Matthew Hunt thought Attacking Kent Hovind was a Way to Vindicate Hawking

If anyone thinks I should ask Matthew Hunt before republishing his part of a debate, I think a man who can say people with strong religious convictions are dangerous for society, who has a PhD, who argues badly, needs exposure. If he thinks he argued well, well then he can't really mind being exposed, can he?

Also, when I was a "science" believer, in late 70's in my early school years, I was told anyone can ask a scientist a question, there was an openness about the scientific community. I think someone willing to state "my explanation is as precise as it needs to be when talking to someone who isn't a scientist," has just debunked this supposed respect for amateurs.



Checking the Rule, since I got thrown out of another closed group because of reposting - not "in another group" and not of deleted material, but simply without admission of the person.



Check rule 5 - material not deleted. Check rule 8 - whether I get or don't get Matthew Hunt's permission, this reposting is on a blog, not in another group.

As he has a PhD, I will not anonymise him.

A

SJR

I see nobody salivating over his death. That's sick and twisted for you to even think and just shows exactly where your heart is.

Just another athiest using this as a time to express how much they hate CHRIST and Christians.

Matthew Hunt

It was in a message by Tom Wolf about Hawking going to Hell. This I have experienced many times when a famous person who happens to be an atheist dies.

Tom Wolf

Matthew Hunt
The fact that you are willing to outright lie is a strong indicator of your spiritual state.

Copy and paste where I stated anything about Hawking and Hell. I will give you eternity to reply as that task will be impossible to complete.

Matthew Hunt

Tom, why do you think I lied?

Tom Wolf

Matthew Hunt
You lied about my posting as you know and knew as you did it.

//Copy and paste where I stated anything about Hawking and Hell.//

Matthew Hunt

This was the sentence:

Mr Hawking fate is now established as decreed by God. God's judgement is all so I will not assume.

Tom Wolf

Matthew Hunt

Thank you. As anyone who can read will see there is no mention of Hell. All mankind will face judgment.

I stated, ""I will not assume"

I also explained this to you in that post (see Attachment).

I used to work in the education system. I can recommend a remedial reading course if you need assistance with comprehension.

Attachment

Matthew Hunt

Tom, I read between the lines. I pity the students who you taught.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt for my part I'd pity the students you are teaching if any.

And you claim you have an "accredited PhD" ... so much for the value of those!

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My initial answer

OK, first of all, I was not salivating over Hawkin's death very much (I was wondering a bit if he and his had been involved in campaigns to keep my blogs "a secret" rather then the publications they are). I did once try to get through to him, via his surroundings.

Second, you are strawmanning creationism.

Kent Hovind doesn't believe he knows biology better than the Evolutionist biologists. He believes he can correct them on one specific point or a specific number of points, where they have been misled by ideology.

How he started his phd in Education (while he was a science teacher, his phd was in education, not science) says something about his style (perhaps an appropriate one in classrooms) but nothing about his arguments being either good or bad. That was a third one.

Subthreads

so to speak, are here numbered I, II, III

I

Matthew Hunt

*HawkinG.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, I was thinking of Sam Hawkins, a person I like better even if he's fictional.

II

Matthew Hunt

Hovind has no accredited PhD.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did I call his phd "accredited"?

Obviously his university accredited his phd, but they are not accredited for doing so, and that is what you mean by his phd not being accredited, but I didn't call it accredited.

Matthew Hunt

I could print off a generic look PhD certificate and would be as "qualified" as Hovind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, he did not print out his PhD certificate and sign it with his own stamp.

If you want to play equal, here is how you do it, you get a few guys together to start a university, ideally one of the guys already has a PhD, Dr Med, D D (not your style, I know), Iur Dr or sth and then you start studying, then writing theses and then evaluating theses.

Ordinary universities of Europe started out like that.

Matthew Hunt

I have an accredited PhD. You assertion that the hut is a university is just "starting out" is frankly laughable. Nowadays if a university wants to start it normally has to get accreditation for it's degree programs from more well established universities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Key word : normally.

That involves universities in the same tradition.

Your is one which by now is in a secular tradition, I presume.

This means it would not have accredited Patriot University. Hence their initiative of starting out without accreditation.

Your PhD is in what subject?

And, excuse me again, isn't your PhD from a University of UK, where these things are more regulated by law than in US?

And, as per previous comments on thread, isn't your college one where you were taught that aggravating allegations about someone else can be verified by reading between the lines?

Matthew Hunt

My PhD is in mathematical physics.

My PhD was from University College London which was the first proper secular university in the UK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Was ...

OK, that clarifies some ...

"Established in 1826 as London University by founders inspired by the radical ideas of Jeremy Bentham, UCL was the first university institution to be established in London, and the first in England to be entirely secular and to admit students regardless of their religion."

Was it accredited by Oxford or Cambridge?

Matthew Hunt

Probably, there are other universities which are older that UCL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"In 1836 UCL became one of the two founding colleges of the University of London, which was granted a royal charter in the same year."

Doesn't mention any process of accreditation, though.

Also, a royal charter is a total no no and a papal charter at least a bit iffy in US.

Chris James

Hans-Georg Lundahl. UCL is currently the 7th most prestigious university in the world. Hovind would struggle to get a job cleaning its corridors:

View The QS World University Rankings® 2018
http://www.qs.com/world-university-rankings-2018/

Matthew Hunt

Plus it looks like I'll be getting a postdoc there soon...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris James, Matthew Hunt - I said nothing in doubt of that.

I mentioned that when it began, it began with a Royal Charter. In US, you don't do Royal Charter.

I asked whether UCL was accredited by Oxford or Cambridge and I got no answer.

Obviously, UCL was a real university (as real as a university gets with no Theologia Regina Scientiarum of the Catholic type) before it was renowned.

The question is not at all whether UCL is more renowned than Patriot university. The question is if UCL is a "more real" university. You claimed Patriot University is less real, because of the lack of accreditation.

You also claimed that accreditation was not really a thing with the first universities of the West, but now it is necessary.

My point is, when did it become so?

I guess this new "requirement" for a real university is not just later than 1150 AD when Paris University was founded, but even later than 1836 when UCL got its Royal Charter.

That being my whole and wholly adequate point. You are pointing finger at Patriot University for a requirement which your own university - at least Matthew Hunt's - does not fulfil.

Actually, perhaps a Royal Charter is not a total no no for a university in the US, some were founded before the War of Independence.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt, you called me out on misspelling your intro and on a somewhat spoof reply to my third, but how about my second ...?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

an hour later

Matthew Hunt, just to refresh your memory a bit:

Second, you are strawmanning creationism.

Kent Hovind doesn't believe he knows biology better than the Evolutionist biologists. He believes he can correct them on one specific point or a specific number of points, where they have been misled by ideology.

Answered twice

α and β

α

Matthew Hunt

Thus supposing knowing more than evolutionary biologists

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not overall, but on a particular issue.

It is a glaring lack of logic stringency to glide between "simpliciter" and "secundum quid".

Sara Taylor

I'm just curious.. Hans-Georg Lundahl, what is the issue your speaking of? Cause I don't understand a word you said lol. In laman terms can you describe the particular issue that the creation biologist knows more about or debates? I'm very curious...I would like to research the subject to see which way I will go with this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, I am even just amateur in creation biology, here is my own contribution, I was just calling out Tony Reed on it:

Mammalian Karyograms:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Evolution of Mammals
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/03/on-evolution-of-mammals.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, the thing is, believing x can correct sn on a particular issue (know better secundum quid) is sth other than believing x can correct sn on all their field (know better simpliciter).

Simpliciter and secundum quid are terms in logic, not in biology. I was noting Matthew Hunt's bad logic, not any particular issue, as he himself didn't take one up.

Sara Taylor

Gotcha...and thank you for your help. I look forward to checking this out.

Matthew Hunt

I'm afraid you're still wrong Hans, not even in specific issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, as you are into maths, Matthew Hunt, how about studying the geometry of a chromosome?

The half you get from one parent - whether you call that half one chromosome or the whole set a chromosome and the half a chromatid - has a very specific shape.

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Exactly one human chromosome has this shape:

Telomere. Genes. Centromere.

It's the chromosome women don't have and, while an X can be viable on its own without either another X or a Y, a Y is not viable on its own.

So, the centromere is where the half from your dad and the half from your mum keep together.

No one is saying that scientists from outer space just came and added extra chromosome pairs to change animals.

And reducing chromosomes is no problem, you have a telomere on the telomere of another chromosome and they form a new centromere and the old centromeres are deactivated and even reduced.

The problem is the other way round.

P Z Myers has proposed this solution:

1) a doubling event.

This would reform one chromosome from

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.
to
Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

2) a breaking event.

Here he is not clear which of the following he imagines as ensuing:

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Sorry, resuming :

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Centromere. + Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

First centromere around break refunctions as telomere, second centromere is both.

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. + Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Here all meres keep the functions, but both new chromosomes have Genes not protected by a mere.

You see this in cancer.

The result you would like to get is this:

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere. + Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Can you use your geometry skills to help PZ Myers out?

Matthew Hunt

Why do you believe yourself to be correct?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Check the geometry.

P Z Myers made diagrams where he left out the telomeres, as if they weren't important to the issue.

You are a math specialist, you said, check the geometry!

β

Chris James

Ah yes. Just about every evolutionary biologist on earth is wrong and Hovind is right, concerning the evolutionary paradigm. Just about every geologist on earth is wrong about the age of the earth, but Hovind is right. Ok.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, Kent Hovind has Geologists on his side too.

There are mathematical problems with the dating methods, like if the presumption (as stated by AronRa) "all the lead we have used to be uranium" (and thorium too, some of it, I presume) is wrong, that puts one big hole in one of the issues.

Geological dating isn't like geological lithography.

Evolutionary biology isn't like simple biology.

Precisely as astrology and astrophysics neither of them are planar astronomy.

Sara Taylor

Chris James if Hovind is correct your statement is as well. You have geologists on both sides of this, creationists verses evolutionists. Hovind is by no means the only person in the field who believes the way he does. You realize there's more creationists then evolutionists. Even the scientific method was made by a Christian and the mri as well. You ever notice that evolutionists think they are their own God? They know it all? They get angry if u mention God? Wonder why? Why be angry at something that doesn't exist? Because if it does then it means what else exists? Even Hawkins believed their was a higher power but we're finite so we're not looked upon. Darwin came out as well saying yup there's a God. Einstein? Yup....he believed in life after death. The bible is a theology not a science book. I believe it because never has it been tested and failed. Human science? Fail after fail...plus I couldn't make sense of it. The bible says each thing produces it's own kind...and we see that. Evolution states the opposite. All this time and evolution has never been actually seen or found. I see a biblical record showing a young earth. I see archeology proving these claims but no eye witness to a billion yr old or so earth. The missing link will always be just that...a missing link. I believe it's a debate not about science but one about I'm my own God and I will do as I please. I make my own decisions. I be damn anyone else will. That's ok to wanna be that way but look where it's got people. War after war, lawlessness, hate, murder, etc. Why? Because they lack any good or love. God is that love. Why do many not want that along with an everlasting hope is beyond me. I'm sure ull respond with rude angry sarcasm because nobody's gonna debate or talk to me that way. Why do guys get so angry? But it ok...

Chris James

Sara Taylor. Email any geologist in any of the top 200 universities on Earth and tell me how many agree with Hovind on the age of the Earth. if you can get more than 2 I'll post you a free fruitcake.

Sara Taylor

Have you checked into what you just asked? I don't like fruit cake. But this is what I said ud exactly do.

Chris your also referring to humans...smart humans...but still humans. My point Chris James is were all finite. If there is a God NO human can compare do you agree with that? As you notice I am not disrespecting you in any way. I would appreciate the same from you. By the way Einstein was a brilliant man as you know. I want you to point out one wiser of your choice, wiser then him and Hawking. You choose...

Chris James

Sara Taylor. I wasn't attacking Einstein, just pointing out the unlikeliness of Hovind being right about biology and geology and just about every reputable biologist and geologist being

Sara Taylor

Chris James Im not accusing you of attacking Einstein. Im not saying either that any professor at our top colleges are ignorant. We have many a great minds at work in this field. What Im trying to get you to see is there could be that possibility of a God who created everything. If so even our brightest scientists would be finite to him. A lot of people think Christians dont believe in science believe it or not. We do we just believe differently what, how, why and who is behind it. Im not gonna dismiss you because of your belief. You have that right to believe what you want. I just want to try to get you to see possibility's. When people think for themselves that is sheer wisdom. Thinking on all ends and options. Not just one sidedness. Thats how I am exactly. Ive been this way since a child. I was raised in churches...many different ones. From around 11 yrs old I remember setting in a Pentecostal church. People jumping, shout, passing out! Speaking in tongues! Saying we was going to heaven but the later gonna pop up out of the ground at the rapture. That made absolutely no sense. Bare with me Im not done lol. I started believing people were full of crap. Many were not who they said they were. The gift of tongues is not running around blabbering. It was a gift given to the disciples to understand tongues..aka language of those there. People lie and are not Christians. Not trying to preach the bible to you but this is why I started researching not religion but God himself. I believe he exists. But I will be honest with you. I no longer go to church. Me and my husband will have a beer. Im not gonna be talked down to by anyone about it from any church. Sorry Im venting. My point is, is I do believe in God. I believe in creationists because I dont believe anything of us etc is by chance because its just to perfect. But my own belief wasnt enough I had curiosity. Im sure that same curiosity drives all scientists crazy. I didnt take what I believe lightly. Ive spent countless years studying apologetics and humanism and evolution. Apologetics pulls the bible and science and shows how they correlate. There are scientists from all the top major colleges that have their input on and teach apologetics. Regardless what you believe it is well worth your time to watch and study. Its all science...science I didnt even know existed. After studying theology of both I came to agree with creationism. Regardless Chris James what you will ever believe, always believe you are not an accident or a mistake. That would mean your life is pointless and worthless...and that I will never believe about anyone:)

Chris James

Sara Taylor. I never denied there was a God. I didn't make claims about God one way or the other. That wasn't the point I was discussing.

Sara Taylor

I'm confused then but I usually am lol...it was nice discussing it all with you. Thanks for listening to me vent! Enjoy ur weekend ok:)

Chris James

Sara Taylor. No probs, have a good one :-)

C

Michael Gilroy

Evolutionary scientists are an oxymoron. Aside, any people have contributed without having doctorates..like Albert Einstein.

Matthew Hunt

Einstein actually had a PhD...

"Creation science" is essentially simply theology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If that were true, how come carbon dating is not in the Bible and Creation Science has sth to say on the topic?

Matthew Hunt

What??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You do find Carbon dating in Creation science, one theory that used to be popular and I am refining is, carbon 14 levels rose, drastically, between Flood and Abraham and also, less but still fairly drastically, after Abraham, on my view.

You do not find carbon 14 in the Bible, so, this theory, which is creation science, is not per se theology.

Matthew Hunt

Creationists lie about radiometric dating. They assert that the half life changes over time but offer absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is another theory.

First off, I am into carbon 14, leaving the rest aside.

Second, that other theory is not mine, I am fine with Carbon 14 having had a halflife of 5730 years since creation in 5199 BC (if there was any carbon 14 that early).

Third, not offering evidence is not always lying, it is sometimes wishful thinking.

Fourth, my own evidence involves a 900 years carbon misdating of Joseph as he is Imhotep, and also involves a 7000 years misdating of Babel as it is Göbekli Tepe - the evidence is circumstantial that Imhotep fits the bill of Joseph and GT the bill of Babel. AND I am taking the conventional carbon dates for beginning and end of GT and for Djoser's coffin.

Joshua Paul

Matthew sure likes making stuff up

Matthew Hunt

I leave that up to people like you Joshua. I'll stick to science.

Joshua Paul

The point is that you don't... you believe in fairytales like animals changing to other animals and the universe popping into existence uncaused for no purpose.

Matthew Hunt

Again, a strawman of actual science. If you tried to understand the things you say aren't true then you wouldn't sound so silly.

Joshua Paul

I do understand... you don't. There's the difference. You so silly.

Matthew Hunt

How can you understand science? You're a creationist. That implies the following:
1) You don't understand science
2) You are too scared to learn because of the consequences your religion put on you in you reject a literal interpretation of your religious text.

Michael Gilroy

Matthew Hunt How can you understand logic when you do not use it? You're making several logically fallacious arguments. Very immature, circular, strawman, ad hominem attacks to avoid the subject which you h eery t owned on.

Chris James

Michael Gilroy. Do you believe the Earth to be billions of years old, or just a few thousand years old?

Jeff Hames

it dont matter how old the earth is cause we dont know

Chris Perdue

Matthew Hunt Actually, evolutionary theory et al do sounds silly. Joshua just boils down all the "scientific" gobbledygook into a simplified form, and that is what it all boils down to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt, if UCL is accredited at present and if you are enjoying the confidence of that university, perhaps UCL should be losing some status due to the immense ideological dead weight and total lack of objectivity in a statement like:

"That implies the following:
1) You don't understand science
2) You are too scared to learn because of the consequences your religion put on you in you reject a literal interpretation of your religious text."

I think at Lund University, even if you could not be sacked for saying that in essence, you could be sacked for using that tone.

I hope, it may be worse than I thought of it when I went there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

added

Matthew Hunt - you did not answer my points, perhaps you were distracted by Joshua Paul?

Joshua Paul - when you said Matthew Hunt liked to make things up, were you specifically referring to his attributing Setterfield's theory of changing light velocity and correspondingly changing decay speeds to all of us Young Earth Creationists?

Chris James, whatever Michael Gilroy believes, I most definitely do believe Earth was created either 5199 BC or 5500 BC or something like that. A N D that there is a perfectly coherent way to account for the carbon dates that seem to conflict with it.

Jeff Hames, we pretty much do know how old the Earth is, because the Bible pretty much does tell us that (btw, I am using LXX chronology).

Matthew Hunt

Joshua lies a great deal. I've found it to be the case with many creationists so I've come to expect it.

The varying speed of light is a big problem for creationists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The varying speed of light may be a problem for the kind of creationists who are using the wrong and unnecessarily exotic solution to Distant Starlight Problem.

As a Geocentric, I don't take "parallax" as being parallactic and therefore I don't have a distant starlight problem in the first place.

Matthew Hunt

If the speed of light has changed drastically then we should be able to predict the effects and yet the experiments show that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.

You're a geocentrist!!!! Oh my...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt I am fine with speed of light being the same.

Since I am a Geocentrist, this has no bearing on Distant Starlight problem.

Matthew Hunt

As a geocentrist, you have insurmountable problems with your idea.

Joshua Paul

Matthew Hunt still at it with no evidence. He's a puppet of his lying masters caught countless times. He likes to lie on numerous occasions to wriggle out of things he's got himself into. Just like him calling me a liar. What a jerk off. He only does that to cover the fact that he lies like crazy.

Matthew Hunt

Evidence of what? Evolution? What type of actual evidence would you accept?

Joshua Paul

Evidence that I've lied. Evidence that you the truth. Evidence that evolution is real by mutations that add genetic information to the genome instead of what actually occurs by mutations. Evidence there is no God which you blatantly claimed. Etc...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Paul, thank you for cluttering a subthread I tried to conduct on dating methods with generalities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt "As a geocentrist, you have insurmountable problems with your idea."

How about checking pronouns?

YOUR problems may be insurmountable with my idea, but mine haven't been so.

Matthew Hunt

[to Joshua, I presume]

You lie about the actual theory of evolution.

Matthew Hunt

Hans, then explain Foucault's pendulum for a start. Then explain the seasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Foucault's pendulum, Coriolis, Equatorial bulge, etc.

Day and Night are there because Sun follows the aether being moved by God from East to West.

Aether moving from East to West explains all of above.

Sun not only moves from East to West with the aether, but also from west to East considerably slower through the aether along the ecliptic plane, this explains the seasons;

Matthew Hunt

You also have to explain the Michaelson-morley experiment an the more modern versions of it.

Oh and gravity would help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michelson & Morley, according to Sungenis, did get a result for the daily movement, the one of - on their supposition Earth, on mine Universe - around Earth. It is just for the relevant speed of daily portion of yearly motion, the supposed one of Earth around Sun, which they got no result for.

I think I can refer you to Sungenis Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right on this matter.

Your exact problem with gravity is what?

Matthew Hunt

I've interacted with Sungenis before. His "theory of gravity" contained an imbalance of units. He was more than embarrassed when I pointed it out to him...

Sungenis also just focuses on the experiment done buy Michaelson and Morley and ignores the recent tests and experiments which also agree with the original thesis.

You're happy with arbitrarily high speeds then?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I referred you to Sungenis on Michelson & Morley (when did Michelson change spelling to Michaelson?) not on gravity.

His problems about gravity is not my business.

I am very sure Sungenis has dealt with both Michelson-Morley and Sagnac, would you tell me one he could have missed on the aether business?

So, "arbitrarily high speeds" is relevant for what?

Matthew Hunt

When pressed, Sungenis will look at the size of the experimental errors in the original experiment and argue from that and ignore the more modern version of the experiment where experimental error is very small indeed.

Things in general need more energy to go faster and faster So you have a problem with that if you think the universe rotates around Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Things in general need more energy to go faster and faster"

Not if God or angels rather than physical vectors are moving.

Not if aether is the medium of vectors and is moving locally.

"So you have a problem with that if you think the universe rotates around Earth"

Supposing all fix stars are exactly one light day up, how big is the problem?

And supposing the problem was just there because you were thinking of movement through aether, even if not recognising its existence?

As to the other, I'll rely as much on his account of experiments as on yours.

Matthew Hunt

So many assumptions which you cannot prove...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Like on your own side, but you don't bother to question.

Sphere of fix stars one light day up is what I consider a fair guess.

What would the magnitude of the problem be if that were the height of them?

Matthew Hunt

There are very few assumption in actual science. Certainly when it comes to geocentrism. Would you like to go over a few of these assumptions that are present in science?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you like ...

• As far as I recall the discussion on luminiferous aether, Michelson Morley was presumed to have disproven it due to its inability to detect the annual movement of Earth - if Earth is not moving, there was no annual movement to detect, so aether is not disproven
• You are presuming causalities affecting physical things are limited to physical things (matter or energy, not just definite bodies of matter, I don't want to strawman you on that one)
• This means you are presuming that, as heaven and stars and planets are too big for freewilled agents with bodies to handle through their bodies, then only physical things affect them.

Did I miss any?

Did I add one not there?

Matthew Hunt

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. After all, the aether was invented as the medium which light waves pass through.

So your whole idea is wrong. Perhaps you should read up on the experiment first.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether. After all, the aether was invented as the medium which light waves pass through."

There should have been a slowing down of the light beam where Earth was moving away from the aether.

There should have been a hasteing up of the light beam where Earth was moving into the aether.

That is, it was precisely as I said, about the annual movement. Tom Wolf offered some lessons in reading comprehension ...

Matthew Hunt

Hans, I've explained that the should have been a delay on the time taken for the time taken for the light to travel but there was none. This indicating no need for an aether.

Is there something you're not quite understanding here Hans>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your explanation was imprecise.

"there should have been a delay" = there should have been a delay in one specific direction of presumed orbital movement and a hastening in the opposite direction, too bad you want to swap precision for imprecision, I am not falling for that game.

Matthew Hunt

My explanation is as precise as it needs to be when talking to someone who isn't a scientist.

The travel times around the square should have been different for each edge but they weren't. They were all exactly the same.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"My explanation is as precise as it needs to be when talking to someone who isn't a scientist."

That sounds like talking down to those who aren't scientists.

"The travel times around the square should have been different for each edge but they weren't. They were all exactly the same."

And the difference in question was related to the supposed orbital movement, also known as annual movement, as I said.

Matthew Hunt

It had nothing to do with the orbital movement. The speed of light is far faster than the speed of the Earth through space.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not deny that.

But Michelson Morley was about finding a slight slowing down in one direction and a slight speeding up in opposite direction according to orbital movement.

Matthew Hunt

So why are you bringing in the red herring of the orbital motion?

Relative to the speed of light, the Earth can be considered stationary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aether is every direction.

Presence of aether as such is certainly not what would have speeded up in one and slowed down in opposite direction.

So, the movement one was trying to measure by its slight percentage or even less in influence to speed of light was the orbital one.

Joshua Paul

Notice I said etc? So you didn't bring evidence I lie about evolution. Still being a liar I see.

Joshua Paul

Notice I said etc? So you didn't bring evidence I lie about evolution. Still being a liar I see.

Matthew Hunt

he aether is considered a medium. When things travel through a medium they slow down.

Matthew Hunt

Joshua, I explained that evolution happened in populations over generations rather than to a single organism over it's lifetime. You laughed indicating you thought my explanation was wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The aether is considered a medium."

At least in a sense, yes.

"When things travel through a medium they slow down."

When light travels through a denser medium (like water or glass) it slows down.

It slows down exactly where water or glass meets the less dense medium.

It doesn't get slower and slower the longer it goes through water or glass.

Matthew Hunt

In a sense? That's WHY it was hypothesised to begin with. It was "known" that all waves had to have a medium to travel in. They invented the aether to be the medium which light travelled in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the sense of a medium waves travel in is one I accept.

Joshua Paul

Matthew, that was your assumption.

Matthew Hunt

I have no idea what you mean.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

BBL after some factchecking, enjoy yourself with Joshua Paul in the meantime.

Pause

back now:

Matthew Hunt

I would suggest you look up the experiment so you're not confused...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, I am not sure you aren't yourself confusing Michelson Morley with Sagnac and giving the wrong result for Sagnac, but the following is about your idea of "aether" and "medium":

"The speed of sound is the distance travelled per unit time by a sound wave as it propagates through an elastic medium. In dry air at 0 °C (32 °F), the speed of sound is 331.2 metres per second (1,087 ft/s; 1,192 km/h; 741 mph; 644 kn). At 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343 metres per second (1,125 ft/s; 1,235 km/h; 767 mph; 667 kn), or a kilometre in 2.91 s or a mile in 4.69 s."

"In common everyday speech, speed of sound refers to the speed of sound waves in air. However, the speed of sound varies from substance to substance: sound travels most slowly in gases; it travels faster in liquids; and faster still in solids."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

"The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c; similarly, the speed of electromagnetic waves in wire cables is slower than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200,000 km/s (124,000 mi/s); the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 299,700 km/s (186,220 mi/s) (about 90 km/s (56 mi/s) slower than c)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

"For example, the refractive index of water is 1.333, meaning that light travels 1.333 times faster in vacuum than in the water."

"Window glass 1.52"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

Now, this would mean, window glass is less dense in aether than water and water is less dense in aether than vacuum.

Aether being what light travels best in, just as compact solids are what sound travels best in.

Matthew Hunt

This has nothing to do with sound. It has to do with light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt, you seem to be too impatient to read through an argument before answering.

Take the lessons in reading comprehension Tom Wolf offered you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

"It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind")."

Now, the aether wind would only be there, if Earth was moving.

"The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution"

Now, let's highlight:

"the direction of movement through the presumed aether"

Ideally, this would be a double one, a movement of rotation and a movement of orbit.

The one which most definitely was found lacking was the movement of orbit.

According to how Sungenis told the story, there was a slight result as expected for the rotational movement (as expected if aether rotates around Earth as if Earth rotates within aether), while the bigger result, for the orbital movement, was found lacking.

So, it was about orbital movement.

Matthew Hunt

You seem fixated on something which is not directly relevant to the experiment. Perhaps we should leave this here and move on to something you're more willing to talk about?

What I've said is nothing different to the article, it's your interpretation which is off whack.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You seem fixated on denying the facts.

On treating me as an imcecile you can play around with.

I was following you up where you were attacking and you are pretending that the article doesn't say what it says about aether wind.

Your words per se sound as if the experiment would have been about detecting refractive index of aether, or even worse, as if refractive index were synonym for permanent deceleration, which is not the case with either type of waves in either type of medium.

Also

he seems either to read very quickly or to not have taken time to read my comment:



Considering how unspecific his answer was, I think the latter is more probable.

But back to his own words:

Matthew Hunt

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.

I think

this is where I stop debating, and publish.

D

Mike'n Tabea Warrak

True Christians are NOT "salivating" over his death. You should be ashamed to even so much as insinuate that. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints... Tragic is the death if one who rejects God since only a sad and fearful day of reckoning awaits.

Matthew Hunt

I think they are.

Chris Perdue

I have not seen one post by a Christian that was salivating over his death. I have seen some that said that he denied God all his life, and now he in eternity and will face the God he denied. But we are not rejoicing over the fact ... we would have preferred he got saved.

Matthew Hunt

I have seen plenty of posts of people talking about how Hawking will get "judged" by your deity. Everyone knows he was an atheist and are using this opportunity to emotionally manipulate people into belief.

Tim Eakins

Matthew Hunt... You, too, will be judged. He's YOUR God, too. After all, that's why you waste so much time arguing against Him.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak

If someone dies in a fiery crash because they broke simple traffic laws, like running red lights and speeding... Yes, we WILL talk about that as a warning to others! Traffic laws are in place to keep people from getting killed. Pointing out why the fiery crash happened doesn't help the guy who died... Too late for him, but it's a valid case study and warning for those who are still alive. Have you ever taken a driver's education class? Remember how they show graphic footage of horrific crashes? There's a very specific purpose for that. The warnings leave an impression on many, but some just won't listen, thinking that "it won't happen to me..." But the class instructor was not "salivating" or chuckling over how the victims died in those crashes. Only a few sick, immature individuals in class would joke and make fun of the victims. But you can't attribute that kind of sick behavior to the class instructor. Nor to a preacher of God's word.

Matthew Hunt

People with strong religious beliefs are dangerous for society.

Sara Jenna Rahal

Matthew Hunt just stop.. i got hate from athiests when all i said was i hope he repented... as if i said something evil.... when in REALITY Christains don't wish hell on anyone and want everyone to come to repentence.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak

Wrong. That's like saying people with strong beliefs in gun rights are dangerous to society, when it's only certain maniacs who are the danger. Or all police are corrupt because of a few bad apples. Why do you insist on lumping everyone together into one pile? The vast majority of police are good cops trying to do their jobs.

Chris Perdue

An atheist mindset has killed just as many innocent victims as a religious mindset ... so atheism is not the answer, either.

Matthew Hunt

Chris Perdue, you're equivocating atheism with totalitarianism. They're not the same.

Chris Perdue

The totalitarians were atheists ... and the belief that they were not accountable to God played a role in them killing so many ... and especially them targeting those who did believe in God. Thus, their atheistic world view resulted in many deaths.

Tom Wolf

Chris Perdue
Actually more: Mao of China. Stalin in Soviet Union, Hitler in Germany to name a few.

Chris Perdue

Tom Wolf Actually, those were the people I was thinking of Tom Wolf. But a lot of people have also been killed in the name of religion over the centuries ... so it would be hard to really determine how many were for religion or how many for atheism.

Tom Wolf

Chris Perdue Agreed.

Matthew Hunt

There are also theists who are totalitarian, so your first statement was wrong.

Chris Perdue

Not really wrong. I agree that there are religious people who are just as evil. But YOUR implication is that atheism is a great viewpoint, when in fact it has its own fair share of evil people and governments.

Matthew Hunt

It's wrong.

Tim Eakins

Yes. Atheism is wrong.

Chris Perdue

It seems I am willing to admit that religious people have committed many atrocities in the name of religion, but he is not willing to admit that atheists have done the same while following the tenets of atheism. That makes Matthew the one who is being dishonest.

Matthew Hunt

I'm not saying that but you need to be specific. Communism, which is a form of totalitarianism was the cause, not atheism per se. It is dishonest to try and separate the theist/atheist...

Tom Wolf

Matthew Hunt
An essential concept of Communism is atheism. Religion is the opiate of the masses according to Marx. Your attempt to separate the two us disingenuous.

Matthew Hunt

You need to understand that in totalitarian regimes, like communism, it is the state which must have the ultimate authority. This is the key. To pick out atheism and say, atheistic regimes are bad, is very disingenuous.

Tom Wolf

Please, name a benevolent Atheist regime to illustrate your point.

Matthew Hunt

Sweden.

Tom Wolf

Touché

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

Hitler and Stalin had moustaches too, moustaches must make you commit atrocities 🤔

Chris Perdue

As for myself ... I did not say all atheist states/leaders are evil, murderous regimes. I only said that many of them have proven to be evil. Second, while Sweden may have a large atheist population, it also has a large religious population, with 61% registered as Christians. And reading about Swedish government a bit, it appears they have a representative government with a separation of church and state ... so not the same thing as an atheist regime. Furthermore, "All members of the Royal Family belongs to the Church of Sweden, which is an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Evangelical for its basis in the Gospel of the Bible"

( http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f22/religion-of-the-swedish-royals-25494.html )

So much for the claim that Sweden is an atheist regime . :)

Reading further, they have a separation of church and state, much like America does. The state is friendly toward religious freedom, whereas an atheist regime is typically NOT friendly toward religious beliefs. Sometimes they tolerate it to a degree, as in China, but they are most definitely not friendly to it.

Tom Wolf

Thanks, Chris Perdue. I appreciate the backup. Frankly, I was just not into the fight earlier and his reply made me chuckle. Sweden is not exactly a world power that is of consequence. I am surprised he did not say Vatican City; millions have not died within its walls.

Chris Perdue

I wasn't so much fighting in this instance as I was curious whether his claim was correct, Tom Wolf. :) And upon reading that the his claim was completely off, I had to comment.

Tim Eakins

It seems that the recent high school shooting that happened near here was perpetrated by an atheist with communist sympathies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt Did you call Sweden a benevolent régime?

I am a Swede and an expatriate.

While I have been in prison, I was not escaping from it, but had been legally free more than 3 years before leaving, nearly 4.

If I had not needed to defend myself against certain aspects of the benevolent atheist régime, I would not have gone to prison in the first place.

Atheists have a way of reading between lines which is sometimes applied to other things than just texts on a paper or a computer screen.

When they do that to a human life, they can wreak havoc. Note, Evangelicals were presumably also at least somewhat involved, but here I am guessing on what happened behind my back.

They were trying to take me to mental hospital, ultimately for certain life choices which I thought if not totally fitting at least the least unfitting I dared to what I considered my Christian duty.

I shot at a policeman involved in that procedure, I have done the time, but I would have preferred if the procedure to lock me up hadn't started in the first place.

No such luck with the benevolent atheist régime in Sweden.

Swedish and Norwegian CPS are also a nightmare and I know a woman who at least claims she was forced to abort by psychiatry in Sweden. Benevolent? No ... not quite.

Sweden, like two states in Canada, like two states in US, had enforced sterilisation of certain groups up to 1970's. Since then, enforced sterilisation is gone, targetting those groups is fortunately more difficult, but medical mentalities are somewhat similar. State run medicine is an oppressive system in Sweden.

As to ensuring Old Age Pensions, in 2003 the news were, we were not getting that any more. We needed to sign up private old age pension ensurances. Great. When the old age pension of one breaks down, its that one, not the state, which will be liable to criticism ... but the bottom line is, swedes were encouraged to save for old age, no longer in begetting many children, but in earning much (ideally both in a couple) which would involve higher old age pensions, guaranteed by the state.

And it is breaking down because of what?

Well, part of the problem is at least that some people quite having as many children as before.

Children being the ultimate guarantee for an old age pension, if not for each individual person, at least for a generation as a whole.

And replacing younger generations of Swedes partly with younger generations of immigrants doesn't work out all that well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Perdue " Second, while Sweden may have a large atheist population, it also has a large religious population, with 61% registered as Christians. And reading about Swedish government a bit, it appears they have a representative government with a separation of church and state ... so not the same thing as an atheist regime. Furthermore, 'All members of the Royal Family belongs to the Church of Sweden, which is an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Evangelical for its basis in the Gospel of the Bible'"

Most registered Christians are probably as Christian as the Christian friends of Matthew Hunt (or himself, didn't see him state he was atheist) - they are fine with 4 point 5 billion year old Earth, with abortion more or less and certainly with contraception and homosexuality and blessing gay couples and lesbian couples in Church.

That would mean nearly all (or the large majority, perhaps at least 75 % - 80 %) of the Lutherans of the former State Church, and a few of the Evangelicals, though that might be more 50 / 50.

The royals are famous for not being particularly "fanatic" about religion, the Queen apostasised from Catholicism to be queen, even if it was not constitutionally required. She and her husband the King went to ski on Easter in 2012, more interesting than going to Church it would seem. I noted this, because it fulfilled a Bible code prediction. It's about equidistant letter words.

Year according to Hebrew calendar and Pesach visible in the "cylinder", a vertical word with the Hebrew for Capricorn, and on the bottom of the cylinder the word Messiah.

Jesus is the Messiah and Queen Silvia is a Capricorn - she put her skiing interest above Him in Easter that year, and that year Latin Easter coincided mostly with Jewish Pesach.

Chris Perdue

Hans-Georg Lundahl Good to know. Thanks for sharing. All I could go on were a few brief articles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are welcome!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt When you say that "people with strong religious beliefs are a danger for society" you are repeating the idiocies which have made Sweden and Swedish society a danger to Christian citizens.

Matthew Hunt - while you are there, anything you'd like to delete from yesterday or today?

Oh, one more when you say "There are also theists who are totalitarian" - do you mean Muslims in Daesh or do you mean John Calvin and John Knox and Oliver Cromwell and Henry VIII?

Matthew Hunt

I'm fine with my statements. You might like a think though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you, I have thought these things through years ago.