that was what happened to Lu! What an infamous ...) "and afterwards we were told not to worry. She was only a bit mentally frail, but she needed our attention. By now, it is two weeks we haven't heard from her, we are getting worried."

He didn't tell "we" happened to sound better than "I" in such contexts, besides being ironically true when compared to the lodge being involved. But he had been clumsy on a detail.

"We? I thought you were a widower!"

"Me and my new wife. Look here, you are really strangers to her, and to us, this is really none of your business. But fact remains, I remarried."

"In that case, she might not be getting along properly with her step aunt. Leace her alone."

The two Spivvinses, to the amazement of Susan, stepped closer to Nathan and made him take a step back. And the rest of their family were also stepping in behind them.

Nathan thus stepped back, but trying to wrench a victory from defeat, he turned to Susan and said: "Tomorrow by 1 p.m.? Will that be fine?"

"No." Susan couldn't believe she was getting out of his grasp so cheaply, and she enjoyed every moment of it.

"I didn't hear that. I'll be waiting at the office tomorrow ..."


The two Spivvinses were getting irritable:

"You heard she said no," said the uncle.

"A no is a no," said the Tom. Both were uncovering the arms and showing the fists by now.

And Nathan knew he had lost with them at hand. When he went off, she wondered what his next move would be, especially as he had told her while briskly walking away "... I see you have met some irresponsible people."

She knew that that might mean he was going to speak to some responsible people ... about her. And yet, she was too relieved to be afraid.

"If there had been a God" (she said in her mind) "it is almost as if He had heard the prayers of Lucy."

She told the Spivvinses cordially: "thank you" and ...

... she added to herself in her mind: "that means she would have had to forgive me for this to happen." And she recalled where Edmund had had that particular smile : on the Splendor Hyaline when leaving Tashbaan.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Contra Nicola Cabibbo

Comminciamo con una citazione:

Anche Nicola Cabibbo, presidente dell'Accademia Pontificia delle Scienze, sottolinea che

«Giovanni Paolo II, fin dal 1996, ha detto chiaro e tondo che l'evoluzionismo è molto più che una mera ipotesi. Una posizione chiarissima, che rendeva ancora più netta la scelta rispetto alla enciclica Humani Generis di Pio XII. Oggi tra gli scienziati cattolici è chiarissimo che si può benissimo credere nell'evoluzionismo e nella Creazione (non nel creazionismo). Dire il contrario è come sostenere che la Terra è piatta o il Sole si muove perché così diceva la Bibbia».

ROMEO BASSOLI : Darwin, bersaglio della Destra

  • "Dire il contrario è come sostenere che la Terra è piatta ... perché così diceva la Bibbia"

    • La Bibbia en nessun loco non dice directamente che la Terra è piatta.
    • Un loco allegato per pretendere che la Bibbia lo implica è un loco de Isaia, parlando del circulo o dei circuli della Terra. Mai se una Terra piatta può avere un circulo, una Terra che è un globo deve avere circuli. Allora, questo loco non è un argumento.
    • Un oltro loco allegato per pretendere che la Bibbia lo implica, o infatto due o più, sono i lochi dove si dice dei quattro angoli della Terra. Ora, è impossibile di sostenere che semplicemente la Terra en totale ha quattro angoli como limite estremo ed un circulo como limite estremo. O il circulo deve essere esterno, o interno, o ai lochi esterno, ai lochi interno ai quattro angoli. Questo stesso nel caso di una Terra piatta. Ora, una delle soluzioni, che il circulo è esterno ai angoli, resta possibile nel caso di una Terra ch'è un globo. Prendendo questa soluzione, i quattro angoli della Terra sono i quattro angoli del Vecchio Mondo. Sopratutto se il Ebreo o Aramaico nel Vecchio Testamento ha la parola "eretz".
    • En fine, allora, la Bibbia non dice che la Terra è piatta.

  • "Dire il contrario è come sostenere che ... il Sole si muove perché così diceva la Bibbia"

    • Questo è oltra cosa. Nel libbro di Giosuè, e nei libbri dei Regi, il Sole si muove differamente che dal normale. Nei due casi, c'è una circonstanza perchè sta impossibile pretendere che il vero miraculo sia che la Terra non ruotava intorno a sé como da normale.
    • Nel libbro di Giosuè, la circonstanza è doppia - anche la Luna fermò ed il testo sopra questo non è solo il narrativo, dove si può pretendere "la lengua usuale delle apparenze", mai anche la parola stessa del miraculatore, di Giosuè. Questa parola fu inspirata e diretta verso lo che aveva a fermare - cio è, non la Terra, mai il Sole e la Luna.
    • Nei libri dei Regi la circonstanza è che il Sole si muove al senso contrario, e più di ritorno. È un movimento che acrebbe scosso la Terra nel caso che sia un movimento della Terra.
    • Invece, non abbiamo prove che la Terra si muova intorno al sole. Como non abbiamo prove che la Terra sie vecchia da millioni o milliardi di anni, como non abbiamo prove che il cano ed il gatto hanno un antenato commune. Como non abbiamo prove che il uomo sviloppò si dalle bestie.

En fine, Nicola Cabibbo non fu tale specifico nell'argumentazione en questa citazione, ed io non può argumentare talemente nel vacuo. Se sostiene con argumenti più specifichi, volontieri lo confutarai. Se non sostiene, già sono stato più specifico e meno puramente retórico di lui.

Quanto a Giovanni Paolo II, o meno inesacto, Carolo Wojtyla, non credo che sia stato papa, non credo che sia oggi un santo canonizato. E per consequenza, non credo che sia Bergoglio il papa non più.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Biblioteca Giorgio Pompidou
Giorno dopo l'Assunzione

Sunday, June 22, 2014

"Nessuno, oggi, crede il Geocentrismo"

Sapete, ho visto questo bellissimo filme con Terence Hill:

La Wichipédia Italiana : Il mio nome è Nessunoè_Nessuno

È molto buona cosa non chiamarsi Polifemo, non c'è?

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij

1) Mirabilis cosmos, mirabilior cosmou Creator, 2) Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij

Citatur Beatus Thomas:

Recte fundamento terram comparat quia sicut fundamentum est infima aedificii pars, ita etiam terra est infimum corporum quod subiacet omnibus. Et quia terra est praecipue materia humani corporis, materia autem tempore praecedit id quod ex ea fit, et multo magis ratio artificis qui materiam condidit, ideo signanter dicit ubi eras quando ponebam fundamenta terrae? Ac si dicat: cognoscere rationem fundationis terrae non potes, quia cum terra fundata est nondum eras in rerum natura. Est autem considerandum quod quidam antiquorum situm terrae et aliorum elementorum non attribuerunt alicui rationi ordinanti sed necessitati materiae, secundum quod gravia levibus succident; ut autem haec opinio excludatur, dominus consequenter comparat fundationem terrae fundationi aedificii quae fit secundum aedificatoris rationes: et similiter fundatio terrae facta est secundum providentiam divinam quam humana intelligentia comprehendere non valet, et hoc significat cum subdit indica mihi, si habes intelligentiam, quasi dicat: ideo horum rationem indicare non potes quia ad haec capienda intelligentia tua non sufficit. Est autem considerandum quod artifex in aedificii fundatione quatuor disponit: primo quidem quantum debeat esse fundamentum, et similiter divina ratione dispositum est quod tanta debeat esse quantitas terrae, et non maior vel minor, et quantum ad hoc subdit quis posuit mensuras eius, scilicet secundum omnes dimensiones; et signanter dicit posuit: non enim species terrae ex necessitate talem quantitatem requirit, sed haec quantitas est terrae imposita ex sola ratione divina, quam homo cognoscere non potest, et ideo subdit si nosti, quia scilicet hoc homo nec nosse nec indicare potest. Secundo artifex per suam rationem disponit determinatum situm fundamenti, quem comprehendit per extensionem lineae mensuralis, unde subdit vel quis tetendit super eam lineam, per quam scilicet significatur ratio divinae dispositionis designans determinatum situm terrae in partibus universi. Tertio excogitata quantitate fundamenti et ubi collocandum sit, disponit artifex in quo possit fundamentum firmiter collocari, et quantum ad hoc subdit super quo bases illius, scilicet terrae, fundatae sunt, quia fundata est super centrum mundi. Quarto autem praedictis tribus excogitatis, artifex iam incipit iacere lapides in fundamentum, et primo lapidem angularem ad quem diversi parietes congregantur, et quantum ad hoc subdit aut quis demisit, idest deorsum misit, lapidem angularem eius, per quem scilicet significatur ipsum centrum terrae cui diversae partes terrae connectuntur. Solet autem homo fundamentum aedificii collocare propter necessitatem habitationis, sed ut ostendatur Deus non ex indigentia fundamenta terrae iecisse, subiungit cum me laudarent singula astra matutina, quasi dicat: quamvis adesset mihi habitatio caeli cuius astra me laudant, terram tamen fundavi, non ex indigentia famulantium qui eam inhabitarent sed ex sola voluntate. Non autem hoc dicitur quasi caelum prius sit factum quam terra, praesertim cum in Genesi legitur in principio Deum creasse caelum et terram, astra autem de quibus hic fit mentio leguntur facta fuisse quarta die, sed hoc dicitur ad ostendendum quod ordine naturae caelum et astra priora sunt terra sicut incorruptibile corruptibili et movens moto. Dicit autem astra matutina, idest de novo condita, sicut apud nos astra matutina dicuntur quae in principio diei solent apparere. Quod autem dicuntur astra matutina Deum laudare potest uno modo intelligi materialiter, inquantum scilicet propter sui claritatem et nobilitatem erant materia divinae laudis, etsi non hominibus qui adhuc non erant, saltem Angelis qui iam erant; alio modo secundum illos qui dicunt corpora caelestia animata, astra in suae institutionis initio Deum laudabant non laude vocali sed mentali; quod etiam potest referri ad Angelos quorum ministerio caelestia corpora moventur, ut quod subditur et iubilarent omnes filii Dei referatur ad Angelos supremae hierarchiae, quos Dionysius dicit esse collocatos in vestibulis deitatis: et ideo signanter illis tamquam inferioribus laudem, istis autem tamquam superioribus attribuit iubilationem quae excellentiam quandam laudis importat.

Fons ex qua citatus est Thomas:

Sancti Thomae de Aquino
Expositio super Iob ad litteram
a capite XXXVIII ad caput XLI

Saturday, March 29, 2014

And His Word Went Marching On

On a sad day, when Penda's ilk are again battling against St Oswald, and have had some success in a Parliament which also made itself culpable against Amerindians and Esquimeaux of Canada from 1890's to 1970's by unjust legislation, on a sad day, sing a glad song, on a day of iniquity sing a song of justice, on a day of heresy, sing a song of Orthodoxy. On a day when England has legalised a new slavery called "gay marriage", sing of the Pope who freed the English from an older and often milder slavery called thraldom:

Like a phaisant to a sparrow
Like the feathers on a bird
To those that guide an arrow,
Let the difference be heard!
Like an icon of the Virgin
To a little cute cartoon
Is Liturgic Alleluia
In Latin to this tune.
Pope Gregory had sung it
With piety and awe,
He was walking to the market,
You know well whom he saw!

Not Angles, but Angels
Of the thralls quoth the Pope,
That Elizabeth Ann Seton
May teach us how to cope!
And the Tommies died for freedom,
Saints Becket and some More
For freedom of obeying
Pope Gregory in this shore.
Not Angles, but Angels!
From Hell Fire they'll be wrung,
And if their King is Ælla,
Alleluia shall be sung!

From Thy wrath, my God, De Ira
Call the Deirans to Thy grace!
Let Adolf's brother Botulf
From Ick'noe demons chase!
From Thy wrath unto Thy mercies,
And infuse their hearts with Grace
And though cursed are their idols
Let no curse be on their race!
Oh, dear God, is it far off?
Perhaps to nearer Kent
At least for little starters
Good Austin will be sent.

As pirates they were hunting
For thralls but lost the game
And as they'd done to others
To them was done the same:
That's why on Roman market
They stood for sale 'twas just.
Pope Gregory bought them, freed them,
Because in God we trust,
And freedom goes with Mercy
And both with trust in God
Who lay swaddled in a manger
Who Do-lo-ro-sa trod.

A relative of Ælla,
Who olden Ænglisc spake,
Who worshipt God in Latin
Though the monks might know some Græc
He was yclepëd Oswald,
Yes Oswald was his name,
But some foul impious hunter
Thought he would make good game.
But when the King returnëd
To rule in peace the land
A Mierchan King call'd Penda
In War his life did end.

Now, Oswald meaneth "ruling",
Of "Æsir" who were gods
In the estimate of Pagans
And also certain Mods.
Though Woden ruled Upsala,
Like Cæsars once in Rome
Like Lamas too in Lhasa,
Since Oswald made it home
To Heaven 'bove the Heavens
The Æsir rule no more:
For later their child Olaf
Ruled their idols on his shore.

Like a phaisant to a sparrow
Like the feathers on a bird
To those that guide an arrow,
Let the difference be heard!
Like an icon of the Virgin
To a little cute cartoon
Is Liturgic Alleluia
In Latin to this tune.
Pope Gregory had sung it
With piety and awe,
He was walking to the market,
You know well whom he saw!

Not Angles, but Angels
Of the thralls quoth the Pope,
That Ann Elisabeth Seton
May teach us how to cope!
And the Tommies died for freedom,
Saints Becket and some More
For freedom of obeying
Pope Gregory in this shore.
Not Angles, but Angels!
From Hell Fire they'll be wrung,
And if their King is Ælla,
Alleluia shall be sung!

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Romanos 1:20 según Padre Jorge Loring Miró S. J.

Habla él* en primer lugar de astronomía y tengo que decir que no soy de acuerdo con todo:

Origen del cosmos.

Las cosas no se hacen solas; es decir, alguien tiene que hacerlas. Tanto la mesa y la casa, como el Sol, la Tierra y las estrellas han sido hechos por alguien. La mesa ha sido hecha por el carpintero, la casa ha sido hecha por el albañil.


1,1. Si paseas por la playa un día que ha bajado la marea, conoces, por las huellas en la arena, si lo que pasó por allí antes que tú fue un hombre, un perro o un pájaro. Lo mismo vamos a hacer nosotros para averiguar la existencia de Dios.

A Dios no le podemos ver, porque es espíritu; y el espíritu no se ve con los ojos de la cara. «A Dios no lo ha visto nadie».

Pero yo puedo conocer una cosa con el entendimiento aunque no la vea con los ojos de la cara: si veo un abrigo colgado de la pared, sé que allí hay un clavo, aunque no lo vea. Si no, el abrigo no se sostendría.

Vamos a conocer a Dios por las huellas que ha dejado en la creación. Dice San Pablo que Dios es cognoscible con la razón a través de las criaturas.

Empecemos por la huella que Dios ha dejado en el cielo.

Hasta ahorita soy de acuerdo. Empecemos por la huella que Dios ha dejado en el cielo.

Tú sabes que aquellas huellas en la arena no se han hecho solas.

Pues mira el cielo. ¿Puedes contar las estrellas?

El Atlas del cosmos, que ya se ha empezado a publicar, constará de veinte volúmenes, donde figurarán unos quinientos millones de estrellas. El número total de las estrellas del Universo se calcula en unos 200.000 trillones de estrellas: ¡un número de veinticuatro cifras!

El Sol tiene diez planetas: Mercurio, Venus, la Tierra, Marte, Júpiter, Saturno, Urano, Neptuno, Plutón, (descubierto en 1931 por Percival Lowell), y el décimo que se acaba de descubrir. Los astrónomos Thomas van Flandern y Robert Harrison, del Observatorio Naval de los Estados Unidos, lo han confirmado con sus cálculos sobre las perturbaciones en las órbitas de Urano y Neptuno. Unos le llaman el planeta X. El Dr. John Murray, de la Open University, lo llama Némesis.

El año 2004, La NASA americana descubrió un nuevo planeta en el sistema solar. Lo ha llamado Sedna, y es el más alejado del Sol. Está a 12.800 millones de kilómetros. El doble de la distancia de Putón. Es más pequeño que la Luna: como la mitad de Plutón. Por eso algunos dudan si llamarle planeta, pues a los astros más pequeños que Plutón se les llama planetoides.

Nuestra galaxia, la Vía Láctea, tiene cien mil millones de soles11.. Y galaxias como la nuestra se conocen cien mil millones.

En nuestra galaxia hay mil millones de púlsares que son estrellas de neutrones en rotación, que dan seiscientas cincuenta vueltas por segundo, y su densidad es de mil millones de toneladas por centímetro cúbico.

Los púlsares provienen de la explosión de supernovas1 . Emiten haces de radiación como un faro costero, con pulsaciones de periodicidad perfecta. Por eso, en un principio, se creyó que se debían a civilizaciones extraterrestres.

La Nebulosa de Andrómeda consta de doscientos mil millones de estrellas.

Pues, si unos hoyos en la arena no se pueden haber hecho solos, ¿se habrán hecho solos los millones y millones de estrellas que hay en el cielo?

Alguien ha hecho las estrellas. A ese Ser, Causa Primera de todo el Universo, llamamos Dios.

Las cifras por interesantes que sean para decidir de la grandeza de la causa (no puede ser desproporcionadamente menor a menos de ser al menos proporcionadamente desproporcionadamente mayor de otra manera, como multiple o aplicada con mucha repetición), no deciden a ellas mismas entre una causa inconciente como el Big Bang y una causa conciente como Dios.

Es por eso entre otro que el Geocentrismo (y con él también el dubio sobre ciertas cifras de distancia y de grandeza) es interesante por la lectura corecta de Romanos 1:20.

La observación del cielo interesa al hombre desde tiempos remotísimos. Podríamos decir que la Historia de la Astronomía1, prescindiendo de los chinos, empezó con los babilonios, egipcios, griegos y árabes.

A los babilonios se debe la división del día en veinticuatro horas, y éstas en sesenta minutos, y éstos en sesenta segundos. Los griegos dieron nombre a muchas constelaciones y planetas, que después latinizaron los romanos. Los árabes dieron nombre a muchas estrellas. Voy a dar algunos datos.

1,2. La Luna, está a 384.000 kilómetros de la Tierra. El Sol a 150.000.000 kilómetros. Plutón a de kilómetros.

Eso sí, es calculable por medida de ángulo de reflexión de la luz del Sol sobre los cuerpos concernados. Y ese es observable.

Fuera del sistema solar, Sirio, la estrella más brillante del firmamento, a ocho años luz; Arturo a treinta y seis años luz.

Eso no, es calculado por suposición que sea la sidecha parallaxis una parallaxis, es a decir un movimiento aparente cuyo aparición depende del movimiento real de la tierra por el año, como suponen los heliocéntricos.

La luz, a 300.000 kilómetros. por segundo, en un segundo da siete vueltas a la Tierra, y recorre en un año una distancia igual a 200 millones de vueltas a la Tierra. En kilómetros son unos diez billones de kilómetros. Para caer en la cuenta de lo que es un billón, pensemos que un billón de segundos son casi treinta y dos mil años.

La velocidad de la Luz, según las leyes de la Física, no puede superarse. La velocidad de la luz es tope, como demostró matemáticamente Einstein; pues según la ecuación e=mc2 a esa velocidad la masa se haría infinita.

No sabemos que esta ecuación sea exacta, no sabemos nada sobre una velocidad finida y tope, insuperable.

Es exacto que una velocidad infinida - como antes atribuyeron a la luz, por ejemplo San Tomás de Aquino, es insuperable, ya que la infinidad lo es.

Es exacto también que una masa infinida no puede moverse.

Peró no sabemos si esa ecuación por Einstein es por si mismo valable o si es valable solo por coincidencia de valores.

En matematicas hay cosas que coinciden de valores y hay también cosas que son dos palabras para una cosa.

Que 2*2=4, es valable por simismo. Que "-2 * -2 = +4", solo es valable por coincidencia de valores. Que (a - b)2 = a2 - 2ab +b2, es valable por coincidencia de valores, peró la ecuación en simisma adecuada es más complicada: (a - b)2 = a2 - ab - b(a - b). Lo que no es el mismo concepto, solo coincide de valores con (a - b)2 = a2 - 2ab +b2. Peró que (a + b)2 = a2 + ab + ab + b2 (muy poco simplificado en "a2 + 2ab + b2"), es verdadero per se. Es el mismo concepto.

Es entonces posible que tal valor por energia y tal valor por masa destrucida para hacer energia en una bomba atómica coinciden** con tal valor por la velocidad de la luz, a suponerla finida.*** Peró eso no garantece que sea una ecuación de conceptos de manera que cada vez que una masa se mueve a la velocidad de la luz se haría infinida por el hecho de ser verdadera la ecuación en simisma. Dado que sea solo verdadera por coincidencia de valor entre el constante y la velocidad de la luz, entonces la masa no se agrandeza en gañando velocidad, y no se agrandeza al infinido en gañando la velocidad de la luz tampoco. Lo que parece más intuitivo.

Fuera de nuestra galaxia, la nebulosa de Andrómeda, que es la más cercana a nuestra galaxia de la Vía Láctea, está a dos millones de años-luz.

Coma de Virgo a 200 millones de años-luz.

Y el Cúmulo de Hidra a 2.000 millones de años-luz. Éste es el límite de percepción de los telescopios ópticos9 . Pero los radiotelescopios profundizan más.

El astro más lejano detectado es el Quásar PKS 2.000-330, está a quince mil millones de años-luz. Los quásares son radio-estrellas que emiten ondas hertzianas. Se detectaron por vez primera en 1960.

Ya cuando hablamos de α Centauri o de Sirio, y de sus distancias de 4 o 8 años luz, hablamos de trigonometría aplicada mismo según el heliocentrismo, a un triángulo muy delgado. Y según geocentrismo la trigonometría es mesaplicada a un triángulo de cual nosotros ocupamos un rincón, de cuyo tenemos ninguna longitud y solo un ángulo, lo que dice absolutament nada de nada sobre la distancia entre nosotros y las estrellas.

Portanto eso podemos decir sobre la distancia a los estrellas que son más distantes que los cuerpos dechos "del sistema solar" ya que esos cuerpos pueden interponserse entre nosotros y las estrellas. Y de esos cuerpos podemos tener (a menos que la velocidad de la luz sea improporcionada para superar y de mucho a sus velocidades) una idea bastante exacta, como admeso.

Luego, cuando hablan los astrónomos de "Cúmulo de Hidra a 2.000 millones de años-luz" ya no es trigonometría que utilizan. Mismo admetendo como lo hace el Heliocentrismo que el triángulo nos toca en dos rincones entre cuales hay la distancia conocida semianual, sea del sol alrededor del zodíaco, sea, como dicen los Heliocéntricos, de la tierra alrededor del sol y entonces relevante por el triángulo, mismo admetendo eso, el triángulo es demasiado delgado para mensurar 2.000 millones de años luz. Ya parece muy difícil mensurar corectamente un triángulo dando 4 años luz.

Utilizan entonces otras medidas de mensuración o medidas supuestas. Entre cuales un "tamaño minimal" de cada estrella y una "distancia minimal" entre cada dos estrellas. Y esos "tamaños minimales" no tienen nada a ver con lo que es racionable a un católico, son basados sobre la idea que una estrella menor que Jupiter nunca podría resultar estrella, ya que el hidrogénio nunca podría meterse en estado de plasma y en proceso de fusión por su solo pesado y gravitación y compresión. Peró admete usted que existe Dios o que existen ángeles o mismo que existen dioses, o mismo admete que algo de eso podría exister, y nunca puede probar que las estrellas veramente tales se han meto a fusionar por la sola gravitación ... y entonces no puede saber si el tamaño es más o menos grande que Jupiter.

1,3. Es posible que haya otros astros habitados, pero nada sabemos; pues Dios nada nos ha dicho, y no hemos podido conectar con ellos.

La existencia de la vida inteligente extraterrestre es algo probable que no ofrece ninguna dificultad, ni a la Ciencia ni a la Religión.

Si llama "vida inteligente extraterestre" a ángeles, soy de acuerdo. Si llama "vida extraterestre" a los alienígenas de la ufología, no soy de acuerdo. En ese caso hay mismo bautistas menos ignorantes que usted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Cuarto Quinto Domingo después
de l'Epifanía

* O hablaba en su vida o citaba algo impreso otra parte:

P. Jorge Loring s.j.
56ª edición

** Es a decir: coinciden en su proporción constante. *** Y ese valor en cuadrado.