Actually, there is a basis of fact to this. The Russians used a version of a grease pencil that did not fragment into particles. But the story is exaggerated to a point. I really question the 1.5 million dollars, for example.

@@alecfoster5542 That's interesting - facts keep coming to light. The world may never know how many licks it takes ... ;)

@@_thomase Ha! We both date ourselves. I actually saw that commercial again yesterday on YT.

@@alecfoster5542 Around $1 million is actually a reasonable estimate of the cost of development for the 'Fisher Space Pen", but the story being used as an example of government waste of taxpayer money is still false. The product was actually developed by a private company who funded it, NASA only helped test it, and though it is marketed as the 'Space Pen' due to it's history, it was developed to be even more innovate and universal - working in low gravity, upside-down, under water, at extreme temperatures as well as just working out the kinks in early ball-point pen technology so that they operate more smoothly when writing. It is actually an example of private innovation that has profited to this day rather than of government waste.

@@John_Fisher Yeah, I owned one as a teenager. You have an apt name considering the subject matter. :) Actually, I always thought of it as a cautionary tale about over-engineering and over-thinking an issue. It was also an anecdote and tribute to Russian practicality.

God bless you, and keep up the study!

Welcome we are glad you are here ☺️🙏🏼🕊️

Oh yes, and it's still going on today in a manner that really shocks me. I attended a Baptist Church but had to leave due to all the hate towards Catholics. Jesus simply would not have supported this.

Hi Philosorpheus. It was Bruno who was publically burned for his heretical views on astronomy. Galileo had too much notoriety and too many connections to make executing him an uncomplicated option.

Dear@@SystemsMedicine, yes, Bruno was the one who was burned. No, it was not for his "science". Galileo was never in danger of burning.

@susand3668 Hi Susan. Bruno was charged with the usual Catholic heresy laundry list, which he apparently denied, and a list of astronomy beliefs involving the non-centrality of the Earth, other planetary systems, and life in other planetary systems. The Vatican claims to have lost its documents from the years of imprisonment and torture, but apparently he held fast to the astronomy ideas. These challenged Catholic and P apal authority in a deeper way than simply denying the Trinity, etc… OR perhaps you have found some additional documents covering Bruno’s inquisitorial disposition? As for Galileo, anyone in an Inquisition trial at the Vatican is automatically in mortal peril. [Get used to it.] They did the ceremonial “show the instruments of torture”, which caused Galileo to recant; but make no mistake, once you entered that little inquisitional room, that is today part of the Vatican post office, the stake and the flames were a decree away. [I stood in the room to contemplate the trial: I suppose it must have been blandly and consistently threatening. Or do you have some additional historical documents covering this trial as well? Cheers.

He wasn't hideously tortured and murdered by the church inquisition because he was a ' nobleman ' The good church that wouldn't allow him to marry the mother of his children, because she was a lower class of human being. Read the accounts recorded by the church, boasting and reveling in unimaginable horror.

I was thinking the same thing, although about my own astronomy professors.

Modern Science v Religion was mainly invented by two anti-Christian American writers, John Draper (History of the Conflict between Religion and Science), and Andrew Dickson White (A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom)

@@MyMy-tv7fd Yes, you're right !

Haha you'll are actually sitting having a debate over the word of some cruel sadomasochist God that gives some good lives and others cruel deseases like untreatable depression and chronic agoniIng pain for children and many, many other horrible deaseases. That's also going to send 95 percent of the human race to burn for eternity... Wow. What a god ..

Not really The pope still had Galileo excommunicated for writing bad about him Not the heliocentric model

Now that is a sentence I never thought I’d read 😂.

In as much as a person and his circumstances being misrepresented and used as a cudgel and martyr for propaganda purposes, I get it. Otherwise that is an insult to Galileo.

Yeah, I dislike all the stigma on Catholic cultures. Like calling the Middle Ages, the “dark ages”. Some of the greatest philosophers ever came out of that time. Theology was considered the queen of the sciences, and they started learning about science, because of were learning about God, we should also learn about God’s Creation. The Catholic Church invented the university/school system, had a huge role in creating the modern scientific method, were one of the few societies to actually go with science, they created orphanages and the modern hospital system. The influence of the Church, pushed people to start educating and bringing about culture into different societies. Monasteries were at the heart of “Medieval” societies, they acted as breweries, cultural centers, they did science experiments, they were philosophers, they copied down books, etc. Cathedrals and beautiful artwork were created. Beautiful castles and forts were built. Plate armor was created and good ships were beginning to be made. Multiple important inventions were created during the Middle Ages. The Crusades were a defensive set of Wars. The Galileo Affair was in large part, kind of the fault of Galileo. The Inquisitions weren’t really bad like everyone says, they were the best courts in Europe actually, and they developed the right to trial, etc. Christopher Columbus also wasn’t the terrible monster you heard about. And I could go on and on.

Forget the false heliocentric model myth The pope still excommunicated Galileo for dumb reasons

@Ducky Momo He sent letters mocking the Pope and big names scientists, and taught things as fact which were just theories back then, and then mocked anyone who disagreed with him

HA. It's a 45 minute word salad to try to make excuses about the catholic church lying and being stupid. Galileo proved that the catholic church was 100% wrong, and of course catholics will lie in any way they can. The catholic church said that the sun revolved around the earth, and IMPRISONED Galileo for telling the truth. The catholic church apologized in 1992 (not a typo), so it took hundreds of years for the cahtolics to figure out what any 10 year old knows.

@@bernardevillaw3410 TIL: Historical context is wordsalading; pithy, tired memes rejected by modern scholarship are history.

@@treeckoniusconstantinus HA. Your own small side order of word salad.

Haha you'll are actually sitting having a debate over the word of some cruel sadomasochist God that gives some good lives and others cruel deseases like untreatable depression and chronic agoniIng pain for children and many, many other horrible deaseases. That's also going to send 95 percent of the human race to burn for eternity... Wow. What a god ..

The first pronunciation was the correct one. Later tries weren't.

That would be very interesting!

The case is so different because Bruno was a Dominican Friar that probably left the Catholic faith for Calvinism during his time in Geneve. But then he would get to probably receive a death sentence in Calvinist Geneve had he stayed there too (actually he fled from Geneve as Calvinist civil-religious authorities could get him executed for heresy): as we have massive documentation, Bruno was a pantheist who believed in the infiniteness of the universe, denied the divinity of Christ, denied the Most Holy Trinity, the virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and taught explicitly the doctrine of “reincarnation” (of souls). Both Catholics and Calvinists would agree to call him an obstinate heretic as far as his theological assumptions (and denials) go. He was also a Hermetic occultist and follower of the pagan Hermes Trismegistus, so he would be put to death in different places had he stayed there. Those were different times, surely. Despite dealing with the great possibility that Giordano Bruno converted to the Calvinist confession, the Catholic Encyclopedia also affirms Bruno, in his time in Geneve, was _”excommunicated by the Calvinist Council on account of his disrespectful attitude towards the heads of that Church and was obliged to leave the city. Thence he went to Toulouse, Lyons, and (in 1581) to Paris”._ More so, _”In 1583 he crossed over to England, and, for a time at least, enjoyed the favour of Queen Elizabeth and the friendship of Sir Philip Sidney. To the latter he dedicated the most bitter of his attacks on the Catholic Church, "Il spaccio della bestia trionfante", "The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast", published in 1584. He visited Oxford, and, on being refused the privilege of lecturing there, he published (1584) his "Cena delle ceneri", or "Ash-Wednesday Supper", in which he attacked the Oxford professors, saying that they knew more about beer than about Greek”._ It seems that guy could have been sentenced to death in many parts of the globe during that time. Portraying him as a “martyr of science”, particularly of heliocentrism, is as trustworthy as a three dollar bill. His monument in the Campo di Fiori, in Rome, was financed by the Italian freemasonry and was sculpted by Ettori Ferrari in 1899, Grand Master of the “Grande Oriente d'Italia”, the main Masonic body in Italy, as a way to attack the Catholic Church, by the way.

@@masterchief8179 but as far as i understand , bruno wasn't a scientist unlike galileo

5:18 _"never taught it as doctrine"_ whoa! 1633!

I like to imagine that Earth is the center of the universe, but instead of walking around on its surface, I am turning Earth below me with my steps as I walk so that although Earth is the center, whichever direction is up in the universe depends on where I am. ;)

@@nightyew2160 this is as fully correct as any other model of motion, i know you’re joking but when you take courses on modern physics adjusting for relativity between accelerating reference frames is an early problem you learn to solve

The heliocentric model is the simplest since all the elliptical orbits have been worked out You can go back to geocentric model but have fun with all the Fourier transforms of Elliptical orbits

JPII was quite the modernist and he has been turned into a celebrity. Overrated in many ways I'm sorry to say.

StPJ2 read a prepared speech not his words. I agree he should have been a bit more formidable.

@@iggyantioch Yes, but that goes along with him being too modernist which went back to before he was Pope. He acted heroically under communism, but that shouldn't paper over his theology and governance

The Pontifical Academy of the Sciences is a soup of multi cultural , theological types. I'm not a huge fan of apology tours myself.

Well, he is a monk not a priest.

@jadejameson3644 either, his biography is wrong by saying he's a polish monk, mathematician, and astronomer, or you know something that we don't know.

so did they observe any kind of parallax in the 17ths?

@@bandie9101 No, but they discussed what was clearly a different thing from what was eventually observed in for instance 1838. I don't argue against "Galileo didn't have a proof" but against "we found a proof since his time."

And when I search it - it is from Galileo, who was condemned for precisely that attitude, not from Baronius.

Yes this is an honest opinion that doesn't skirt around what the church claimed about Scripture

@@jackdaw6359 Thank you. Some of us still claim it. I do.

Yeah Sungenis handles this better

Maybe he meant 16th century?

@@davidplummer2619 yeah, exactly check his sources or his wording ... my main point stands : he didn't appreciate spirograph patterns

I doubt he would get him on

@@LaserVelociraptor I doubt it too but he's the expert on the Galilieo issue. His Galilieo books are about 2100 pages alone. Plus all his other work.

Isn't Sungenis a sedevacantist?

@@Michael-bk5nz Nope. He's not. He holds Francis as pope. Go watch his interview with Salza here in KZfaq.

Or...... you could read actual history instead of the catholic lies. Galileo proved that the catholic church was 100% wrong, and of course catholics will lie in any way they can. The catholic church said that the sun revolved around the earth, and IMPRISONED Galileo for telling the truth. The catholic church apologized in 1992 (not a typo), so it took hundreds of years for the catholics to figure out what any 10 year old knows.

What?

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I said: * the universe we actually live in is not a giant universe with galaxies that all move * the world _you_ mentally live in is not mine.

@@hglundahl Have you published any arguments in this area?

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Yes, on my blogs. If you meant in "peer reviewed publications" (like Nature) you overrate their Overton window. Geocentrism and Angelic movers are outside their acceptance of even considering.

O gosh his scientific explanation are atrocious

25:15 Galileo could have shown more friendship and charity? As in a gentleman of Rome was thinskinned like a sophomore before his professor, and Galileo should have seen that? Have _you_ thought through what _you_ are saying about Pope Urban?

Are you trying to make Joseph Stalin look good, by putting him in Pope Urban's company?

Really weird that people set up Bruno as a sort of martyr for science, because his ideas were not scientific. The infinity of the universe was not his hypothesis nor the theory of his beliefs and he did not arrive at that point via observation of nature. His idea was that if God is everywhere he must also be everything. Since God is infinite then the Universe (which is God in his idea) is infinite with infinite earths with infinite humans and yadda yadda. Also since God is good then everything must be good, because God can't do evil. The main issue was not the size of the universe for the Church either. It kinda pales in comparison to "there is no sin" and literal pantheism.

12:59 Chris Check doesn't actually quote, but _refers to_ that ultra quote mined quote. Here is the actual quote: _"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics;"_ He actually never says "too literal" but he does say "for an infidel to hear a Christian, _presumably_ giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking _nonsense_ on these topics" - and what exact topics? Cosmological and calendar knowledge that he "holds to as being certain from reason and experience." St. Augustine is speaking of Flat Earth or saying the year has 364 days precisely. In Ethiopia it may have looked likely a century or two, if this is how their text was for the Book of Henoch, in the Northern parts of the Roman Empire it would have shown very quickly in equinoxes shifting days around the year. In a specific date shifting shadows on a sundial.

So, it's not about too literal a reading, but about readings or exegeses actually not from Scripture that are just _presumed_ to be Scriptural - something Chris Check already admitted is not the case here (70 passages confirming Geocentrism).

8:52 I am not sure he hasn't wavered, but Sungenis has at least at times held to Neo-Tychonian, with fix stars ALSO revolving around the Sun. I do not, I think they move in straight circles around the Earth each stellar day.

It's clear that Chris Check is paraphrasing as to what _he_ thinks St. Robert's words amount to.

They do mention it in great detail including how the common teaching was based on the dominant sense of Aristotelian physics and a literal interpretation of certain scripture passages that used such a understanding in its language. It's also noted that at the time St. Bellarmine expressed the possibility that those scripture passages could be reinterpreted in light heliocentrism, but that such a reinterpretation would be unwarranted without a clear demonstration which Galileo's flawed model failed to do. That demonstration wouldn't come out until decades later.

@YAJUN YUAN Transubstantiation borrowed conceptual language from Aristotle to help explain how substances are distinguishable from particulars but it was never reducable to Aristotelian physics. The teaching of Christ's presence in the Eucharist goes back to the Last Supper. Even Aquinas differed from Aristotle on several points regarding his philosophy.

@YAJUN YUAN that comes from a philosophical assumption of materialism that only physical qualities exist. Modern physics alone isn't equipped to grasp what occurs at consecration.

Again, Galileo's judges did not condemn him for a disciplinary offense against "teaching" (what as a layman he was anyway not doing) what "tute doceri non postest" ... they condemned the teachingS as for one of them formally heretical, for the other at least erroneous.

The rc is bad due to erroneous doctrines despite false things such as Galileo

Bellarmine's quote and others are quoted and bibliographicaly referenced at Bellarmine's Wiki entry.

@@mikegeo76 Thank you. In this case, I may suspect a wiki entry was redacted with a bias, so, I'll be careful to look up the references.

@@mikegeo76 I looked it up, and right now I _cannot_ find this one: _"it is possible what you are observing in the night sky is the physical reality, but you haven't given us the proof of this"_ Trent Horn and Chris Check seem less than fully credible, when one of them attributes a quote from Galileo to Cardinal Baronius. There was one deleted reddit reference figuring a meme for Baronius, and there were quite a few entries for the quote being from Galileo's letter to I think Christine of Pisa. One of them has been changed. But it still involves "Galileo's statement"

@@hglundahl More credible than Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and Pierre Durham would be impossible and they all refer to "Galileo’s opponents" behaving "more rationally" and to "Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a “strict proof” **I think that you are aware that talk usually is not committed in writing, letters are

@@mikegeo76 I was not the least disputing St. Robert was a better scientist. But he wouldn't have been _if_ he had referred to "what you have observed is not proven" ... which is a fair resumé of how the guy on the video (I forget who was talking at that point) resumed it. On the contrary, he did precisely the right thing and asked Clavius to repeat the observations. And none of the actual observations were condemned in either case.

_"This just accords with natural observation."_ Once again, a highly pro-geocentric statement.

I don't follow? Why would early humans believing something make it part of Genesis 1-11?

@@John_Fisher I said "the parts of revelation in Genesis 1 - 11 prior to Abraham's vocation" - and not "the text of Genesis 1 - 11" ... Example "there is one God" would be part of it, and it is not in that text portion, and "there are many angels" would also be part of it and it is also not in that text portion. The Uroffenbarung defines what Pagans had access to prior to becoming Pagans, and it sometimes leaves traces in the Paganisms.

I and Chris Check also didn't exactly say "early humans" but he said and I caught on to "from the very beginning of time, man" .... that would involve what Adam was thinking in paradise prior to the fall.

​@@hglundahl I'm still not clear on your meaning. What does it mean to be part of Genesis 1-11 but not in the text of Genesis 1-11? From your first example, "there is one God", I thought that maybe are discussing what is accessible to human reason and common experience and therefore would be available to humans prior to Abraham's vocation - not actually having to do with Genesis 1-11 itself. But the second example doesn't seem to be something that is necessarily accessible to human reason, so I don't think I am right about that.

Long overdue!!

I believe this would be St. Augustine

@@user-gs4oi1fm4l yeah u got a quote or something? ive always heard that he said something like this but i dont think ive ever heard where its from.

@@onvogmasaj read St. Augustine. Probabily in reference to his thoughts on Creation.

Lots of Church fathers do not take Genesis literally, Augustin even warned Church leaders that it was their job to clear what the church really believes and teach based on human faculty of reason.

@@ungas024in which writings did he say that? plz

37:12 _who was an Augustinian friar_ My bad, I had given him as Benedictine ... it says OSA on the wiki ...

Rev. Houghton was completely wrong.

They did admit to errors. They still permitted the idea for years as a hypothesis but without absolute proof they weren't going to certify a flawed heliocentricity theory as infallible dogmatic teaching, which was Galileo’s goal. The inquisitional court got carried away but Galileo sought this fight out as well.

@@user-gs4oi1fm4l the church had no business being involved at all.

@Adam Ask yourself what is the church.

@@adam7402 Science and law are far from innocent disciplines when left to the mangling of various moral philosophies. Frankly a confusion about heliocentricity is the least those disciplines have to worry about.

if the church is administering a country she is responsible for protecting the citizen of the states from misinformation. Do you agree?

No, you aren't that important. Besides, Lagrangian Mechanics was formalized almost 200 years after the Galileo Affair. And, Heliocentrism is also wrong; Neither is the Sun at the Center of the Universe nether is the Sun fixed relatively to any Celestial Frame.

@@mikegeo76 Thanks. Analysis of Lagrange points and Lagrangian mechanics are different things. One simple description of the Solar System is motion about a centre of mass which lies roughly on the Jupiter-facing surface of the Sun.

@@david_porthouse blocked!

Can you provide quotes from the court sentence of Galileo that support your 2 points?