GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
George Hammond
This is a public service announcement
from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
reminding you that:
1. The world's first rigorous scientific
explanation of GOD has been
discovered and published.
2. You are cautioned that any further
argument that the God of the Bible
does not "exist" has now been rigorously
scientifically proven to be wrong.
3. Physicists are advised to proceed
with caution regarding Religion.
= FYI =
In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
Objective spacetime is what- Physics sees.
Subjective spacetime is what- People see.
The former is called "spacetime",
The latter is called "reality".
In fact Hammond, 2003, has discovered, proven
and published in the peer reviewed literature the
now famous result that:
God = G_uv
QED:....... GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
rotten egg
> Good morning Physics Dummies-
> This is a public service announcement
> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
> reminding you that:
>
> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
> explanation of GOD has been
> discovered and published.
explanation?
not proof anymore?
> 2. You are cautioned that any further
> argument that the God of the Bible
> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
> scientifically proven to be wrong.
> 3. Physicists are advised to proceed
> with caution regarding Religion.
>
> = FYI =
>
> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>
> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
so is a curvature, not god
or a curvature is god
say more
George Hammond
<2g7...@contractor.net> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> Good morning Physics Dummies-
>> This is a public service announcement
>> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
>> reminding you that:
>>
>> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>> explanation of GOD has been
>> discovered and published.
>
>explanation?
>not proof anymore?
>
[Hammond]
Point 2 below says "PROVEN".
Please read the ENTIRE post before
typing erroneous "line item" comments.
>
>
>> 2. You are cautioned that any further
>> argument that the God of the Bible
>> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
>> scientifically proven to be wrong.
>> 3. Physicists are advised to proceed
>> with caution regarding Religion.
>>
>> = FYI =
>>
>> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
>> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>>
>> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
>> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
>
>so is a curvature, not god
>
>or a curvature is god
>
>say more
[Hammond]
The "phenomenon of God" has been discovered to be,
and has been PROVEN to be caused by a
"Curvature of Reality". Therefore:
1. God exists.
2. God can be measured.
3. God has been scientifically explained.
What is it that you don't understand?
boho
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:46:37 -0800 (PST), rotten egg
>
> <2g7...@contractor.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
> >> Good morning Physics Dummies-
> >> This is a public service announcement
> >> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
> >> reminding you that:
>
> >> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
> >> explanation of GOD has been
> >> discovered and published.
>
> >explanation?
> >not proof anymore?
>
> [Hammond]
> Point 2 below says "PROVEN".
but before that, poing 1 says explaination
cant you decide which one is real?
> Please read the ENTIRE post before
> typing erroneous "line item" comments.
who told you i should do that
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 2. You are cautioned that any further
> >> argument that the God of the Bible
> >> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
> >> scientifically proven to be wrong.
> >> 3. Physicists are advised to proceed
> >> with caution regarding Religion.
>
> >> = FYI =
>
> >> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
> >> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>
> >> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
> >> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
>
> >so is a curvature, not god
>
> >or a curvature is god
>
> >say more
>
> [Hammond]
> The "phenomenon of God" has been discovered to be,
> and has been PROVEN to be caused by a
> "Curvature of Reality".
god is a phenomenon, not god?
caused !?
so curvature cause a phenomenon
> Therefore:
>
> 1. God exists.
yes, tha phenomenon
> 2. God can be measured.
yes, the curvature deficit, with my meterstik
> 3. God has been scientifically explained.
yes, or proven
>
> What is it that you don't understand?
you
George Hammond
<2g7...@contractor.net> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 8:10 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:46:37 -0800 (PST), rotten egg
>>
>> <2g7...@contractor.net> wrote:
>> >On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> >> Good morning Physics Dummies-
>> >> This is a public service announcement
>> >> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
>> >> reminding you that:
>>
>> >> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>> >> explanation of GOD has been
>> >> discovered and published.
>>
>> >explanation?
>> >not proof anymore?
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Point 2 below says "PROVEN".
>
>but before that, poing 1 says explaination
>
[Hammond]
Never said it didn't. So what?
>
>cant you decide which one is real?
>
[Hammond]
Told you once already: BOTH are real.
What part of "both" don't you understand?
>
>> Please read the ENTIRE post before
>> typing erroneous "line item" comments.
>
>who told you i should do that
>
[Hammond]
Cut the crap.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> 2. You are cautioned that any further
>> >> argument that the God of the Bible
>> >> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
>> >> scientifically proven to be wrong.
>> >> 3. Physicists are advised to proceed
>> >> with caution regarding Religion.
>>
>> >> = FYI =
>>
>> >> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
>> >> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>>
>> >> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
>> >> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
>>
>> >so is a curvature, not god
>>
>> >or a curvature is god
>>
>> >say more
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> The "phenomenon of God" has been discovered to be,
>> and has been PROVEN to be caused by a
>> "Curvature of Reality".
>
>god is a phenomenon, not god?
>
>caused !?
>
[Hammond]
We're not here to play high school world games.
This is not an amateur discussion.
Physicists say:
"Within reality, a curvature of subjective
spacetime causes the phenomenon of God"
and Theologians say:
"God causes a curvature of
subjective reality itself."
BOTH STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT, AND THEY
ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
>
>so curvature cause a phenomenon
>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> 1. God exists.
>
>yes, tha phenomenon
>
[Hammond]
Glad to hear that you agree.
>
>> 2. God can be measured.
>
>yes, the curvature deficit, with my meterstik
>
[Hammond]
Glad to hear that you agree.
>
>> 3. God has been scientifically explained.
>
>yes, or proven
>
[Hammond]
Glad to hear that you agree.
>
>>
>> What is it that you don't understand?
>
>you
>
[Hammond]
No problem, I'll explain "me". While a suffering humanity
sees faith in God as the principle hope of the World,
academemia has become increasingly arrogant, overprivileged
and atheistic with people publishing sensational books such
as _The God Delusion_ for instance.
I'm simply here to present PROOF that academia is wrong
and advise them to dummy up and get with the program
like everybody else before they dig a hole for themselves
deeper than it already is.
Uncle Al
> This is a public service announcement
> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
[snip crap]
Google
Milorganite 33,000 hits
Hey stooopid - it's teleparallel spacetime torsion not metric
spacetime curvature.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al
> This is a public service announcement
> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
thinker
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:0mb3l35jhrp36tih5...@4ax.com...
Good work, dude. Now we know.
Jim Black
exhorting readers to go beyond the symmetries of the cube to find the
world's first scientific proof of God?
boho
god desilusion also wrong
same reason
George Hammond
<2g7...@contractor.net> wrote:
[Hammond]
Learn to use your spell checker.
Mark K. Bilbo
<gibberish>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“A national political campaign is better than the best
circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple
of hangings thrown in. ”
- H. L. Mencken
George Hammond
[Hammond]
If you had any education you wouldn't confuse
me with an amateur. If you had any education
you would be already reading my website located
at:
John Schmidt
<a bad .sig>
KEEP IT OUT OF SCI.HCEM, SIGFOOL!!!1!!!!!
The_Sage
>Date written: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:02:33 GMT
>MsgID:<0mb3l35jhrp36tih5...@4ax.com>
>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
psuedoscientific drivel.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
[The current anthropomorphic global warming nonsense is
based on] "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar
to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week
from now" -- Dr. Richard Lindzen
=============================================================
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>Date written: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:02:33 GMT
>>MsgID:<0mb3l35jhrp36tih5...@4ax.com>
>
>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>
>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>psuedoscientific drivel.
>
>The Sage
>
[Hammond]
Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
literature.
Look.... let me explain it to you in a nutshell.
Psychometry is the Factor Analysis of psychological
measurements (IQ, E, N, P etc). Factorists have known for
DECADES that 100 years of data (most of it done since 1970
using mainframe computers to diagonalize 100x100 matrices)
-- ALL result in a 4x4 "oblique" correlation matrix. But
being PSYCHOLOGISTS and not PHYSICISTS they couldn't figure
out WHAT IT MEANT or WHERE IT CAME FROM!
I'm simply a physicist who got involved in psychology and
began studying this well known fact. Immediately I noticed
that it is OBVIOUS that the 4x4 matrix is CURVED. I went
looking for the REASON that it would be curved and
discovered it comes from the 3-space and 1-time origins of
E,N,P,g via the orthogonal cleavage of the body and brain.
the whole thing is a scientific CAKE WALK for a physicist.
From there it is EASY to show that the CURVATURE of THIS
WELL KNOWN PSYCHOMETRY MATRIX explains "God" by
showing that it is caused by a CURVATURE OF SUBJECTIVE
SPACETIME caused by the SECULAR TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH.
Now ANY competent scientist can recognized that the
discovery of a:
CURVATURE OF SUBJECTIVE REALITY
that is measureable to TWO DECIMAL points (3 significant
figures) in THOUSANDS of peer published experiments is a
HISTORIC SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
and moreoverthat it is TRIVIAL to show that it explains
COMPLETELY the phenomenon of "GOD" SINCE IT EXPLAINS every
known phenomenological identification ever made about "God"
in the past 2,000 years.
Now if you want to call yourself a "sage", you should be
able to understand the SIGNIFICANCE of such a discovery.
For you to sit there and presume I'm an amateur or a
crackpot when this Factor Analytic result has been published
in a PREMIER academic journal is nothing but an atrocity
against the welfare of six billion innocent and suffering
people! An atrocity by you and the entire scientific
community who are competent to review this discovery.
All of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
Uncle Vic
us up with this:
> QED:....... GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
QED: "God" is a curvature of Georgie's thinking.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
brian fletcher
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:22:53 -0700, The_Sage
> <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>>Date written: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:02:33 GMT
>>>MsgID:<0mb3l35jhrp36tih5...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>>
>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself
>>with
>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>>
>>The Sage
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
> of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
> literature.
> Look.... let me explain it to you in a nutshell.
Careful with your use of words George, some here would see that last comment
as self derogatory.
:-)
BOfL
Jim Black
I've seen your website a long time ago, and I know you are not Gene Ray. I
do, however, think it would be fun to see a debate between the two of you
over the meaning of the cube.
"My time cube wisdom is above your academic word god. Word worship is
stupid and evil, and leads to the destruction of society."
"Your opinion doesn't matter because you're just a blowhard amateur with no
academic credentials. It has been scientifically proven that God exists,
and if didn't have your head up your ass, you could see the proof in the
cube you're holding. The cube has three-axis symmetry, just like ..."
"How can you say there are three axes; that's stupid. The Time Cube
rotates on a single axis, presenting four different corners in a single
rotation of earth, representing sunrise, sunset, ..."
"In fact the cube has thirteen axes of symmetry. If I take the cube and
rotate it along any one of these axes [takes and rotates cube], the cube
remains the same ..."
"You can't rotate the cube like that and say the cube stays the same. If
someone tipped a room in your house over, would you say the room stayed the
same? That would be stupid and evil."
"Only an unsophisticated lowlife such as yourself would confuse a house
with a cube. If you had any mathematical education whatsoever ..."
"Your math education has made you stupid. Stupid and evil. You've been
educated stupid by the ..."
"You have NO EDUCATION, so you have NO PLACE to say what education is or
isn't. Furthermore ..."
"YOU have been EDUCATED STUPID with STUPID WORD WORSHIP. That has made you
STUPID AND EVIL ..."
"What the FUCK makes a DERANGED CRACKHEAD like you think you have any right
to hold an opinion on anything other than how to suck people off in a
filthy alleyway for a pocketful of change? You have no ..."
On second thought, maybe that wouldn't be such a good idea. Well, in the
past, you've rejoiced over any publicity, however negative. More people
currently know who Gene Ray is than know who George Hammond is. Think
about it?
Meanwhile here is a webforum where you can present your more enlightened
cube theory to fans of Gene Ray's Time Cube:
boho
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:39:12 -0800 (PST), boho
> Learn to use your spell checker.
yes
> >> >> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
yes, they look alike,
thay have three letters both
> >> >> QED .......God
yes, thay also look alike, three leters, thank
this is what am i talkin about, we nee more good
souls like you
George Hammond
<fml...@organization.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:39:15 GMT, George Hammond wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:21:48 -0800, Jim Black
>> <fml...@organization.edu> wrote:
>>
>
[SNIP]
Off topic.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<0d84l39odd2vvb9q2...@4ax.com>
>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>psuedoscientific drivel.
> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>literature.
Name one then.
The Sage
Neil Kelsey
> Look.... let me explain it to you in a nut's hell.
Fixed it for you; you're welcome.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:58:04 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> This is a public service announcement
> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
> reminding you that:
>
> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
> explanation of GOD has been
> discovered and published.
> 2. You are cautioned that any further
> argument that the God of the Bible
> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
> scientifically proven to be wrong.
In true science, all theories are open for revision as new evidence or
analysis techniques become available.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
Jim Black
It's free publicity. Just do a Google search on "Time Cube" and look at
all the media attention these people have attracted to Gene Ray's theory.
Imagine what could they do for a Real Scientific Proof of God. Does it
really matter whether they think it's a joke or not?
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21
Think about it.
--
Jim E. Black
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>Date written: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:36:52 GMT
>>MsgID:<0d84l39odd2vvb9q2...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>
>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>
>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>literature.
>
>Name one then.
>
>The Sage
>
[Hammond]
No problem.... here's a few thousand cited in my peer
published papers. Anything else you want to know?
BRAND, C.R. (1981). Personality and political attitudes. In:
Dimensions of
Personality, Richard Lynn (Ed.). London: Pergamon Press
BRAND, C.R. (1995) Dimensionalizing personality: The "Big
5", the "Gigantic 3"
and the "Capacious 6". Manuscript in preparation
CARROLL, J.B. (1953). An analytical solution for
approximating simple
structure
in factor analysis. Psychometrika, Vol. 18, pp. 23-38
CLARIDGE, G. (1985). Origins of Mental Illness. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell
CLARIDGE, G. (1986). Eysenck's Contribution to the
Psychology of Personality,
Consensus & Controversy: Papers in Honor of Hans Eysenck,
Modgil & Modgil
(eds), .......
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T., McCRAE R.R. & DYE D.A. (1991), Facet Scales for
Agreeableness
and
Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality
Inventory, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 887-898
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality
inventory (NEO
PI-RTM)
and NEO Five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992a), Four Ways Five Factors are
Basic,
Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol.13, No.6, pp. 653-665
DE RAAD, B. &, HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1993). A circumplex approach
to the five factor
model: A facet structure of trait adjectives supplemented by
trait verbs.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 15, No. 5,
493-505
DIGMAN, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the
Five-Factor
model.
Annual Revue of Psychology, 41, 417-440
EYSENCK, H.J. (1940). Some factors in the appreciation of
poetry, and their
relation to temperamental qualities. Character and
Personality, 9, 160-167
EYSENCK H.J. (1944a), General Social Attitudes, Journal of
Social Psychology,
19, 207-227
EYSENCK, H.J. (1944b). Types of personality- a factorial
study of 700
neurotics.
Journal of Mental Science, 90, 851-861
EYSENCK H.J. (1947), Dimensions of Personality. London,
U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1950). Clyclothymia-schizothymia as a
dimension of personality.
I. Historical review. Journal of Personality, 19, 123-153
EYSENCK H.J. (1952), The Scientific Study of Personality,
Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. (1954), The Psychology of Politics, London,
U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1955). A dynamic theory of anxiety and
hysteria, Journal of
Mental Science, 101, 28-51
EYSENCK, H.J. (1964). Principles and methods of personality
description,
classification and diagnosis. British Journal of Psychology,
55, 3, 285-294
EYSENCK H.J. (1967), The Biological Basis of Personality.
Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970), The Structure of Human
Personality,(3rd ed.), Methuen,
London
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970b). A dimensional system of
psychodiagnostics. In:A.R.
Mahrer
(Ed.), New Approaches to Personality Classification. New
York: Columbia
University Press
EYSENCK, H.J. (1971), Social Attitudes and Social Class,
Brit. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol., 10, 201-212
EYSENCK H.J. (1976), The Measurement of Personality,
Lancaster
EYSENCK, H.J. (1987). The definition of personality
disorders and the criteria
appropriate for their descriptions. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 1, 211-
219
EYSENCK H.J. (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3?-
Criteria for a
Taxonomic Paradigm, Person. Individ. Diff., Vol. 12, No. 8,
773-790
EYSENCK H.J. (1992), Four Ways Five Factors Are Not Basic,
Personality &
Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No. 6, 667-673
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992b). The definition and measurement of
Psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, 7, 757-785
EYSENCK, H.J. (1993), Comment on Goldberg, American
Psychologist, December
1993,
p. 1299
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK M.W. (1985), Personality and
individual differences: A
natural science approach. New York, Plenum
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G. (1969), Personality Structure
& Measurement,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G (1976), Psychoticism as a
Dimension of
Personality.
London: Hodder & Stoughton
EYSENCK H.J. & WILSON G.D. (1978), The Psychological Basis
of Ideology,
University Park Press, Baltimore
FERGUSON G.A. (1954), The concept of parsimony in factor
analysis.
Psychometrika, vol. 19, pp. 281-290
FERGUSON L.W. (1939), Primary Social Attitudes, J.
Psychology, 8, 217-223
FERGUSON L.W. (1973), Primary Social Attitudes of the 1960s
and Those of the
1930s, Psychological Reports, 33,655-664
FRANCIS, L.J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian
Neuroticism scales: A
question of sex differences? Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol 15,
1, 43-59
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1981), Language and Individual Differences:
The Search for
Universals in Personality Lexicons, In L. Wheeler (Ed.),
Review of Persoality
and Social Psychology, Vol.2, pp. 141-165, Beverly Hills CA:
Sage
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1990), An Alternative "Description of
Personality": The
Big-Five
Factor Structure, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992), The Development of markers for the
Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, pp. 26-42
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1993), The Structure of Phenotypic
Personality Traits,
American
Psychologist,48, 26-34
GORSUCH, R.L. (1983), Factor Analysis, London: Erlbaum
GRAY J.A. (1970), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extroversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266
GRAY J.A. (1972), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion:
A Modification of Eysenck's Theory, In: Nebylitsyn V.D.,
Gray J.A. (eds.),
The Biological Basis of Individual Behavior, pp. 185-205,
The Academic Press,
New York
GRAY J.A. (1981), A Critique of Eysenck's Theory of
Personality, In: Eysenck
H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality, Springer, New York
GRAY J.A. (1982), The Neuropsychology of Anxiety, An Enquiry
Into the
Functions
of the Septohippocampal System, Oxford University Press, New
York
GRAY J.A. (1987a), The Psychology of Fear and Stress, second
edition,
Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England
GRAY J.A. (1987b), The Neuropsychology of Emotion and
Personality, In: S.M.
Stahl, S.D. Iverson & E.C. Goodman (eds.), Cognitive
Neurochemistry, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, England
GRAY J.A. (1987c), Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity:
A Commentary,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 21, 493-509
GRAY J.A. (1988), Behavioral and Neural-System Analyses of
the Action of
Anxiolytic Drugs, Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, Vol.
29, 767-769
GRAY J.A. (1991a), Neural Systems, Emotion and Personality,
In: John Madden IV
(ed.), Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and Affect, Raven
Press
GRAY J.A. (1991b), The Neuropsychology of Temperament, In:
J. Strelau & A.
Angleitner (eds.), Explorations in Temperament, Plenum Press
GRAY J.A. et al. (1991c), The Neuropsychology of
Schizophrenia, Behavioral and
Brain Science, Vol. 14, 1-84
HAMMOND, G.E. (1988). The Origin of the Cross. Self
published, ISBN
0-940915-02-
2 LC 87-80586
HAMMOND, G.E. (1994). The Cartesian Theory: Unification of
Eysenck and Gray,
New
Ideas in Psychology,Vol. 12, 2, 153-167
HARMAN, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis (3rd ed.),
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
HENDRICKSON A.E. & WHITE P.O. (1964), PROMAX: A quick method
for
rotation to
oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical
Psychology, vol. 17,
pp. 65-70
HEYMANS G. (1929), Inleiding in de speciale psychologie
[Introduction into
special psychology]. Haarlem, Bohn
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., De RAAD, B., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1992).
Integration of the Big-
Five and Circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal
of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 146-163
HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1994a), The Abridged Big Five Circumplex
(AB5C) Model of
Trait
Structure: Heymans' Cube, Kiesler's Circle and Peabody and
Goldberg's Double
Cone Model, Revue europeenne de Psychologie Applique, 1st
trimestre, vol. 44,
No. 1, pp. 27-33
HORST, P.A. (1941), A non-graphical method for transforming
an arbitrary
factor
matrix into a simple structure matrix, Psychometrika, vol.
6, pp. 79-99
JOHN O.P. (1990), The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions
of Personality in
the Natural Language and Questionnaires, In: L. Pervin
(ed.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, 66-100, Guilford, New York
JOHNSON, J.A. &, OSTENDORF, F. (1993). Clarification of the
five-factor model
with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex. Journal
of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 3, 563-576
KAISER, H.F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic
rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, vol. 23(3), pp. 187-200
KASS, F., SKODOL, A., CHARLES, E., SPITZER, R.L., &
WILLIAMS, J.B.W.
(1985).
Scaled ratings of DSM-III personality disorders. American
Journal of
Psychiatry, 142, 627-630
KRAEPELIN, E. (1897). Psychiatrie (6th Edn). Leipzig: Barth
KRETSCHMER, E. (1946). Medizinische Psychologie. Leipzig:
Thieme
KRETSCHMER, E. (1948). Korperbau und Charakter. Berlin:
Springer
KRUG S.E. & JOHNS E.F. (1986), A Large Scale
Cross-Validation of Second-Order
Personality Structure Defined by the 16PF, Psychological
Reports, 59, 683-693
LEARY, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality.
New York: Ronald
Press
MERENDA P.F. (1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of
Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3),
367-374
MERENDA P.F. (1989), Four-factor models of personality and
Walter Clarke's
Activity Vector Analysis. Tenth Clarke Memorial Lecture,
Bryant College,
Providence RI, November 30, 1989. (Available from Peter F.
Merenda)
MERENDA P.F. & CLARKE W.V. (1959), Factor analysis of a
measure of social
self.
Psychological Reports, 5, pp. 597-605
MODGIL, S. &, MODGIL, C. (1986). Hans Eysenck, Consensus and
Controversy.
Philidelphia: Falmer Press
NEUHAUS J.O. & WRIGLEY C. (1954), The Quartimax method: an
analytical
approach
to orthogonal simple structure. British Journal of
Statistical Psychology,
vol. 7, pp. 81-91
NORMAN, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of
personality attributes:
replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality
ratings. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583
O'BOYLE, M., & HOLZER, C. (1992). DSM-III-R personality
disorders and
Eysenck's
personality dimensions. Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 13, No.
10, 1157-1159
PEABODY, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in
personality
perception: A reappraisal. Journal of personality and social
psychology,
1970, Vol.16, 4, 639-646
PEABODY, D. (1984). Personality dimensions through trait
inferences. Journal
of
personality and social psychology, Vol.46, 2, 384-403
PEABODY, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait
adjectives. Journal of
personality and social psychology, Vol.52, 1, 59-71
PEABODY, D., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1989). Some determinants of
factor structures
from
personality-trait descriptors. Journal of personality and
social psychology,
Vol.57, 3, 552-567
RAY J. (1986), Eysenck on social attitudes: An historical
critique, In S.
Modgil
& C. Modgil (Eds.), Hans Eysenck, Consensus and Controversy,
Falmer, U.K.:
Falmer Press
REICH, J.H., & THOMPSON, W.D. (1987). Differential
assortment of DSM-III
personality disorder clusters in three populations. British
Journal of
Psychiatry, 150, 471-475
SAUCIER, G., & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1994 in press). The language
of personality:
Lexical perspectives on the Five-Factor model. In: J.S.
Wiggins (Ed.),
Theoretical perspectives for the Five-Factor model. New
York: Guilford
SMITH B.D. (1988), Chapter 20, In: Nesselroade and Cattell
eds.: Handbook of
multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.), Plenum
Press, NY NY
THURSTONE, L.L. (1933), The vectors of the mind,
Psychological Review, vol.
41(1), pp. 1-32
THURSTONE, L.L. (1947), Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago:
University of
Chicago
Press
TUPES, E.C., & CRYSTAL, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality
factors based on
trait ratings (Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force
Base, TX: U.S.
Air Force
WIGGINS, J.S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal
behavior. In: L
Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 265-294).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
ZUCKERMAN M., KUHLMAN M. & CAMAC C. (1988), What Lies Beyond
E and
N? Factor
Analyses of Scales Believed to Measure Basic Dimensions of
Personality,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107
ZUCKERMAN et al. (1991), Five (or Three) Robust
Questionnaire Scale Factors of
Personality Without Culture, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 12,
No. 9, 929-942
ZUCKERMAN M. (1993), A comparison of three structural models
for personality:
The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 65, No. 4, pp.
757-768
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>Date written: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:36:52 GMT
>>MsgID:<0d84l39odd2vvb9q2...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>
>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>
>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>literature.
>
>Name one then.
>The Sage
>
[Hammond]
No problem, here's a thousand of them from the bibliography
of my peer published papers:
========================================
Jeckyl
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:23:43 -0700, The_Sage
> <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>>Date written: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:36:52 GMT
>>>MsgID:<0d84l39odd2vvb9q2...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>>
>>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has
>>>>been
>>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself
>>>>with
>>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>>
>>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>>literature.
>>
>>Name one then.
>>The Sage
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> No problem, here's a thousand of them from the bibliography
> of my peer published papers:
WTF do they have to do with the crap you post about proving god exists.
Nothing .. that's what. Your so-called is a load of bull. Bust because you
reference work that is valid does not make your work any less pathetic.
Jeckyl
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:23:43 -0700, The_Sage
> <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>>Date written: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:36:52 GMT
>>>MsgID:<0d84l39odd2vvb9q2...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>>
>>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has
>>>>been
>>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself
>>>>with
>>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>>
>>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>>literature.
>>
>>Name one then.
>>
>>The Sage
>>
> [Hammond]
> No problem.... here's a few thousand cited in my peer
> published papers. Anything else you want to know?
Yeah .. why are you such an idiot .. is it a psychological problem?
Ernie Sty
>>> Good morning Physics Dummies-
>>> This is a public service announcement
>>> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
>>> reminding you that:
>>>
>>> discovered and published.
>>
>>not proof anymore?
>>
> [Hammond]
> Point 2 below says "PROVEN".
> typing erroneous "line item" comments.
>>
>>
>>> argument that the God of the Bible
>>> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
>>> scientifically proven to be wrong.
>>> with caution regarding Religion.
>>>
>>> = FYI =
>>>
>>> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
>>> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>>>
>>> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
>>> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
>>
>>so is a curvature, not god
>>
>>or a curvature is god
>>
>>say more
>
> [Hammond]
> The "phenomenon of God" has been discovered to be,
> and has been PROVEN to be caused by a
>
> 1. God exists.
> 2. God can be measured.
>
Why you decided to stop taking your meds.
Ernie Sty
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4751C82B...@hate.spam.net...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
>> This is a public service announcement
>> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
> [snip crap]
>
> Milorganite 33,000 hits
>
> Hey stooopid - it's teleparallel spacetime torsion not metric
> spacetime curvature.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
Exactly! He's clearly using the wrong trans-dimensional matrices. Probably
didn't allow for infrastring fluctuations in n-space, either.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<8oh9l3d2dislbvbb8...@4ax.com>
>>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>>literature.
>>Name one then.
>[Hammond]
>No problem...
Actually, big problem. Not one of the articles you cite is a peer reviewed
scientific journal. Not one of the articles list any physical experiments that
YOU created and were reproduced by someone else. I asked for *EXPERIMENTAL
PROOF*, not proof by filibuster. Experimental proof means a laboratory setting
where things are measured and recorded. Hearsay and meresay is not proof.
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>Date written: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:21:29 GMT
>>MsgID:<8oh9l3d2dislbvbb8...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>
>>>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>
>>>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>>>literature.
>
>>>Name one then.
>
>>[Hammond]
>>No problem...
>
>Actually, big problem. Not one of the articles you cite is a peer reviewed
>scientific journal.
>
[Hammond]
Geez... that post was so long I didn't think it got
thru... I can't find it on my news reader.... but since you
saw it it must have got thru o.k.
Anyway, you're wrong..... EVERY ONE OF THOSE PAPERS IS
PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL AND THE JOURNALS ARE
CLEARLY LISTED! Where the hell did you get the idea they
are not peer reviewed?
>
> Not one of the articles list any physical experiments that
>YOU created and were reproduced by someone else.
>
>
[Hammond]
Einstein wasn't an experimentalist and neither am I. He
never did an experiment in his life. Theorists like us USE
the data of experimentalists to DISCOVER AND PROVE
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. You don't even know what Science is
for chrissakes.
>
> I asked for *EXPERIMENTAL
>PROOF*,
>
[Hammond]
ALL of those hundreds of papers are publications of
EXPERMENTAL RESULTS. The experiments reported consist of
the administration of written tests given to millions of
REAL PEOPLE worldwide and then the tests are correlated,
factored and the eigenvectors extracted. This activity is
the MAINSTAY of modern experimental psychology research
employing thousands of Phd's and costing millions of dollars
and all of it published in peer reviewed journals.
>
>
>
>not proof by filibuster. Experimental proof means a laboratory setting
>where things are measured and recorded. Hearsay and meresay is not proof.
>
>
[Hammond]
"Experimental" means "actual physical measurement" and that
is EXACTLY what those thousands of papers report....actual
experimental measurements taken on REAL PEOPLE, in
psychology laboratories by the way.
>
>
>The Sage
Laurent
George Hammond wrote:
> Good morning Physics Dummies-
> This is a public service announcement
> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
> reminding you that:
>
> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
> explanation of GOD has been
> discovered and published.
> 2. You are cautioned that any further
> argument that the God of the Bible
> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
> scientifically proven to be wrong.
> 3. Physicists are advised to proceed
> with caution regarding Religion.
>
>
> = FYI =
>
> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>
> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
>
> Objective spacetime is what- Physics sees.
> Subjective spacetime is what- People see.
>
> The former is called "spacetime",
> The latter is called "reality".
>
>
> In fact Hammond, 2003, has discovered, proven
> and published in the peer reviewed literature the
> now famous result that:
>
> God = G_uv
>
> QED:....... GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
>
> ========================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> ========================================
Right, God is just a thing which, because it has no brain, can't
think. It is what causes the curbature of space, right? I knew it!
George Hammond
>
>Right, God is just a thing which, because it has no brain, can't
>think. It is what causes the curbature of space, right? I knew it!
[Hammond]
Idiot, it is the BRAIN that CAUSES the curvature of
subjective spacetime.... God is the CAUSE of the curvature.
This is how God "rules the world".
scratch
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:03:14 -0700, The_Sage
>
>
>
> >>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org>
> >>Date written: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:21:29 GMT
"like us" ?
dear women
shouldent you better cook potatoes for your man?
pico
> Einstein wasn't an experimentalist and neither am I. He
> never did an experiment in his life. Theorists like us USE
> the data of experimentalists to DISCOVER AND PROVE
> SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. You don't even know what Science is
> for chrissakes.
Did Einstein claim his theories were PROOF? I think not.
George Hammond
wrote:
[Hammond]
Because Gravity is a noncontroversial non-political
subject Einstein was allowed to publish his discovery that
Gravity is caused by a curvature of OBJECTIVE spacetime in
prestigeous scientific journals read by educated people. Of
course Einstein's discovery is so obvious that it was
accepted as "sufficiently proven" immediately.
The discovery that God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE
spacetime is EQUALLY OBVIOUS and therefore equally "proven".
But proof that God is a "CURVATURE OF REALITY" is a
STUNNING, CONTROVERSIAL AND POLITICALLY DANGEROUS
discovery vehemently opposed by atheistic academia and I am
not allowed to publish it in a leading journal.... instead I
am allowed to be ridiculed and harassed by psychotic
wannabees on the Internet which is the only
non-establishment controlled publishing medium available to
me. You're just another piece of establishment lacky scum
who cruises Usenet looking to smear and oppressed legitimate
"non-establishment scientists" working full time to destroy
my reputation. Scum.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:01 -0600, "pico" <pico.pico.pico>
> wrote:
>
>
>
*What* reputation is that, George? Your reputation as a harebrained
nut?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
psycho!
Free Lunch
Your delusions are noted. Your total lack of evidence is also noted.
Robert Weldon
Really? and here I thought it was just because you are a...
The_Sage
>MsgID:<d2kcl39jfegra70v4...@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>>>>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>>>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>>>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>>>>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>>>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>>>>literature.
>>>>Name one then.
>>>[Hammond]
>>>No problem...
>>Actually, big problem. Not one of the articles you cite is a peer reviewed
>>scientific journal.
> Anyway, you're wrong..... EVERY ONE OF THOSE PAPERS IS
>PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL AND THE JOURNALS ARE
>CLEARLY LISTED! Where the hell did you get the idea they
>are not peer reviewed?
Obviously you have no clue what a peer reviewed scientific journal is, nor do
you have the slightest understanding what the difference between a hypothesis
and an experiment. No wonder you are so delusional.
Jeckyl
> The discovery that God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE
> spacetime is EQUALLY OBVIOUS and therefore equally "proven".
> But proof that God is a "CURVATURE OF REALITY" is a
> STUNNING, CONTROVERSIAL AND POLITICALLY DANGEROUS
Its not a discovery .. its the rantings of a lunatic.
> You're just another piece of establishment lacky scum
> who cruises Usenet looking to smear and oppressed legitimate
> "non-establishment scientists" working full time to destroy
> my reputation. Scum.
You have no reputation .. except as a raving loony.
Jeckyl
> [Hammond]
> Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
> public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
> the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
> to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
> psycho!
Because what you want to publish is complete and utter drivel. No
self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
Jeckyl
> [Hammond]
> Idiot, it is the BRAIN that CAUSES the curvature of
> subjective spacetime.... God is the CAUSE of the curvature.
> This is how God "rules the world".
What god? The god of your deluded mind?
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You're a proven liar:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
Pergamon Press is one of the world's primeir academic
publishers. Liar, stooge, scum, moron.
foolsrushin.
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:52:20 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
It has to be said that the notion of angular fragmetation and the
consequent, though apparent, disconnectedness of perception unsettle
Cartesian dualism somewhat. The frequent references to perception have
most certainly not helped the epistemology of one who set up a glass
wall between himself and the rest of us, yet he expected his self-
contradictory nonsense to be understood and to be true universally.
Hammond may well have shattered the wall: only time will tell.
--
'foolsrushin.'
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:52:20 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:h4iel3pqai7hbubk6...@4ax.com...
>>> [Hammond]
>>> Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
>>> public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
>>> the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
>>> to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
>>> psycho!
>>
>>Because what you want to publish is complete and utter drivel. No
>>self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
>>
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> You're a proven liar:
Really .. where is this proof?
If it is anything like your proof about God then it doesn't exist.
Take your meds and get back to reality.
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> [poster wrote]
>>> No self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [Hammond wrote]
>> You're a proven liar:
>
> [Jeckyl wrote]
>Really .. where is this proof?
>
[Hammond]
Poster said "no self-respecting editor would publish" my
work. Here's one that did, so the poster is proven to be a
LIAR:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
The EDITOR of that journal who PUBLISHED ME is a professor
at Colorado State University.
It is a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL
It is published by PERGAMON PRESS which
is one of the world's LEADING academic publishers.
THEREFORE THE POSTER IS A PROVEN LIAR
and I said:
THEREFORE THE POSTER IS A PROVEN LIAR
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>Date written: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:36:58 GMT
>>MsgID:<d2kcl39jfegra70v4...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>>>>>1. The world's first rigorous scientific
>
>>>>>>>Unless you have documented a laboratory experiment which can and has been
>>>>>>>repeated by other scientists the world over, you are deluding yourself with
>>>>>>>psuedoscientific drivel.
>
>>>>>> Of course there is documented laboratory proof, 100 years
>>>>>>of it all published in the peer reviewed scientific
>>>>>>literature.
>
>>>>>Name one then.
>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>No problem...
>
>>>Actually, big problem. Not one of the articles you cite is a peer reviewed
>>>scientific journal.
>
>> Anyway, you're wrong..... EVERY ONE OF THOSE PAPERS IS
>>PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL AND THE JOURNALS ARE
>>CLEARLY LISTED! Where the hell did you get the idea they
>>are not peer reviewed?
>
>Obviously you have no clue what a peer reviewed scientific journal is,
>
[Hammond]
You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
REVIEWED JOURNAL:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
which is PROOF that I know what a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL IS,
therefore you are proven to be AGAIN A LIAR.
> nor do
>you have the slightest understanding what the difference between a hypothesis
>and an experiment.
>The Sage
>
[Hammond]
For the FOURTH TIME you are proven to be a LIAR since it
is a documented fact that I have two degrees in PHYSICS from
2 State of Massachusetts accredited Universities which is
LEGAL PROOF that I know the difference between a "hypothesis
and an experiment"
SO YOU'RE A LIAR
And not only don't you have any degrees in Physics.... you
don't even have a REAL NAME....kook
foolsrushin.
> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>
> news:jdvel3pfudd9jajb3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:52:20 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:h4iel3pqai7hbubk6...@4ax.com...
> >>> [Hammond]
> >>> Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
> >>> public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
> >>> the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
> >>> to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
> >>> psycho!
>
> >>Because what you want to publish is complete and utter drivel. No
> >>self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
>
> > [Hammond]
> > You're a proven liar:
>
> Really .. where is this proof?
>
> If it is anything like your proof about God then it doesn't exist.
>
> Take your meds and get back to reality.
One proceeds by going forward along the Aristotelian pathway: Hammond
will be blamed for his insights by some, praised by others.
Essentially, though, he has got most of it right: I'd add a quibble
here or there ... !
But there you go!
--
'foolsrushin.'
George Hammond
<dolo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6 Dec, 05:25, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jdvel3pfudd9jajb3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:52:20 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>"George Hammond" <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>> >>news:h4iel3pqai7hbubk6...@4ax.com...
>> >>> [Hammond]
>> >>> Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
>> >>> public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
>> >>> the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
>> >>> to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
>> >>> psycho!
>>
>> >>Because what you want to publish is complete and utter drivel. No
>> >>self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
>>
>> > [Hammond]
>> > You're a proven liar:
>>
>> Really .. where is this proof?
>>
>> If it is anything like your proof about God then it doesn't exist.
>>
>> Take your meds and get back to reality.
>
>One proceeds by going forward along the Aristotelian pathway: Hammond
>will be blamed for his insights by some, praised by others.
>
[Hammond]
I wouldn't mind that..... it's getting blamed by EVERYBODY
and praised by NO ONE that bothers me.
>Essentially, though, he has got most of it right: I'd add a quibble
>here or there ... !
>But there you go!
[Hammond]
Someone once told me that only 1 person in the world knew
what God is besides me..... according to your last statment
you must be the other person!
Jeckyl
> [Hammond]
> Someone once told me that only 1 person in the world knew
> what God is besides me..... according to your last statment
> you must be the other person!
You know nothing .. you're a deranged fool
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:25:16 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> [poster wrote]
>>>> No self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> [Hammond wrote]
>>> You're a proven liar:
>>
>> [Jeckyl wrote]
>>Really .. where is this proof?
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Poster said "no self-respecting editor would publish" my
> work. Here's one that did, so the poster is proven to be a
> LIAR:
No .. you have to prove that the puplisher is self-respecting. Your article
is crap. Whoever published it must have been desperate to fill space or not
reviewew the shit the you wrote.
Now .. fuck off .. there's a good loony.
Jeckyl
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13lfo43...@corp.supernews.com...
Also note that the article you claim is published is not your ridiculous
proofs of god's existence .. perhaps that article was written when you were
still sane and able to think rationally. Those days are obviously long gone
.. what a waste of a mind.
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
[SNIP--------------- NO CONTENT]
panam...@hotmail.com
> >aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
> public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
> the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
> to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
> psycho!
The Seven Signs of crank science:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for
centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
observation.
Looks like you meet #2, #5, #6, and #7, George. Watch out for that
tree!
http://www.cartoon-secrets.com/Photos/George-Jungle.jpg
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
successfully opressing George Hammond since 1996.
George Hammond
>>
>> >-PanamaFloyd, Atlanta.
>> >aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Wrong.... Usenet is a bunch of hair brained nuts and the
>> public well knows it. I'm only reason I'm here is because
>> the ACADEMIC ESTABLISHEMT is PRO-ATEHIST and won't allow me
>> to speak or publish in establishment controlled media.....
>> psycho!
>
>
[Hammond]
NOTE: this poster has made a HIGH CONTENT ON TOPIC POST
My reply to it follows, below:
>
>
>The Seven Signs of crank science:
>
>1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
>
[Hammond]
This is because (as is well known) modern academia is
STRONGLY ATHEISTICALLY BIASED and will NOT allow the author
publish in mainline journals, although the author HAS
managed to publish the discovery in TWO lesser peer reviewed
academic journals. Because of this a strong media blitz
WILLl and RIGHTLY SHOULD continue.
>
>2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
>suppress his or her work.
>
[Hammond]
The truth of that is well documented and well known.
>
>3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
>detection.
>
[Hammond]
WRONG. The effect is ROBUST, STRONG, and has been
measured experimentally to 3 significant figures in
THOUSANDS of peer published experiments all of which are
cited in my peer published papers. Quit posting your
ERRONEOUS AND FABRICATED PRESUMPTIONS.
>
>4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
>
[Hammond]
WRONG. The evidence is EXPERIMENTAL and has been measured
experimentally to 3 significant figures in THOUSANDS of peer
published experiments all of which are cited in my peer
published papers. Quit posting URBAN LEGENDS generated by
INCOMPETENT PSEUDOANONYMOUS USENET SCALAWAGS.
>
>
>5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for
>centuries.
>
>
[Hammond]
WRONG, the discovery makes no claims about endurance,
notwithstanding that one can hardly dismiss the EXISTENCE of
Christianity nor ignore the soecufuc PHENOMENOLOGICALCLAIMS
of it (e.g., the Cross, the Trinity, the age of Creation,
the 4-Gospel canon, eternal life, etc.) The MERE FACT that
a discovered experimentally confirmwed phenomenon would
EXPLAIN the existence of such historically and widely known
claims OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE IGNORED.
>
>
>6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
>
[Hammond]
FACETIOUS URBAN LEGEND. The discoverer has two degrees
in Physics from accredited Colleges in Massachusetts, has
been an invited speaker at international symposiums and has
published the work in TWO peer reviewed academic journals.
>
>7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
>observation.
>
[Hammond]
FAbricated FICTICIOUS CLAIM... the discovery is firmly
based on ROUTINE SCIENTIFIC LAWS such as General Relativity,
Factor Analysis in Psychometry, and the the known and proven
laws of Biology.
>
>
>
>Looks like you meet #2, #5, #6, and #7, George. Watch out for that
>tree!
>
>
[Hammond]
ALL of your seven points stand THROUGHLY REFUTED and have
clearly been shown to be either ARROGANT PRESUMPTIONS or
OUGHTRIGHT FABRICATIONS!
Jeckyl
Snip .. no sanity
Jeckyl
Snip .. no sanity
Jeckyl
Snip .. no sanity
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:55:05 -0800 (PST),
>
>
>
>
>
Wow! Do you have a website listing HCOTP? Something like Andy Chung's
perhaps? Can I have a number or something?
> My reply to it follows, below:
>
> >The Seven Signs of crank science:
>
> >1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
>
> [Hammond]
> This is because (as is well known) modern academia is
> STRONGLY ATHEISTICALLY BIASED and will NOT allow the author
> publish in mainline journals, although the author HAS
> managed to publish the discovery in TWO lesser peer reviewed
> academic journals. Because of this a strong media blitz
> WILLl and RIGHTLY SHOULD continue.
Yeah, the media is your friend. Here's my fave media outlet:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do
> >2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> >suppress his or her work.
>
> [Hammond]
> The truth of that is well documented and well known.
George, I keep telling you those black helicopters are *not* the
government. It's my and my friends.
http://evilatheistconspiracy.org/
> >3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> >detection.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG. The effect is ROBUST, STRONG, and has been
> measured experimentally to 3 significant figures in
> THOUSANDS of peer published experiments all of which are
> cited in my peer published papers.
...where your peers are your fellow nutters. Yeah, right.
> Quit posting your
> ERRONEOUS AND FABRICATED PRESUMPTIONS.
Well then, post cites from studies peer-reviewed by *real* scientists.
Not that crowd you have chasing UFOs and looking for trapdoors in the
Face on Mars.
> >4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG. The evidence is EXPERIMENTAL and has been measured
> experimentally to 3 significant figures in THOUSANDS of peer
> published experiments all of which are cited in my peer
> published papers. Quit posting URBAN LEGENDS generated by
> INCOMPETENT PSEUDOANONYMOUS USENET SCALAWAGS.
See reply to #3 above.
> >5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for
> >centuries.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG, the discovery makes no claims about endurance,
> notwithstanding that one can hardly dismiss the EXISTENCE of
> Christianity nor ignore the soecufuc PHENOMENOLOGICALCLAIMS
> of it (e.g., the Cross, the Trinity, the age of Creation,
> the 4-Gospel canon, eternal life, etc.) The MERE FACT that
> a discovered experimentally confirmwed phenomenon would
> EXPLAIN the existence of such historically and widely known
> claims OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE IGNORED.
Yeah, right. You don't care whether gods exist or not. You just went
looking for gods on a lark. The fact that humans have created them for
tens of thousands of years had *nothing* to do with it.
<rolling eyes>
> >6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
>
> [Hammond]
> FACETIOUS URBAN LEGEND. The discoverer has two degrees
> in Physics from accredited Colleges in Massachusetts, has
> been an invited speaker at international symposiums and has
> published the work in TWO peer reviewed academic journals.
Oh, yeah...Accredited College. A fine institution. Normally I'd ask
for cites, but all you would do is refer me back to your inane
website. "Signs of Crank Science #8: The discoverer quotes himself
more than any other source."
> >7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
> >observation.
>
> [Hammond]
> FAbricated FICTICIOUS CLAIM... the discovery is firmly
> based on ROUTINE SCIENTIFIC LAWS such as General Relativity,
> Factor Analysis in Psychometry, and the the known and proven
> laws of Biology.
And you've twisted together these real sciences into some sort of
existentialist train wreck. George, I could weld a car to a boat, but
chances are it wouldn't be good for driving *or* floating.
> >Looks like you meet #2, #5, #6, and #7, George. Watch out for that
> >tree!
>
> [Hammond]
> ALL of your seven points stand THROUGHLY REFUTED and have
> clearly been shown to be either ARROGANT PRESUMPTIONS or
> OUGHTRIGHT FABRICATIONS!
Poor Georgie. "DA MAN BEEN HOLDIN" ME DOWN!" You go, boy!
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
..I can pick up Radio Dublin every time George puts his tinfoil hat
on...
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:25:16 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> [poster wrote]
> >>> No self-respecting editor would publish such crap.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> [Hammond wrote]
> >> You're a proven liar:
> >
> > [Jeckyl wrote]
> >Really .. where is this proof?
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Poster said "no self-respecting editor would publish" my
> work. Here's one that did, so the poster is proven to be a
> LIAR:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
> paper is posted at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer: Eight. Twelve if the light bulb is cross-threaded.
George Hammond
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>> paper is posted at:
>> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>
>Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?
>
>
[Hammond]
Beause it is based on experimental Psychometric Data....
which is the only part of Psychology that is based on
measureable physics and rigorous Linear Algebra eigenvector
extraction.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<ib8fl3tg7jms4r5bi...@4ax.com>
> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
>lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
>REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
> paper is posted at:
>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>which is PROOF that I know what a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL IS,
>therefore you are proven to be AGAIN A LIAR.
Wrong. Define what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL is and then you will have
proven your blind faith assertion. I predict you cannot define what a peer
reviewed science journal is.
More importantly, there is another concept which you have been completely unable
to grasp and is completely missing from anything you have ever cited in support
of your theory, and that is the concept physically real experiments conducted in
a laboratory setting and reproduced by an independant third party. You do not
know this because you do not practice science but pseudoscience.
George Hammond
panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>Yeah, right. You don't care whether gods exist or not. You just went
>looking for gods on a lark. The fact that humans have created them for
>tens of thousands of years had *nothing* to do with it.
><rolling eyes>
>
>
[Hammond]
Ignorant horseshit..... I never went " looking for" a
scientific proof of God.... the discovery was a SHEER
ACCIDENT that happened while I was searching for the long
sought after Structural Model of Personality (wch. I
discovered and published in the peer reviewed literature
btw. (Hammond, 1994).
The scientific discovery of God ALSO includes not only
the TOP (singe) eigenvector caused by brain growth which is
the God of the Bible, but it also includes 4-3rd order
eigenvectors which are Matt, Mark, Luke and John, and 13-2nd
order Factors (eigenvectors) which are the "Olympian" gods
of the Egyptian-Greco-roman pantheon, plus 30-1st order
eigenvectors which are the many "demigods" of primitive
religions such as Hinduism. You're all through loudmouth.
You not only don't know what you're talking about...
there is foaming spit drooling down you shirt front.
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>Date written: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:26:03 GMT
>>MsgID:<ib8fl3tg7jms4r5bi...@4ax.com>
>
>> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
>>lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
>>REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>
>>Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>> paper is posted at:
>>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>
>>which is PROOF that I know what a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL IS,
>>therefore you are proven to be AGAIN A LIAR.
>
>Wrong. Define what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL is and then you will have
>proven your blind faith assertion. I predict you cannot define what a peer
>reviewed science journal is.
>
[Hammond]
Get out of here ---hole, it's a documentyed facr that I
have 2 degrees in Physics and have published 2 full length
papers in PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Screw.
Go back to alt.usenet.kooks where you belong, you have
nothing of relevance to say.
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:53:12 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>>> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>>> paper is posted at:
>>> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>>
>>Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?
>
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Beause it is based on experimental Psychometric Data....
> which is the only part of Psychology that is based on
> measureable physics and rigorous Linear Algebra eigenvector
> extraction.
After that it all goes down-hill into nonsense conjectures about proof that
god exists .. that's the crap the no self-respecting publisher would
publish.
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:47:09 -0700, The_Sage
> <The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Reply to article by: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
>>>Date written: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:26:03 GMT
>>>MsgID:<ib8fl3tg7jms4r5bi...@4ax.com>
>>
>>> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
>>>lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
>>>REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>>
>>>Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>>> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>>> paper is posted at:
>>>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>>
>>>which is PROOF that I know what a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL IS,
>>>therefore you are proven to be AGAIN A LIAR.
>>
>>Wrong. Define what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL is and then you will
>>have
>>proven your blind faith assertion. I predict you cannot define what a peer
>>reviewed science journal is.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Get out of here ---hole, it's a documentyed facr that I
> have 2 degrees in Physics and have published 2 full length
> papers in PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Screw.
So what .. you're still a nutcase and a lunatic who has no idea of what real
sceience is and who continues to peddle crackpot non-scientific theories ..
maybe you had some knowlege of science long ago .. but you've lost the plot
.. Have you considered psychiatric help?
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:13:03 -0800 (PST),
> panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Yeah, right. You don't care whether gods exist or not. You just went
>>looking for gods on a lark. The fact that humans have created them for
>>tens of thousands of years had *nothing* to do with it.
>><rolling eyes>
>>
>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Ignorant horseshit
That's what you post .. al lteh time Hammond
> You not only don't know what you're talking about...
Do you know the meaning of the word 'hyopcrite' .. there shoudl be a photo
of you there in every illustrated dictinoary
> there is foaming spit drooling down you shirt front.
Again .. that would be you .. its common for people who are mentally
unstable like you.
pico
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:01 -0600, "pico" <pico.pico.pico>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Einstein wasn't an experimentalist and neither am I. He
>>> never did an experiment in his life. Theorists like us USE
>>> the data of experimentalists to DISCOVER AND PROVE
>>> SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. You don't even know what Science is
>>> for chrissakes.
>>
>>Did Einstein claim his theories were PROOF? I think not.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Because Gravity is a noncontroversial non-political
> subject Einstein was allowed to publish his discovery that
> Gravity is caused by a curvature of OBJECTIVE spacetime in
> prestigeous scientific journals read by educated people. Of
> course Einstein's discovery is so obvious that it was
> accepted as "sufficiently proven" immediately.
Not true.
> The discovery that God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE
> spacetime is EQUALLY OBVIOUS and therefore equally "proven".
Doubly untrue.
George Hammond
wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:ajfel3dklohs74p7p...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:01 -0600, "pico" <pico.pico.pico>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:d2kcl39jfegra70v4...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Einstein wasn't an experimentalist and neither am I. He
>>>> never did an experiment in his life. Theorists like us USE
>>>> the data of experimentalists to DISCOVER AND PROVE
>>>> SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. You don't even know what Science is
>>>> for chrissakes.
>>>
>>>Did Einstein claim his theories were PROOF? I think not.
>>>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Because Gravity is a noncontroversial non-political
>> subject Einstein was allowed to publish his discovery that
>> Gravity is caused by a curvature of OBJECTIVE spacetime in
>> prestigeous scientific journals read by educated people. Of
>> course Einstein's discovery is so obvious that it was
>> accepted as "sufficiently proven" immediately.
>
>Not true.
>
[Hammond]
Doubly true.
>
>> The discovery that God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE
>> spacetime is EQUALLY OBVIOUS and therefore equally "proven".
>
>Doubly untrue.
>
[Hammond]
Triply true.
pico
> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
> lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
> REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
Nowhere in your paper is there a single reference to a proof of god. The
whole paper has NO intention of a proof of any kind. It was a paper of
theory (in the most questionable journal Pergamon had at the time.)
The very last paragraph of your paper has only this slim assertion, and it
is outside of the article, not peer reviewed.
" In addition the author has researched the notion
that the Four Gospel Canon of the Bible is in fact the
theological identification of the Structural Model. Indeed, the Cross of
Christianity itself is quite likely the symbolic representation of the
Cartesian structure of the mind (Hammond, 1988, 1989). The effects of this
discovery on science, religion and government can be expected to be far
reaching. "
"In addition the author has researched" means nothing. Neither does
'notion'. Citing yourself without a proper biblio is of no value.
Besides, it's a 'notion', an impressionistic and unsupported bit of magical
thinking. Show us compelling evidence of this "identification of .... the
christian cross.. through symbolic represenation"
pico
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:47587D58...@hovnanian.com...
> Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?(sic)
It's a journal that accepts broad-field work that relates to psychology.
Specifically it was in the journal entitled,
"New Ideas in Psychology"
"An International Journal of Innovative Theory in Psychology"
Note the journal's statement of purpose:
"New Ideas in Psychology is a journal for theoretical psychology in its
broadest sense. We are looking for new and seminal ideas, from within
Psychology and from other fields that have something to bring to Psychology.
We welcome presentations and criticisms of theory, of background
metaphysics, and of fundamental issues of method, both empirical and
conceptual. We put special emphasis on the need for informed discussion of
psychological theories to be interdisciplinary. Empirical papers are
accepted at New Ideas in Psychology, but only as long as they focus on
conceptual issues and are theoretically creative. We are also open to
comments or debate, interviews, and book reviews."
NOTE especially "Empirical papers are accepted at New Ideas in Psychology,
but only as long as they focus on conceptual issues and are theoretically
creative."
That's about theory, not proof. Theory not empiricism. And sometimes not
even theory, but conceptualisms.
NO PROOF HERE
Keep moving, folks.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:13:03 -0800 (PST),
>
>
> >Yeah, right. You don't care whether gods exist or not. You just went
> >looking for gods on a lark. The fact that humans have created them for
> >tens of thousands of years had *nothing* to do with it.
> ><rolling eyes>
>
> [Hammond]
> Ignorant horseshit..... I never went " looking for" a
> scientific proof of God.... the discovery was a SHEER
> ACCIDENT that happened while I was searching for the long
> sought after Structural Model of Personality (wch. I
> discovered and published in the peer reviewed literature
> btw. (Hammond, 1994).
So basically, you had difficulties solving the problem you *were*
trying to solve, so you bundled up your ignorance in one tidy little
package and said, "..it must be GOD!". Yeah, I see a lot of people do
that.
> The scientific discovery of God ALSO includes not only
> the TOP (singe) eigenvector caused by brain growth which is
> the God of the Bible, but it also includes 4-3rd order
> eigenvectors which are Matt, Mark, Luke and John, and 13-2nd
> order Factors (eigenvectors) which are the "Olympian" gods
> of the Egyptian-Greco-roman pantheon, plus 30-1st order
> eigenvectors which are the many "demigods" of primitive
> religions such as Hinduism. You're all through loudmouth.
> You not only don't know what you're talking about...
> there is foaming spit drooling down you shirt front.
<auk restored>
Signs of Crank Science #9: The discoverer lashes out at those who
would question his results.
Well done, George. You've discovered 40-odd gods. Now if you will
simply provide evidence for the others. Plese show your work, so we'll
know you didn't cheat off someone else's paper...
Agdistis or Angdistis
Ah Puch
Ahura Mazda
Alberich
Amaterasu
An
Anat
Andvari
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
- B -
Baal
Ba Xian
Bacchus
Balder
Bast
Bellona
Bergelmir
Bes
Bixia Yuanjin
Bragi
Brahma
Brigit
- C -
Camaxtli
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Charun
Cheng-huang
Cybele
- D -
Dagon
Damkina (Dumkina)
Davlin
Dawn
Demeter
Diana
Di Cang
Dionysus
- E -
Ea
El
Enki
Enlil
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal
- F -
Farbauti
Fenrir
Forseti
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
- G -
Gaia
Ganesha
Ganga
Garuda
Gauri
Geb
Geong Si
- H -
Hades
Hanuman
Helios
Heng-o (Chang-o)
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hestia
Hod
Hoderi
Hoori
Horus
Hotei
Huitzilopochtli
Hsi-Wang-Mu
Hygeia
- I -
Inanna
Inti
Ishtar
Isis
Ixtab
Izanaki
Izanami
- J -
Jesus
Juno
Jupiter
Juturna
- K -
Kagutsuchi
Kartikeya
Khepri
Ki
Kingu
Kinich Ahau
Kishar
Krishna
Kukulcan
- L -
Lakshmi
Liza
Loki
Lugh
Luna
- M -
Magna Mater
Maia
Marduk
Mars
Medb
Mercury
Mimir
Minerva
Mithras
Morrigan
Mot
Mummu
- N -
Nammu
Nanna
Nanna (Norse)
Nanse
Neith
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Nintu
Ninurta
Njord
Nut
- O -
Odin
Ohkuninushi
Ohyamatsumi
Orgelmir
Osiris
Ostara
- P -
Pan
Parvati
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus Apollo
Pilumnus
Poseidon
- Q -
Quetzalcoatl
- R -
Rama
Re
Rhea
- S -
Sabazius
Sarasvati
Selene
Shiva
Seshat
Seti (Set)
Shamash
Shapsu
Shen Yi
Shiva
Shu
Si-Wang-Mu
Sin
Sirona
Sol
Surya
Susanoh
- T -
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
Thor
Tiamat
Tlaloc
Tonatiuh
Toyo-Uke-Bime
Tyche
Tyr
- U -
Utu
Uzume
- V -
Venus
Vesta
Vishnu
Volturnus
Vulcan
- X -
Xipe
Xi Wang-mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
- Y -
Yam
Yarikh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yum Kimil
- Z -
Zeus
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
George Hammond
wrote:
[Hammond]
Sorry overprivileged acadmic lackey..... the "folks" are
NOT moving on. They smell the blood of elite atheistic
academia in the water and that's good news-- what they're
beginning to suspect is that one of "theirs" has DISCOVERED
the world's first scientific proof of God and it's a
HISTORIC EMBARRESSMENT TO ATHISTIC ACADEMIA that a middle
class nobody living in a homeless shelter oppressed by all
of them HAS FOUND IT! And believe me are they going to rub
academe's nose in it!
You said:
>That's about theory, not proof. Theory not empiricism. And sometimes not
>even theory, but conceptualisms.
YOU'RE A LIAR.... a copy of the published paper itsefl is
posted (FULLY ILLUSTRATED) at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
as anyone can PLAINLY SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES the paper is
TOTALLY EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN with THOUSANDS of peer
published EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS to substantiate it.
YOU'RE AN ACADEMIC LACKEY BROWN NOSER AND A LIAR....!!!!!
George Hammond
panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Dec 6, 10:52 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:13:03 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, right. You don't care whether gods exist or not. You just went
>> >looking for gods on a lark. The fact that humans have created them for
>> >tens of thousands of years had *nothing* to do with it.
>> ><rolling eyes>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Ignorant horseshit..... I never went " looking for" a
>> scientific proof of God.... the discovery was a SHEER
>> ACCIDENT that happened while I was searching for the long
>> sought after Structural Model of Personality (wch. I
>> discovered and published in the peer reviewed literature
>> btw. (Hammond, 1994).
>
>So basically, you had difficulties solving the problem you *were*
>trying to solve, so you bundled up your ignorance in one tidy little
>package and said, "..it must be GOD!". Yeah, I see a lot of people do
>that.
>
[Hammond]
Academic atheistic lackey liar.... OBVIOUSLY:
1. I was supremely successful in discovering the Structural
Model l (peer published Hammond 1994) which as Prof.
Lewis Goldber remarked "is worth a Nobel Prize in
itslef.
AND IN THE PROCESS I A-L-S-O
2. Discovered the world's first scientific proof of God
which I peer published, Hammond 2003
QUIT LYING YOU ACADEMIC BOOT LICKING BROWN NOSING WIMP
>> The scientific discovery of God ALSO includes not only
>> the TOP (single) eigenvector caused by brain growth which is
>> the God of the Bible, but it also includes 4-3rd order
>> eigenvectors which are Matt, Mark, Luke and John, and 13-2nd
>> order Factors (eigenvectors) which are the "Olympian" gods
>> of the Egyptian-Greco-roman pantheon, plus 30-1st order
>> eigenvectors which are the many "demigods" of primitive
>> religions such as Hinduism. You're all through loudmouth.
>> You not only don't know what you're talking about...
>> there is foaming spit drooling down you shirt front.
>
========================================
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:ib8fl3tg7jms4r5bi...@4ax.com...
>
>> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
>> lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
>> REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>>
>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>> Pergamon Press.
>
>Nowhere in your paper is there a single reference to a proof of god.
>
>
[Hammond]
Giddyup cowboy, you're reading the wrong paper... the
Scientific Proof of God is in the SECOND PAPER:
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
The FIRST paper is my DISCOVERY OF THE STURUCTURAL MODEL
which was the event that LED UP TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD.... which is in the second paper.
Hammond has published TWO papers in the peer reviewed
literatiure and the SECOND one cites the FIRST one as
emiprical (experimental) evidence.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:53:12 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >George Hammond wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> >> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> >> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
> >> paper is posted at:
> >> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
> >
> >Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?
>
> >
> >
> [Hammond]
> Beause it is based on experimental Psychometric Data....
> which is the only part of Psychology that is based on
> measureable physics and rigorous Linear Algebra eigenvector
> extraction.
That may be, but psychology and psychometrics involve study of the mind,
behavior and perception. So it would seem that this would be the place
to publish a study of God as a mental construct (i.e. a figment of one's
imagination).
The fact that psychometrics uses linear algebra doesn't make it a study
of physics, just as running rats theough a maze doesn't constitute a
study of topology.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my vow of silence.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:58:04 GMT, George Hammond
>
> <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> Good morning Physics Dummies-
> This is a public service announcement
> from George Hammond (MS Physics '67)
> reminding you that:
>
> 1. The world's first rigorous scientific
> explanation of GOD has been
> discovered and published.
> 2. You are cautioned that any further
> argument that the God of the Bible
> does not "exist" has now been rigorously
> scientifically proven to be wrong.
> 3. Physicists are advised to proceed
> with caution regarding Religion.
>
> = FYI =
>
> In 1915 Einstein discovered that Gravity is
> a curvature of...... "objective" spacetime.
>
> In 1997 Hammond discovered that "GOD" is
> a curvature of...... "subjective" spacetime.
>
> Objective spacetime is what- Physics sees.
> Subjective spacetime is what- People see.
>
> The former is called "spacetime",
> The latter is called "reality".
>
> In fact Hammond, 2003, has discovered, proven
> and published in the peer reviewed literature the
> now famous result that:
>
> God = G_uv
>
> QED:....... GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
>
> ========================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> ========================================
I'd be delighted to formally debate that with you right here in
alt.atheism. Are you up for it or not?
Budikka
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:53:42 -0800 (PST),
>
>
>
>
>
> panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Dec 6, 10:52 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:13:03 -0800 (PST),
>
> >> panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >Yeah, right. You don't care whether gods exist or not. You just went
> >> >looking for gods on a lark. The fact that humans have created them for
> >> >tens of thousands of years had *nothing* to do with it.
> >> ><rolling eyes>
>
> >> [Hammond]
> >> Ignorant horseshit..... I never went " looking for" a
> >> scientific proof of God.... the discovery was a SHEER
> >> ACCIDENT that happened while I was searching for the long
> >> sought after Structural Model of Personality (wch. I
> >> discovered and published in the peer reviewed literature
> >> btw. (Hammond, 1994).
>
> >So basically, you had difficulties solving the problem you *were*
> >trying to solve, so you bundled up your ignorance in one tidy little
> >package and said, "..it must be GOD!". Yeah, I see a lot of people do
> >that.
>
> [Hammond]
> Academic atheistic lackey liar.... OBVIOUSLY:
snip
ROFLMAO! "Oh, how the king resembles the lowly piss boy!"
> QUIT LYING YOU ACADEMIC BOOT LICKING BROWN NOSING WIMP
Well, George...you may be an outstanding "scientist", but you're
definitely no judge of credential.
I'm a *layman*, you nutter. I work in television, for cryin' out loud!
I never even *finished* an undergrad program, much less ever attempted
post-graduate work. Hear me George? I never even finished university!
The closest I ever came to working in science was dating a woman that
worked at the Centers for Disease Control! You consider *me* an
academic? THANK YOU! Do you send the sheepskin with that, or do I just
go find one on ebay or something?
Feel free to now say that I'm not educated enough to *understand* your
work. Ignore for the moment you've been run `round like Pavlov's dog
by a mere failed undergrad. Shout to the walls that your breathtaking
discovery is far tooooo advanced for the likes of me.
Keep `em coming, George. You a funny man.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
George Hammond
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:53:12 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>> >George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>> >> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>> >> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>> >> paper is posted at:
>> >> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>> >
>> >Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> [Hammond]
>> Beause it is based on experimental Psychometric Data....
>> which is the only part of Psychology that is based on
>> measureable physics and rigorous Linear Algebra eigenvector
>> extraction.
>
[SNIP... INCOMPETENT POSTER.. NO RELEVANT CONTENT]
George Hammond
>I'm a *layman*, you nutter. I work in television, for cryin' out loud!
>I never even *finished* an undergrad program, much less ever attempted
>post-graduate work.
[SNIP.... INCOMPETENT POSTER... NO RELEVANT CONTENT]
Don Stockbauer
George Hammond
>I'd be delighted to formally debate that with you right here in
>alt.atheism. Are you up for it or not?
>
>Budikka
>
>
[Hammond]
Sure Bud, if you're anywhere near half qualified to
discuss the discovery that:
GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
I'd be delighted to debate you on alt.atheism.
But it is only fair that you give me some sketch of your
educational/vocational background first. After all you are
not using your real name and you do not have a website... so
you'll have to introduce yourself before I'm going to waste
any time in a public debate with you.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<0vghl3hnm3ndsn1no...@4ax.com>
>>> You've been already proven to be a LIAR once, now you are
>>>lying again since I have published my work in a PEER
>>>REVIEWED JOURNAL:
>>>Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>>> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
>>> paper is posted at:
>>>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>>>which is PROOF that I know what a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL IS,
>>>therefore you are proven to be AGAIN A LIAR.
>>Wrong. Define what a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL is and then you will have
>>proven your blind faith assertion. I predict you cannot define what a peer
>>reviewed science journal is.
> Get out of here ---hole, it's a documentyed facr that I
>have 2 degrees in Physics and have published 2 full length
>papers in PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Screw.
Grocery store tabloids do not count as peer reviwed SCIENTIFIC journals, but
thank you for fulfulling my prediction anyway. It was made to prove you are
dodging and evading the issue because you have no clue what a peer reviwed
science journal is. You might (or might not) know anything about physics, but
you certainly do not know what a physically real experiment conducted in
a laboratory setting and reproduced by an independant third party is. Maybe you
need a third degree before you will figure out what that is?
> Go back to alt.usenet.kooks where you belong, you have
>nothing of relevance to say.
As long as you are here, I am in alt.usenet.kooks
Looking forward to the (far distant) day you get your third degree and finally
learn what the scientific method is all about.
George Hammond
<The_...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>
[SNIP.... NO RELEVANT ON TOPIC CONTENT]
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:57:45 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:53:12 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> >> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> >> >> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> >> >> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
> >> >> paper is posted at:
> >> >> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
> >> >
> >> >Why is your paper published by a journal on psycology?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> [Hammond]
> >> Beause it is based on experimental Psychometric Data....
> >> which is the only part of Psychology that is based on
> >> measureable physics and rigorous Linear Algebra eigenvector
> >> extraction.
> >
> > behavior and perception. So it would seem that this would be the place
> > to publish a study of God as a mental construct (i.e. a figment of one's
> > imagination).
> >
> > The fact that psychometrics uses linear algebra doesn't make it a study
> > of physics, just as running rats theough a maze doesn't constitute a
> > study of topology.
> >
> >
So, you're conceding to my argument then?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
My inner child can beat up your inner child.
-- Alex Greenbank
George Hammond
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
.
.
[SNIP... INCOMPETENT POSTER.. NO CONTENT]
.
Roger Pearse
> So basically, you had difficulties solving the problem you *were*
> trying to solve, so you bundled up your ignorance in one tidy little
> package and said, "..it must be GOD!". Yeah, I see a lot of people do
> that.
Boy am I glad that I'm not an atheist! It takes an awful lot of
stupidity to repeat stale old anti-Christian slogans like that as if
they were true.
> Signs of Crank Science #9: The discoverer lashes out at those who
> would question his results.
Pot. Kettle.
> Well done, George. You've discovered 40-odd gods. Now if you will
> simply provide evidence for the others. Plese show your work, so we'll
> know you didn't cheat off someone else's paper...
>
> Agdistis or Angdistis
> Ah Puch
> Ahura Mazda
> Alberich
> Amaterasu
> An
> Anat...
(snip)
Another paste of someone else's sneer. Another argument by
insinuation rather than open statement.
And isn't it funny that atheists *never* include their own religious
position -- conformity to societal values -- in the long list of other
peoples' beliefs!
You have to be really stupid to imagine your way of life can be
defended by this sort of thing.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Congratulations Roger.... it is an old Usenet maxim that
anyone using their real name should be taken seriously
while pseudo-anynomous posters should be ignored.
In general, what is your reaction to the fact that the
world's first bona fide scientific proof of God has been
discovered?
Kenneth Doyle
Look George, it's your problem that yet another of your ridiculous
theories has been rejected by the mainstream journals. Why do you feel
that you have to punish us for the scientific establishment's good
judgement?
Roger Pearse
It is too often true.
> In general, what is your reaction to the fact that the
> world's first bona fide scientific proof of God has been
> discovered?
I've no idea about this, but I'm not very credulous. It's not
possible to prove that I exist scientifically -- it might be shown
beyond reasonable doubt by the methods of historical research -- and I
doubt it's any different for God. It sounds like a category
mistake.
Roger Pearse
> Is God a curvature of the spine?
There's a fire in the antelope house.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about dork. Get off
this thread.
George Hammond
>I've no idea about this, .....
>
[Hammond]
Then get off this thread moron.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On 7 Dec, 18:53, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > So basically, you had difficulties solving the problem you *were*
> > trying to solve, so you bundled up your ignorance in one tidy little
> > package and said, "..it must be GOD!". Yeah, I see a lot of people do
> > that.
>
> Boy am I glad that I'm not an atheist! It takes an awful lot of
> stupidity to repeat stale old anti-Christian slogans like that as if
> they were true.
Oh, look! "Johnny One Note" has come out to play! How's the book
sales, Roger?
> > Signs of Crank Science #9: The discoverer lashes out at those who
> > would question his results.
>
> Pot. Kettle.
Once again, you demonstrate your wonderful ability to read volumes of
material without understanding the content. Ridiculing George's sad
excuse for science is not "lashing out". Or do you consider the
ridicule of the Flat Earth Society "lashing out" as well?
> > Well done, George. You've discovered 40-odd gods. Now if you will
> > simply provide evidence for the others. Plese show your work, so we'll
> > know you didn't cheat off someone else's paper...
>
> > Agdistis or Angdistis
> > Ah Puch
> > Ahura Mazda
> > Alberich
> > Amaterasu
> > An
> > Anat...
>
> (snip)
>
> Another paste of someone else's sneer. Another argument by
> insinuation rather than open statement.
You wish an open statement? OK, here it is. Since the world functions
exactly as it would if no gods existed, it is not important whether or
not one does. OTOH, the bizarre behavior exhibited by humans who
believe in gods is a danger to the growth and health of modern human
society. Religion is not a benign vestigial artifact of our evolution-
it is a *burst* appendix. A clear and present danger to our health and
survival.
> And isn't it funny that atheists *never* include their own religious
> position -- conformity to societal values -- in the long list of other
> peoples' beliefs!
Poor Roger. All this time, and still hasn't learned what atheism is.
How can I include a "religious position" when I do not hold one? Why
would I comment about ink or paper quality when I don't collect
stamps?
> You have to be really stupid to imagine your way of life can be
> defended by this sort of thing.
Unlike your willful ignorance of what atheism actually is, I suppose.
After all, your strawmen are *so* much easier to deconstruct than the
*real* issues.
> All the best,
10th anniversary doubting you really mean that...
> Roger Pearse
The well-known Usenet liar, coward, cad, bully and thief.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html