jeudi 19 avril 2018

William P. Lazarus Fakes Victim Statistics


American Center for Law and Justice
11 avril 2014
Share and Sign our petition to protect the religious liberty of our brave service members: http://bit.ly/PVIfRG

Hans-Georg Lundahl
shared a memory
11 avril, 13:52 (2018)

Content:
[Transscribing, not showing]
Galatians 2:20 [KJV] I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The U. S. Air Force Academy has banned this Bible verse from a cadet's pesonal whiteboard. Fight for religious liberty in the military.

ACLJ.org

[Found the verse as Today's Verse: Galatians 2:20 (KJV) Monday, April 7, 2014, on heartlight.org fitting well with occasion when Obama's military was interfering with the cadet's Christianity.]

I

William P. Lazarus
How about we fight for freedom from religion?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, Soviets had that as an excuse to persecute Christianity and so had, briefly, Azaña in Spain.

And, closer to you, Plutarco Elías Calles, provoking Cristeros rising, and, a bit earlier, Clémenceau, killing Catholics who tried to defend Churches against confiscation.

In other words, no, I am not joining Satan's elect.

William P. Lazarus
Of course, you have to postulate an imaginary Satan for that to make sense. May I remind you that no one has ever killed anyone to force them not to believe in a god. The reverse is not true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"May I remind you that no one has ever killed anyone to force them not to believe in a god."

That would be very tenuous advocacy.

The teachers of Calles were not killed to force them to believe in God, but to stop them from forcing school children to NOT believe in God.

The millions of Christians killed by Communists were technically not killed "for believing in God" but for illegal (i e illegal about Communist laws) acts made out of faith or similar to Christian beliefs.

And many of them were technically not killed by the government, but so mistreated in prisons and mental hospitals that they died.

No, the Satan who is behind these is not imaginary, nor are their crimes.

William P. Lazarus
Let's contrast with the millions (maybe billions) killed for declining to believe in the Christian, Muslim or Jewish god. Or for believing something not considered orthodox. That's why I prefer freedom from religion. Believe what you want, as long as you keep it to yourself, don't try to impose it on anyone else and don't pretend that, simply because you believe it, it's true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
William P. Lazarus "Let's contrast with the millions (maybe billions) killed for declining to believe in the Christian, Muslim or Jewish god."

Documentation in real history?

I mean, not that some have, but that they have been "millions"?

" Believe what you want, as long as you keep it to yourself, don't try to impose it on anyone else and don't pretend that, simply because you believe it, it's true."

You are trying to "impose" fake history, because you believe it.

William P. Lazarus
Please. You've never heard of the Inquisition, the Crusades? That's just the tip of the iceberg. The 100 Years War? That's just the Christian side, not including burning at the stake, herems and the like. Throw in ISIS as well as Muslim conquests, which offered conversion or the sword, and the list of dead grows impressively. Jews, the only time they had power to do so, took over Samaria with the same convert or die option close to 2100 years ago. You know that history or should.

Fake history? Only if you choose to be completely ignorant, which you are not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
William P. Lazarus "You've never heard of the Inquisition, the Crusades?"

Neither would amount to millions killed, especially for simply refusing to believe.

"That's just the tip of the iceberg."

No.

"The 100 Years War?"

Both sides were Catholic, so it was no killing for religion.

If you meant the Thirty Years War, there was killing over religious control, same issue you would like to meddle with.

"That's just the Christian side, not including burning at the stake, herems and the like."

Herems (unless you mean Harems) is not a word I know, and is probably not a Christian thing.

Burning was a minor part of those tried by Inquisition, and that is documented.

William P. Lazarus "Throw in ISIS as well as Muslim conquests, which offered conversion or the sword,"

Sounds like it starts to rival a bit with Communism - if you mean Islam over centuries compared to Communism over one.

William P. Lazarus "Jews, the only time they had power to do so, took over Samaria with the same convert or die option close to 2100 years ago."
v Details?

(Hardly millions.) It can be added, the most lethal warlords of the Middle Ages were Mongols, Tatars and Huns - also secularists, like more recent Communists.

[anon 1] - you are historian.
Stephan Borgehammar - you are Church historian.

William P. Lazarus (...) claims that the millions killed by Communists for being Christians can't rival victims of just Crusades and Inquisition.

What say you?

William P. Lazarus
Idiot: the Communists had their own religion. It's just not one you recognize. They killed in the name of that religion. You are really sick. Adding up total people murdered for religion? What difference is there if there's 1 billion or 100 million. Murder is murder, and all in the name of a god, whether that god is named Stalin,Mao, Hitler or Jesus.

Stephan Borgehammar
That sounds like a serious misconception. Research on the infamous Spanish Inquisition has found that it led to the execution of 826 persons out of more than 44,000 accused. We must remember that the inquisition was a judicial court which required solid evidence in order to convict. When it comes to the Crusades they were large warlike expeditions, but there is no reason to suppose that the number of casualties was greater than in other wars. They had no “convert or die” policy because forced baptisms are not allowed in Christianity (are in fact invalid). There were occasional atrocities to be sure, but these happen in all wars. They are due to human nature, not to religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"the Communists had their own religion. It's just not one you recognize. They killed in the name of that religion. You are really sick."

Same with "freedom from religion".

" What difference is there if there's 1 billion or 100 million."

You were the one claiming Inquisition and Crusades by far outdid deaths by Atheism.

Obviously, if you exclude Communism from Atheism, because Communism is a religion, which I agree on, you will also have to exclude any other concrete Atheism from Atheism - because all concrete Atheism involves some kind of religion.

Yours too - starting with de-Theisticised Judaism Lite.

Obviously, zero on that count is less than 826 killed by Spanish Inquisition ... but that count is uninteresting.

II

William P. Lazarus
This one is for you:

William P. Lazarus : Freedom From Religion
https://williamplazarus.blogspot.fr/2018/04/freedom-from-religion.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah you have a blog ...

"Then there are the incredibly dense Facebook writers who insist Christians are being persecuted. .... One" /// feel free to insert my name.

I am a blogger and take credit for my words.

"Pope Francis made that same observation this year as well."

Feel free to link to news story about Antipope Bergoglio ...

William P. Lazarus
What's the point since you've already discredited him? He simply pointed out how much pain and suffering people claiming religious faith have inflicted on others. In that, he joins a long line of people -- historians and religious leaders -- to decry religion-based violence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The point is, I am cautious not to accuse him on merely indirect reference.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In 1683 I think some Poles killed some Turks in the vicinity of Vienna, Poles being Catholics and Turks Muslims.

Did the Poles just attack due to Muslims remaining Muslims, or was there some other factor involved? Would you mind refreshing memories, perhaps especially that of Bill Lazarus? [anon 2]

[anon 2], since you absent, I'll simply link to a page:

The second Turkish siege of Vienna, 1683
http://www.habsburger.net/en/events/second-turkish-siege-vienna-1683

William P. Lazarus - read up, if you think Crusades were about killing Muslims for refusing to be Christians.

William P. Lazarus
I never said that. It was an effort to impose one religious view on another. Crusaders also killed Jews, too, remember? There are economic factors as well, but Bernard and Innocent didn't promote the crusade as anything but a religious effort to take the Holy Land and make Christianity the prominent faith there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It was an effort to impose one religious view on another."

As in forcing Muslims to become Christians? No.

"Crusaders also killed Jews, too, remember?"

In sporadic war crimes mainly under first Crusade, when the army was mainly an untrained and undisciplined levy of volunteers.

"There are economic factors as well, but Bernard and Innocent didn't promote the crusade as anything but a religious effort to take the Holy Land and make Christianity the prominent faith there."

As you would like to make absense of religion prominent, at least absence of publically announced religion.

mardi 3 avril 2018

Matthew Hunt Demands Answers he Doesn't Like to Give


OP
Matthew Hunt
28 mars, 22:02
Creationists, what do you understand the theory of evolution to be and what would you consider positive evidence for it?

Skipping
some and going to my answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"what do you understand the theory of evolution to be"

Twofold : descent with variation, and common descent of all species of for instance Eucaryotes from a proto-Eucaryote and that one from Procaryotes.

"and what would you consider positive evidence for it?"

For descent with variation, you can check that mice have different chromosome numbers on Madeira from on mainland, you can check that lynx and cats produce fertile offspring, as do wolves and dogs.

For common descent of all species ...

  • 1) I'd require absence of barriers from infinite variability, and instead I find a barrier in chromosome numbers;
  • 2) I'd require all species being rational (alternatively, ourselves not being so, but that is already disproven) OR a mechanism by which irrationality could produce rationality, instead I find that rationality is clearly different from irrationality, there is no trace of a clearly transitional stage, the closest candidates for mimicking raionality coming from irrationaility being computers and these being clearly irrational, as can be verified when you check them on linguistics;
  • 3) I'd require a clear trace of sufficient time, which there is to date none, each purported dating method involving Deep Time and purporting to dwarf Biblical chronology being controvertible.


A bonus would be an absence of historic creationist accounts, at least such as have sufficient coherence to be believed, which there is not.

Jonathan Blue
Why Is the Known written history, not bones dug up out of the ground that can't speak, history of human existence only dated no further back than the biblical flood. why has the attempt to exterminate the Jewish people so many times in history failed over and over. why is there a nation of Israel speaking again a language that was dead for nearly 2500 years. just like the scriptures tell us will happen in the last days. could it be that there is a God that watches over his people. I'm not Jewish by the way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jonathan Blue, that would have been a point to take with Matthew Hunt, who asked what you would take as evidence for evolution.

Yes, indeed, if man had been "evolved" 65 million + years ago and had left record of meteor, démise of dinos, and 65 million years after that, that would of course also very well have proven evolution theory.

For my part, if you read all of my answer, I am a Young Earth Creationist and I was just giving an answer to the question he posed.

[And he answered nothing back on it. So far.]

Skipping
some more and going to another thread:

OP
Hans-Georg Lundahl
30 mars, 18:20
Matthew Hunt, fluid dynamics, I saw you mention.

My hypothesis on carbon rise is mathematically perhaps a bit related.

Would you mind looking at the mathematical part of a creationist theory?

If yes, I'll give the links that are relevant.

I
Matthew Hunt
No. I'd rather not waste my time on complete nonsense.

Tim Eakins
Hmm... I think we ought be as dismissive of a rube as you are.

But... Of course, we’re not. We know the literal “end” of theophobes. It isn’t pretty. We wouldn’t want it for you.

Yet, if you’re hell bent on glorifying God that way...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nice cop out.

From the mathematical standpoint, it might be interesting.

Matthew Hunt
No it wouldn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So you know that in advance?

Like you knew in advance I was wrong on Michelson Morley and it turned out I was right?

Matthew Hunt
You were wrong. If your conclusion was that the Earth was stationary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know very well I was right about it being about measuring the aether lag as "earth passes through stationary aether".

In other words, you know that Michelson concluded "either Earth stands still or there is no aether".

Matthew Hunt
There is more than one strand of data which points to a non-stationary Earth. Gravity for example.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is quite another point.

Do you admit you bungled that first one, or shall I take your "there is more than one strand of data" fudge as an indirect admission?

Matthew Hunt
No. That would be incorrect on your part.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, where exactly do you consider you didn't bungle it?

"No, it wasn't due to the annual movement of the Earth, it was to do with light passing through the aether. There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether." Your words.

What slowing down "through the aether"?

Any wiki will say it was the aether wind where a slowing down in one direction and a speeding up in opposite would have been appropriate for earth passing through a stationary aether.

Or would have, in case you get your pals sabotaging wikis after your debacle.

Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg, what don't you understand about the Michaelson-morley experiment? You seem to be fixated on something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You love that word.

Are your security settings on max to be able to hide you are apart from PhD in Mathematical Physics also involved in some way in psychiatry?

As said, I love a good debate.

As a debater you are a disappointment, you are too evasive about anything I go strong on.

Matthew Hunt
As I said. There is no debate on geocentrism, it simply isn't true. The same thing goes for flat Earth which is equally wrong. They key here, is to go back to basics to see where you are confused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt you are very free to come up with any basic you THINK I am confused on.

You are politely requested not to equate geocentrism with flat earth, since there is no Magellan for Heliocentrism.

Matthew Hunt
Obviously they're not the same but they are both equally ludicrous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt ah ... you don't go by argument, but by your subjective sense of comedy ... nice to know ...

Matthew Hunt
The arguments for a moving spinning Earth are simple. Gravity and Foucault's pendulum. That's all you need to know really.

Hans-Georg.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Foucault's pendulum already answered with aether moving around Earth. Hence "fixation" on Michelson, you don't like to give up your arguments, do you?

Gravity is not an argument, it is a topos.

What is your argument about this topos?

[Notice next, he doesn't give one on gravity - unless I get him wrong, see below:]

Matthew Hunt
Aether doesn't the foucault's pendulum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It very much does, provided aether is also the medium for space and provided aether is turning with the universe around earth, as already explained, but you refused to argue it out.

Matthew Hunt
Incorrect.

Try some critical thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Try some ARGUING instead of BADGERING

Matthew Hunt
Here is a place to start. Write down a differential equation describing your model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Proposition :
aether is both medium of space and of light waves.
Corrolary :
if aether turns around earth, it explains Coriolis, Foucault etc.
Your answer :
"incorrect"
Your argument :
none.


Differential equations are above my math skills.

Also those that work for vectors in "spinning earth model" work equally for vectors in an aether spinning around Earth.

Matthew Hunt
Write down a mathematical model for your idea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I gave a geometric one in a series of links where you refused to look. Application geostationary satellites.

Here is first link in series again, you come back when you have read it all and found the maths:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html


Matthew Hunt
I will indulge you once against my better judgement.

I see absolutely no maths.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt I am not sure whether you admitted to not being able to recognise geometry or to not having read through the links ...

Matthew Hunt
You expect me to trawl through your website to look for the alleged evidence of your model?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look, in the link I gave you, the top section of the post gives the links to all six parts of the series.

THAT you can go through. BOTH arguments first AND then the geometry.

Have you even read the opening square?

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology), 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

Statement from Tom Trinko:
I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

Wednesday 21:00 (supposing my profile is set on Paris time) - Saturday 10:30 sth (on Paris time) is the time for these first rounds.


The numbered items are in original blue. Blue means they are links. I put those links in that message, because EACH one of them is part of that series.

On Tom Trinko's Apology:
he argued lots better than Matthew Hunt, supposed to be a specialist.

Matthew Hunt
I will indulge you one more time. Post the link to your mathematical model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is in the top section of the first post in series.

Plus "I will indulge you" is somewhat overbearing as a tone to take ...

Matthew Hunt
Give me the URL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I gave you the url to a post where you can click the url to the messages (you only have 6 in total) which you think likeliest.

What is wrong with your capacity of checking context?

What is wrong with a normally expected capacity of looking up a reference as in an indexed site?

Matthew Hunt
If you don't want to provide the URL, I will consider that you're not interested in conversation or learning why you're wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you don't look it up where I provided an URL to, I'll have to consider YOU are not interested in learning why or even verifying if possibly you are wrong.

Matthew Hunt
That was your last chance and you blew it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, you mean you withdraw ...?

And now, why did you not ask me about the mathematical models on C14, if you were so eager to "indulge me"?

Matthew Hunt
:laugh:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Enjoy, you seem to need it.

Tim Eakins
Mr. Hunt goes down in :fire: :fire::fire::fire:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you ask me about those, I will provide them - since I did not yet do so.

But you asked about one where the exact url is part of a series, where you could preferrably show appreciation of argument first and math then.

You could also have showed at least basic skills of internet use by singling out which one or two links within the link were of mathematical interest.

Matthew Hunt
Tim is the group jester. Everyone laughs at him.

Hans-Georg, look, I know you want to appear edgy with your weird beliefs but you're just the same as the flat Earthers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt - Flat Earth was refuted by Magellan.

Where is the Magellan for Heliocentrism?

First, what you offer is more of an "Eratosthenes", second your "Eratosthenes" for Heliocentrism is challenged and you refuse to look up the details in the challenge and THIRD you deflect from the debate by trying to psychoanalyse the motives behind my belief.

This is total sheer nonsense, you have to prove THAT I am wrong before you try to explain WHY I am wrong.

And you are not a mind reader, a proposition like "I know that you" X or whatever is not very convincing, outside the charmed circle of shrinks who are similar charlatans to yourself.

Matthew Hunt
I love it. A geocentrist calling a credentialed scientist a charlatan!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, there are more credentialed scientists than you I call charlatans.

Is geocentrist a degree?

Like sophomore?

Matthew Hunt
Thus speaks a conspiracy theorist...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have not provided any specifics on what kind of conspiracy I theorise about.

Tim Eakins
Matthew Hunt “credentialed scientist” is just an arbitrary assignment based in circularity. It means nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm afraid Tim Eakins has a point.

Matthew Hunt
The specific conspiracy is that (I think) all academic physicists and astronomers are somehow hiding the "truth" about the falsehood of heliocentrism.

Matthew Hunt
I'm afraid it's demonstrable truth. I've always fount that Tim Eakins doesn't seem connected with reality at all.

Matthew Hunt - Google Scholar Citations
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=f7RQx6MAAAAJ&hl=en


[After looking, he has been cited 11 times in papers by others - or his co-written papers have.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The specific conspiracy is that (I think) all academic physicists and astronomers are somehow hiding the "truth" about the falsehood of heliocentrism."

No, I do not believe that conspiracy at all and I do not theorise about that conspiracy.

It is a straw man.

I do believe a more limited conspiracy, namely bringing up that strawman instead of dealing fairly and squarely with geocentrists.

It is a more recent one, since 80's or 90's according to David Berlinski : in other words a conspiracy to avoid debate.

However, I do not attribute this to knowingly being wrong, I attribute it to knowing you aren't winning debates.

Which some times should tell you you are wrong, but sometimes doesn't.

Tim Eakins
Matthew Hunt who, exactly, confers the title “scientist?”

And how is it it a circular “degree?”

I mean, even the word “degree” belies the circularity. There is no necessary objectivity in conferred degrees.

Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg, if you truly believe geocentrism is correct then it follows that you think professional physicists and astronomers are wrong and are somehow hiding it. That is a conspiracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Considering they hide it from themselves too effectively to feel a need to hide it from others, except by - exchanging debates on arguments for "you are a conspiracy theorist" + its variations.

No, it is in the major a culture and only very minor matters a conspiracy - on their part.

Matthew Hunt
The argument for geocentrism are fraught with complications. The whole Foucault's pendulum thing for a start requires a complete new law of gravity to begin with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aren't you confusing gravity with Coriolis?

Matthew Hunt
No. The Coriolis force is due to shifting to a rotating reference frame. This brings in the component of acceleration needed to change the plane of oscillation for the pendulum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well - the plane of oscillation stays the same in reference to the rotating aether.

It only changes locally because the aether changes by rotating.

Matthew Hunt
Assertion after assertion. Prove it.

You need a law of gravity which includes the effects of the aether.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, I need an aether which is the true inertial frame for motion as well as for light.

Hence my interested in also luminiferous aether.

Matthew Hunt
You're talking nonsense. You NEED a model of gravity which includes the effects of the aether.

What's a "the true inertial frame" when it's at home? More assumptions without evidence on your part.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all, I don't have a fixed model of gravity in the first place.

Second, whether we take Einstein's or Newton's it can be adapted to rotating aether.

Third, Einstein's basically involved a "lociferous" aether.

Fourth, a true inertial frame is a frame in relation to which the true vectors are there.

Matthew Hunt
Regarding you model of gravity, you're wrong. Taking Einsten's relativity does away with the aether to begin with, and so you've immediately shot yourself in the foot.

More assumptions on top of other assumptions. You really wonder why I consider you a cretin?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Regarding you model of gravity, you're wrong."

Bald assertion.

"Taking Einsten's relativity"

I'm not.

"does away with the aether to begin with,"

At least an unmoving or inert aether.

"and so you've immediately shot yourself in the foot."

Not really, since I was taking his view of how space (=aether) and gravity interact.

"You really wonder why I consider you a cretin?"

Not at all if you are a shrink and used to talking to patients that way.

I did not ask you why (as I recall a few days ago), I mentioned (as I recall) calling me cretin and proving me wrong are two different things.

Matthew Hunt
I don't think even you understand what you're talking about. Your assertion about the aether and Einstein is wrong. If it were true you would get a positive result with the MM experiment but you don't. The MM experiment demonstrates that the speed of light has the same numerical value in ANY inertial reference frame.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If it were true you would get a positive result with the MM experiment but you don't."

There is a positive outcome for rotation.

It is only for orbit that there is no positive outcome at all.

You are forgetting this point, which makes an ouverture for another interpretation : Earth not moving.

Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg, you're now lying about a positive outcome for the MM experiment. The result is that there is no time differential for the laser going around the loop. This showing that the speed of light is the same numerical value for all inertial frames.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer. It measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation, and thus tests the theories of special relativity and luminiferous ether along the rotating frame of Earth."

Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment


The positive outcome is the one for rotation.

If you had recalled the translation from German wiki, they were arguing (the wikipedians or likely one of them) that rotation can be detected positively.

Matthew Hunt
Once again, the time taken was the same around both paths...

I think that you're blustering because you don't fully understand what you're talking about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Who said it, did it. Bluster.

The orbital speed would have made for a much greater difference than the rotational, and the result was negative for orbital.

Matthew Hunt
Once more in English?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The fastness at which earth would have been moving around the sun would have been faster than the fastness at which earth would have been moving around itself.

The fastness at which earth would have been moving around the sun gave no difference in the fastness by which a light beam would have been going faster than another.

II

Matthew Hunt
I don't want to encourage people thinking creationism is real.

Cathy Treat
Richard Dawkins uses that excuse to get out of debating some creationists.

Imad Basha
Creationism is real. Look around you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, I would be a hopeless case anyway, I'm even Geocentric ... or do you mean a mathematical look on my work would encourage our (my blogs) readers to think I'm right?

Matthew Hunt
I can help you to think about physics critically if you like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am here for discussion, not for remedials.

You want to speak to me, you do so as a debater, and no more "I set the scene, you are too dumb".

Matthew Hunt
You need remedial education in science though.

Cathy Treat
Another dodge?

Matthew Hunt
Unfortunately it isn't. Much of what creationists believe is based upon incorrect ideas of actual science. So I think it's more useful to get to grips with what they understand before actually debating.

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Right! You haven't had plenty of time to get a grasp of creationist's beliefs. Dodge!

Matthew Hunt
I understand the arguments which creationists use and I understand why they're wrong. That's the difference.

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Then you can take Hans up on his offer to debate. Show us all why we're wrong.

Matthew Hunt
As I have been explaining. There simply is no debate on the matter. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things which are up for debate in science but some things are settled. Heliocentrism is one of them. What is required of me is to educate Hans-Georg on why it's true.

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Dodge

Matthew Hunt
Not at all. After tomorrow I will put up an OP explaining why geocentrism is false.

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Why not debate? If you really have the knowledge to show Hans is wrong, you could debate him any time. Anyone can copy and paste or read up on the subject to produce an OP.

Matthew Hunt
As I keep explaining, there simply is no debate.

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Of course there is. Two opposing views can be debated. It's done all the time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt WHEN you explain why geocentrism is false, you are in a debate.

Matthew Hunt "Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things which are up for debate in science but some things are settled."

I am not in that sense "in science", so, you are in for a debate with an outsider.

"What is required of me is to educate Hans-Georg on why it's true."

Argue is fine - and that means to debate. Because, I am not abandoning my arguments, you see ...

Matthew Hunt
I will explain why it's wrong, and you can question the explanation but this is most certainly NOT a debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I will not limit myself to "questioning" and you are not Daniel Quinones, so you cannot moderate the debate out - except by blocking me.

III

David Wolcott*
Yes, because, clearly, actually investigating alternative theories is so anti-scientific....

Taylor Ringelstein
It’s not an individuals responsibility to investigate every single theory ever put forth.

David Wolcott
That's fair. But Matthew's excuse wasn't that he doesn't have time to investigate everything, but instead that he declares results before investigation.

Michelle Rose
Yet he has plenty of time to run God on the Slide for hours on end and argue with Christians on multiple pages and groups.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Taylor Ringelstein Nor is it a community's responsibility to tell each individual scientist in it what theories should be investigated.

Seriously, there are individual's who do think it their duty to investigate theories noted for having been put forth, and they are called philosophers.

I'm kind of one of them.

IV

Cathy Treat
I'm repeating myself. Matthew Hunt has a PHD? "That's so hard to believe that I don't." :)

Tim Eakins
A PhD only means someone put in time and effort. It doesn’t mean they are smarter, better or right.

Cathy Treat
Tim Eakins So true! Let me add: It doesn't make them intimidating either, which seems to be the reason to claim you have a PhD.

Taylor Ringelstein
Tim Eakins a PhD does mean someone put time and effort in. Something neither yourself, Cathy or mike have done. It deserves a little respect

Mike'n Tabea Warrak** no one made me the referee? But as you just jumped in on this thread so did I. So back off on that point, we are in an open forum so my putting my two cents in is just as valid as yours without you calling me a referee. You may have put time and efffort into other things. But a PhD is a recognised form of that. Unless you have a recognised form of your hard work and time, then I can dismiss your claim of having put time and effort into something. I’m not telling you to be respectful of what Matt is saying. I’m telling you to be respectful of his PhD which is earned through time and effort. As for you mike, if we want to listen to a clueless imbecile comment on someone else’s hard work, well I suppose that’s what Facebook is made for hahah

Tim Eakins
Taylor Ringelstein you have no clue.

Taylor Ringelstein
Mike'n Tabea Warrak check what I said. You don’t have to respect what he does. But the PhD deserves respect. You don’t have to give it. It still deserves it. Tim you can shut up you are the one with no clue.

David Wolcott
Taylor Ringelstein, it should also be noted that, in the last almost ten years of debating, I have never seen Hunt debate in the subject of his PhD (or any of his degrees) nor have I heard rumors of the same.

So as far as every subject Hunt chooses to engage in, he has the same or less education than anyone else.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott you are an admin. You should be able to read and understand what I said. Where did I say you should listen to what Hunt has to say? Where did I say his degree allows him to speak on any topic? All I have said is a PhD is a recognised form of time and effort and it deserves respect. I didn’t say it lets the recipient of the PhD say whatever they like and demand respect. I said the degree itself is what demands respect.

David Wolcott
I do understand what you say. And I respect PhD's. Hunt has taken great pains to not be worthy of any respect. They aren't arguing whether he has an academic record. They are arguing how someone could have such a record and present such anti-science nonsense.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott mm I don’t think they are but whatever you say boss

Tim Eakins
A PhD (the person holding such) doesn’t deserve anymore respect than one would give another human when opining on things.

Taylor Ringelstein
Tim Eakins thanks for your input. That has been said numerous times already. Please read thoroughly before commenting next time.

David Wolcott
If it's been said so often Taylor, why do you still have think they aren't saying it?

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott no idea what you tried to say there

David Wolcott
Then you should read more thoroughly next time.

Taylor Ringelstein
“Why do you still have think they aren’t saying it” makes no sense no matter how many times I read it

David Wolcott
//David Wolcott mm I don’t think they are but whatever you say boss//

......

Tim Eakins
//That has been said numerous times already. Please read thoroughly before commenting next time.//

Why?

Taylor Ringelstein
Tim Eakins so you don’t repeat things that have already been said.

David Wolcott
You obviously missed it the first few times, Taylor....

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott you can quote me all you like.

“If it’s been said so often Taylor, why do you still have think they aren’t saying it”

That sentence makes no sense.

David Wolcott I’m saying it as well. I don’t think the person deserves respect. The PhD deserves respect. I have never said that hunt deserves respect when he speaks on anything. You and Tim seem to have trouble comprehending what I’m saying.

David Wolcott
Well, you're right on the quote. When you put the whole thing, I realized I added an extra word.

Nonetheless, why do you keep saying what others have said? The whole argument made by Tim and Cathy is that the PhD equates to time and effort, but otherwise grants nothing extra to the bearer unless they are talking in the field of their degree.

Tim Eakins
I think Taylor likes to read his own prattling...

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott except the part where they tried to belittle the PhD itself (the post hole digger comment). It’s obvious they don’t respect the degree. I put my two cents in. After that this whole discussion has been pointless.

Tim Eakins hush now the grown ups are talking.

Cathy Treat
Taylor Ringelstein You tagged me: You said, " Tim Eakins a PhD does mean someone put time and effort in. Something neither yourself, Cathy or mike have done. It deserves a little respect"//// .

First of all, you don't know what Tim Eakins, or Mike'n Tabea Warrak or I have done with our lives thus far. Second, I haven't seen any evidence at all, not even a smidgen, to indicate that he's telling the truth. He sounds like a typical atheist activist: Totally typical, making claims that he can't back up. We've all seen a lot of those. So, IMO, if he was who he says he is, he would have no problem with discussing Hans' paper.

Taylor Ringelstein
Cathy Treat do you have a PhD? If you don’t then I’m right in assuming you havent put the time and effort in. He might not be telling the truth. Have I said that because he claims to have a PhD then it must be true? Again this whole discussion remains pointless.

Cathy Treat
Taylor Ringelstein You tagged me. I just responded.

Taylor Ringelstein
Cathy Treat I’ll take that as a no, you don’t have a PhD and my assumption was correct.

Cathy Treat
Taylor Ringelstein I"m not embarrassed, or ashamed of the time and effort that I've put into things other than a PhD. I"m also not impressed that someone else does have one. You said the discussion remains pointless, so, I was just trying to close said discussion.

Tim Eakins
Who is “they?”

Taylor Ringelstein
Tim Eakins if you can’t keep up then stay out of it

David Wolcott
Taylor, you realize that the post hole digger comment was self depreciation, right?

Please try to keep up or stay out of it.

Taylor Ringelstein
Cathy Treat I’m not trying to embarrass you or make you feel ashamed. I assumed you didn’t put the time and effort into a PhD. You called me out for that assumption. I was right in my assumption.

Tim Eakins
//Again this whole discussion remains pointless.//

Yet you prattle on. Prove it is pointless, please.

I don’t think you possess the self-control. I could be wrong...

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott please learn to use the correct words when trying to belittle me. Deprecation is not depreciation.

Cathy Treat
Tim Eakins Another typical AA.

Taylor Ringelstein
Tim Eakins when it comes to you I’ll always have something to say

Cathy Treat AA meaning?

David Wolcott
Taylor, you are right, I added an extra letter. And you are the one belittling everyone. Quit whining if you can't eat off your own plate.

Cathy Treat
Taylor Ringelstein atheist activist

Taylor Ringelstein
Cathy Treat unlucky you aren’t correct I’m not an atheist.

David Wolcott I am belittling everyone now. I didn’t start the thread this way

David Wolcott
At least you admit your abusive conduct, Taylor.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott and you have also engaged in it. Do you admit the same?

David Wolcott
I admit to serving you the plate you cooked.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott mm I’d say you attempted to serve me the plate I cooked. Unfortunately you weren’t very good at it

David Wolcott
Really? Because you sure threw a fit when you saw it...

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott ok you win. You are better at belittling people than I am.

George Zornes
Taylor Ringelstein I’m just going to weigh in a sec for what it’s worth. And no I do not have a PHD. In fact I’m certain lab rats have more exposure to facilities of higher learning than I do and in the world of million miles per hour messages to the b...Voir plus

David Wolcott
Taylor Ringelstein, should I be surprised that you left the other thread where you tried to back up Hunt's claim and provided less evidence than he did, in light of your misconduct here?

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott I left both threads to because I knew my conduct wasn’t good. But if you want to start it again we can. Very Christ like of you to be this petty

David Wolcott
There was a few hour difference between your last claim there and your last attempts at insults here.

I'm not convinced.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott so you do want to start up a petty argument that has no meaning? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it, but I just want you to know I was happy to leave this unfinished but you brought this back up. Not me.

David Wolcott
I brought up that you made claims you haven't justified because you spent all your time being petty. You are free to provide evidence for your claims whenever you want.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott I wasn’t being petty on my lonesome. Had some wonderful companionship in yourself. You’re free to let this conversation end whenever you want. Just seems like you really want the last word here.

David Wolcott
So.... Still no evidence for your claims.... Unsurprising, really.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott this thread I have made no claims. This has been one big petty argument. Which as I have said now numerous times, I’m happy to finish. But can you let me say something without you getting the last word in? That’s the real question here

David Wolcott
I haven't stopped you from saying anything, Taylor. And, since you obviously missed my comments, I identified very clearly that it was on the other thread. But just like Hunt, it seems you just want to blame others for your lack of evidence.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott I never said you stopped me from saying anything. But you can’t let me say the last word can you? Have to reply no matter what. This isn’t a thread to get involved in serious discussion. This is the petty argument comment section. Now I’ll post this and wait to see if you will let me finish this thread

MR
David Wolcott I am blown away by the incredibly bad manners of atheist PhDs who roam Facebook.

Taylor Ringelstein so we should bow down to his PhD in philosophy of science in fluid mechanics or whatever his PHD is in?

David Wolcott
Given that I've seen two year olds with better math skills than Hunt has demonstrated, I still can't figure how he got a PhD in applied mathematics.

Taylor Ringelstein
MR I don’t know if you’ve read this whole thread but it’s not the best. Did I say anywhere that we should bow down to his PhD? don’t put words into my mouth

MR
David Wolcott its because nothing is not nothing. I should unblock him. I've had home blocked for two years.

MR
Taylor Ringelstein respect the PhD, not the holder.

Taylor Ringelstein as Christians, we don't worship worldly knowledge.

Taylor Ringelstein
MR does respect = worship?

MR
Taylor Ringelstein well, as Christians we are called to be respectful. So if we are respectful to a person, and you think we should respect the PhD more, that borders on idolatry.

Taylor Ringelstein
Also I’m not even saying to respect the subject that the PhD was in. I’m saying the act of getting a PhD is worthy of respect. It shows you’ve put time and effort into something.

Michelle Rose
Taylor Ringelstein most of us have put in a lot of time and effort into something. But we don't all get degrees for it.

Taylor Ringelstein
MR that’s true. A PhD shows commitment as well. It’s just a form of recognition for committing time and effort. I’m not saying a PhD is the only proof of hard work that should be respected.

MR
Taylor Ringelstein so for how long do we need to bow down to someone who doesn't think creationists should hold science degrees? Or medical degrees?

Taylor Ringelstein
MR when have I said to bow down? When have I said that a PhD means every idea you ever have should be followed?

MR
Taylor Ringelstein ok. Please explain "respect" and what that would look like on FB in regards to an abstraction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Taylor Ringelstein - even if you are not an atheist, you may be an "atheist collaborator" or syncretist (as in evolution believer, heliocentrism believer etc)

George Zornes "I personally don’t know if Mr. Hunt has a PHD or not but after an amount of observation of his posts he simply does not articulate himself to the level one would expect from anyone having achieved his degree of education."

I was kind of suspecting sth like that ... especially after seeing his initial bungle on Michelson Morley.

Cathy Treat
Hans-Georg Lundahl IMO, If he really was a mathematician/physicist, he should be able to prove it by conversing with you in regard to your OP. I"m seeing a lot of dodges. I have also come to my conclusions based on his comments.

MR
Cathy Treat he does actually have the degrees he claims to have. The page he helps to admin also has at least one other science PhD as an admin. You would NEVER know it by the illogic of the postings there.

Tim Eakins
MR a PhD isn’t proof of deductive reasoning. It is only proof one can do enough to earn the accolades of another with the conferred title. In the scheme of things it means nothing.

MR
Tim Eakins true, that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I looked his page up.

He has 14 papers, seven of which have been cited 11 times.

Cathy Treat
MR Seriously? Are you sure? Cause! Dang! He sounds like he's living on a troll farm or in his parents basement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And one of his papers only is his sole work.

Cathy Treat
Hans-Georg Lundahl Are you sure he's the one who wrote them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is another question.

Of 14 papers, exactly one has him as sole author.

If he were for instance a shrink on the side, the participation in 14 papers since 2015 with 13 co-written by others would leave him lots of time to be for instance a shrink as well.

David Wolcott
That's his biggest problem, though: he presumably works well in his field. Which is great.

Then he completely abandons all of the principles learned there and practices nothing intellectual here or on Facebook.

Cathy Treat
Hans-Georg Lundahl I guess it's the internet thing. People can pretend to be "whatever", or impersonate someone else. So when there's no reason to believe someone, I don't. I guess I just don't have a good track record for trusting. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
David Wolcott - seeing he has co-written 13 of his 14 papers, and seeing that this is since 2013, I wonder if he's a shrink. As his MAIN interest.

He would be in fact doing just great on that side of his interests - since they are bullies and not scientists.

Cathy Treat Don't worry, his trackrecord of trust is even worse.

I give him a link.

It includes six links in the top section, one to itself.

I tell him one of the six links is to mathematics, which he doesn't trust.

You are less paranoid than he.

David Wolcott
I feel sorry for anyone he tries to counsel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Or who is captive in the hospital he runs!

David Wolcott
Given his narcissism I would be shocked to find anyone working under him.

Cathy Treat
Does he work?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think so.

MR
Cathy Treat when I first encountered him on FB, I accused him of living in his mom's basement. One thing is, that he has consistently been well mannered in his discussions with me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl who has time to write papers when you're addicted to FB?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I combine the pleasures:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-defending-carbon-and.html


Cathy Treat
MR Well, I"m glad I'm not the only that thought he was living in his parents basement! LOL! Nice to know he can be well mannered.

MR
Hans-Georg Lundahl that paper he said he authored. He said he lifted the content out of a textbook. I don't know if he referenced it yet

Cathy Treat
MR Hmmmm!

MR
Nope. Not referenced.

Cathy Treat
MR Surprise!!!

V

David Wolcott
Surprisingly, he does. In mathematics.

Which really begs the question why his last argument against me was that one person in prison in numerically more numerous than millions murdered under Stalin....

Ahh, the joys of irrational anti-science...

Cathy Treat
I"m not convinced.

VI

Matthew Hunt
You can search for my PhD online.

Cathy Treat
I can search a Mat Hunt's PhD online. You brought up "lawsuit" to Hans-Georg Lundahl in a recent post. Impersonating a PhD and passing off his papers as your own could be considered grounds for a lawsuit, don't you think?

Matthew Hunt
You realise you're an idiot right?

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Wow! Great comeback!

VII

Vaughn Lowe
Does any one know the difference between knowledge, intelligence and wisdom? And yes, there is a difference.
.
This is how I like to think of it. Please forgive my analogy. I am ex-military.
.
Knowledge is like ammunition. There are different types and some people have more than others.
.
Intelligence is all about the size of the gun. Some people obviously have bigger guns than others. That's just the way it is.
.
And then there's wisdom. My personal favourite. Wisdom is knowing what to aim at. Wisdom is also knowing when to pull the trigger and, sometimes more importantly, when not to.
.
A bit clumsy perhaps. But the central point is that you can have a combination of these. Most people have one of these and some have two. But if you can, why not go for the trifecta.
Well it's something to aim at, right? (bad joke, sorry) 😎

Cathy Treat
I didn't think it was a bad joke at all. Made me chuckle!

George Zornes
I just love that analogy. So in your terms I am a 22 with 2 rounds of rat shot and I usually waste them by shooting at rocks. But to my credit I do have a mind like lightning. An occasional millisecond flash of brilliance then it’s gone forever. But God pulled me out of the muck and mire anyway. And that’s why I’ll defend him to the end!

Albert White
Perhaps it's not that we have one, two or all of these, Maybe everyone has all three but just in different strengths and degrees making it more like analogue (0 to 100) rather than digital (0 or 1). Like the RPG's where characters all have the same attributes but some have higher than others. And of course there are things we can do to increase these attributes.

George Zornes
Albert White not entirely sure but I think that’s what Vaughn was alluding to?

Vaughn Lowe
Yeah, I think we all get the idea.

VIII

David Wolcott
Matthew Hunt has been muted for 24 hours for blatantly insulting other members.

[see VI]

George Zornes
I have noticed we get a lot of “you wouldn’t understand” or “I won’t waste my time” or your a “insult”. Or will leave the topic unfinished when it gets a bit hard. Makes me wonder. There are some wonderful debates and arguments on this thread where neither side resorts to such things. I wish everyone would conduct themselves “adultly”.

David Wolcott
I will exercise great patience if the individual is meaningfully contributing, but when it's just blatantly not even trying to discuss..... Yeah, no.

Chris James
Mat Hunt was the one who was insulted, by being told he he didn't really have a PhD and was impersonating someone who did. When he lost his temper at that, HE was the one subject to the ban. Ridiculous.

David Wolcott
Chris, someone being incredulous of one's claim is a different thing from calling someone an idiot.

Especially given the fact that Matthew has spent quite some time deliberately refusing to actually debate anything, instead just coming in and nay saying or mocking without any attempt at substance.

Had he made the decision to build a reputation of someone who actually discusses and engages, I probably would have ignored it entirely, as I implied in the above comment.

Chris James
David Wolcott. It was basically accusing Hunt of lying about not only his degree, but who he his. Hunt can easily be found online, even those who disagree with him have known him around these pages for years. No wonder he lost his the temper, with someone goading him continuously that not only did he not have a PhD, but that he was basically guilty of identity theft.

David Wolcott
Chris, I've known Hunt for many years. The last argument we had was him claiming that more people died under theism than atheism. Do you want to know what evidence he finally brought in to challenge the millions of people murdered under Stalin? One article about one woman being imprisoned in the Middle East.

That was the ONLY piece of evidence he brought into the entire argument.

His PhD is in applied mathematics, and he tried to argue that one is numerically greater than 20 million.

When he makes himself look like someone who has never taken algebra, don't complain when people question how he could have gotten any degree, let alone a PhD.

Taylor Ringelstein
David Wolcott I’ll just jump in in this. Yes Stalin killed a lot of people. But the majority of human history has been under theistic control. To claim one dictator has killed more than all theistic rulers is outrageous.

David Wolcott
It's not just outrageous, it's right....

Professor R.J. Rummel is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii and talks on how "free thinkers"/atheists have caused the most harm in all history of any ideology (doing the math from the research on his site shows that atheism has been involved in killing ~30 times more than all religions in all history, even counting ALL the most absurd and falsest ones, COMBINED).
----
Q: Haven’t established religions been the greatest killers?*
A: Most contemporary democide, far greater than any historical cases, has been by free thinkers, i.e., those who believe that the established religions are superstitions, and one should be scientific, objective, rational, etc. Communism is a case in point, where out of the 174,000,000 murder 1900 to 1999, about 110,000,000 were by communists, who are professed atheists.

Q: Do you feel that countries with a secular government generally have a better way of life compared to countries ruled by religion?
A: Historically, secular governments have also been very repressive and murderous. All communist and fascist governments (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc) have been secular, and also murderous. The worst of all such governments have been atheistic and communist, and murdered overall around 110,000,000 people in the 20th Century.

Democratic Peace Q&A
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/QA.V2.HTML


Now, Matthew made excuses that he doesn't have evidence for his counter claim, the same as yours, because the records were lost.

Can you find any evidence for the counter claim, Taylor? All you need is two people, and you'll have doubled the evidence that Hunt presented.

MR
Chris James Chris, Matt has to be used to being challenged after he pulls out his PhD and wields it like a great hammer in theological discussions. I have seen his PhD paper and I know he has those degrees, but like Dawkins, a science degree is kinda useless in theological discussions. However, it is a good idea to discuss theological matters without trying to be high and mighty with a science degree.

Chris James
MR.i agree that his qualifications aren't always relevant, and trust me, me and Hunt have had our run ins, he is is much more into scientism than I am. My point was that I thought his loss of temper was understandable, and if he got a ban for it, the person accusing him of not being who he said he was should also have got a ban. otherwise, it looks like Christians judging others by harsher standards, which is unchristian.

MR
Chris James true, true. But I think it's just a suspension.

David Wolcott
Chris, Matthew has no excuse. He has been pushing his irrational myths for years, and the longer he goes the less he contributes.

As I said at the beginning, he burned any bridge that patience would have given.

Not to mention the fact that his very presence is an act of grace, since he refuses to unblock myself, an admin.

MR
He does try our patience, for sure.

Chris James
David Wolcott. Mate, but that's the game. you think he's pushing a myth, he thinks you are. Otherwise there would be no point for this page, there wouldn't be a debate, it just would be a dawn chorus.

David Wolcott
Chris, Hunt actually believes that the number 1 is mathematically greater than the number 20,000,000.

That was why he blocked me.

George Zornes
David Wolcott how’s that supposed to work?

David Wolcott
George, I really have no idea. I would love for him to explain, but he can't without admitting he's wrong, for probably the first time in his life.

George Zornes
David Wolcott Sounds kinda like “I am my own grandpa” sort of equations.

David Wolcott
Kind of, yeah.

IX

David Wolcott
Daniel Quinones

Cathy Treat
Thank you David! <3

Paul Insana
Matthew, why not accommodate Hans-georg? Whats the harm? And allow us, on the sideline, to be illuminated.....

Matthew Hunt
If I indulged Hans, then it would give him the false impression that it's a valid alternative when it isn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt - that is supposing that my theory is mathematically coherent.

If it is not, you would be very easy off proving it.

Paul Insana
FYI Matthew.. God ever responds to the least of us, to the babes if you will, thereby lifting the whole of us...doesn’t your faith have this characteristic?

X

Sara Taylor


MR
Logic from the PhDs on Matt's page.



Hans-Georg Lundahl
ouch

David Wolcott
That doesn't surprise me at all that he fell for that.

*
David et 2 autres personnes gèrent les adhésions, les modérateurs, les paramètres et les publications sur The Biblical Worldview Defended!

**
It seems Mike'n Tabea Warrak blocked me? Since I don't see his comment.

mardi 20 mars 2018

Matthew Hunt Tries to Ban my Previous Post and Starts Explaining Michelson Morly


I
Hans-Georg Lundahl
shared on 17 mars, 17:33
Republishing in this group, as per my blog:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt thought Attacking Kent Hovind was a Way to Vindicate Hawking
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/03/matthew-hunt-thought-attacking-kent.html


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt

Matthew Hunt
Would you like a lawsuit?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think I gave my defense in the top section of the post.

Matthew Hunt
I do not give you permission to what I wrote here. Remove it Hans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think my post counts as fair journalism.

Matthew Hunt
I disagree. REMOVE IT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, I disagree very much with you.

And, obviously, no.

Matthew Hunt
Well of course you're a geocentrist. Someone who rejects science and replaces it theology.

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
Lawsuit it is then, hurrah

Lawsuit it is then, hurrah

Matthew Hunt
It shows an utter lack of integrity on your part Hans.

It shows an utter lack of integrity.

Alexander Wizner
Matthew Hunt, whether he is utilizing good journalism or not, is not everything you post on Facebook property of Facebook, and subject to reasonable use?

Matthew Hunt
I don't think so.

Mike Taube
What is fair use?

The fair use doctrine recognizes that rigid application of copyright laws in certain cases would be unfair or may inappropriately stifle creativity or stop people from creating original works, which would harm the public. So, the doctrine allows people to use someone else’s copyrighted work without permission in certain circumstances. Common examples include: criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

Fair use exists in certain countries, including the U.S. Other countries around the world use related laws, such as fair dealing, that allow the use of copyrighted works in certain instances.

Is your material copy righted?

Alexander Wizner
Obviously, this is an issue for a lawyer to help you, but journalists regularly target Facebook and other social networks to gain insight into their story subjects and even gain direct quotes, without the consent or with the indirect consent of the social networking poster. Facebook, for example, reserves the right in the disclaimer that we all agreed to to have complete use of our pictures posted on Facebook for corporate marketing ends.

Mike Taube, if fair use does not apply, then does Matthew have a claim of intellectual property, in this case, at all?

Mike Taube
I guess he might if it's copy righted

Hans-Georg Lundahl
New blog on the kid : Here is How Matthew Hunt Characterised the Michelson Morley Experiment
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2018/03/here-is-how-matthew-hunt-characterised.html


Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg, you seem fixated on me. An unhealthy fixation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sorry, but I am simply interested in the debate.

Matthew Hunt
Apology not accepted. There *is* no debate in regards to geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not apologise of anything except not being clear enough.

Yes, there is.

Debate is not a registered trade mark which the scientific community registered corporation gets to decide how it is used.

Also, whether or not keeping out a debate that "isn't there" is a licit endeavour, misrepresenting what Michelson-Morley was about is not a licit means, especially not for a PhD scientist.

(Who speaks of integrity)

Matthew Hunt
I did not misrepresent the Michaelson-Morley experiment. However your interpretation of it was flawed. This is most likely because you're a geocentrist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you read the post with your quote and my correction of that?

Matthew Hunt
I didn't read it. You need to understand where you are wrong. Let me offer you an olive branch, would you like to go through the experiment and the outcome?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'd like to hear your version of it, but as you actually used the phrase "enters a medium" and aether isn't exactly sth which light enters or exits, more like sth light never leaves, I am not sure I'd trust you.

Go ahead!

Are you writing a blog post about it so I know I can relax about that next half hour to hour?

Matthew Hunt
I will explain AGAIN why the early physicists conjectured the aether. Light was thought of as a waves for centuries. The current thought at the time was that waves needed a medium. For example sound waves require air, water waves require water obviously and you can also get waves in other areas. So it was natural to think about what the medium light moved in.

Do you understand so far?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt No problem, agree 100 % on that part of the background.

(By the way, disagreeing is not necessarily not understanding).

Oh, sound waves require air or water or solids. They are slowest in air.

Matthew Hunt
With geocentrists it's the same thing. In gernal I agree.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, next.

Michelson and Morley wanted to verify if Earth was passing through this medium, do you agree so far?

Matthew Hunt
I will set the scene. I don't want your poor physics to cloud things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thanks for the compliment, go ahead.

Matthew Hunt
I have stuff to do and will get back to this later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I will wait, enjoy the day!

(My time in the library ends at 19:45 approx)

[Still waiting, afternoon next day when copying this]

Matthew Hunt
I'll get back to this later.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
An experiment, yes I would love to. But only if I get to decide the assumptions.

Chick Tract : This was your Life
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp


Matthew Hunt
:laughs:

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Laugh, while you still can. Even if you live to 100, your life will seem like a puff of smoke in the wind, no matter what you accomplished in life. Without Jesus Christ, it was all for nothing.

Matthew Hunt
:laughs:

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt has a PHD. Hmmmm! I find that so hard to believe that I don't.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
I believe it. PHD = Post Hole Digger

Matthew Hunt
You can read my thesis online if you want Cathy.

Cathy Treat
Sure where is it?

Matthew Hunt
You can find it at the UCL thesis depository (you will have to Google that) or my website

Dr Mat Hunt | Applied Mathematician
hyperkahler.co.uk/


Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt Thank you. It will take a while to read it all considering the amount of time I have to spend AFK. And then I'm not sure you're the "Mat Hunt" that actually wrote it. One of the things i do when an atheist joins is to check their profile. Your's meets all of my criteria for a fake account. We'll see. :)

Matthew Hunt
You're the reason why I put my security settings on maximum.

Cathy Treat
Matthew Hunt I checked your profile before I ever commented on anything.

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
I didn’t give permission for my moustache comment to be published either come to think of it, good job I have a moustache myself or my planned atrocities wouldn’t be in keeping with the times

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
So.... Is it Matthew Hunt... or Mat Hunt? Or Dr. Mat Hunt? Or Dr. Matthew Hunt? Alumni search is having difficulty figuring you out. And.... is it UCL or U of Manchester? Or is it the "School of Mathematics"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt Kaspersky is applied Mathematics too?

Kaspersky
Endpoint Security 10 for Windows
Accès interdit
Impossible d'ouvrir la page Internet demandée.

L'objet demandé à l'adresse

http://hyperkahler.co.uk

contient des programmes légitimes pouvant être exploités par un individu mal intentionné afin de nuire à l'ordinateur ou aux données de l'utilisateur not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.Script.Generic

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Matthew Hunt, your laughter is inconsistent with your performance. Or, to simplify, why in blazes are you spending this much time on a Christian FB page?

(I call BS yet again).

So.... Is it Matthew Hunt... or Mat Hunt? Or Dr. Mat Hunt? Or Dr. Matthew Hunt? Alumni search is having difficulty figuring you out. And.... is it UCL or U of Manchester? Or is it the "School of Mathematics"?

Daniel Quinones*
Someone tell Mike'n Tabea Warrak to unblock me...blocking Admins is not permitted

Cathy Treat
Mike'n Tabea WarrakDaniel posted this. "Daniel QuinonesDaniel is an administrator in this group. Someone tell Mike'n Tabea Warrak to unblock me...blocking Admins is not permitted"

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Must I, really? He is soooo annoying and illogical.

Cathy Treat
Mike'n Tabea Warrak I think you must. It's in the original rules of the group.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Rats. Ok, but I'm so tired right now. I'll do it first thing in the morning...

Cathy Treat
Mike'n Tabea Warrak I'll pass it on! :) Have a restful night! :)

Daniel Quinones, Mike says he'll do it first thing in the morning. He's tired. I guess he's calling it a night. I"m about ready to do that too. Don't know why I'm so tired today!

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
(sigh)... ok, ok, I do it. (grimace).... aaahhheeeeeeeeyyaaaa! Ugh! Ok, done. I hope I don't regret this.... 😫😫😫😫😫

Daniel Quinones
Too Late.

Cathy Treat
Daniel Quinones I think he unblocked you already.

Daniel Quinones
I know...I can can see his name in blue now.

Cathy Treat
Daniel Quinones OK

II
Matthew Hunt
[see previous]
Do I treat you as an imbecile? Yes, you're a geocentrist. I think that these are only slightly more intelligent than flat Earthers. Get used to it.

The medium of light was thought to be the aether, that's why it was invented, to explain how light waves travelled.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt thought Attacking Kent Hovind was a Way to Vindicate Hawking
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/03/matthew-hunt-thought-attacking-kent.html


Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not give you permission to use my name in your writing. Please take it down immediately.

Joshua Paul
What are you afraid of?

Matthew Hunt
Daniel Quinones, you need to respond to Hans-Georg Lundahl regarding his use of stuff in this group for a blog.

Joshua Paul
"As he has a PhD, I will not annonymize him"

Read.

Matthew Hunt
Hans-Georg Lundahl, take it down immediately.

Daniel Quinones*
Matthew Hunt.... Let me get some clarification on this. Are you claiming that someone is using your name in a blog without your permission and that constitutes some violation of your personal rights?

Matthew Hunt
Yes.

I think Hans-Georg Lundahl is too arrogant to take the blog down on his own volition. He needs some prompting.

Daniel Quinones
Why come to me on something that is not part of THIS fb group?

Matthew Hunt
He took stuff which was in THIS group.

Don't you have a rule about this???

Daniel Quinones
I have a rule about posting what is in this group in other fb groups....what someone posts in their personal blog is outside this domain.

Matthew Hunt
So why does it have to be facebook? They're doing the same thing.

Daniel Quinones
Sorry...but this really outside what I consider to be part of fb.

I cannot punish people in my fb group for commenting in other venues...can I?

Matthew Hunt
But you can ban them from this group. I will accept an apology from Hans-Georg Lundahl and a removal of his blog post.

Daniel Quinones
However if you want to post something about someone from your personal blog ...then be my guest.

Matthew Hunt
So I see this as double standards on your part.

Daniel Quinones
I do and have banned people if they post comments in THIS group to OTHER fb groups...but not if they post it to their blog outside fb.

Matthew Hunt
There is no real difference. The principle here is that he took something from this group and posted it elsewhere. It doesn't really matter if it was or wasn't on facebook.

Daniel Quinones
I have no control or authority to punish people in my group for what they post outside fb...the only reason I make an exception to other fb groups is because such use does not allow someone to respond in defense and is subject to out of context quotations.

Matthew Hunt
You have control of whether they're actually in your group.

Daniel Quinones
Yes...if they obey the rules of the group, I have no problem...but let me ask you a question...if someone quoted you from this group in a newspaper would you claim they should be banned?

Matthew Hunt
Yes. Look at the settings you have for the group. It's secret is it not?

Daniel Quinones
No...it is closed not secret

Matthew Hunt
It says secret on my screen.

Daniel Quinones
That is incorrect...under settings and privacy....it is labled "closed"

Matthew Hunt
So to sum up. You're not going to do anything.

Daniel Quinones
Under the rules outlined already and without changing the rules that have been enforced already, there is nothing I can do.

Matthew Hunt
You can ban him from the group. That's something you can do.

Daniel Quinones
Since when do you want to silence the opposition? Men of science should embrace contrary opinions and viewpoints, it is the basis for discovering the truth.

Matthew Hunt
This isn't about silencing the opposition. It's about taking what I said without permission.

Daniel Quinones
I will protect your privacy IN fb among fb users...I cannot do the same outside this forum...such information is accessible by authorities under current law.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt "I do not give you permission to use my name in your writing."

You might have a case about your words, but about your name, no way.

Matthew Hunt
In EVERYTHING. REMOVE IT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt "The principle here is that he took something from this group and posted it elsewhere. It doesn't really matter if it was or wasn't on facebook."

I think it does.

If I had posted in another FB group, it could be a closed one and we could be laughing at you behind closed doors.

You could be learning about it from second or third hand while your name had been abused behind your back during weeks.

I for my part went PUBLIC.

My blog is my own PUBLICATION.

You have a right to respond, of course.

"In EVERYTHING."

You think you own the world due to your status as a scientist, or what?

John Michael Holland
Isn’t this the guy that thinks angels are responsible for moving the stars and planets

Matthew Hunt
You are a geocentrist Hans, everyone laughs at you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Michael Holland Yes, along with St Thomas Aquinas, with Nicolas of Cusa and with the famous astronomer Riccioli.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt I've seen some laugh at your lame responses.

Matthew Hunt
Lame in your eyes but then again, you're a geocentrist and therefore not really important. Goddidit is never a rational response to anyting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except it is the only rational explanation for the whole show.

Democritus can't explain mind and therefore not validity of reason.

Matthew Hunt
God of the gaps...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Human mind is a gap which has not been resolved through more than two millennia on materialistic terms.

Matthew Hunt
God of the gaps.

John Michael Holland
Hans-Georg Lundahl , I shoot long distance. 1000M +. Coriolis effect is real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Michael Holland I did not deny Coriolis.

Matthew Hunt
That's one of the problems for a geocentrist as they assert that the Earth is stationary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not a real problem, if aether is turning around the Earth and is more than just luminiferous.

Matthew Hunt
It's a real problem. You should understand this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If aether, apart from being luminiferous is also the medium of space, and it moves, Coriolis is no problem for Geocentrism.

Matthew Hunt
It's a serious propblem. You don't seem to understand that it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You don't seem to understand the words in my proposed solution.

Tom Wolf - where is your offer for his remediary in reading comprehension?

Matthew Hunt
Or that I understand the physics better than you to know that your "solution" doesn't work.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, why does it *not* work?

Matthew Hunt
The coriolis force is to do with the actual motion of the planet and not anything else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If Earth were surrounded by absolute void, no light, no electromagnetism, no gravitation, you would have a point.

If aether is responsible for these things, an aether can also be the medium of space or of place and therefore add a Coriolis effect.

Here is an older debate I had on that:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html


Matthew Hunt
All I see is assertion and no calculations to back it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have not had time to read the six posts.

Also, principles come before mathematical calculations.

Update:
Hans Georg Lundahl
[Links to this blogpost.]

Matthew Hunt
I haven't read them. I want YOU to explain to me. So far all you offer is assertion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, if you haven't read them, you don't know how I defend my theory with any kind of (geometric) calculation when needed.

I want you to read my previous work before criticising it.

Matthew Hunt
If you're not going to explain it then there's not much point in going on.

John Michael Holland
Geocentric maths?

Where’s rick Delano?

Matthew Hunt
He blocked me a long time ago. I pointed out that he was flat out lying about a paper he was citing. He and Robert Sungenis are scared of me...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt, as you have told your view of Sungenis, here is a "conversation" involving his on you:

Me to Sungenis:
Good day and feast of St Joseph (or memory of St Joseph if First Passion week primes over St Joseph)!

Have you interacted with one Matthew Hunt of University College of London?

He claimed so on one of the subthreads: [link to our first]

Sungenis to me:
Yes, we’ve gone at it on occasion. My conclusion is that Matt is an ideologue who simply won’t accept evidence against his beliefs.

Me to Sungenis:
I have some indication you may be right

Matthew Hunt
Describes Sungenis to a t. I am open to new data but unfortunately there is none for geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Michael Holland I don't know where Rick DeLano is, he is on my blocklist since a few years and perhaps not in this group (not sure if I unblocked him since).

This due to the fact that he not only wants mathematical implications to be able to falsify science claims if they have such, but that absence of cited mathematic implications and whether they falsify a claim or not would also damn a claim.

This is in my view his being a modern science ideologue.

Here is from back then:

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation + Small Universe (is "Parallax" Really Parallactic?)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2014/05/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation.html


Matthew Hunt
Much of the cranks like Sungenis think that people like me are just closed minded but we aren't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" I am open to new data"

What about reevaluation of old data along older lines?

Matthew Hunt "If you're not going to explain it then there's not much point in going on."

I did very much explain it in great detail in the debate with Tom Trinko, so, if you won't read that explanation, it seems you are more interested in nagging than in knowing how I explain things.

Matthew Hunt
The data we've had in the past has been analysed correctly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is exactly what I contest.

Matthew Hunt
I think it's more of a case that you don't understand what has been done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think you have shown a clear propensity for repeating that more than showing that.

Matthew Hunt
Again, you want to believe and have a pre-existing conclusion you want to push.

Did Sungenis tell you I pointed out a problem with his "theory" of gravity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt - do you recall that I told you I actually think more of his analysis of Michelson Morely than of his analysis of gravity?

"you want to believe and have a pre-existing conclusion you want to push."

Exactly how I analyse your attitude to science belief.

Now, you can go on pretending to block out my arguments to when I change attitude to your satisfaction OR we can go on to ignore attitudes and that problem and the other's person AND start dealing with arguments.

So far, arguments are what you have avoided, preferring ad hominems.

Matthew Hunt
I've not done any ad hominems, you have though. You've not really engaged and aren't interested in doing some proper science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BY proper science you mean, consistently to follow your instructions on how to interpret things and ignoring any line of thought that you haven't thought of in advance.

You gave one sentence about Michelson Morley, I agreed.

I proposed the next, you avoided answering.

Possibly because you are WRONG on the historic facts.

If people under your dating thread cannot know whether you do science properly without having read your previous work, I reserve the same dignity for me too.

Matthew Hunt
Data is never interpreted but analysed. That's a common mistake people make.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mathematical analysis is only part of interpretation. Not considering that is a common mistake science believers make, especially if also scientists.

Next question?

Matthew Hunt
You're incorrect I'm afraid.

"Not considering that is a common mistake science believers make"

I find this statement to be particularly amusing. It is often trotted out by creationists and the like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Which would include me, enjoy the laugh.

John Michael Holland
Some folks are happy being conspiracy theorists.**

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where was the conspiracy theory?

When you say St Robert Bellarmine was wrong on astronomy, are you attributing a conspiracy to him?

Or are you saying he was right on astronomy?

John Michael Holland
Bellarmine didn’t know about gravitational waves

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When you say "waves" do you admit there is a medium?

When you say "gravitational" do you admit that is a proposed agency but not proven to be the sole one?

Waiting
and after a while:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Michael Holland, don't forget to say hello to Bill Ludlow from me!

[link here]

Matthew Hunt
It's shows an incredible Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt, while speaking of conspiracies, could the promotion of that "diagnosis" be a conspiracy to avoid serious debate?

Hmmm?

Matthew Hunt
19th century physics assumed all waves required a medium. Light seemed to be the exception to the rule, hence invention of the aether.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, what if both light and gravitation are no exceptions (not sure of the arguments for gravitation being waves, for light I have seen a two light source experiment parallelling waves in a pond).

What if furthermore vectors in the ordinary sense of physics also have aether as a medium (that being a necessary part of my response to Coriolis and to Geostationary Satellites, see debate with Tom Trinko)?

Meaning, if aether moves wholesale, vectors, light and gravitation move with it.

Matthew Hunt
General relativity has wave solutions for small perturbations of the metric away from the Minkowski metric.

Vectors are mathematical objects and require an origin to make sense of, so your argument makes no sense from a mathematical sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"General relativity has wave solutions for small perturbations of the metric away from the Minkowski metric."

OK, that is over my head.

"Vectors are mathematical objects and require an origin to make sense of, so your argument makes no sense from a mathematical sense."

It does. Each has an origin within the aether and each works within the aether. Therefore, if aether displaces, vectors displace.

A little everyday illustration.

On your view, when I hold a soccer ball (I won't take a pen, I don't like dropping pens), it is in fast motion - along with me, air and Earth surface - eastward. The mathematical implication would be, the object has a vector eastward - and it equals (as to speed component) the vector eastward of the ground below it, or very nearly, down to very minute decimals. Therefore, if I drop the soccer ball, it will have a travectory mainly eastward and so will the soil, which will even out as a travectory purely down.

On my view, I, the ball, the ground below me are all still - but aether is moving westward. I will have a vector eastward through the aether, equal in speed to the aether's movement westward. So will the soil and so will the soccer ball.

As aether is speedily moving westward, the soccer ball would normally fall very much faster to the west than down, but this is counteracted by the eastward vector through the aether. This evens out, so the soccer ball falls straight down.

Matthew Hunt "General relativity has wave solutions for small perturbations of the metric away from the Minkowski metric."

Wait, is that your solution for wave properties of light as observed?

Matthew Hunt
Light comes from Maxwell's equations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You might mean light metaphorically, but if you mean it literally, the thing is, Maxwell's equations are a law, not an agency, or a proposed law and still not an agency.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : John Lennox on Stephen Hawking (I comment on about first half)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/john-lennox-on-stephen-hawking-i.html


Matthew Hunt
Maxwell's equations describe light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes. That I will believe you on.

What in them makes you think the aether is not necessary?

Matthew Hunt
Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know what the Lorentz invariance is.

How exactly would it imply aether is not necessary?

Matthew Hunt
It implies that the speed of light holds the same numerical value in any inertial reference frame.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, but what if the aether is not inertial, or what if it applies to speed of light through aether but not to concrete speed of light when in an aether wind?

Also, what are the empiric raw data on which the equations build that invariance?

Matthew Hunt
Concrete speed of light???

There has been work done by Michael Faraday, Gauss, Ampere and others who did the experiments to build the theory of electromagnetism. Lorentz invariance is a result of saying the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Concrete speed of light???"

Yes, compounding vectorial through aether with movement of aether.

"There has been work done by Michael Faraday, Gauss, Ampere and others who did the experiments to build the theory of electromagnetism."

I did not ask who, I did not ask how much, I did ask what raw data.

"Lorentz invariance is a result of saying the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames."

Which would presuppose there are different ones, right?

I think, by the way, Sungenis et al. may have used that one to vindicate possibility of Geocentrism, since it would also hold for the "inertial frame" (on our view the right one) where Earth is not moving against the big picture of the rest.

But, in fact, the thing you now assume is not so much a raw datum as an idea through which raw data are interpreted.

Matthew Hunt
The raw data? You can get that from pretty much any undergraduate lab course in physics which are done years in and out.

No it wouldn't presuppose any different laws of physics, it's just states at the very basic level that the laws of physics are the same wherever you go in the universe. If you assume galilean incariance then you obtain effects which aren't seen in the lab. Sungenis doesn't understand this, neither does Rick DeLano.

Raw data isn't interpreted, it's analysed mathematically.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You can get that from pretty much any undergraduate lab course in physics which are done years in and out."

I am not signing up.

Since you are (on your own words) through that course, you can paraphrase it.

"No it wouldn't presuppose any different laws of physics"

You misinterpreted what I meant.

I meant, you think there are different inertial frames, right?

" If you assume galilean incariance then you obtain effects which aren't seen in the lab."

Incariance? Or invariance?

And whichever, which ones?

"Raw data isn't interpreted, it's analysed mathematically."

That is what you like to think, but as already said, any particular mathematical analysis already presupposes an interpretation.

Matthew Hunt
What do you think you can get from the "raw data" of experiments? One can see that we have many things which rely on Maxwell's equations being correct, like radio, electronics, electricity and other things. So I am unsure why you think the raw data is important.

One inertial frame is exactly the same as any other inertial frame.

Invariance, it was a typo.

Regarding interpretation. You are wrong. Data analysis must be carried out to obtain trends in the data. Those trends are used to make unique conclusions. You can't really do anything else if you're honest about it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What do you think you can get from the "raw data" of experiments?"

My proposition : while light has a constant speed through aether (the one you call "through vacuum"), it can both speed up and slow down in relation to an observer according to how it moves with the aether as aether moves (or as observer moves through aether).

Your proposition : no. We have experiments excluding this.

My point is, what is the exact raw data of the experiments that argue otherwise?

Note very well, you can't take the result of Michelson Morely, since that is the precise experiment where we differ on how to interpret raw data, the lack of difference in light from either side.

"One can see that we have many things which rely on Maxwell's equations being correct, like radio, electronics, electricity and other things."

The equations are certainly correct from some side, this being the side or sides relevant for radio, electronics, electricity ...

"So I am unsure why you think the raw data is important."

Because "radio functions" doesn't translate as "aether doesn't exist". And "TV functions" doesn't translate as "aether wind would involve no change of light speed in relation to observer, if and insofar as there was one".

"One inertial frame is exactly the same as any other inertial frame."

In other words, "your universe" counts on an absolute relativity of inertial frames?

"Data analysis must be carried out to obtain trends in the data."

That much I agree on.

"Those trends are used to make unique conclusions."

Some such, yes. Like I did with rising carbon 14 levels and reached conclusion that IF remnants from Flood date as 40 000 BP and Flood was c. 5000 years ago, THEN carbon 14 levels rising MUST have involved carbon 14 being produced in atmosphere several times faster (and perhaps record fast, 11 times faster between beginning and end of Babel event, unless that is a lag between rise of total carbon 14 somewhere and its showing in organic remains).

But while some unique conclusions depend on mathematical analyses, in other cases the choice of mathematical tools depends on interpretation (I would not have bothered analysing a carbon 14 rise, if I didn't think that was what happened).

"You can't really do anything else if you're honest about it."

Definitely, yes, we can, namely, logic being prior to mathematics.

(I don't think Obama can copy right that phrase!)

Matthew Hunt
I'm actually confused at what you're asking. The speed of light remains the same numerical value in all inertial frames. This is not up for question. There is no different interpretations to this result.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt Have you heard of Sagnac?

Sungenis is heavily promoting the Sagnac experiment.

Matthew Hunt
Sagnac doesn't actually do what he thinks it does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You claim that, now you argue that.

Matthew Hunt
No. You argue why it shows that special relativity is wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am actually not concerned why it shows "special relativity" wrong.

I am concerned with far more precise propositions, like, how Sagnac and Michelson Morly between them argue Earth doesn't move.

"Ein Sagnac-Interferometer ist ein Interferometer, das es ermöglicht, Rotationen absolut zu messen. Das heißt, ein Beobachter ist in der Lage, anhand dieser Anordnung zu bestimmen, ob er sich in Rotation befindet oder nicht."

"Das steht nicht im Widerspruch zum Relativitätsprinzip. Dieses besagt nur die Unmöglichkeit der Bestimmung der gleichförmig translatorischen Eigenbewegung des Beobachters, sofern die dazu benutzte Experimentalanordnung als Ganzes im selben Inertialsystem ruht wie der Beobachter. Die bekannteste Bestätigung dieser Auffassung ist das Michelson-Morley-Experiment, mit dem die gleichförmig translatorische Eigenbewegung der Erde „absolut“ gemessen werden sollte, das jedoch ein negatives Resultat erbrachte. Gleichförmig translatorische Bewegung ist also relativ."

"Bei Drehbewegungen ist dies jedoch anders. Rotationen gegenüber einem Inertialsystem können auch mit einer geschlossenen Experimentalanordnung absolut gemessen werden, denn es ist nicht möglich, ein Inertialsystem zu definieren, in dem sich die gesamte Experimentalanordnung in Ruhe befindet."

Die Wikipädie : Sagnac-Interferometer
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac-Interferometer


According to German wiki, the interferometer makes it possible to measure rotations absolutely.

This is supposed not to interefere with the "principle of relativity" according to which it is impossible to detect a non-accelerating proper movement of the beholder, if the experimental apparatus used for this AS A WHOLE is resting in the same inertial system as the beholder. The best known confirmation of this is the Michelson-Morley experiment, with which the non-accelerating proper movement of Earth was going to be measured absolutely, which gave a negative result.

Hence, non-accelerating movement is relative, but with rotational movement this is different, rotations against an inertial system can also be made by closed experimental apparatus, since it is not possible to define an inertial system in which the total apparatus is at rest.

Well, here is the thing.

With a luminiferous aether, the total apparatus would not have been at rest in Michelson Morley if Earth had been moving.

So, the alternatives are:

  • there is no luminiferous aether
  • Earth is at rest - and the luminiferous aether only shows rotational disruption : which luminiferous aether existing is a good way of seeing Sagnac. Intuitively.


As you already know, I don't do "sola mathematica" any more than we Catholics do "sola scriptura".

Matthew Hunt
There are many lines of evidence which are brought into play regarding the motion of the Earth. One of which is gravity. We don't just rely on one piece of evidence. However those pieces of evidence must be consistent with Earth other.

[Notice how he shifts away from Michelson Morley, Sagnac, aether ... suddenly I am no longer obviously to be corrected on those ones, but the problem is my ignoring other evidence. And I have even some more from German wiki before responding to this.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Michelson und Gale erkannten bereits selbst korrekt, dass ihr Experiment keine Aussage über die Existenz des Äthers macht. Es lässt sich sowohl mit der Relativitätstheorie als auch mit einem ruhenden Äther erklären. Das Michelson-Gale-Experiment ist aber insofern von großer Bedeutung, als es allen Versuchen, das negative Ergebnis des Michelson-Morley-Experiments durch eine Mitführung des Äthers zu erklären, den Boden entzieht. Es erscheint nämlich widersinnig, dass bei Translation (Michelson-Morley-Versuch) volle Mitführung des Äthers durch die Erde stattfindet, bei Rotation (Michelson-Gale-Versuch) hingegen der Äther relativ zu den Fixsternen ruht."

Michelson and Gale realised correctly themslves, that their experiment made no predication about the existence of the aether. It can be explained both with theory of relativity and with inert aether. The Michelson-Gale Experiment is however of great importance, in the measure that it forbids any explanation of Michelson Morley by convection of aether, since it is absurd to imagine that by non-accelerating movement (Michelson Morley) the aether is fully convected by Earth, while by rotation (Michelson-Gale), the aether seems to rest relative to the fix stars.

What is however not absurd is, aether and fix stars do rotate at same angular speed (different linear velocities at different heights, obviously) and this explains Michelson Gale, while they do not move with the Sun and therefore there is no transvection of it to be detected in Michelson Morley.

Presence of aether = Earth is still. Rotation being that of Earth in the Universe or of visible parts of Universe around Earth being the two options, but either way, no transvection.

"There are many lines of evidence which are brought into play regarding the motion of the Earth. One of which is gravity. We don't just rely on one piece of evidence. However those pieces of evidence must be consistent with Earth other."

And intuitive making sense of aether is one of the pieces of evidence, while I think these other pieces of evidence have all been accounted for by Geocentric responses.

Matthew Hunt
I don't speak German.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I translated every relevant bit.

You did click "see more"?***

III
Daniel Quinones
Admin * · 20 mars, 20:16
Debate challenge for Matthew Hunt...on the subject of Young Earth Creationism...post your opening statement if you accept.

Tim Eakins
🦗 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

Daniel Quinones
Well it appears Matthew Hunt has declined my friendly invitation...I shall console myself as best I can.

Yooxaya Tangi
I suspect it might be because you are sarcastic, rude, arrogant and ignorant of the topic you wish to discuss?

David Wolcott *
Liking your own comment isn't a good way to demonstrate your ability to judge character and conduct, Yooxaya.

Yooxaya Tangi
I doubt there is a real Matthew Hunt- Creationism too often encroaches into the realm of science untested always by anything resembling the scientific method

Paul Insana
Matthew doesnt sound like a YEC to me...Why would you issue this challenge to him? Honest question...

Daniel Quinones
Yooxaya Tangi...What appears to you to be my many faults, I consider to be my personally misunderstood strengths...but everyone is entitled to their opinion,

Nevertheless you can prove your claim that I am " ignorant of the topic (I) wish to discuss" simply by taking up the challenge that Matthew Hunt has declined to accept!

I have to tell you though that I don't think you will...I find that people like you who are quick to throw insults are the LAST to prove their claims...I hope I have misjudged you and that you will accept the challenge I have so generously offered to you to prove me wrong. Should you offer what I expect will be a cravenly worded refusal, I will be greatly disappointed.

Matthew Hunt
I am currently working on a talk which I will present next week at a conference. I simply don't have the time.

Daniel Quinones
Well I see Yooxya Tangi has left the building!...No surprise. It did not take much of a prophet to see that coming but I was hoping for more...did I call it or what?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Meanwhile, he did make two opening statements previously leading to four of my blog posts - enjoy:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt thought Attacking Kent Hovind was a Way to Vindicate Hawking
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-thought-attacking-kent.html


New blog on the kid : Here is How Matthew Hunt Characterised the Michelson Morley Experiment
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2018/03/here-is-how-matthew-hunt-characterised.html


HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-defending-carbon-and.html


HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Tries to Ban my Previous Post and Starts Explaining Michelson Morly
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-tries-to-ban-my-previous.html


Matthew Hunt
:laugh:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Enjoy, you seem to need it!

Tim Eakins
You seem to have plenty of time to engage here.

IV
Hans-Georg Lundahl
shared a link
20 mars, 17:10
HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Tries to Ban my Previous Post and Starts Explaining Michelson Morly
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-tries-to-ban-my-previous.html


(or two:)
HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-defending-carbon-and.html


(and tagged)
Matthew Hunt, Daniel Quinones* ...

Matthew Hunt
:laugh:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Glad you like it! Enjoy!

* (footnotes)
* Daniel and 2 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for The Biblical Worldview Defended!, David et 2 autres personnes gèrent les adhésions, les modérateurs, les paramètres et les publications sur The Biblical Worldview Defended!

** I wondered how John Michael Holland (his profile has a slightly different name in its URL) knew about me believing in Angelic movers. Not from Hunt, since I hadn't mentioned it to him.

If we study his bias and his friendship with Bill Ludlow, it is nothing to be conspirational about, just plain routine:





Of Ludlow, see more here:

HGL's F.B. writings : Assumptions involved in Carbon dating
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/06/assumptions-involved-in-carbon-dating.html

And here:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind / Bill Ludlow debate, first half
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/07/on-kent-hovind-bill-ludlow-debate-first.html


Should auld acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind ...

Found Steve MacRae too:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... debating Steve McRae on Dating
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/07/debating-steve-mcrae-on-dating.html


*** A common source for miscommunication in FB debates is the Seymore syndrome, or with better orthography, the "See More" syndrome : failing to click "see more".