HGL's F.B. writings: mars 2018

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".

Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old

Main thread in Roman Numerals, subthreads headed as subthread to n.

I

Matthew Hunt

18 mars, 08:46

Information on radiometric dating. Feel free to try and point out any errors.

Radioactivity and Radiometric Dating
Mat Hunt | April 14, 2013
http://hyperkahler.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dating.pdf

II

Andre Nienaber

So, just a question, when the force of gravity is calculated at 9.8m.s2, we can drop something in a vacuum to test and measure the result. What is the final test for any dating mechanism?

III

Matthew Hunt

We test the individual pieces. We check the lengths of half lives, check if anything could change the half-life, understand what effects of adding or subtracting radioactive elements and then we're good to go for accepting the results of the dating process.

Subthread to III

Hans-Georg Lundahl: "We check the lengths of half lives,"

For carbon 14, no problem. Half a halflife should leave square root of a half, aka 70.7 % and quarter of a halflife should leave square root of that, which would be 81 % or sth.

My bad, 84.1 %.

Now, quarter of a halflife for carbon 14 is 1432 years and we can check by history what objects from 1432 years ago there are and which ones can be carbon dated and we can confirm that carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years, because an object from 1432 years ago has, as predicted, 84.1 % modern carbon.

You are less likely to find that kind of check for U-Pb, Th-Pb or K-Ar.

"check if anything could change the half-life"

For U, we know there is. Radioactivity. Check Chernobyl.

For heat, pressure, chemical additions, yes I know, these do not change the halflife.

Setterfield's theory, which, as said, I don't share, involves half life being related to velocity of light, and he considers this was faster and therefore halflives were so too. Not checkable as per heat and pressure, since we don't know how to produce conditions that change c.

IV

Andre Nienaber

Sorry Matthew Hunt, you misunderstand my question. Since you are talking of millions of years, how do you ultimately proof the dating system?

Subthread to IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl: " Sorry Matthew Hunt, you misunderstand my question. Since you are talking of millions of years, how do you ultimately proof the dating system?"

Here you are talking of long half lives.

I agree there is a problem in proving the exact halflife of uranium.

For carbon 14, it is easier.

Even 100 years will make a noticeable difference, less than 1 % but still detectable, in the carbon ratio.
Andre Nienaber: Carbon 14 dating is a bad joke. The trunk and shoulder of the same woolly mammoth came back tens of thousands of years apart.

The range of possible dates is so far apart that you must determine the position found to pick a range of dates Hans-Georg
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "The trunk and shoulder of the same woolly mammoth came back tens of thousands of years apart."

In a certain range of "datings" that is not very many percent of the carbon 14 content.

"ten thousand years" = nearly two halflives = one sample has a quarter as much or a bit more of carbon 14 than the other.

If one sample has 2 pmc and another 0.5 pmc, they date as 32,300 vs 43,800 years old. And similar for other contents in sample in the ratio 4:1.

If just after Flood carbon 14 was rising, there are chances the pmc was fluctuating both in atmosphere and in food. Which would explain why one sample of same being has 4 times as much carbon 14 as the other.

V

Matthew Hunt

I understood your question. I answered accordingly. There are other dating methods which also corroborate radiometric dating.

VI

Andre Nienaber

Great stuff now we are getting closer to a real answer Matthew, radiometric dating is collaborated by other dating systems. Can you be so kind as to name a few?

VII

Matthew Hunt

So Andre, why do you think that one well understood dating method is not enough?

VIII

Andre Nienaber

Because if your definition of a metre is wrong and you make a tape holding to your definition then the whole tape is wrong Matthew.

IX

Matthew Hunt

Poor analogy.

Subthread to IX

Andre Nienaber: The analogy might be poor according to you, but it does not take the truth out of it
Matthew Hunt: There wasn't any to begin with.
Andre Nienaber: So you say that standardisation of lengths all over the world were unnecessary? We can thus take any lenght and call it a mile and it would be accepted, is that your truth?
Matthew Hunt: The standardisation of units has nothing to do with dating methods.
Andre Nienaber: Wow. Just wow.
Matthew Hunt: I thought that when you brought up that particular red herring.

X

Mike'n Tabea Warrak

Matthew Hunt, we call BS. The dating methods are NOT well understood, and are highly suspect due to the wild 'assumptions' that are required to make the calculations work. The people who are willing to accept millions of years simply believe anything that supports their beliefs. Remember when countless scientists predicted the moon was covered in several feet (or yards) of space dust? Those predictions were based on'educated guess assumptions'. Many scientists feared the Eagle might land on the moon and disappear into thick dust. THAT is why they put such huge landing pads on the Eagle. But instead of finding 2 or 3 billions of years worth us space dust, they found only a few THOUSAND years worth (according to original assumptions). So what did they do? They changed their assumptions so the calculations would match the results of their observations. This problem in making 'assumptions' to fill in the blanks of formulas is quite common, and corrections can be made with testing and observation. Which is something you can't do with the dating methods we have been using. We can't test or observe the results of dating methods, but yet you trust your 'educated assumptions' and try to lead us into believing the calculated results are FACTS? But thanks for playing. Next contestant please.

XI

Matthew Hunt

Unfortunately, your blustering won't convince me of anything. You forget that I'm actually trained in science.

The radioactive decay equation is based on two very well tested experimental facts:

1) The decay of a given atom at a given time is purely random.
2) The decay of one atom will not affect the decay of another atom.

From this the decay equation follows and from that you can see how radiometric dating is possible.

It's clear you didn't read the notes.

Subthread to XI

Brian Bailey: So when they perform a dating process why do they ask how old it should be?
Matthew Hunt: Do they ask that???
Brian Bailey: yup!
Matthew Hunt: I don't think so somehow. When a creationist comes and says that in science they do X, I always question that as it's always the case that creationists don't understand science or lie about what is done in science.
Brian Bailey: So you ASSUME things that you have not knowledge of! Doesn't seem scientific does it?
Matthew Hunt: I assume little. Creationists not wanting to understand science is a safe bet.
Brian Bailey: But I love science...My first stint in university was in the faculty of science.
Matthew Hunt: Creationists always claim to "love science" but the science which disproves their religious beliefs they despise it.
Brian Bailey: Well I've spent enough time on trolls.
Matthew Hunt: I'm not a troll. I'm just not willing to play up to your questions.
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: Matthew Hunt... Not a troll? You fooled me. Anyway, YOU are the one who didn't read the notes. Current dating methods are not only unproven but they're out of synch with so many other scientific observations. The reason atheist scientists love the dating methods is because they can easily manipulate the end results by playing with the assumptions in their formulas. Normally, people who play with and juggle numbers... well, they often go to jail. But atheist scientists who can figure out ways to keep God out of science... well, they get the most lucrative government grants. But scientists who voice doubts about evolution are more likely to be fired than anything else. So much for scientific objectivity.
Matthew Hunt: I wrote the notes...

None of what you say is correct.
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: You copied them, but didn't read them. Nor did you comprehend them well enough to actually think through them see if they make sense. You are incredibly uninformed and sheltered from the truth. Oh, and by the way, what I posted earlier is indeed correct. Just because you don't like it, didn't mean it's wrong. Your theories were dug up under 3 billion years worth space dust in the moon. Dohhhh! No, THAT didn't happen either!
Matthew Hunt: So many assertions.

I can see you're a die hard conspiracy theorist.
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: Evolution is the biggest conspiracy theory yet, with more assertions that anyone can count. No proof, just assertions, assumptions, and interpretations that are twisted and manipulated to support pre-determined conclusions. Any evidence that refutes evolution is automatically dismissed. Professors who doubt evolution are dismissed as not credible it simply or fired. Or both. Awesome scientific objectivity.
Matthew Hunt: As someone who has bought into YEC wholeheartedly. I really don't think I can have a rational conversation with you. I think we had best stop here.
Antoine Bret: Mike'n Tabea Warrak did you take issue with the way Matthew Hunt solve the différential equations? Or you think his notes apply to alpha decay, but not beta+? Or you feel there's a problem with Lorentz invariance?
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: Antoine Bret, your question indicates you're just now joining the conversation. You might want to go back and try to comprehend what I've said, rather than just 'skimming' over everything and 'thinking' you understand, followed by focusing on things I never said or even insinuated. I never said I had a problem with 'solving' the equations, rather with assumptions required for the formulation. In industrial applications, when my engineers would submit future operating plans, using assumptions that were based on historical data. While that's not the same as dating methods, the principle is the same. There are equations formulated to help us arrive at some sort of answer or conclusion, but the equations and formulas are full of holes. In order to solve anything, we need to make some assumptions. Sometimes WILD assumptions. Here's the kicker; when the spreadsheets were submitted to me, I could 'play' with the assumptions and eventually make the spreadsheet say whatever I wanted. This resulted in my creating 3 different "reports". The first report was for me, and was what I "thought" was a doable operating budget/business plan. The second report was a "tight ship" budget/business plan that I required my to my team of managers use for operations. The third report went to my boss, which was more of a "sandbag" budget that left a lot of flexibility and 'room for mistakes' for hitting operating goals (from the viewpoint of my boss), which prevented me from over-promising and under delivering. If you've never run a production facility, you'll have no idea what I'm talking about; but the point is, I could make the stupid reports say anything I wanted (or needed) simply by changing the "ASSUMPTIONS". The reports, when viewed individually, all looked legitimate when subjected to "peer" or even "boss" review. NEWS FLASH: Congress does the exact same thing with government budgets. That's half of what they argue about! The assumptions required for good forecasting! (whether they admit it or not). That's why there's is so much debate over the budgeting process AND why we're 21 trillion in crazy debt. Stupid assumptions that are determined (not derived) by politics, desires, and beliefs. The scientific community is also wedged in between all of this, since government money/grants come with plenty of strings attached. If you guys even hinted at the possibility of an intelligent designer (or simply, God), you would quickly lose your funding. That's my point. Matthew Hunt states that he can't debate me as a YEC, but you guys have three fingers pointing right back at you when it comes to calling out bias in others. You have chosen to ignore or dismiss everything that's obvious, and justify it by formulating complex equations with wild assumptions. You can only 'assume' what the conditions were at 'time zero'. You're also assuming what the decay rates have been since 'time zero'. Don't even get me started on contamination! While your 'assumptions' eventually lead us to believe that uranium to lead might be 1 or 2 billion years (leaving a lot of tolerance), the fact that only a few thousand years worth of helium has escaped from various granite crystals is ignored or disregarded by your camp. Your problem is that you'll only accept interpretations that support your view that "there is no God" because you don't like his laws that cover things like lying, stealing, fornication, adultery, all form of sexual immorality, idolatry, envy, etc. etc. THAT is what the discussion is all about -- Driving God out of our lives.
Antoine Bret: Here are but a few light curves of SN Type 1A powered by the decay of Ni to Co, then to Iron. Million years away. The rates are the same than today.
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: We call BS on your cut and paste trash. Think: Not enough space dust on the moon.
Antoine Bret: Mike'n Tabea Warrak Haaaa... I once thought it could be different, but no. Completely ignorant. Just recycling AiG's ridiculous arguments, wilfully ignoring the rest.
Luke 6.39
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: Antoine Bret,... Nice try. We are ALL recycling information from other sources, so you can get down from your high horse now. We all examine evidence and sources, and then decide what to believe. Even if you are a full blown research scientist, with a state of the art research facility, and a huge staff of experienced scientists working around the clock under your command, you still have extremely limited knowledge that you gathered on your own. If you deny that, then you're simply a puffed liar hoping everyone thinks more of you than you really are. So, yes... I call BS on you.
Antoine Bret: Except that looking at a telescope is not like looking at AiG -:)
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: Telescope? That's the best you've got? Seriously? That explains a lot.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Antoine Bret Doing an experiment is not a substitute for analysing it correctly.

On AiG or CMI you get some logic tools for analysing dating assumptions behind supposedly pure maths and experiments.

While you usually do not get very many experiments conducted by the staff and associates, like carbon dating dino bones, c/o Armitage, of whom here

University settles lawsuit with scientist fired after he found soft tissue in dinosaur bones
August 11, 2017, By Chad Dou —
http://blog.godreports.com/2017/08/university-settles-lawsuit-with-scientist-fired-after-he-found-soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones/

you do get references to the experiments that are done by your side, by evolution believing scientists.
Antoine Bret: Here's about soft tissues, by it's very discoverer. A Christians, bullied by YECs
Hans-Georg Lundahl: If Mary Schweitzer has backed off from soft issue claim, I don't quite think it is bullying on our side to consider she can have been caving in to bullying on your side.

I most definitely think Mark Armitage has done sufficient work to show it is not the kind of fluke one has tried to pretend.

Your link list would be more impressive to me if I could actually read abstracts (and possibly also free articles if any), so would you mind sharing where this screen shot is from?

XII

Andre Nienaber

I did read the notes, I am still waiting for the collaborating dating methods you spoke of

XIII

Matthew Hunt

I asked why you thought they were relevant. You didn't give an answer.

Subthread to XIII

George Zornes: Do you have to know why the question was asked in order to answer it?

XIV

Andre Nienaber

You said it was collaborated by other dating methods. I asked you to name them

XV

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

How old the subject you’re trying to date will dictate which elemental clock is most suitable to give you an accurate estimation, be that the carbon clock or potassium/argon clock for example.

Subthread to XV

Andre Nienaber

How do you know how old the subject is before you date it?

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

Ok so let’s take a fossil found in a certain geological strata of rock as we go down through the layers. Each layer will represent an specific window of time let’s say Jurassic or Cretaceous for example. Those windows are huge yes but they give us an upper and lower limit so we can use an element clock that fits in that window. If it’s a greatly later window then we may have to choose a different clock to fit that particular window

Andre Nienaber

Lovely so you date the fossil by the rock layer it is found in.

Now here is the haha funny part.

Rocklayer ages is determined by the fossils found in it.

So, you date the fossil by the rock, you date the rock by the fossil and you use this to not only to collaborate your dating system but also to choose your dating method.

Wow, just wow.

And you believe this system work....

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

Faunal succession is only one characteristic used to date rocks. Superposition, cross cutting and inclusions don’t rely on fossils at all

Andre Nienaber

What is the definition for a jurassic rocklayer? Is it not a layer of rock containing jurassic era fossils?

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

Simply put it is a strata of rock laid down in the Jurassic era. Sure it may contain Jurassic era fossils but rock of that time period that doesn’t contain fossils isn’t suddenly a different age because of their absense

Andre Nienaber

The strata layer is identified by the fossils found in that layer. Whether fossils are present in the sample or not.

When you date a fossil you date it from the layer you found it in

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

As I’ve said previously, the strata only gives you the window, after that an element clock can be used to narrow down an age within that window. Radiometric dating can be used to age rock samples without ever requiring fossils to be present

Andre Nienaber

You are missing my point. But, I suspect it is deliberately.

Aaron Purple Morph Wain

Alas no, I don’t go out of my way to misunderstand anyone, it stands in the way of progressive discussion to be intentionally obtuse

Andre Nienaber

The original point that I made is the following.

1. Any dating mechanism has to be tested against a known date.
2. In the end all dating systems is measured against the geological coulomb.
3. To determine the age of a rock layer you must determine which fossils is in that rock layer.
4. To determine the age of a fossil, you need to see in which rock layer it is deposited.

Apart from the fact that the last two points shows circular reasoning, every determination of age is based on the assumption that the earth is 4.5billion years old.

So, in essence, if the original assumption is wrong it become a case of the blind leading the blind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Andre Nienaber "In the end all dating systems is measured against the geological coulomb."

Fortunately not correct about C14.

You can carbon date boots from Gettysburg, and the corroborating dating method is of course historiography of what has happened in how many years after Gettysburg.

Andre Nienaber

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Carbon dating is a sad joke. Diamonds and dinosaur fossils have yielded results on C14. The shroud of Turin was dated to be an 15th century artifact, yet it has a matching face cloth that has a recorded history since the 4th century. The only reason the more recent dating is more accurate is because the tester know which date to pick.

That is why I do not even consider Carbon dating in my statement

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2018
1863
0155

If the boot is from leather of an animal killed in 1863, it should have 98.142 % of a recent sample. Because 98.142 % is like 155/5730 power of 50%.

Since most boots worn by men in that battle are perhaps from 1862 or 1861, a boot worn in that battle should have 98.142 pmc or a little less.

98.131 or 98.119 pmc are valid options or even less if boots were made of old leather or if boots were unused for some years before being worn in Gettysburg.

"Diamonds and dinosaur fossils have yielded results on C14."

If we are right, that is not a surprise.

"The shroud of Turin was dated to be an 15th century artifact"

The results came on a Cal-Tech computer which can have been hacked by KGB.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aaron Purple Morph Wain "Simply put it is a strata of rock laid down in the Jurassic era. Sure it may contain Jurassic era fossils but rock of that time period that doesn’t contain fossils isn’t suddenly a different age because of their absense"

There are three major methods by which a rock is assigned to for instance Jurassic:

1) it contains Jurassic fossil
2) it lies over a layer containing Triassic fossil or under one containing Cretaceous
3) or it is dated by radiometric dating.

Now, superposition as far as I can tell for land fauna never coincides with fossils on both levels.

This means, criterium 2 is a totally moot criterium.

If criterium 3 conflicts, the dating is thrown out.

XVI

Andre Nienaber

Aaron Purple Morph Wain and Matthew Hunt, both of you are avoiding the question. Name the collaborating dating systems.

Subthread to XVI

Aaron Purple Morph Wain: I can’t avoid a question that was never aimed at me to begin with

XVII

Matthew Hunt

It doesn't matter what other dating methods there are. However dendrochronology has corroborated radiometric dating for the past 6000 years.

Subthread to XVII

Andre Nienaber: Once again you do not reply to my question on your own statement.

Please see Daniel Quinones' post just below on inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating. So that corroboration just flew out the window
Matthew Hunt: Then I have no idea what you're asking. I said that dating methods agree and I provided you with an example. I am talking about radiometric dating, not just radiocarbon.

What if they're wrong about the problems with radiocarbon dating as creationists usually are.
Andre Nienaber: Good luck. You can radiocarbon date diamonds and you will get a result. The trunk and a shoulder of the same woolly mammoth carcass was dated tens of thousands of years apart. You have to discard half the dates results.

All dating systems accuracy is determined by testing it against the geological coulomb.

The age of the geological coulomb is determined by an assumption based on evolutionary timescale.

In short to date something you have to determine its age before you date it.
Mike'n Tabea Warrak: Matthew Hunt, you're still far short of space/moon dust. Your ability to ignore the obvious is amazing.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: For one thing, radiometric dating for last 6000 years means essentially carbon dating. Plus some trapped electron methods.

For another, dendro like written history is great for recent centuries and their chronology.

Both lignine based methods are less great for earlier times when documents are scarcer.

XVIII

Daniel Quinones *

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
~Dr. Robert Lee, he wrote this in an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada.

Subthread to XVIII

Matthew Hunt

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 8 (Spring 1982)
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

[National Council for Science Education = Pro-Evolutionist]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt I skimmed through that one and it has not answered my theory.

I propose that from Flood to c. 500 BC carbon levels rose drastically, and that the earlier stages of this rise involve carbon 14 having formed faster than at present.

My latest calculations involve a carbon rise from Flood to Babel at 8 times as fast and during Babel event ("thousand years of Göbekli Tepe" = 40 years of Babel) 11 times as fast as at present.

The objections you could theoretically pose are:

limits on how much cosmic rays can come in;
limits on how much cosmic rays we can survive when it comes in (we obviusly did survive those times).

Matthew Hunt

Or that the flood actually happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is a historic objection to my overall scenario, not a theoretic objection to my carbon 14 model within it.

Matthew Hunt

No. It's a scientific objection.

You can't make stuff up and apply science to it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Then state the scientific objections to the Flood.

I have not "made the Flood up", I have taken this from historic sources I rely on.

And of course you can make stuff up and apply science to it, that is how you write sci fi.

Matthew Hunt

No you haven't. You've taken it from a religious text which needs confirmation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The religious text is the main historic source.

Most historic sources are religious texts either of the true or of some false religion. Some recent historic sources of WW-II are also religious texts of Marxism.

(Oh, by the way, I am a Latinist. Undergraduate, but even so.)

By the way, I detected a statement which would very well pass for a religious statement of Marxism: "You've taken it from a religious text which needs confirmation."

That is at least not a scientific statement.

Matthew Hunt

So straight off the bat you are inserting religious bias into your "scientific calculations". This isn't done in proper science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In proper science you take history into account. Hydrology is a proper science, and histories of how high this or that river have flooded in past century is relevant for it.

AND what histories you rely on ultimately comes from your religion.

Matthew Hunt

If you wanted to be scientific, then you would go to the latest research on this area.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Also, you have shown yourself somewhat disingenious.

If someone makes up Superman or Antman for fun, there are scientists who are perfectly willing to analyse the science which would really be involved.

If we take our religious texts seriously as real history, suddenly only real science is the proper context for scientific analysis.

I am very clearly among the latest research on how to combine C14 with Biblical chronology and I am trying to get in touch with latest research about how fast carbon 14 forms in atmosphere.

Here is my try:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

Matthew Hunt

If I wanted to know about geology, I would pick up a textbook on the topic and then more specialised books on the aspects I am interested in then finally research articles on the topic I am interested in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine, and how do you know I am not doing so?

Oh, note well, by Geology, I do not mean deep time.

I do very much mean Palaeontology and how vertebrate land palaeontology fits in the geography.

Or the experiments on instant stratification by Guy Berthaud.

You were content with 1982:

HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 8 (Spring 1982)Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
(From your link)

Does it answer my research? No. RATE project? No.

Matthew Hunt

Why should we take religion as a basis for scientific research?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because we should take history as one.

If you do hydrology of Paris region, you need to know how high Seine has flooded in the past, and you do that by history.

You need to know how frequent high floods are, you also know that by history.

So, no one is pretending Genesis is a science text book, but we do think it is correct history, which makes it relevant.

Matthew Hunt

We don't even think of genesis as correct history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You don't, we do. By we, I meant we Creationists.

If you differ on us on what is history it is natural you won't agree with us on what is science.

Matthew Hunt

No. We don't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I know you Evolutionists don't, you don't have to tell me that.

Since religions differ, it is no surprise some religions reject historicity of Genesis.

Including, obviously, the Marxist one.

Matthew Hunt

The theory of evolution makes complete sense to me. We develop computer simulations using it. It works incredibly well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, but history is not determined by one computer simulation.

Also, that theory A can make a basis for a computer simulation which works incredibly well doesn't prove theory B can't make such a basis.

Try a computer simulation on this one:

I propose that from Flood (2957 BC) to c. 500 BC carbon levels rose drastically, and that the earlier stages of this rise involve carbon 14 having formed faster than at present.

My latest calculations involve a carbon rise from Flood to Babel at 8 times as fast and during Babel event ("thousand years of Göbekli Tepe" = 40 years of Babel, 406-446 after Flood) 11 times as fast as at present.

The objections you could theoretically pose are:

limits on how much cosmic rays can come in;
limits on how much cosmic rays we can survive when it comes in (we obviusly did survive those times).

I tried to get a computer simulation from Usoskin on this last one, he refused - because Creationism is not his religion.

I think if you tried, this would work incredibly well too.

Have a nice evening, looking forward tomorrow to answers both here and on Michelson Morley front.

Matthew Hunt

The computer simulation can show if a particular idea is any good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, but not computer simulating another idea cannot show it is bad.

XIX

Matthew Hunt

I spoke about radiometric dating not simply radiocarbon dating. So straight off the bat you made a strawman.

Subthread to XIX

Hans-Georg Lundahl: I recall one streamlining all YEC into Barry Setterfield's theory of a changing halflife.

XX

Daniel Quinones

The assumptions in radiometric dating in general apply to radio carbon dating specifically.

XXI

Matthew Hunt

There ARE no assumptions. They are the mathematical consequences of experimental facts.

XXII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[on content of paper]

Much of this is over my head, as I am not of the Barry Setterfield school, I have no objections so far.

I think half lives are constant (by that probability, as you said, not absolutely).

Carbon 14 decayed at a rate of one halving every 5730 years as soon as there was any and decays at same rate now.

If nuke wars have occurred, this might have hastened decay for the time when it was exposed to nuke radiation, otherwise not.

XXIII

Daniel Quinones

Matthew Hunt...until you know what the INITIAL ratio of a particular sample is at its formation you have no accurate means to date rocks by radiometric dating...that is the primary operating assumption envolved in attempting to estimate the age of any particular sample, by analogy, trying to tell how long a mechanical clock has been operating assumes you know what the initial state of the mainspring was when it was first assembled or started, without that knowledge you have no accurate estimate as to how long it has been running.

XXIV

Matthew Hunt

"until you know what the INITIAL ratio of a particular sample is at its formation you have no accurate means to date rocks by radiometric dating"

This is a complete and utter lie. My notes actually explain why this isn't necessary.

XXV

Daniel Quinones

Matthew Hunt...if you have a sample that contains 50% parent material and 50% daughter material and you also know the rate of decay of the parent material in the sample, can you always determine accurately the age of the sample?

XXVI

Matthew Hunt

Don't deflect. The key thing you claimed was that you needed to know the initial ratio of parent to daughter. My notes(if you had bothered to read them and you didn't it seems) went over this example.

XXVII

Daniel Quinones

Just answer the question I asked...my example is stated the way it is for a reason.

XXVIII

Matthew Hunt

I pointed out where your initial statement was wrong. You have to deal with the explanation in my note BEFORE I answer any of your questions.

XXIX

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"My notes actually explain why this isn't necessary."

Which exact line, I actually went through the note and missed that part?

XXX

Daniel Quinones

Matthew Hunt...No I do NOT....My question may or may not have anything to do with your previous comments or explanation....consider it a SEPARATE question for the purpose determining a FUTURE topic of discussion.

XXXI

Matthew Hunt

Until you acknowledge your statement was false, that's what we're talking about...

XXXII

Daniel Quinones

You may consider it however you like...I just want an answer to a simple question.

XXXIII

Matthew Hunt

Not until you acknowledge you were wrong. I can go over my notes with you if you want.

XXXIV

Daniel Quinones

Then show me in your notes where you answer that PARTICULAR question.

XXXV

Matthew Hunt

The explanation of the method starts with equation 8 and ends with equation 11.

XXXVI

Daniel Quinones

Repost it here please.

XXXVII

Matthew Hunt

I can't post equations here.

XXXVIII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Let us extend the analysis slightly. Suppose we allow the presence of daughter nuclei at time t0, then we have:" (an equation which is over my head, at least for now) "Because we have another unknown, it is no longer possible to solve directlyfor the age of the sample."

This is exactly what we are saying about the matter.

If we allow the presence of daughter nuclei at time t0, then it is no longer possible to solve directly for the age of the sample.

(Note, this does not quite concern carbon 14, since for carbon 14 the relative stability of atmospheric content gives at least a relative and for recent times a historically checked and verified indication of original content of radioactive nucleus type.)

"However if there is also present a different isotope of the daughter D′ which is neither radioactive nor formed from the decay of a long live parent then it is possible to find the age of the sample."

I suppose you mean, if you find lead of a different isotope than the one by Uranium decay, you can be sure that ...

a) a habitual ratio between types of lead will mark any deviation as lead formed by Uranium (or, other isotope, by Thorium) decaying;
OR
b) the fact that there is a lead isotope not derived from U or Th means that any lead of the isotope where U goes is from U or any lead of the isotope where Th goes is from Th

This, I consider as guesswork.

XXXIX

Daniel Quinones

"Because we have another unknown, it is no longer possible to solve directly for the age of the sample. However if there is also present a different isotope of the daughter D′ which is neither radioactive nor formed from the decay of a long live parent then it is possible to find the age of the sample."
==============================================
Matthew Hunt...

This AGAIN assumes that you know for a FACT that the QUANTITY of the different daughter isotope was not any part of the initial ratios within the sample...you have just exchanged one assumption and added another.

XL

Matthew Hunt

No I haven't This comes from the actual analysis of samples in the lab. Plus conservation of mass.

XLI

Daniel Quinones

I am not question the measurement...I am questioning your claim that you KNOW that the different daughter isotope was not present in the original ratio when the sample was formed.

XLII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt we presume mass is conserved and we presume you can get the present ratio of isotopes parent element as well as "daughter isotope" and "non-daughter" isotope of the "dughter element".

We also agree "non-daughter" isotopes doesn't come from parent element.

The question is whether all atomic nuclei of "daughter isotope" are daughter nuclei or whether some atomic nuclei of "daughter isotope" may have been there from the start.

XLIII

Matthew Hunt

See equation 8 for that.

XLIV

Daniel Quinones

Equation 8 cannot tell me how a uranium atom is formed or any of its isotopes....without that knowledge you cannot claim you know what conditions or factors cause one isotope to form over or above another....that is an asumption not a fact.

XLV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here is equation 8:

ND(t1) + NP (t1) = ND(t0) + NP (t0)

I consider this faulty.

Here:

ND(t1) + ND'(t1) + NP(t1) = ND(t0) + ND'(t0) + NP(t0)

With D' as non-daughter isotope of daughter element.

Of course, since ND'(t1) = ND'(t0), the rest will per accidens also be true, but, the problem is, you don't provide for how you exclude presence of daughter type isotope of daughter element at t0.

XLVI

Daniel Quinones

Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain...the wizard of OZ has spoken.

XLVII

Matthew Hunt

"cannot tell me how a uranium atom is formed or any of its isotopes"

This is irrelevant. It is just a matter that it is formed. Which daughter elements are obtained from a given parent atom can be determined experimentally.

XLVIII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can determine by experiment that Uranium 238 will decay to Lead 205.

That is not my problem. My point is, can you prove that Lead 205 always comes from Uranium 238 and is never there on its own?

Or, normal Argon is Argon 39. From Potassium 40 you get Argon 40. Can you prove that all Argon 40 is ex-Potassium?

(Not to mention, the direct method of K-Ar per se doesn't differentiate between Argon 39 and Argon 40, you have a separate Argon40/Argon 39 test for that one, if at all done).

* Footnote

* Daniel and 2 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for The Biblical Worldview Defended!

samedi 17 mars 2018

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

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.

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

mardi 20 mars 2018

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

Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old

samedi 17 mars 2018

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

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB