sudoku

2   8	8 9   7 5	9 7   8   4   2 1
1 4       7 6	8   6   5   2	6 7       3 9
1 2   4   6   9 8	6 8   1 7	8   2
solution

Le problème à Bibliothèque Universitaire de Nanterre est réglé

1) Moins drôle : me sabote-t-on mon œuvre? · 2) Le problème à Bibliothèque Universitaire de Nanterre est réglé · 3) Ou, le problème était reglé (ça recommence)

Le hic était temporaire.

On vient de me signaler que ce devait être le cas.

Drôle que la case affiché hier avait donné toute une autre impression (!) mais c'est peut-être une leçon que les trucs de logiciels ne sont pas toujours fiables.

24 pages supplémentaires ont été imprimées, et ça va être amoindri aussi.

Merci à une bonne bibliothèque (sauf les hics temporaires, bsr)!

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre-Paris X
Mercredi de Pâques
30.III.2016

Must one have experience, ideally collective, before publishing sth?

I just found this little detail on a short biography of Wilbur and Orville*:

Both Wilbur and Orville did well at school, but neither went to university. Wilbur’s plans to attend Yale College and become a clergyman like his father were dashed when he lost most of his teeth in an accident while playing ice hockey. It was only years afterwards when he was fitted with artificial teeth that his confidence to speak in public resumed. After the accident, Wilbur spent several years at home caring for his dying mother.

In March 1889, Wilbur and Orville started producing a newspaper in Dayton. Seventeen-year-old Orville was the publisher and 21-year old Wilbur was editor. Soon they were publishing other newspapers as well. However, in 1892, they became fascinated with a more mechanical interest—the bicycle.

Well, one man of 17 and one of 21 get together to produce a newspaper.

As culture seems to be now, if you are 17 and 21, you may be getting a place cleaning the office of a newspaper. Or, if you are pretty, you may be making articles about dances and cinemas, you may even start doing interviews with rock stars, such as think your paper is worth an interview. Or if you are empty headed and politically correct, you may be writing about the worries of the young.

In 1889, two brothers of 17 and 21 were doing an entire newspaper, if more than they wrote, it was they who judged about it.

Some would not like publishing to return to that state of freedom.

They would ALSO not like my articles to be published. For other reasons.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
La Défense
Easter Wednesday
30.III.2016

* CMI : The Wright brothers: pioneers of the skies
by Ann Lamont
http://creation.com/the-wright-brothers-pioneers-of-the-skies

** If you have heard the canard "no one is reading his blogs", look at my summary of the stats, even if you are unable to understand French. The word "mille" means "thousand":

New blog on the kid : Vaut-il la peine de lire mes blogs? Ai-je des lecteurs?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/871-mille-612-pages-vues-ou-blogs-vus.html

Moins drôle : me sabote-t-on mon oeuvre?

1) Moins drôle : me sabote-t-on mon œuvre? · 2) Le problème à Bibliothèque Universitaire de Nanterre est réglé · 3) Ou, le problème était reglé (ça recommence)

J'étais avant Pâques en train de faire, petit à petit, les impressions d'un grand document word.

195 pages (en 20 points), ça, je n'ai pas l'argent pour l'imprimer d'un seul trait. Je suis revenu et revenu.

Or, avant d'imprimer, il faut ouvrir le fichier word que j'ai fait. Ensuite il faut choisir les pages qu'on veut imprimer. Et ensuite imprimer ces pages là.

Petit hic aujourd'hui, j'essaie d'ouvrir le document word et je trouve ceci, à la même bibliothèque où j'ai pu imprimer avant (et dans laquelle j'ai produit le fichier word aussi):

C:\Users\autologon\Downloads\C-14.docx Ce programme est bloqué par une stratégie de groupe. Pour plus d’informations, contactez votre administrateur système. OK

De quoi exactement s'agit-il ici?

Bien, il s'agit de prouver (ce que j'ai déjà prouvé autrefois, d'ailleurs, avec d'autres textes) qu'à partir de mes dix essais* sur la récalibration de la datation carbone 14 (en perspective créationniste, bien entendu) on peut très bien faire les impressions et les photocopies de manière de produire un vrai livre.

Je viens de dire que j'ai déjà produit des vrais livres (tout ce qui reste à parfaire, ou si c'est déjà fait ou si les exemplaires ont été détruits sans le faire, par ceux qui ont acheté ou reçu en cadeau est la reliure). Ceci n'est pas une vaine vantardise:

hglwrites : Introduction à la Théorie Musicale
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/introduction-a-la-theorie-musicale/

Celui-ci à reçu une reliure cousu un peu à la japonaise, si j'avais bien compris la méthode, avant d'être envoyé à un à l'époque ami, musicien au Canada.

hglwrites : Géocentrisme, trois essais
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/geocentrisme-trois-essais/

À une certaine époque, j'ai vendu et distribué celui-ci (juste 8 pages, un cahier = facile à simplement agrafer au lieu de relier), mais désormais il est impossible à le refaire, car l'image du verso a été saboté, diminué par un administrateur d'accès d'internet à Boulogne-Billancourt, me semble-t-il, et l'une des côtés ne peut plus être refait en grandeur lisible. La diminution a été tellement grande que les traits distinctifs des lettres ne sont plus là, on agrandit et on se trouve avec un charabia qui n'est pas lisible. Ce qui est d'ailleurs ce que, sur un autre plan, mes ennemis "pensent" de mes écrits tout court. Mais en ce cas, ce fut de manière physique.

hglwrites : “Sieg über Teufel – Heil dir Maria”
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/sieg-uber-teufel-heil-dir-maria/

Malgré le titre en allemand, les textes sont en français.

hglwrites : Il aurait du rester peintre – index
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/il-aurait-du-rester-peintre-index/

L'essai qui donne le titre de la collection à la même phrase en allemand : Er hätte Künstler bleiben sollen. Mais l'essai est en français, comme les autres.

Ces deux œuvres ont été envoyés par poste à St Nicolas du Chardonnet, sans reliure, mais tous les plis emballés en ordre dans un emballage de plastique, genre "film alimentaire". S'ils n'ont pas profité pour avoir deux livres écrits par moi bien reliés, c'est leur propre faute.

Bon, je prépare donc, comme pour tous ces œuvres, un bouquin, et, comme pour l'œuvre gâché par sabotage d'un image, je le prépare à partir d'impressions de messages sur mon blog, pas à partir de quelque chose écrit à main.

Et avec 6 pages de page de titre, de page vide, de conditions pour mon copyright** et encore une page vide, j'ai déjà 120 pages (6+114 du document word) que j'ai ensuite recopiés deux à deux dans le genre de paires de pages qui sont intéressantes pour l'impression d'un livre***, et ces paires sont encore copiées en des exemplaires utilisables pour l'impression finale des cahiers d'imprimerie, des plis°. Je voulais donc aujourd'hui continuer avec encore 24 pages, j'avais encore une fois 40 et davantage copies sur la carte, et ...

C:\Users\autologon\Downloads\C-14.docx Ce programme est bloqué par une stratégie de groupe. Pour plus d’informations, contactez votre administrateur système. OK

Je me demande si c'est juste cette salle, dans l'autre salle où j'avais fait les impressions avant, j'avais quitté l'ordinateur quand je ne pouvais pas me connecter à mon courriel, là où je garde le fichier: "temporary error". Quand je remonte après une pause pour manger, ces ordinateurs sont pris. Et je me trouve dans l'autre salle.

Ce petit essai va bien-sûr aussi être envoyé à la personne que je trouverai comme responsable de la connexion internet ici.

Oh, encore une chose. Je viens d'écrire une nouvelle page sur ce blog°°, je voulais la rendre visible, j'allais donc sur le truc pour changer les onglets visibles en haut.

Ça malfonctionnait aussi. Dis-donc. Par contre, là j'ai profité. J'ai mis une bidule dans le menu de droite qui incluait le lien vers cette page. Ensuite, j'ai mis les pages qui concernent nettement mon blog, celui-ci et mes blogs en général comme thème dans cette bidule du menu de droite, et dans le truc pour changer les onglets en haut, qui refonctionnait, j'ai décoché ces pages.

Les onglets en haut sont donc moins nombreux, toutes les pages et cette nouvelle sont donc accessibles, si ce n'est pas des onglets en haut, au moins de cette bidule dans le menu à droite.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre-Paris X
Mardi de Pâques
29.III.2016

* Ceux qui débutent avec:

New blog on the kid [ce blog ici-même]: Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

Liens aux autres en haut de chaque message.

** hglwrites : Conditions d’utilisations ultérieures …
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/

*** 8 - 1, 2 - 7, 6 - 3, 4 - 5 - premier pli ; 16 - 9, 10 - 15, 14 - 11, 12 - 13 - deuxième pli; et ainsi de suite.

° 8 - 1 tête en tête avec 4 - 5 et 2 - 7 tête en tête avec 6 - 3, faire attention qu'à la copie double face 8 et 7 ainsi que 2 et 1 soient dos à dos; 16 - 9 tête en tête avec 10 - 15 et 14 - 11 tête en tête avec 12 - 13, faire attention qu'à la copie double face 16 et 15, 9 et 10 soient dos à dos; et ainsi de suite.

°° La "page" à la différence des simples "messages" n'est pas collé dans son ordre dans la suite des messages, mais est accessible des onglets du haut du blog.

Regalista quidam appropinquans mensae dixit

"Me sentio republicanum. Volo enim praesidentem!"

Iterum propius ad mensam vidit quid, correxit sententiam et subjunxit:

"Sit venia verbo. Me sentio agrarium. Volo rusticum."

Quidnam ergo vidit?

[Vide responsum]

Sanctum et Felix Festum Paschale

Christi fidelibus exopto.

CHRISTVS RESVRREXIT · VERE RESVRREXIT.

Lady Day and Good Friday (link)

'This doubtful day of feast or fast': Good Friday and the Annunciation
on A Clerk of Oxford
http://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.com/2016/03/this-doubtful-day-of-feast-or-fast-good.html?spref=fb

Why He Doesn't Marry the Girl is, Alas, Obvious

If Adam Johnson came to court in company "with partner Stacey Flounders", someone else already has a claim on his fidelity.

Then, I wonder how much of the girl's "psychological harm" was due to finding out about Stacey Flounders. Or, if she already knew. I even consider "psychological harm" a pseudo-category. We are perhaps dealing with suffering, with jealousy, but "psychological harm" could also mean quite different things. Some would even call it "harmful" if she had become attached to him and was dreaming of marriage. I would call it morally harmful if such a dream involved her dreaming of replacing Stacey. I would call it a severe shock, thus suffering, if a dream of marriage was shattered by finding out about Stacey. We do not know what the judge meant by the words.

And I wonder how much "psychological harm" Stacey Flounders has suffered.

Above all, when he tried to take contact with the fifteen year old fan, what bothers me is not if he knew she was only fifteen, since in saner centuries that would have been marriageable age even in England (Harry Potter series, according to an extract - I have boycotted reading them as novels, makes an allusion to a year in which it was raised to 13, in UK).

What bothers me is, did he in any way shape and form tell her that she was with Stacey Flounders. I suppose he has already told Stacey about it, or she might not have been going to court with him.

Let us recall that many charges against Catholic clergy were not really worse than this.

Heterosexual - and NOT involving infidelity to some somewhat older lady he was already courting.

Then, other charges were of course worse, I find 1568 AD bull by Pope St Pius X very apt for dealing with those cases of clerical or monastic tendencies to what was NOT heterosexual. Like some charges I read about in France, concerning the post-Vatican-II clergy.

Goodbye, those who idealise French clergy as "being above that" through having mistresses, like Abbé Pierre had.

By the way, since Adam Johnson is no longer a soccer player, I remain faithful to my publicity slogan of this blog dealing with "all subjects except soccer". The subject of this post is morality, not soccer.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Maundy Thursday
24.III.2016

This date is to the day ten years after France outlawed the possibility of a fifteen year old girl marrying. Back in 2006, it was not yet Maundy Thursday, but on other years than this, it is St Gabriel's Day. It was so that year. And the occasion was blasphemously chosen for such an evil change of law.

TOF Spot on Spot here

"1095. For no apparent reason, religious maniacs in Europe declare an atrocious "crusade" against muslims in their Near Easter homeland."

Check out how things had been going before that year on:

The TOF Spot : Deus vult! Part I: The Preludes
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2016/03/deus-vult-part-i-preludes.html

Good Geocentric Blog - NOT by Me.

GEOCENTRICITY : JUMPING OFF THE FENCE
http://geocen.blogspot.com/2012/07/jumping-off-fence.html

First post on:

GEOCENTRICITY
http://geocen.blogspot.com

Commenting on an Article of Al-Bushra

Here is what I find most worthy of quoting:

In 1949, the state of Israel was formed to be a haven for the world’s decimated and traumatized Jewish population after World War II. Ever since, American Christians have largely supported the modern-day Zion; in 2013, 82 percent of white evangelicals believed that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews.

In contrast, only 19 percent of Christians actually born, raised, and living in Israel believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Significantly more than half (66%) believe this is not literally true, while another 9 percent don’t know what to think.

The numbers come from a new comprehensive study of Israel by the Pew Research Center, which included enough self-identified Christians (468) to statistically break out their views. The numbers were weighted and adjusted, because Pew found that only 2 percent of Israel’s population in 2015 was Christian, down from 3 percent in 1949. (Pew’s survey includes Arab residents of East Jerusalem, but not those of Gaza or of the West Bank outside of East Jerusalem.)

Those Christians are largely split 50/50 between Catholic and Orthodox believers. Protestants and Messianic Jews both made up fewer than 0.5 percent of Israel’s population, and thus were too negligible to be broken out separately in the survey results (though they are included in the totals pertaining to all Christians).

Al-Bushra : Israeli Christians Think and Do Almost the Opposite of American Evangelicals
Posted on Mar 20, 2016 in Christians, Holy Land, Israel, Jews, Palestine, Peace, World
http://al-bushra.org/?p=5335

I believe God literally gave the Holy Land to Israelites.

Not Jews as opposed to Samarians and Galileans. Not Samarians as opposed to Jews. But Israelites in general.

I also believe the best claims to being such is being a Christian who has lived in the Holy Land since Pentecost of AD 33, one of those groups whose "Yiddish" so to speak has changed from Aramaic to Arabic, and whose "Hebrew" is Latin, Greek or Aramaic. In other words, those who were polled a poll reported in this article.

The Jews, including even Haredim, are schismatics and heretics.

The Muslims are apostates. Or immigrants.

Both Jews and Muslims comprise a lot of immigrants.

Especially Jews since 1948 or even Balfour declaration, but earlier Muslims, since Turkish authorities in 19th C. (same ones who discouraged Palestinian Jewry from staying, from time to time, perhaps they did the same to Christians) encouraged Algerian and Circassian immigration; probably especially Muslim such.

When I say Muslims are apostates (except those who are immigrants) and Jews are schismatics and heretics, I do not mean this very generation used to wait for the true Christ and rejected Him, delivering Him to crucifixion by Romans, or that this very generation used to be Christians but apostasised when the armies of Omar came. On the contrary, the full guilt is many generations back, 2000 years nearly in the one case, and 1300 - 1400 years in the other.

However, it is not illicit to live peacefully with heretics and schismatics, especially unbaptised ones, and it is not illicit to live peacefully with a community whose apostasy occurred several generations ago. There is no direct duty of purely religious revenge.

But Crusades were not just for religious revenge, like those against Albigensians, they were also for protection of Christians in Holy Land. If they feel threatened, they have a right to call for one.

From whichever quarter they feel threatened.

I don't know who, if anyone, will answer such a call. I think things are getting very late. But God can still do miracles for His own.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday of Holy Week
21.III.2016

As we get close to Good Friday (link, quotes, comment)

NCR : What does science say about the darkness during the Crucifixion?
by Jimmy Akin 03/20/2016
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-does-science-say-about-the-darkness-during-the-crucifixion/

Surely the translators of the New American Bible, which we hear at Mass, didn’t render the passage that way!
...
The reason I flinched at Mass was because the translators of the New American Bible rendered Luke 23:44-45 as:

It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the sun.

GAH! No! That’s the kind of eclipse that can’t occur at Passover!

Now, you might think that the NAB translators didn’t know this.

But that’s not plausible, because the fact this wouldn’t have been a solar eclipse is regularly commented upon in commentaries on Luke, and the translators certainly were familiar with and consulted such commentaries in the translation process.

They knew, but for some reason they just didn’t care.

Perhaps their view of science was as dim as their view of Greek grammar (eklipontos tou heliou is "sun failing", not necessarily "eclipse of the Sun", as Aikin mentions with more detail next).*

I am NOT suprised when it comes to modern religion related scholarship.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday of Holy Week
21.III.2016

* I could add that there was no real "terminus technicus" such as "eclipse of sun", there was a habitual locution, "the sun failing", which was very often, but obviously not here, used as terminus technicus for natural solar eclipses. In any scholarly manual from antiquity and in some terminology even from Middle Ages, you will find that what we translate as termini technici for a particular line of scholarship had a gramatical meaning which was more like common language than like a terminus technicus - like when saying "the sun failing" rather than "during a solar eclipse", and same word perfectly usable for the miraculous failure of the sun.

Why I Think Humanae Vitae was Heretical

I am linking to a post by a married woman who doesn't think so, but even she feels awkward about THAT kind of NFP mentality:

Dymphna's Road : NFP thoughts
Monday, January 23, 2006
Warning before clicking, from her: If you're offended by blunt talk about sex then skip this post
http://dymphnaroad.blogspot.com/2006/01/nfp-thoughts.html

If you do click, check out my comment, too!

Bonum Festum Sancti Patricii

Christi fidelibus exopto.

17 Martii Sextodecimo Kalendas Aprilis.

Apud civitatem Dunum, in Hibernia, natalis sancti Patricii, Episcopi et Confessoris, qui primus in ea insula Christum evangelizavit, et maximis miraculis et virtiitibus claruit.

Happy St Patrick's Day, Texas and District Judge Orlando Garcia! (link)

Freedom Outpost : Two Wealthy Texas Muslims Found Guilty of Slavery Tell Judge that punishing them would be “Islamophobic” – Judge Bans them from US
Tim Brown — March 16, 2016
http://freedomoutpost.com/two-wealthy-texas-muslims-found-guilty-of-slavery-tell-judge-that-punishing-them-would-be-islamophobic-judge-bans-them-from-us/

St Patrick also was a victim of unlawful slavery, namely that induced by the robbery of slave hunters - and he was freed by God after six years!/HGL

Précisément, c'était le Dimanche Laetare

Et avant de quitter la semaine Laetare, j'aimerais donner le lien vers la syllabus d'Étienne Tempier, évêque de Paris:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

L'année prochaine, on sera 740 ans après les condamnations./HGL

What is a Laetare Sunday in Paris without Tempier?

Now, last Sunday was Laetare Sunday, and that is 739 years after the condemnations of 1277 (or "late 1276" as they considered it back when New Year was March 25th).

Obviously I link again, before leaving the Laetare week:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

Dangerously obsolete?

Just a few lines from a post on lifesite:

After a lengthy debate over coffee, muffins and cantaloupe, French wrote, “it eventually came down to this. [My friend] looked at me and said, ‘Your beliefs are so dangerously obsolete, they should be silenced.’”

“You’re forgetting the small detail that conservatives have constitutional rights,” French shot back.

“The constitution,” her friend said coldly, “should be amended.”

Wrote French, “She ended the conversation and our friendship by saying she didn’t want to discuss this further because my status as a Christian meant I lacked the mental skills to have an intelligent debate. Her last words spoken to me were ‘You only believe in faith … not logic.’”

A view can hardly be dangerous if it is obsolete!

It can only be dangerous if it is current, at least in some degree.

Obsolete means "out of use":

obsolete (adj.)
1570s, from Latin obsoletus "grown old, worn-out," past participle of obsolescere "fall into disuse, be forgotten about, become tarnished," which probably is from ob "away" (see ob-) + an expanded form of solere "to be used to, be accustomed" (see insolent).

Obviously, any view which at any time is dangerous is one which at the time is NOT obsolete, one which IS in at least some limited use!

It is the moderns who, not believing in faith, do not believe in logic EITHER.

In the Western world, except among very poor villagers and similar subcultures, if even as much, the view expressed in Tolkien's chapter "Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor" that Sun and Moon are a kind of lanterns carried about by a kind of angelic spirits was obsolete, and therefore not at all dangerous when Tolkien expressed it.

But by now, it is becoming dangerous again, since I have put it back in use. My fellow Geocentric Sungenis is very eager to ... well, silence it:

HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly
[see sections I, III, V and VI]
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/03/debating-with-sungenis-mainly.html

If he had been dealing with "Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor" in original context, he would probably have been less .... incoherent and over eager. He is seemingly NOT ready for letting scholastic philosophy judge scientific paradigm, unless VERY well and clearly supported in Bible and Church Fathers, which he thinks, with some right, angelic movers are not.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
Friday after Laetare Sunday
11.III.2016

ASCII Code or Gematria per nine?

I have been due to publishing gematrias based on straight on ASCII Code, informed that esoterics use gematria per one (in English alphabet A=1 to Z=26) for gematria of whole phrases, but gemetria per nine (similarily A=9 to Z=234*) fr single words, one kind of which are of course names, like a first name or a last name.

But my interest is not in esotericism, but in Biblical prophecy.

Now, in the Bible, 666 appears in different contexts. The last one being the gematria of Antichrist, but the first one being the talents of gold in the temple of Solomon. Which by itself was something good.

It seems both Lucifer and Jesus come to 666 in gematria per nine. I was told, I checked, I did not find it otherwise.

This seems to indicate that gematria per nine will not univocally pick out the Beast for you.

Neither will, as yet, ASCII Code, since there are too many suspects. Also, the addition of ASCII Code does not annul the gematric validity of ordinary letter values of Greek and Hebrew alphabets, like omega = 800, sampi 900, or shin = 300 and tau = 400**, of which there are suspects around too, today.

But if gematria per nine can pin point Jesus and Lucifer, obviously it gives a somewhat too broad scope to 666 to alone give the pinpointing of the beast.

Lucifer is, like 666, equivocal. Isaias speaks of a fallen Lucifer, which is Satan. St Peter speaks of a Rising Lucifer or Morning Star, which is Jesus Christ.

Now, the man who said gemetria per nine was used also told me certain French words are the value 666, including viande and haine. But meat as such is not a bad thing, confer how God told Noah to eat, and hatred is both good and bad.

So, I got around to asking, where is it likelier to get the value 666? ASCII Code or gematria per nine?

Where it is mathematically less likely, it is also more significant.

Well, to get a jackpot value like one single name of nine upper case spelling out 666 in ASCII Code, I have for people so far only found BERGOGLIO.

BENRHODES could also be BEN RHODES - the space adding 32, as would each lower case instead of upper case. Now, BENRHODES is 666, so BEN RHODES is 698. With initial plus dot, space, surname, we get value of initial, plus generally 46 per dot and 32 per space (together 78 like upper case N). But neither Vladimir Putin nor Raúl Castro come out as 666 exactly that way. For V. POUTINE is 712, only missing the dot we get V POUTINE as 666. R. CASTRO is 620, only adding an extra dot we get R.. CASTRO as 666.

And I have been looking out for parallels to this jackpot value for about two years. I did not find it.

I have found one city, close to usual French spelling. BABYLONE = 588, but unconventional (though correctly pronounceable) BABYLONNE = 666, if I recall correctly.

I have found two concepts in my native Swedish, one in older spelling (previous to 1906), and one in dialectal form (a dialect where I was), which add up to this also, once again in upper case only, so to speak "jackpot", except that we are dealing with concepts rather than persons or cities.

B	66 60 6	F	70 70	A	065 60 5
A	65 120 11	R	82 150 2	F	070 130 5
B	66 180 17	A	65 210 7	F	070 200 5
Y	89 260 26	M	77 280 14	Ä	196 390 11
L	76 330 32	S	83 360 17	R	082 470 13
O	79 400 41	T	84 440 21	D	068 530 21
N	78 470 49	E	69 500 30	A	065 590 26
N	78 540 57	G	71 570 31
E	69 600 66	A	65 630 36

BABYLONNE 666, as compared to BABYLONE 588. FRAMSTEGA, dialectal for "(the) progress" (confer French grammar: "le progrès"), 666 as compared to standard Swedish FRAMSTEGET*** = 754. AFFÄRDA = 616 (less suspect value, since in manuscripts alternative to textus receptus), as compared to respelling AVFÄRDA° = 632. The word did not change pronunication in 1906 and means dismiss.

Babylon has a way of cultivating the ideal of progress, and of dismissing anything considered backward - or conspiracy theorist. Babylonian culture was heavily consensus driven and did not encourage critical evaluation of own society and its doings. So, the concepts are actually more suspect than "haine" (hatred in French, even if giving 666 in gematria per nine), and very much more so than "viande" ("meat" being a clearly good word in some contexts of New Testament).

So, what are the mathematical chances of getting 666 in gematria per nine? Well, one clue is, you can't get 665 or 667 in it. Closest neighours in gematria per nine are 657 and 675. So, it is equal to mathematical chances of getting 74 (666:9) in gematria per one. Now, for this you have chances from 3 letters on (3 letters, gematria per 1= 3 to 78), 4 letters (4 - 104), 5 letters (5 - 130) and so on.

But ASCII Code is kind of a loaded gematria per one. It is gematria per one, adding 64 to each upper case (or 96 to each lower case) letter.

9*64=
640
064
584

So, we are for nine letters talking about the chance of getting gematria per one 82.

But we are only dealing with gematria per one 82 from the nine letter possibilities.

There are also 8 letter and 10 letter possibilities, but would be more difficult.

Ten letters added to 640, one would need to get 10 letters getting 26 in gematria per one. A feat, since 10 letters minimum is 10. Much less easy than 82 in a row reaching 9 - 246, where 82 is far more central.

Or eight letters added to 520, one would need 146. Eight letter gematria per one is 8 - 212. Let's check centrality. More central, more different combinations will give it, just as in two dice the combinations 2 and 12 are less probable than combination 7.

212	234	212 66:204 = 33:102 = 11:34
146	082	008 138:204 = 69:102 = 23:34
066 from top	152 from top	204
146	082	234 152:225 > 30:45
008	009	009 73:225 < 15:45
138 from bottom	073 from bottom	225

So, centrality is comparable in either case. But since the spread is less in 8 letters, it would still be less significant than finding it in 9 letters.

Either way, it is way more significant than finding it in gematria per nine, where the value 666 is much more probable. Like 74 is in gematria per one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Denis
Wednesday after Laetare Lord's Day
9.III.2016

* Checking 9*26 and 8*26:
260
026
234
026
212

** Checking what numeric values of shin and tau are, without knowing all letters and letter values, shin is 21, tau 22. First nine are 1 to 9, second nine are 10 to 90. So 22 - 18 = 4. ?=100, Resh=200, Shin=300, Tau=400.

*** +ET = 69+84=149+4=153, -A = 153-65=93-5=88. 666+88=754

° + V = 86 - F = 86-70=16.

Ou peut-être oui?

1) Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"? · 2) C'est quoi un URL? Doit-il être en bon français? Non, mais unique! · 3) Non, Daniel Hamiche, leur site n'est pas piraté! · 4) Ou peut-être oui?

Je viens de visiter un cyber, où j'essaie de me connecter pour voir si le blocage abusif reste en place.

Je vois des infos sur l'infection du site:

Wait! Please don't visit that site right now!

Google detected badware on the site you were visiting. Firefox uses Google's blacklist to warn you about "Reported attack sites." We understand that you may know and trust this site, but it's possible for good sites to be infected with badware without the site owners' knowledge or permission.

Who is StopBadware?

StopBadware is a nonprofit organization that fights badware. Google and Firefox link to us to help you understand the warnings. We also help website owners prevent and clean up badware websites.

I visited the site and didn't see any badware

Many kinds of badware aren't visible or obvious, and they can install silently as soon as you visit an infected page. Google's detection systems are VERY accurate. We suggest you don't visit the site again until the owner resolves the problem!

Ensuite, je regarde aussi l'info sur l'infection.

Elle a une définition qui va une partie qui est sure, que j'ai pu copier avant que l'avertissement baisse, une autre partie que je copie de mémoire qui peut être fautive:

Infection
sûr : JS :ScriptIP-inf
? [Trj]

Donc probablement:
JS :ScriptIP-inf [Trj]
ou bien:
JS :ScriptIP inf-[Trj]

Voila, comme ça j'ai donné les données qu'il faut pour qu'un informaticien - Hamiche devrait pouvoir trouver un auquel il fera confiance - pourra vérifier si c'est blocage abusif ou un vrai malware, et comment le site pourra être nettoyé. Au cas d'un vrai malware.

Entretemps, ça serait intéressant si CHREDO aurait son site avec un autre site back up, avec les mêmes textes.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre Ville
Samedi après III Dim. du Carême
5.III.2016

Non, Daniel Hamiche, leur site n'est pas piraté!

1) Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"? · 2) C'est quoi un URL? Doit-il être en bon français? Non, mais unique! · 3) Non, Daniel Hamiche, leur site n'est pas piraté! · 4) Ou peut-être oui?

Il y a quelques jours, Daniel Hamiche alerte:

Le site de la CHREDO piraté !
http://www.christianophobie.fr/breves/le-site-de-la-chredo-pirate

J'essaie:

Coordination Chrétiens d’Orient en Danger
http://chretiens-dorient-en-danger.org/

Contenu visible, voir, pour ceux qui n'arrivent pas à accéder directement:

http://www.webcitation.org/6flLcwaUi

Le problème n'est pas ce site.

Le problème est un filtrage abusif, probablement malhonnête.

Sur le message de Daniel Hamiche, il annonce le message de filtrage. Dans le coin droit en bas, il y a l'option "ignorer cet avertissement", ce que je viens de faire.

Avec le résultat qu'on a pu voir.

Le problème de Daniel Hamiche est qu'il a eu trop de confiance au présumé logiciel qui filtre, présumablement automatiquement, sans aucune intervention humaine, les sites aux-quels il veut accéder.

Non, le site n'est pas piraté, juste injustement dénoncé comme "site malveillant" (et vous comprenez très bien en QUEL sens du mot un musulman décrirait ce site comme "malveillant"!).

C'est un peu comme cet autre filtrage abusif, quand le blog "and sometimes tea" fut bloqué à Georges Pompidou, comme étant "pornographie".

Dans ce cas, le filtrage abusif était le fait d'un filtrage interne de la bibliothèque, autre que pour la bibliothèque municipale, et ça fut rectifié:

Et Bibliothèque publique d'information Georges Pompidou (persiste en filtrage abusif ...) Persistait!
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/et-bibliotheque-publique-dinformation.html

La Bibliothèque Municipale Heureusement ne filtre pas le blog de Red Cardigan
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/la-bibliotheque-municipale-heureusement.html

Georges Pompidou a rectifié
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/georges-pompidou-rectifie.html

Cette fois ci, le filtrage abusif semble être le fait sur un service de filtrage de sécurité. Mais ce filtrage reste abusif.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre - Paris X
Bibliothèque Universitaire
Vendredi après III. Dim. du Carême
4.III.2016

Nicholas P. Wilde does Not Add up to Number of the Beast - But NICKWILDE Does

And the partner of Judy Hopps is more usually referred to as Nick Wilde than as Nicholas P. Wilde.

J 74 70 4
U 85 150 9
D 68 210 17
Y 89 290 26
H 72 360 28
O 79 430 37
P 80 510 37
P 80 590 37
S 83 670 40 710 32 742

N 78 70 8
I 73 140 11
C 67 200 18
K 75 270 23
W 87 350 30
I 73 420 33
L 76 490 39
D 68 550 47
E 69 610 56

I got suspicious when I saw Judy Hopps having 9 letters. So, I checked. Obviously, they could have named him Nick Wild (without final -e) and we would be dealing with [NICKWILD]=[597] or [NICK WILD]=[597+32=629].

By the way, 629 is not quite unconspicuous in this context either. Number of the beast is 18*37 and 629=17*37.

Now, is there anything in the content of the film which argues there is sth rotten, too?

According to the synopsis given on wikipedia, yes.

For one, the idea of a zootopia. Yes, I know, it is Biblical that the lion and the lamb shall lie down together. But here we are dealing with a zootopia upheld not by divine miracle, but by policing.

Then:

Back in Bunnyburrow, Hopps learns that “Night Howlers” are flowers that have a severe psychotropic effects on mammals, and that her parents use them to protect their crops.

So, the "crook" (revealed after some time) is drugs? A Puritan idea.

Third, here we go:

Hopps and Wilde locate an asylum detaining the missing, savaged mammals (including Mr. Otterton) and discover Mayor Lionheart consulting with a doctor about their condition. The pair escape with the evidence and the police swarm the area, arresting Lionheart. Having developed a friendship with Wilde throughout the investigation, Hopps requests that he joins the ZPD and become her partner, which Wilde happily considers. However, during a press conference, a pressured Hopps describes the savaged mammals' condition as them reverting to their natural instincts.

So, the real hope is getting away from one's natural instincts and the real hell being pushed back into them?

Note, this is NOT Catholic theology.

An instinct may in its natural state and in our fallen one be too strong to be indulged uncrubed, but each natural instinct is there for a good purpose. Without any excedption.

And civilisation is not a late come curb on our natural instincts, but we have had "civilisation", or rather technology, urban society, good manners, which are three different things, and good manners have been curbing the excess of our natural instincts since the fall of Adam.

I was expecting a kind of fourth warning signal, like in a preview I thought Wilde and Hopps were going to be a couple, from how they acted. But that does not seem to be in the synopsis I read here.

I would not go and see it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Friday after III Lord's Day in Lent
4.III.2016

Once again, in case ANYONE thinks I am PREACHING ...

1) In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ..., 2) Once again, in case ANYONE thinks I am PREACHING ...

First, I'm here commenting on:

Only Priests and Deacons May Preach. Why Is That?
March 3, 2016 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/03/only-priests-and-deacons-may-preach-why-is-that.html

Dwight (novus ordo possible clergy)

Women are not forbidden from preaching because they’re women. They’re excluded because they’re not priests or deacons.

[Omitting reference to a non-Pope]

The larger question remains however, “Why may only the ordained clergy preach at Mass?”

Me

Good question.

Dwight (novus ordo possible clergy)

First there is the practical point that the ordained clergy have the theological training and training in homiletics to equip them to preach. Certainly in the past when few of the laity were theological qualified to reliably teach the truth, preaching was rightly reserved to the clergy.

There are some strong argument now, however, to allow lay people to preach. Firstly, more lay people than ever before are theologically trained. Lots of lay folks have Master’s degrees in theology and above. Should they not be allowed to preach?

Me

Good point.

Except when the laymen were trained at institutions like Fordham University, where a "Father Jason" was apparently trained to apostasy.

That part is also an argument against ordaining people who come from Fordham University.

On this "Father Jason" character, see the CMI page and my comment:

Priest calls CMI heretical
by Lita Cosner
Published: 27 February 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/cmi-heretical

New blog on the kid : As Someone Said : You Catch More Flies with Honey than with Vinegar
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/02/as-someone-said-you-catch-more-flies.html

Dwight (novus ordo possible clergy)

However, when it comes to Mass there is more going on than simply teaching the faith. The whole Mass is a liturgical expression of the incarnation. Every aspect of the Mass is a celebration and recognition of the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection of the Lord. Indeed, it is through the Mass that this mystery comes alive and is applied to the everyday needs of the faithful.

It is necessary to get away from the utilitarian understanding of the Mass.

Me

Indeed. If anyone ever got there.

BUT the sermon is not a liturgic part of the Mass.

In Orthodox Church, sermon is put off till after Mass. Sometimes it is rather simply letting people who have questions about Gospel and Epistle ask the priest.

In Catholic Church, sermon after Gospel was introduced (at least large scale) at Council of Tours, 813. Why so? Because the Latin of the Gospel had, about ten years earlier, ceased to be intelligible.

Alcuin had reformed the pronunciation of Latin, which in Gaul was drifting off from Classical one and approaching the Gallo-Romance languages. So, pronunciation became more intelligible to priests from the rest of the Latin West in about 800, but at same time less intelligible to parishioners in Gaul. It was as if a Protestant sect had been reading from a Wycliff Bible, but with modern pronunciation, and suddenly had decided to read as Wycliff pronounced it centuries earlier (which would not have had the kind of purpose the reform of Alcuin had) : the people would very quickly cease to understand what was being read to them. And that is what happened around 800 in Gaul. Hence the decree 813 that Gospel should be read in Latin, and then a sermon in vernacular should explain what had been said.

That is why the priest (or deacon, if a deacon read Gospel) takes off part of the vestments before holding the sermon (or at least that is how things were explained in Lefebvrian seminaries, or those of Christ King, Sovereign Priest - I was earlier a friend of one who had been to both seminaries before becoming finally a married layman). The sermon is, properly speaking, not a fully liturgc act. The decree of 813 says sermons should be held on Sundays and major feast days - the most important Gospels must be translated. Not that it should be held every day, even if Mass is said every day, except Good Friday.

However, since sermon is supposed to be an explanation of the Gospel, and since Gospel is indeed a liturgic part of the Mass in the most full sence, and as close to Incarnation as the Catechumens get, those who had to leave Mass before the Sacrifice properly speaking, it is meet that sermon should usually be spoken by the one who liturgically read the Gospel.

There seem to have been derogations. St Francis certainly preached, and the question is, was it always outside Mass (as after Vespers or before Vespers)? Or if in Mass, was he ordained a deacon, or was he enjoying a derogation?

I don't know the answer.

I do know that myself I am NOT preaching in Holy Mass, have never done so, and probably never will.

I treat theology as a matter I write about - among other matters, and according to the competence I seem to have, and when not sure, I check or refrain from writing.

But it is a bad idea to imagine that just because I am a layman, I don't understand theology. It is also a bad idea to think that, just because I have no degree in theology, I don't understand theology. I studied it BESIDE my university studies, and sometimes with very good help from them. Also, through material from French conservative theologians, like Lefebvrians, like the Englishman in France or Provence, Father Bryan Houghton, like Dom Gérard, like earlier writers like those of Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique (though it is weak on inerrantism). Or like Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies (who was a layman, but it was a priest of SSPX who gave me the book). Or, more recently, St Thomas' Summa online and Catholic Encyclopedia online.

It is thus an extremely bad idea to consider the theological parts of my blogs as my intruding on the right of ordained clergy to hold sermons. I am not doing so. I am writing, not speaking in Church. Also, some parts are more properly speaking grammatical or philosophical than theological. Obviously Dietrich von Hildebrand* was a Catholic philosopher and Heinz-Lothar Barth* is, like myself, though a better and more complete one, a Classical Scholar.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Friday after III Lord's Day in Lent
4.III.2016

PS, Here is by the way another layman, who sometimes writes very well on Christian subjects:

NCR : Blogs : Mark Shea : This is the Gigantic Secret of the Christian
by Mark Shea 03/01/2016 Comments (3)
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-gigantic-secret/

At the end, he cites Gilbert Keith Chesterton* and John Ronald Reuel Tolkien*./HGL

* If you didn't get it, both of them are/were laymen. (Repeat for the PS.)

Et s'il avait voulu que je regarde ces articles?

Dans une bibliothèque où j'allais pour lire une nouvelle par Neil Gaiman, dans laquelle je lisais une autre, qui me le rend moins sympa (c'est dans la collection fumée et miroirs, et il semble avoir tenu compte que 1998 était 3*le nombre de la bête!), je restais en lisant des journaux et mags, et un bibliothécaire se mettait à lire devant moi, soit science et vie, soit science et l'avenir. C'était un numéro dédié à, entre autres, des trouvailles sur les trous noirs et des trouvailles sur les lettres de Marie Antoinette.

Si, un peu maçonniquement, il voulait me diriger vers des "preuves" que Marie Antoinette était infidèle au roi, alors je viens de trouver, via Tea at Trianon, un blog qui refute ce genre de conclusions:

Reading Treasure : "Don't They Ever Get Tired of These Ridiculous Stories?" A Critical Look at Recent Claims about Marie Antoinette and Axel Fersen (Part 1)
http://vivelaqueen.blogspot.com/2016/01/dont-they-ever-get-tired-of-these.html

Reading Treasure : "Don't They Ever Get Tired of These Ridiculous Stories?" A Critical Look at Recent Claims about Marie Antoinette and Axel Fersen (Part 2)
http://vivelaqueen.blogspot.com/2016/01/dont-they-ever-get-tired-of-these_16.html

Si, aussi un peu maçonniquement, ou peut-être psychiatriquement, il voulait me rediriger vers la cosmologie moderne qui aurait alors une confirmation éclatante, voir, d'abord, John Gideon Hartnett sur la question, ensuite moi-même sur la complaisance de celui-ci, malgré le fait qu'il soit un créationniste (en même temps que Ph. D. ès physique):

CMI : What impact does the detection of gravitational waves have on biblical creation?
By John G. Hartnett, Published: 16 February 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/detection-of-gravitational-waves-and-biblical-creation

Sur quoi je réponds:

Creation vs. Evolution : Distant Starlight Problem Complicated by Heliocentric Creationist
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/02/distant-starlight-problem-complicated.html

Et, finalement, s'il n'avait rien à voir avec moi, était juste curieux sur le contenu, alors il y a certes d'autres qui, ne voulant pas me demander en face ce que je pense, auraient fait ce qu'il faisait alors sans intention ultérieure, mais avec une telle. Et ils sont peut-être curieux sur ma réponse aussi.

Non, encore une chose. Si j'ai davantage d'article en anglais qu'en français sur des sujets qui intéressent, c'est que je me trouve blasé du manque de débats pertinents en français (mais il y a sur des questions de procédure!), tandis qu'en anglais, je trouve de la compagnie stimulante.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jeudi après III Dim. du Carême
3.III.2016

C'est quoi un URL? Doit-il être en bon français? Non, mais unique!

1) Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"? · 2) C'est quoi un URL? Doit-il être en bon français? Non, mais unique! · 3) Non, Daniel Hamiche, leur site n'est pas piraté!

URL veut dire Uniform Resource Locator.

Il doit être absolument uniforme pour chaque usage. Une variation d'orthographe dirige soit vers rien du tout, soit vers un autre blog ou autre site.

Prenons par exemple le URL de mon blog FILOLOHIKA.BLOGSPOT.COM - ceci est évidemment pas du bon français. PHILOLOGICA serait tellement mieux, non? Oui, du point de vue du français, mais pas du point de vue d'un URL. Car PHILOLOGICA.BLOGSPOT.COM existe, et c'est un autre blog qui n'est pas le mien, et qui, pire pour les lecteurs francophones, n'a pas d'articles en français. Il est purement en Grec Moderne, à moins qu'il y ait aussi du Grec Ancien.

Prenons donc quelques variantes d'orthographe pour le mot grécolatin philologica:

• http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/
  = Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (le mien, en anglais, français, un peu latin, un peu d'autres langues, parfois sur, pas en grec).
  
  
• http://filologika.blogspot.fr/
  = ΚΑΤΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΠΑΡΕΛΘΟΝ..και το παρόν
  
  
• http://philologica.blogspot.fr/
  = Φιλολογικά
  [Ένα ιστολόγιο για τα μαθήματα που διδάσκει στο Πειραματικό Λύκειο Νίκαιας ο καθηγητής Χαράλαμπος Μηνάογλου] (comme je viens de dire ... "ιστολόγιο" = "blog" en grec.)
  
  
• http://philologika.blogspot.fr/
  = Philologika
  
  
• http://filologica.blogspot.fr/
  = filologica
  [A scrapbook for everything Philology and English Studies]
  
  
• http://philolohica.blogspot.fr/
  = Blog introuvable
  
  Désolé, le blog que vous cherchez n'existe pas. Cependant, le nom philolohica est disponible et peut être enregistré !
  
  
• http://filolojika.blogspot.fr/
  = Blog introuvable
  
  Désolé, le blog que vous cherchez n'existe pas. Cependant, le nom filolojika est disponible et peut être enregistré !

Ce qui vous explique peut-être, l'intérêt que vous avez de taper exactement les lettres et chiffres que j'ai marquées sur le panneau d'un URL offert à mes bienfaiteurs. Et ce qui explique mon intérêt d'avoir choisi un URL un peu farfelu: il a ses chances d'être unique, de ne pas être déjà celui d'un autre, de ne pas bloquer les désirs d'un autre d'utiliser ce mot en cette orthographe comme URL.

Ce ne sont pas juste les blogs qui ont leurs URL. Les messages individuels d'un blog aussi. Et comme un tel URL contient comme base déjà tout l'URL du blog, il risque d'être un URL assez long.

Or, il y a une méthode d'arriver quand même à y accéder par un URL mémorisable: c'est d'en faire un URL abrégé.

La première partie de ce discours était cet URL ci:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/02/ca-veut-dire-quoi-blogspot.html
ou http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/02/ca-veut-dire-quoi-blogspot.html
= New blog on the kid : Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"?

L'un ou l'autre peut être abrégé par un abrégeur, par exemple ppt.li (ppt=places pour tous, li=Liechtenstein).

J'y vais: http://ppt.li/36m
= http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/02/ca-veut-dire-quoi-blogspot.html
= New blog on the kid : Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"?

D'où l'intérêt de:

• copier exactement un URL abrégé, celui en haut ne doit pas être par exemple http://ppt.li/36l (lettre finale L), qui rejoint un site qui donne ici un message d'erreur.
• le mettre dans la barre d'adresse, dans le statut ou commentaire FB, dans le commentaire youtube, car la barre de recherche google n'aboutit qu'à l'abrégeur ppt.li
• et que les bibliothèques permettent l'utilisation des abrégeurs d'URL : certes, ils peuvent être abusés, mais il y en a plein de gens qui ne les abusent pas.
• On peut aussi utiliser pour accéder à un tel URL, le site LONG URL:
  
  LongURL
  http://longurl.org/
  
  Avoid phishing, malware, and viruses by examining short URLs before visiting them. Find out where links really take you.
  
  Parfois les bibliothèques et les cybers qui bannissent l'usage direct normal d'un URL abrégé permettent ce site, et on peut donc le mettre dans la barre d'exemple à étendre.

http://ppt.li/36m

Clicquer "expand" (=étendre, développer).

Ensuite la page change:

http://ppt.li/36m			expand
Screenshot	Title:	New blog on the kid: Ça veut dire quoi "blogspot"?
	Short URL:	http://ppt.li/36m
	Redirects:	1 (show details)
	Long URL:	http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/02/ca-veut-dire-quoi-blogspot.html

Et si on clicque redirects, 1 show details, on trouve ce seul redirect identique à l'URL long. Certains peuvent mettre un abrégeur derrière un autre (je ne vais pas prendre d'exemple), et alors il est probable qu'on trouve redirects 2, dont le premier est l'autre URL abrégé, et le deuxième l'URL complet.

L'URL complet dépend donc, pas juste de l'abrégeur, mais aussi du code après le site de l'abrégeur.

http://ppt.li/tempier
= http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html
= En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes

http://ppt.li/155
= https://www.youtube.com/feed/history
(utile si on a un compte youtube, pour savoir lesquelles on a déjà regardées, et pour accéder à celles qu'on a regardées à la minute avant qu'on les avait quittées la dernière session (sauf pour des vidéos très courtes - il faut s'y connecter aussi, le contenu est spécifique par chaque utilisateur).

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jeudi après III Dim. du Carême
3.III.2016

PS, tous les URL, pour fonctionner sur l'ordinateur, doivent être en une ligne (seul choix admis par la barre d'adresses, tandis que sur un statut FB, juste la dernière ligne va fonctionner comme URL), et sans espaces. Si je les écris sur deux à quatre lignes ou avec espaces, c'est pour la lisibilité des éventuels mots - mais ce doit être mis sur une ligne et sur le sans espaces./HGL

Abigail Kopf (Liens/Links)

Le blog de Jeanne Smits : Abigail Kopf, victime de la tuerie de Michigan, adonné des signes de vie alors que son don d’organes s'organise
http://leblogdejeannesmits.blogspot.fr/2016/02/abigail-kopf-victime-Michigan-signes-vie-don-organes.html

LifeSiteNews : ‘Brain-dead’ gunshot victim gives thumbs up right before her organs were to be harvested
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/brain-dead-gunshot-victim-of-michigan-massacre-responsive-at-last-second

Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes!

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

GWW

One thing missing from Brahe’s model, however, was the power grid. What was making the sun revolve around the earth, and the planets around the sun? How, in fact, could the larger sun revolve around the smaller earth (which was one of the issues that bent Copernicus toward a sun-centered model)? The Greeks believed the power came from their gods; the Christians believed it was God of the Bible, but no one had supplied a natural reason for the celestial movements (even if the natural cause was created by God).

p. 61

NOTE

Riccioli accepting basically Tycho, agreed with St Thomas in angelic movers (a few pages earlier, GWW repeats the false opposition between Aristotle and St Thomas on this item).

Since angels are CREATED, they are natural. They are secondary causes, quite as much as men are. They are not miraculous or divine. Their power over matter is limited. They can as we say "move" bodies, they cannot - directly - change them. If an angel wants to change wood into ashes, that angel needs to move a fire to that wood. Not so for God.

So, the power grid was not at all missing. It was already in place since the scholastics.

GWW's footnote

The objection raised by Hartman and Nissim against Brahe’s system is worded in a similar vein: “Brahe’s system violates conservation of momentum in that the solar system does not orbit around its center of mass and Mach gives no inkling on how to deal with the nonconservation of momentum in Brahe’s system” (“On Mach’s critique of Newton and Copernicus,” American Journal of Physics 71 (11) November 2003, p. 1167). We will thoroughly address this objection in Chapter 2. Suffice it to say for now that the “center of mass” in the geocentric system is no longer defined on a local, solar system, basis but on the basis of the whole universe in rotation around a fixed Earth at the universe’s center of mass.

NOTE

Conservation of momentum is only relevant when body influences body, or physical forces do so. Not when God moves the aether. Not when angels move celestial bodies. Or smaller bodies (including but not limited to* poltergeist infestations - the demons who can no longer move stars are sometimes allowed to move pots and pans and scare people).

GWW

Brahe didn’t offer any solutions. He was merely a planet-charter who was devoted to the biblical geocentric system but didn’t know quite how to use his forty-years worth of figures to prove his case.

NOTE

Ptolemy was also just a planet charter.

Back then, some respected the division of labour between (planar) astronomy (as an optical science) and metaphysics (which included mechanics of celestial bodies, usually angelic movers).

GWW (with footnote)

Of course, although Kepler offered a solution (the magnetic pull of the sun) it would later be discredited.

After reading William Gilbert’s 1600 book De Magnete on magnetism, Kepler believed that each planet contained a magnet, and the sun contained a huge magnet. Depending on how the magnets were positioned, the result would either pull or push the planet around the sun. The farther the planet was from the sun, the weaker the magnetic field, and thus the slower the planet would move around the sun. The precise orientation of the polarities of the sun and the planets would then determine the ellipticity of the latter’s orbits.

p. 61, footnote reaching to p. 62.

NOTE

There are two discreditations of the magnetic theory.

Or, by now, three.

There is of course "gravitation instead of magnetism" - Newton - which has in its turn been set aside by believers in "electromagnetic universe".

There is Riccioli who said that Kepler was wrong to take an inanimate causation for the celestial mechanics. If stars and planets are lower than our nature by being inanimate, at least their movers must be higher than our nature, like God or angels, or God would not have placed them above us.

There is also the doubt (which I referred to in my debate with MS) and a very strong one, if a non-solid simple force could take the place that strings have on the stone on string experiment. Btw, it works against electromagnetic as well as gravitational explanations.

That is my third one and I take some personal pride in it, as well as first of all thanking God for it.

GWW

To this day, no one has found the power grid. Two centuries later, Newton would merely refine Kepler’s area law and show how gravity, not magnetism, was involved with the orbits of the planets, but he couldn’t explain the mechanism that produced gravity. He merely developed an equation to show its effects.

NOTE

... which is why (or one reason why)** he could not prove that gravity was the cause for this. Nor has this been proven to this day (see my debate with MS on supposed proofs for it).

And it is simply not true that there was no such thing as an idea what made the Heavens move, there was a very clear idea : God moves the overall movement each day, angels move the individual movements, like the solar one taking a year or the lunar one taking a month.

The problem noted by Hartman and Nissim is to a scholastic philosopher or anyone considering angels have the skill set they gave them, simply not a problem at all. Conservation of momentum comes secondary to angelic movers, not prior to it.

GWW

As one physics course put it: “However, one could also construct a ‘Tychonean’ model with elliptical orbits.”

University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 11.

p. 63

NOTE

Exactly!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday after III Lord's Day of Lent
1.III.2016

PS, Agreeing with GWW on this one:

Hence Kepler is driven to Copernicanism because he believes it is better for the Earth to take part in an adventurous excursion through the universe rather than being in a unique and immovable position from which to observe the universe, thus proving once again that modern cosmology is influenced by a significant percentage of philosophical bias. In actuality, a moving earth would not allow man to “more correctly view and measure the single parts of his house,” simply because without an immovable foundation on which to set his measuring stick, there is no accurate way to know the distances, positions, or motions of the house. It is the very reason that Barbour titled his book “Absolute or Relative Motion?” for he, like Kepler, cannot tell what is moving and what is not.

p. 66

NOTE

This is why I entitled a very early writing on Geocentrism, actually laboriously written in Classical Greek, some fifteen years ago, when my contact with Greek studies were only ten years back rather than as now 23, after a dictum by Archimedes:

Δος μοι πω στα και κινασω ταν γαν.***

Archimedes meant leverage and physically causing Earth to move. I meant optically proving it to be moving.

We are NOT watching the Solar System, or supposed such, from an immobile spot outside it, like from the Empyrean Heaven. If we were, we could watch without any hesitation whatsoever what was moving and what wasn't. As we aren't, our best is to assume we were placed to where we can see things best - unless that is proven otherwise. Which, with angelic movers as even a possibility, it isn't.

PPS: Do NOT miss the quote GWW gives about Michelson-Morley on pp. 76-77. These are crucial for the kind of experimental understanding of Michelson-Morley, on which I can only defer to Sungenis and Bennett and their scientific reading./HGL

* See §§15, 16 of: Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : When a Thought Ceases to be Believable to You, You should Cease to Think It.
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/03/when-thought-ceases-to-be-believable-to.html

** Another reason being, of course, that the angelic movers theory was an option, and he conspicuously failed to give any explanation or demonstration on why it should be excluded as an alternative. *** Title in Doric, as per quote from Archimedes, rest in as good an Attic as still I could muster. Unless it was koiné.

GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong.

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

I will give a few quotes, interspersed with my comments. My own comments are introduced by NOTE (as in NB, NOTA BENE, or NO, NOTA OPTIME). Narrative and comments from Galileo Was Wrong (Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D.) are introduced by GWW, quotes in it are introduced by quoted authority and end with the note of reference given by GWW. Each bit or string of bits is also followed by a page reference.

Swerdlow via Barbour:

…in his commentary on the Commentariolus that Copernicus probably discovered the Tychonic [geocentric] system at the same time as his own Copernican system. Why, Swerdlow wondered, did Copernicus choose his own system in preference to the Tychonic one, which avoids all the dynamical problems of terrestrial mobility, to say nothing of the theological problems? Swerdlow concluded…that Copernicus was strongly swayed by purely mechanical considerations to do with his acceptance of the theory that the planets are carried by material spheres. For in the Tychonic system Mars would have to pass at some points in its motion through the sphere of the sun, and Swerdlow believed that Copernicus must have found this an insuperable difficulty, therefore opting for the intellectually much more daring heliocentric system with a mobile earth.

[note 53 : Julian B. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, p. 255-256. Although Barbour doesn’t necessarily agree that Swerdlow’s thesis about the spheres is what motivated Copernicus to reject the Tychonic model; and although Barbour agrees that Copernicus did, indeed, use Aristotle’s crystalline spheres, he admits that “Copernicus seems to be on the point of advancing the Tychonic system as an explicit possibility…” but turns against it because of “Neoplatonic sympathies to see the center of the planetary system as an ideal location for the sun.]

GWW

If true, the sheer irony is that by employing a later-to-be-discredited Aristotelian theory of planets orbiting the sun by being attached to rotating crystal spheres, Copernicus was led to deny the perfectly viable and less complicated geocentric model for the much riskier “terrestrial mobility” of heliocentrism. It was precisely for these kinds of haphazard developments that critic Arthur Koestler titled his book, “The Sleepwalkers,” since the record showed numerous examples that the history of science was comprised of one serendipitous thought process after another, whether good or bad.

pp. 19-20

NOTE

Aristotle considered the planets, including Sun and Moon orbit EARTH by being attached to rotating crystal spheres. The outermost, rotating with fixed stars, moved by God. St Thomas agrees with this, and if crystal spheres are refuted, Copernicus/Tycho style, sth similar can be said of rotating (in the daily motion) along the rotation of an aether moved by God.

Aristotle finally could not comprehend why a God perfectly blissful should WANT to do so, so he came up with an idea (taken over by Averroes but NOT St Thomas) that God did not move the outermost sphere by HIS intention, but by ITS love of Him. In other words, Aristotle or his commentator Averroes at least posited, below God, a kind of "world spirit" which loved God and moved itself with its "body-the-world" around Earth out of love of a more perfect God.

Giordano Bruno was going to blaspheme that: this world spirit is unique only for each what we would call Solar System and, on top of that, in each of them identic to the "Holy Spirit" of that particular "world" (or as we would say : Solar System). This blasphemy is of course not related to what Aristotle thought about movers of the planets, but due to his ideas about God's perfect bliss making "action about lesser things" kind of "psychologically impossible" to God. Hence also the eternity of the world, which St Thomas obviously did not agree with Aristotle on. But perhaps this was just a slip of the pen?

Nevertheless, Aristotle did NOT at all think planets move around SUN in crystal spheres.

GWW

As noted earlier, the very reason Copernicus rejected the simpler geocentric model (later to be demonstrated by Tycho Brahe) was that it required him to reject the Greek’s concept of crystalline spheres, even though he had already rejected their geocentrism. Apparently, the spheres were very important to Copernicus. One reason is that spheres are essentially extended circles, and Copernicus believed, as a fundamental scientific fact, that all celestial motion had to occur by means of circles. He rejected Ptolemy’s non-circular model based on that very premise.

pp. 25-26

NOTE:

GWW is not quoting any passage from Copernicus directly, but he is relying on Swerdlow for his assessment of Copernicus' motive. Probably correctly so, I have no reason to doubt Swerdlow on Copernicus, since he read him and I didn't.

I think the reason is more likely to have been if not exclusively, which is also possible, at least equally, the non-descriptiveness of what we now call spirograph patterns by what geometry had to offer in the days of Copernicus.

If this didn't occur to Swerdlow and Barbour, it is possible that they were thinking in terms of "that's not an argument".

Well, maybe it is in a world in which heavens are still considered eminantly spiritual realities and in which all heavenly movements must therefore by in some sense perfect (especially as angelic movers of celestial bodies are all unfallen angels, not demons!).

First of all, circles as movements are very close to observed and concluded reality - of daily movement. Of any heavenly body. In six months, Sun does not rotate 183 perfect circles, but does a very close spiral either inward or outward which has 183 turns that are at least very close to perfect circles, since moving along the daily movement of the Universe.

GWW

The Greeks, especially after their model was refined by Aristotle, believed that the whole cosmos was structured upon dozens of transparent spheres. Each sphere had an inner and an outer wall. Attached to the inner wall were various celestial bodies. For example, Mars would be embedded into the wall of a sphere and the whole sphere rotated around the earth and thus carried Mars with it, but since the sphere was transparent, it looked as though Mars was revolving around the earth by itself. These spheres were permitted to exist far away from the earth and rotate freely because they were composed of the fifth element, aether (the other four elements were: air, water, fire and earth), which was the lightest or most rarified element of the five.71 Most important is the fact that any extensions in the planets’ movement caused by epicyclic or eccentric variations were permitted in the space between the inner and outer wall of the sphere. Further, Aristotle believed that each sphere rotated around the earth because it was being pushed by one of the gods – who was the “unmoved mover.” The medievals who later used an Aristotelian framework (but did so through Ptolemy’s model) rejected the polytheistic cosmos and replaced it with only one Prime Mover who moved the outermost sphere which in turn moved the rest of the spheres.

p. 26

NOTE:

Here GWW gets Aristotle wrong.

In Aristotle as in St Thomas, the outermost sphere, that of the fixed stars is moved by God alone as Prime Mover.

In Aristotle and in St Thomas, all inner spheres are moved along this outermost sphere by contact with it.

And, in St Thomas as well as in Aristotle, all inner spheres have also another movement than this daily one, which is attributed to lesser spirits than the Prime Mover. Aristotle identified them with Pagan gods. St Thomas says they should not be worshipped and identified them as angels.

In a passage of one popular catechism, the one on the creed, St Thomas (speaking in popular language but taken down in Latin) says that Pagans who worship the Sun are like poor men approaching the palace of a king. They come to the gates and see a servant in a very fine livery and have not seen the king yet - and they think that servant is the king.

This is a very explicit endorsement of the Aristotelic view, in all except its giving divine honours to the spirits that guide Sun through the year, Moon through the month and so on.

Riccioli goes even further. His, not Aristotele's, is the view which GWW attributes to the latter.

Aristotle seems to have been wrong on spheres being impenetrable at edges. So Tycho does away with them. Consequently, instead of Sun, Moon, stars, etc sharing a common westward movement which God produces on a daily basis, Riccioli thinks that Sun, Moon, stars are instead INDIVIDUALLY moved westward on a daily basis. At different paces. Riccioli actually thinks St Thomas should abandon the argument for God's existence from God as Prime Mover (of the outermost and hence all spheres in the daily movement) and instead stick to the argument which we know from Descartes too. He ALSO clutters up the point about angelic movers.

St Thomas says they move matter by a mere act of will. Riccioli introduces a distinction by which there needs to be an "executive faculty" between will and result. This is a false parallel from St Thomas psychology about human will, where "acts of will" without "executive faculty" result in nothing, but this is spoken about the difference between wishing and willing with decision. Angels really by nature do have the faculty of moving matter locally (as opposed to substantially or qualitatively) by a direct act of will. And angelic wills are really not given to the kind of hesitation man often shows, which is why St Thomas introduces an executive power in his very will - unless it be spoken about nervous system, since man cannot move feet or fingers without functioning nerves. Also a bad parallel as to what angels can and cannot.

But despite his cluttered philosophy, Riccioli accurately records that to St Thomas as well as to nearly everyone else, angels move the individual bodies we see up there. By "direct act of will", even if Riccioli thinks St Thomas "must have meant" via the "executive power".

St Thomas agreed with Aristotle in all except two things : he believed the spiritual movers or intelligences moving spheres or stars should not be adored. And, unlike Aristotle not believing in astrological determinism, he believed that there are both human free wills and lots of angelic movers within our very close environment, far below all celestial bodies.

And, unlike above, these are both unfallen, like St Michael, and fallen, like Satan. Hence the exorcisms and so on.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Tuesday after III Lord's Day of Lent
1.III.2016