In article <Hidden-20260106183020@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

If there is a better newsgroup for posting AI-generated SF stories,
please let me know.

Many desktops locate the recycle bin to the upper left. Simply deposit plagiarism engine slop there, hit recycle, then delete your softare,
and (if you own it) set fire to the computer. Easy peasy!

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

begin fnord
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

If there is a better newsgroup for posting AI-generated SF stories,
please let me know.

alt.test

--
Steve Coltrin spcoltri@omcl.org
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

<snippo, answered by others>

A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!

<snippo meaningless stuff>

Huh, nothing left.

I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.

Otherwise, they might just as well be using tiny angelic beings or
very small unicorns instead. If you are going to make stuff up, why
not make stuff up that looks neat?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:

On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

<snippo, answered by others>

A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!

<snippo meaningless stuff>

Huh, nothing left.

I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their frustration.

Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.

All of these can be accounted for by positing that the energy responsible for mass which is tightly wrapped in the boson is actually
a dimenion outside of our everyday reckoning of spacial and temporal dimensionality. At one point I believe up to 21 extra dimenions were
posited to account for the observational data, but I believe it is
reduced to 11 dimensions these days.
When I started this little note I could not remember the
Higgs Boson so I looked it up under, "quest of the supercollider".
<https://inspirehep.net/literature/2845033>

Otherwise, they might just as well be using tiny angelic beings or
very small unicorns instead. If you are going to make stuff up, why
not make stuff up that looks neat?

Oh extra dimensions sound very cool to me. So do
altenative universes, alternative histories, as well as parallel
universes and histories even those that have universes where
magic, magical beings, objects and skills exist but I prefer to
read about them rather than attempt to penetrate the shell
of this temporal reality. We don't have enough control of
sufficient amounts of energy to attempt this yet and experiments
to actualize such concepts should take place away from this
Solar system in my ever so humble opinion. Because we might
spawn a new universe in such an attempt and the instrusion of
such a large mass in this continuum might be quite disruptive.

bliss - What did the Arisians perceive as enemies?



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Paul S Person wrote:

On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

<snippo, answered by others>

A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!

<snippo meaningless stuff>

Huh, nothing left.

I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their frustration.

All of these (so far) unconfirmable ideas, supersymmetry and extra
dimensional theories, have very nice mathematical properties which solve
many heretofore difficult problems, like infinities that show up in
equations where they have no right to be. Mind you, if I'd spent my
career working on supersymmetry I'd be getting pretty antsy about now
given that we've yet to find a single supersymmetric particle.

As explained to me by more knowledgeable types, it makes too much sense
to not be true, but still, I'd be worried.

The idea of hidden dimensions is not a new one, being proposed first by
Kaluza in 1921. He showed that if there were a fifth dimension, General Relativity and Electromagnetism could be unified naturally. It is not,
as polemicists assert, some modern failure of physics.

I recall being quite irritated when we skipped Kaluza-Klein theory (as
it has come to be known) in my GR course. My impression was that as
there was no way of empirically testing it then (as is still the case
today) our professor regarded it as a mathematically interesting
curiosity and taught us instead another attempt at a unified field
theory (his own, as it happens) without any extra dimensions.

Last I heard of him he was in his eighties and still publishing on GR
and particle physics. I wonder if he continued to work in 4D, or found
an extra dimension or seven useful?

William Hyde


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 07/01/2026 05:33, James Nicoll wrote:

In article <Hidden-20260106183020@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

If there is a better newsgroup for posting AI-generated SF stories,
please let me know.

Many desktops locate the recycle bin to the upper left. Simply deposit plagiarism engine slop there, hit recycle, then delete your softare,
and (if you own it) set fire to the computer. Easy peasy!

What he said.

But as I'm an Aussie, I'll add, "Fuck off ya dumb fucking cunt."

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:46:18 -0800, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:

On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

<snippo, answered by others>

A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!

<snippo meaningless stuff>

Huh, nothing left.

I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.

Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.

I would bow to your superior knowledge, were it not for the fact that
"of course" is a statement of belief, not of fact.

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.

When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 1/8/26 08:54, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:46:18 -0800, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:

On 6 Jan 2026 17:56:36 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

<snippo, answered by others>

A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!

<snippo meaningless stuff>

Huh, nothing left.

I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.

Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.

I would bow to your superior knowledge, were it not for the fact that
"of course" is a statement of belief, not of fact.

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.

When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.

New evidence supports changes to and wholly new approximations of the observations. My knowledge may not be superior to your knowlege as I have
been preoccupied not with the Super Collider results but with the
mind-bending
results of the astronomical time travel involved in finding earlier and earlier
galactic-like formations back at the time which, if the Big Bang theory
is somewhat
correct, before the universe allowed the propagation of light or electromagnetic
radiation to proceed.

The Universe may not be explicable to the minds attempting it because they
are the products of the Universe. While clever tools both physical and
mental are
employed to study the present and past Universe we do not have as yet
and may
never have the capability to understand what the hell is going on in the fullest
sense. If dimensions beyond our apprehension are involved then it
becomes even
harder to understand the Universe.

bliss

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.

When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.

This is how theories go.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use if >>different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.

I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these
many people or cite a source for the assertion?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use if >>>different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.

I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these
many people or cite a source for the assertion?

Well, Copernicus is the obvious answer to that one, but a number of folks followed him.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:05:50 -0800, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

On 1/8/26 08:54, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:46:18 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

On 1/7/26 09:47, Paul S Person wrote:

<snippo, hidden dimensions>

I hope they have some mathematical basis for these hidden dimensions
and are not simply grasping at whatever they can think of in their
frustration.

Of course they have a mathematical basis accounting for
observations of the energies of decomposing nuclear particles
thus we have subnuclear particles: i.e. various quarks, muons,
photons and the particle assumed to be directly responsible for
mass, the Higgs boson.

I would bow to your superior knowledge, were it not for the fact that
"of course" is a statement of belief, not of fact.

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that
/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.

When the Higgs boson was found, it is my understanding that a whole
lot theories died because it contradicted their predictions. Thus,
science marches on with the survivors.

New evidence supports changes to and wholly new approximations of the
observations. My knowledge may not be superior to your knowlege as I

have

been preoccupied not with the Super Collider results but with the >mind-bending
results of the astronomical time travel involved in finding earlier and >earlier
galactic-like formations back at the time which, if the Big Bang theory
is somewhat
correct, before the universe allowed the propagation of light or >electromagnetic
radiation to proceed.

I'm not sure what the first bit is saying. The initial report in
/Science News/ noted that several theories were now falsified.

That's how science works, BTW: falsified theories are dropped,
theories that survive the test keep on trucking. Of course, falsified
theories can also be adjusted in some cases to match the results of
the test ("match" here meaning "be compatible with"). And results can
always be refined.

The rest, so far, appears to be compatible with articles I have read
in /Science News/. Most of them report great excitement at the
results.

The Universe may not be explicable to the minds attempting it because

they

are the products of the Universe. While clever tools both physical and >mental are
employed to study the present and past Universe we do not have as yet
and may
never have the capability to understand what the hell is going on in the

fullest
sense. If dimensions beyond our apprehension are involved then it
becomes even
harder to understand the Universe.

The trailer to /The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms/ has an
intelligent-looking white woman saying "perhaps there with things we
were never meant to know". I don't see that applying that attitude
(which is ultimately religious: it is always God who never meant us to
know or do various things when this sort of statement appears) is
either necessary or relevant here.

What is important is to keep in mind that we have exactly /one/
universe to study, and it is not something we created to study. This
does indeed make things difficult.

In one of his later novels, Asimov has a ship searching for the
original planet Earth. But there is a problem: all solar systems look
the same: rocky planets inward, gas giants outward, spaced -- well,
spaced pretty much as ours are.

The reason for this is that that /was/ the scientific theory at the
time the book was written: since we had only one Solar System to
study, every Solar System was taken to come to be in the same pattern.
What else could possibly happen. (In the book, the rings of Saturn
were claimed to be a unique marker for our Solar System).

When the first exoplanet was discovered some time later, this theory
died, at least insofar as it pretended to predict what other Solar
Systems were like. It still works as well as ever (or has been updated
to keep it working) for our Solar System, of course.

So let's put the cart /after/ the horse: first we make our
observations, then we correct our theory. Any other approach is
religion, not science.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use
if different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that it
was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.

I thought Galileo also offended by claiming that various "celestial
bodies", allegedly made of the Fifth Element, were in fact very large
rocks, made of the mundane elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:47:20 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
<mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use

if

different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that

it

was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth actually
went around the sun instead if the other way around. What got Galileo
in trouble was claming that it actually did.

I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these
many people or cite a source for the assertion?

Bing is your friend! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism>.

If you insist on the Earth revolving around the Sun, then Aristarchus
of Samos may have been the first (3rd century BC).

If you are willing to replace the Sun with a "mystical" central fire,
then the Greek philosophers Philolaus and Hicetas are cited.

The volume of the set known as The Great Books of the Western World
devoted to astronomy includes Ptolemy, Copernicus and Kepler (Newton
is in a later volume). There is an essay between Ptolemy and
Copernicus that points out that, if you take Plato's description of
the demiurge forming the planets around the central fire and compare
the ratios of their distances from such fire to the ratios of the mean
distance of the actual planets from the Sun, they agree well enough to
suggest that Plato is, in fact, a heliocentrist.

BTW, Copernicus did simplify Ptolemy to the extent that one less
circle was needed for each of the other planets (not the Sun -- it has
none, being at the center; not the Earth -- it had none in Ptolemy).
So, yes, the computations are a bit reduced.

It was Kepler who found that, if the Sun had an as-yet undiscovered
force, it could keep the planets moving around it in ellipses.

It was Newton who found that force in gravity.

Ptolemy, BTW, was merely following Aristotle, who insisted that the
Earth was at the center and that only circular movement could be
eternal.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Stefan Ram wrote:

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:

All of these (so far) unconfirmable ideas, supersymmetry and extra
dimensional theories, have very nice mathematical properties which solve
many heretofore difficult problems, like infinities that show up in
equations where they have no right to be. Mind you, if I'd spent my
career working on supersymmetry I'd be getting pretty antsy about now
given that we've yet to find a single supersymmetric particle.

In regular electrodynamics, if you treat an electron like a
perfect point, its electric field gets insanely strong the
closer you get, and the energy in that field just blows up to
infinity. That basically means the theory breaks down at super
small scales.

Long ago I attended a lecture by one of the founders of string theory on
work he and others did circa 1970.

This work involved replacing point particles in calculations with their diameters in all calculations, thus giving them length, if still zero
volume. This resulted in infinities that were easier to handle. How
this evolved into today's string theory I do not know.

But the infinities I had in mind are those which show up in quantum
field theory. I can recall learning transport theory in solid state.
All looks well, there's the equation, there's a reasonable formulation
for energy transport but ... at the far right of the equation is a term
that sums to infinity. Get rid of that term and you have a useful
equation, but that's rather unsatisfactory. Given supersymmetry,
however, that term vanishes neatly due, IIRC (and I probably don't) to cancellations from a sea of virtual sypersymmetric particles).

String theory flips that idea and says that what we call
"particles" like electrons aren't points at all - they're
these tiny strings that stretch a bit, so interactions aren't
happening at one exact spot. That spreads things out and gets
rid of those nasty infinities.

When people actually go through the math carefully, they find that
the theory only fully works if space has extra dimensions beyond
the usual three, so it ends up living in a higher-dimensional world.

New results from the Large Hadron Collider in 2025 really threw a
wrench in supersymmetry. They didn't find any of the new particles
SUSY was supposed to predict - no heavier versions of known particles,
even way up in the mass range. So most of the versions of SUSY
that were meant to fix big physics puzzles, like why particles
weigh what they do, just don't match what we're seeing anymore.

As I said. I'd be worried.

The theory works to well for it to be utterly useless, but it seems that something is seriously wrong, or seriously incomplete.

The nice thing about working with ice sheets is that you know they exist.

William Hyde


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

I thought Galileo also offended by claiming that various "celestial
bodies", allegedly made of the Fifth Element, were in fact very large
rocks, made of the mundane elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).

Yes, although to be clear I don't think he actually said it was absolutely
true that this was the case, he only suggested that it was a possibility.

Later on the idea that the heavens were made of ordinary materials and
follow the same physical laws as here on earth turned out to be a huge
winner for Newton.

Of course, another way to look at this is that we're all made up of
star stuff from the heavens. This seems a better approach personally.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 09:37:57 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:53:38 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use >>>>if different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that
it was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth
actually went around the sun instead if the other way around. What
got Galileo in trouble was claming that it actually did.

I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these many people
or cite a source for the assertion?

Well, Copernicus is the obvious answer to that one, but a number of
folks followed him.
--scott

Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend"
heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:

Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend" >heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?

You know, I have never read Copernicus' book. I probably should.

Galileo may or may not have been certain about heliocentrism personally,
but what with the Pope and all what he said in public was kind of guarded.
But not guarded enough. And I gather that he was kind of an ass which did
not help matters.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Charles Packer wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Charles Packer wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person wrote:

This doesn't mean some physics theories don't have mathematics that >>>>>/require/ different dimensions, though. Or at least are easier to use >>>>>if different dimensions are posited.

There is a longstanding tradition of this. Many people posited that
it was much easier to do the math by pretending that the earth
actually went around the sun instead if the other way around. What
got Galileo in trouble was claming that it actually did.

I hadn't heard this before. Could you identify one of these many people >>>or cite a source for the assertion?

Well, Copernicus is the obvious answer to that one, but a number of
folks followed him.
--scott

Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend" heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?

It's my understanding Galileo's brouhaha began with a lack of evidence.
A pamphlet from my Catholic church says it this way:

There is no evidence that, when Galileo acceded to the
Inquisition's demand that he formally renounce the view
that the Earth moves, he muttered under his breath,
eppur si muove, "but still it moves." What continues to
move, despite the historical evidence, is the legend of
a fundamental conflict between science and religion.
There was a conflict between Galileo and the Inquisition,
but it was a conflict between those who shared common
first principles about the nature of scientific truth
and the complementarity between science and religion.
In the absence of scientific knowledge that the Earth
moves, Galileo was required to affirm that it did not.
However unwise it was to insist on such a requirement,
the Inquisition did not ask Galileo to choose between
science and faith.

GALILEO by Carroll

Another Catholic says it this way:

Scientism and the Galileo myth. Another example of 'The Science'
and its mendacity and propaganda.

The Religion of The Science, or Scientism, does not suffer
competitors or doubts.

... According to our modern education hagiography, the following is
'true' about Galilei Galileo:

1. Proved heliocentricity (it took some 200 hundred years after
Galileo, before some proofs were offered, namely stellar
parallax and light aberration which can also be explained by
the Tychonic model, as covered in other posts)
2. Invented the telescope
3. Discovered Sunspots
4. Identified comets
5. Dropped weights from the leaning tower of Pisa proving the
'law' of accelerated gravity
6. Invented the incline plane to prove that an object falling
down an incline will roll up an incline for the same distance
as the declination
7. Discovered the important properties of a pendulum
8. Based on the pendulum discovered time keeping
9. Was the first to push 'experimental science?

Busy guy.ÿ Except that none of the above is true (Kuhn, p. 10).
Galileo did not invent the telescope and his customised production
was largely inferior to that of Kepler's.ÿ He did not prove
heliocentricity whatsoever (more below).ÿ It is unlikely he
performed the weight dropping experiment, nor did he discover the
attributes of a swinging pendulum, the incline motion of an object
proceeding from a declination; nor did he uncover secrets leading
to time keeping or navigation.

Christopher Scheiner discovered Sunspots.ÿ Jesuits long before
Galileo had traced and explained the life cycle of comets, contrary
to Galileo's claim that they were ephemeral.ÿ Scientific
experimentation using defined methods dates to at least the 12th
century. Galileo was the same character who yelled and pounded his
desk that the moon had an atmosphere. It doesn?t and if you landed
on it, you wouldn?t survive more than 10 minutes due to radiation
exposure. ...

A key factor which hindered Galileo was a personality which though
innovative, was too often narcissistic, egocentric, stubborn,
rough and imprudent. ÿThis was true in his general disregard for
others and their opinions throughout his career.ÿ This usually
generates more enemies than friends. ...

<https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/scientism-and-the-galileo-myth-another>

In my humble opinion the Catholic church's empirical guardrails help
keep scientific inquiry on track. Without empirical guardrails you end
up with fantastical god particles, for instance.
THE HIGGS FAKE by Unzicker tells the tale of the god particle's
aimless inception. In a nutshell, Unzicker blames the stagnation of
particle physics since Einstein's annus mirabilis on too much math and
too little empiricism.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. veritas liberabit vos
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
<mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 09:37:57 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

<snippo>

Of course I know about Copernicus, but he didn't just "pretend" >heliocentrism; he proposed it as an actual fact, didn't he?

IIRC from my reading it quite a while back, he presented it more as a demonstration that a heliocentric system would be simpler than
Ptolomy. He and others may, of course, have believed it, but that's
not the same as presented it as an actual fact.

And he carefully arranged to have it published /after/ he died,
considering it very unlikely that the Holy Office would be able to do
anything to him after he was dead.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 19:28:49 -0500 (EST), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

I thought Galileo also offended by claiming that various "celestial >>bodies", allegedly made of the Fifth Element, were in fact very large >>rocks, made of the mundane elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).

Yes, although to be clear I don't think he actually said it was

absolutely

true that this was the case, he only suggested that it was a

possibility.

While he was still alive.

Copernicus avoided the problem: he arranged to have his book published
after he died and so was beyond the reach of the Holy Office.

Later on the idea that the heavens were made of ordinary materials and
follow the same physical laws as here on earth turned out to be a huge
winner for Newton.

Aristotle's Fifth Element was based on the idea that the Sun etc were
gods, and gods were immortal. Since he also believed that the reason
mundane things were not mortal (ie, everything breaks down/dies at
some poing) was because they were compounded of for elements, the only explanation could be that they were made of a Fifth Element alone.

Aristotle was very big in Roman Catholic theology, particularly (IIRC)
with the time of and after Aquinas.

Of course, another way to look at this is that we're all made up of
star stuff from the heavens. This seems a better approach personally.

We also have a lot more than 4 elements. Even if you regard "elements"
as quarks and leptons, there are still 3x as many.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)