Slashdot Mirror
Search For the Tomb of Copernicus Reaches an End
duh P3rf3ss3r writes "The Associated Press reports that after 200 years of speculation and investigation, the tomb of Nicolaus Copernicus has been found. Although the heliocentric concept had been suggested earlier, Copernicus is widely thought of as the father of the scientific theory of the heliocentric solar system. The positive identification was made by comparing the DNA from a skeleton's teeth with that from hairs in a book known to have belonged to Copernicus. A computer-generated facial reconstruction is said to also bear a resemblance to contemporary portraits of the scientist."
Yes, Copernicus claimed that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of the universe.
Obviously, in the past 475 years we have figured out that the sun is only the center of the solar system and not the universe.
The part where the earth was created before the stars is a bit hard to believe. Maybe it means that the subatomic particles that it's made of?
Or maybe it's a story made up by early tribes in the mid-east not unlike other creation myths by African tribes, Native Americans, and pretty much everywhere else there have ever been humans.
i'll take "indiana jones 4 movies i would actually have liked" for $2000, alex.
ed
Maybe you can try and read what is there instead of what you want to read.
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So here we have the original creation. Who knows how long ago. It does not say.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The part "was without form, void" is a bad translation and should say "became without form, and void;". So apparently something happened, and who knows how much time went by, between the first creation and the second "re-creation" of the surface of the earth.
In any case when you read what is actually says there is nothing there that disagrees with what modern science has observed.
Now they can properly burn him at the stake for his heresy.
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milky Way Galaxy's central black hole?
You're right. Copernicus didn't know this at the time (or at least if he did, he didn't tell anyone). He came up with a model that was simply better than the norm. Whether he and he alone did this or not is probably up for debate but he sure stuck his neck out there for it.
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
And I would simply posit that you are a unique frame of reference. But that would just begin a pedantic physics discussion (more to come!).
A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
I don't think the universe is an object of infinite size. It's constantly expanding, though ... and if you want to get technical, we can look at the red light shift of things moving away all around us and their velocity. Doing this, we can trace their vectors backwards to an intersection point--the point of the event theorized to be the Big Bang. The true center of the universe.
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Of that whole list you wrote, it sure does concentrate predominately on the earth. If you think about it, there's a whole lot more to talk about than merely the earth ... so in a way, it does give all the attention to the earth. The fact that it was created before the stars just makes it all that much more central. Also, where else would God put beings made in his likeness? If you're going to defend The Bible's creation story, I don't recommend Slashdot.
My work here is dung.
From TFA:
the skull bears a cut mark above the left eye that corresponds with a scar shown in the painting.
Scars are one thing, but a wound that leaves a mark all the way down to the skull... that's gotta sting.
TFA also says that the reconstruction shows a broken nose. Is it even possible to have evidence of a broken nose on the skull? "Broken nose" as shown in the painting is cartilage damage, which would probably all be gone by now.
I'm sure you can add in a broken nose to the reconstruction, but in context, it was being cited as evidence. Just bad journalism, or dubious research?
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey Way Galaxy's central black hole?
So Copernicus was not 100% correct. But his theory was still more right than the one it replaced (Ptolemaic geocentrism). Newton wasn't 100% correct either, and I'm sure that Einstein's theories will also be shown to be only approximations. But so what? All these theories have advanced science, even if they are not the final word.
A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
Well, you can certainly come up with an infinite space that has a "natural" center. For example, an infinite 3-space curved in higher dimensions might have only one point where the curvature is zero. That would be a natural center.
Not that our universe necessarily has that structure.
If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
Can they not leave the man in peace. What possible value is there is disturbing him.
Nullius in verba
No object in the universe is at the center because space itself is expanding, and if you stand at any point, it appears that everything is moving away from you. So, no matter where you are, it looks like you're at the center of the universe.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
So, it's not very good evidence that the Earth was the center of everything, but it was good enough to get the Church to believe it. When Copernicus challenged this belief, he was challenging a VERY VERY old imbedded belief.
What _I_ want to know is how the heck did the computer model figure out what his clothes looked like?!
The geocentric model is usually attributed to Ptolemy. I have no idea what people believed before then.
Or do they have to wait around for another Bob Dylan track and more surprise skinjob revelations?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
When dealing with religious issues, it's important to remember that what people actually believe can be quite different from what their scripture says, especially in periods of high illiteracy.
>he made the stars also.
Where does it say *when* he made them?
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey Way Galaxy's central black hole?
A scientific theory isn't judged on whether it's ``true''; we leave the concept of ``truth'' to theologians, creationists and other amateurs.
A scientific theory is judged on how useful it is. What Copernicus showed is that by using a model in which the referential is attached to the sun, rather than the earth (as in the earlier Ptolemean model), many computations become easier.
Note that all of these models are useful under some circumstances. When you compute the distance from your home to the butcher's, you disregard the rotation of the earth, and hence use the Ptolemean model. When you compute the date of Easter next, you use the Copernican model. But if you need to compute the position of our Galaxy in a few billion years, you'll likely want a different model.
Although the heliocentric concept had been suggested earlier, Copernicus is widely thought of as the father of the scientific theory of the heliocentric solar system.
Please. All these qualifications are unnecessary.
Copernicus is not considered a great scientist because he woke up one day and said, "Gee, maybe the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around!" His greatness came from all the insight, creativity, and mind-boggling hard work he put in to make this idea objectively sound.
Being the first to have an idea doesn't give you precedence. It's inventing the scientific structure that allows people to validate (and, more importantly, invalidate) your ideas that matters. That's what separates real science from mere speculation.
First they believed that the universe was a like a truck. Then they though it was like a series of tubes. Now its believed to be like a cloud, although with the points able to connect to any other point.
So sayeth the wise Alaundo.
-=Bang Bang=-
Not only that, but mistranslations can lead to beliefs and practices which don't correspond to the original text. Give those beliefs and practices enough time and they'll become so entrenched that the followers won't care that they are basing their ideas on a mistake.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Copernicus' realization that the Sun was the center of the universe was revolutionary, even if not mathematically correct by modern standards. The prevailing cosmology, which the church was more than happy to throw people in jail for questioning, was that the Earth was the center of the universe because it was created by God as the divine home for Man. The stars were not known to be like the Sun; they were believed to be lights pinned into the divine firmament.
The history of science is littered with theories that are known to be incorrect, but were more correct than their predecessors. Most of the time, the center of rotation of the solar system lies within the surface of the Sun, so the Sun can be truly said to be the center of the solar system. At the time, Copernicus would have believed that it was therefore the center of the universe.
The headlines and the facts seem to be at odds- the search took 4 years, not 200, and the tomb was unmarked, thus it has been lost for 500 years or so, if being known to be in a given church yet unmarked would count a tomb as "lost".
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
... can give, from a skull, any hint about the size of the nose and the shape of the ear, both of which are made of just cartilage.
Any hint ?
Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
--The part where the earth was created before the stars is a bit hard to believe.--
What verse does it even say that? I think Heaven meant sky right there.
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=heaven
Is it ironic that the scientists of today chose to revolve the DNA evidence around him (his hair), instead of the son (his heir)?
:)
(AFAIK he had no children - jokes don't need to be accurate.)
This is not my sig
The science of reconstructing what a person looked like from only their skull is a fascinating one and one I admire. I have no doubt they get at least 80% of it right. I have to wonder, though, how much of the Copernicus work is artist's conception, as opposed to scientifically supported by the evidence? There are no bones in the nose and cartilage doesn't last like bone. How did they determine the size and shape of the nose? It looks more like a caricature or a video game nose. I know people with big noses and I've never seen one that odd looking. And what about the ears? Those would be bigger, I imagine, again based on my experience with people who have long heads like our old friend here. Outsized ears, like prince Charles, or Chris Kraft. I bring up Kraft because I just saw him in a NASA documentary and, if anything, his ears today seem to have grown larger if that's humanyly possible.
Anyway, this is a cool development. Copernicus is the first example I use when I hear people telling stereotypical "dumb Polack" jokes. A truly revolutionary genius and one of my favorite historical figures.
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises
Don't meterologists talk of sunrise and sunset? Don't modern day astronomers say things like "wow, what a beautiful sunrise?"
it was good enough to get the Church to believe it
The various churches have believed a whole lot of stuff that isn't supported by the bible. Look at the Baptists' hatred of drunkenness and dancing. There's an old joke that goes "Why won't Baptists have sex standing up? They don't want anyone to think they're dancing!"
Why any Christian would think that capital punishment or war can be a good thing is beyond my comprehension.
What _I_ want to know is how the heck did the computer model figure out what his clothes looked like?!
They have paintings of him, that's where the clothes come from. What I want to know is in the posters of the evolution of man you see in all the museums, why do the cave men have long hair and beards while the modern man has no facial hair (lacking a secondary sexual characteristic) and have short hair? Bald I can see, but short? I've never met a human with naturally short, doglike hair like you see on those posters. I mean, my hair's short but I was at the barbershop the other day.
Free Martian Whores!
The Milky Way is the center of the Universe because it is both the creamiest and chewiest part of the Universe.
I'm usually up for most kinds of humane scientific inquiry without question and I'm not squeamish about desecrating graves but this seems sort of pointless.
Did they expect to find something special about his remains?
Where burial rites of astronomers of his time a mystery?
Was he buried with an antique text that could shed light on his discoveries?
Were gold doubloons involved?
Was this part of a wacky bet or some bizarre clause in an eccentric rich person's will?
Could "I found Copernicus' tomb" be a new Polish pickup line?
Did they think it would make a neat geocache?
I just can't quite think of a great reason to go to this much effort for the scientific equivalent of adding a stop on a map of hollywood star's homes that happens to be especially run down and dirty.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Hmm... I expect his body was hidden in the last place they looked. It always seems to work out that way for me.
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
Yes, Hans, but you don't have much walking room these days.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
You could construct an accurately moving model of the solar system, have the earth as the center, and still have it be accurate. The moon doesn't orbit the earth, both bodies orbit a spot somewhere beneath the earth's crust.
It's all a matter of how you look at it.
All points in space are the center of the universe. No matter where you are in the universe, you can look around and see everything moving away from you. Trace that backwards and you'll find that the big bang occurred right where you are, no matter where you are.
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
And what, you expected religious folk to have a rational explanation for what they believe?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?"
It's commonly accepted that the universe is of finite size and has a defined shape.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Why not clone the dude?
First, we can't yet clone humans. But mostly it would be futile. A person is more than his genes, he is his upbringing and experience and training. Clone him or Einstein and the slightest misstep in his growth, particularly prebirth, and he might become severely retarded.
My youngest daughter has an IQ of 132. My oldest had complications at birth and has a measured IQ of 65. Take some kid living in the ghetto or prison who has an IQ of 85 and give his zygote two loving, educated, wealthy parents instead of a whore and an absent junkie and he may well turn out to be smarter than Einstein.
Free Martian Whores!
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
Yes, that's known as the "egocentric model", in competition with the "geocentric model" popular before Copernicus, and the "heliocentric" model he championed. This is all covered in this highly informative book, which is sadly out of print.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hey, Apples can set your house on fire.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/10/goodness-gracious-great-balls-of-powerbook-fire/
Hubble's Law says that every point is, indeed, the center of expansion of the universe, since every other point in the universe is retreating at a distance proportional to its distance.
As for Genesis, it said nothing even about the earth even being round, much less being the center of anything. Assorted fruitcakes have been arguing against that notion even hundreds of years after the earth was circumnavigated which (invoking Occam's razor) leads you to the conclusion that the earth is round (never mind the fact that several hundred human beings have actually seen the round Earth with their own eyes from outside its atmosphere and have essentially testified to its appearance the same way).
Every time I hide a body, it always turns up in the last place they look. That is, if it turns up.
Perhaps I've said too much.
Have you ever talking about sunset or sunrise, or the ? I don't imagine that when you do, you're making a scientific statement. Similarly, poetic and narrative descriptions of the location or procession of the sun should not be taken as scientific descriptions. People back then had no great reason to think that heliocentrism was better than geocentrism, but the Bible doesn't come out and endorse any position, or even raise it as a subject.
WHOOOOOOOSH!
Why? So he can tell us again that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
People often posit that famous thinkers of the past, if reconstituted in today's world might lend their genius to contemporary problems. But who's to say that genius is measurable outside of its own context?
Hitting the genetic lottery by itself doesn't lead to greatness.
I'm curious, how often do you read a piece of poetry and assume that the author was making a scientific statement? In the absence of scientific absence, it is understandable that people might read more into a statement than they should, as has happened, but there is no requirement for poetry to be interpreted literally, so while it might be accurate to say that these statements were taken to mean geocentric thinking was correct, it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
The positive identification was made by comparing the DNA from a skeleton's teeth with that from hairs in a book known to have belonged to Copernicus
All this proves is that he bit Copernicus. Get back to work.
-The Management
(just_kidding)
Help fight spam
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. [virginia.edu] I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Genesis doesn't. However, there are verses in other books of the Bible that state things like (paraphrased) "God established the Earth such that it cannot move".
Such verses used to be interpreted to mean the Earth did not, in fact, move, which would mean that everything that looked like it was circling the Earth actually was - which logically means the Earth would be the center of the Universe.
Those verses are now interpreted differently.
Code or be coded.
No, more like a piece of bridge abutment!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Unless they can prove the hair in the book belonged to Copernicus , they merely proved that they found the remains of someone who may have had contact with the book. For all we know Copernicus had a Gay lover, or took a piece of hair from a stranger and planted it in his book :-)
[The second option brought to you by the TinFoilHatSociety ].
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
...his grave would be spinning about him.
Not me! If you find one, there's bound to be more!! :)
On a more serious note, the phrase "always the last place you look" means that no matter where you start or the order you search in, the item is always in the final place on the list of places to look. It's a corollary of Murphy's Law.
A computer-generated facial reconstruction is said to also bear a resemblance to contemporary portraits of the scientist."
Oh, really? Generated by an actual computer? Well then, that's good enough for me.
Or maybe it refers to the speed of light and that one wouldn't see the creation of the stars until well after they were created. ;)
I believe the geocentric model was based on some story about god stopping the sun in the sky to help some biblical hero's army win some war. It was thought that because god stopped the sun revolving around the Earth and not the earth's revolution yaddayaddaya... Earth is the center of everything. I have bored myself...
I think it was something to do with Gods living on Mt. Olympus, and the sun was some kind of chariot.
Before we had a lot of civilization, we followed more of a Food? / Yikes! mode of thought; we didn't have a lot of spare time to look up and wonder, "Hmm, what's it all about..."
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
s/bear a resemblance/resemble/
you had me at #!
I am the center of the universe! Look in all directions around me. How much universe is there? Infinite. Yes?
The game.
It's commonly accepted that the universe is of finite size and has a defined shape.
so after you define for me the size (or shape) of the Universe, please tell all of us what's on the other side (or outside the boundries of your definition)...
the significance of a signature is insignificant
Einstein has been cloned from a skidmark in a pair of his underpants kept by his family.
A skull-bong found in an MIT dormitary has been DNA identified as belonging to Isaac Newton. The DNA came from fingerprints on the bong, confirming rumors of Newton being a pothead.
A frozen turd found in Craig Venter's kitchen fridge, formally believed to have come from a pygmy marmoset, has been identified and carbon dated as the last movement of Wolfgang Armadeus Mozart.
OK, so I lied. Mozart wasn't a scientist.
Especially if they found said body in a graveyard. They may not want to go looking for more though.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Copernicus claimed that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of the universe.
I was under the impression that his claim was a smaller - and more nearly correct - one: That the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around, not that the sun was the center of the entire universe.
(Though it does a good job of approximating the center of the collection of readily observable heavenly bodies distinguishable from the "fixed stars".)
Does anyone have a link that would disambiguate his claim between "Earth orbits Sun" and "Sun is the center of the universe."?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So what kind of beverages was he buried with? The liquid probably has evaporated by now, so get to work doing chemical analysis on the residue left inside some of the pots he's got with him.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Hmm... I expect his body was hidden in the last place they looked. It always seems to work out that way for me.
Not me. I always keep looking after I've found the body. Just in case you know?
Now the search is on for Copernicus' car keys. They are starting with between the couch cushions.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I'm curious, how often do you read a piece of poetry and assume that the author was making a scientific statement? In the absence of scientific absence, it is understandable that people might read more into a statement than they should, as has happened, but there is no requirement for poetry to be interpreted literally, so while it might be accurate to say that these statements were taken to mean geocentric thinking was correct, it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
(emphasis added)
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my post, but I wasn't trying to say anything about my beliefs but rather how people in the past attempted to justify the idea that the earth was the center of the universe by citing the bible.
it is not accurate to say that they actually endorse such thinking or even have the subject in mind.
Which was why I ended my original post with:
When dealing with religious issues, it's important to remember that what people actually believe can be quite different from what their scripture says, especially in periods of high illiteracy.
Back in the day when people had questions about the nature of the universe, they turned to the Bible. The Bible was considered the final authority on *all* matters, even ones that weren't particularly related to anything said in the book, an attitude that is dangerously carried into the present by people declaring that "all the answers" are in the Bible.
So when someone asked "What is the structure of the universe?" they frantically tore through the Bible looking for any clues related to how God created the Universe since Genesis is rather vague on the subject from what I can recall. It was not my intent to say that I agree with this line of reasoning but rather to explain it given the original poster's comment that geocentricity was not mentioned in Genesis.
1: In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Universe.
2: And the Universe was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the vacuum.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the energy.
5: And God called the light Radiation, and the energy he called Matter.
6: And God said, Let there be galaxies in the midst of the vacuum, and let it divide the vacuum from the vacuum.
7: And God made the galaxies, and divided the vacuum which was within the galaxies from the vacuum which was between the galaxies: and it was so.
The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey [sic] Way Galaxy's central black hole?
At the time of Copernicus the ancient Greeks were considered the last word on all things concerning nature and they belived the earth was the center of everything. You can't really blame Copernicus for not being aware of galaxies and black holes, or quantum mechanics or lasers or all that other stuff that was discovered hundreds of years after him.
can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
It is believed that the universe has a finite size.
You could construct an accurately moving model of the solar system, have the earth as the center, and still have it be accurate.
Nope, they tried that already. Having the earth at the center of a model of the solar system required having all sorts of ugly planetary epicycles and such and pretty much didn't work as observations got better.
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Actually Genesis has more than one description of the origins of the world (1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-2:25). It was assumed that since the earth is created first in the bible that it was the center of things.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
A question for you math geeks: can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?
Well infinite is not the term I'd use here. The potential size of the universe is infinite, but there is a distinct perimeter that is constantly expanding, thank you Edwin Hubble. If you measure the directions of expansion from various parts of the galaxy, they have a distinct point of origin, give or take a really bad Star Trek movie.
The basis of the Copernican Principle is that there is no 'preferred' position in the universe, i.e. no center. The parent article is wrong. So was Copernicus on that small detail. Everything else was bang on and contradicted religious scripture. It's amazing he wasn't burned at the stake for heresy.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
I think we actually agree, but by saying that the OT alludes to geocentrism, it looked like you were saying that the Bible suggests geocentrism as a scientific model, which it doesn't. It can be mistakenly read in that way, but if it's a mistake, then you can't say to alludes to the idea. Grammar pedantry really.
Copernicus must have missed this one:
Psalm 19:6; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Umm, Copernicus did say that the sun, not earth, was the center of the universe. Granted, he was still wrong, but he was more right than anyone else at that point, so he revolutionized stuff.
Nope. If my Physics' teacher's overview of the universe is correct, the universe doesn't have a center. Everywhere is the center, and nowhere is the center. That's the paradox of relativity. So, in a way, your posit is actually correct.
Yep. That's what Tycho Brahe did, actually. He simply couldn't concieve that the earth moved, so he came up with a system where the earth was still stationary, but the planets rotated around the sun, and the sun and the moon rotated around the earth. You can picture if you took one of those rotating solar system models and picked it up by the earth, it would still spin - just everything would spin around the earth. That was Tycho's theory. It may have been more popular except that Tycho died and Copernicus took over.
The passages that got Copernicus in trouble weren't in Genesis, but in other places:
Verses like these claimed nothing about the centricity of the earth, but that the earth was stationary. By extension, this implies that everything moves around it, but Copernicus got in trouble for saying that the earth moved, not that it wasn't the center of the universe.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
That's a bad translation ? Ok, I'll believe you mr. A.C.
Since you now see that modern science and religion agree would you be so kind as to remove all the 'equal time' bullshit so we can get on with progress ?
MP3 Search Engine
It bugs me that people say, "the first in the world to do this, or the first ever to do that", when in reality they're merely among the first in Europe. Other cultures (eg Indian & Chinese) didn't have the political blinkers forced on them, and explored these idea hundreds of years before Europeans. http://www.crystalinks.com/indiastronomy.html
As for noses and ears, look at where the cartilage was attached and you will see similar effects as due to the ligaments.
Basic Anatomy Failure.
The ears are mobile and aren't connected to the skull. The shape of the ear won't alter at all the surface of the skull (well except for elephant-sized ears. Those would require proper musculature which in turn will leave a mark on the skull).
The cartilage giving a shape to the nose is very distant for the bone structure. Bone marks won't give a lot of details about shape of nose. (Except for some obvious exceptions like broken nose, etc.) Ethnic origin may somewhat help to restrict to a narrower list of possible shapes.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The positive identification was made by comparing the DNA from a skeleton's teeth with that from hairs in a book known to have belonged to Copernicus
All this proves is that he bit Copernicus. Get back to work.
Aw. To bad.
I was just rejoicing that, with now teeth in addition to hair, we might have enough genetic material, so the Copernicus would be the next resurrected specie after the Wholly Mammoth.
I guess this is too bad for my plan to open a "Copernicus Park" theme park.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
How does the old joke go? Last week I found Jesus; he fell behind the cushions in the couch.
Where do we turn in our heads of Copernicus to collect our uber loot?
That's a nice vest. Scientific proof that geek fashion has been in decline for the past several hundred years.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I think they had to find Copernicus' tomb to look for the next clue to find the Holy Grail or the Illuminati or something like that.
Actually ... Sun is in the centre of the universe (by current understanding).
It has been mathematically proven.
So are you, btw, and everything else, as amazing as it sounds.
Hmm... I expect his body was hidden in the last place they looked. It always seems to work out that way for me.
Have you tried running your search algorithm in reverse?
I am anarch of all I survey.
The part "was without form, void" is a bad translation and should say "became without form, and void;"
That is what we call a "theological translation". You believe that only because somebody told you that. It could just as well mean that in the process of creating the earth, it was, at the particular point in time we are noting, formless and empty.
The verb is hayah. In Gen. 2:1, it's just your basic "be" verb, in the Qal 3rd person form. "At that point in time, it so was". If it was speaking of a future event, it would be "it will be".
The verb has no connotation of some process of becoming, nor does it imply some transitional state that proceeded it. It merely means that at this particular point in time, whatever may have been, it is this way now.
This is Hebrew 101. It's just a "be" verb. This is simple stuff, dude. And that is why any major translation you care to name: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, JPS, NJB, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, Luther's 1545 German, translate it: "the earth was ...". But of course, they must all have been inept translators . . .
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
I'd like to see this technique applied to the supposed bones of JS Bach, of whom the surviving pictures are unreliable and unconvincing. It's impressive that they could reconstruct even the facial stubble from the bones of Copernicus. It would be great to have such a high-resolution photo of Johann Sebastian also!
by a buxom british chick in spandex holding two pistols, i'm not interested
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, there are some real predictive problems with geocentric models. Epicycles and eccentric circles (Ptolemy's inventions for planetary motion) can predict where bodies will be in relation to both the sun and the zodiac, but they cannot predict *when* they will be there. I agree with you on the point that his system does not directly contradict the Bible, but it's not the Bible he had to worry about, it was the Church.
What I want to know is in the posters of the evolution of man you see in all the museums, why do the cave men have long hair and beards while the modern man has no facial hair (lacking a secondary sexual characteristic) and have short hair? Bald I can see, but short? I've never met a human with naturally short, doglike hair like you see on those posters.
We had (have?) much more sophisticated tools than Neandethals. Try shaving (or getting a buzz cut) with a stone axe sometime.
That's the general idea, anyway.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
And after they're done I'd like to see this technique applied on Jesus of Nazareth as well. That whole shroud thing looks too creepy.
You just got troll'd!
-- Oh, for [gG]od's sake, it's a joke, ok?
I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
The argument that the Bible requires a geocentrist universe is not generally connected to Genesis but rather verses like that in Joshua where God makes the Sun stand still at the battle at Gibeon. See Joshua chapter 10. The argument is that it doesn't make sense for the Sun to stop in the middle of the sky if the Earth is really stopping. But the verse talks about the Sun stopping, not about the Earth stopping its rotation. There are a variety of other verses but that is one of the most blatant. If you want see other Biblical arguments for geocentrism (as well as Christian theological arguments) you should look at http://www.geocentricity.com/ which is run by sincere modern geocentrists.
Yes, he realized it revolved only around his nose; read more at http://books.google.com/books?id=tvRp1whVFUsC&pg=PA812&lpg=PA812&dq=slang+%22curved+nose%22
The universe is not infinite.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Well, if you're going to stretch it to Jesus, toss in a few other fables too. I'd like to see a facial reconstruction of Snow White and perhaps one of Anansi also.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
I'd like to see this technique applied to the supposed bones of JS Bach, of whom the surviving pictures are unreliable and unconvincing.
Done. The Haussmann portrait is basically corroborated.
I can't decide.
Does anyone else think that he looked like James Cromwell (Zefram Cochrane)?
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
You are about 30 years behind the curve with your questions.
Celibacy is a bitch, so lots of hair but heirs are more unlikely (not really, but I will not start on this topic).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why do we need to have practical reasons for everything?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Go back writing file systems!
His knowledge of the Universe was limited by optical astronomy; there was simply no way he could have guessed the Sun was not the largest thing in the Universe. And his system was not actually simpler than Ptolemy's, because although he had reduced the number of epicycles by correcting the basic mistake (i.e. the Sun is a better point of reference than the Earth) he had better observations to go on, and so had to deal with discrepancies in the Ptolemaic model than Ptolemy did not. Until Kepler and Newton, the more accurate observations were, the worse a system based on epicycles would look in terms of complexity.
Copernicus was a true nerd, doing difficult maths because he wanted to satisfy himself on a matter that was important to him and to very few other people. The location of his tomb doesn't ultimately matter, because (as it says on Wren's monument) si monumentum requiris circumspice. But for Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo and Newton and a few others like them, we might live in a very different society.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Don't read Genesis, read elsewhere. For example, the following indicate that it was the sun that moved in the heavens, and that it was the earth that stood still, implying its position in the centre of the universe.
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
The following all indicate that the earth did not move:
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
These were taken from here, where there are a few more references.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
really bad Star Trek movie
Blasphemy! Stone the blasphemer!
Free Martian Whores!
Basic Anatomy Failure.
I'm glad to see that the proper response to a criticism is opening with an insult.
Sorry you took this as a personal insult. I wanted to produce more a "error message" pastiche.
Next time I'll defer to the resident phrenologist.
As long as it is not a retrophrenologist .
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I always find it wonderful when people know exactly what connotations a given word had in some context in a language that hasn't been spoken for over a thousand years.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
You might want to see 15 slides concerning Copernicus. There are even screenshots of software used for DNA recognition!
This is in a polish newspaper, but there's not too much too translate just click "Nastepny" which means "Next" too view all the slides. An interesting view nontheless.
http://portalwiedzy.onet.pl/109896,1,1,0,galeria_media.html
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Galileo's theory wasn't predictively superior to contemporary geocentrism, by his own admission. However, it was worse off in comparison, because it required a major revision of mechanics; it contradicted Aristotelian mechanics, which was as firmly entrenched as today's physics is for us. Galileo didn't have anything near a worked out theory of mechanics that rejected the idea of an absolute reference frame, and therefore, the idea of the relativity of all motion. This objection, if you note, was not biblical: it's a technical physical objection. (A modern day analogy would be if somebody proposed a theory that blatantly violated the law of inertia.)
The most important new kind of evidence Galileo brought into the picture were telescopic observations, and those weren't straightforward to interpret. The telescopes of the day were pretty awful devices, and more importantly, he didn't have a theory of optics that allowed him to justify his interpretations of what he did observe. Again, this is a technical objection, not a biblical one.
There were also other serious problems posed by other, very good astronomers of the day (by their and our standards), for which Galileo didn't have satisfactory answers. Things like the relative brightness of the planets at various points of their trajectories. These were not cosmological or biblical objections: they were technical, astronomical objections.
The church wasn't a biblical fundamentalist institution. It can be easily demonstrated that in many places, it accepted the scientific theories of the ancient Greeks in spite of apparent contradiction to the bible. There are biblical verses that the church read as seemingly implying that the Earth is flat; but the arguments for the Earth being a sphere were firmly accepted. In a sense, the world was seen as the work of God just as the bible was the word of God, so solid scientific arguments about the world had serious theological standing, and could not be shot down by appeal to the bible.
The church judged Galileo's astronomical theory, which seemingly contradicted the bible, on the basis of the professional opinions of astronomers of the day. The theory was found wanting on those grounds, so therefore, because it contradicted the word of God as interpreted by the Church, Galileo was forbidden from teaching it as a truth, while still being allowed to teach it "as a hypothesis." And in actual fact, many figures in the church, including the pope himself and some cardinals, encouraged Galileo in his studies.
At the end, you just can't conclude that Galileo's trial was as simple of an affair as people normally describe it. Yes, the church held too strong of a leash on science back then, but it wasn't nearly as reactionary as people like to portray it. In the actual facts of what happened, the political, interpersonal, scientific and biblical aspects of the Galileo affair were all very important. Galileo proposed an interesting but still very incomplete theory that contradicted the bible, and then went and publically humiliated the powerful sponsors that were shielding him from his biggest critics.
Are you adequate?
This comment was invented by Shampoo.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I would posit that I am the center of the universe. No matter where I am, I'm here. As I walk, the world moves beneath my feet.
You could construct an accurately moving model of the solar system, have the earth as the center, and still have it be accurate. The moon doesn't orbit the earth, both bodies orbit a spot somewhere beneath the earth's crust.
It's all a matter of how you look at it.
Let's just invoke the cosmological principle and leave it at that:
"On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Or simply put, the universe is the same everywhere on a large scale."
Apart from where it says fruit bearing plants existed before fish. and all the other things it says that disagree with established science. So you have a choice of dismissing the science, or accepting that the bible is either fallible or allegorical. But you can't say the bible is literal and infallible, and the science is sound, since they contradict one another.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
and you obfuscated your ignorance in not answering my question. good job!
the significance of a signature is insignificant
Joshua 10
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [b] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
Psalm 93
1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.
Add to that the religios dogma, it stuck. There are people who, in this very day and age, believe the sun revolves arounf the earth..
Yes I know, bunch of stupid fucks.
I hope that don't work in anything that needs circles, because according to the bible, pi is exactly 3.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The last 475 years of growing knowledge supporting his thoery.
This is how science works. I love it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
because modern man has razors, scissors and a comb?
The removal of facial hair is a social product. A recent one at that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes it does. in Psalms and in Joshua.
That period strongly held onto the belief that the earth is the center of the universe.
There are church papers supporting this. In all fairness the church did reverse it's position....in 1985.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So they brought up a bunch of non sequitors and ad reductum logical fallacies to argues against him instead of testing.
Yeha, that's great.
Any theory that is complete is fact.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They should have looked there first then.
That always works for me.
Thank you :)
Slightly less sarcastically, it should be fairly obvious that in theories that predict a finite universe that there is nothing on the 'other side' of any boundary, as the other side, would be, part of the universe. You are partially right about my ignorance actually, I have some basic ideas on this stuff based on my layman reading but I am no cosmologist. As I understand it, the primary suggestion is that it would work a lot like the surface of earth, start out in a straight line in a given direction and you can quite happily travel in that direction indefinitely, but you will return to your origin an infinite amount of times also.
Of course it is much more difficult to imagine this situation in 3 (spacial and perceivable) dimensions rather than 2, and I believe even Hawkings suggests that it is effectively impossible for the human brain to visualize this situation which is why things such as this tend to be represented mathematically.
It is a bit like when people ask, "So what was there before the big bang?". Well, there is no before, the big bang was an 'explosion' of both space *and* time. The arrows of time as we know them did not exist before the big bang, there simply was no *before*.
The problem that you are having (and most people, including myself have) is that you are using a brain that has evolved for the purposes of 'hunt, eat and fuck', to understand something that was never in our evolutionary benefit to understand. The fact that we even have the capability to understand the slightest amount of this stuff is only really a side effect of genetic mutation that was chosen to remain in our genome for other, more beneficial reasons.
My view point is that in reality the universe may be beyond our comprehension in the same way that the nature of the planet is beyond the comprehension of an ant. We might have uncovered 10% of the workings of the universe, we might have uncovered 0.0000000000000000000000000000001%. There is no limit to the potential complexity after all. In fact, believing that the nature of the universe must be within our comprehension pretty much leaves us with an intelligent design theory. If it is definately within our understanding... somebody must have made it that way :o).
What I can tell you however, is that scientists who study cosmology for their entire career and have proposed the idea of a finite universe have not overlooked the question of... "Yes, but what is over the wall?" :o).
Hopefully that is a better answer!
actually, it IS! while not giving me a "definite" (or definitive) answer, it DID explain why such an answer isn't possible.
and thanks for rising above my sarcasm...
the significance of a signature is insignificant
Absolutely no problem at all. My original reply to your post was unfair anyway. I was having one of 'those days', sorry.
As I've already pointed out, the Psalms are poetic so claiming that via a literal interpretation, they make scientific statements, is ludicrous. Similarly, the inicdent in Joshua seems a figure of speech we still use today, hence my references to sunset and sunrise. From the perspective of those watch, the sun appeared to stop in the sky. It wasn't a scientific statement regarding heliocentrism or geocentrism.
It was commonly believed at the time by the overwhelming majority of people, including a big chunk of astronomers, that the sun moved round the earth. After all, it didn't feel like the earth was moving and it looked like the sun was. When they read those passages, they would have seen then as consistent with such a view, but they were mishandling scripture. The Wikipedia article on Modern Geocentrism is quite good on this.
Are you talking about the Roman Catholic church? I have no great interest in their position of matters, but I doubt that they were still holding geocentric views in 1984.
no problem. I will admit (if I haven't already) that I am a Windows ab/user (of 8 copies of Windows, only my sole x64 version is legal!). I will further admit it takes a person of orders of magnitude of intelligence greater to (successfully) operate Linux/etc (I obtained a CompSci degree on a Mac!), and don't find that OS difficult at all. I did however bristle at your assertion that Windows users were "newbies".
:)
Kudos to all that took the time, had the patience, and the wherewithal to learn the ins, outs, and in-betweens of Linux. And besides, your icon (the penguin) is much, much cooler than mine! A stupid flag! I mean, c'mon- who's idea was that!?
the significance of a signature is insignificant
I think you might have meant to type this reply to another thread you are involved with. We were discussion finite universe theory rather than the relative merits of Windows/Linux. I have my views on this too, but I will catch you in some other thread to go through those! ;o)
Don't forget Giordano_Bruno
Eric Baird
It has a defined shape and finite size, but we are not yet sure what those are. I am not a mathematician, but I do know that cosmologists have found predictions for these things. Research is being done into finding the shape (spherical, flat, curved, toroidal, or a geodesic of some kind). I don't know if we'll be able to find a size in miles, because as far as we know, the observable universe hasn't filled the space that it occupies yet.
As for what lies beyond those boundaries, to my understanding, it's the other side of the universe. It's kinda like how you can roll a marble on a table, and to the table there is one continuous line, but to us, we can see that the marble isn't an infinitely long line, but rather a short line that is looping around.
Those are just my simplistic views of physics. I am a computer engineer after all, not a physicist.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I guess James Cromwell gets to play Copernicus in the movie.
according to the bible, pi is exactly 3
Isaac Asimov made that assertion in one of his books ("Asimov on Numbers" maybe?) but he misunderstood the passage. It concerned the diameter/circimfrance of a something or other, some sore of temple vessel, I don't remember what, but the passage said to make it n1 circumfrance and n2 diameter. Asimov said that it would result in an octagonal shape (iirc), but it was clear to me that Asimov negleted to remember that there are no two-dimentional objects in our three (plus time) dimentional world. He forgot to take the thickness of the vessel's walls into account. The measurement in circumfrance was the outside of the vessel, while the other measurement was the inside of the vessel.
He was correct, however, in saying that the ancient Jews were ignorant of pi. Yet they still got their vessel built.
Free Martian Whores!
Biologically speaking, a woman who is turned off by a beard is like a man who is turned off by titties. Shaving is a passing fad (and the museaum pictures could have the modern man bald headed).
What's the difference between a man shaving facial hair and a woman getting a radical mastectomy? Tits don't grow back. But breasts on a woman and facial hair on men are secondary sexual characteristics.
A woman who likes clean shaven men is probably a closet lesbian.
Free Martian Whores!