De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum actually dhux was right now saying something of Christians shutting down ancient learning - and now one of her supporters is making a grammatical mistake that would have made pagan grammarians, not to speak of rhetoricians (yes, the latter had higher status in pagan antiquity than philosophers, not to mention natural scientists as such), simply blush:
de - about, requires ablative
gustibus - ablative of
gustûs, tastes
de gustibus - about tastes
non - not, negation of following word
est - is, third person singular sometimes implying an it as subject and demanding a nominal predicate
disputandum - to be disputed, or to be quarrelled, gerund, in NOMINATIVE, since nominal predicates agree with subject as being in nominative, NEUTER, becuse the subject is the implied unstated it.
de gustibus non est disputandumon tastes [it] is not to-be-quarrelled
disputando is the ablative:
on tastes [on] something-to-be-quarreled [how does that come in here?]it is not...[is not what?]
or the dative, neutre or masculine
on tastes it is not... [is not what?] for-someone/something-to-be-quarreled [how does that come in here?]
Hans Georg Lundahl
(4 terms of Latin studies)
What are you babbling about?....
"De gustibus non est disputandum" means "there is no acounting for taste"......
This is how I used it!...
What on Earth are you mumbling about now?!....
Your English version is a very free, not to say incidental and occasional rendering of the sense, but thank you for at least giving the Latin expression a correct form: disputan-DUM, I corrected your using the form disputan-DO which is in this context a solecism against Latin grammar.
Hans Georg Lundahl
"Hgundethals" << but thank you for at least …
parkman << Yep!... I did screw up the Latin in my first post... Thanks for the correction....
too bad you can only get corrected on one item at a time, while forgetting the previous: my name is still Lundahl and H G my initials.
he did it again:
hgunderthals << too bad you can only get corrected …
parkman << Too hard to remember!...... Plus only a neanderthal could belive in this day and age that the Sun orbits the Earth!......
no
you are wrong, not only about astronomy - where you have not answered my latest post - but about who can believe what
some circumstances - notably lacking from heliocentrism - can protect the believer of it being mistaken, but being a man in itself is no protection against any one particular error: even a man like you can succour to the error of heliocentrism, can you not?
"Hgunderthals Has To Ignore Questions...
Like "What is the mass of the Sun".... "What is the mass of the Earth"..... Etc....
One cannot take seriously any theory which requires one to ignore questions... "
I have answered that previously, thank you, and you have not yet seriously challenged my answer:
- 1) the mass of earth and sun have never been directly measured, only calculated according to their behaviour, as supposed by heliocentrics, and its causes as supposed by Newtonians. Such calculations cannot prove the theories that necessarily are part of THEIR proofs.
- 2) they are only relevant for positions of planets if you beg the question vis-à-vis the old cosmology, by presupposing that planetary movements are determined by masses, rather than divine will and angelic wills executing it: again you are guilty of circular proof: what you presuppose in proving heliocentrism is part of what you are trying to prove.
Nor does it make any difference that you mask the propositions as questions: by saying I have to ignore the questions, you rhetorically imply the answers refute me, which they do not, since they and their relevance are unproven.
Hans Georg Lundahl
I cannot explain tides very clearlyas parkman said: "You can't explain tides.... you can't explain seasons.... the space program.... etc..."
Nor could Galileo for that matter: the explanation he gave contradicted the real tides as observed by one of his Inquisitors - a Portuguese living on the Atlantic.
I can however explain seasons and at least part of the space program.
Now, as for seasons, the orbit of the sun around the zodiak involves going south in winter and north in summer - (winter and summer as on northern hemisphere that is) and also it is somewhat excentric, so that when it goes south it actually goes a little away from earth and when going north actually approaches earth.
As for space program it doesn't matter whether the earth makes a diurnal circle from which the rocket goes off at a tangent OR the heavens make a diurnal circular movement in the opposite direction, catching the rocket into the movement.
As for satellites in orbit around earth, they are an argument AGAINST the Newtonian supposition that the momentum and the gravity could perpetually keep balancing each other in such a way as to make an orbit last for centuries, millennia not to speak of millions of years. Some satellites have lost momentum and fallen down after some years or decades - none have lasted for even a century. And that is a Newtonian supposition which has NOT been verified in any lab. Rotating a stone on a string differs from the Newtonian proposition in TWO significant ways:
- 1) the string is not a dynamic force like gravitation, but a limit of a fixed length, with a static strength resisting being torn apart by centrifugal force.
- 2) when you stop rotating the stone, it will stop rotating.
Now, as for the second, I am well aware of the Newtonian explanation or subterfuge that this is due to a third force - gravitation of earth - interfering. This explanation does in nowise disprove the Aristotelic proposition that movement depends on a present mover, though somehow violent movement can be impressed on a thing and remain with it for more than the actual moment of impression (an arrow does not cease to fly immediately after the violent motion imposed by bowstring ceases to be immediately imosed by it).
Hans Georg Lundahl
on Galileo"Another said that the Sun orbits the Earth, and let Galileo languish as a gagged prisoner in his own home under a life sentence!.."
excuse me, but first of all we can all see with our eyes that the heavens orbit earth
second of all, a gagged prisoner in his own home does not very accurately discribe Galileo's condition: unless gagged is seen to be strictly metaphorical - he was under orders NOT to discuss certain things - it is obviously nonsense. what was then dramatically called prison only meant he was not allowed to go into town or communicate too freely with neighbours. some people who have served their sentences are at least as badly off today.
appeal to most people"You believe that the heavens orbit the Earth. Most people do not."
Most people or merely most people who have got a modern education (aka thought control, cf Pink Floyd, The Wall)?
There is a difference you know.
An appeal to what humans believe can never be absolute mathematical proof, but it is well to rehearse when it is at least probable proof:
- an appeal to ALL the wise
- an appeal to ALL the majority (commoners, plebeians)
or, best of all
- an appeal to ALL, both wise and common.
You cannot appeal to ALL the wise, since Aristotle is on my side.
You cannot appeal to ALL the commons, since any commoner would have applauded the Inquisition and perhaps rather thought it was too lenient to Galileo (the one man who did feel sorry for him was Milton: far from a commoner, nor convinced, just sympathetic for another "martyr to the Inquisition").
You most eminently cannot appeal to ALL simply. Unless arbitrarily you disregard generations past and the third world at the same time. Such an appeal to ALL the MODERN CAPITALIST WELLFARE WORLD, RIDDEN BY COMPULSORY EDUCATION - is absolutely invalid as even a probable argument.
Re: on Galileo"The difference is; Galileo didn't commit any crime but his jailers did.
Galileo's voice of reason was stifled and the world was denied the truth, by the liars of the Inquisition.
Free Galileo; free our minds.!!!!!!!!!!!"
A free mind without dogma is free to excuse any crime.
The minds who have been "set free" by their anger over Galileo's captivity have been set free to crimes like enormous persecutions against Christians - in France, Russia, Mexico...
You claim to be free to believe reason rather than Bible. You claim to be free to accept the accepted conclusions of science. If you do that - are you free to believe - actually believe! - your own eyes when you watch the skies roll around the earth in the morning or evening, switching from night to day? No, your heliocentric position, which is that of Galileo's pretended "reason", forces you to believe rather that that is an optical illusion and that the solidity you feel below your feet is another illusion from being accustomed to a lifelong rotation you no longer notice. Well, you seem to be acustomed to something that has been going on in your life: heliocentric indoctrination. None the less you are giddy:
"The man who's giddy thinks the world turns round"
last act of The Taming of a Shrew
Re: on Galileo " A free mind without dogma is free to excuse any crime."
Absolute rubbish. It was the release of restricted scientific proofs and the liberalisation of philosophical disocurse and thought after the Reformation, that brought us democracy and the death of feudalism.
You are beginning to sound like a religious Luddite.
I am a Luddite. And a Jacobite too. You call the death of feudalism and democracy a good thing. I call them what they are: bloodbaths. The noyades in Marseilles and their counterparts in the Volga river. The massacre on the Cristeros - who had defended their right to speak as Christians and educate their children as Christians - contrary to the promise given to Pope Pius XI.
You speak about the death of feudalism as a good thing. Feudalism must have been real bad in Scotland for you to feel that way. I am quite ready to admit that, I said it was rather the lairds than the people who brought about the Reformation, didn't I?
In Scotland feudalism is not dead. Land is still held under feudal law in Scotland. I recently learned the fact from a Scottish lawyer or law student. On another board.
Hans Georg Lundahl
The war of the Popes against "science" "The Galileo matter was part of a long war against science in Christianity."
That depends on whether heliocentrism, darwinism, freudianism, marxism are sciences - or sectarianisms posing as science. Since clearly the latter is the case, three cheers for the Popes!
Re: The war of the Popes against …no, there wasn't[any lack of clarity]:
I enumerated
heliocentrism
as the first of some pseudosciences, of which also:
darwinism, marxism, freudianism
all of them being based on false propositions.
Re: Physics Lesson For Wired...comment "For the record..... The Earth and the Sun both orbit a point located at the center of their mass.....
The mass of the Sun is 2e30 kg....."
It has not been weighed, but rather calculated according to heliocentrist assumptions - so it cannot be proof of heliocentrism.
"The mass of the Earth is 6e24 kg...."
Ditto.
"The distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the Sun is 1.5e8 km....
The radius of the Sun is 7e5 km......"
That could possibly be observed from optical observations - or does the calculation involve anything like different sightings on opposite equinoxes? That would make even THAT calculation dependent on heliocentrist assumptions, hence no proof for them.
BTW - how do you pronounce 7e5? I am not familiar with that abbreviation.Hans Georg Lundahl
my bad... "BTW - how do you pronounce 7e5? I am not familiar with that abbreviation."
7 times ten to the power of 5, as you said in your maths lesson. Thank you parkman. Always nice to learn something new - even from an opponent.
