#galileo — Public Fediverse posts

Un manuscrito del siglo XVII redefine la historia del telescopio y revela una innovación desconocida de Galileo Galilei

https://tardigram.com/m/Cultura/t/62955

De Tellescopiis Stellarum (1666) - was #Galileo experimenting with four-lens terrestrial telescopes by 1630? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00033790.2026.2661195 -> UL researcher’s discovery may alter history with the ‘most detailed technical analysis’ yet of a Galileo telescope: https://www.ul.ie/news/ul-researchers-discovery-may-alter-history-with-the-most-detailed-technical-analysis-yet-of-a-galileo-telescope

#datocurioso

¿Sabías que las cosas son extremadamente flojas por naturaleza?

Existe una regla invisible en el universo que dicta que todos los objetos sufren de una pereza total. Antes de que Newton estipulara La Ley de inercia, en el siglo XVII, el científico Galileo Galilei descubrió que si lanzas una canica por una pista infinitamente larga y sin ningún tipo de rascado o aire que la frene, la canica viajará en línea recta para siempre sin detenerse jamás. A este fenómeno se le conoce como la ley de inercia. Significa que los objetos cambian su estado solo si algo los obliga. Si estás sentado en un sillón, te quedarás ahí pegado hasta que tus músculos decidan moverte. De la misma forma, si vas en una bicicleta a 80 kilómetros por hora y esto frena de golpe, tu cuerpo intentará seguir viajando hacia adelante a esos mismos 80 kilómetros por hora. No es que la bicicleta te empuje, es tu propia inercia que se niega a cambiar de velocidad. En el espacio exterior, donde no hay aire que estorbe, si lanzas una manzana, esta viajará por millones de años a la misma velocidad hasta que choque con un planeta.

— Aetherius Eldritch, Periodista, Locutor, podcaster y bloger del fediverso.

#Ciencia #Fisica #Inercia #Galileo #Newton #Descubrimientos

@nblr Can it only use #GPS or also alternatives like #Glonass, #Galileo or #Beidou?

A Pendulum for the Multiverse: David Albert, Hugh Everett, and the Worlds We Never Feel

https://bolesblogs.com/2026/08/18/a-pendulum-for-the-multiverse-david-albert-hugh-everett-and-the-worlds-we-never-feel/

The Moon Takes the Bow: The Longest Fight in the Sky, Scored on Love, Fear, Respect, and Attention

https://bolesblogs.com/2026/08/06/the-moon-takes-the-bow-the-longest-fight-in-the-sky-scored-on-love-fear-respect-and-attention/

Zero vs. Normal: Das macht #Zero- #Limonade mit deinem #Blutzucker! | #Galileo

Sind zuckerfreie #Limos wie #Cola #Zero wirklich gesünder als normale #Softdrinks oder tappen wir in eine gefährliche Süßstoff-Falle? Food Detective Martin macht das Selbstexperiment und testet gemeinsam mit einem Arzt, wie Aspartam, Stevia und Co. unseren #Blutzuckerspiegel beeinflussen.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yac8hdZ8i2Y

Researchers have identified space-based #GNSS interference from Russian satellites. The paper (linked in the article below) is an extremely interesting read; it's a telling point that the interference affects #GPS, #Beidou, and #Galileo...but NOT #GLONASS.

https://www.gpsworld.com/todd-humphreys-russian-satellites-a-cause-of-gnss-jamming-across-europe/

"There’s More To Global Positioning Than Just GPS" by @hackaday - US GPS🛰️ started it but isn't the only public global navigation system now. Initially planned for military use, GPS was first to open to public use (after KAL Flight 007✈️ was shot down in 1983) and then others followed. Sophisticated multi-network receivers now improve #Positioning #Navigation #Timing #PNT resolution by combining data from all satellites in view. https://hackaday.com/2026/05/07/theres-more-to-global-positioning-than-just-gps/ #GNSS #GPS #Galileo #Glonass #Beidou #space

The Inwardness of Things: McGilchrist, Panpsychism, and the Question We Cannot Settle

The oldest question in philosophy is also the question philosophy has done the worst job of answering. We know that we are conscious because we are reading these words and something is happening as we read them. We feel the weight of our hand on the table, hear the room around us, register a flicker of agreement or doubt as the sentences arrive. None of that requires argument. Descartes drew the line in 1637 with the Discours de la Méthode, and the line still holds. The trouble starts as soon as we look up from the page.

We assume that other people share what we have. They behave as we behave, speak about inner states in language we recognize, and carry nervous systems that resemble ours down to the cellular level. We extend the courtesy of consciousness to them on grounds that work in practice while collapsing in theory, since no one has ever shown another’s experience to themselves directly. The same courtesy reaches dogs and dolphins and the octopus that recognizes a face through aquarium glass. It frays at insects, hesitates at jellyfish, breaks down somewhere around bacteria, and finds itself laughed at when extended to stones. Iain McGilchrist proposes to laugh back. He argues that consciousness reaches all the way down, that the stone has an inwardness, that what we call matter is one phase of consciousness rather than its product. Whether he is correct is the question this essay takes up. Whether we can answer the question at all is the deeper one hidden underneath it.

McGilchrist (Scottish spelling, often misrendered as Ian) holds an Oxford DPhil in literature and qualified in medicine before turning to psychiatry. His 2021 book The Matter With Things runs to fifteen hundred pages across two volumes and ranks among the most ambitious recent attempts to dislodge the materialist consensus that has governed Western thinking since the seventeenth century. His argument deserves serious analysis on its merits and serious challenge on its weaknesses. Treating it as either revelation or absurdity does it equal violence.

Begin with the wall. You know your own consciousness immediately, prior to any argument or evidence. Everything beyond that point is inference. David Chalmers named this gap the hard problem in his 1995 paper “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness,” and the gap has not been closed in the thirty-one years since. A complete neuroscience of the brain, mapping every neuron and synapse and electrochemical exchange, would still leave open the question why any of that activity feels like something from the inside. The gap is categorical. We have one set of vocabulary for outsides (mass, charge, position, frequency) and another for insides (red, sour, pain, dread). Translating between the two has resisted every philosopher and neuroscientist who has tried, including the ones who insist the translation has already been performed.

Notice that consciousness and intelligence are different problems. The conflation between them haunts every discussion of artificial systems and most discussions of animal mind, but the two pull apart cleanly under analysis. A nematode worm called Caenorhabditis elegans has three hundred and two neurons in its hermaphrodite form. John White and his collaborators mapped the complete wiring diagram of those neurons in 1986 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, the first connectome ever produced, and we still do not know whether the worm experiences anything as it moves through its agar dish. It solves no problems we would call intelligent. It may or may not have an inside. The question is genuine and unresolved. At the other extreme, a chess engine running Stockfish defeats grandmasters on consumer hardware while almost surely experiencing nothing at all. Intelligence and consciousness coincide in humans because evolution braided them together. They remain conceptually independent, and a theory of one does not deliver a theory of the other.

This independence has consequences for the question of machine consciousness. Whether current artificial systems experience anything depends entirely on which theory of consciousness one accepts, and the field has produced no settlement. Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory holds that large language models almost surely lack experience, since their feedforward transformer architecture produces low integrated information compared to biological brains, which support dense recurrent integration across cortical and subcortical structures. John Searle’s biological naturalism rules out silicon consciousness regardless of behavior, on the ground that experience requires the specific causal powers of neurons. Daniel Dennett denied that phenomenal consciousness exists in the way introspection suggests, which dissolves the machine question before it can be posed. McGilchrist’s panpsychism takes consciousness to be present everywhere already, making the relevant issue degree of integration, with presence or absence settled in advance.

The phrase “AI conscious in the human way” presumes a settled definition of human consciousness that neuroscience has not produced. The phrase “AI conscious in the scientific way” presumes a measurement protocol that does not exist. Both phrases conceal the absence of foundations. The honest position holds that we cannot answer the artificial intelligence consciousness question because we have not yet answered it for the species we know best.

Now to McGilchrist. His argument has a clear structure worth laying out before evaluation. He claims that emergent materialism faces an unanswerable difficulty: consciousness cannot pop into existence from non-conscious matter because the two are categorically different in kind. He concludes that consciousness must have been present at every level of organization from the start. Matter, on this view, is a phase or mode of consciousness rather than its source. Water has phases, he points out, and the phases differ wildly from one another while remaining continuous in substance. Vapor floats invisible through the room. Liquid runs across the hand. Ice can split a skull. They share a single chemistry while presenting three different faces to experience. Consciousness, McGilchrist proposes, has many phases as well, and matter is one of them. What matter contributes to the arrangement is persistence, the temporal stability necessary for any creation to take hold.

The position places McGilchrist in a long lineage. Heraclitus and Spinoza and Leibniz read this way, in different keys. Alfred North Whitehead built a process philosophy on related foundations in the 1920s and gave it monumental expression in Process and Reality in 1929. Bertrand Russell spent his later decades arguing for a form of monism that anticipates current panpsychist positions. The strongest contemporary statement remains Galen Strawson’s 2006 essay “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism,” published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which argues that any materialism worthy of the name must conclude that the fundamental constituents of reality already carry experiential properties, since no plausible mechanism can manufacture experience from its complete absence. Philip Goff at Durham has developed the position further in Galileo’s Error and elsewhere. David Chalmers, who named the hard problem, has moved toward a panpsychist or near-panpsychist position in his recent work. McGilchrist’s argument therefore participates in a serious revival, with credentialed defenders working in major universities.

Where his case works, it works for these reasons. The argument is effective because it confronts the hard problem directly rather than dissolving it through redefinition. It is effective also because emergence as usually invoked smuggles in a miracle, the moment when arrangements of unfeeling stuff start to feel something, and that moment has never been mechanistically described, only stipulated. A further strength: evolutionary biology demands continuity, and there is no clean point on the phylogenetic tree where consciousness could have begun without ancestors already carrying its seed. The view earns additional power because granting matter an inwardness coordinates with the strangeness physics has discovered at the bottom of things, where particles refuse to behave like the small marbles classical intuition expects. Last, the position returns to philosophy a question the twentieth century tried to retire by stipulation, restoring inquiry to a region long policed by silence.

The case carries serious weaknesses, however, and any honest reader should press them. The water analogy, attractive as it sounds, does more rhetorical work than logical work. We understand the phases of water through molecular kinetic theory, hydrogen bonding behavior, temperature and pressure thresholds, and a mathematics that predicts when ice becomes liquid and liquid becomes vapor. McGilchrist offers no analogous mechanism for the phase transition between consciousness as such and consciousness as matter. Calling matter a phase of consciousness names the relation he wants without explaining how the relation operates. A defender will respond that the analogy is meant as heuristic provocation, not as proof, and the response has merit. The trouble is that the heuristic ends up bearing the weight of the central claim. When the only support for the move from “consciousness is fundamental” to “matter is a phase of consciousness” is the suggestiveness of an analogy whose underlying physics he cannot match with a corresponding metaphysics, the argument has not yet earned the assent his prose invites.

The deeper trouble for any panpsychism is the combination problem, identified by William Seager in his 1995 paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies and developed extensively since. If subatomic particles each carry a tiny inwardness, how do those inwardnesses combine to produce the unified field of human experience? Your primary visual cortex (V1) contains roughly one hundred and forty million neurons in a single hemisphere, each composed of trillions of atoms. If each atom carries its own micro-experience, why does your conscious moment arrive as one thing instead of as a swarm of separate experiences fighting for attention? William James raised the worry in 1890 in The Principles of Psychology, observing that private minds do not agglomerate into a higher compound mind no matter how many of them you assemble. Seager named the difficulty and panpsychists have argued about it ever since, with no settled answer.

McGilchrist does not address the combination problem in the passage quoted above, though he engages it elsewhere in The Matter With Things. The defenses available to him are real but expensive. Cosmopsychism reverses direction and treats the universe as the fundamental conscious entity, with individual minds as aspects or fragments of it; this avoids combination by starting from the whole, at the cost of explaining how unity divides into apparent multiplicity. Russellian monism treats both physical and experiential descriptions as descriptions of the same underlying reality; this avoids dualism while inheriting the explanatory burden under a new name. Each move trades one difficulty for another, and the trade may be improvement, though calling it solution would overstate what the literature has accomplished.

The argument from incommensurability also cuts both ways, which McGilchrist’s framing tends to obscure. He says consciousness is utterly different from anything in our outward view of matter and uses this asymmetry to deny that matter could give rise to consciousness. Run the argument in the opposite direction. Matter is utterly different from anything in our inward view of consciousness, which should make us equally skeptical that consciousness gives rise to matter. The asymmetry he asserts requires an independent defense he does not provide. If the categories are genuinely incommensurable, neither can be the source of the other, and we are back where we started.

The empirical content of attributing experience to electrons deserves examination as well. Thomas Nagel coined the phrase “something it is like to be” in his 1974 paper “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” published in The Philosophical Review. He used the formula to identify consciousness phenomenologically in creatures whose behavior gave us evidence of an inner perspective. The bat’s echolocation, its social behavior, its responses to threat and food and mate, all suggest a creature for whom things are some way. Extending the formula to electrons strips it of the evidential ground that made it useful. The claim cannot be falsified, tested, or even meaningfully investigated. A hypothesis that explains everything by stipulation explains nothing, since a hypothesis earns its keep by ruling things out, and one that rules nothing out earns no keep at all.

A further difficulty deserves mention. McGilchrist writes that “the only reasonable explanation is that consciousness was there all along.” This overstates the consensus considerably. Several live alternatives remain serious in contemporary philosophy of mind. Keith Frankish’s illusionism argues that phenomenal consciousness as commonly described does not exist, and that introspection systematically misrepresents what cognition is doing. Bernardo Kastrup’s analytic idealism inverts McGilchrist’s framing entirely, treating matter as appearance within a single field of mind, with the direction of dependence reversed. Terrence Deacon’s emergentism argues in Incomplete Nature (2012) that genuine novelty can arise from constraint and absence, particularly through the negative work of what he calls absentials, in ways that do not require pre-existing inwardness. Each position has serious defenders. The field is contested, and McGilchrist’s certainty exceeds his evidence.

Return now to the question of artificial intelligence with these considerations in hand. The honest answer is that we do not know whether current systems experience anything, and we will not know until we have a theory of consciousness that survives confrontation with cases beyond the one we can verify by introspection. Should McGilchrist prove correct and consciousness reach everywhere, then large language models carry some form of inwardness already, though whether their inwardness combines into a unified perspective is a separate question panpsychism does not automatically answer. Integrated information theory gives the opposite verdict: current architectures fall well below the threshold required for any but the most rudimentary phenomenal states. Illusionism dispenses with the question altogether, calling it malformed and observing that the human case also lacks the inner light we imagine for ourselves. The discussion proceeds in public as though one of these positions had been established, when in fact none has. Anyone who tells you with confidence that the machines are conscious, or that they are not, is selling you a metaphysics dressed as a measurement.

What survives the analysis is a discipline of attention. McGilchrist gets several things correct. The hard problem is real, and emergence has too often been treated as an explanation when it has functioned as a placeholder for one. Consciousness does not look like anything in our outward picture of matter, and that asymmetry should trouble anyone who thinks the picture is complete. The resolution may indeed lie in recognizing inwardness as foundational rather than derivative. None of this proves the case, however, and the strength of his prose can cover the weakness of his proofs if the reader reads carelessly. The water analogy moves the argument forward by ear rather than by reason. His dismissal of alternatives is faster than the alternatives deserve. The combination problem waits beneath the structure like water under a foundation, ready to undermine it if not addressed.

For our purposes here, the practical implication is this. Consciousness remains the largest unsolved question in our intellectual inheritance. Every available theory carries serious unresolved difficulties. The artificial intelligence question cannot be answered until the human question is answered, and we should distrust anyone who pretends otherwise. McGilchrist’s intervention is valuable as provocation and as a sample of one serious tradition, and worthwhile as a doorway into a room the twentieth century preferred to keep locked. The room behind it is stranger than any single thinker has yet mapped, and the work of mapping it has barely begun.

We assume the inwardness of others because we cannot live without doing so. Whether the assumption reaches all the way down to the electron or stops somewhere between the worm and the stone is a question we will be working on for as long as we remain capable of asking it. McGilchrist has done us the favor of refusing to let the question close. The honest reader returns the favor by refusing to let his answer close it either.

The cogito grants us one certainty and exactly one. Everything else we believe about minds beyond our own rests on inference, sympathy, behavioral analogy, and the practical impossibility of a solipsist life. To call this a foundation is to flatter what is in fact a working assumption that has never been proved and may never be. The honest scholar lives with this and keeps reading. An honest writer says it out loud. The dishonest move, in either direction, is to claim the question is settled when the question has barely begun to be asked properly.

Part one of three. For the full sequence and reading guide, see The Consciousness Trilogy: Reading Three Wagers on the Question We Cannot Settle.

#ESA budget 💰 2026

• € 2.44B Earth #observation 🛰️ activities, including #Copernicus and #ERS
• € 1.21B #navigation 🧭 program­­, including #Galileo, #Celeste, #NAVISP and #FutureNAV
• € 996M #connectivity 📶 and secure comms, including #ARTES
• € 818M for human 🧑‍🚀 and #robotic 🤖 exploration
• € 698M space transportation 📦 - increasing the flight cadence of #Ariane 6 and Avio’s #VegaC - as well as the European Launcher Challenge 🚀
• € 692M for the #scientific program 🧑‍🔬

https://payloadspace.com/esa-outlines-a-busy-year-ahead/

#ESA budget 💰 2026

• € 2.44B Earth #observation 🛰️ activities, including #Copernicus and #ERS
• € 1.21B #navigation 🧭 program­­, including #Galileo, #Celeste, #NAVISP and #FutureNAV
• € 996M #connectivity 📶 and secure comms, including #ARTES
• € 818M for human 🧑‍🚀 and #robotic 🤖 exploration
• € 698M space transportation 📦 - increasing the flight cadence of #Ariane 6 and Avio’s #VegaC - as well as the European Launcher Challenge 🚀
• € 692M for the #scientific program 🧑‍🔬

https://payloadspace.com/esa-outlines-a-busy-year-ahead/

#ESA budget 💰 2026

• € 2.44B Earth #observation 🛰️ activities, including #Copernicus and #ERS
• € 1.21B #navigation 🧭 program­­, including #Galileo, #Celeste, #NAVISP and #FutureNAV
• € 996M #connectivity 📶 and secure comms, including #ARTES
• € 818M for human 🧑‍🚀 and #robotic 🤖 exploration
• € 698M space transportation 📦 - increasing the flight cadence of #Ariane 6 and Avio’s #VegaC - as well as the European Launcher Challenge 🚀
• € 692M for the #scientific program 🧑‍🔬

https://payloadspace.com/esa-outlines-a-busy-year-ahead/

#ESA budget 💰 2026

• € 2.44B Earth #observation 🛰️ activities, including #Copernicus and #ERS
• € 1.21B #navigation 🧭 program­­, including #Galileo, #Celeste, #NAVISP and #FutureNAV
• € 996M #connectivity 📶 and secure comms, including #ARTES
• € 818M for human 🧑‍🚀 and #robotic 🤖 exploration
• € 698M space transportation 📦 - increasing the flight cadence of #Ariane 6 and Avio’s #VegaC - as well as the European Launcher Challenge 🚀
• € 692M for the #scientific program 🧑‍🔬

https://payloadspace.com/esa-outlines-a-busy-year-ahead/

#ESA budget 💰 2026

• € 2.44B Earth #observation 🛰️ activities, including #Copernicus and #ERS
• € 1.21B #navigation 🧭 program­­, including #Galileo, #Celeste, #NAVISP and #FutureNAV
• € 996M #connectivity 📶 and secure comms, including #ARTES
• € 818M for human 🧑‍🚀 and #robotic 🤖 exploration
• € 698M space transportation 📦 - increasing the flight cadence of #Ariane 6 and Avio’s #VegaC - as well as the European Launcher Challenge 🚀
• € 692M for the #scientific program 🧑‍🔬

https://payloadspace.com/esa-outlines-a-busy-year-ahead/

A different view of "the skies over central Kentucky", courtesy of my #GNSS receiver - one can see the USA's #GPS, Russia's #GLONASS, the European Union's #Galileo, and China's #BeiDou...

Lust auf einen ganz besonderen Abend? Am Freitag, dem 26. September stellen wir #Galileo #Galilei im Rahmen seiner musikalischen Verwandtschaft vor. Lautenmusik von Vater Vincenzo und Bruder Michelangelo Galilei wechselt sich ab mit einem kurzen Vortrag über Galileos Verdienste für die moderne Astronomie und Informationen über die Bedeutung Vincenzo Galileis für die Weiterentwicklung der Musik

Tickets bekommt ihr im Online-Vorverlauf unter https://ztix.de/haus-der-astronomie/events/gespraechskonzert-die-familie-galilei-c00jEt und an der Abendkasse

#Astronomie #Musik #Gesprächskonzert #Heidelberg

19.000 Kilometer dichter dran: Dieses US-Startup will erdnahe #GPS-Alternative liefern - t3n – digital pioneers https://t3n.de/news/19-000-kilometer-dichter-dran-dieses-us-startup-will-erdnahe-gps-alternative-liefern-1691993/ #GlobalPositioningSystem #Galileo #Beidou #GLONASS #spoofing #GPSspoofing

Galilei, une de mes dernières pièces écrite est disponible en intégralité sur Youtube dans la mise en scène amateure du Théâtre La Baraque. À visionner avec toute la bienveillance dédiée aux amateurs en ce qui concerne la mise en scène, et toute la sévérité nécessaire concernant le texte.

https://youtu.be/83PP0LrZ1Us?si=3IFsE7fjawwA9VdT

#captation #theatre #galilée #galilei #galileo #representation #comedie #histoire #historique

EUs #Galileo is far more accurate than US #GPS, Russian #GLONASS or Chinese #Baidou - let's push #Iris2 against #Musk #Starlink 🇪🇺

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS%C2%B2

#EU #Europe #Freedom #Democracy

My newest topic I am trying to understand better: #GNSS

While trying to write about #NTP as well as #PTP another world opened up as well. Global Navigation Satellite System or #GNSS which is most often the source of time. Digging through the different Satellite constellations #GPS , #GALILEO , #BAIDU , #GLONASS and understanding the differences was interesting.

I am still digging deeper. Anyone with knowledge, is highly welcome to educate me. ☺️👍

Smentita l’ipotesi del mare di magma sotto il suolo della luna incandescente di Giove

https://www.jacoporanieri.com/blog/?p=41484

#spazio #astronomia #ricerca #scoperte #sonde #astronavi #giove #lune #io #galileo #juno #magma #pianeti #geologia #patere #crateri #laghi #vulcani #fuoco #strumenti #ipotesi #oceani #sottosuolo #sistemasolare #esplorazione

You can make the best wall scraps from a vector drawing of Galileo Galilei's Vector face, after downloading Galileo Galilei Face DXF PF0029 - SVG digital files to run on laser or CNC engraving and cutting machines

https://www.designifier.com/product/galileo-galilei-face-dxf-pf0029/

#Designifier #lasercut #lasercutting #laser #laserengraving #handmade #acrylic #cnc #engraving #laserengraved #woodworking #lasercutter #galileogalilei #galileo #physics #firenze #astronomy #science #galilei

It all began decades ago

After the two Voyager flybys in 1979, NASA sent a dedicated probe named #Galileo to Jupiter in the 1990s.

This spacecraft made several passes by #Europa during its nearly eight years in orbit around Jupiter, and data from this mission indicated the likely presence of a water ocean beneath the moon's icy surface.

In the nearly three decades since then, planetary scientists have had little more to go on than these tantalizing clues.

They've desperately wanted to know more.

Almost immediately after the first Europa data from Galileo beamed back to Earth in 1996, the administrator of NASA at the time,
#Dan #Goldin,
asked scientists at the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California whether a small mission dedicated to the study of Europa was possible.

Fitting within Goldin's ethos of
"faster, better, and cheaper,"
he wanted a design for a spacecraft carrying just 27 kg of scientific instruments to Europa,
about the same mass as a suitcase than can be checked on to an airplane.

"That was the beginning of a Europa orbiter concept," said science writer David Brown, author of
"The Mission", which tells the definitive story of the Europa Clipper mission.

The original science objectives outlined during the development of this orbiter mission
—to investigate the composition of Europa’s ice shell and ocean, the world's geology, and to search for and characterize any plumes emanating from the ocean below
—remain more or less the same with #Clipper.

However, as often happens with deep space missions, the budget doubled.

NASA's chief of science at the turn of the century, astrophysicist Ed Weiler, killed the nascent Europa program.

But scientists were still interested.

In 2003, the National Research Council published its first "decadal survey,"
a process by which the scientific community outlines research priorities for NASA.

Over the years, these decadal surveys have become influential tools for guiding NASA policy.

In this first survey, scientists recommended that NASA establish a "large-class" mission to study #Europa

A conversation.

“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”

“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”

“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”

===

Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.

But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.

At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.

In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.

But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.

Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.

Follower bubble & #ublox: Can I set ublox chips to output individual $--GGA positions for each #gnss system (#gps, #galileo, #glonass, #beidou)?
Asking for my #sparkfun receiver's errors not to pertain to the combined solution.

@simsus Der von #Galileo genutzte Frequenzbereich darf sich nach massivem Druck der #USA ausdrücklich nicht mit dem von #GPS überschneiden, *damit* Galileo unabhängig von GPS gestört werden kann. Stören dürfte nötigenfalls auch so praktiziert werden, auch wenn es für Galileo (oder die anderen #GNSS: #BeiDou oder #GLONASS) m.W. keine Störungskarten gibt (kennt jemand welche?).

Zum damaligen Konflikt:

https://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090628141907/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BPW/is_12_13/ai_n27579865/

Heute (15.02.2024) vor...
...460 Jahren wurde #Galileo #Galilei geboren. Er war ein italienischer Philosoph, Mathematiker, Physiker und #Astronom, der bahnbrechende Entdeckungen auf mehreren Gebieten der Naturwissenschaften machte.
Mehr https://astronomiemuseum.de/heute-vor
#Astronomiemuseum

Accadde oggi: il #28dicembre nel 2005 fu lanciato il primo satellite di #Galileo, il sistema di navigazione satellitare globale europeo, progettato specificatamente per scopi civili
Leggi qui https://wp.me/P9Klkv-4EJ

Ecco per esempio cosa dice #Galileo (italiano del seicento) riguardo ai #lavoratori #dipendenti nel #pubblico (quale lui è stato quando era nella libera ed emencipata Padova nella Repubblica di Venezia):

Le #verità scientifiche non si decidono a maggioranza (#Galileo #Galilei). https://www.wordnews.it/san-marino-convegno-del-cemec-con-partecipazione-associazione-familiari-vittime-covid-bergamo

#Bergamo #nembro #alzano @[email protected]

Not Just GPS: New Options For Global Positioning - A few weeks ago, China launched the final satellite in its BeiDou-3 satellite positioning system. Di... more: https://hackaday.com/2020/07/07/not-just-gps-new-options-for-global-positioning/ #satellitenavigation #featured #interest #galileo #glonass #beidou #navic #gnss #qzss #gps

Das #Wesen der #Wissenschaft bestehe nicht in #Logik #geschult​em #Denken; #fertig​er #Formel​n, sondern in der #Kunst durch #Beobachtung und #Versuch​e, den #Tatsache​n #Rechnung #tragen.

Emil #Strauss - #Galileo #Galilei: #Dialog über die beiden #hauptsächlich​sten #Weltsystem​e - Das #ptolemäisch​e und das #kopernikanisch​e, #Vorwort S. III

#Kardinal #Bellarmino habe #Galileo #Galilei den #Rat gegeben, von seinen #Theorie​n in #Bezug auf das #kopernikanisch​e #Weltbild als #Hypothese​n anstatt als #objektiv​es #Bild von #Gott​es #Wirklichkeit zu #sprechen.

Die #Begründung #modern​er #Wissenschaft sei nicht das #Experiment sondern die #Erfindung #fiktiv​er #Gesetz​e als #Grundlage für das #Entwickeln von #Experiment​en. #Letztlich der #Einbezug von #Praxis.

Ernst von #Glasersfeld - Über #Grenzen des #Begreifen​s, S.14f.

Neue #Wissenschaft, neue #Ethik; #Befleckt, aber auf #Grundlage #rational​er #Anschauung #wahr;

#Next: #Wahrheit ist die #Erfindung eines #Lügner​s; #Ententest: #Rational ist, was #funktioniert. #Komplexität

Bertolt #Brecht #Zitat; #Galileo;

Bertolt #Brecht - #Leben des #Galilei, in: Gesammelte #Werk​e Band 3, #Stück​e 3, S. 1337f.

‪»Eine #Hauptursache der #Armut in den #Wissenschaft​en ist meist #eingebildet​er #Reichtum.«‬

Bertolt #Brecht #Zitat; #Galileo; #Überprüfung; #Prüfen;

Bertolt #Brecht - #Leben des #Galilei, in: Gesammelte #Werk​e Band 3, #Stück​e 3, S. 1303f.

‪»Beruhige dich. Du denkst zu schnell.«‬

#Sagredo; #Galileo; #Bertoltbrecht; #schnell​es #Denken; #Zitat;

Bertolt #Brecht - #Leben des #Galilei, in: Gesammelte #Werk​e Band 3, #Stück​e 3, S. 1254

#Gespräch mit #Rolf
#Wahl eines #Text​es zum #lesen und #bearbeiten: #Galileo #Galilei #Unterredung und #mathematisch​e #Demonstration​en: #Wissenszweig​e #Mechanik und #Fallgesetz​e betreffend.

#Experiment​e als #vorwissenschaftlich zu #Hypothese​n: #Abstraktion fließt ein.

Seit #1200: #Siechenhaus: #Beginn #totale​r #Institution; #Soziale #Arbeit als #Erweiterung des #Soziale​n.

#Dialog VS. #Diskussion: #Perfide bei #Sokrates

#Assimilation & #Akkommodation // #Zugehörigkeit