I'd wait until WordWeaver reads the previous posts, Admiral. "E pur si muove" should ring a few bells.

I just don't like "flip-flop" or "wishy-washy". William Safire's column aside, the former is reminiscent of clocked JKQ memory circuits, and the latter of Lucy Van Pelt.

> I'd wait until WordWeaver reads the previous posts, Admiral. "E pur si muove"
> should ring a few bells.
>
> I just don't like "flip-flop" or "wishy-washy". William Safire's column
> aside, the former is reminiscent of clocked JKQ memory circuits, and the
> latter of Lucy Van Pelt.
>Neo

Thanks but I need a translation to get your point. My ninth grade education doesn't cover it.

---

Dave Nelson

> Hello Again NeoAmsterdam,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Otherwise, the site looks really good! Extra points on the
> rollover
> > buttons! :-)
>
> Thank-you for the compliments. I appreciate it. Rollovers? Oh, you must be
> talking about the JavaScript buttons on the CCC team site, right?
>
> Well, call me nuts, but it is going on 2:00 am Saturday here, and I just
> finished doing some more site-wide changes to both the messageboard, as well
> as to the regular CCC team site. I got this sudden inspiration to change our
> team name for a third time. First it was Curious Christians. Then it
> was Crunching Christians. Now we, (meaning me, myself and I for the
> time being until we get more members) are the Christian Crunchers Club.
> It has a nice ring to it. :)
>
> So, I had to go and change a lot of text, edit some of my images, etc. . . .
> but most of it is now done. I may tinker a bit more with it, but it is for the
> most part done . . . unless those emoticons start bugging me. :)
>
> B A C K    O N    T O P I C    N O W
>
> Getting back on topic a bit . . . just a little though, because I need to get
> to bed, because I need to be up in less than four hours . . .
>
> I wrote previously:
>
> . . . until the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, images of Pluto and
> its small moon Charon were nothing more than blurry, irregular-shaped globs of
> light.
>
> To which you added:
>
> Regrettably, they still are. You can't get a decent photo of Pluto
> anywhere!
>
> You may have already seen this, but I downloaded an image of Pluto from a
> particular website a few days ago, (can't remember where now), and it is the
> clearest image of Pluto I have seen to date. You can't make out surface
> features by any means, but at least you can see that it is a luminescent
> sphere.
>
> Oh wait! Guess what? I installed that free Safari add-on from VT, so my URL's
> are saved now in the Get Info box. God bless that guy for making that add-on!
> I don't know why Apple removed that feature from Safari. I prefer to have it
> there . . . for occasions just like this one.
>
> Hmmm . . . hmmm . . . tinker . . . tinker . . . putter . . . putter . . .
>
> Ah, yes!!!
>
> Here is the URL. This image was taken by Hubble:
>
> http://www.klx.com/clyde/images/plutohst.jpg
>
> And here is a mediocre one of Pluto and Charon:
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/images/pluto_charon_med.jpg
>
> You know, I have a set of large images of all of the planets that The
> Planetary Society sent me a number of years ago when I donated; and in them,
> Pluto and Charon look just like I described earlier . . . just two blurry
> blobs of light, and not much more. The above first image is probably the best
> you will find . . . well, maybe. :)
>
> I'll comment more later on the other remarks made by you and others. I really
> need to sleep a few hours before my daughter wakes me up. We have to get up
> every single day at 5:30 am because she is diabetic, and needs to do her first
> blood test and insulin injection. This has been our daily routine since she
> turned 11 three years ago. She gives herself her own injections because I am a
> wimp! I only do it when I have to . . . like when she weirds out on me due to
> hypoglycemia. It's not nice at all!
>
> Take care. I'll be writing more soon.

WordWeaver

My wife is diabetic and was on insulin for years. Then she got a new doctor who took a real interest in her with the result that she was able to get off the needle and use oral medication. That was about 6 years ago and she is doing fine. It may or may not work for your daughter but its worth looking at. If you wish, I'll ask my wife for the name of the medication and send it to you but your doctor should know all about it.


>
>
>

---

Dave Nelson

Great thread - lots of great opinions here - I'll add mine.

First..when talking about real science - throw out all religios reasons - not that religion is wrong, but it tends to be very short sighted and smacks in the face of true science. Religion will tell you that the Earth is MUCH younger than any rational scientist will believe. No, I have nothing against religion - not at all - but let's seperate our apples and oranges.

As far as solar bodies go - if it orbits the sun - it's a "planet" - or "planetoid" or "asteroid" or "meteor" "comet" etc. Hell, Haley comes here once every..what...? years - do we consider it a planet? No. Should we? No.

Science alone has a lot to answer for - namely - if the big bang theory is really true - well, there are some issues. If everything was in place - one mass of infinite density prior to the big bang - how did it expand (it would have had to expand in excess of the speed of light - because - we have black holes today which would have been less dense)

There are no REAL answers - Pluto...ehhh...ummm...the new one..Quoar or whatever (great name....nobody, including me will ever remember it). If it orbits - well....let's set a definition. Comets orbit...asteroids orbit...so, what is the limitation? I guess we can look at the primary influence - WHAT is the object REALLY orbitting - and, if it's the sun, we can consider it as a planet.


I'll keep this short...but the big bang has other issues as well. Consider the fact that - it must have been a black hole in the beginning.

---

@ Draconian - BOINC
Hell, Haley comes here once every..what...? years - do we consider it a planet? No. Should we? No.

75 years, and it is mostly composed of solid water (H20) and buckminsterfullerines (C60). Composition alone can't solve the issue, but at least we weed out KBOs and OCOs.

...Pluto...ehhh...ummm...the new one..Quoar or whatever (great name....nobody, including me will ever remember it).

Yeah - I almost called it Qu'onos...

@The Admiral
Don't belittle your education - Most teachers forget to get into the details of Galilleo's life.

Galileo Galilei (1564-II-15 - 1642-I-08) is accredited with the observation that all objects fall at the same rate (-9.8m/s2) as well as pushing forward the Copernican view of the solar system. It was for this heliocentric view that Galileo was excommunicated. Because he was too important to send to Coventry or Death, he was forced to sign a contract in which he pleged to live under house arrest and shut up for once about the Earth not being in the center of the universe.

As he signed the contract, he uttered under his breath "E pur si muove" - "And yet it moves" - while pointing towards the sky, making his point that even though his life was now technically over, the stars themselves continued to supply the evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun whether the Pope liked it or not.

[Edit: Guess which finger he used for pointing to the stars.]

So...

@The Admiral & WordWeaver
...the point I was subtly making is that the [insert flavor here] Church also gets it wrong on occasion. Galileo was finally pardoned by Pope John Paul II, and the heliocentric view is now an established Christian fact. (Off-Topic: Vote Ringo for Pope!)

@WordWeaver
Draconian - BOINC was somewhat more forward, and I must admit I share the sentiment, but for different reasons. Science is unemotional, cold, stoic, rational, and logical. I think that you should save the religious statements for a conclusion, or as a separate paper, but you will have to apply the same cold, rational logic to the Big Man's Word as one would expect of a scientist.

I'm not saying remove religion entirely, but take as critical an approach to Religion as you do with Science.

I follow you completely. No problem there. It's just that I tend to take a slightly different approach when making cases. I start by assuming true, and do my best to fortify an issue beyond doubt, and then I assume that the hypothesis is false, and do my best to tare the issue to shreds.

And yes, I do understand the cold nature of science, but to place God under a microscope is pure folly in my view. :)

You're absolutely right! We should be using a telescope! 0:-)

Neo

Thanks. I should have recognized the quote. Not because I understand the language but because I have seen it before and am somewhat familiar with the Gallileo affair.

---

Dave Nelson

> WordWeaver wrote previously:
>
> > And yes, I do understand the cold nature of science, but to place God
> under
> > a microscope is pure folly in my view. :)
>
> To which NeoAmsterdam replied:
>
> > You're absolutely right! We should be using a telescope! 0:-)
>
> I have a much better idea. How about trying to use your heart?
>
> "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open
> the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
> Revelation 3:20, KJV
>
>
>Why is it you believe in god? all of the pain in the world, all of the flaws in most humans Ethics and Morals. and don't reply that we should learn from our suffering, some of it we cannot learn from. like surviving a housefire, but your mom dies, tell me what you learn from that? Being picked on Constantly when you are different because you help people and enjoy somethings others don't, what do you learn from that? And even if god exists, in his 'everlasting love for his children', he would let us do so. Respond to that.

---

<a href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&amp;project=sah&amp;userid=7812674"><img border="0" height="79" src="http://7812674.sah.sig.boinc.dk?192"></a>

Since this thread has turned into a religious thread I would like
to share my thoughts on Planetary Bodies. /Rach and Dominique at Babe of the day thread,, Dominique has posted a new Pic.

Now why duz all these topics turn to religion?
Is it WW is thrusting his beliefs upon everyone involved with SETI?

Please keep religion in the religion threads. I am sorry but I find being
constently preached at clouds the issues and I skip reading them.

Respectfully

Timmy

---

> Please keep religion in the religion threads. I am sorry but I find being
> constently preached at clouds the issues and I skip reading them.

If everyone gives him negatives he will just disappear. :-)

---

Metal Detecting