I vichipediani italiani hanno a fare ... paralasse esiste, mai non 63 Ophiuchi

1) "Nessuno, oggi, crede il Geocentrismo" ; 2) I vichipediani italiano hanno a fare ... paralasse esiste, mai non 63 Ophiuchi

Il articolo buonissimo sopra la paralasse en italiano:

Vichipedia : Paralasse
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallasse

Una piccola bemolle è che la significazione si trova indebitamente estensa a tutti i metodi di mensurare per trigonometria le distanze ai corpi celesti. Mai qui la parte che veramente è sopra la parallasse:

Vichipedia : Paralasse : 2.3 Parallasse stellare
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallasse#Parallasse_stellare

Il articolo paralasse n esiste en inglese:

Wiki : Parallax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Questo articolo, a differenza del italiano si limita a la parallasse propiamente cosidetta.

En inglese anche hai un articolo sopra 63 Ophiuchi

Wiki : 63 Ophiuchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/63_Ophiuchi

Questa stella ha una paralasse negativa - difficilmente esplicabile tra l'esplicazione commune della paralasse. Difficilmente riconziliavile col heliocentrismo, sopratutto col heliocentrismo colle distanze accettate dai astronomi.

E la vichipedia italiana? Nessun articolo sopra 63 Ophiuchi! Nessun.

Como normale, i paesi latini di oggi sono meno informati che i paesi inglese-parlanti. Alcuni eccezioni - ho visto un articolo che esiste en italiano e svedese, sopra L'abate Giuseppe Calandrelli. Mai articolo sopra sogetti che possono accreditare geocentrismo o creazionismo, i paesi latini sono molto meno infirmati.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU di Nanterre
San Timoteo di Mauritania
19-XII-2014

Santa Cruz y Santo Rosario en la Suma

Matemáticas Místicas : Homenaje a la Cruz : en la Suma
http://www.matematicasmisticas.com/veritas/Suma.html

Lo Hueco!

Leyendo la wikipedia:

Lo Hueco es un yacimiento paleontológico situado en el término municipal de Fuentes (Cuenca, España). El yacimiento se localiza en la Formación Margas, arcillas y yesos de Villalba de la Sierra y tanto la posición estratigráfica relativa como el contenido de macrovertebrados permiten atribuirlo al Cretácico Superior, más concretamente a su tramo Campaniense Superior - Maastrichtiense Inferior. La localidad ha facilitado una abundante colección de fósiles, en la que están representados distintos grupos de peces, tortugas, lepidosauromorfos, cocodrilos y dinosaurios saurópodos, terópodos y ornitópodos.

Cuantos?

El sitio de Creation Ministries International dice: 8000 o más.

The fossil site was first uncovered in June 2007 by workmen building a high-speed rail link through Lo Hueco, near the city of Cuenca.

So, what is significant as far as Noah’s Flood is concerned?

First, according to the experts excavating the site, they have recovered some 8,000 fossils to date. Of course, a fossil may represent only part of the animal, such as a limb, a rib or a skull. But 8,000 fossils is a huge number to be buried in one location. That is why the report describes the site as ‘spectacular’, ‘massive’ and a ‘graveyard’.

Según expertes quienes hace los excavaciones, hasta hora han descubierto más o menos 8000 fossiles ...

Que 8000 fossiles en un solo lugar - y no es el solo donde es como sí - implica al Diluvio, doy razón a Tas Walker. Peró hay otra cosa que parece que mismo él no vio.

Todos los fossiles son del Cretácico!

8000 fossiles son "del Campaniense" o "del Maastrichtiense" - las dos "últimas edades" del Cretácico.

No hay 4000 fossiles del Periodo Pérmico y encima 4000 del Cretácico.

Tampoco 4000 fossiles del Cretácico y encima 4000 del Paleoceno, por ejemplo de la Daniense.

Tampoco hay 2000 fossiles del Pérmico, encime 4000 del Cretácico y otra vez encima 2000 del Paleoceno.

TODOS los 8000 son del Cretácico. TODOS.

Quizás 4000 al bajo de la Campaniense y encima 4000 de la Maastrichtiense? Posíble según las palabras del texto, peró tengo dudas. Parece más probable, sea que la fauna no puede determinarse totalmente precisa como Campaniense a exclusión de Maastrichtiense o Maastrichtiense a exclusión de Campaniense, sea que parte del lugar da fossiles Campanienses que no hay en el Maastrichtiense y vice versa, peró que esas partes no son enbajo y encima, sino lado al lado.

Y eso es o sería tan típico! Casi toda la paleontología es como eso. El Gran Cañón puede parecer una excepción - peró es casi exclusivamente invertebrados marinos clasificados en el Paleozóico.

Pueden preguntar al ayuntamiento de Cuenca, voy hacerlo yo mismo.

La implicación muy limpia es que la "Columna Geológica" casi no existe en la paleontología. La Escala temporal geológica no es claramente basada en sobreposición de una fauna encima al otra. Quizás hay sobreposiciones de tipos de piedra, peró no hay sobreposiciones (o casi) de tipos de fauna. Y cada lugar donde los fossiles son TODOS del mismo Período, de la misma Época, y de la misma Edad (o casi, como en Lo Hueco dos edades vecinas) confirma eso. Peró con 8000 fossiles, Lo Hueco confirma eso con mucha claridad y émfase.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Biblioteca Universitaria
de Nanterra
San Sóstenes de Corinto
28-XI-2014

Biquipedia : Lo Hueco
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo_Hueco

CMI : Can’t see the Flood for the sediment
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/cant-see-the-flood-for-the-sediment

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?"

"Indeed."

"Condoleances."

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.

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. He 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 bother!" 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 forced 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 ..."

"No."

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.

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
16-VIII-2014

"Nessuno, oggi, crede il Geocentrismo"

1) "Nessuno, oggi, crede il Geocentrismo" ; 2) I vichipediani italiano hanno a fare ... paralasse esiste, mai non 63 Ophiuchi

Sapete, ho visto questo bellissimo filme con Terence Hill:

La Wichipédia Italiana : Il mio nome è Nessuno
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_mio_nome_è_Nessuno

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

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:

CORPUS THOMISTICUM
Sancti Thomae de Aquino
Expositio super Iob ad litteram
a capite XXXVIII ad caput XLI
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cio38.html

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!

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.- EL SOL, LA TIERRA Y LAS ESTRELLAS HAN SIDO HECHOS POR DIOS.

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 6.000.000.000 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
9-II-2014

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

PARA SALVARTE
P. Jorge Loring s.j.
ENCICLOPEDIA
DEL CATÓLICO
56ª edición
http://www.oracionesydevociones.info/cd-ver/para-salvarte/edicion_56.htm

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

A Visit from The Kilns

But before they got to read the notebook, they had a visit. That is, first they went to Mass, then they went home, then drinking tea they sat down to open the notebook of Lucy. And then the doorbell rang. Audoin opened and yelled "Su, it's from the Kilns" so she went up and greeted her visitor. Audoin went in and left them a few moments.

Paxford came along with cider - five bottles of it, homemade from the Kilns.

"Jack and Warren are sorry they cannot come, they are helping an American lady, who is involved in a divorce affair."

"Oh, how awful for her. Is she keeping her children at least?"

"They are over here in England. They are bright and curious. David is ten and Douglas is eight going on nine in a couple of months."

"Well, if a parent keeps her children, she's the lucky parent, I reckon."

"So do I. And it seems she deserves it."

"Getting along with Jack?"

"Getting along may be a soft word. But as you know very well, Jack has a winning way."

"So have you."

Frank Paxford afforded her an apologetic smile. "But Mr Errol more so, I should think."

Of course Audoin came out again to tell Paxford there was more toast in the fireplace and another place for tea. Which Paxford stayed for before getting back.

The Planting of a Tree

"There are in fact countries where gardeners do try planting trees."

"Yes ....?"

"But it gets into an awful disorder when it does not all happen naturally. I mean, in France they have for years been planting trees in bakeries, and every Christmas the pastry bakers are obliged to cut them down and sell them as Yule logs."

"You mean, the French buy their Yule logs where they buy their pastry?"

"Yes, they call it 'bûche de Noël' and it is a very popular commerce around that Holy Season."

Susan looked hard at him to catch even a glimpse of irony in the eye but failed. Even so she suspected he was joking and that the bûche de Noël was some kind of cake. And even so she ate up the apple.

"Now, don't throw the core away, please."

"You want to plant it?"

"I might try to plant a tree just this once, even if that is not what gardeners usually do. Johnny Appleseed went all over the Mid West and helped grow orchards for making hard cider ... let us try."

And Fred Paxford dug a hole in the ground and Susan put the applecore into it. And the gardener shovelled earth over it. While explaining that this was for settlers also the easiest way to uphold a claim to being a settler. Such was the policy of the United States at the time.

"So the main activity of a gardener in England, when not imitating Johnny Appleseed or avoiding to imitate the anarchic gardeners of France, is simply keeping the garden clean?"

"Ah, indeed. When a tree falls down, from old age or from storm, you don't want to have the wood rotting where it fell, you chop it up for firewood, usually."

"Usually?"

"Well, my father once saw an apple tree fallen to the ground with very good wood, he did not make firewood of it."

"Oh?"

"He told his employer, one Digory Kirke, that one could make some furniture of it."

All the earth needed was on the apple seed in the Kilns' orchard, so he had resumed standing leaning on the spade.

"And Mister Kirke agreed, and they made a big wardrobe out of it."

"Oh?" Susan recalled one big wardrobe which just possibly could have been made out of apple wood.

"A huge wardrobe, they hung fur coats in it, you know they are longer than some other coats. Two doors and mirrors on the doors."

"Would that have been in a spare room in his house?"

"Oh, you have seen it? Yes, they kept it in a spare room. Houses were bigger before and during the war, now the Labour Government has reduced the possibility of living on the land like a gentleman."

A View on Apple Trees

One of the pleasures available in an hospital, whether you are kept in there by your sore body or someone else's assessment of your sore mind (or someone else's sore assessment of your mind, for that matter) is that of looking out of windows.

Trees and birds and clouds and the sky are so unrelated to the hospital, they are like balm for your eyes. One tree outside was precisly an apple tree.

Susan looked again at the book of palaeontology the doctor had left her to convince her of his philosophy of death, of evolution. And he did it the precisely wrong way.

He tried to give evidence, when the evidence was not very obviously on his side.

At least not for Susan who had heard Paxford's claim that the orchard in the Kilns had grown over two thousand years from a single apple seed, dropped accidentally by a bird. The "hundred feet of stems become roots as covered with soil from the apple tree leaves" of which, with all the floods, only ten feet were left, were all too close to the supposed evidence for evolution.

She broke out in a laugh and thought that that must have been Paxford's intention with the hoax.

"God bless that gardener!" she said out loud, and laughed because he didn't laugh when telling his splendid joke.

In looked a guard who asked "are you all right?" in a most worried voice.

One of the extreme displeasures of a hospital, when you are kept there because someone else made a sore assessment of your mind is not being allowed to enjoy a good mood, since it can be taken for a "maniac phase". She did shut up very quickly.

When she was alone again, she was despondent. Any place she had been staying before, laughing at a private joke would not have hurt her. Here it could get her very unwanted attentions.

She thought of another garden, as the "daughter of Eve" she had been called in Narnia. And of how the priests and her late sister Lucy called the Blessed Virgin Mary "the New Eve". And she thought of the Hail Mary she had nearly said when escaping from a would be ravisher. So, she prayed one Hail Mary - as she had learned it on her voayage to Italy, to Narni - and then looked out of the window again.

Humanly speaking she had no hope. If she had been raving out of her mind, she might have had the hope - not enjoyed it, but had it for real, to get out once she was put straight. But if she was already straight, when was she then supposed to get out if she was even so kept in? And yet she did not feel quite hopeless.

Even the Palaeontology book left on her nightstand was not as depressing as it had been when it came with greetings from Dr. Peter Sorner. Actually she felt there was a parallel with the orchard developing ... and still only ten feet left of the hundred feet theoretically involved in the process. In Palaeontology too very few if any places seemed to have thickness of ages stamped into the fossils. Unlike Geology where it is supposed to be automatically there because of slow deposit. She decided to get out into the parlour. In fossils of one place you often found fossils of one or two closely related slices of geological age.