"I will explain why geocentrism is wrong if you don't post my words elsewhere."

Who would say a thing like that? Have we seen them before on this blog? One warning, what I post here is - for the first roughly half or more - less interesting than what I link to in it, so, if you want to spare yourself a boring debate with a boring man, and are not too curious, take previous post or scroll down to where it gets interesting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

shared

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Promoting Heliocentrism Again
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/cmi-promoting-heliocentrism-again.html

Matthew Hunt

[laughed.] (Emoticon)

[His ensuing emotica, varying between laughed and angry, are ignored, when put next to my comments. Until next day, 25.X.2018]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, Matthew Hunt - glad you are amused.

Like some debate? As usual, it comes to my blog, not stopping you from doing likewise!

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, as always I don't give you permission to copy and paste my responses to your blog.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, as always, I would feel, as you are a public person, the public has a right to know how you argue.

I will therefore take that as you decline to debate, right?

Matthew Hunt

I'm a "public person" am I? I'm not. It's your excuse to post my comments to a public forum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are as I recall professor at a university.

If it is in reality just assistant professor and my memory sucks, so be it, that is a public person too.

It's not as if it were on topics foreign to your position : it is a teaching one, and you teach science in a way polemic to Christian doctrine after what I've seen.

Now, if it were a matter of your opinions on cats, since you are not a veterinarian, you would be a private person on a cat forum.

And if I found your opinions on felinity sufficiently feline, I'd republish with MH replacing Matthew Hunt.

Also, since you are a cat owner, you would probably not be losing a debate against me on the subject. And therefore you wouldn't mind so much having your comments republished.

Losing a debate sucks, right, but being exposed over lots of places of the internet (not one forum where you could not check what was being said, but a post where you can confirm no single comment of yours was distorted, nor taken out of context), that sucks even more.

Matthew Hunt

No. I'm not a professor and even if I was that doesn't make me a "public person".

There isn't a debate over geocentrism...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except you participated in one.

Did you resign from teaching positions at University College London?

You certainly had one back then.

My list of in relevant sense public persons would include writers, teachers, priests, not just key positions in administration or people who get attention in "people" magazines.

Matthew Hunt

I was a teaching assistant for the duration of my PhD at UCL if that's what you mean. Since then I have been research fellows at various institutions.

It appears that you're making a lot of things up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, such as? Mistaking a "teaching assistant" for a "professor"?

My bad ...

Still a public person as per your university.

For a comparison, on the following post, Pope Michael is a public person, while NS is not, he's a student (and I notified his university he shouldn't study Catholic theology with his attitude to homeless), this is why NS was abbreviated:

HGL's F.B. writings : His Holiness Suppressing a Defense, Not an Attack, in a Quarrel Under His OP
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/10/his-holiness-suppressing-defense-not.html

And on previous one, EG is a layman, therefore a private person, while Chanoine Thibaut de Ternay who didn't answer my question, is a public person, relevant sense:

HGL's F.B. writings : Vive la Tradition, Mais la Vraie!
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/09/vive-la-tradition-mais-la-vraie.html

On the connected other post on other blog, Atheos and a few others left what youtube considers automatically as public comments - under the chosen aliases.

Répliques Assorties : Vidéo anti-créationniste, b) des débats
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2018/10/video-anti-creationniste-b-des-debats.html

I think, overall, this is a reasonable procedure about the privacy of debaters, without therefore withholding the actual debate.

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, can I ask why you're such a dishonest person?

You make things up like "teachers are public people", that isn't the case. You could make a case if I gave lots of public talks and engaged as a public figure but I don't.

I've attempted to get you to understand why geocentrism is wrong but I've only been attacked by you.

If I recall you were banned from a group for what you're doing today with [DW].

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You make things up like "teachers are public people", that isn't the case."

It is in the relevant sense for my usage on how I deal with it.

"but I've only been attacked by you."

Do you want to reread the dialogue, whether you call it debate or not?

One reason to have saved this:

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

"If I recall you were banned from a group for what you're doing today with DW"

I did not recall it was "with DW" - I rather think the group on which I confronted DW was one where I am still active, but if not, well, I know there are groups I was banned for for this.

IF I got "joinage" on a group of mine, one primary rule would be anyone was free to reblog, correctly, the debates or dialogues held on the group on public topics.

Btw, if that debate with DW really was on another group, at least he is still anonymous on my post:

HGL's F.B. writings : Sinlessness of Mary - and Continuity of the Church
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/08/sinlessness-of-mary-and-continuity-of.html

It would not have been the case if he had been a pastor of some Protestant denomination trying to cover up he lost against a Catholic.

If DW doesn't see me any more, it's probable he blocked me (or I blocked him and forgot).

I was just wondering a few days ago why someone was arguing with DW and I didn't see DW's comments.

[Obviously, I had already identified Matthew Hunt's [DW] - he posted a full name that I abbreviate - with the "DW" on my previous post on this blog.]

Matthew Hunt

DW is [DW].

The point is, you don't get permission to begin with. That's what people are annoyed with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Some are, yes.

Like DW. I do recall being banned from another group we were in, bc reposting not just your comments but also those of some others responding to you.

If some people are annoyed, others aren't. And still others wouldn't be if some were not seeking me out like you are, on my behaviour - which while not typical of this age, is neither dishonest nor otherwise immoral, on this issue.

Now, you want a society in which what is said under a debate is treated basically as if said in confession. I am not a priest, you did not confess to me sub rosa. You offered an argument, and I spread it along with my counterargument.

Ad if losing to me bothers you, look at all the others who did so on same blog - or a few more on another one or two:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ...
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/09/carrier-carries-on-obtusity-on-key-point.html

Scroll back over the years.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Maurice Buccaille, Basically
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/10/against-maurice-buccaille-basically.html

Scroll back over the years, this one is just comments under a youtube, but five back, you'll see me in debate with a Protestant:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Bible Versions
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/10/on-bible-versions.html

Matthew Hunt

Your behaviour is inappropriate in this matter. You don't get permission and that is dishonest. Now we have laws (Called the General Data Protection Regulations) in the UK which specifically forbids doing what you are doing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, you seem to have more than one rule calculated to overrule free speech.

In case you had taken me to court in UK, I would have invoked general interest of public to know a physics clear specialist is unable to refute geocentrism in a rhetorically satisfactory way.

I might conceivably lose, like UK courts don't always are too bright or were to bright when it came to libel, back in Chesterton's day.

I think that would still be morally winning. Since such a decision would continue to favour the kind of secrecy in which peoople like you can go on pretending that "there is no debate" when the debates you DO get in are what you lose.

Matthew Hunt

"I would have invoked general interest of public to know a physics clear specialist"

You'd be laughed out of court.

You still are dishonest in not obtaining permission to begin with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In other words, it would be dishonest of you to teach anything related to physics while trying to cover up things about what I reposted.

I checked a profile on DW. He is as far as I can see some kind of businessman.

BUT his business is totally another thing than his being a Protestant, so, I treat him as a private person in relation to subject, not pretending to publically defend the subject he debated on.

Hence, he is given privacy, he is just abbreviated to DW in order to distinguish him from other debaters.

So, do you intend to bring me to court about this?

For now, I think there is some Brexit business ... and I am in France?

And no, I don't think honesty works like that, since on your view anyone beaten by me in debate could pretend not to want to give me permission, and so deny it in order to cover up being beaten.

Matthew Hunt

Honesty does indeed work like that. You obtain permission first.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, if we had been engaged in some business negotiation and found an agreement, but the agreement involve third party or public being told about it, yes, obviously I'd ask for permission about that agreement.

But debates and business negotiations are two different things.

And I am obviously not taking you as an expert on honesty, after being refuted over a subject and then pretend to be attacked, when I simply expose the debate.

To clarify syntax of previous sentence : after your being refuted etc.

Matthew Hunt

You need to obtain permission for use of my words. You don't. That makes me think you have little integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK ... you pretend to deny permission on a debate which you lost, that makes me think little of yours.

If you like to posthumously so to speak give for previous use, and for this one, I'll put it down to your just being grumpy.

Matthew Hunt

I will explain why geocentrism is wrong if you don't post my words elsewhere. I don't trust you though as you've demonstrated a lack of integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I don't post your words elsewhere?

As in you are afraid of people seeing your words beside the holes I put in your arguments?

"I don't trust you though as you've demonstrated a lack of integrity."

I already said, if you do take a debate I do intend to use it. You have been warned beforehand. That's my integrity, where is yours?

Matthew Hunt

I don't give you permission to post my words elsewhere. How is that for you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, I feel free to disregard it when it suits me, and you knew that before getting into this ...

Matthew Hunt

"Well, I feel free to disregard it when it suits me"

Showing that you have no integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I also consider, both arguing on your ideas why geocentrism is wrong and on your idea how "I am dishonest" on your view while insisting on my keeping silent, is kind of asking me to submit in silence to a kind of harrassment, if you band up with others.

There are a bit too many who have argued with me for me to take some kinds of "sauce" I have been given without the prospect of "wait till they see that exposed".

Matthew Hunt

Fine, but the discussion remains here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thus, you have chosen today to first expose me to your laughter, fine, next a series of your pseudomoral view of honesty, totally lopsided, and then you have the stomach to ask the time I was asked to waste on you "remains here"?

No ... you even seem challenged in grammar, if you can first say "fine" and then add "but not fine" so to speak without noticing you did that.

Matthew Hunt

If you accept my terms, then I will talk about geocentrism with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you accept mine, there is no problem.

You already DID talk to me about geocentrism, and you already lost, and you want to BOTH cover up that by asking me to take it down, I presume, or at least to "school" me without being caught redhanded in arguing badly by anyone except poor me ... so, no thanks to those terms.

Matthew Hunt

I don't accept your. You *must* accept mine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For what purpose? Getting a boring and repetitive lecture on how you fail to understand arguments not fitted into your world view because they are arguments that your worldview is wrong, and not even having the opportunity to take revenge by reposting?

You think, seriously, I am THAT lonely, THAT hungry to talk to just one person?

Sure, it sucks begging on the street and not connected to the guys I'd love to say a word, and then only having less hours than wanted to "speak" with them, and you imagine YOU are the guy I long to speak to MOST?

What do you take yourself for? A master in extorsion?

Matthew Hunt

You don't have a physics background if I recall. Why do you think you understand the topics and I don't?

I take myself as a private person.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you are a private person, why bother to tell me about your physics background?

I do have in my private capacity, UNLIKE my university studies some physics background.

I also have some in general philosophy.

"Why do you think you understand the topics and I don't?"

That was not the point I made ever.

If you will CHECK our previous debates, very accessible on my blog, that may be how you read my ulterior motives, that was never ever at all my actual words.

Me being right and you being wrong is a fairly common thing in debate intentions.

It is a very dishonest twist and shows real lack of integrity, to take that for pretending to understand a topic and the other not.

If I took you as not understanding the topic at all, why would I have debated?

On the other hand, you may think, if you are the expert and I am not (this is where your being publically credited on the subject, thus a public person, comes in), how come I can think you wrong on any subject?

Well, for one, experts disagree and think each other wrong, and for another, I have some amateur level on the subject.

Matthew Hunt

Don't forget you're going up against the greatest scientific minds for the last 300-400 years and saying they got it wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, and what about the greatest scientific minds for the previous millennia?

And, was the model for Sherlock Holmes (a physician) not a scientific mind? Conan Doyle put in Sherlock's mouth a decision to forget heliocentrism (Study in Scarlet, I seem to recall - but it was ages ago) since it changes nothing on earth.

Sherlock, by extension that physician, seem to have accepted Heliocentrism on materialistic prejudice.

Matthew Hunt

Agree to my one and only term, not to post what I've written here.

"OK, and what about the greatest scientific minds for the previous millennia?"

Seriously?
Newton, Laplace, Poisson, Fourier, Poincare, Gauss, Faraday, Clerk-Maxwell, Einstein, Fermi, Wallace, Kelvin, Rayleigh...

I could go on. They were all giants in physics and they ALL to a man rejected geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Agree to my one and only term, not to post what I've written here."

Nope.

"Seriously?"

"Newton, Laplace, Poisson, Fourier, Poincare, Gauss, Faraday, Clerk-Maxwell, Einstein, Fermi, Wallace, Kelvin, Rayleigh..."

400 years ago is 1618 (outbreak of Thirty Years War, btw).

Who of the above wrote in the MILLENNIA PREVIOUS TO 1618?

My knowledge says they were to a man within the last 400 years, rather.

Also, Daimler, Benz, Thomas Alva Edison, Tesla, Pascal (who invented the wheelbarrow), Charles Wiesenthal and Thomas Saint and their successors Thomas Stone and James Henderson, Josef Madersperger, Barthélemy Thimonnier, Walter Hunt (perhaps a relative of yours), leading up to Isaac Merritt Singer and Elias Howe, can you show for each of them, quote by quote that they rejected geocentrism?

For Newton, you seem to have been over eager to draft an ally.

Robert Sungenis has claimed that, while Newton invented a solution for two-body problem of Earth basically orbitting Sun, he also added one could find one for a many body problem in which Earth remains immobile. This could be spurious, though.

For Gauss, I'm not sure you aren't confusing him with Euler, who in fact DID reject geocentrism. On basically "aliens" grounds. He argued, and probably so did Kant, that God must have created populations for Mars and Jupiter as well, and each star must have its exo-planets, and each of their inhabitants could have an equal ground to claim HIS planet the centre of the universe, and so the observational claims cancel out ... except the observational claims outside earth all depend on the idea God meant each star to have planets and each planet to be inhabited. Is that a ground you wish to take? I grew up part time in Austria, and in late 70's this was still a popular thing (at least with old fashioned fogeys like the guy I was guest with for some months).

Fermi, as I recall, while actually accepting heliocentrism, observed a paradox which might be pertinent to the Euler stance.

As to Faraday and Clerk-Maxwell, as well as Poincaré, I'd like exact quotes about how they argued.

And Laplace, I have already analysed and rejected as totally superficial in argumentation.

And obviously, exchanging quotes of learned men is NOT exactly a very personal and soul searching exercise, so, I can't see why you'd bother even about your condition, it seems totally unreasonable and wanton. You lack integrity, once again.

And, again, I underline, what about the millennia before 1618. Like back to Aristotle and Plato? Over St Thomas Aquinas and Riccioli.

Also, you have both St. Robert Bellarmine and Riccioli accepting geocentrism past 1618. (Tycho Brahe had however died a bit before that in 1601).

Giovanni Battista Riccioli[1] (d͡ʒoˈvan:i bat:'ista riˈt͡ʃ:ɔ:li; 17 April 1598 – 25 June 1671)

One of Riccioli's most significant works was his 1651 Almagestum Novum (New Almagest),[7] an encyclopedic work consisting of over 1500 folio pages (38 cm x 25 cm) densely packed with text, tables, and illustrations. It became a standard technical reference book for astronomers all over Europe: John Flamsteed (1646–1719), the first English astronomer royal, a Copernican and a Protestant, used it for his Gresham lectures; Jérôme Lalande (1732–1807) of the Paris Observatory cited it extensively[8] even though it was an old book at that point; the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia calls it the most important literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century.

1651 - within last 400 years.

1671 (he didn't recant geocentrism after 51) - within last 400 years.

Source :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli

Matthew Hunt

[added laugh emotica on two separate comments, as they are on FB, of which I united my previous one]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt - would you mind sharing the joke, with me and our readers?

Update:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As you decline, let's see what I can make of what you already provided ...

[He was notified by a link here]