GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
George Hammond
(Relativistic Anthropic Principle)
The Anthropic Principle is well known to Science today.
Carter, Barrow, Tipler, Wheeler and even Hawking and Penrose
and Weinberg have written extensively on the subject.
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
The irony of this has not been lost on Religious experts.
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.
As far as Physics is concerned of course, "Man" is THE
observer. This proves that it is MAN who causes the
Universe to exist. After all, if all people died at 9am
tomorrow, there would no longer be any observables, no
universe, no time, no space; no nothing. NOTHING WOULD
"EXIST".
Religion recognized this principle thousands of years
ago, St. Augustine in particular. In fact Bishop George
Berkeley formally published the thesis 300 years ago, and as
recently as 1900 Mary Baker Eddy founded the highly
successful Christian Science Church on the principle.
It is therefore a fascinating irony that Science has
finally stumbled on the PRACTICAL DISCOVERY of the Anthropic
Principle... they finally recognized such elementary facts
as WHY the Universe is 13 billion years old... i.e. that it
took that long for Man to emerge, and without Man there is
no "Universe"... therefore, the Anthropic Principle not only
explains the "age of the Universe"... but that realization
actually proves that the AP explains the existence of the
Universe in the first place!
OK... but the scientists have YET to realize this; that
the existence itself, of anything, depends on the Anthropic
Principle... and therefore, that the Anthropic Principle de
facto explains the so called "Biblical Creation"...
existence itself only came into being 200,000 years ago when
Man appeared; Homo Sapiens sapiens. Note that the Bible
figures this was 6,000 years ago, but Anthropology was in a
primitive state when the Bible was written, so they're about
194,000 short of the correct date of Creation... but still a
good guess for nonscientific people in primitive times.
OK.... here's the REAL ENTERTAINMENT aspect of all this.
Religious people are far smarter and more widely educated
than Scientists (believe it or not), and consequently they
view the Scientific "discovery" of the Anthropic Principle
with MUCH AMUSEMENT, since they have known about it for
thousands of years.
The Religious people of course realize that "Man created
reality" and they further realize that Scientists think that
"Reality created Man". Knowing that it is futile to try and
explain this to stubborn and nerd like Scientists, the
Religious people are having a field day teasing the
Physicists with long endless dissertations on how
"scientifically peculiar" it is that the Universe seems to
be so "finely tuned" to support life (when of course just
the opposite is true as any dunderhead can see... that in
fact "life is finely tuned to fit into the universe by
Natural Selection). And sure enough, the scientists fall
for it every time, why we have scientists pointing out that
"if the electron was 1% smaller, life couldn't exist", or
"if the Earths orbit was 1% larger, we would be extinct", or
"if there wasn't an excited state of Carbon at 6.67 Mev
carbon based life couldn't exist", blah, blah, blah.
However, it turns out that HAMMOND (2003) is slated to
have the last laugh, a laugh at BOTH the scientists and the
Theologians!
HAMMOND of course long ago recognized that "the mind
creates Reality, and therefore the Universe and everything
in it.... but AMAZINGLY....Hammond also being a prodigious
Relativity physicist psychology investigator
(Psychometrics), accidentally discovered that human
perception (of reality) is actually RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED.
In other words, the reality you see, is actually a CURVED
VERSION of true reality, and that this makes part of true
reality INVISBLE to you, me, and every other person in the
human race. And this phenomena is known historically as
"GOD".
Yes... HAMMOND has discovered (and proved and peer
published, 2003) that the universal Secular Trend Growth
Deficit in Man, causes Man's perception (of sight, sound,
touch, taste, smell) to be RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED thus
rendering 20%, on average, of (normal) Reality to be
invisible... thus scientifically explaining and proving the
existence of God and Heaven in one fell swoop.
Meanwhile the entertaining dialog between Physics and
Religion over the so called "Anthropic Principle" continues
to highly amuse those people in society who already full
well know what God actually is, and I predict, that there
will be much gnashing of teeth among the academic pedants
when HAMMOND'S discovery of the world's first bona fide
Scientific Proof of God (SPOG for short) becomes common
scientific knowlege.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
ShivverMeTimbers
You are looking at humanity through an electron microscope.
The only goal of any religion is to control all humanity
on the Earth and if possible the Entire Universe.
Science is an evolutionary step above Religion
but has been dominated by religion for religious ends.
Maybe one day Raw Science will recognize the HUMAN as
being a sacred animal then we can eliminate religion
all together and together we can understand
the universe in a nice and comfortable way.
Religion is ancient forms of Government that originated
prior to the Scientific Methodology.
We alive today are doomed to suffer because it will not die easily.
It seeks control by overpopulation as well as force and deception.
It ( the religious ) used to use poison to murder non-religious persons
until the 1800s when forensic science came along
and could hold such people accountable.
The crime of poisioning was punished in Roman times
by feeding the offender to the wild beast.
Religion is a sort of weapon of mass destruction
invented by ancient philosophers.
There have been einsteins all through history.
But no weapon guilty of taking so many lives prematurely as Religion.
This weapon was detonated maybe 2000 years ago and
its echos are still here today and quite some
time into the future.
Religion is little more than a Computer Like virus
infecting the human mind and transferred to the
humans with child like minds from one generation to the next.
At the time only some persons without religious contact during
the first stage of their lives are immune to being infected.
Whether you call it Christian, Moslum or Jew or Witch
or Hari Khrishna or Scientology or Mental Health.
it is all the same thing to me.
Dark Star 1970s [ Bomb # 21 ]
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message news:2o8n04tfq2k8rcu69...@4ax.com...
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
In China and India no clear distinction is made between literature,
science, philosophy and literature. They are all ways of
representing and understanding reality. The emphasis might differ a
bit -- more introspection in one, perhaps, more observation in another
-- but, essentially, they are using similar methods to achieve similar
goals.
In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".
Uncle Al
>
> GOD = RAP
[snip rest of crap]
Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
George Hammond
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> GOD = RAP
>[snip rest of crap]
>
>Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
>doing, Georgie boy?
>
>Idiot.
>
[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .
How's Los Angles doing Schwartz? If India was up your
ass you'd know it.
Immortalist
> Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
> "observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
> doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
> no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
> thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
> the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable
Humans must exist for determinability to be possible.
Therefore All possibilities of determinability require humans to be
possible?
Isn't that like saying that humans were not possible before they
exsisted and if so how is it possible that they could exist if they
are not possible?
Peri of Pera
Immortalist,
correct, the universe, life and god are not possible to exist yet
there is evidence of the existence of the first two. A paradox.
Peter Riedt
George Hammond
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> [Hammond]
>> Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
>> "observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
>> doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
>> no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
>> thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
>> the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.
>
>
>If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
>determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
>such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
>or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
>observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
>whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
>determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
>whether they exist or not.
>
>
Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:
CASE 1:
If I turn my back and look the other way,
does the Moon still exist?
(correct answer, YES)
CASE 2:
If the human race never existed or became
totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
(correct answer, NO)
I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
John Smith
Now wait a minute!
ALL of your posts, and years of actions, have shown just the opposite!
You think, act and post exactly like someone who has turned his back on
REALITY - and then pretended it doesn't exist.
>
> I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
> The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
> CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. And the Anthropic Principle
> applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
> Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
> try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
> convinced of the truth of the Anthropic Principle, ya know,
> including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
> well as the entire scientific community.
As usual, your crap says nothing.
Michael Moroney
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
>>doing, Georgie boy?
>>
>>Idiot.
>>
>[Hammond]
> The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
>Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
>Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .
Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30. A "proof" that "proves" a wrong answer is pretty worthless,
don't you think? If I came up with a "proof" that "proved" why 2+2=12345
it would instantly be recognized as absurd.
George Hammond
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>>Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
>>>doing, Georgie boy?
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>>>
>>[Hammond]
>> The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
>>Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
>>Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .
>
>Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
>not just 30.
>
>
[Hammond]
His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
million names in the Human Language.
On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion; scientifically
speaking. Stop trying to pretend you're not an aggravated
halfwit heckler.
>
>
A "proof" that "proves" a wrong answer is pretty
worthless,
>
[Hammond]
The SPOG fully proves the (rational) part of his
statmment (30 demigods) is correct (and they all have names
and faces).... the quip about 360 million gods is obviously
aggravated spute.
Don Stockbauer
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
Here's your scientific proof of God, Hammond: God and the Universe
are identical.
Michael Moroney
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
>>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
>>>>doing, Georgie boy?
>>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>> The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
>>>Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
>>>Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .
>>
>>Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
>>not just 30.
>>
>>
> His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
>million names in the Human Language.
Uncle Al never claimed that they all had names known to Hinduism.
> On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
>comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
>CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion;
The Vedic pantheon alone puts Hinduism over 30 gods. And they have names
since that seems to be important to you. So what good is your proof that
2+2=12345?
> scientifically speaking.
Wrong, of course.
> The SPOG fully proves the (rational) part of his
>statmment (30 demigods) is correct (and they all have names
>and faces)....
well I guess "he" can't count very well.
The ancient Greek and Roman religions had well over 30 gods each as well.
darwinist
"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).
Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).
It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.
George Hammond
<darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers" <nom...@everever.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[Jerry Kraus]
>> In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
>> scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
>> theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
>> who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
>> "theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".
>
>
>[Darwinist]
>"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
>viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).
>
>
[Hammond]
Darwin is right about the Greek etymology of the word
"theory" as any dictionary will confirm.
However, I am rather persuaded by Kraus's suspicion that
there is in fact a (much more ancient) connection between
the definition "to look at" and the word "God". My bet is
the world "theos" is actually anciently derived from the
word "thoria" (to view, or look at). My hunch is based on
the fact that the phenomenon of "God" is essentially, and
mainly, a (seemingly supernatural" or transcendental)
"visual phenomenon". IOW the word "God" may have originally
referred to the seemingly supernatural and transcendental
nature of human perception, especially the perception of
other peoples' identities.
>
>
>
>Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
>denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
>galileo, darwin).
>
>
[Hammond]
According to my knowlege there has never been a scientist
of any note who had the slightest clue as to what God is,
perhaps with the exception of DesCartes. Both Newton, and
Einstein had very elementary understandings of what the
phenomenon of "God" actually is.
Newton for the most part merely quoted the religious
opinions of others. Einstein wasn't even aware that there
is an anthropomorphic God and believed in Spinoza's quite
ignorant Stoic pantheism.
>
>>It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
>and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
>better. Some people practice both.
>
>
[Hammond]
Horseshit... Science by definition is capable of
explaining any "physical phenomenon" including "God". What
most people don't realized is that the "phenomenon of God"
is a Relativistic perceptual phenomenon. Religion is
Relativistic Psychology you might call it.
Immortalist
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist" since if humans
never existed there may or may not have been sattelites orbiting stars
in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propogating through
space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
or hadn't existed yet.
In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
conditional statement. If humans didn't exist then X would either be
or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
are using the phrase "existence of the moon".
Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
the possibility of determinability in the first place? Of course
humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
not possible prior to their existence, right?
> I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
> The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
> CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. And the Anthropic Principle
> applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
> Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
> try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
> convinced of the truth of the Anthropic Principle, ya know,
> including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
> well as the entire scientific community.
> =====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =====================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
George Hammond
>[Immortalist]
>Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"
>
>
[Hammond]
NO KIDDING, Sherlock! Can't you get it through your head
that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: "A
human opinion based on sensory perception". There is no
OTHER definition of the word "exists". Ergo, if there are
no humans, then there is no "existence" of anything.
Physics cannot "define" mass, length and time. What is
done is that someone holds up a brass cylinder, a platinum
rod and a cesium clock and says to the assembled human race:
"Do you all agree that these 3 objects are specimens of what
we commonly called mass, length and time", and when the
majority yells back enthusiastically, "Yea", then it becomes
established official convention that those 3 objects are the
"official standards of mass, length and time" upon which the
entire edifice of Science, Physics, technology, economics
and indeed civilization itself is then erected.
Obviously then, the existence of reality itself
(spacetime) is nothing more than a "Human sense perception",
and equally obviously, if Man did not exist, then reality
itself would not exist. That's hardly rocket science!
>
>
>
>[Immortalist]
> since if humans
>never existed there may or may not have been satellites orbiting stars
>in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propagating through
>space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
>place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
>human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
>or hadn't existed yet.
>
>
[Hammond]
The conjecture that it is possible to artificially
construct a human being, or human intelligence, is just
that, a conjecture. Furthermore, it would not impact the
present discussion, since, once again, you would have a
"human" observer, whether it was created in a test tube or
the womb, makes no difference.
By this time, I would think that you have realized that
Man is in fact "God", and that conclusion incidentally is
entirely in line with majority religious belief, where "God"
is generally believed to be "an invisible man".
The SPOG, in fact proves that this historic belief is
scientifically true, and dramatically explains why this
perfect man is "invisible".
>
>
>[Immortalist]
>In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
>open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
>conditional statement.
>
[Hammond]
Ok.
>
>[Immortalist]
> If humans didn't exist then X would either be
>or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
>determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
>determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
>are using the phrase "existence of the moon".
>
>
[Hammond]
OF COURSE; the entire argument rests on the "operational
definition of existence".
The ENTIRE THEORY OF RELIGION RESTS ON THE operational
definition of "existence".
Science simply PRESUMES A PRIORI the existence of Man
(i.e. presumes the existence of the "observer").
Religion does not, and in fact pointedly exerts, that the
existence of Man is what "causes" the existence of physical
reality.
>
>
>[Immortalist]
>Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
>the possibility of determinability in the first place?
>
[Hammond]
YES, a thousand times, YES!
>
>[Immortalist]
> Of course
>humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
>not possible prior to their existence, right?
>
[Hammond]
Apparently WRONG. Religion holds that human
"consciousness/perception/mind" just suddenly appeared i.e.
created itself out of nothing 200,000 years ago when our
species appeared. This is referred to as the Biblical
"Creation" since as explained above, reality itself came
into being concommitently with the appearance of Man.
The Bible figures this to be 6,000 years ago, but
anthropology didn't exist when the Bible was written, and we
now know that Man (our species) appeared approximately
200,000 years ago although actually not in large numbers
until 100,000 years ago. This is scientifically the
explanation of the Genesis "Creation", and is absolutely
scientifically CORRECT.
>
>
>>[Hammond]
>> I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for Christ's sake.
John Smith
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
> mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
>>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
>>>>doing, Georgie boy?
>>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>> The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
>>>Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
>>>Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .
>>
>>Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
>>not just 30.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
> million names in the Human Language.
> On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
> comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
> CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion; scientifically
> speaking. Stop trying to pretend you're not an aggravated
> halfwit heckler.
Stop trying to pretend that you are actually a valid, sane and rational
scientist!
John Smith
What you don't realize, or recognize when it is shown to you, is that the
vast majority of people, including scientists and theologists, completely
trash YOUR crap!
John Smith
Wrong again, shit for brains!
"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ex搏st Audio Help /?g'z?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being; be: The world exists,
whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be
found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's
not living, he's merely existing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1595-1605; < L ex(s)istere to exist, appear, emerge, equiv. to ex-
ex-1 + sistere to stand] "
YOUR mentally corrupt definition isn't even close!
George Hammond
> [Shithead Heckler]
>"Dictionary.com Unabridged: exist
>
>-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being
>
[GH]: Only a human can confirm the existence of anything.
>
> 2. to have life or animation; live.
>
[GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists
>
> 3. to continue to be or live
>
[GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists
>
> 4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be
>found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
>
[GH]: Only a human can confirm that hunger or anything else
in the world, including the world, exists
>
> 5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's
>not living, he's merely existing.
>
[GH]: Only a human observer can confirm that anything is
" existing".
>
>
You're a numb shithead.
John Smith
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!
>>
>> 2. to have life or animation; live.
>>
> [GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists
Wrong again, shit for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!
>>
>> 3. to continue to be or live
>>
> [GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists
Wrong again, shit for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!
>>
>> 4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions;
>> be
>>found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
>>
> [GH]: Only a human can confirm that hunger or anything else
> in the world, including the world, exists
Wrong again, shit for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!
>>
>> 5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter:
>> He's
>>not living, he's merely existing.
>>
> [GH]: Only a human observer can confirm that anything is
> " existing".
Wrong again, shit for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!
>>
>>
> You're a numb shithead.
Since you call your own mental/psychological/social corruption, reality
..... I'll take that as praise.
George Hammond
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Hammond]
We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
confirm that anything "existed"? Shithead!
John Smith
But NOT falling into a trap of arrogant ignorance - that mankind is needed
for everything.
How can YOU claim that NOTHING exists - under those same circumstances -
shithead?
George Hammond
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:1cjs045218rsaronr...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:38:51 GMT, "John Smith"
>> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
>> about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
>> tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
>> confirm that anything "existed"? Shithead!
>
>
>But NOT falling into a trap of arrogant ignorance - that mankind is needed
>for everything.
>
[Hammond]
Mankind IS EVERYTHING.....if you lose part of your brain
because you fail to reach your full height and weight, YOU
LOSE AN EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF REALITY!
In fact, if the whole human race disappears, Reality
itself disappears along with us.
>
>
>How can YOU claim that NOTHING exists - under those same circumstances -
>shithead?
>
>
[Hammond]
I can't even make sense out ot that statement.
You're starting to get incoherent.... don't go hysterical
on us just because you're getting your ass kicked.
Andy F.
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
been around for billions of years.This means the universe existed before
humans did. So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.
There is no
> OTHER definition of the word "exists". Ergo, if there are
> no humans, then there is no "existence" of anything.
> Physics cannot "define" mass, length and time. What is
> done is that someone holds up a brass cylinder, a platinum
> rod and a cesium clock and says to the assembled human race:
> "Do you all agree that these 3 objects are specimens of what
> we commonly called mass, length and time", and when the
> majority yells back enthusiastically, "Yea", then it becomes
> established official convention that those 3 objects are the
> "official standards of mass, length and time" upon which the
> entire edifice of Science, Physics, technology, economics
> and indeed civilization itself is then erected.
> Obviously then, the existence of reality itself
> (spacetime) is nothing more than a "Human sense perception",
> and equally obviously, if Man did not exist, then reality
> itself would not exist. That's hardly rocket science!
>>
Since we know that Man does exist, any statement beginning "if Man did not
exist" is meaningless.
It's like saying that if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
John Smith
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:45:57 GMT, "John Smith"
> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:1cjs045218rsaronr...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:38:51 GMT, "John Smith"
>>> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
>>> about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
>>> tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
>>> confirm that anything "existed"? Shithead!
>>
>>
>>But NOT falling into a trap of arrogant ignorance - that mankind is needed
>>for everything.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Mankind IS EVERYTHING.....
That's only YOUR mentally corrupt and insane delusion!
if you lose part of your brain
> because you fail to reach your full height and weight, YOU
> LOSE AN EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF REALITY!
> In fact, if the whole human race disappears, Reality
> itself disappears along with us.
Just the same toilet crap you've always bellowed .. nothing more!
>>
>>
>>How can YOU claim that NOTHING exists - under those same circumstances -
>>shithead?
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> I can't even make sense out ot that statement.
Of course not - it's based on your own insane, psychotic delusions.
> You're starting to get incoherent.... don't go hysterical
> on us just because you're getting your ass kicked.
Certainly not by you ............ shit for brains.
George Hammond
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[John Ratsmith]
>That's only YOUR mentally corrupt and insane delusion!
>
>Just the same toilet crap you've always bellowed .. nothing more!
>
>Of course not - it's based on your own insane, psychotic delusions.
>
>Certainly not by you ............ shit for brains.
>
>
[Hammond]
Screw jackass; you had your chance, you have nothing to say.
I'm not replying you any further.
John Smith
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:13:31 GMT, "John Smith"
> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>[John Ratsmith]
>>That's only YOUR mentally corrupt and insane delusion!
>>
>>Just the same toilet crap you've always bellowed .. nothing more!
>>
>>Of course not - it's based on your own insane, psychotic delusions.
>>
>>Certainly not by you ............ shit for brains.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Screw jackass; you had your chance, you have nothing to say.
> I'm not replying you any further.
Heard THAT crap lie before too!.
Have you EVER said anything that wasn't eityher insane, or a lie - or both?
George Hammond
<never...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>[Andy F.]
>There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
>been around for billions of years.
>
[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.
>
>[Andy F.]
>This means the universe existed before
>humans did.
>
>
[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.
1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.
2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.
3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.
>
>[Andy F.]
> So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.
>
>
[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!
Andy F.
An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When you
look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you look
through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened millions
of years ago.
>
> 3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
> did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
> 1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
> a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
> if anybody was around to see it.
>>
>>[Andy F.]
>> So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong again.
> The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
> "caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
> HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
> In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
> people, no existence, of anything!
But a human can't confirm that something exists until after it exists.Which
would make it logically impossible for anything to come into existence.
Errol
>
> An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
> has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
> If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When you
> look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you look
> through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened millions
> of years ago.
>
Ouch! waiting in anticipation for GH to respond to that.
The universe around us is created by human perception. I agree with
this in the sense that humans "conjure" the universe out of a chaotic
background of overlapping interference patterns and through the act of
observation, give form and solidity to this reality, but why do we
create a history that according to GH does not exist. This is a bit
like the preacher who, when confronted by evidence of dinosaur bones,
claims that god put them there, already pre-aged at several hundred
millions of years old.
Start thinking GH
Mike
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > GOD = RAP
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
> doing, Georgie boy?
Holy cow!
>
> Idiot.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mike
> GOD = RAP
> (Relativistic Anthropic Principle)
>
> The Anthropic Principle is well known to Science today.
> Carter, Barrow, Tipler, Wheeler and even Hawking and Penrose
> and Weinberg have written extensively on the subject.
> What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
> was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
> The irony of this has not been lost on Religious experts.
> Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
> "observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
> doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
> no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
> thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
> the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.
> observer. This proves that it is MAN who causes the
> Universe to exist. After all, if all people died at 9am
> tomorrow, there would no longer be any observables, no
> universe, no time, no space; no nothing. NOTHING WOULD
> "EXIST".
Nope, you are contardicting yourself. If GOD exists then GOD will be
the observer and everything will exists even if all men died.
Since the totality of human intelligence cannot surprass GOD's
intelligence according to religion, then GOD, since HE is also an
observer, created reality and not man.
> Religion recognized this principle thousands of years
> ago, St. Augustine in particular. In fact Bishop George
> Berkeley formally published the thesis 300 years ago, and as
> recently as 1900 Mary Baker Eddy founded the highly
> successful Christian Science Church on the principle.
> It is therefore a fascinating irony that Science has
> finally stumbled on the PRACTICAL DISCOVERY of the Anthropic
> Principle... they finally recognized such elementary facts
> as WHY the Universe is 13 billion years old... i.e. that it
> took that long for Man to emerge, and without Man there is
> no "Universe"... therefore, the Anthropic Principle not only
> explains the "age of the Universe"... but that realization
> actually proves that the AP explains the existence of the
> Universe in the first place!
> OK... but the scientists have YET to realize this; that
> the existence itself, of anything, depends on the Anthropic
> Principle... and therefore, that the Anthropic Principle de
> facto explains the so called "Biblical Creation"...
> existence itself only came into being 200,000 years ago when
> Man appeared; Homo Sapiens sapiens. Note that the Bible
> figures this was 6,000 years ago, but Anthropology was in a
> primitive state when the Bible was written, so they're about
> 194,000 short of the correct date of Creation... but still a
> good guess for nonscientific people in primitive times.
The term "anthropic" was a bad choice as Carter huimself admitted. The
principle applies to intelligent aobservers in general and not
restricted to human beings.
> OK.... here's the REAL ENTERTAINMENT aspect of all this.
> Religious people are far smarter and more widely educated
> than Scientists (believe it or not), and consequently they
> view the Scientific "discovery" of the Anthropic Principle
> with MUCH AMUSEMENT, since they have known about it for
> thousands of years.
> The Religious people of course realize that "Man created
> reality" and they further realize that Scientists think that
> "Reality created Man".
[snip]
Listen yo: if man created his own reality he did a bad job. Even a
monkey would have created a betetr reality for its race. This universe
is hostile to poeple, thanks we have Van Allen to protect us and ozone
layer at least for now.
Even yo would have creaated a better universe. Actually, some belive
that this universe was created by a young God as an experiment and at
that time he only had experience with the Poisson equation and
Gaussian distributions.
Mike
George Hammond
<never...@tesco.net> wrote:
[Hammond]
Idiocy, the Universe didn't "exist" until the human race
arrived to "make" it exist by seeing it. Makes no
difference that the light took 13 billion years to get here,
it didn't "exist" until the human race arrived to see it.
>
>
>> 3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
>> did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
>> 1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
>> a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
>> if anybody was around to see it.
>>>
>>>[Andy F.]
>>> So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Wrong again.
>> The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
>> "caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
>> HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
>> In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
>> people, no existence, of anything!
>
>But a human can't confirm that something exists until after it exists.Which
>would make it logically impossible for anything to come into existence.
>
[Hammond]
Idiot..... nothing existed until Humans arrived to "make" it
exist by seeing it. You're an imbecile who will never rise
above moronic world games... I suggest you try crossword
puzzles. Moron.
George Hammond
<vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 1:46 pm, "Andy F." <never.m...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
>> has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
>> If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When you
>> look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you look
>> through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened millions
>> of years ago.
>>
>
>Ouch! waiting in anticipation for GH to respond to that.
>
[Hammond]
Already responded to it..... he's too mentally chalenged to
even understand the point of the discussion.
>
>
>The universe around us is created by human perception. I agree with
>this in the sense that humans "conjure" the universe out of a chaotic
>background of overlapping interference patterns and through the act of
>observation, give form and solidity to this reality, but why do we
>create a history that according to GH does not exist.
>
>
[Hammond]
It all comes down to the perational meaning of the world
"existence" as any fool can see. there IS NO operational
meaning to the world "existence" except via a human
observer. THEREFORE, not only did Man "create the universe"
by the mere fact of his appearance 200,000 years ago, he
ALSO "created time and space, and all of history" at the
same time.
>
>
> This is a bit
>like the preacher who, when confronted by evidence of dinosaur bones,
>claims that god put them there, already pre-aged at several hundred
>millions of years old.
>
[Hammond]
the preacher is correct when you analyze the operational
meaning of "existence".
>
>
[Hammond]
Start learning Errol,
this Philawsephy bullshit is only the FOOTHILLS of the
scientific proof of God that has been discovered.... this is
just "playing with pedants and amateurs".... because they
know no Relativity.... the REAL DISCOVERY which makes all
this Philawsepy crap academic, is the fact that Hammond has
discovered that human perception is CURVED, and this PROVES
that there is an "invisible world" (called heaven" and that
there is an "invisible man" called "God" who lives there.
You're probably not even qualified to discuss Linear
Algebra and Relativity.... you're only qualified to play in
the sandbox of Philawsephy with the rest of these clowns...
whom I only talk to for publicity purposes.
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:41 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.
>
>
>[Doug]
>You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
>school in physics.
>
[Hammond]
That doesn't mean you're not an ineffectual and helpless
moron when it comes to forensically investigating a
scientific proof of God, and don't ever forget it!
>
>
>[Doug]
>But none of that matters since none of what you are
>posting has anything to do with physics.
>
[Hammond]
That statement is either a monumental faux pas, or you're
a pathological liar.
Fact is Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra of
Psychometry Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the
structure of linearized Gravity in Relativity thus proving
that "God" is in fact a "relativistic curvature of
subjective spacetime". QED; God exists.
Therefore the scientific Proof of God (SPOG) is DE FACTO
an "applied physics theory", and you don't know what you're
talking about.
>
>
>[Doug]
> You are
>attempting to pervert logic and religion and somehow
>make silly assumptions like the Greeks not knowing the
>difference between 12 and 13 (that one brought howls of
>laughter from everyone) and rewriting the number of
>gods (all of which are man made creations anyway). Trying
>to prove that nonexistent gods are a result of your theory
>is pretty bizarre, even you must admit.
>
>
>[Hammond]
Listen you over privileged PhD asshole, this amateur
philosophy crap I'm engaging in with these high school
graduate amateurs is because that's all they are capable of
discussing. They don't know what an eigenvector is, or a
2nd rank tensor. They don't even know polar from Cartesian
coordinates.... so I have to talk "philosophy" with them...
such as the "Anthropic Principle" which is a hermaphrodite
amalgam of Philosophy and Physics as you well know. But the
fact that a thousand amateurs or Liberal Arts PhD's want to
talk to me about "God" DOES NOT MEAN that the SPOG isn't a
"Physics Theory". It certainly is a Physics theory!
>
>
>[Doug]
>By the way, insults and swearing are not the way to win
>arguments. Those who made it through school prefer logic,
>reasoning and facts.
>
>
[Hammond]
I'm the one who prefers logic, reasoning and facts, not
you! There are worse transgressions of Science than
swearing; for instance the transgression YOU are guilty of
which is the high handed, overpriviliged presumptive disdain
you have for anyone claiming to have discovered a physics
proof of God.... or your blatant presumption that "Physics
cannot prove God"
Get with it kid, not only does Physics have to tackle
dirty jobs like building an Atomic Bomb (and you can bet
there was plenty of swearing while that was going on).....
Physics ALSO has to deal with the issue of finding out if
there really is a God, and if so what it is.... and that is
just what I've proved.... that "God" is a real physical
(relativistic perceptual) effect. And that's history, Mr.
You don't know what you're talking about, and excuse me
if I'm not impressed with you're PhD in Physics... I've
talked to several PhD physicists, and frankly I'm not too
impressed. Professor Chris Isham for instance showed
nothing but amateur ignorance and presumption when I talked
to him about the SPOG.... or J. Baugh, one of Finklestein's
PhD's, who showed nothing but aggravated juvenile ignorance
when it came to the phenomena of Religion... someone who
should at least know enough to be polite and cautious for
heaven's sake!
So I'm not that impressed with you're PhD in physics,
not until I find out if you can stand on one foot with your
eyes closed and point to true North all at the same time.
>
>
>
>> VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND
>>
>> B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
>> Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
>> M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
>> Boston MA, USA
>> Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
>> Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
>> Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
>> at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
>> Professor of Physics at TAMU
>>
>> Peer reviewed publications:
>>
>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>> paper is posted at:
>> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>>
>> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
>> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
>> Press)
>> Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
>> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
Immortalist
...the world we see in conscious experience is not the real world
itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that world
in an internal representation. Representationalism is also known (in
psychology) as Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect
Realism, or Epistemological Dualism.
Why Representationalism?
As incredible as it might seem intuitively, representationalism is the
only alternative that is consistent with the facts of perception.
The Epistemological Fact (strongest theory): It is impossible to have
experience beyond the sensory surface.
Dreams, Hallucinations, and Visual Illusions clearly indicate that the
world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself.
The observed Properties of Phenomenal Perspective clearly indicate
that the world of experience is not the same as the external world
that it represents.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html
Representationalism (or indirect realism) with respect to perception
is the view that "we are never aware of physical objects, [but rather]
we are only indirectly aware of them, in virtue of a direct awareness
of an intermediary [mental] object. (Dancy, 145) Because there are
both direct and indirect objects of awareness in representationalism,
a correspondence relation arises between the mental entities directly
perceived and external objects which those mental entities represent.
And thus perceptual error occurs when the two objects of awareness do
not correspond sufficiently well. In opposition to
representationalism, both (direct) realism and idealism agree that
perception is direct and unmediated, despite their disagreements about
what the object of perception is. (Dancy, 145) In any form of direct
perception, no correspondence relationship is possible, since there is
only one object of perception. Thus only representationalism will give
rise to the view that perceptual errors exist and must be part of a
theory of perception. Nevertheless, both idealism and realism must
still account for the facts that are referred to as "perceptual
errors" by the representationalist.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html
...representation is central to psychology as well, for the mind too
is a system that represents the world and possible worlds in various
ways. Our hopes, fears, beliefs, memories, perceptions, intentions,
and desires all involve our ideas about (our mental models of) the
world and other worlds. This is what humanist philosophers and
psychologists have always said, of course, but until recently they had
no support from science...
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0162.html?
>
> >[Immortalist]
> >Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
> >the possibility of determinability in the first place?
>
> [Hammond]
> YES, a thousand times, YES!
>
I suppose if the created the world outside the boundries of the world
represented in their head, maybe in five minutes, but I doubt it;
"…how can we know that the universe wasn't created a few minutes ago?
"
--Bertrand Russell
...suppose the universe were suddenly created five minutes ago,
complete with memories, historical and geological records, and so
forth. That is, at the moment of creation, the universe would have all
the evidence that it was billions of years old already "packed in."
How could it ever be known that the creation of the universe did not
occur five minutes ago?
The hypothesis initially seems implausible, yet how can we know that
the universe wasn't created a few minutes ago? Certainly the Five-
Minute World hypothesis is inconsistent with many of our other
beliefs. If it were true, we would have to give up these other beliefs
if we were to hold it, but how could we prove beyond any shadow of
doubt what is the case? From a purely empirical point of view, no
evidence is available which could prove that God isn't constantly
creating the universe moment by moment. In fact, as we will see in
Part III of this text, some persons who believe in predestination
eschew the notion of causality and believe God actually does create
the universe moment by moment.
Main Divisions of Philosophy
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/x924.html
----------------------------------
It seems you can think of Russell as giving the following argument: I
can prove that the world wasn't created five minutes ago only if my
evidence that it wasn't created five minutes ago establishes, beyond
any possible doubt, that the world wasn't created only five minutes
ago.
But my evidence for the claim that the world wasn't created five
minutes ago is based on my memories of previous events, and those
memories do not establish, beyond any possible doubt, that the world
wasn't created five minutes ago. Why not? Because it seems possible
that all my memories could have been placed in my mind when the world,
along with everything else, was created five minutes ago. If that had
happened, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that world
and one in which my memories of things are really memories of things
that happened more than five minutes ago. So there is some, admittedly
slight, ground for doubt about my memory evidence that the world
wasn't created five minutes ago. And since there is some ground for
doubt about my evidence, I can't prove the world wasn't created five
minutes ago.
Another way to think of it would be this. If I can prove the world
existed more than five minutes ago, there would have to be no
alternate explanation for the memories I seem to have of things that
happened more than five minutes ago. For the memories are the
evidence, and they'd only allow me to prove the world wasn't created
five minutes ago if the only possible way I would have those memories
is by actually experiencing the world more than five minutes ago. But
that's just not the only possible way I could have got those memories.
For instance, God could have created me five minutes ago and given me
what seem to be memories of things that happened long before. This
seems unlikely, but it's a possible explanation for my having these
memories. And so there is an alternate explanation for the memories
that constitute my evidence that things were going on more than five
minutes ago, and so I can't prove the world existed more than five
minutes ago.
Jacob Miller
http://www.pathways.plus.com/questions/answers_1.html
--------------------------------
Ludwig Wittgenstein - Lectures on Philosophy (1932-33)
22 Let us turn to the view, which is connected with "All that is real
is my experience", namely, solipsism of the present moment: "All that
is real is the experience of the present moment". (Cf. Wm. James'
remark "The present thought is the only thinker", which makes the
subject of thinking equivalent to the experience.) We may be inclined
to make our language such that we will call only the present
experience "experience". This will be a solipsistic language, but of
course we must not make a solipsistic language without saying exactly
what we mean by the word which in our old language meant "present".
Russell said that remembering cannot prove that what is remembered
actually occurred, because the world might have sprung into existence
five minutes ago, with acts of remembering intact. We could go on to
say that it might have been created one minute ago, and finally, that
it might have been created in the present moment. Were this latter the
situation we should have the equivalent of "All that is real is the
present moment". Now if it is possible to say the world was created
five minutes ago, could it be said that the world perished five
minutes ago? This would amount to saying that the only reality was
five minutes ago.
Why does one feel tempted to say "The only reality is the present"?
The temptation to say this is as strong as that of saying that only my
experience is real. The person who says only the present is real
because past and future are not here has before his mind the image of
something moving. past < present < future .This image is mispast
present future leading, just as the blurred image we would draw of our
visual field is misleading inasmuch as the field has no boundary. That
the statement "Only the present experience is real" seems to mean
something is due to familiar images we associate with it, images of
things passing us in space. When in philosophy we talk of the present,
we seem to be referring to a sort of Euclidean point. Yet when we talk
of present experience it is impossible to identify the present with
such a point. The difficulty is with the word "present". There is a
grammatical confusion here. A person who says the present experience
alone is real is not stating an empirical fact, comparable to the fact
that Mr. S. always wears a brown suit. And the person who objects to
the assertion that the present alone is real with "Surely the past and
future are just as real" somehow does not meet the point. Both
statements mean nothing.
By examining Russell's hypothesis that the world was created five
minutes ago I shall try to explain what I mean in saying that it is
meaningless. Russell's hypothesis was so arranged that nothing could
bear it out or refute it. Whatever our experience might be, it would
be in agreement with it. The point of saying that something has
happened derives from there being a criterion for its truth. To lay
down the evidence for what happened five minutes ago is like laying
down rules for making measurements. The question as to what evidence
there can be is a grammatical one. It concerns the sorts of actions
and propositions which would verify the statement. It is a simple
matter to make up a statement which will agree with experience because
it is such that no proposition can refute it, e.g., "There is a white
rabbit between two chairs whenever no observations or verifications
are being carried out." Some people would say that this statement says
more than "There is no white rabbit between the chairs", just as some
would say it means something to say the world was created five minutes
ago. When such statements are made they are somehow connected with a
picture, say, a picture of creation. Hence it is that such sentences
seem to mean something. But they are otiose, like wheels in a watch
which have no function although they do not look to be useless.
I shall try to explain further what I mean by these sentences being
meaningless by describing figures on two planes, one on plane I, which
is to be projected, and the other, on plane II, the projection:
Now suppose the mode of projecting a circle on plane I was not
orthogonal. In consequence, to say "There is a circle in plane II"
would not be quite the same as saying that there is a circle in plane
I. For a range of angles through which the circle is projected, the
figures on plane II are all more or less circular. But now suppose the
rays of light effecting the projection were allowed to vary through
any range of angles. Then what meaning has it to say there are circles
in plane II? When we give the method of projection such freedom,
assertions about the projection become meaningless, though we still
keep the picture of a circle in mind.
Russell's assertion about the creation of the world is like this. The
fact that there is a picture on plane I does not make a verifiable
projection on plane II. We are accustomed to certain pictures being
projected in a given way. But as soon as we leave this mode of
projection, statements do not have their usual significance. When I
say "That means nothing" I mean that you have altered your mode of
projection. That it seems to mean something is due to an image of well-
known things.
Ludwig Wittgenstein - Lectures on Philosophy (1932-33)
http://www.forum-global.de/soc/bibliot/w/wittgensteinslectures.htm
John Smith
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:43:13 -0700 (PDT), Errol
> <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 23, 1:46 pm, "Andy F." <never.m...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an
>>> object
>>> has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
>>> If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When
>>> you
>>> look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you
>>> look
>>> through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened
>>> millions
>>> of years ago.
>>>
>>
>>Ouch! waiting in anticipation for GH to respond to that.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Already responded to it..... he's too mentally chalenged to
> even understand the point of the discussion.
He's mentally challenged?
He's not the one everyone's lauging at!
>>
>>
>>The universe around us is created by human perception. I agree with
>>this in the sense that humans "conjure" the universe out of a chaotic
>>background of overlapping interference patterns and through the act of
>>observation, give form and solidity to this reality, but why do we
>>create a history that according to GH does not exist.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> It all comes down to the perational meaning of the world
> "existence" as any fool can see.
any fool can see that there is no such word as perational ...... you
mis-spelled word ....
and totally ignored the dictionary meaning of existence that I already
posted (contradicting your crap).
there IS NO operational
> meaning to the world "existence" except via a human
> observer.
Repeating psychotically insane bull shit only makes it smell worse!
THEREFORE, not only did Man "create the universe"
> by the mere fact of his appearance 200,000 years ago, he
> ALSO "created time and space, and all of history" at the
> same time.
Go back to the "ward", psycho! It's time for your meds.
>>
>>
>> This is a bit
>>like the preacher who, when confronted by evidence of dinosaur bones,
>>claims that god put them there, already pre-aged at several hundred
>>millions of years old.
>>
> [Hammond]
> the preacher is correct when you analyze the operational
> meaning of "existence".
No.
When you analyze the operational meaning of "existence" - you use the
dictionary references and definitions I gave.
You DON'T use George Hammonds unscientific, arrogant, deranged delusions!
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Start learning Errol,
> this Philawsephy bullshit is only the FOOTHILLS of the
> scientific proof of God that has been discovered.... this is
> just "playing with pedants and amateurs".... because they
> know no Relativity.... the REAL DISCOVERY which makes all
> this Philawsepy crap academic, is the fact that Hammond has
> discovered that human perception is CURVED, and this PROVES
> that there is an "invisible world" (called heaven" and that
> there is an "invisible man" called "God" who lives there.
> You're probably not even qualified to discuss Linear
> Algebra and Relativity.... you're only qualified to play in
> the sandbox of Philawsephy with the rest of these clowns...
> whom I only talk to for publicity purposes.
Just bellowing the same old, same old, ignorant shit!
John Smith
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:25 +0100, "Andy F."
> <never...@tesco.net> wrote:
> [Hammond]
> Idiocy, the Universe didn't "exist" until the human race
> arrived to "make" it exist by seeing it. Makes no
> difference that the light took 13 billion years to get here,
> it didn't "exist" until the human race arrived to see it.
Which means, by what you said, LIGHT (and, one would assume, the source of
that light) existed BEFORE Humans were here to see it.
Odd that you cannot seem to comprehend the contradictive stupidity of your
own stance.
John Smith
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:28:23 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:41 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.
>>
>>
>>[Doug]
>>You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
>>school in physics.
>>
> [Hammond]
> That doesn't mean you're not an ineffectual and helpless
> moron when it comes to forensically investigating a
> scientific proof of God, and don't ever forget it!
Bwahahaaaaaaa................. If Einstein spit on your deranged and
delusional crap - you'd probably call him stupid too.
You're sick, George ..................... I mean REALLY sick!
George Hammond
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> [Hammond]
>> >> You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
>> >> DIFFERENT cases:
>>
>> >> CASE 1:
>> >> If I turn my back and look the other way,
>> >> does the Moon still exist?
>> >> (correct answer, YES)
>>
>> >> CASE 2:
>> >> If the human race never existed or became
>> >> totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
>> >> (correct answer, NO)
>>
>> >[Immortalist]
>> >Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> NO KIDDING, Sherlock! Can't you get it through your head
>> that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: "A
>> human opinion based on sensory perception". There is no
>> OTHER definition of the word "exists". Ergo, if there are
>> no humans, then there is no "existence" of anything.
>
<snip>
>
>[Immortalist, citation]
>...the world we see in conscious experience is not the real world
>itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that world
>in an internal representation. Representationalism is also known (in
>psychology) as Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect
>Realism, or Epistemological Dualism.
>
>
[Hammond]
I agree completely. I am very grateful that you find no
quarrel with this commonly accepted fact.
<snip cited evidence>
>
>
<snip>
>
[Immortalist]
>"…how can we know that the universe wasn't created a few minutes ago?"
>--Bertrand Russell
>
[Hammond]
This is the well known OMPHALOS THEORY which is a
perennial subject of discussion and was seriously
investigate by Russell, although it is originally due to
Gosse.
Incidentally the Opthalmos theory was discussed
extensively on ARK a few years ago.
>
>
[Immortalist, citation]
>...suppose the universe were suddenly created five minutes ago,
>complete with memories, historical and geological records, and so
>forth. That is, at the moment of creation, the universe would have all
>the evidence that it was billions of years old already "packed in."
>How could it ever be known that the creation of the universe did not
>occur five minutes ago?
>
>
>
[Hammond]
It turns out we have had this conversation before, but I
don't think you recognized the significance of it at the
time..... check out this post, by you to ARK, from November
2007:
======2007 post by Immortalist===========
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:13:30 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
-???? ???? ?????-
-???? ???? ?????-
> Or maybe the world was created 5 minutes ago.
>The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book,
>Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order
>for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with
>mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with
>hair, fingernails, and navels (omthalmos is Greek for "navel"), and
>that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the
>earth and universe can be taken as reliable.
[Hammond, Nov. 2007]
The Omphalos Theory is in fact correct, but the Universe
was not created "5 minutes ago" it was actually created
100,000 years ago WHEN our species (Homo Sapiens sapiens)
came into existence.
<snip>
=========end 2007 Immortalist post================
>
>
>
[Hammond]
The Omphalos Theory cannot be disproved, as Russell
authoritatively demonstrated many years ago.
However as Wittgenstein pointed out, the reason it is not
a plausible theory is simply that there is no compelling
reason for it, and it does not yield any tangible physical
result.
Interestingly however, the Omphalos Theory does now have
a compelling plausible scientific reason; namely, that
Hammond has discovered that the "internal representational
model of reality" that you discussed above, is ACTUALLY
RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED!!!, and that this scientifically
measurable fact completely explains the historical
phenomenon of "God". So what we see now, is that the
appearance of Man (our species, Homo Sapiens sapiens)
200,000 years ago WAS actually an "Omphalos Creation"
because that is when "existence" i.e. "reality" actually
"suddenly" came into being. This is when the "internal
model" was created, and thus "human reality" itself was
born. Thus the Genesis Creation was actually an "Omphalos
Creation" that took place 200,000 years ago.
In addition to that of course, the discovery of the
significance of the Anthropic Principle in modern science,
has now brought to the fore the fundamental significance of
the "Representationalism" you described above. The reason
the Universe appears as it does, is because an "Omphalos
Creation" took place 200,000 years ago!
What Physics fails to distinguish between is the Omphalos
Creation and the Big Bang creation. the former is the
creation of reality itself, while the latter is the creation
of physical structure within that reality. Incidentally,
since the Omphalos Creation created time itself, the
Omphalos (Biblical) creation"predates" the Big Bang, even
though the Big Bang is 13 billion years old!
>
>
<snip citation of Omphalos Theory by Miller>
<snip citation of Omphalos Theory by Wittgenstein>
>
>
[Hammond]
Incidentally, your contribution to this discussion has
been far superior to anything any one else has contributed,
even PhD physicists have failed miserably to comprehend the
basic scientific issues, whereas you have apparently
digested them quite easily.
All of this points out to me the key position of the
Philosophy Department in this development (I assume you are
posting from alt.philosophy)
Sooner or later there is going to be a head on collision
between Science and Religion over this discovery, and at
that time the Philosophy Department is going to be called on
to mediate the problem. And from the looks of things, you
seem to be way out in front of the crowd. Congratulations.
ZerkonX
> so I have to
no, you do not.
Andy F.
OK. As soon as you've explained how you can 'see' something that doesn't
exist, I'll go and do the crossword.,
George Hammond
<never...@tesco.net> wrote:
[Hammond]
Simple: You come into existence, and when you come into
existence anything you see "exists".
3 across is HAMMOND.
John Smith
The clue was - "Biggest asshole in all the news groups".
Andy F.
That doesn't explain anything.It just looks like you don't understand the
question.
If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.
George Hammond
<never...@tesco.net> wrote:
[Hammond]
Horseshit, it answers your question directly.
>
>
>
>It just looks like you don't understand the question.
>If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.
>
[>
[Hammond]
No... YOU don't understand the question, or the answer.
It's SIMPLE:
1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
Universe came into existence simultaneously
including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
If you're too stupid to understand that, that's YOUR
problem, not mine!
Mike
> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
My dog seems to have a different opinion.:)
I wonder if you will propose to test this hypothesis?
hmmmm...
> 2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
> Universe came into existence simultaneously
> including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
Man has not come into existence yet. What we see is a simulation of
what will happen if man comes into existence. The simulation provides
everything so that we think man already came into existence.
And they lived happily ever after they came into existence...
Mike
John Smith
George doesn't ever explain anything - he just bellows more and more
ignorance ......
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Horseshit, it answers your question directly.
see ................
>>
>>
>>
>>It just looks like you don't understand the question.
>>If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.
>>
> [>
> [Hammond]
> No... YOU don't understand the question, or the answer.
> It's SIMPLE:
>
> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
> 2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
> Universe came into existence simultaneously
> including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
Why?
What "time" What universe? Why this paticular universe?
Why this particular planet? Why this particular solar system?
Where did this "Man" come from?
Where did this "universe" come from?
>
>
> If you're too stupid to understand that, that's YOUR
> problem, not mine!
There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
insanity.
George Hammond
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
>insanity.
>
[Hammond]
You don't think so? How else could you discover the
world's first scientific proof of God?
John Smith
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:51:53 GMT, "John Smith"
> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
>>insanity.
>>
> [Hammond]
> You don't think so? How else could you discover the
> world's first scientific proof of God?
You admit it?
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:52:40 -0700 (PDT),
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>On 26 apr, 00:34, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>> >On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>> >> "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>> >> >On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>> >> >> [Hammond]
>> >> >> Wrong Pizzaman. Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
>> >> >> explanation of "existence". In case you haven't noticed 85%
>> >> >> of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
>> >> >> major faiths. This means 85% of the world agrees with my
>> >> >> definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
>> >> >> scientific phenomenon of "God".
>>
>> >> >[Peter van Velzen]
>> >> >You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
>> >> >reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?
>>
>> >> >Peter van Velzen
>> >> >April 2008
>> >> >Amstelveen
>> >> >The Netherlands
>>
>> >> [Hammond]
>> >> Of course not, don't be ridiculous. People (any people)
>> >> believe what they see.
>> >> What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
>> >> because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
>> >> CURVED VERSION of reality.
>> >> Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
>> >> reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
>> >> is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
>> >> "invisible".
>> >> Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
>> >> while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
>> >> DON'T KNOW IT.
>> >> The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
>> >> ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
>> >> eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
>> >> mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
>> >> from predators (Evil so called).
>> >> =====================================
>> >> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>> >> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
>> >> mirror site:
>> >> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>> >> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
>> >> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>> >> =====================================
>>
>> >[Peter van Velzen]
>> >Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
>> >chance of them being atheists.
>> >So I am afraid you are mistaken.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
>> high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
>> atheist. Common opinion holds that public officals are less
>> ignorant than the highly educated. So I'm afraid you're
>> mistaken.
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>I wasn't talking about politicians.
>
>
[Hammond]
I was, I referred to "ignorant and unaware people",
politicians are examples of people who are NOT IGNORANT OR
UNAWARE.
Academics DO NOT lead the world, politicians DO.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>The research was done at university
>The more years students had been studying there,
>the greater the percentage of atheists.
>
>
[Hammond]
This merely proves that modern Academia is very corrupt,
sleazy, and backward. There is no law that says highly
educated people can't be corrupt, sleazy or backward.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>An atheist politician on the other hand,
>would have better chances telling a lie,
>and saying he "trusted in God".
>
>
[Hammond]
By the same token academics have a better chance of
telling a lie and saying they are atheists and getting away
with it. I'm sure many of the scared lower echelon
academics are dong just that to keep their job. So what's
your point?
Surely you're not going to attempt to refute the SPOG
using "unsupported conjectural assertions", are you?
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>Do you expect all atheist politicians to be completely honest like me?
>I don't.
>
>
[Hammond]
Same goes for academics, so what?
>
>
>Peter van Velzem
>April 2008
>Amstelveen
>The Netherlands
>
>PS
>And don't you mind Ken calling you a crackpot.
>He himself is not intelligent enough to understand my comment about
>you being more than an asshole.
>
>
[Hammond]
Look Dutch, Usenet is crawling with criminals, cons
posting from death row, drug addicts, drunks, child
molesters, pedophiles, gun nuts, Nazis, serial killers, wife
beaters, anti Semitic psychos, war criminals, torturers,
sadistic kidnappers, sex trade slave masters, people dying
of terminal V.D., stalkers, foreign spies, suicide bombers,
homicidal Jihadists, KKK members and psychos of all
description. Fact is "normal" people may be in the minority
on Usenet.
All of these people are interested in whether or not
there is a God, including Ken The Crackpot. Until you can
empathetically talk to all of them, you're not qualified to
be toying with the world's first scientific proof of God by
posting frivolous amateur arguments. You ought to know,
you're from Holland and your parents saw the 3rd Reich
occupy your country and murder thousands of innocent people,
including Anne Frank.
"Man up" Dutch, and get with the program, I'm a real
physicist, the SPOG is real science, and it's serious
business.
doug
are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.
>> 2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
>> Universe came into existence simultaneously
>> including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
>
Man has been around much longer than that. You can go to Nice
and see a hut which is 300,000 years old and go to Menton and
see human artifacts from nearly a million years ago.
the rest of your statement is laughable.
> Why?
> What "time" What universe? Why this paticular universe?
> Why this particular planet? Why this particular solar system?
> Where did this "Man" come from?
> Where did this "universe" come from?
>
>
>
>>
>> If you're too stupid to understand that, that's YOUR
>> problem, not mine!
You keep hoping people are stupid enough to swallow gigantic
silly delusions but that has not happened so far.
George Hammond
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
>
>
>[Doug, Physics PhD claimant]
>This is an unsupported assumption which is actually what you
>are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.
>
[Hammond]
YOU'RE STUPID!
The SPOG is a 3 significant figure proven discovery that
Psychometric Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to
Linearized Gravity in Relativity.
This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Man's "subjective reality"
(subjective spacetime) differs by a MAJOR REATIVISTIC
CURVATURE from "objective reality" (objective spacetime).
This PROVES that the very long standing, indeed ancient, and
historically unrefuted "unsupported assumption" you refer to
above, is manifestly now a PROVEN FACT. QED, God
isscientifically explained and proven.
>
>
>>>[Hammond]
>>> 2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
>>> Universe came into existence simultaneously
>>> including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
>>
>>
>>
>>[Doug, phoney PhD Physics claimant]
>Man has been around much longer than that. You can go to Nice
>and see a hut which is 300,000 years old and go to Menton and
>see human artifacts from nearly a million years ago.
>the rest of your statement is laughable.
[Hammond]
Boy, you really are a stupid, shallow, aggravated
imbecile! PhD in Physics, you gotta be kidding!
Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
says:
"DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in
Africa about 200,000 years ago."
200.000 is the commonly accepted age of Homo Sapiens
sapiens, your claims about Nice and Menton notwithstanding.
Besides, you're arguing GRADE SCHOOL IRRELEVANT TRIVIA. A
real PhD in Physics wouldn't be arguing 200 vs 300 thousand
years or 12 vs. 13 gods when CLEARLY anyone with half a
brain in his head can see that in the face of the discovery
that has been made, such arguments are TRIVIAL AND
IRRELEVANT. The conclusion is that you're JUST ANOTHER
AGGRAVATED PHONEY.
As for arguing that there are HSs artifacts from a
million years ago, you're just stupid... there is no such
thing.... asshole!
>>
>>
[Hammond]
You claim you're a physics PhD but refuse to post your CV
and post anonymously so it can't be verified.
If you're a Physics PhD then prove it by answering this
Physics test question for us:
What is the relationship between the Dirac
Gamma matrices of QED and the Christoffel Symbols
of General relativity?
A 25 word answer will be sufficient.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head then you're an imposter and a phony.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.... PUT UP OR SHUT UP
John Smith
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:33:49 -0700, doug <doug@none> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
>>
>>
>>[Doug, Physics PhD claimant]
>>This is an unsupported assumption which is actually what you
>>are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.
>>
> [Hammond]
> YOU'RE STUPID!
Evidence shows that he's a thousand tyimes smarter than you
are...............
> The SPOG is a 3 significant figure proven discovery that
> Psychometric Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to
> Linearized Gravity in Relativity.
It is not a "proven discpvery" when only one psychotically insane person
keeps bellowing it ....... without either support from REAL scientists - or
valid evdence.
> This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Man's "subjective reality"
> (subjective spacetime) differs by a MAJOR REATIVISTIC
> CURVATURE from "objective reality" (objective spacetime).
> This PROVES that the very long standing, indeed ancient, and
> historically unrefuted "unsupported assumption" you refer to
> above, is manifestly now a PROVEN FACT. QED, God
> isscientifically explained and proven.
Certainly not by you and your deranged, alleged, "science" that follows none
of the rules OF science!
Why?
You totally ignore ALL questions and rebuttals that validly trash your S. P.
O. Crap!
Why should anyone answer your silly criteria questions when you can't even
face up to HONEST and reality based SCIENCE?
You're nothing more than a pile of shit, George ..... and you're even to
dumb to know THAT!
George Hammond
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:me18149cdl3lb3ohl...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:33:49 -0700, doug <doug@none> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>[Doug, phony Physics PhD claimant]
>>>This is an unsupported assumption which is actually what you
>>>are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> YOU'RE STUPID!
>
>[John Smith, atheist]
>Evidence shows that he's a thousand tyimes smarter than you
>are...............
>
>
>>[Hammond]
>> The SPOG is a 3 significant figure proven discovery that
>> Psychometric Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to
>> Linearized Gravity in Relativity.
>
>
>[John Smith, atheist]
>It is not a "proven discpvery" when only one psychotically insane person
>keeps bellowing it ....... without either support from REAL scientists - or
>valid evdence.
>
>
>[Hammond]
>> This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Man's "subjective reality"
>> (subjective spacetime) differs by a MAJOR REATIVISTIC
>> CURVATURE from "objective reality" (objective spacetime).
>> This PROVES that the very long standing, indeed ancient, and
>> historically unrefuted "unsupported assumption" you refer to
>> above, is manifestly now a PROVEN FACT. QED, God
>> isscientifically explained and proven.
>
>[John Smith, atheist]
>Certainly not by you and your deranged, alleged, "science" that follows none
>of the rules OF science!
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>> 2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
>>>>> Universe came into existence simultaneously
>>>>> including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Doug, phony PhD Physics claimant]
>[John Smith, atheist]
>Why?
>You totally ignore ALL questions and rebuttals that validly trash your S. P.
>O. Crap!
> Why should anyone answer your silly criteria questions when you can't even
>face up to HONEST and reality based SCIENCE?
>
>
>
>
>[John Smith, atheist]
>You're nothing more than a pile of shit, George ..... and you're even to
>dumb to know THAT!
>
>
[Hammond]
You're a pile of shit and whipped
cream with a cherry on top!
George Hammond
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
>
>You are badly informed again!
>
[Hammond]
I doubt it and you certainly haven't proved it.
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>About 50% of the world population believes in the monotheistic god.
>The can be roughly separated in three groups: Roman Catholics, other
>Christians and Muslims.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Despite your opinion, the average person is not a pedant.
The average person believes that "God" is an "an invisible
man who lives in the sky and rules the world"; what the
Native American Indians called "The Great Sky Chief". And
FYI, the SPOG proves that this ancient and universal belief
is in fact, scientifically TRUE. Common belief also holds
that God has many "Angels", or call the "gods", or call them
"demigods" or whatever you want. Since we're arguing
irrelevant OPINION here let me mention that I'm 66 and
you're 30.... which means I know twice as much as you know
about what the average person believes. Furthermore, I'm not
interested in yakking about matters of opinion with
aggravated amateurs with no academic credentials.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>The other half can be roughly separated in three groups too.
>Those who believe in multiple gods (mostly Hindus)
>
[Hammond]
The Hindu's have a supreme deity which is a triune God
called the "Trimurti" (Sanskrit-"the trimorphic God")
consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. This parallels the
Christian Trinity. All the other "gods" are actually what
Christian call "Angels" (or demigods).
All of this is explained and PROVEN by the SPOG which
shows that this hierarchy appears as an EIGENVECTOR
HEIRARCHY in Psychometry, which is accurate to 3 significant
figures experimentally. Unfortunately you lack the
educational qualifications to discuss Factor Analysis
(Linear Algebra).
I will warn you that I only engage in extended
conversation with amateurs if they have a positive attitude,
otherwise they have nothing to offer.
I will engage in extended discussion with negative
aggravated educated professionals however.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>Those who do not believe in gods (mostly atheists)
>
>
[Hammond]
Generally atheists are of little interest, unless they
become a political force, which seems unlikely. On the
other hand some of them are highly educated such as Bertrand
Russell, whose analysis of the Omphalos theory is of
fundamental significance to the SPOG.
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>Those who rather ignore the question (mostly Buddhists)
>
[Hammond]
Buddhism is a small compared to the other 4 major faiths.
However, I think Buddhists have a fundamental belief in a
supreme deity.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>O yes, of course most people within these groups tends to think the
>members of the other groups - and many amongst there own group - Are
>very very wrong.
>I guess they are right about most of them :-)
>
>
Duh? I can't make much sense of this statement.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>Before you go out and post on the internet,
>you should first do your homework
>
>
[Hammond]
You don't know who you're talking to.
I've been studying Religion and Psychology for 25 years
and Physics for 40. I have 2 degrees in Physics. You on the
other hand probably don't even have a college degree.
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>That would spare us a lot of words
>especially the words "crackpot" and "asshole"
>which in my opinion are not very fruitful.
>
>
[Hammond]
I'm not worried about Fruits.
>
>Peter van Velzen
>April 2008
>Amstelveen
>The Netherlands
>
>
pba...@worldonline.nl
My opinion doesn't matter
fact is that only half of the world's population believes in your type
of God. Not the 90% that you claimed.
These facts are available to anyone who wants too know.
I'd suggest you get them.
And I hope to see your next post.
AFTER you do!
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands.
none
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:33:49 -0700, doug <doug@none> wrote:
>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
>>
>> [Doug, Physics PhD claimant]
>> This is an unsupported assumption which is actually what you
>> are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.
>>
> [Hammond]
> YOU'RE STUPID!
> The SPOG is a 3 significant figure proven discovery that
> Psychometric Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to
> Linearized Gravity in Relativity.
> This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Man's "subjective reality"
> (subjective spacetime) differs by a MAJOR REATIVISTIC
> CURVATURE from "objective reality" (objective spacetime).
> This PROVES that the very long standing, indeed ancient, and
> historically unrefuted "unsupported assumption" you refer to
> above, is manifestly now a PROVEN FACT. QED, God
> isscientifically explained and proven.
discuss here. Your earlier claim that 12=13 certainly is not
accurate to 3 significant figures. Making statements that
are just random and then trying to claim they are somehow
proof of something does not fly with anyone, much less
any scientists.
>>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> 2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
>>>> Universe came into existence simultaneously
>>>> including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.
>>>
>>>
>>> [Doug, phoney PhD Physics claimant]
>> Man has been around much longer than that. You can go to Nice
>> and see a hut which is 300,000 years old and go to Menton and
>> see human artifacts from nearly a million years ago.
>> the rest of your statement is laughable.
>
> [Hammond]
> Boy, you really are a stupid, shallow, aggravated
> imbecile! PhD in Physics, you gotta be kidding!
> Wikipedia at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
> says:
> "DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in
> Africa about 200,000 years ago."
Humans come from a continuous line of evolution over a period
of many millions of years. You may not like it but that is
the scientific view.
>
> 200.000 is the commonly accepted age of Homo Sapiens
> sapiens, your claims about Nice and Menton notwithstanding.
> Besides, you're arguing GRADE SCHOOL IRRELEVANT TRIVIA. A
> real PhD in Physics wouldn't be arguing 200 vs 300 thousand
> years or 12 vs. 13 gods
No, you are arguing 200,000 instead of a few million years.
Look at the website for the museum in Menton and you will
see the information about the million year old human artifacts.
In science, when you are counting things, the difference between
12 and 13 as a prediction is a complete failure of the prediction.
In any case, you missed the many millions of Hindu gods, not to
mention the Mormons.
when CLEARLY anyone with half a
> brain in his head can see that in the face of the discovery
> that has been made, such arguments are TRIVIAL AND
> IRRELEVANT.
You are correct that presenting wrong numbers in support of
random statements is irrelevant since the random statements
you make are meaningless and thus irrelevent.
The conclusion is that you're JUST ANOTHER
> AGGRAVATED PHONEY.
You misspelled phony. You also seem to be the aggravated one.
I am enjoying this.
> As for arguing that there are HSs artifacts from a
> million years ago, you're just stupid... there is no such
> thing.... asshole!
>>>
So you have to ignore facts in a desperate attempt to not
admit that you are wrong. Ignoring facts is generally considered
to be bad science, particularly when you are wanting to prove
something. I note your lack of facts requires you to resort to
swearing.
George Hammond
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>[Peter van Velzen]
>My opinion doesn't matter
>
[Hammond]
You got that one right!
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>fact is that only half of the world's population believes in your type
>of God. Not the 90% that you claimed.
>
>
[Hammond]
Baloney, your statement defies common knowlege.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism alone account for 60% of the
world population (the most powerful half of the world). The
God of Hinduism (another 15%) is also near identical.
Your speculations about what the rest of humanity believes
is neither here nor there.
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>These facts are available to anyone who wants too know.
>
[Hammond]
No shit Sherlock, we know all about it.
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>I'd suggest you get them.
>
[Hammond]
Been there done that; before you were born.
>
>[Peter van Velzen]
>And I hope to see your next post.
>AFTER you do!
>
[Hammond]
Whatever that gibberish 's supposed to mean?
>
>Peter van Velzen
>April 2008
>Amstelveen
>The Netherlands.
>
>
[Hammond]
You're all through punk... you're dime a dozen on Usenet.
Now that you've discovered this is not an amateur discovery
and you sound like a fool; go back to your beer and computer
games.
Or join your asshole buddies Ken and John and start
posting froth at the mouth heckling, Dork.
Yaaawwnnnnnnn...
none
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:14:12 -0700 (PDT),
> "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>> You are badly informed again!
>>
> [Hammond]
> I doubt it and you certainly haven't proved it.
You are trying to ignore the truth again.
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> About 50% of the world population believes in the monotheistic god.
>> The can be roughly separated in three groups: Roman Catholics, other
>> Christians and Muslims.
>>
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Despite your opinion, the average person is not a pedant.
> The average person believes that "God" is an "an invisible
> man who lives in the sky and rules the world";
And what reference do you use to support this assertion which
is demonstrably wrong.
what the
> Native American Indians called "The Great Sky Chief". And
> FYI, the SPOG proves that this ancient and universal belief
> is in fact, scientifically TRUE.
Word salad proves nothing. It does give us something to laugh
at though.
Common belief also holds
> that God has many "Angels", or call the "gods", or call them
> "demigods" or whatever you want. Since we're arguing
> irrelevant OPINION
This is your irrelevant opinion. Facts are what are required
for a proof.
here let me mention that I'm 66 and
> you're 30.... which means I know twice as much as you know
> about what the average person believes.
Why does that follow? Age does not necessarily mean
knowledge.
Furthermore, I'm not
> interested in yakking about matters of opinion with
> aggravated amateurs with no academic credentials.
>>
No, you are not interested in talking with those who
point out your mistakes.
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> The other half can be roughly separated in three groups too.
>> Those who believe in multiple gods (mostly Hindus)
>>
> [Hammond]
> The Hindu's have a supreme deity which is a triune God
> called the "Trimurti" (Sanskrit-"the trimorphic God")
> consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. This parallels the
> Christian Trinity. All the other "gods" are actually what
> Christian call "Angels" (or demigods).
> All of this is explained and PROVEN by the SPOG which
> shows that this hierarchy appears as an EIGENVECTOR
> HEIRARCHY in Psychometry, which is accurate to 3 significant
> figures experimentally. Unfortunately you lack the
> educational qualifications to discuss Factor Analysis
> (Linear Algebra).
You should look at what you have written. Your unsupported
assumptions look terribly silly.
> I will warn you that I only engage in extended
> conversation with amateurs if they have a positive attitude,
> otherwise they have nothing to offer.
> I will engage in extended discussion with negative
> aggravated educated professionals however.
>>
Only people who do not know any science whatsoever will have
a positive attitude about your views. If you want that, you
should leave out any science groups since there will be
people who point out your errors.
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> Those who do not believe in gods (mostly atheists)
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Generally atheists are of little interest, unless they
> become a political force, which seems unlikely. On the
> other hand some of them are highly educated such as Bertrand
> Russell, whose analysis of the Omphalos theory is of
> fundamental significance to the SPOG.
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> Those who rather ignore the question (mostly Buddhists)
>>
> [Hammond]
> Buddhism is a small compared to the other 4 major faiths.
> However, I think Buddhists have a fundamental belief in a
> supreme deity.
Think again.
>>
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> O yes, of course most people within these groups tends to think the
>> members of the other groups - and many amongst there own group - Are
>> very very wrong.
>> I guess they are right about most of them :-)
>>
>>
> Duh? I can't make much sense of this statement.
>>
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> Before you go out and post on the internet,
>> you should first do your homework
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> You don't know who you're talking to.
> I've been studying Religion and Psychology for 25 years
> and Physics for 40. I have 2 degrees in Physics. You on the
> other hand probably don't even have a college degree.
>>
You need to look at what you are trying to push as truth.
Your babble about both science and religion is not something
that looks like it came from anyone with an education.
>> [Peter van Velzen]
>> That would spare us a lot of words
>> especially the words "crackpot" and "asshole"
>> which in my opinion are not very fruitful.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> I'm not worried about Fruits.
Defined as those who point out your mistakes.
George Hammond
wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:33:49 -0700, doug <doug@none> wrote:
>>
>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
>>>
>>> [Doug, Physics PhD claimant]
>>> This is an unsupported assumption which is actually what you
>>> are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> YOU'RE STUPID!
>> The SPOG is a 3 significant figure proven discovery that
>> Psychometric Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to
>> Linearized Gravity in Relativity.
>> This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Man's "subjective reality"
>> (subjective spacetime) differs by a MAJOR REATIVISTIC
>> CURVATURE from "objective reality" (objective spacetime).
>> This PROVES that the very long standing, indeed ancient, and
>> historically unrefuted "unsupported assumption" you refer to
>> above, is manifestly now a PROVEN FACT. QED, God
>> isscientifically explained and proven.
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>This is just a bunch of word salad.
>
Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.
Fact is you are SCIENTIFICALLY UNQUALIFIED to even read
the above statment because you don't even know what
"Psychometry Factor Analysis" is, nor are you aware that
there are "3 orthogonal cleaveages of the brain which CAUSE
THE 13 "CUBIC" EIGENVECTORS of PSYCHOMETRY.
You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
> There is no content to
>discuss here.
>
>
Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.
The only thing that is "no content" is your post.
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
> Your earlier claim that 12=13 certainly is not
>accurate to 3 significant figures.
>
>
[Hammond]
Never said it was.
What I said is that the 13 Factor Analytic eigenvectors
that represent the "Olympian Gods" are THEMSELVES MEASURED
TO 3 SIGNFICANT FIGURE ACCURACY EXPERIMENTALLY. The fact
that there are 13 rather than 12 is irrelevant in that it is
only "approximately" known that the Egypto-Greco-Roman
pantheon consisted of approximately "a dozen gods".
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
> Making statements that
>are just random and then trying to claim they are somehow
>proof of something does not fly with anyone, much less
>any scientists.
>
[Hammond]
The US Constitution and Einstein sound like "random
words" to totally ignorant, lazy and aggravated people. That
doesn't mean they are.
Fact is, you simply don't know what you're talking about,
and could care less.... you're interest doesn't go beyond
comparing 12 to 13. You're just another psycho heckler.
totally worthless.
>
>
[Hammond]
Snip rest of psycho drivel.
none
You are making amazingly inconsistent claims. First you are
claiming that the christian god is to only one and then you
claim to have proof of the number of Greek gods. None of
these are real. The egyptian gods are not real. You cannot
make any proof about the number of things that are not real.
>
>> [Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>> Making statements that
>> are just random and then trying to claim they are somehow
>> proof of something does not fly with anyone, much less
>> any scientists.
>>
> [Hammond]
> The US Constitution and Einstein sound like "random
> words" to totally ignorant, lazy and aggravated people. That
> doesn't mean they are.
Any educated person sees the coherence of the Constitution and
scientists understand Einstein. However, your random babble
means nothing and is just babble.
> Fact is, you simply don't know what you're talking about,
> and could care less.... you're interest doesn't go beyond
> comparing 12 to 13. You're just another psycho heckler.
> totally worthless.
>>
You really hate it when it is pointed out that you are wrong.
I would have thought that you were used to it by now.
Has anyone ever agreed with you.
> [Hammond]
> Snip rest of psycho drivel.
No you left the drivel below still in the post.
George Hammond
wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:31:27 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
>> wrote:
>>
>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:33:49 -0700, doug <doug@none> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>>> 1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> [Doug, unverified Physics PhD claimant]
>> Never said it that.
>> What I said is that the 13 Factor Analytic eigenvectors
>> that represent the "Olympian Gods" are THEMSELVES MEASURED
>> TO 3 SIGNFICANT FIGURE ACCURACY EXPERIMENTALLY. The fact
>> that there are 13 rather than 12 is irrelevant in that it is
>> only "approximately" known that the Egypto-Greco-Roman
>> pantheon consisted of approximately "a dozen gods".
>
>
> [Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>You are making amazingly inconsistent claims. First you are
>claiming that the christian god is to only one and then you
>claim to have proof of the number of Greek gods. None of
>these are real. The egyptian gods are not real. You cannot
>make any proof about the number of things that are not real.
>
>>
[Hammond]
Look you Physics dufus the dozen Egyptian gods are
EXACTLY REAL in the same way Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and
Porky Pig are real; they are Personality types that show up
as accurately measured EXPERIMENTAL EIGENVECTORS in
Psychometry and further turn out to be CUBICALLY CORRELATED.
Look .. "Charm, Color, and Strangeness" are REAL because
they show up as EIGENVECTORS in Quantum Field Theory, and
are experimentally verified. SAME THING IS TRUE OF THE 13
GODS OF THE Egypto-Greco-Roman Pantheon.
How many different ways do I have to say it.... you believe
particle physics don't you..... guess what..... Religion has
been proven in the SAME WAY ( By Hammond (2003))
My claims are spelled out in elaborate detail in my
published paper (Noetic Press) a copy of which is posted
for your reading convenience at:
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
The exact calculation of the number of "gods" is in
section VI:
VI Elementary science evidence that
the 4th order factor is "God".
If you're too lazy to read this ELEMENTARY section of the
peer published paper I'm not going to argue with you about
"12 or 13 gods". There is no point in arguing with someone
who doesn't even know what he's arguing about, just because
he wants to argue.
<snip argumentative no content crap>
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>
<SNIP AMATEUR PSYCHO CRAP>
Poasted by "Doug" a phony Usenet unverified PhD claimant.
none
You snip the content since you do not like people showing that
you are wrong.
none
Or 12 assuming that the Greeks did not know the difference
between 12 and 13 as you have claimed earlier.
> How many different ways do I have to say it.... you believe
> particle physics don't you..... guess what..... Religion has
> been proven in the SAME WAY ( By Hammond (2003))
The only differences being that competent experimenters have
confirmed predictions by competent theorists. This is the
way science is done. Wild speculation backed only by a
mishmash of unrelated babble does not constitute either
a theory or a proof of anything.
> My claims are spelled out in elaborate detail in my
> published paper (Noetic Press) a copy of which is posted
> for your reading convenience at:
>
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
> Press)
> Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
>
Vanity press does not count as peer reviewed by anyone.
I read this long ago and still drag it out occasionally
to laugh at. Everyone has enjoyed it as a piece of humor.
> The exact calculation of the number of "gods" is in
> section VI:
>
> VI Elementary science evidence that
> the 4th order factor is "God".
>
> If you're too lazy to read this ELEMENTARY section of the
> peer published paper I'm not going to argue with you about
> "12 or 13 gods". There is no point in arguing with someone
> who doesn't even know what he's arguing about, just because
> he wants to argue.
This is the most humorous part of your "proof". You want to
somehow, with no justification, identify perception of reality
as a god. This is pretty bizarre as it comes out of nowhere
with no justification and is, in fact, completely opposite to
what happens in the real world. The more educated people
are, the less they cling to the myths of the religions.
Even if it were true, and it is not, you have shown no
connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al
George Hammond
wrote:
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Look you Physics dufus the dozen Egyptian gods are
>> EXACTLY REAL in the same way Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and
>> Porky Pig are real; they are Personality types that show up
>> as accurately measured EXPERIMENTAL EIGENVECTORS in
>> Psychometry and further turn out to be CUBICALLY CORRELATED.
>> Look .. "Charm, Color, and Strangeness" are REAL because
>> they show up as EIGENVECTORS in Quantum Field Theory, and
>> are experimentally verified. SAME THING IS TRUE OF THE 13
>> GODS OF THE Egypto-Greco-Roman Pantheon.
>
>
>
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>Or 12 assuming that the Greeks did not know the difference
>between 12 and 13 as you have claimed earlier.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Look, I already told you 3 times, the only EXACT
scientific fact is that there are EXACTLY 13-2nd ORDER
EIGENVECTORS, extracted by mainframe computers.
The ancients didn't know what an eigenvector is, or that
the 13-2nd orders are CUBICALLY intercorrelated. Hammond
discovered that (1994) They just took an educated guess and
called it an even DOZEN (the Greek Dodekatheon so called).
They were right to within 7.7%, pretty good for ancient
science.
So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.
>
>
>[Hammond]
>> How many different ways do I have to say it.... you believe
>> particle physics don't you..... guess what..... Religion has
>> been proven in the SAME WAY ( By Hammond (2003))
>
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>The only differences being that competent experimenters have
>confirmed predictions by competent theorists. This is the
>way science is done. Wild speculation backed only by a
>mishmash of unrelated babble does not constitute either
>a theory or a proof of anything.
>
>
[Hammond]
12 is within 92% of 13. This is well within the expected
experimental accuracy of historical data. Furthermore, the
SPOG predicts EXACTLY 4-3rd order factors, which is 100%
ACCURATE, since these are exactly the 4-Gospel Saints
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
It's becoming painfully apparent that you're an
incompetent phony who hasn't even read the paper, doesn't
know what it's about, and is simply an aggravated
anti-religious psycho.
>
>
<SNIP PHONY INCOMPETENT BULLSHIT>
>
>[Hammond]
>> The exact calculation of the number of "gods" is in
>> section VI:
>>
>> VI Elementary science evidence that
>> the 4th order factor is "God".
>
>
>
>> [Hammond]
>> If you're too lazy to read this ELEMENTARY section of the
>> peer published paper I'm not going to argue with you about
>> "12 or 13 gods". There is no point in arguing with someone
>> who doesn't even know what he's arguing about, just because
>> he wants to argue.
>
>
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>This is the most humorous part of your "proof".
>
>
[Hammond]
Your constant reference to laughter is making you sound
suspiciously like a lowbrow giggling idiot, which I suspect
is the case.
>
>
>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]>
> You want to
>somehow, with no justification, identify perception of reality
>as a god. This is pretty bizarre as it comes out of nowhere
>with no justification and is, in fact, completely opposite to
>what happens in the real world. The more educated people
>are, the less they cling to the myths of the religions.
>Even if it were true, and it is not, you have shown no
>connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
>one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
>
>
>
>
[Hammond]
You're so obviously incompetent its jpathetic. Look, the
basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
would explain it.
In this case this means itimizing the CENTRAL CLAIMS of
Religion (take Biblical religion for instance) and seeing if
the discovered mechanism (curvature of subjective spacetime)
COMPELLINGLY AND QUANTITATIVELY EXPLAINS EACH
AND EVERY ITEM.
The SPOG scientifically and quantitatively explains the
following 16 (central and comprehensive) items which
characterize Religion:
1. Why there physically exists an "invisible world"
known as "Heaven" which is similar to Earth but
is a paradise.
(Because the Growth Deficit reduces mental
speed and thus reduces the Fourier cutoff
frequency of visual movement) This can be
easily measured directly by theMotion Picture
Fusion Frequency, which increases directly with
gross brain growth)
2. Why God is an "invisible man" who lives there
and is all powerful and rules the actual (visible)
world from there.
("God" is the perfect fully grown man, hence the
part of us that is latent, or ungrown, is called
the "invisible God", also the "Unconscious mind")
3. Why this God can effect miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
(Because, a change in Repression causes a
dramatic change in Curvature of subjective
spacetime suddenly making more of reality
visible).
4. Why Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
(This is confirmed by the SPOG which shows that
"God" is the unconscious mind, which is a
"spirit")
5. Why historically Religion has evolved from
Polytheism to Monotheism.
(The SPOG proves that there are 4 orders of
eigenvectors, which is a "hierarchy of gods".
the entire history of Religion is accounted for
as a successive discovery of the orders from
1st=(demigods), 2nd=(Olympian gods), 3rd=
(4-Gospel Saints), 4th=(God of Monotheism)
6. Why Christianity says the world is transforming
itself into Heaven and will actually complete this
at a date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the
"end of the world".
(Because the Secular Trend curve in Human
Growth is a Sigmoidal Logistics curve (S-curve)
and the final plateau is 100% growth of
the individual, or "Kingdom Come")
7. Why there is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
(Because full growth means flat subjective
spacetime.. no time dilation.. aka eternal time)
8. Why it is believed that Jesus was the physical
"incarnation of God"
(Because, nominally Jesus was a "fully grown
specimen". Of course we know this wasn't
actually possible, but in fact he must have
been an impressive specimen to conduct
such a startling public ministry.)
9. Why the Cross for some reason is the central
symbol of (Western) Religion.
(Because the human body is an "axial quadrature"
and the brain actually "cubic" causing a cross
structure (Cartesian structure) of Personality)
10. Why for some reason our main canonical text is
written in 4 identical versions known as the
"4-Gospel Canon".
(Because the Structural Model is CUBIC,
represented as a square; 4 Gospel Canon
represents the 4 canonical personalities
of Man... cf. the Bicameral/2 Party system)
11. How God "created the world" only a matter of
"thousands" of years ago (Genesis) not "billions"
of years ago (Big Bang) as Science believes.
(Because subjective spacetime only came into
being when Man came into being 200,000 years
ago, causing the Biblical Creation).
12. Why God created man "in his own image".
(Because God is the invisible (fully grown)
version of Man).
13. Why there is a "Trinity of God" and what it is,
functionally or scientifically speaking.
(the Trinity is simply the cybernetic feedback
loop (input, output, feedback) describing the
operation of the Father (invisible man), Son
actual Man, and feedback (UNCS mind) that
transforms the latter into the former).
14. Why there are (approximately) 13 gods in the
Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon.
(Because the 2nd orders are caused by the
13 symmetry axes of the cubic str. of the brain).
15. Why there are exactly 4-gospel Saints named
Matthew, mark, Luke, John.
(Because the Cubic str. of Personality can be
represented by a section through the Cube,
yielding the 4 canonical personalities of Man)
16. Why there are 30 odd "lesser demigods" in Hinduism.
(Because there are 30 1st-order eigenvectors
caused by myriad lower level brain structures;
not geometrically intercorrelated)
THIS OVERWHELMING, COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF THE
ENTIRE BODY OF CLASSICAL RELIGION, BY A SIMPLE RELATIVISTIC
CURVATURE MECHANISM, IS PRIMA FACIE THE WORLD'S FIRST AND
ONLY BONA FIDE "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD".
Now you can sit there and giggle like a flat footed fat
ass academy boy all you want, but it certainly is NOT
convincing.
either show us some of your scintillating PhD forensic
scientist genius a la ronald Reagan, or go back to work
designing Widgets at Quintessential Trinkets where you
belong.
Michael Moroney
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:49:40 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
>wrote:
>>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>>Or 12 assuming that the Greeks did not know the difference
>>between 12 and 13 as you have claimed earlier.
>>
> Look, I already told you 3 times, the only EXACT
>scientific fact is that there are EXACTLY 13-2nd ORDER
>EIGENVECTORS, extracted by mainframe computers.
OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.
> The ancients didn't know what an eigenvector is, or that
>the 13-2nd orders are CUBICALLY intercorrelated. Hammond
>discovered that (1994) They just took an educated guess and
>called it an even DOZEN (the Greek Dodekatheon so called).
>They were right to within 7.7%, pretty good for ancient
>science.
Oh, that's rich. 7.7% "pretty good for ancient science". Let's imagine,
just for a moment, that the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon with some
of the Doric columns 12 meters tall and others 13 meters tall. The 12m
and 13m columns all mixed up. That would be "pretty good for ancient
science", right? Only 7.7% off, right? Wrong - if they ever did that,
the Parthenon would look pathetic. Instead of the ancient Greeks being
revered by western society, they'd be the laughing stock of the ancient
world! I'm laughing just thinking about it!
> So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
>beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.
You're the one who makes it a big deal about your claim that there are
"EXACTLY 13 2nd order Eigenvectors". Well guess what. 12 is NOT "exactly
13".
> 12 is within 92% of 13. This is well within the expected
>experimental accuracy of historical data.
Once again, imagine the Parthenon with some of the columns 92% the height
of the others! A three year old could do better!
BTW, 12 and 13 are not within 3 significant figures of each other. (do
you even know what that means?) Try 1 sig fig.
George Hammond
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:49:40 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
>>wrote:
>
>>>[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
>>>Or 12 assuming that the Greeks did not know the difference
>>>between 12 and 13 as you have claimed earlier.
>>>
>>[Hammond]
>> Look, I already told you 3 times, the only EXACT
>>scientific fact is that there are EXACTLY 13-2nd ORDER
>>EIGENVECTORS, extracted by mainframe computers.
>
>[Michael Moroney]
>OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
>Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.
>
>
[Hammond]
Whaddau mean "redefine eigenvector"? An eigenvector is a
principle axis of a matrix ellipsoid, whether it's in
quantum mechanics, Psychometry Factor Analysis or the moment
of Inertia in Mechanics, makes no difference. An
eigenvector is an eigenvector.
The Pagan "gods" are 2nd order psychometry eigenvectors
caused by the cubic anatomical symmetry cleavage of the
brain. They form a CUBE.
>
>
>[Hammond]
>> The ancients didn't know what an eigenvector is, or that
>>the 13-2nd orders are CUBICALLY intercorrelated. Hammond
>>discovered that (1994) They just took an educated guess and
>>called it an even DOZEN (the Greek Dodekatheon so called).
>>They were right to within 7.7%, pretty good for ancient
>>science.
>
>
>[Michael Moroney]
>Oh, that's rich.
>
[Hammond]
Rich; I don't know what food stamps are, never mind
money.
>
>
>[Michael Moroney]
> 7.7% "pretty good for ancient science". Let's imagine,
>just for a moment, that the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon with some
>of the Doric columns 12 meters tall and others 13 meters tall. The 12m
>and 13m columns all mixed up. That would be "pretty good for ancient
>science", right? Only 7.7% off, right? Wrong - if they ever did that,
>the Parthenon would look pathetic. Instead of the ancient Greeks being
>revered by western society, they'd be the laughing stock of the ancient
>world! I'm laughing just thinking about it!
>
>
[Hammond]
Cut the shit Moroney, measureing something with a ruler
like the Parthenon is kid stuff.
Fact is Eratosthenes estimated the Earth's circumference
around 240 BCE. The Sun was directly overhead in Syene at
the summer solstice but in Alexandria it still cast a
shadow. Using the distance and angles he estimated the
Earth's circumference. Eratosthenes' figure has an error of
around five to ten percent.
So "7.7%" was par for the course in advanced scientific
measurement in ancient Greece.
The fact that they could estimate "God" to 7.7% is a
phenomenal scientific achievement by comparison!
>
>
>
>[Hammond]
>> So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
>>beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.
>
>
>>[Michael Moroney]
>You're the one who makes it a big deal about your claim that there are
>"EXACTLY 13 2nd order Eigenvectors". Well guess what. 12 is NOT "exactly
>13".
>
>
[Hammond]
Like I said, the Greeks were 7.7% off, same as their
measuremet of the Earth's circumference.
>
>
>BTW, 12 and 13 are not within 3 significant figures of each other. (do
>you even know what that means?) Try 1 sig fig.
>
>
[Hammond]
I've got 2 degrees in Physics from accredited
universities in Massachusetts, that certifies that I KNOW
what it means.
Modern Science has proved that there are 13-2nd order
eigenvectors EXACTLY (because they form a Cube)...... it was
the ANCIENT GREEKS who were off by 7.7%.... because they
simply took an educated guess of a dozen. THERE ACTUALLY
are 13 so called "Olympian gods".
Incidentally, Hippocrates was EXACTLY RIGHT about the
4-Humors, because again, modern science has proven that
there are EXACTLY 4-3rd ORDER EIGENVECTORS. Today they are
known as "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in Religion.
John Smith
You MAY have had (at one time) two degrees.
Since you demean and insult others who have BETTER degrees - your mean
nothing!
It is blatantly obviously that the psuchotic nature of your bellowings and
posting has completely overwhen any past educational experi3ence you may
have had.
IOW - when your insane, the grades you made in school don't mount up to
shit!
> Modern Science has proved that there are 13-2nd order
> eigenvectors EXACTLY (because they form a Cube)...... it was
> the ANCIENT GREEKS who were off by 7.7%.... because they
> simply took an educated guess of a dozen. THERE ACTUALLY
> are 13 so called "Olympian gods".
> Incidentally, Hippocrates was EXACTLY RIGHT about the
> 4-Humors, because again, modern science has proven that
> there are EXACTLY 4-3rd ORDER EIGENVECTORS. Today they are
> known as "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in Religion.
Modern science did not such thing!
They do NOT claim "religion" is science!
none
>> [Hammond]
>>> The ancients didn't know what an eigenvector is, or that
>>> the 13-2nd orders are CUBICALLY intercorrelated. Hammond
>>> discovered that (1994) They just took an educated guess and
>>> called it an even DOZEN (the Greek Dodekatheon so called).
>>> They were right to within 7.7%, pretty good for ancient
>>> science.
>>
12 did not equal 13 even in Greece. Look, they knew how to
count. It does not mean your conclusion is good to 7.7%, it
means that it is wrong.
Another bizarre assumption. If "god" is a thing, there is no
percentage. You either have the real one or you do not.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>>> So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
>>> beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.
>>
>>> [Michael Moroney]
>> You're the one who makes it a big deal about your claim that there are
>> "EXACTLY 13 2nd order Eigenvectors". Well guess what. 12 is NOT "exactly
>> 13".
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Like I said, the Greeks were 7.7% off, same as their
> measuremet of the Earth's circumference.
>>
>> BTW, 12 and 13 are not within 3 significant figures of each other. (do
>> you even know what that means?) Try 1 sig fig.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> I've got 2 degrees in Physics from accredited
> universities in Massachusetts, that certifies that I KNOW
> what it means.
As with the rest of your conclusions, this is completely wrong.
It means you did not get thrown out before that point. What
you learned or remembered is irrelevant.
> Modern Science has proved
No, Hammond has assumed without proof.
that there are 13-2nd order
> eigenvectors EXACTLY (because they form a Cube)...... it was
> the ANCIENT GREEKS who were off by 7.7%....
Because you assume they could not count.
because they
> simply took an educated guess of a dozen.
So you believe they created their gods to fit your future
theory but were to primitive to get the number right?
THERE ACTUALLY
> are 13 so called "Olympian gods".
> Incidentally, Hippocrates was EXACTLY RIGHT about the
> 4-Humors, because again, modern science has proven that
> there are EXACTLY 4-3rd ORDER EIGENVECTORS. Today they are
> known as "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in Religion.
These four are the names of books in the new testament. These
books were written at different times by different people.
Luke and John were written from 100-200 years later by writers
in what is now Turkey where Paul went to establish christianity.
The names of authors spread over a few hundred years is not
likely to have any scientific importance. You will have to
look for something else to push.
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
So all of a sudden all the idolatrists are worshipping the Christian
Creator God?
Besides the fact that even your overestimated numbers do not add up to
the 90% you claimed, I wonder why you want to look so silly?
Must be because you made your calculations 60 years ago or before, and
are now suffering from Alzheimer
You can actually Google up my birthday if you want to,
but I suspect you are not into the age of information.
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>
>[Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimer]
>
> you have shown no
>connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
>one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
>
>
[Hammond]
you haven't answered it:
>
>
[Hammond]
You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
George Hammond
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
>
>[Peter van Velzen, uneducated amateur]
>So all of a sudden all the idolatrists are worshipping the Christian
>Creator God?
>
>[SNIP AMATEUR CRAP>
>
>
[Hammond]
You're all through punk... you're dime a dozen on Usenet.
Now that you've discovered this is not an amateur discovery
and you sound like a fool; go back to your beer and computer
games.
Yawn.
none
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
> wrote:
>>
>> [Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimer]
>>
>> you have shown no
>> connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
>> one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Your answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
> you haven't answered it:
>>
> [Hammond]
> You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
> basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
> itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
> if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
> would explain it.
> In this case this means itimizing the CENTRAL CLAIMS of
> Religion (take Biblical religion for instance) and seeing if
> the discovered mechanism (curvature of subjective spacetime)
> COMPELLINGLY AND QUANTITATIVELY EXPLAINS EACH
> AND EVERY ITEM.
No, you started off with a conclusion and then tried to
contort the facts to match them. It does not work but you
still persist.
> The SPOG scientifically and quantitatively explains the
> following 16 (central and comprehensive) items which
> characterize Religion:
>
> 1. Why there physically exists an "invisible world"
> known as "Heaven" which is similar to Earth but
> is a paradise.
> (Because the Growth Deficit reduces mental
> speed and thus reduces the Fourier cutoff
> frequency of visual movement) This can be
> easily measured directly by theMotion Picture
> Fusion Frequency, which increases directly with
> gross brain growth)
This is meaningless work salad. Wrong and silly.
> 2. Why God is an "invisible man" who lives there
> and is all powerful and rules the actual (visible)
> world from there.
> ("God" is the perfect fully grown man, hence the
> part of us that is latent, or ungrown, is called
> the "invisible God", also the "Unconscious mind")
Unsupported hopeful assertion backed by nothing.
> 3. Why this God can effect miracles which transcend
> the (known) laws of Physics.
> (Because, a change in Repression causes a
> dramatic change in Curvature of subjective
> spacetime suddenly making more of reality
> visible).
You define him as someone who can do anything and then
draw the conclusion that he can do anything.
> 4. Why Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
> (This is confirmed by the SPOG which shows that
> "God" is the unconscious mind, which is a
> "spirit")
There is no support for this statement.
> 5. Why historically Religion has evolved from
> Polytheism to Monotheism.
> (The SPOG proves that there are 4 orders of
> eigenvectors, which is a "hierarchy of gods".
> the entire history of Religion is accounted for
> as a successive discovery of the orders from
> 1st=(demigods), 2nd=(Olympian gods), 3rd=
> (4-Gospel Saints), 4th=(God of Monotheism)
Christianity moved to one god but Hinduism and others
have not so this is wrong also.
> 6. Why Christianity says the world is transforming
> itself into Heaven and will actually complete this
> at a date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the
> "end of the world".
> (Because the Secular Trend curve in Human
> Growth is a Sigmoidal Logistics curve (S-curve)
> and the final plateau is 100% growth of
> the individual, or "Kingdom Come")
This is even more bizarre than the rest.
> 7. Why there is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
> (Because full growth means flat subjective
> spacetime.. no time dilation.. aka eternal time)
There is no content to comment on.
> 8. Why it is believed that Jesus was the physical
> "incarnation of God"
> (Because, nominally Jesus was a "fully grown
> specimen". Of course we know this wasn't
> actually possible, but in fact he must have
> been an impressive specimen to conduct
> such a startling public ministry.)
This is the claim because otherwise he would not have
seemed important.
> 9. Why the Cross for some reason is the central
> symbol of (Western) Religion.
> (Because the human body is an "axial quadrature"
> and the brain actually "cubic" causing a cross
> structure (Cartesian structure) of Personality)
So the Romans chose a christian symbol to crucify people
on? It was chosen for convenience.
> 10. Why for some reason our main canonical text is
> written in 4 identical versions known as the
> "4-Gospel Canon".
> (Because the Structural Model is CUBIC,
> represented as a square; 4 Gospel Canon
> represents the 4 canonical personalities
> of Man... cf. the Bicameral/2 Party system)
The four versions of the new testament are not identical.
They are in fact completely contradictory in some areas.
> 11. How God "created the world" only a matter of
> "thousands" of years ago (Genesis) not "billions"
> of years ago (Big Bang) as Science believes.
> (Because subjective spacetime only came into
> being when Man came into being 200,000 years
> ago, causing the Biblical Creation).
This has been shown to be untrue by science. You do not
want to believe it but that does not change the facts.
> 12. Why God created man "in his own image".
> (Because God is the invisible (fully grown)
> version of Man).
You got that backwards, man created god in his own image.
> 13. Why there is a "Trinity of God" and what it is,
> functionally or scientifically speaking.
> (the Trinity is simply the cybernetic feedback
> loop (input, output, feedback) describing the
> operation of the Father (invisible man), Son
> actual Man, and feedback (UNCS mind) that
> transforms the latter into the former).
This silliness is even worse than that above.
> 14. Why there are (approximately) 13 gods in the
> Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon.
> (Because the 2nd orders are caused by the
> 13 symmetry axes of the cubic str. of the brain).
This is where you claim again that 12=13 to 3 significant
figures.
> 15. Why there are exactly 4-gospel Saints named
> Matthew, mark, Luke, John.
> (Because the Cubic str. of Personality can be
> represented by a section through the Cube,
> yielding the 4 canonical personalities of Man)
The council of Nicea chose the books to unify the various
christian sects. There were several main sects and this
is why Revelation, which has no part in the bible since it is
just a forecast of Rome's destruction is in there.
> 16. Why there are 30 odd "lesser demigods" in Hinduism.
> (Because there are 30 1st-order eigenvectors
> caused by myriad lower level brain structures;
> not geometrically intercorrelated)
>
You forgot the other millions. You are also ignoring the
various earth gods and other traditional gods.
>
> THIS OVERWHELMING, COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF THE
> ENTIRE BODY OF CLASSICAL RELIGION, BY A SIMPLE RELATIVISTIC
> CURVATURE MECHANISM, IS PRIMA FACIE THE WORLD'S FIRST AND
> ONLY BONA FIDE "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD".
No, it is just babble that no one takes seriously.
> Now you can sit there and giggle like a flat footed fat
> ass academy boy all you want, but it certainly is NOT
> convincing.
And your nonsense is?
> either show us some of your scintillating PhD forensic
> scientist genius a la ronald Reagan, or go back to work
> designing Widgets at Quintessential Trinkets where you
> belong.
Remind us again where you work?
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer
<don.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>[Don Stockbauer]
>Amazing how usenet consists almost entirely of contentiousness and
>character assassination rather than problem solving.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
I'll tell you what's going to happen Don, to the SPOG on
Usenet..... my prediction.... some physics atheist is
finally going to realize that Hammond's SPOG is legitimate
by the book science, and believe it or not the persuasion of
Physics is going to be more powerful than the persuasion of
Atheism. The guy is going to post LEGENDARY message
stating right out front, that Hammond's SPOG is
correct! That the world's first scientific proof of God HAS
been discovered.
It'll happen...... I'll bet, some atheist with balls of
solid brass is going to do that eventually, for the love of
Science mind you, not the love of Religion! That and
disgust over Religious war, rising gas prices, rising food
prices, global anti-Americanism, creeping recession, the
falling dollar and a dozen other things. I'll bet that's
what's will happen! I wonder what Richard Dawkins is doing?
The reaction to such a post would be electrifying, after
all, who could refute him! Who could accuse him? Who would
stand in his way? He'd be like another St. Paul; a walking
miracle absolutely unopposed! An instant popular hero, a
man for our times, a living legend!
I'll bet the temptation will be too great for some bold
sonofabitch! And I'll tell you now, I envy him!
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>
>
<snip no content line item drivil post>
>
>
[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and must remain anonymous (which is crap); I posted a TEST
QUESTION that any COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:
Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?
You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google either), proving that
you're some kind of half baked "applied physics" jerk who
can't understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectualLy BORING!
Michael Moroney
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
>>Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.
>>
> Whaddau mean "redefine eigenvector"? An eigenvector is a
>principle axis of a matrix ellipsoid, whether it's in
>quantum mechanics, Psychometry Factor Analysis or the moment
>of Inertia in Mechanics, makes no difference. An
>eigenvector is an eigenvector.
> The Pagan "gods" are 2nd order psychometry eigenvectors
>caused by the cubic anatomical symmetry cleavage of the
>brain. They form a CUBE.
Yup. Add 'eigenvector' to the growing list of redefined words.
>> 7.7% "pretty good for ancient science". Let's imagine,
>>just for a moment, that the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon with some
>>of the Doric columns 12 meters tall and others 13 meters tall. The 12m
>>and 13m columns all mixed up. That would be "pretty good for ancient
>>science", right? Only 7.7% off, right? Wrong - if they ever did that,
>>the Parthenon would look pathetic. Instead of the ancient Greeks being
>>revered by western society, they'd be the laughing stock of the ancient
>>world! I'm laughing just thinking about it!
>>
> Cut the shit Moroney, measureing something with a ruler
>like the Parthenon is kid stuff.
And counting as far as 13 is even more kid stuff. My kid could count past
13 when she was just 2.
> Fact is Eratosthenes estimated the Earth's circumference
>around 240 BCE. The Sun was directly overhead in Syene at
>the summer solstice but in Alexandria it still cast a
>shadow. Using the distance and angles he estimated the
>Earth's circumference. Eratosthenes' figure has an error of
>around five to ten percent.
> So "7.7%" was par for the course in advanced scientific
>measurement in ancient Greece.
We're not talking about measuring angles of sunlight, time or distance
(all of which would be necessary to do what Eratosthenes did) or
even just distance (enough to get the columns of the Parthenon to the same
height), we're talking about _counting gods_!
> The fact that they could estimate "God" to 7.7% is a
>phenomenal scientific achievement by comparison!
Counting to 13 is *not* a phenomenal scientific achievement! It's
something that some two-year-olds can do!
>>> So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
>>>beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.
>>
>>You're the one who makes it a big deal about your claim that there are
>>"EXACTLY 13 2nd order Eigenvectors". Well guess what. 12 is NOT "exactly
>>13".
>>
>Like I said, the Greeks were 7.7% off, same as their
>measuremet of the Earth's circumference.
We're not talking about 'measuring' anything (and even so they could
measure Parthenon columns to much better than 7.7% error), we're talking
about simple counting.
>>BTW, 12 and 13 are not within 3 significant figures of each other. (do
>>you even know what that means?) Try 1 sig fig.
> I've got 2 degrees in Physics from accredited
>universities in Massachusetts, that certifies that I KNOW
>what it means.
Maybe, just maybe, you knew the definition once, but it appears you no
longer do.
If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
why?
12
13
0.000876
1.000876
120
120.
469.230
Let's hear your "definition" of significant figure. I'll add it to
the ever-growing List of Words Redefined by George Hammond.
"Exist"
"Prove"/"Proof"
"Peer-reviewed"
"Eigenvector" (kewl sounding word that makes my 'proof' sound scientific)
"Twelve" (a number considered unlucky by many)
"Thirteen" (number of eggs in an egg carton)
"Thirty" (number of dollars you need to be considered a multimillionaire)
> Modern Science has proved that there are 13-2nd order
Another one. "Modern Science" = "Hammond's imagination"
Of course, perhaps words like "are" "that" "has" etc. should be on the
list and their redefinitions completely change the meaning of what you
write to something completely different.
George Hammond
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
>>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>
>>>[Michael Moroney]
>>>OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
>>>Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>[Hammond]
>> Whaddau mean "redefine eigenvector"? An eigenvector is a
>>principle axis of a matrix ellipsoid, whether it's in
>>quantum mechanics, Psychometry Factor Analysis or the moment
>>of Inertia in Mechanics, makes no difference. An
>>eigenvector is an eigenvector.
>> The Pagan "gods" are 2nd order psychometry eigenvectors
>>caused by the cubic anatomical symmetry cleavage of the
>>brain. They form a CUBE.
>
>
>[Michael Moroney]
>Yup. Add 'eigenvector' to the growing list of redefined words.
>
>
[Hammond]
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
My definition of an eigenvector is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT,
and the "Pagan gods" are 2nd order EIGENVECTORS as so
defined in Personality Psychometry and experimentally
measureable to 3 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES and have been so
measured and peer published for 30 years.
>
>
>
>[Michael Moroney]
>If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
>lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
>why?
>
>12
[GH] 2 significant figures
>13
[GH] 2 significant figures
>0.000876
[GH] 3 significant figures
>1.000876
[GH] 7 significant figures
>120
[GH] 2 significant figures
>120.
[GH] 2 significant figures
>469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures
>
[GH] Why? Because I've got 2 significant college degrees
in Physics from accredited Universities in Massachusetts.
>
>
[Hammond]
Now get the f--- outta here atheistic moron; get off this
thread and stay off it, this is not a juvenile discussion
for mentally retarded loudmouths lijke you.
none
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:09:29 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> <snip no content line item drivil post>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
> lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
> reviewed and published papers.
means you know you are wrong.
> Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
> intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
> Science.
> You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
> your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
> commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
> grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
> verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
> are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
> typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
> atheistic nut.
Your opinion has nothing to do with the validity of my PhD.
The university, my advisor and my committee decided that many
years ago.
It is sad that you consider reasoned comments as ranting. Most
of the world considers swearing and insults as ranting. Maybe
you are right to 7.7%
You still did not tell us what you do for a living.
> Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
> Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
> PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
> engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
> be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
> ("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
> any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
> Judging from your language and science content surely you
> fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
> "applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
> judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
> screwball.
This sort of paranoid comments shows you know you are wrong
and are trying to bluster.
> Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
> post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
> and must remain anonymous (which is crap); I posted a TEST
> QUESTION that any COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
> answer off the top of his head:
>
> Physics PhD Test Question
> What is the relationship between the
> Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
> Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?
>
You said you would not believe my answer. Are you lying now
or were you lying then?
> You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
> (and you won't find it on Google either), proving that
> you're some kind of half baked "applied physics" jerk who
> can't understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
> Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
> asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
> as a scientist and worst of all intellectualLy BORING!
I guess I forgot that to win an argument, I must swear, insult
and USE CAPITAL LETTERS. Does that help my argument? You seem
to think it helps yours.
You have shown you cannot answer challenges to your wild
assumptions which means you know they are wrong and you are
still just hoping no one will notice. Unfortunately for you,
they have noticed. You are the joke of the newsgroups.
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>
<SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT>
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and must remain anonymous (which is crap); I posted a TEST
QUESTION that any COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:
Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?
You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google either), proving that
you're some kind of half baked "applied physics" jerk who
can't understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectualLy BORING!
Richard Anacker
George Hammond schrieb:
> <SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT>
LOL.
richie
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two
Michael Moroney
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:06:43 +0000 (UTC),
>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> writes:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
>>>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>>>OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
>>>>Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.
>>> Whaddau mean "redefine eigenvector"? An eigenvector is a
>>>principle axis of a matrix ellipsoid, whether it's in
>>>quantum mechanics, Psychometry Factor Analysis or the moment
>>>of Inertia in Mechanics, makes no difference. An
>>>eigenvector is an eigenvector.
>>> The Pagan "gods" are 2nd order psychometry eigenvectors
>>>caused by the cubic anatomical symmetry cleavage of the
>>>brain. They form a CUBE.
>>Yup. Add 'eigenvector' to the growing list of redefined words.
> My definition of an eigenvector is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT,
And we add to the redefined word list:
"SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT" : George Hammond hallucinated it so it must be
true.
>and the "Pagan gods" are 2nd order EIGENVECTORS as so
"EIGENVECTOR" : Only God and George Hammond know about that, and I'm not
so sure about God.
>defined in Personality Psychometry
"Personality Psychometry" : Possibly what George suffers from
> and experimentally
>measureable to 3 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES
3 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES : One or maybe two significant figures.
> and have been so
>measured and peer published
Peer published : Posted on a vanity press website.
> for 30 years.
I guess this yet another definition for "thirty".
>>If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
>>lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
>>why?
>>
>>12
>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>13
>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>0.000876
>[GH] 3 significant figures
>>1.000876
>[GH] 7 significant figures
>>120
>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>120.
>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>469.230
>[GH] 5 significant figures
>>
>[GH] Why? Because I've got 2 significant college degrees
>in Physics from accredited Universities in Massachusetts.
Congratulations. Only two wrong. 71%, a D. I guess if you did better in
your other courses you won't flunk out.
Now please explain how 12=13 to 3 sig figs. (this ought to be good!)
>Now get the f--- outta here atheistic moron; get off this
>thread and stay off it, this is not a juvenile discussion
>for mentally retarded loudmouths lijke you.
Silence, imbecile. Show more respect to your superiors or else the
asylum will revoke your computer privileges.
none
snips the part that shows him to be wrong and tells people to
leave. That shows he knows he is wrong and has no business bothering
intelligent people with his ignorance or hope or delusions or whatever
it is that makes him say really embarrassing things so that he looks
really bad.
Can you point out one rational person that has agreed with you?
John Smith
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimer]
>>
>> you have shown no
>>connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
>>one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Your answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
> you haven't answered it:
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
> basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
> itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
> if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
> would explain it.
You forgot onoe important step ... (as is usual for ignorant assholes like
you) - what is inivestigated must have a basis in REALITY!
Religious beliefs do NOT!
Only those things that exist in reality have supportive FACTS and EVIDENCE.
Your S.P.O.Crap has produced none of either.
You cannot start out with (your) crap ........ add your own psychotically
delusional, UN-scientific bellows ... and then come up with ANYTHING that
has any relationship to science, reality or sanity!
You're nothing more than a psychotic asshole!
none
He wants it to be true. He has nothing else to offer so he hopes
he gets glory by doing something that is obviously wrong and then
hoping that no one notices.
None of the steps in his "proof" is connected to any facet of
reality. He takes a few random phrases that have some truth in
them and then puts in conclusions that are totally bogus and
expects people to tell him how great he is. He does not like
it that I have a PhD and he does not so he attacks that rather
than try to defend his nonsense.
Should we pity him or be mad at him? I would go for pity because
he is making himself unhappy.
George Hammond
<spam.q...@mamuts.org> wrote:
>Sers George et all
>
>George Hammond schrieb:
>
>> <SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT>
>
>LOL.
>
>richie
>
>
[Hammond]
Hey, this is personal between me and another Physics
professional, he's heckling me with his atheistic rants.
I've got no beef with you; German asshole!
George Hammond
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>>>If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
>>>lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
>>>why?
>>>
>>>12
>>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>>13
>>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>>0.000876
>>[GH] 3 significant figures
>>>1.000876
>>[GH] 7 significant figures
>>>120
>>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>>120.
>>[GH] 2 significant figures
>>>469.230
>>[GH] 5 significant figures
>>>
>>[GH] Why? Because I've got 2 significant college degrees
>>in Physics from accredited Universities in Massachusetts.
>
>
>[Michael Moroney]
>Congratulations. Only two wrong. 71%, a D. I guess if you did better in
>your other courses you won't flunk out.
>
>
[Hammond]
Bullshit....all 7 of my answers are CORRECT. 100%="A+".
You're the moron who doesn't know what a "significant
figure" is? Get the f--- outta here.
Richard Anacker
George Hammond schrieb:
> German asshole!
Oh, how I love you being so rude, Cherie!
Show me the tiger in you - gimme the stallion! It looks so great when you
get this read head whilst sticking your finger in your arse. Go ahead, turn
me on!
But George, don't try too hard, you know, what the MD said last time - your
heart, remember...
richie, fascinated by this real masculine brain-machine!
George Hammond
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:te8c14p4ci4ugd0ok...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimant]
>>> you have shown no
>>>connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
>>>one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> My answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
>> you haven't answered it:
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
>> basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
>> itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
>> if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
>> would explain it.
>
>[John Smith]
>You forgot one important step ... (as is usual for ignorant assholes like
>you) - what is inivestigated must have a basis in REALITY!
>Religious beliefs do NOT!
>
>
[Hammond]
WRONG no "basis in reality" need be assumed to
investigate any claimed phenomenon.
For instance, the claim that the Moon is made of green
cheese has no basis in reality, but it can be scientifcally
investigated by going to the Moon and taking a close look
under a microscope, which has been done; with a negative
result. Thus the claimed phenomenon is disproved.
On the other hand, in the case of the "claimed phenomenon
of God" as described in the King James Bible, Hammond HAS
DISCOVERED AND PROVEN that there is a simple comprehensive
scientific mechanism which, explains and PROVES that all the
claims made in the KJ are SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT.
You're an aggravated anti-religious jerk who doesn't know
what the f--- he's talking about. I'm an aggravated jerk,
but at least I know better than to be antireligious, moron.
none
you are wrong here too. Or is this why you failed out of graduate
school?
none
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:04:19 +0200, Richard Anacker
> <spam.q...@mamuts.org> wrote:
>
>> Sers George et all
>>
>> George Hammond schrieb:
>>
>>> <SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT>
>> LOL.
>>
>> richie
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Hey, this is personal between me and another Physics
> professional, he's heckling me with his atheistic rants.
> I've got no beef with you; German asshole!
So you are being careful to only insult one person at a time?
Pointing out your mistakes is not heckling, it is trying to
help you. Ranting is insults, swearing and typing in all
capital letters. Look it up in a dictionary.
George Hammond
wrote:
>[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant]
>So Hammond is unable to support his laughable proposals so he
>snips the part that shows him to be wrong and tells people to
>leave. That shows he knows he is wrong and has no business bothering
>intelligent people with his ignorance or hope or delusions or whatever
>it is that makes him say really embarrassing things so that he looks
>really bad.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Look jerk, you haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. All you do is
keep mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say..............Finally I went
looking for the reason for this "non-scientific response" by
a supposed "Physics PhD"........ and sure enough... it turns
out you're a FAKE, a FRAUD, and an IMPOSTER claiming an
unverifiable degree and and posting anonymously.
To top it all off, you can't even answer a "physicis PhD
test question" that any COMPETENT Physics PhD could answer
off the top of his head in 25 words.
Turns out, you're nothing but a ranting atheistic nut.
If you can't say something on topic, and scientific.......
screw.... get outta here.... you're boring and worthless.
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>
<SNIP AD HOMINEM RANT>
none
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:48:43 GMT, "John Smith"
> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>> news:te8c14p4ci4ugd0ok...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)">
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimant]
>>>> you have shown no
>>>> connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
>>>> one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> My answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
>>> you haven't answered it:
>>>>
below.
>>> [Hammond]
>>> You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
>>> basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
>>> itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
>>> if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
>>> would explain it.
>> [John Smith]
>> You forgot one important step ... (as is usual for ignorant assholes like
>> you) - what is inivestigated must have a basis in REALITY!
>> Religious beliefs do NOT!
>>
Hammond does not need something to be true to prove it.
He has already shown that either 12=13 or that the Greeks
did not know how to count.
>>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG no "basis in reality" need be assumed to
> investigate any claimed phenomenon.
> For instance, the claim that the Moon is made of green
> cheese has no basis in reality, but it can be scientifcally
> investigated by going to the Moon and taking a close look
> under a microscope, which has been done; with a negative
> result. Thus the claimed phenomenon is disproved.
> On the other hand, in the case of the "claimed phenomenon
> of God" as described in the King James Bible, Hammond HAS
> DISCOVERED AND PROVEN that there is a simple comprehensive
> scientific mechanism which, explains and PROVES that all the
> claims made in the KJ are SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT.
This is as wild a claim as you have made. You know that Matthew
and Mark made completely different claims about the residency
of Joseph and Mary don't you? They cannot both be right.
You know, if you have read Mark that Jesus's lineage is trace
back to David and then to Adam through his father Joseph. It
is clear that there was no silly business about virgin birth
believed at that time. If Joseph was not the father, his
lineage would not be important. That part alone shows the
bible is not to be believed. Thus your "proof" is similarly
not to be believed.
> You're an aggravated anti-religious jerk who doesn't know
> what the f--- he's talking about. I'm an aggravated jerk,
> but at least I know better than to be antireligious, moron.
And why is that?
none
speculation and delusion.
My degrees are perfectly fine and are not subject to your
approval.
Growth deficit, fusion frequency and other nonsense do not
constitute any kind of proof. You should know that as well
but you get mad when people point out your mistakes.
> To top it all off, you can't even answer a "physicis PhD
> test question" that any COMPETENT Physics PhD could answer
> off the top of his head in 25 words.
Lets see, you claim to have somewhere between 2 and 2.5 degrees
(I assume to 3 significant figures) but you cannot even
spell physics. Was that why you failed graduate school?
> Turns out, you're nothing but a ranting atheistic nut.
> If you can't say something on topic, and scientific.......
> screw.... get outta here.... you're boring and worthless.
Maybe boring and worthless to you but I am right in my
physics and I have my degrees and career to look on.
You have ignored all the science I have pointed out as
well as your religious mistakes. Proofs were not done
that way in my graduate school.