PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > CUPhys wrote:
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3A866907...@mediaone.net...
> > > > =========================================================
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > > may be seen at:
> > > >
> > > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > > >
> > > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > > >
> > > > =========================================================
> > > >
SNIP
D wrote:
> It is really humorous that your alledged physics theory,
> which you claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal,
> was not published in any physics journal. Your own
> web page points out that your "physics" "theory" appeared
> in something called "New Ideas in Psychology". Furthermore
> not a single reference that you cite is even related to
> physics.
> --Donna
[Hammond]
Try reading for more than 10 seconds Snow White;
for instance:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
and it's obvious that the scientific proof of God
depends SINE QUA NON, mathematically, on Einstein's
theory of General Relativity.
In case nobody told you, General Relativity is
a PHYSICS THEORY dahling. Naturally, a "humerous"
broad like you wouldn't know what you're talking about.
And BTW, New Ideas In Psychology is a premier
international journal well known, and published by
one of the world's largest publishers, Pergamon Press,
and is rigorously peer reviewed... with a rejection rate
of more than 80%.
HAMMOND
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
franz heymann
> D wrote:
[Snip]
> > It is really humorous that your alledged physics theory,
> > which you claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal,
> > was not published in any physics journal. Your own
> > web page points out that your "physics" "theory" appeared
> > in something called "New Ideas in Psychology". Furthermore
> > not a single reference that you cite is even related to
> > physics.
> > --Donna
>
> [Hammond]
> Try reading for more than 10 seconds Snow White;
> for instance:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
>
> and it's obvious that the scientific proof of God
> depends SINE QUA NON
Nothing in physics goes sine qua non. Not even in capital letters.
> , mathematically, on Einstein's
> theory of General Relativity.
Here we go again, you dunce.
You have already admitted that this is a crap statement to make.
You have admitted that your much vaunted "psychometric metric tensor"
is a load of balls.
Why do you then repeat the same nonsensical mantra?
[Snip]
> And BTW, New Ideas In Psychology is a premier
> international journal well known, and published by
> one of the world's largest publishers, Pergamon Press,
> and is rigorously peer reviewed... with a rejection rate
> of more than 80%.
Whoever reviewed your crap favourably did it in his/her sleep.
I say, is your total oevre confined to one item?
Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
========================================================
D wrote:
>
> ghammo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > [Hammond]
> > The public records will show the following CV
> > for George Edwin Hammond (dob 1942):
> >
> > B.S. Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Inst.
> > Worcester Mass. USA, 1964
> >
> > M.S. Physics, Northeastern Univ.
> > Boston Mass, USA, 1967
> > Studied Relativity under Richard Arnowitt
> > now distinguished professor at TAMU, Texas
> > who is cited frequently in MTW's-_Gravitation_.
> >
> > Passed PhD qualifying exam, teaching asst.
> > and PhD candidate 1968, N.U. left w/o
> > taking doctorate for private sector
> > employment due to financial problems.
> >
> > peer reviewed publications:
> >
> > HAMMOND G.E. (1994), The Cartesian theory,
> > ....New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2)
> > ....pp 153-167, Pergamon Press
> > (online facsimile, illustrated, located at:
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
> >
> > HAMMOND
>
> Your only peer reviewed publication is in psychology?
> I don't know of a MS physics graduate, much less someone
> who was supposed to have been working on a PhD who does
> now have something published in their field.
> Something is fishy here.
[Hammond]
The only thing that is flaky is the fact that you appear unable
to make an ON-TOPIC comment containing any SUBSTANTIVE content.
There are a bazillion techn-nerd-pedants out there who can spout
ad hominem chit chat all day long..... what; are you just another
one?
Say something intelligent, on-topic, substantive, scientific
or go chit chat with some of your techn-nerd boyfriends.
BTW, I've cited my CV, how about citing yours before you start
acting like self appointed moderator of this discussion? Are you
a Physics major, or another B.S. in computer science from a
midwestern junior college who thinks they're an expert on
the theory-of-everyting?
ZenIsWhen
talk.origins ....twice,and were blown away each time!
Presenting the same crap hear doesn;t make it any more real!
"Parenthetically, we mention here that this Factor Analytic
identity shows that it IS gravity that is causing brain growth"
You mis-spelled pathetically.
Gravity causes brain growth is THE MOST INSANE thing (outside of Boatright's
posts) that I have ever seen!
You only, once again, prove your ignorance runs deep!
ZenIsWhen
You claim to be a scientists and see nothing quetionable about an alleged
science paper in a psychology rag?
Are you sure Your insanity wasn't the REAL topic?
>There are a bazillion techn-nerd-pedants out there who can spout
>ad hominem chit chat all day long..... what; are you just another
>one?
> Say something intelligent, on-topic, substantive, scientific
>or go chit chat with some of your techn-nerd boyfriends.
???????
If that's your requirements of others, why do YOU post irrational, ignorant,
insane crap?
Why don't you go chit chat with your hemorrhoids .. you must be very familiar
with them by now!
> BTW, I've cited my CV, how about citing yours before you start
>acting like self appointed moderator of this discussion? Are you
>a Physics major, or another B.S. in computer science from a
>midwestern junior college who thinks they're an expert on
>the theory-of-everyting?
Isn't it facinating that there are two people, in Australia, with the same
name. One of them is a well respected, and honorable scientists; the other a
fundamentalist wacko.
Many people think there is only one person, so they get very confused by the
contradictions between real scientific paper, and creatocrap!
Since your posts, and your web site, are full of nothing more than insane crap
.there is NO reason to trust ANYTHING you say about any scientific background
of a "G.E. Hammond!"
and besides . ... since many psychiatrists go insane and commit suicide, that
indicates that a degree is no guarantee against stupidity.
It's the EVIDENCE that matters ... and you have NOTHING but Crap!
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic and /or incompetent
statements containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> Here we go again, you dunce.
> You have already admitted that this is a crap statement to make.
> You have admitted that your much vaunted "psychometric metric tensor"
> is a load of balls.
> Franz Heymann
Raptor514
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> ========================================================
>
> D wrote:
> >
> > ghammo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The public records will show the following CV
> > > for George Edwin Hammond (dob 1942):
> > >
> > > B.S. Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Inst.
> > > Worcester Mass. USA, 1964
> > >
> > > M.S. Physics, Northeastern Univ.
> > > Boston Mass, USA, 1967
> > > Studied Relativity under Richard Arnowitt
> > > now distinguished professor at TAMU, Texas
> > > who is cited frequently in MTW's-_Gravitation_.
I am a student at Texas A&M (TAMU) and checked our physics' department
webpage for a Dr. Arnowitt. Indeed, there is such a man. I just e-mailed
the good prof asking him for any information regarding George Hammond that
he wouldn't mind passing on to me. The e-mail included a snippet from
George Hammonds prior posts.
I will post Professor Arnowitt's reply in it's entirety if, indeed, he does
respond.
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Man what a busy body you are. What the hell is this a
ad hominem gossip column or something.... isn't there
anybody out there who can say something ON-TOPIC?
Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
by popularity contests? Man....!!!
Andrew
Hm. Granted I am a physics student rather than professional scientist, but
my experience has been that scientific attempts to prove God or anything
about him are often lacking.
I believe the science and Christianity address different questions about
God's world, and I do not think they conflict or overlap.
An atheist once asked me, "how can you believe in something for which there
is no proof, not even an experiment which can test it? How can you call
yourself a scientist?
And I said, "I can certainly believe in God. And I can do so without having
numbers and graphs to guide me. I just can't claim that my faith is
science."
Similarly, I question fellow Christians whose literal interpretations of the
Bible prevent any serious study of God's world and creation.
in article 3A8A0148...@mediaone.net, George Hammond at
gham...@mediaone.net wrote on 2/13/01 10:51 PM:
> Raptor514 wrote:
>>
>> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>> news:3A892F8A...@mediaone.net...
>>> =========================================================
>>>
>>> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
>>> may be seen at:
>>>
>>> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>>
>> I am a student at Texas A&M (TAMU) and checked our physics' department
>> webpage for a Dr. Arnowitt. Indeed, there is such a man. I just e-mailed
>> the good prof asking him for any information regarding George Hammond that
>> he wouldn't mind passing on to me. The e-mail included a snippet from
>> George Hammonds prior posts.
>>
>> I will post Professor Arnowitt's reply in it's entirety if, indeed, he does
>> respond.
>
...
ZenIsWhen
OK .... your bull shit is nothing more than crap!
> Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
>by popularity contests? Man....!!!
Since when is someone so worried about another checking credentials?
William
wrote:
>Hm. Granted I am a physics student rather than professional scientist, but
>my experience has been that scientific attempts to prove God or anything
>about him are often lacking.
>
>I believe the science and Christianity address different questions about
>God's world, and I do not think they conflict or overlap.
It's only when it is claimed that christianity relates to reality that
the problems arise.
William
Raptor514
Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the question.
I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
how seriously you should be taken, if at all. It took about one minute for
me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
qualify me as a busy body.
George Hammond
>
SNIP
[Hammond]
RIGHT.... and OBVIOUSLY all you need is a competent scientist
to read it to find out. Are such people in such short demand that
people have to resort to attempting to analyze the AUTHOR instead
of the THEORY to find out? What is this a new way of conducting
physics research?
> I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
> how seriously you should be taken, if at all.
[Hammond]
If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
"discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
could care less.
It took about one minute for
> me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> qualify me as a busy body.
[Hammond]
Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
"Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old. You're not
going to get any email from him. He probably doesn't even
read email.
Fred Stone
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A8A0148...@mediaone.net...
> > [Hammond]
> > Man what a busy body you are. What the hell is this a
> > ad hominem gossip column or something.... isn't there
> > anybody out there who can say something ON-TOPIC?
> > Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
> > by popularity contests? Man....!!!
>
> Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the question.
> I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
> how seriously you should be taken, if at all. It took about one minute for
> me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> qualify me as a busy body.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> > Email: gham...@mediaone.net
> > Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
Try doing a google search on group:sci.physics, Hammond
I think their threads are definitive.
--
Fred Stone
Since when is ignorance a point of view?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
Fred Stone wrote:
>
> Raptor514 wrote:
>
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A8A0148...@mediaone.net...
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Man what a busy body you are. What the hell is this a
> > > ad hominem gossip column or something.... isn't there
> > > anybody out there who can say something ON-TOPIC?
> > > Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
> > > by popularity contests? Man....!!!
> >
> > Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the question.
> > I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
> > how seriously you should be taken, if at all. It took about one minute for
> > me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> > qualify me as a busy body.
> >
> Try doing a google search on group:sci.physics, Hammond
> I think their threads are definitive.
[Hammond]
Definitive of what? Why not take a poll in the lobby of a local
Greyhound bus terminal, it would be just as "definitive" and
likewise proves nothing concerning scientific competence.
>
> --
> Fred Stone
................................HAMMOND
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
>then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
>to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
>unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
>"discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
>could care less.
Just like nobody cares what people who know nothing about the subject say on it,
either(except maybe desperate theists looking for more lame arguments).
(snip)
>Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
>authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
>"Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old.
And that makes him an authority on life after death???? By what standard?
(snip)
Noah Simoneaux
Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
Eastman's Personnel Director's Law
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
George Hammond
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:09:37 GMT, George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
> >then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
> >to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
> >unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
> >"discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
> >could care less.
>
> Just like nobody cares what people who know nothing about the subject say on it,
> either(except maybe desperate theists looking for more lame arguments).
>
[Hammond]
That's what I just said. Thanks for repeating me.
> (snip)
>
> >Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
> >authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
> >"Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old.
>
> And that makes him an authority on life after death???? By what standard?
>
[Hammond]
Nobody ever said he was, and he isn't... there's just some
lamebrain named Raptor314 at TAMU, a busybody, who
wants to investigate my academic history for some strange
reason... I say strange, because Raptor obviously isn't
even qualified to discuss the scientific proof of God
that is being discussed here.
> (snip)
>
> Noah Simoneaux
> Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
>
[Hammond]
You sure got that one right.
BTW, what are you doing here since you obviously
can't understand the theory either?
Fred Stone
I'm trying to understand your work.Between your site and sci.physics
I figure someone might be able to explain something.
Do you have experimental results to confirm your "Auxology"?
In which peer-reviewed journals have your results been published?
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
Raptor514
What ad hominem? What gossip? What popularity contest? For that matter,
what "scientific theory"?
> >
> > Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the
question.
>
> [Hammond]
> RIGHT.... and OBVIOUSLY all you need is a competent scientist
> to read it to find out.
I wrote the professor asking about you, not about your "theory." I am
perfectly capable of judging your theory for myself. See below.
> Are such people in such short demand that
> people have to resort to attempting to analyze the AUTHOR instead
> of the THEORY to find out? What is this a new way of conducting
> physics research?
Considering that you constantly, rabidly assert what a fantastic "authority"
you are and base the majority of your "argumentation" on this assertion, it
makes perfectly good sense to see if your assertions of being such a great
scientist are true. If your "theory" had actually been published in a
decent physics journal then there would be no question as to whether or not
it has any scientific merit, for it would have had to have been
peer-reviewed. But it wasn't. Your book was published by "Hammond
Psychology Publications," in other words, you couldn't find a publisher and
paid for the printing out of your own pocket. You appear to have a
credibility problem.
> > I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find
out
> > how seriously you should be taken, if at all.
>
> [Hammond]
> If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
> then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
> to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
> unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
> "discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
> could care less.
Actually, it was reading the "theory ITSELF" that convinced me of the nature
of your little theory. If you want people who are qualified to examine a
real-life physics theory, then why did you post to alt.philosophy.debate,
and alt.religion.christian in the first place? Sci.physics is
understandable, but your reception and reputation on that newsgroup is a bit
less-than-stellar is it not?
All caps postings and foaming-at-the-mouth tone do not serve to belly the
distinct impression of kookitude which suffuses everything you say.
>
>
>
> It took about one minute for
> > me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> > qualify me as a busy body.
>
> [Hammond]
> Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
> authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
> "Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old. You're not
> going to get any email from him. He probably doesn't even
> read email.
You have a point here. But I do live right here at the same university as
him and it was no trouble for me to e-mail him. If he answers he answers,
if he doesn't he doesn't. What are you so afraid of anyway?
I am not a physicist. I am a senior at Texas A&M double-majoring in
philosophy and history. However, I was, at first, a biochemistry major and
worked as a lab assistant at TAMU. I chopped the tails off of mice, ground
'em up, and PCR'd the debris to isolate the RAS-4 gene responsible for part
of the fat metabolism cycle. The RAS-4 gene is a potential player in the
fight for a diabetes cure by the way. I have a strong math and science
background and consider myself fully qualified to say that your theory is
complete bunk. However, one does not even need a strong math and science
background to do this - it can be done on logical grounds alone.
To say that the "amount" of reality we perceive is based on the size of our
brains is invalid from a strictly logical viewpoint. First of all, the
brain is not a "reality-sensing" organ, it is an information-processing
system. Secondly, the predicate-concept "amount" cannot be reasonably
applied to the subject-concept "reality." In what way is reality divided
into quantities such that one may have "greater" or "lesser" amounts of it
in the first place? The concept of "quantity" is irrelevant to "reality"
and your theory collapses on logical grounds before you even get to your
first eigenvector. One may have greater or lesser understanding of reality,
based on training, experience, intelligence, etc. but one does not have
greater and lesser "amounts" of reality in ones' head based on ones' brain
size as you assert. By your argument, an encephelatic would be a
transcendent being, while Einstein would have perceived "less" reality (for
he had an unusually small brain size upon post-mortem.)
It was once fashionable among anthropologists to use physical measurements
of peoples' heads to "determine" their intelligence, moral character,
criminal predisposition, etc. This is now recognized as a classic example
of "bad science" right up there with phlogiston and n-rays. The brain is
not like a car engine where more cubic centimeters of displacement means
more horsepower. On the contrary, mathematicians tend to have smaller than
average brains, while dolphin brains are larger than our own. By your
reasoning, the ENIAC is much better a computer than my pentium-III 700 mHz
because its so much bigger, but everyone knows that this is not the case.
By the way, bringing senior-level calculus and its' terminology into your
"theory" does absolutely nothing to redeem it. It merely makes it slightly
difficult to penetrate for most people and let's you crow about how everyone
is "unqualified" to judge your theory. However, even those people lacking
the math training can easily look at your lack of peer-reviewed articles
(and usenet postings don't count) and assume, rightly, that you are not an
active, credible scientist. Many people have been known to burn out in
graduate school, drop out of the Ph.D program, and take a Master's degree.
It's nothing to be ashamed of if you couldn't hack it on that level.
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
Raptor514
And what is your qualification for saying that I am "obviously" not
qualified? What do you know of me other than that I decided to check out a
part of your c.v. which happened to be ridiculously easy for me to check
out? I park next to the Engineering/Physics building at Texas A&M every
Monday, Wednesday and Friday. . .
>
>
> > (snip)
> >
> > Noah Simoneaux
> > Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed
enough people.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> You sure got that one right.
> BTW, what are you doing here since you obviously
> can't understand the theory either?
A "discussion" involves more than just one person Mr. Hammond. The way you
constantly, and rather snottily "disqualify" people who don't roll over in
adoration of your oh-so-wonderful theory makes it inevitable that there is
no one else in the world whom you can have a discussion with on your terms.
I don't see any physicists in here being blown away by your brilliance. So
just exactly, who are you having a discussion with if it isn't any of us?
Why don't you submit your paper to "Science" so you can have some real
discussions?
Or did you already do that and the actual, qualified physicists who reviewed
your little paper used it to wipe their asses with?
CUPhys
That is right! Backpedal while you can fruitloop.
Mikal 606
"CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:96fbku$e6b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
Wow a dude from Colorado with Varney stripes!
I notice the same sort of post, no science.
Here, cram this monkey boy.
``Differential absorption spectra of high-quality InGaAs quantum-wells are
presented for various pump detunings and polarization configurations. For
low intensity pump-pulses tuned well below the exciton a red-shift is
observed for opposite-circularly polarized probe pulses. Microscopic
calculations show that this red-shift originates from memory effects in the
Coulomb-induced excitonic correlations"
http://www.physik.uni-marburg.de/hlo/abstracts/sieh-1.html
Your pal,
NOKIA
Mike Varney
"Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:96fd5s$7i5$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:96fbku$e6b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
>
> Wow a dude from Colorado with Varney stripes!
> I notice the same sort of post, no science.
> Here, cram this monkey boy.
*sigh*
Still spouting moroneese Mikal?
CUPhys
"Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:96fd5s$7i5$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> news:96fbku$e6b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
>
> Wow a dude from Colorado with Varney stripes!
> I notice the same sort of post, no science.
> Here, cram this monkey boy.
And how is this supposed to show me that you know anything?
Perhaps you can convince your doctor to double your dosage.
Mikal 606
because I discussed these same concepts, and the Stark effect, and red
shift, and ``memory".
You cannot read, and that barium is going to burn hotter and hotter.
Buhbye.
CUPhys
>
> "CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:96fde1$f2m$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> >
> > "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:96fd5s$7i5$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > "CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:96fbku$e6b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
> > >
> > > Wow a dude from Colorado with Varney stripes!
> > > I notice the same sort of post, no science.
> > > Here, cram this monkey boy.
> >
> > And how is this supposed to show me that you know anything?
> > Perhaps you can convince your doctor to double your dosage.
> >
> >
>
> because I discussed these same concepts, and the Stark effect, and red
> shift, and ``memory".
No, you foamed at the mouth and shit your diapers.
> You cannot read, and that barium is going to burn hotter and hotter.
You must know that feeling from personal experience.
Mikal 606
Another scienceless post, and such cute talk about your anal fixation.
PlonQue
_ -`-.'(`-'-
| | -`-`) _____ `-/
| | ) _ .' ____) (-.
| | ` (|)| ( (|) \
| | oo ) )m\ ( (`
lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com
| ) .'_">o -' VwwV \ ' (``-._
|(| / =___ ___ )( \ \ __ _
>-.-._.-'-`-<.-<'-<''-._
| `( // _ \/ _ \ '-. @\ \ / _` |/ _ \| | | | '_.' _ \/
__)
| |_``( __/ (_) ) )/\ww/\) ( (_| | (_) ) `-' | | ( (_)
\__ \
|)_____`.__)`._.' '(_____.' `._, |`._.'_`._,_|_|._`._.')
| |
( .-. oo / .-.__.' F ___ (__ .-.___.'
.' F
`( `'_">o _.-' (______.' \`._`-.____(______.-' .'
`` `` '(__.' ``` `._`______________.-'
CUPhys
>
> "CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:96fec8$fgr$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
>
> Another scienceless post, and such cute talk about your anal fixation.
>
> PlonQue
Well, my post is "scienceless" by design, yours by lack of knowledge (and
intelligence). Which is worse?
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>Nobody ever said he was, and he isn't... there's just some
>lamebrain named Raptor314 at TAMU, a busybody, who
>wants to investigate my academic history for some strange
>reason... I say strange, because Raptor obviously isn't
>even qualified to discuss the scientific proof of God
>that is being discussed here.
What scientific proof of god would that be?
(snip)
>You sure got that one right.
>BTW, what are you doing here since you obviously
>can't understand the theory either?
No need to. I can spot an appeal to authority fallacy.
(snip)
Noah Simoneaux
Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
Eastman's Personnel Director's Law
George Hammond
[Hammond]
I can tell you're not qualified the minute you open your mouth.
Look.. I'm not even qualified to read his papers on the Hamiltonian
reformulation of General Relativity which Dirac worked on for many
years... much less you.
I just mentioned that I took several courses in introductory
Relativity from the guy and had an office down the hall from him
in Dana Hall at N.U. 33 years ago. I admired him and he has been a life
long inspiration to me in Relativity studies... but I am not
competent at his level of mathematical physics.. and damn few
people are. He wouldn't even remember me it was so long ago.
SNIP
> A "discussion" involves more than just one person Mr. Hammond. The way you
> constantly, and rather snottily "disqualify" people who don't roll over in
> adoration of your oh-so-wonderful theory makes it inevitable that there is
> no one else in the world whom you can have a discussion with on your terms.
> I don't see any physicists in here being blown away by your brilliance. So
> just exactly, who are you having a discussion with if it isn't any of us?
> Why don't you submit your paper to "Science" so you can have some real
> discussions?
[Hammond]
Look... there isn't a competent physicist in the world who
knows the first thing about Psychometry (hard science Psychology),
or has the first clue as to what God is.
The prospectivie payoff for a physicists to spend 20 years
studying anything so recondite as Psychometry is so low, that
no one in the world but a 2nd class, B-student, dropout physicist like me
would even BOTHER.
I'm not a genius... I'm just a desperate wannabee physicist
who was so low down that the only thing available for me to
study is the subject that no other self respecting competent
physicis wuld BOTHER studying.
And low and behold, believe it or not... being the first
physicist in history to bother to look at Psychometry seriously,
... it turned out I discovered he Mother Lode... one of the
simplest and most dramatic, indeed historic, discoveries
of all time..... the actual long lost "scientific proof of God".
I may be considered a dummy in the physics department, but
compared to the Psychology department I'm considered a genius.
And the first person to recognize this, like you maybe, is
going to earn himself a permanent spot in the world's history
books. Problem is you're just another candyass bigmouth
overprivileged American average asshole who likes to run his
big mouth and is good for nothing when the chips are down.
>
> Or did you already do that and the actual, qualified physicists who reviewed
> your little paper used it to wipe their asses with?
>
[Hammond]
There never has been a qualified physicist that has reviewed
the theory. There are only 100 qualified physicists in the
WORLD at any given time.... and they're not on the Internet
and they don't read email, asswipe.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
Noah Simoneaux wrote:
>
> What scientific proof of god would that be?
[Hammond]
Get the fuck outta here.
George Hammond
>
SNIP
> I am not a physicist. I am a senior at Texas A&M double-majoring in
> philosophy and history. However, I was, at first, a biochemistry major and
> worked as a lab assistant at TAMU. I chopped the tails off of mice, ground
> 'em up, and PCR'd the debris to isolate the RAS-4 gene responsible for part
> of the fat metabolism cycle. The RAS-4 gene is a potential player in the
> fight for a diabetes cure by the way.
[Hammond]
Yeah Mr. lab-technician... I already know who the fuck you are the
minute you open your mouth. Now why don't you get back in the
lab and wash some more test tubes like you're supposed to
be doing before the boss kicks your ass, and stay the fuck outta
serious science.
I have a strong math and science
> background and consider myself fully qualified to say that your theory is
> complete bunk.
[Hammond]
You're not qualified to do anything except clean out
the animal cages in the biology lab, which is why
that's what your doing or a living. Now get the
fuck off this thread.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
> > Fred Stone wrote:
> > >
SNIP
> I'm trying to understand your work.Between your site and sci.physics
> I figure someone might be able to explain something.
>
> Do you have experimental results to confirm your "Auxology"?
> In which peer-reviewed journals have your results been published?
>
[Hammond]
Look.. asking me a question like that is about as relevant as
asking Eisenhower if he had any data on the muzzle velocity
of an M1-Garand on the night of the D-Day invasion.
If you don't know what you're looking at when you read my
website, then you're not qualified to discuss the subject.
> --
> Fred Stone
> aa # 1369
> Since when is ignorance a point of view?
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
Mikal 606 wrote:
>
> "CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:96fbku$e6b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
>
> Wow a dude from Colorado with Varney stripes!
> I notice the same sort of post, no science.
> Here, cram this monkey boy.
[Hammond]
Yeah, another halfass laboratory bottle washer who thinks
he's another Einstein. I agree with you on his one.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
[
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
SNIP
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
>
SNIP
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
Mike Varney wrote:
>
SNIP
CUPhys
> Raptor514 wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A8B15FE...@mediaone.net...
> > > Noah Simoneaux wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:09:37 GMT, George Hammond
<gham...@mediaone.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> [Hammond]
> I can tell you're not qualified the minute you open your mouth.
> Look.. I'm not even qualified to read his papers on the Hamiltonian
> reformulation of General Relativity which Dirac worked on for many
> years... much less you.
> I just mentioned that I took several courses in introductory
> Relativity from the guy and had an office down the hall from him
> in Dana Hall at N.U. 33 years ago. I admired him and he has been a life
> long inspiration to me in Relativity studies... but I am not
> competent at his level of mathematical physics.. and damn few
> people are. He wouldn't even remember me it was so long ago.
Yes, just keep on back peddling.
Of course he would not remember you. Morons like you rarely make impacts in
the field.
It is odd that you use his name in an appeal to authority to make you look
better when you admit that he probably could not recognize you from a
steaming turd on the sidewalk.
> SNIP
>
<SNIP>
> [Hammond]
> Look...
> I'm not a genius... I'm just a desperate wannabee physicist
> who was so low down that the only thing available for me to
> study is the subject that no other self respecting competent
> physicis wuld BOTHER studying.
I am glad you admit to being a "wannabee". You have taken the first step to
realizing how worthless you really are.
CUPhys
> Raptor514 wrote:
> >
> SNIP
>
> > I am not a physicist. I am a senior at Texas A&M double-majoring in
> > philosophy and history. However, I was, at first, a biochemistry major
and
> > worked as a lab assistant at TAMU. I chopped the tails off of mice,
ground
> > 'em up, and PCR'd the debris to isolate the RAS-4 gene responsible for
part
> > of the fat metabolism cycle. The RAS-4 gene is a potential player in
the
> > fight for a diabetes cure by the way.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah Mr. lab-technician... I already know who the fuck you are the
> minute you open your mouth. Now why don't you get back in the
> lab and wash some more test tubes like you're supposed to
> be doing before the boss kicks your ass, and stay the fuck outta
> serious science.
You say this with the authority of a person who's thesis advisor told them
this each day.
> [Hammond]
> You're not qualified to do anything except clean out
> the animal cages in the biology lab, which is why
> that's what your doing or a living. Now get the
> fuck off this thread.
Why not follow your own advice?
CUPhys
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
>
> =========================================================
>
> Noah Simoneaux wrote:
> >
>
> > What scientific proof of god would that be?
>
> [Hammond]
> Get the fuck outta here.
Translation: "QED"
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
> Translation: "QED"
George Hammond
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
Fred Stone
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> =========================================================
>
> > > Fred Stone wrote:
> > > >
> SNIP
>
> > I'm trying to understand your work.Between your site and sci.physics
> > I figure someone might be able to explain something.
> >
> > Do you have experimental results to confirm your "Auxology"?
> > In which peer-reviewed journals have your results been published?
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Look.. asking me a question like that is about as relevant as
> asking Eisenhower if he had any data on the muzzle velocity
> of an M1-Garand on the night of the D-Day invasion.
> If you don't know what you're looking at when you read my
> website, then you're not qualified to discuss the subject.
I know what I see when I look at your site.
I just want to know if I'm the only one.
Seems that I'm not.
So answer the question already. Which peer-reviewed journals
have accepted your papers for publication?
Where are the experimental results to confirm your theory.
You do know what experiments are for don't you?
Fred Stone
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
Mike Varney
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
>
> =========================================================
>
*DING!*
Mike Varney
Mike Varney
Mike Varney
Mike Varney
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
> technicians or other unqualified half educated
> amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
>
> Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> =========================================================
*DING!*
Noah Simoneaux
>=========================================================
>
>NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
>
>=========================================================
>
>Noah Simoneaux wrote:
>>
>
>> What scientific proof of god would that be?
>
>[Hammond]
>Get the fuck outta here.
I think maybe you want alt.apologetics or something along those lines.
franz heymann
shows that the great man will be bursting his spleen again soon.
Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools... What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
Mike Varney wrote:
> *DING!*
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
Mike Varney wrote:
>
> *DING!*
George Hammond
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> Stick to it, Raptor514.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
Mike Varney wrote:
>
> *DING!*
-
Raptor514
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
> technicians or other unqualified half educated
> amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Strange. I decide to check out your c.v. and now I'm an "amateur wanabee
pseudo intellectual" who, by the way, is only half educated.
I'm not the one trying to argue a ridiculous case based on my imagined
authority.
By the way, what would qualify as an "ON-TOPIC" post in your mind? We have
been discussing the merits, and the lack thereof in you theory. If we were
actually buying into your b.s. would it then by "on-topic"?
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
>
> Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> =========================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
> > "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:96fd5s$7i5$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > "CUPhys" <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:96fbku$e6b$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...<snip>
> > >
> > > Wow a dude from Colorado with Varney stripes!
> > > I notice the same sort of post, no science.
> > > Here, cram this monkey boy.
> >
> > And how is this supposed to show me that you know anything?
> > Perhaps you can convince your doctor to double your dosage.
>
> [
Raptor514
creativity doesn't seem to come very easily to you either. . .
"George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A8C12B5...@mediaone.net...
Raptor514
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
> technicians or other unqualified half educated
> amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
>
> Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> =========================================================
>
> PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
> boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
> pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
> what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
Haven't seen any ass-kicking from you yet. Have you been jerking off
without eye protection again? You seem to have hurt yourself somehow. . .
Raptor514
> Raptor514 wrote:
> >
> SNIP
>
> > I am not a physicist. I am a senior at Texas A&M double-majoring in
> > philosophy and history. However, I was, at first, a biochemistry major
and
> > worked as a lab assistant at TAMU. I chopped the tails off of mice,
ground
> > 'em up, and PCR'd the debris to isolate the RAS-4 gene responsible for
part
> > of the fat metabolism cycle. The RAS-4 gene is a potential player in
the
> > fight for a diabetes cure by the way.
The above snippet you left behind was only the introduction to an argument
against your theory. Odd that you snipped the argument, left the intro and
then proceeded to attack the irrelevant portion. . . or maybe it isn't so
odd after all.
Do you have any response for the argument against your theory? Here's the
part you snipped, restored for your debating pleasure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To say that the "amount" of reality we perceive is based on the size of our
brains is invalid from a strictly logical viewpoint. First of all, the
brain is not a "reality-sensing" organ, it is an information-processing
system. Secondly, the predicate-concept "amount" cannot be reasonably
applied to the subject-concept "reality." In what way is reality divided
into quantities such that one may have "greater" or "lesser" amounts of it
in the first place? The concept of "quantity" is irrelevant to "reality"
and your theory collapses on logical grounds before you even get to your
first eigenvector. One may have greater or lesser understanding of reality,
based on training, experience, intelligence, etc. but one does not have
greater and lesser "amounts" of reality in ones' head based on ones' brain
size as you assert. By your argument, an encephelatic would be a
transcendent being, while Einstein would have perceived "less" reality (for
he had an unusually small brain size upon post-mortem.)
It was once fashionable among anthropologists to use physical measurements
of peoples' heads to "determine" their intelligence, moral character,
criminal predisposition, etc. This is now recognized as a classic example
of "bad science" right up there with phlogiston and n-rays. The brain is
not like a car engine where more cubic centimeters of displacement means
more horsepower. On the contrary, mathematicians tend to have smaller than
average brains, while dolphin brains are larger than our own. By your
reasoning, the ENIAC is much better a computer than my pentium-III 700 mHz
because its so much bigger, but everyone knows that this is not the case.
By the way, bringing senior-level calculus and its' terminology into your
"theory" does absolutely nothing to redeem it. It merely makes it slightly
difficult to penetrate for most people and let's you crow about how everyone
is "unqualified" to judge your theory. However, even those people lacking
the math training can easily look at your lack of peer-reviewed articles
(and usenet postings don't count) and assume, rightly, that you are not an
active, credible scientist. Many people have been known to burn out in
graduate school, drop out of the Ph.D program, and take a Master's degree.
It's nothing to be ashamed of if you couldn't hack it on that level.
---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah Mr. lab-technician... I already know who the fuck you are the
> minute you open your mouth. Now why don't you get back in the
> lab and wash some more test tubes like you're supposed to
> be doing before the boss kicks your ass, and stay the fuck outta
> serious science.
What do you know of "serious science"? This implies that you have, at some
point in your life, had something to do with "serious science." Really Mr.
Hammond, such sophistries help you not.
>
>
> I have a strong math and science
> > background and consider myself fully qualified to say that your theory
is
> > complete bunk.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're not qualified to do anything except clean out
> the animal cages in the biology lab, which is why
> that's what your doing or a living. Now get the
> fuck off this thread.
Where did I mention cleaning cages for a living? And who are you to be
telling people to get off of any thread? You the usenet Gestapo or
something? What's your qualification for telling me that, since your so
hung up on qualifications?
By the way, I've now had to post my argument against your theory not just
once but twice. Are you going to ignore it in favor of ad hominems again?
In front of everybody?
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
"The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are
permitted to remain children all our lives."
-- Albert Einstein
>
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> Email: ghammond-Fre...@mediaone.net
> Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/BULLSHIT/index.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
Raptor514 wrote:
>
reSNIP
> The above snippet you left behind was only the introduction to an argument
> against your theory. Odd that you snipped the argument, left the intro and
> then proceeded to attack the irrelevant portion. . . or maybe it isn't so
> odd after all.
>
> Do you have any response for the argument against your theory? Here's the
> part you snipped, restored for your debating pleasure.
[Hammond]
Well.. for chrissakes.. on-topic material is so rare on my threads
I guess i just missed it... sorry. My reply is given below.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To say that the "amount" of reality we perceive is based on the size of our
> brains is invalid from a strictly logical viewpoint.
[Hammond]
Wrong. My definition of reality emerges from the theory and
is quite elemental.
Simply put, the brain growth deficit slows mental speed
(this is known and proven). So therefore, with a large brain
growth defict, you simply "miss" all of the high speed movement
of reality.
More generally, this appllies to all 4-dimensions of reality
(X,Y,Z,t).. i.e. the 3-space dimensions as well as the time
diemension, although the impact on the time (speed) dimension is
most noticable (reduction in IQ, which is the direct result of
retarded brain growth).
Theoretically, this is described by a "relativistic time/space
dilation" of the classical type. The person with 100% growth
(there is no such person BTW), sees "proper time" and "proper
length"... everybody else sees a relativistically dilated
picture of reality which is moving too fast for him to
see it all.
Therefore, it is KNOWN that the brain growth deficit causes
"loss of reality", mainly (experimetally) through the loss of
IQ in either Mental Retardation or for instance Third-World
nutritional growth stunting... where the effect is so
large that in some countries with chronic starvaqtion you can
actually measure someone's IQ-deficit by simply wrapping a
tape measure around his head.
First of all, the
> brain is not a "reality-sensing" organ,
[Hammond]
Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
the perception of "proper time and space". if there
is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
of reality. You really can't argue these points without
being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
scientific expertise... any more than you can argue with
Einstein about Relatiity w/o being competent in mathematical-
physics.
SNIP
The concept of "quantity" is irrelevant to "reality"
> and your theory collapses on logical grounds before you even get to your
> first eigenvector.
[Hammond]
Wrong. "quantity" of potential mental speed directly
effects reality, the same as if you put a lo-pass
filter on a signal, it simply blocks all the high
frequency components.
SNIP
> It was once fashionable among anthropologists to use physical measurements
> of peoples' heads to "determine" their intelligence, moral character,
> criminal predisposition, etc. This is now recognized as a classic example
> of "bad science"
[Hammond]
Populist belief is irrelevant to science... I knew all
of this populist lore and legend 20 years ago.
SNIP
> By the way, bringing senior-level calculus and its' terminology into your
> "theory" does absolutely nothing to redeem it.
[Hammond]
Sorry you are not competent at the necessary mathematical-physics
level... again, the reason I'm not about to argue with you.
However, even those people lacking
> the math training can easily look at your lack of peer-reviewed articles
> (and usenet postings don't count) and assume, rightly, that you are not an
> active, credible scientist.
[Hammond]
I can look at you and immediately determine that you're
a facetious and ignorant dickhead with no real ability
and fat mouth caused on a mollycoddled upbringing..
that sooner or later will have you in a mental treatment
facitliy or jail or both. I don't even consider it a
topicworth talking about.
SNIP
> Where did I mention cleaning cages for a living? And who are you to be
> telling people to get off of any thread? You the usenet Gestapo or
> something? What's your qualification for telling me that, since your so
> hung up on qualifications?
[Hammond]
Since whern do i have to justify anything... who says
you deserve justice?
I'm not hung up on anything except kicking dickhead
loudmouth half educated anti-intellectual wannbee kooks
like you square in the ass the minute you walk through
the door, dinky enraged conman.
>
George Hammond
>
> Gee, the same post over twenty times. Science isn't your strong suit and
> creativity doesn't seem to come very easily to you either. . .
[Hammond]
Nope, it's not the same post... it's the same answer to
20-different posts directed to me for a reply. there's a
technical difference there. i can't help it is 20 different
original solicitations for a reply require the same answer.
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A8C12B5...@mediaone.net...
> > =========================================================
> >
> > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> >
> > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> >
> > Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
> > technicians or other unqualified half educated
> > amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
> >
> > Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > =========================================================
> >
> > PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
> > boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
> > pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
> > what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Varney wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > *DING!*
> >
> > -
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
technicians or other unqualified half educated
amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
Raptor514 wrote:
SNIP
Andrea Chen
> [Hammond]
> Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
> the perception of "proper time and space". if there
> is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
> of reality. You really can't argue these points without
> being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
> scientific expertise...
Hi:
I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
for, but please go slow with me because my competent scientific
expertise is a bit lacking. Now if I understand this correctly if you
have a 15% reduction you have a minus 45% reality. So I'm visualizing a
positive and negative reality and wondering do they loop around so that
if you are missing let's say 40 percent of the proper perception of
proper time and space you have something like plus 85% reality or is a
simple scale ranging from -100% to 100%?
In either case could you map more points for me so I can get an idea of
various states (eg. missing 1% 5% ...95%) of proper perception of time
and space and the ratio of reality that then results.
Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
Thanking
CUPhys
"Raptor514" <rapt...@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:xTUi6.387$9A5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A8C118D...@mediaone.net...
> > =========================================================
> >
> > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> >
> > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> >
> > Politely ignore off-topic chit chat by laboratory
> > technicians or other unqualified half educated
> > amateur wannabee pseudo intellectuals.
> >
> > Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > =========================================================
> >
> > PS: What great satisfaction it is to plant my size 13
> > boot swiftly on the lardass behinds of these pedant
> > pukes. These crumbling toadstools...What gratification,
> > what pleasure, .. what Nirvana.
>
> Haven't seen any ass-kicking from you yet. Have you been jerking off
> without eye protection again? You seem to have hurt yourself somehow. . .
>
With the dribble dry squirt Hammond can produce, not likely.
Randy Johnston
jeff
interesting to see in a novel too. Make good scifi premise.
jeff
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
> > the perception of "proper time and space". if there
> > is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
> > of reality. You really can't argue these points without
> > being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
> > scientific expertise...
>
> Hi:
>
> I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
> for, but please go slow with me because my competent scientific
> expertise is a bit lacking. Now if I understand this correctly if you
> have a 15% reduction you have a minus 45% reality. So I'm visualizing a
> positive and negative reality and wondering do they loop around so that
> if you are missing let's say 40 percent of the proper perception of
> proper time and space you have something like plus 85% reality or is a
> simple scale ranging from -100% to 100%?
[Hammond]
Thank God for the Orientals... apparently they are the
last race of polite people on Earth. Thanks for posting
to this thread amidst so much blatant Occidental crudeness.
Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
yuppie-physics-philosophy theories of God. I mean, it's not
about quantum uncertainty qubit hyperplane Bohm point
intergalactic dark matter ultra complexity fractal geometry
fuzzy logic genetic superposition uncertainty counter factual
wormhole many-worlds Moebius strip Black Hole singularity
poetry.
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
elementary and real. It is a simple discovery that I have made
simply because I am the first physicist in the history of
the world to take a serious look at the eigenvector structure
of the relatively recent field of Psychometry. Psychometry
did not really become established until the invention of the
mainframe computer in the 1960's... therefore the whole thing
is only 40 years old... the main results only really 25 years
old. This is why Physics has never gotten around to looking
at it.... and also the fact that most physicists have an
abhorrence of Psychology to begin with.
Anyway, on another front, Biology only discovered 30 or 40
years ago that there was such a thing as the Secular Trend...
i.e. that the human race is getting TALLER with each passing
century, and Global IQ is going up also (the Flynn Effect).
see:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
when you get the time.
Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
NUTRITION.
OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
in the following diagram:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
you have a less than normal IQ. You are referred to as being
"slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
is highly correlated with IQ.
Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion. If 15%
of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
Not only that... but the brain growth deficit affects SPACE
as well as TIME. If 15% of your brain is missing, the entire
world LOOKS BIGGER to you than it really is.
So... the whole world looks MAGNIFIED and FASTER to you, than
it really is, if you have a large brain growth deficit.
Not only that, you begin to realize that to certain other people
that it apparently DOES NOT look quite so "big and fast" and
that they are not anywhere near as afraid of it as you. From this
experience, people began imagining that there might be a "perfect person"
somewhere who could actually see reality and was not afraid at all..
and they named this fictitious person "God".
Now, they could sense that there was something "mental" about
this difference in SIZE AND SPEED perception between different
people, and pretty soon they realized that there was a "mental
reality" which lies BEYOND anyone's ACTUAL REALITY, and they named
this invisible mental world "Heaven"... because they believed if they
could ever get there (i.e. be able to see it), they would be like
God living in Heaven (Paradise)...... and it turns out that they
WERE ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THATS THEORY; which is called "religion"
by the way.
Now, the only thing I have done, is discover that this theory
can be PROVED using Psychometric eigenvector structure and General
Relativity.. which is a DRAMATIC HISTORICAL EVENT... because it
is the first scientific explanation as well as PROOF of the
existence of GOD. The very fact that it shows that Einstein's
theory of Relativity is the mathematical proof of God is enough
to cause a world sensation.
Of course, finally, a scientific proof of God will immediatly
have a dramatic effect on world ideology, ecumenical unification,
world prosperity and mobilization, world peace, and probably
double the world standard of living in 20 years.
> Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
[Hammond]
Politeness is an unmistakable sign of power and intelligence.
Thank you for your posting, and I will be glad to respond
to any further sober and sincere questions you may have.
>
> Thanking
You're entirely welcome.........HAMMOND
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Andrea Chen
ambitious. I still remain baffled by the numbers. I understand that
this ios a complex theory but how do reductions in space and time
perception scale into realities (eg. a 15% reduction leads to a negative
45%) reality.
Also one other question. Does negative reality form a mirror image? I
was thinking if this is the case then a major reduction would lead to a
100% complete model which is however reversed, but which it might be
possible to adjust to.
Raptor514
Does it make any sense to speak of reality "moving"? Objects move, time
progresses. But reality itself "moving"? That makes about as much
conceptual sense as saying "bananas bark" or "space yellows." The subjects
cannot contain those predicates.
> More generally, this appllies to all 4-dimensions of reality
> (X,Y,Z,t).. i.e. the 3-space dimensions as well as the time
> diemension, although the impact on the time (speed) dimension is
> most noticable (reduction in IQ, which is the direct result of
> retarded brain growth).
A person can have a large brain and lower IQ, or a smaller brain and higher
IQ - like Einstein and most mathematicians. I don't have a link to the
article that I read talking about mathematicians having smaller brains on
average. If you haven't heard of this and would like me to try to find a
link, let me know. It is rather counter-intuitive, I readily admit.
> Theoretically, this is described by a "relativistic time/space
> dilation" of the classical type. The person with 100% growth
> (there is no such person BTW), sees "proper time" and "proper
> length"... everybody else sees a relativistically dilated
> picture of reality which is moving too fast for him to
> see it all.
Are you saying that people have perceptual "event horizons" which are lesser
or greater in relation to the physical size of their brains? I can see a
person, or other being, having greater conceptual abilities due to a greater
amount of neurons and connections between them, but "conceptual ability"
cannot be equated with "perception of reality." It's like saying, if I had
bigger eyes I would see radio, UV, X- and gamma rays in addition to the
narrow band of four to seven hundred nanometer wavelength light we know as
visible light.
> Therefore, it is KNOWN that the brain growth deficit causes
> "loss of reality", mainly (experimetally) through the loss of
> IQ in either Mental Retardation or for instance Third-World
> nutritional growth stunting... where the effect is so
> large that in some countries with chronic starvaqtion you can
> actually measure someone's IQ-deficit by simply wrapping a
> tape measure around his head.
Never heard this one. Do you have a reference handy? I mean, the brain is
a nutrient hog so it stands to reason to some extent that chronic starvation
causes low IQ. What I'm not so sure about is being able to measure IQ with
a tape measure. That's what I would like a reference for.
>
>
>
> First of all, the
> > brain is not a "reality-sensing" organ,
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
> the perception of "proper time and space". if there
> is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
> of reality. You really can't argue these points without
> being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
> scientific expertise... any more than you can argue with
> Einstein about Relatiity w/o being competent in mathematical-
> physics.
Wait a second. I think you may have mispoke here. Quoting above: 'Reality
is hereby elementally discovered to be
the perception of "proper time and space".' Ok, if this is what you meant
to say then you are saying reality=perception. If that is really what you
meant then you just denied the existence of an objective reality and dug
yourself into a very deep philosophical hole. If it is what you meant then
let me know and I'll explain the illogic of that to you. If it is not what
you meant, then please re-phrase yourself.
>
>
> SNIP
>
> The concept of "quantity" is irrelevant to "reality"
> > and your theory collapses on logical grounds before you even get to your
> > first eigenvector.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong. "quantity" of potential mental speed directly
> effects reality, the same as if you put a lo-pass
> filter on a signal, it simply blocks all the high
> frequency components.
So, if I had a larger chunk of my cortex dealing with scent, then I could
smell more? Or are you saying that if I had a larger chunk of cortex
dealing with scent there would exist more smells in the world. First
statement = perception is affected. Second statement = reality itself is
affected.
>
> SNIP
>
> > It was once fashionable among anthropologists to use physical
measurements
> > of peoples' heads to "determine" their intelligence, moral character,
> > criminal predisposition, etc. This is now recognized as a classic
example
> > of "bad science"
>
> [Hammond]
> Populist belief is irrelevant to science... I knew all
> of this populist lore and legend 20 years ago.
>
> SNIP
>
>
> > By the way, bringing senior-level calculus and its' terminology into
your
> > "theory" does absolutely nothing to redeem it.
>
> [Hammond]
> Sorry you are not competent at the necessary mathematical-physics
> level... again, the reason I'm not about to argue with you.
You keep coming back to this. Why do you keep harping on the
"sophisticated" mathematics of your "theory" when there isn't a single
equation on your website. You talk about the solving of equations and
functions, yet never show this work. Why is that?
>
>
> However, even those people lacking
> > the math training can easily look at your lack of peer-reviewed articles
> > (and usenet postings don't count) and assume, rightly, that you are not
an
> > active, credible scientist.
>
> [Hammond]
> I can look at you and immediately determine that you're
> a facetious and ignorant dickhead with no real ability
> and fat mouth caused on a mollycoddled upbringing..
"Immediately determine" based on what? The fact that I haven't agreed with
you?
> that sooner or later will have you in a mental treatment
> facitliy or jail or both.
It's ironic to hear you predicting mental treatment for someone else. Have
your dosage checked please.
>I don't even consider it a
> topicworth talking about.
Isn't it a bit late for you to say that?
>
>
>
>
> SNIP
>
> > Where did I mention cleaning cages for a living? And who are you to be
> > telling people to get off of any thread? You the usenet Gestapo or
> > something? What's your qualification for telling me that, since your so
> > hung up on qualifications?
>
> [Hammond]
> Since whern do i have to justify anything... who says
> you deserve justice?
Revealing statement. You don't have to justify anything at all on usenet -
unless you want to be taken seriously. And you desperately want to be taken
seriously don't you?
> I'm not hung up on anything except kicking dickhead
> loudmouth half educated anti-intellectual wannbee kooks
> like you square in the ass the minute you walk through
> the door, dinky enraged conman.
Actually, I'm quite pro-intellectual. Hence my disagreements with you.
Am I a loudmouth? Well, yes.
Am I half-educated? Well, I'm about four-fifths through a double degree
program so I'm thinking it's just a little more than half.
Am I a dinky, enraged conman? Ahhhh, now I suspect you're just projecting
your own inadequacies.
Have you sent your theory into any real journals yet?
Have a nice day. Take your vitamins. And lay off the crack pipe for awhile
if you can.
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> George thankyou for you response and I must say the theory is
> ambitious. I still remain baffled by the numbers. I understand that
> this ios a complex theory but how do reductions in space and time
> perception scale into realities (eg. a 15% reduction leads to a negative
> 45%) reality.
[Hammond]
Oh... I see what you mean, when I said:
" if there is a 15% reduction in this..
you are missing 145% of reality."
No, sorry ... nothing curious or fascinating here Andrea...
just a typo... my baby finger must have hit 4&5 at
the same time by accident... it should read:
" if there is a 15% reduction in this..
you are missing 15% of reality."
The theory is very straight forward with no "yuppie-fantastic"
stuff involved. Truth is stranger than fiction ya know.
>
> Also one other question. Does negative reality form a mirror image? I
> was thinking if this is the case then a major reduction would lead to a
> 100% complete model which is however reversed, but which it might be
> possible to adjust to.
[Hammond]
Nothing that complicated... there certainly is such a thing
as "reverse psychology" in human conflict, and it IS BASED
on "mirror reflection".
This phenomena of "mirror reality" is roughly explained
as follows. The natural order of things is to have people
of higher development in the positions of authority because
they can "see" better than low development people. However,
through political corruption etc. it sometimes happens that an
unqualified tyrant gets into power and maintains his position
by military force, terrorism etc. In that case the population
has to "pretend" that he is a qualified person. After awhile
(maybe years or even generations) of this abuse, what happens is
that the tyrant gets so powerful that he can dispense with "acting"
and just willy nilly order people about. What actually
happens to this lethargic brute is that his face (and eyes)
become a REFLECTION or mirror image of the oppressed, humbled
and exploited subjects who are obeying him out of fear, but are
actually (growth curve wise) SUPERIOR to him. So, what all
of the subjects see is a MIRROR REFLECTION of their own
superiority in his facial expression and mannerisms... they
end up being terrified of THEMSELVES by looking at the tyrant
who is nothing but a psychological mirror. The power that you
THINK you sense in him, is actually YOUR OWN POWER reflected
in his face and mannerisms, speech etc. Hitler is the most
famous example of this known to history.
Another famous example of this (but less awesome) is the
celebrated portrait in a museum somewhere of a woman who's eyes
"follow you" as you walk around the room. Her eyes of course are
not actually following you.. it's the espression pasted on her face
which is a mirror reflection of the expression of the universal
victim (which is you, me and all of us) that makes you feel that
she is always watching you. This is the classic hallmark, if not
the sine qua non, of the PSYCHOTIC personality. almost everyone you are
personally afraid of ("bad people"), are PSYCHOTIC MIRRORS that
you are unable to see through for lack of worldly experience or
maturity.
.....Like I say, fact is stranger than fiction.
Noah Simoneaux
wrote:
(snip)
>> [Hammond]
>> I can look at you and immediately determine that you're
>> a facetious and ignorant dickhead with no real ability
>> and fat mouth caused on a mollycoddled upbringing..
>
>"Immediately determine" based on what? The fact that I haven't agreed with
>you?
Must be the tape measure that he's wrapped around your head. ;)
Or did he feel your head bumps too?
John Burrage
>Andrea Chen wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
[snippage]
>
>[Hammond]
> Thank God for the Orientals... apparently they are the
>last race of polite people on Earth. Thanks for posting
>to this thread amidst so much blatant Occidental crudeness.
> Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
Dear George
I would also like to say I find your theory very interesting, and wish
you all the best in your endevour to get it accepted by the
scientific community. I am Austrian, and I'm sure I speak on behalf
of all my people.
Warm regards
John
--
John Burrage
http://members.iinet.net.au/~burrage/
ZenIsWhen
Calling crap, CRAP .. IS on topic!
>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To say that the "amount" of reality we perceive is based on the size of our
>> brains is invalid from a strictly logical viewpoint.
>
>[Hammond]
>Wrong. My definition of reality emerges from the theory and
>is quite elemental.
?????
Sifting my way though the irrational babbling, to try to translate what you
are saying into intelligilbe english, it ;ooks like you are saying that your
definition comes via your own theory.
If this is so, your claimed abilities as a scientists are no better than a
third grader!
Your definition of reality is meaningless anyway; being ONLY YOUR definition,
NOT reality itself!
> Simply put, the brain growth deficit slows mental speed
>(this is known and proven).
Then where is your reference?
AAMOF .. where the hell is your english?
"brain growth deficit slows mental speed."
What, again, you appear to be trying to say is that a brain that is unable to
grow normally, also has the problem of slow thought.
Not only does that NOT counter the rebuttals against your assertions ..
it shows that your defences are no less insane that your orginal assertions.
So therefore, with a large brain
>growth defict, you simply "miss" all of the high speed movement
>of reality.
So therefore an undeveloped brain is ... ummm. undeveloped!
You're so iinterested in trying to sound more intelligent thatn you really
are, you not only ignore the rebuttals, but you show you are really LESS
intelligent than anyone imagined!
(BTW ... "high speed movement of reality?" You just invent thse things as you
go along .. don't you!?!?!?!)
> More generally, this appllies to all 4-dimensions of reality
>(X,Y,Z,t).. i.e. the 3-space dimensions as well as the time
>diemension, although the impact on the time (speed) dimension is
>most noticable (reduction in IQ, which is the direct result of
>retarded brain growth).
> Theoretically, this is described by a "relativistic time/space
>dilation" of the classical type. The person with 100% growth
>(there is no such person BTW), sees "proper time" and "proper
>length"... everybody else sees a relativistically dilated
>picture of reality which is moving too fast for him to
>see it all.
Damn .... no matter how much gobbly-de-gook you use to cover bull shit, it
still smells!
ALL people have 100% brain growth. However a sane person's "100%" is still
1,000 times larger thanb YOUR 100%
You've bellowed about the speed of reality .. yet I look out my window and see
a tree (it's REALLY there) that has been there for decades.
Your who concept is insane bull shit!
> Therefore, it is KNOWN that the brain growth deficit causes
>"loss of reality", mainly (experimetally) through the loss of
>IQ in either Mental Retardation or for instance Third-World
>nutritional growth stunting... where the effect is so
>large that in some countries with chronic starvaqtion you can
>actually measure someone's IQ-deficit by simply wrapping a
>tape measure around his head.
Yea .. right ... and the real measure of a man is .... well, lets not get into
that!
>
>
>
> First of all, the
>> brain is not a "reality-sensing" organ,
>
>[Hammond]
>Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
>the perception of "proper time and space". if there
>is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
>of reality.
Oh? So there is 160% of reality?
Where the f* did you get the other 60%
(or is math another thing you know nothing about?)
(BTW .. this is, in NO way, related to the poiint made .. again .. you're just
babbling to hear yourself babble!)
You really can't argue these points without
>being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
>scientific expertise... any more than you can argue with
>Einstein about Relatiity w/o being competent in mathematical-
>physics.
Whoa ... and now we through in a truck load of arrogance.
It does not take a genious to detect insanity!
The points can be argued because they are so fundamentally flawed.
Whatever you pretend, you and your theory are no where near Einstein!
They are not even close to sanity!
>
>
>SNIP
>
> The concept of "quantity" is irrelevant to "reality"
>> and your theory collapses on logical grounds before you even get to your
>> first eigenvector.
>
>
>[Hammond]
>Wrong. "quantity" of potential mental speed directly
>effects reality, the same as if you put a lo-pass
>filter on a signal, it simply blocks all the high
>frequency components.
Quantity has nothing to do with speed!
I can "perceive" just as much reality sitting on my front steps as a person
going 65 on a highway! (and it's still no where near your irrational, and
insane "160%"!)
>
>SNIP
>
>> It was once fashionable among anthropologists to use physical measurements
>> of peoples' heads to "determine" their intelligence, moral character,
>> criminal predisposition, etc. This is now recognized as a classic example
>> of "bad science"
>
>[Hammond]
>Populist belief is irrelevant to science... I knew all
>of this populist lore and legend 20 years ago.
WOW ..... You said something right!
That's 1.
>
>SNIP
>
>
>> By the way, bringing senior-level calculus and its' terminology into your
>> "theory" does absolutely nothing to redeem it.
>
>[Hammond]
>Sorry you are not competent at the necessary mathematical-physics
>level... again, the reason I'm not about to argue with you.
Anyone who asserts that reality is 160% is not going to argue with anyone,
because even the most irrational of us will never be as arrogant and insane as
you!
welll ..... maybe Boatwright!
>
>
> However, even those people lacking
>> the math training can easily look at your lack of peer-reviewed articles
>> (and usenet postings don't count) and assume, rightly, that you are not an
>> active, credible scientist.
>
>[Hammond]
>I can look at you and immediately determine that you're
>a facetious and ignorant dickhead with no real ability
>and fat mouth caused on a mollycoddled upbringing..
>that sooner or later will have you in a mental treatment
>facitliy or jail or both. I don't even consider it a
>topicworth talking about.
Bwahahaaaaaa ....
You'r ignorance was blasted to bits when you tried to shovel it in
talk.origins.
It is being blasted to bits here!
Only you know how many other sites you tried, and got the same results.
Now someone mentions a VERY REAL and very HONEST obervation .. that you have
no scientific refereences for ANY of your crap.
and you respond with insults, arrogance and lies.
I have no doubt that you are not who you claim to be.
I have no doubt that you know nothing about science.
I have no doubt that you know nothing about, nor are interested in, honest
debate.
I have no doubt that you are nothing more than an ignorant son of a bitch who
invented an insane explanation to justify god, since REAL science has not,
cannot, prove something exists when it doesn't!
ZenIsWhen
>Raptor514 wrote:
>>
>> Gee, the same post over twenty times. Science isn't your strong suit and
>> creativity doesn't seem to come very easily to you either. . .
>
>[Hammond]
>Nope, it's not the same post... it's the same answer to
>20-different posts directed to me for a reply. there's a
>technical difference there. i can't help it is 20 different
>original solicitations for a reply require the same answer.
It's the same post, you fucking idiot!
ZenIsWhen
Oh .. you mean the scientific logic and reason that shows your sick delusions
to be ... sick delusions?
> Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
>yuppie-physics-philosophy theories of God.
No .. it doesn;t even reach THAT low level.
It is a sick, moronic, mindless invention that has nothing to do with relaity!
I mean, it's not
>about quantum uncertainty qubit hyperplane Bohm point
>intergalactic dark matter ultra complexity fractal geometry
>fuzzy logic genetic superposition uncertainty counter factual
>wormhole many-worlds Moebius strip Black Hole singularity
>poetry.
It's not about anything; it's ignorant babble.
> The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
>elementary and real.
You invented, and it has nothing to do with science.
It is a simple discovery that I have made
>simply because I am the first physicist in the history of
>the world to take a serious look at the eigenvector structure
>of the relatively recent field of Psychometry.
You are not a physicist!
You are the first one to see it, because YOU invented it!
You are still the only one who bellows it, because no real scientists would
even bother with such deranged insanity!
Psychometry
>did not really become established until the invention of the
>mainframe computer in the 1960's... therefore the whole thing
>is only 40 years old... the main results only really 25 years
>old.
but your invented lies are as old as the invention of god!
This is why Physics has never gotten around to looking
>at it.... and also the fact that most physicists have an
>abhorrence of Psychology to begin with.
Strawman slander without a shred of evidence!
Physicist won't look at it because it's not science!
> Anyway, on another front, Biology only discovered 30 or 40
>years ago that there was such a thing as the Secular Trend...
>i.e. that the human race is getting TALLER with each passing
>century, and Global IQ is going up also (the Flynn Effect).
>
>see:
>http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
>when you get the time.
>
>Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
>effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
>be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
>NUTRITION.
> OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
>grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
>in the following diagram:
Bwahahaaaaaaa.....
This is ridiculous! You ARE insane!
Man has ALWAYS been fully grown.
The fact that we've evolved into a taller homo-sapien does NOT meana we were
not fully grown before!
Your "logic" is as faulty and insane as all your other shit!
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
>
>The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
>curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
>brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
Your brain is missing, that is obvious.
My brain is all here!
So was my great-great-great-great grandfather's!
I cannot believe how someone so psychotic could even pretend to be a
scientist!
> Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
>growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
>you have a less than normal IQ.
That is NOT a known fact!
That is just another of your weird distortions!
Yes .. our brain increases as we grow up, and changes asa we get older.
That IS NOT the same as "mentally retarded!"
Bozo!
A "normal" IQ of an 80 year old is that of an 80 year old!
Of course it is not the same as an 18 year old, but it is NORMAL (i.e. 100
points) for an 80 year old!
You are referred to as being
>"slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
>of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
>is highly correlated with IQ.
More assertions without references!
Since the rest of your crap is so outrageously insane, there is no reason to
believe this assertion more than any of the other crap!
> Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
>MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
Speak for yourself ... or .. as you have already done, let your insane
concepts, lies, and ignorance speak for you!
> And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
>means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion.
You can see it .. but it may not register.... and being unable to have it
register STILL has nothing to do with being able to recognize reality!
If 15%
>of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
>real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
Whew ..... you must get whiplash often trying to spew such warped ideas!
In my immediate environment, let's say there are a trillion bits of "real"
information to be gathered. The "speed" of the information is totally
irrelivent! NO ONE can possilby get it ALL in .. whether it is moving or
stationary!
Your whole "the speed of reality" belongs in a toilet!
That's enough of this bozo's crap ... so sick that he created an alias, to
write praise to himself and pretend it was from someone else!
ZenIsWhen
Enough .. moron ...everyone knows this is an alias you created for yourself!
ZenIsWhen
Hey Fuckhead!
There are time stamps on these messages between you and your alter-ego,
Andrea, that show YOU wrote them all!
ZenIsWhen
>George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>Andrea Chen wrote:
>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
>[snippage]
>>
>>[Hammond]
>> Thank God for the Orientals... apparently they are the
>>last race of polite people on Earth. Thanks for posting
>>to this thread amidst so much blatant Occidental crudeness.
>> Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
>
>Dear George
>
>I would also like to say I find your theory very interesting, and wish
>you all the best in your endevour to get it accepted by the
>scientific community. I am Austrian, and I'm sure I speak on behalf
>of all my people.
You may speak for the patients in the "Ward", but I'm sure you do not speak
for the doctors and nurses!
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic boring common-knowledge
chit chat by pseudo intellectuals.
======================================================
Raptor514 wrote:
>
SNIP
> Wait a second. I think you may have mispoke here.
[Hammond]
No shit.
SNIP
> You keep coming back to this. Why do you keep harping on the
> "sophisticated" mathematics of your "theory" when there isn't a single
> equation on your website. You talk about the solving of equations and
> functions, yet never show this work. Why is that?
[Hammond]
Look asshole, why don't you find out what you're talking about
before you shoot your mouth off, check the Relativity math at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
let me tell you... I've listened to a dozen "smart dinks"
like you on the Internet...... you're not worth talking too
.... there is no way a half educated incompetent person can
"argue" this theory.
Get the fuck outta here
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>let me tell you... I've listened to a dozen "smart dinks"
>like you on the Internet......
Must be using "listen" in a Bill Clinton sort of meaning. :/
> you're not worth talking too
>.... there is no way a half educated incompetent person can
>"argue" this theory.
Is that why you're spewing it here in this professional scientific NEWSGROUP?
> Get the fuck outta here
Ditto.
robert lindsay
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>=========================================================
>
>NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>=========================================================
that way you can stick it to THE MAN at google, who want to make money FAST
offa yer post!
Nope. This Here's GOD we are talking 'bout! You don't get more concrete
than that! GOD don't do no 'dark matter' poetry!
> The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
>elementary and real. It is a simple discovery that I have made
>simply because I am the first physicist in the history of
>the world to take a serious look at the eigenvector structure
>of the relatively recent field of Psychometry. Psychometry
>did not really become established until the invention of the
>mainframe computer in the 1960's... therefore the whole thing
>is only 40 years old... the main results only really 25 years
>old. This is why Physics has never gotten around to looking
>at it.... and also the fact that most physicists have an
>abhorrence of Psychology to begin with.
And their is a reason for that. (Mostly it's the phzzics boys always
got turned down by the psych girls, though)
> Anyway, on another front, Biology only discovered 30 or 40
>years ago that there was such a thing as the Secular Trend...
>i.e. that the human race is getting TALLER with each passing
>century, and Global IQ is going up also (the Flynn Effect).
This is just too easy.
>see:
>http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
>when you get the time.
>
>Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
>effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
>be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
>NUTRITION.
> OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
>grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
>in the following diagram:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
>
>The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
>curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
>brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
This is easier than the above. You got to stop George. Really.
> Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
>growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
>you have a less than normal IQ. You are referred to as being
>"slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
>of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
>is highly correlated with IQ.
Do you have any pics of a hAWT CHYX in sandals 'flooring it'
with her 'Mental Speed' or no anyone who does?
> Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
>MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
I can't. Really this is like running over skirimisher with your
charging heavy cav units. The WebTV lounger was higher math
compare to this.
> And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
>means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion. If 15%
>of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
>real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
> Not only that... but the brain growth deficit affects SPACE
>as well as TIME. If 15% of your brain is missing, the entire
>world LOOKS BIGGER to you than it really is.
> So... the whole world looks MAGNIFIED and FASTER to you, than
>it really is, if you have a large brain growth deficit.
> Not only that, you begin to realize that to certain other people
>that it apparently DOES NOT look quite so "big and fast" and
>that they are not anywhere near as afraid of it as you. From this
>experience, people began imagining that there might be a "perfect person"
>somewhere who could actually see reality and was not afraid at all..
>and they named this fictitious person "God".
Except for the dislectics, who named him 'Dog'.
> Now, they could sense that there was something "mental" about
>this difference in SIZE AND SPEED perception between different
>people, and pretty soon they realized that there was a "mental
>reality" which lies BEYOND anyone's ACTUAL REALITY, and they named
>this invisible mental world "Heaven"... because they believed if they
>could ever get there (i.e. be able to see it), they would be like
>God living in Heaven (Paradise)...... and it turns out that they
>WERE ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THATS THEORY; which is called "religion"
>by the way.
> Now, the only thing I have done, is discover that this theory
>can be PROVED using Psychometric eigenvector structure and General
>Relativity.. which is a DRAMATIC HISTORICAL EVENT... because it
>is the first scientific explanation as well as PROOF of the
>existence of GOD. The very fact that it shows that Einstein's
>theory of Relativity is the mathematical proof of God is enough
>to cause a world sensation.
> Of course, finally, a scientific proof of God will immediatly
>have a dramatic effect on world ideology, ecumenical unification,
>world prosperity and mobilization, world peace, and probably
>double the world standard of living in 20 years.
But will it bring back the Amiga?
>> Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
>
>[Hammond]
>Politeness is an unmistakable sign of power and intelligence.
>Thank you for your posting, and I will be glad to respond
>to any further sober and sincere questions you may have.
You might want to get your sarcasm meter checked there George.
--
Robert Lindsay, NASA - Goddard, Greenbelt MD rlin...@seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov
"I guess a lot of Insane people use the internet to talk to people.
They probably get more insane." -Kurt Stocklmeir, sci.physics, Dec 06, 2000
#include <standard_disclaimer.h> 301-286-9958 ISTJ NON SVM ACERBVS
George Hammond
>
> In article <3A8C5CE6...@mediaone.net>,
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >=========================================================
> >
> >NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >
> >http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> >
> > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> >=========================================================
>
> that way you can stick it to THE MAN at google, who want to make money FAST
> offa yer post!
GH:
Thank God I'm familiar with the NASA-GODDARD rocket scientist
idiom, otherwise I wouldn't know what the fuck this buzzy was
saying.
HACK
> > Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
> >yuppie-physics-philosophy theories of God. I mean, it's not
> >about quantum uncertainty qubit hyperplane Bohm point
> >intergalactic dark matter ultra complexity fractal geometry
> >fuzzy logic genetic superposition uncertainty counter factual
> >wormhole many-worlds Moebius strip Black Hole singularity
> >poetry.
>
> Nope. This Here's GOD we are talking 'bout! You don't get more concrete
> than that! GOD don't do no 'dark matter' poetry!
GH:
Don't need any first step for mankind either.
HACK
>
> > The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
> >elementary and real. It is a simple discovery that I have made
> >simply because I am the first physicist in the history of
> >the world to take a serious look at the eigenvector structure
> >of the relatively recent field of Psychometry. Psychometry
> >did not really become established until the invention of the
> >mainframe computer in the 1960's... therefore the whole thing
> >is only 40 years old... the main results only really 25 years
> >old. This is why Physics has never gotten around to looking
> >at it.... and also the fact that most physicists have an
> >abhorrence of Psychology to begin with.
>
> And their is a reason for that. (Mostly it's the phzzics boys always
> got turned down by the psych girls, though)
GH:
This guy's a real rocket scientist at Goddard Space Center.
HACK
>
> > Anyway, on another front, Biology only discovered 30 or 40
> >years ago that there was such a thing as the Secular Trend...
> >i.e. that the human race is getting TALLER with each passing
> >century, and Global IQ is going up also (the Flynn Effect).
>
> This is just too easy.
>
GH:
Chrissakes... he may be beginning to see some daylight.
Wasn't the Googolplex invented at Goddard?
> >see:
> >http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
> >when you get the time.
> >
> >Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
> >effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
> >be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
> >NUTRITION.
> > OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
> >grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
> >in the following diagram:
> >
> >http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
> >
> >The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
> >curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
> >brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
>
> This is easier than the above. You got to stop George. Really.
>
GH:
I'm beginning to get suspicious that this rocket scientist
has a sense of humor.
HACK
> > Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
> >growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
> >you have a less than normal IQ. You are referred to as being
> >"slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
> >of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
> >is highly correlated with IQ.
>
> Do you have any pics of a hAWT CHYX in sandals 'flooring it'
> with her 'Mental Speed' or no anyone who does?
>
GH:
No... but I've got some pix of the 3-stooges trouncing
Tina Maritolova at tennis.
HACK
> > Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
> >MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
>
> I can't. Really this is like running over skirimisher with your
> charging heavy cav units. The WebTV lounger was higher math
> compare to this.
GH:
Talk about it... did you read about the guy carrying an Atomic
Bomb who got beaten to death in a street fight?
>
> > And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
> >means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion. If 15%
> >of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
> >real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
> > Not only that... but the brain growth deficit affects SPACE
> >as well as TIME. If 15% of your brain is missing, the entire
> >world LOOKS BIGGER to you than it really is.
> > So... the whole world looks MAGNIFIED and FASTER to you, than
> >it really is, if you have a large brain growth deficit.
> > Not only that, you begin to realize that to certain other people
> >that it apparently DOES NOT look quite so "big and fast" and
> >that they are not anywhere near as afraid of it as you. From this
> >experience, people began imagining that there might be a "perfect person"
> >somewhere who could actually see reality and was not afraid at all..
> >and they named this fictitious person "God".
>
> Except for the dislectics, who named him 'Dog'.
GH:
That was Wrong Way Corrigon back in the 1930's.
>
> > Now, they could sense that there was something "mental" about
> >this difference in SIZE AND SPEED perception between different
> >people, and pretty soon they realized that there was a "mental
> >reality" which lies BEYOND anyone's ACTUAL REALITY, and they named
> >this invisible mental world "Heaven"... because they believed if they
> >could ever get there (i.e. be able to see it), they would be like
> >God living in Heaven (Paradise)...... and it turns out that they
> >WERE ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THATS THEORY; which is called "religion"
> >by the way.
> > Now, the only thing I have done, is discover that this theory
> >can be PROVED using Psychometric eigenvector structure and General
> >Relativity.. which is a DRAMATIC HISTORICAL EVENT... because it
> >is the first scientific explanation as well as PROOF of the
> >existence of GOD. The very fact that it shows that Einstein's
> >theory of Relativity is the mathematical proof of God is enough
> >to cause a world sensation.
> > Of course, finally, a scientific proof of God will immediatly
> >have a dramatic effect on world ideology, ecumenical unification,
> >world prosperity and mobilization, world peace, and probably
> >double the world standard of living in 20 years.
>
> But will it bring back the Amiga?
>
GH:
No... nor the Corvair either... but it may keep Ralph Nader
and Ollie North's names off the next presidential ballot.
> >> Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Politeness is an unmistakable sign of power and intelligence.
> >Thank you for your posting, and I will be glad to respond
> >to any further sober and sincere questions you may have.
>
> You might want to get your sarcasm meter checked there George.
>
GH:
There isn't a manmade meter that reads high enough for
the discoverer of the worlds first bona fide scientific
proof of God. I've even red-lined God's personal sarcasm
meter and gotten a $20 ticket for it.
> --
> Robert Lindsay, NASA - Goddard, Greenbelt MD rlin...@seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov
GH:
Christ... I actually lived in Greenbelt MD for a few months when I
was using the Library of Congress... what a honky tonk hill billy
area that is. Of course I grew up in Massachusetts where they still
believe in law and order and public education.
George Hammond
Noah Simoneaux wrote:
> Is that why you're spewing it here in this professional scientific NEWSGROUP?
>
> > Get the fuck outta here
>
> Ditto.
>
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
ZenIsWhen
>=========================================================
>
>NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore off-topic boring common-knowledge
> chit chat by pseudo intellectuals.
>======================================================
>
>Raptor514 wrote:
>>
>
>SNIP
>
>
>> Wait a second. I think you may have mispoke here.
>
>[Hammond]
>No shit.
>
>
>
>SNIP
>
>> You keep coming back to this. Why do you keep harping on the
>> "sophisticated" mathematics of your "theory" when there isn't a single
>> equation on your website. You talk about the solving of equations and
>> functions, yet never show this work. Why is that?
>
>[Hammond]
>Look asshole, why don't you find out what you're talking about
>before you shoot your mouth off, check the Relativity math at:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
Oh .. instead of bull shit using (actually misusing) the english language -
it's bull shit using the language of math.
It's Still Bull shit!
You didn't "discover" anything - you invented it!
>
>let me tell you... I've listened to a dozen "smart dinks"
>like you on the Internet......
and they've ALL, to a man, blown away your crap!
you're not worth talking too
>..... there is no way a half educated incompetent person can
>"argue" this theory.
That's mere arrogance covering ignorance!
If Albert Einstein, himself, said the world was flat and the moon was swiss
cheese .. anyone could argue that - because it is wrong.
What you spread is crap .. plain and simple!
A grade school graduate could easily detect the stupidity of your claims!
> Get the fuck outta here
No!
YOU get the fuck out!
You're the one smelling up the place with your CRAP!
You're the one trying to deceive by spreading lies, and pretending it's
science!
YOUR the one lying for god!
Raptor514
incapable of having a useful conversation with anyone. This is the THIRD
time you snipped out arguments with your theory and zeroed in on some
peripheral statement to spew your bile on. Why don't you respond to the
argument-section of my post? And if you want responses only from
"qualified" people, why don't you submit your little theory to a journal
rather than to a couple of off-topic Usenet groups?
Of course, we all know what the response of an actual physicist would be to
your "theory." He'd laugh hysterically, wipe his ass with it, and look into
getting your dosage increased.
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
"George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A8D2D08...@mediaone.net...
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic boring common-knowledge
chit chat by pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
Raptor514 wrote:
>
> Hmmm, I think you have piss in your Depends. Obviously, you are completely
> incapable of having a useful conversation with anyone. This is the THIRD
> time you snipped out arguments with your theory and zeroed in on some
> peripheral statement to spew your bile on. Why don't you respond to the
> argument-section of my post? And if you want responses only from
> "qualified" people, why don't you submit your little theory to a journal
> rather than to a couple of off-topic Usenet groups?
>
> Of course, we all know what the response of an actual physicist would be to
> your "theory." He'd laugh hysterically, wipe his ass with it, and look into
> getting your dosage increased.
>
[Hammond]
Look.. you're so fucking stupid and uneducated in science
and other topics that you're not worth talking to. I'm
not going to sit here and debate elementary general science with
a halfwit.
As for a PhD in physics.. that's not much help either unless
the guy is a polymath genius like Richard Feynman.
There are only a couple of hundred competent scientists in
the entire world, and of that 200, probably only 10 of them
have a broad enough background in other fields (Biology,
Psychology, History, Theology ect) to be of any use. On top of
that, most of them are so narrow minded and idiosyncratic concerning
anything outside their field of expertise that they're virtually
useless.
The joke is that you assholes are sitting there thinking this
thing is "humorous", "pathetic", "incompetent", "fraudulent"
blah blah blah. Fact is, you people are so ignorant I wouldn't
set foot in the same room with you without police protection.
You're ignoramuses, half educated morons, loudmouth yokels
.... I wouldn't give you the right time of day.. and all your howling
and chanting means nothing.
THERE IS NO ONE in the entire world who is capable of evaluating,
or even COMPREHENDING the scientific proof of God... because there
IS NO ONE in the entire planet who has, concurrently:
1. A PhD in Physics
2. A PhD in Psychometry
3. A PhD in Theology
THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON ON EARTH
You happen to be talking to the only person who is qualified to under-
stand it... because I discovered it..... and had to achieve the
above expertise in 20 years of study to do so.
As for you... I'm personally aquatinted with the Chief of Police
and detective division in my town, living right next door to the
Kennedys all my life... and you're the kind of person that they would
keep a dossier on. You're a halfass kook, just like 99% of the rest
of the Internet.
CUPhys
> THERE IS NO ONE in the entire world who is capable of evaluating,
> or even COMPREHENDING the scientific proof of God... because there
> IS NO ONE in the entire planet who has, concurrently:
>
> 1. A PhD in Physics
> 2. A PhD in Psychometry
> 3. A PhD in Theology
>
> THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON ON EARTH
Yup. Including yourself.
> As for you... I'm personally aquatinted with the Chief of Police
> and detective division in my town, living right next door to the
> Kennedys all my life... and you're the kind of person that they would
> keep a dossier on. You're a halfass kook, just like 99% of the rest
> of the Internet.
Well, you just flew around the bend.
Dry yourself and go to bed you stupid mental invalid.
ZenIsWhen
Probably because you obviously know nothing about elementary general science!
> As for a PhD in physics.. that's not much help either unless
>the guy is a polymath genius like Richard Feynman.
Oh ... because YOU couldn't get a PhD, you arrogantly describe themn as
worthless!
You're some piece of work .... crap!
> There are only a couple of hundred competent scientists in
>the entire world, and of that 200, probably only 10 of them
>have a broad enough background in other fields (Biology,
>Psychology, History, Theology ect) to be of any use.
Ahhh... so the vast majority of scientists are too ignorant to understand the
complexities of your claims!
Next thing you know, you'll be calling it a conspracy!
On top of
>that, most of them are so narrow minded and idiosyncratic concerning
>anything outside their field of expertise that they're virtually
>useless.
It's a good thing we have an absolute, and miraculous, genius like you to tell
us how stupid all other scientists are!
(BTW .. I'll take fries with that!)
> The joke is that you assholes are sitting there thinking this
>thing is "humorous", "pathetic", "incompetent", "fraudulent"
>blah blah blah.
Unless you've been missing ALL the posts, we not only THINK that - we've SHOWN
it!
Fact is, you people are so ignorant I wouldn't
>set foot in the same room with you without police protection.
I wouldn't have you around even WITH your straight jacket and "Ward"
attendants!
>You're ignoramuses, half educated morons, loudmouth yokels
>..... I wouldn't give you the right time of day.. and all your howling
>and chanting means nothing.
Considering the facat that your ignorance covers so many arenas, I wouldn't
bother to ask you for the right time of day!
> THERE IS NO ONE in the entire world who is capable of evaluating,
>or even COMPREHENDING the scientific proof of God... because there
>IS NO ONE in the entire planet who has, concurrently:
Because there is NO ONE who has ever OFFERED any valid scientific evidece for
god! They offer bull shit and ignorance! i.e. you're just one of many!
>
> 1. A PhD in Physics
> 2. A PhD in Psychometry
> 3. A PhD in Theology
>
> THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON ON EARTH
Well ... since there isn't, then how the hell do YOU hve the arrogance to
assert that your bull shit MUST be right????
You're saying it takes all three to understand the evidence of god - but a
mere ignoramus - YOU - claim you've found it!
Once again I say that it doesn't take a genius to smell bull shit!
>
>You happen to be talking to the only person who is qualified to under-
>stand it... because I discovered it..... and had to achieve the
>above expertise in 20 years of study to do so.
What expertise? You invented the whole thing, and even people without college
degrees can tell how stupid and ignorant it is!
Your "scientific" rebuttal has been nothing more than insults that everyone
else is ignorant.
(Hold up on the fries ... I don't even think you could handle THAT job
correctly!)
> As for you... I'm personally aquatinted with the Chief of Police
>and detective division in my town, living right next door to the
>Kennedys all my life... and you're the kind of person that they would
>keep a dossier on. You're a halfass kook, just like 99% of the rest
>of the Internet.
Oh .. now its 99% of the internet that is ignorant!
I'll bet you have the "ward" room right next to Napoleon and Jesus!
(BTW ... does "personally acquainted with" mean they've been keeping a wary
eye on YOU?)
Oh .... and tell Fred and Doris Kennedy I said Hey!
Raptor514
So then there's . . . no one left?
> The joke is that you assholes are sitting there thinking this
> thing is "humorous", "pathetic", "incompetent", "fraudulent"
> blah blah blah. Fact is, you people are so ignorant I wouldn't
> set foot in the same room with you without police protection.
> You're ignoramuses, half educated morons, loudmouth yokels
> .... I wouldn't give you the right time of day.. and all your howling
> and chanting means nothing.
> THERE IS NO ONE in the entire world who is capable of evaluating,
> or even COMPREHENDING the scientific proof of God... because there
> IS NO ONE in the entire planet who has, concurrently:
>
> 1. A PhD in Physics
> 2. A PhD in Psychometry
> 3. A PhD in Theology
>
> THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON ON EARTH
Yep. No one.
>
> You happen to be talking to the only person who is qualified to under-
> stand it... because I discovered it..... and had to achieve the
> above expertise in 20 years of study to do so.
". . . The above expertise. . ."? Are you saying you possess knowledge
equal to a person with those three Ph.Ds? You greatly overestimate yourself
I think. I have yet to see anything from you that couldn't be produced by a
college sophomore (assuming they were kooks of course).
> As for you... I'm personally aquatinted with the Chief of Police
> and detective division in my town, living right next door to the
> Kennedys all my life... and you're the kind of person that they would
> keep a dossier on. You're a halfass kook, just like 99% of the rest
> of the Internet.
Precisely what have I said that makes you think police would keep a dossier
on?
When I was in the Air Force for six years I worked with B-61 tactical
nuclear weapons (On the F-111 bomber). In order to work with these weapons
one must pass an extremely in-depth background check and a battery of
psychological tests. So, you see, I have written proof that I'm not a loon.
You, on the other hand, shouldn't be trusted with so much as a water gun.
If I were a halfass kook as you say, I would probably be trying to convince
people on Usenet groups of my halfass "physics" theories that have zip to do
with physics. Now take your Prozac and go to bed like a good kook.
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
William
<gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> THERE IS NO ONE in the entire world who is capable of evaluating,
>or even COMPREHENDING the scientific proof of God.
Odd isn't it. When next door's cat wants to make it's existence
known it has no problem doing it. Even a five year old can comprehend
the evidence.
Maybe this claimed omnipotent, omniscient deity, who knows exactly
what evidence would be comprehended by everyone, doesn't want his
existence known. Or maybe, just maybe . . . .it doesn't actually
exist.
William
franz heymann
> =========================================================
[Snip]
> The joke is that you assholes are sitting there thinking this
> thing is "humorous", "pathetic", "incompetent", "fraudulent"
> blah blah blah
Your first correct statement . Congratulations.
Franz Heymann
[Snip]
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore off-topic boring common-knowledge
chit chat by pseudo intellectuals.
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
>
SNIP
> Well, you just flew around the bend.
>
[Hammond]
...........Sod off wanker
... naturally I also have mastered an exertise
in the echolaliated language of idiocy, since
"you have to beat them at there own game".