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".