GOD=G_uv FOR THE TALKING CLASS
George Hammond
about the subject of "reality".
The scientific proof of God (SPOG) therefore uses a very
"practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
The SPOG is only concerned with "Common Human Reality",
which is defined as:
--------------------------------------------------------
Definition of "Common Human Reality"
Common Human reality is defined as the reality which,
on average, a perfect, fully grown, normal human being
perceives.
This perception includes, seeing, hearing, touching,
smelling, tasting, (the 5 senses) PLUS all "knowledge
of reality" that is capable of being humanly detected,
known, deduced, derived, discovered, learned, predicted,
inferred, reported, etc. etc. No one knows all this.. the
point is, we are "humanly capable" of knowing it.
Notice that we do NOT need to discuss what reality
"actually is" ... reality is simply DEFINED as what the
average, normal fully grown person "CAN ACTUALLY
PERCEIVE"!
-------------------------------------------------------
OK... the SPOG is concerned with the fact that said
"Common Human Reality" as just defined, is subject to
a MAJOR, UNIVERSAL AND SYSTEMATIC
DEFICIENCY:
Namely..... the phenomena of HUMAN GROWTH
radically affects this "Common Human Reality".
Here we are referring to ordinary childhood growth
which takes place between the ages of 0 and 18 years
of age.
There is no doubt for instance, that a 7 year old sees a
LARGER and FASTER reality than a full grown adult.
This difference can actually be measured and proved.
The "picture fusion frequency test", PFF, (movie frame rate
test) is an easy way to measure the difference in the
SPEED OF REALITY as seen by a 7 yr old and an adult.
The difference in the SIZE OF REALITY needs no
special test... obviously a 4 foot tall 7 year old ssees a
world that looks 1/3 LARGER than it does to a 6 foot
adult. Fact is the PFF of a 7 yr old is 10 frames/sec
while for an adult it is 15 frames/sec, proving likewise
that the world looks 1/3 FASTER to a 7 yr old than it
does to an adult. Fact is, this 1/3 increase in
size and speed makes 1/3 of "Common Human Reality"
actually INVISIBLE to the 7 year old... while of course
it IS VISIBLE to the average adult.
This 1/3 increase in the size and speed of "reality" then,
is simply due to the fact that a 7 year old is approximately
1/3 short of full growth. So what we have is the PROVEN FACT
that incomplete growth causes an INVISIBLE WORLD...
or INVISIBLE REALITY to surround anyone who is
not fully grown.
Needless to say, parents of children are well aware of
all this.. which makes guarding and protecting children from
accidents and injury a nearly full time job.
THIS FACT THEN........ is the "scientific" explanation of
the "invisible world" (spiritual world) of Religion.... because,
obviously, only a fully grown human being can actually
see "true reality"......... and this (mythical) fully grown
human being is called..... GOD.
Now, why do I say "mythical fully grown human being"?
Well... there is ANOTHER fact of human growth that
enters into the phenomena.... and that is called the
SECULAR TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH!
It turns out that modern science has discovered that there
IS NO SUCH THING as a "fully grown human being".
In fact, on average, the modern adult human being is
actually only about 80% fully grown.
This was discovered about 100 years ago, when it was
first noticed that people are growing larger with every
passing generation, and that this is NOT due to genetics,
but in fact is due to the constantly increasing world
standard of living, mainly nutrition. Modern soldiers for
instance cannot fit into a medieval suit of armor because
they are so much bigger than men of the medieval age.
OK.... so getting back to the "invisible world" caused by
this less than complete growth....... this means that 20%
of "true reality" is actually INVISIBLE to the average
adult person in the world today!
THIS THEN, is the scientific explanation of the phenomena
of "GOD". God is simply the "invisible man" who would be
able to SEE this "invisible world", the invisible man who
would see "true reality". In point of fact... this "invisble man"
is actually called by modern science the "unconscious mind"
which is simply the 20% of our mind (brain) which is not
fully grown... and therefore acts "subconsciously".
This is why we say "God lives in the invisible world"... or
"God lives in Heaven".. which is another name for this invisible
world.
This then, is the first proven, measureable, rational scientific
explanation of God ever published in the history of the world!
END OF STORY
OK sportsfans.... there is the simple explanation of "GOD"
that you have spent your entire life wondering about, in
a nutshell!
If you want to know more, and want to read about the actual
PROOF of all this, and the more sophisticated mathematical
physicis explanation of it (God=G_uv), you can simply go
to my website (URL below) and read all about it. Included there
are copies of my 2003 publication of this discovery in the
official PEER REVIEWED scientific journal literature.
Good luck,
G. Hammond
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to COSAc...@hotmail.com
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
George Hammond
ZenIsWhen
news:Dykge.808$bm5...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> about the subject of "reality".
and here we have the CEO himself to prove the point.
>
> The scientific proof of God (SPOG) therefore uses a very
> "practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
> most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
Proof?
Evidence?
I'm not saying your wrong, horse breath, just that YOU do not invent the
ultimate definition of ANYTHING!
>
> The SPOG is only concerned with "Common Human Reality",
> which is defined as:
Your cap is totally removed from reality - that's why YOU are the only one
bellowing it!
(Snip George's usual pile of deranged, delusional and psychotic crap) to a
news group he SWORE he would never return to when he got his own!!!!!
Baugh
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Definition of "Common Human Reality"
>
> Common Human reality is defined as the reality which,
> on average, a perfect, fully grown, normal human being
> perceives.
Does that mean those who disagree with you are exceptionally
imperfect imature abnormal humans?
> This perception includes, seeing, hearing, touching,
> smelling, tasting, (the 5 senses) PLUS all "knowledge
> of reality" that is capable of being humanly detected,
> known, deduced, derived, discovered, learned, predicted,
> inferred, reported, etc. etc. No one knows all this.. the
> point is, we are "humanly capable" of knowing it.
> Notice that we do NOT need to discuss what reality
> "actually is" ... reality is simply DEFINED as what the
> average, normal fully grown person "CAN ACTUALLY
> PERCEIVE"!
> -------------------------------------------------------
There is a problem in your definition. If you include only physical
sensations then you're going pretty well, that is not "reality".
But you include:
'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
'deduced' which depends on one's axioms,
'derived' which equates to deduced,
'discovered' which is ambiguous (discovered via deduction, perception, ...?)
'learned' which doesn't qualify the quality of what is learned,
'predicted' I predict anything. Prediction is simply a statement of
one's opinion. Like 'learned' above you fail to qualify value of what
is predicted, said value which must be determined by some means.
'inferred' see 'deduced' (not that they are the same but the same
qualification applies)
'reported' You're making Dan Rather God, ... oops, who replaced Dan?
I appreciate what you are trying to do. But look at your long
unfinished list and ask what happens when one contradicts the other.
If you 'know' and so 'predict' something will happen and then when tried
your senses see something else happen which gets the bigger vote?
If I deduce an earthquake will occur at x and t and you are there and
then and see that no earthquake happen's who is correct.
In the end when two of your invocations disagree which is given ultimate
veto power? That then and only that is the ultimate arbitrator and you
can cut out the rest.
If Pons and Fleshman 'report' they have acheived cold fusion in an
electolytic cell and ....
Work it out and see where you end up.
But be careful making definitions motivated to support your conclusions.
If you are not careful you can redefine yourself out of "common
language" and you'll forever be arguing with people who may even agree
with you because the words you use are not the words they hear.
I say this because I have caught myself at it too many times.
Regards,
James Baugh
Uncle Al
>
> Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> about the subject of "reality".
Said vomitorium is called "religion." Tommy Aquinas was remarkable in
his abilities to compress the smallest thoughts into the most words.
Hammond's ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
to the world at large. Quite the contrary. Hammond is not even an
interesting laughingstock.
> The SPOG is only concerned with
[snip]
SPLOOGE. Silly Prattle Lording Over Ontological Gassy Eructations
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Hammond lecture.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
George Hammond
"Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
message news:xRqge.5980$fY4....@fe07.lga...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Definition of "Common Human Reality"
> >
> > Common Human reality is defined as the reality which,
> > on average, a perfect, fully grown, normal human being
> > perceives.
>
> Does that mean those who disagree with you are exceptionally
> imperfect imature abnormal humans?
[Hammond]
YES... generally it means they have either LARGE "growth deficits"
(or large repression of growth, which is the same thing) and therefore
can see LESS of reality than I can.
Same is true of all "authorities"... they are "authorities" because
be can see MORE of reality than others can.
This is called the "God game" which everyone is playing whether
they know it or not. It's the world's oldest occupation.
>
> > This perception includes, seeing, hearing, touching,
> > smelling, tasting, (the 5 senses) PLUS all "knowledge
> > of reality" that is capable of being humanly detected,
> > known, deduced, derived, discovered, learned, predicted,
> > inferred, reported, etc. etc. No one knows all this.. the
> > point is, we are "humanly capable" of knowing it.
> > Notice that we do NOT need to discuss what reality
> > "actually is" ... reality is simply DEFINED as what the
> > average, normal fully grown person "CAN ACTUALLY
> > PERCEIVE"!
> > -------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is a problem in your definition. If you include only physical
> sensations then you're going pretty well, that is not "reality".
[Hammond]
"Common human reality" DE FACTO IS nothing more than
the internal image of external reality created by our sensory
apparatus and brain.
The possession of this "sensory image" of "external reality"
is what makes us "conscious" so called.... i.e. "conscious of
external reality".
This is why anything with a brain and sensory system is
"conscious"... while say for instance a rock or a glass of water
is NOT conscious.
>
> But you include:
> 'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
> 'deduced' which depends on one's axioms,
> 'derived' which equates to deduced,
> 'discovered' which is ambiguous (discovered via deduction, perception,
...?)
> 'learned' which doesn't qualify the quality of what is learned,
> 'predicted' I predict anything. Prediction is simply a statement of
> one's opinion. Like 'learned' above you fail to qualify value of what
> is predicted, said value which must be determined by some means.
> 'inferred' see 'deduced' (not that they are the same but the same
> qualification applies)
[Hammond]
Oh for cripes sake:
"Common human reality" = immediate sensory input + "knowledge"
[Hammond]
All people with the smallest growth deficits ARE traditionally
called "gods", "lords" (in England).... "royalty" in Europe,
more generally these include Popes, Presidents, Kings,
5 Star generals, CEO's, elected officials, movie stars, sports heros,
champion prize fighters... blah, blah, blah....
They have SMALLER growth deficits than average people, which
is why they are elected to leadership positions.
Yawn....
> I appreciate what you are trying to do.
[Hammond]
Don't do me any favors.
<snip>
> But be careful making definitions motivated to support your conclusions.
[Hammond]
I NEVER make up definitions. My definition of
"Common Human Reality" is common knowledge and
100,000 years old. What the Christ is wrong with you?
> Regards,
> James Baugh
[Hammond]
Thanks for your (mostly) on topic post.
However, like most people of little education,
little experience, and little ability, you are too highly
"pseudo opinionated" (e.g. sham aggravated) to be
of much practical interest.
You are of course a scintillating genius in comparison
to most of the gutter snipes posting harassment to this
thread.
George Hammond
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
message news:42823D9A...@hate.spam.net...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> > about the subject of "reality".
> Said vomitorium is called "religion."
[Hammond]
Agreed. And until Science explains Religion the
situation will remain unchanged.
> Tommy Aquinas was remarkable in
> his abilities to compress the smallest thoughts into the most words.
[Hammond]
He's not alone. Isaac Newton left 4 million written words on the
subject of Religion... and I'm pretty sure Newton didn't actually
realize what God is until after the age of 60... if ever.
> Hammond's ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
> to the world at large.
[Hammond]
Yes... I am TOTALLY INSANE (paranoid schizophrenic). I am
delusional, hallucinate, hear voices, drool, shit my pants... my hands
shake so bad I have to piss in the bathtub and I'm scared of the
dark. I chain smoke 3 pkgs. of Camel ciggarettes a day and cough
so bad I can barely talk. I am constantly asked to leave restaurants
because I smell bad and offend the other patrons (some kind of
fungii is growing under my armpits). My grammar is so full of 4
letter words most people assume I have Tourette's Syndrome.
I look worse than the marines who survived the Bataan Death March.
Naturally, because of these disabilities I get SSI, supported
housing, Food Stamps, Fuel Assistance, 27/7 security staffing
and free medical insurance. This allows me to work 20 hours per
day on the scientific proof of God, and has allowed me to publish
it in two peer reviewed scientific journals... and it will ultimately
save billions of human lives by advancing civilization and
society. Thank Christ at least one graduate physicist had the
time and the bravery to scientifically investigate human mental
function.. and thus discover the world's first scientific proof
of God!
> Quite the contrary. Hammond is not even an
> interesting laughingstock.
[Hammond]
Neither was the Sundance Kid.
Don H
Invisible World, and knows God... His Revelations to the world of mundane
humans (you and me) must be received with awe.
But seriously -
Infants are certainly immature humans; their view of the world is governed
by a higher metabolism than adults, which is why a day seems a long time to
a child. The elderly experience the opposite; time moves all too quickly.
Time itself, objectively, goes at the same pace.
Nature decrees that every species of plant and animal has a life span,
from hatching to death, but all reach a mature stage. Only George insists
"there is no such thing as a fully grown human being".
True, past humans may not have reached their full potential due to lack of
nutrition, and it is possible (like the dinosaurs) for humans to keep
increasing in size, physically and, perhaps, mentally. But this doesn't
imply any automatic or inevitable extrapolation from present into the
future.
There is no evidence of a current "brain deficit", or of an "invisible
world". Some people might use their potential brain capacity more than do
others, but even that has its present limit.
The authorities in Science have the empirical world of sense-perception to
back up their claims - the "authorities" of Religion don't have this (except
for dubious miracles, revelation, prophesy, incarnations, etc); hence, the
claim of atheists that religion is a fallacy only continuing to exist
because of childhood indoctrination.
Take the Star Wars movies; these have at their core the concept of "the
Force", but this fiction is quite possible in films due to "special
effects". In real life, no such force exists.
"Spiritual" worlds have yet to be proven; the very word "spirit" relates
to "breath", and when we "ex-pire", we breathe our last. This not to say
some entity, the "soul" leaves the body. Metabolism ceases; the "chemical
formula" which was a human being, no longer functions as such. When the
body is dead, the brain is also dead; that's it.
=====================================
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Dykge.808$bm5...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> about the subject of "reality".
>
> The scientific proof of God (SPOG) therefore uses a very
> "practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
> most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
>
TMG
<snip>
> [Hammond]
> Yes... I am TOTALLY INSANE (paranoid schizophrenic). I am
> delusional, hallucinate, hear voices, drool, shit my pants... my hands
> shake so bad I have to piss in the bathtub and I'm scared of the
> dark. I chain smoke 3 pkgs. of Camel ciggarettes a day and cough
> so bad I can barely talk. I am constantly asked to leave restaurants
> because I smell bad and offend the other patrons (some kind of
> fungii is growing under my armpits). My grammar is so full of 4
> letter words most people assume I have Tourette's Syndrome.
> I look worse than the marines who survived the Bataan Death March.
> Naturally, because of these disabilities I get SSI, supported
> housing, Food Stamps, Fuel Assistance, 27/7 security staffing
> and free medical insurance.
<snip>
And it's the things that *we* say about you that are keeping you from
being taken as a reliable source of anything?
Baugh
But there is more to perception than just sensation. One's mental
attitude, prior prejudices, etc can "color" perception. My point being
this: the "sensory image" is not in one to one correspondence with
"external reality". It by no means can be identified with it.
Rather I think of it as similar to the "weather models" used by
meterologists. They run close enough to interpolate "pretty well"
what goes on between meterological stations and then to extrapolate
what will happen with lessening accuracy as one projects into the
future. But biases, invalid theoretical assumptions and lack of
'sensory' resolution can lead to an inaccurate "model state".
But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
of the "sensory image".
>
>>But you include:
>>'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
>>'deduced' which depends on one's axioms,
>>'derived' which equates to deduced,
>>'discovered' which is ambiguous (discovered via deduction, perception,
>
> ...?)
>
>>'learned' which doesn't qualify the quality of what is learned,
>>'predicted' I predict anything. Prediction is simply a statement of
>>one's opinion. Like 'learned' above you fail to qualify value of what
>>is predicted, said value which must be determined by some means.
>>'inferred' see 'deduced' (not that they are the same but the same
>>qualification applies)
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Oh for cripes sake:
>
> "Common human reality" = immediate sensory input + "knowledge"
I don't know cripe so I'll not do anything for his sake...
but repeating your definition doesn't address my points.
What a person "knows" is based on his choice of epistimology.
If you smoke some questionable substance and begin seeing little green
men your epistimological dicipline will (I hope) acknowledge this
as a perceptual hallucination. Others may choose a different
world model and epistimological dicipline in which there "really are"
little green men and the questionable substance is a means of making
them perceivable.
What you know given your experiences is not fixed or absolute.
Consider the fellow who "knows" the Apollo landings where a hoax.
Normal or not, his knowledge is painted by his screwy epistimology.
>[Baugh]
>>I appreciate what you are trying to do.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Don't do me any favors.
It wasn't ment as a favor, merely a statement of my position.
>>But be careful making definitions motivated to support your conclusions.
>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I NEVER make up definitions. My definition of
> "Common Human Reality" is common knowledge and
> 100,000 years old. What the Christ is wrong with you?
I said "make" not "make up". But you stated a definition without citing
a reference so I must assume it is one you constructed. Your dating of
the originan source here is suspicious. I am not aware of any
historical records having been discovered which are that old.
As to what is wrong with me, by your own criterion I am:
an exceptionally imperfect imature abnormal human, in that
I have failed to agree with you.
> [Hammond]
> Thanks for your (mostly) on topic post.
Your welcome,
> However, like most people of little education,
> little experience, and little ability, you are too highly
> "pseudo opinionated" (e.g. sham aggravated) to be
> of much practical interest.
> You are of course a scintillating genius in comparison
> to most of the gutter snipes posting harassment to this
> thread.
Why the personal insults? I didn't do anything except fail to agree
with your definition and attempt to explain where and why. Your
qualifying it as harassment is inaccurate.
I take your comments as a demonstration that your "sensory image" of me
has been skewed by your prejudices, and attitudes.
That is exactly my point, your criterion for 'reality' presupposes
no such influence. You attitude colored perception has failed you.
Your "sensory image" is not an image of reality.
Regards,
James Baugh
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
> message news:xRqge.5980$fY4....@fe07.lga...
>
> > George Hammond wrote:
>
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Definition of "Common Human Reality"
> > >
> > > Common Human reality is defined as the reality which,
> > > on average, a perfect, fully grown, normal human being
> > > perceives.
> >
> > Does that mean those who disagree with you are exceptionally
> > imperfect imature abnormal humans?
>
> [Hammond]
> YES... generally it means they have either LARGE "growth deficits"
> (or large repression of growth, which is the same thing) and therefore
> can see LESS of reality than I can.
> Same is true of all "authorities"... they are "authorities" because
> be can see MORE of reality than others can.
> This is called the "God game" which everyone is playing whether
> they know it or not. It's the world's oldest occupation.
You mean the "authority" pResident/moron George Bush can se more of reality
than I can?
I must give you credit for our ability to invent more, and more insane,
claims to support your basic crapola!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
> message news:42823D9A...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > George Hammond wrote:
>
> > > Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> > > about the subject of "reality".
>
>
> > Said vomitorium is called "religion."
>
> [Hammond]
> Agreed. And until Science explains Religion the
> situation will remain unchanged.
Science has explained religion ........... it's either in the "mythology"
section, or thge "psychology" section of your local library.
> > Tommy Aquinas was remarkable in
> > his abilities to compress the smallest thoughts into the most words.
>
> [Hammond]
> He's not alone. Isaac Newton left 4 million written words on the
> subject of Religion... and I'm pretty sure Newton didn't actually
> realize what God is until after the age of 60... if ever.
Newton didn't, but you do?
Your inflated ego is preposterous!
>
>
> > Hammond's ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
> > to the world at large.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes... I am TOTALLY INSANE (paranoid schizophrenic). I am
> delusional, hallucinate, hear voices, drool, shit my pants... my hands
> shake so bad I have to piss in the bathtub and I'm scared of the
> dark. I chain smoke 3 pkgs. of Camel ciggarettes a day and cough
> so bad I can barely talk. I am constantly asked to leave restaurants
> because I smell bad and offend the other patrons (some kind of
> fungii is growing under my armpits). My grammar is so full of 4
> letter words most people assume I have Tourette's Syndrome.
> I look worse than the marines who survived the Bataan Death March.
> Naturally, because of these disabilities I get SSI, supported
> housing, Food Stamps, Fuel Assistance, 27/7 security staffing
> and free medical insurance.
FINALLY .... something Hammond spoke that has a ring of truth!!!!
George Hammond
"Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
message news:Xoxge.7884$fY4....@fe07.lga...
> George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
We already know that. Never said it didn't.
Fact that is does is irrelevant.
> My point being
> this: the "sensory image" is not in one to one correspondence with
> "external reality".
[Hammond]
Sui generis it IS.
By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
other than to use a "human observer".
Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
statement.
> But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
> of the "sensory image".
[Hammond]
Human observation of reality (by all and any means
including deduction), is DE FACTO the ONLY evidence
we have of the existence of said "reality".
"Reality" is therefore, in fact a manifestion of the human
sensory/brain system.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow, "reality" would
cease to exist.
> >>'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
[Hammond]
Anyone who has to resort to words like "epistimology" is
by definition a MORON and a low brow pseudointellectual.
> > [Hammond]
> > Oh for cripes sake:
> >
> > "Common human reality" = immediate sensory input + "knowledge"
>
> I don't know cripe so I'll not do anything for his sake...
> but repeating your definition doesn't address my points.
[Hammond]
You DON'T HAVE ANY POINT!
You're simply an amateur moron wandering in circles
with a dazed glassy eyed goofinicus look on his face
trying to argue against a proven, measureable, axiomatic
physics discovery using "homespun native logic"...
you sound like a fool, and you are a fool.
> Why the personal insults?
[Hammond]
Because your posturing, your presumption and your
sham opinionated self opinion of yourself IS AN INSULT,
to the whole human race.
> Regards,
> James Baugh
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:spidncr2vIl...@comcast.com...
[Hammond]
Basically what I've just posted is the classic "insanity defense"
disclaimer against the possibility of crusifixion... which in the
case of the author of the world's first "scientific proof of God"
remains of course a significant possibility.
George Hammond
"ZenIsWhen" <here'sloo...@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:1185rmi...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Dasge.1028$wM2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
> > message news:42823D9A...@hate.spam.net...
> >
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > > Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> > > > about the subject of "reality".
> >
> >
> > > Said vomitorium is called "religion."
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Agreed. And until Science explains Religion the
> > situation will remain unchanged.
>
> Science has explained religion ........... it's either in the "mythology"
> section, or thge "psychology" section of your local library.
>
> > > Tommy Aquinas was remarkable in
> > > his abilities to compress the smallest thoughts into the most words.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > He's not alone. Isaac Newton left 4 million written words on the
> > subject of Religion... and I'm pretty sure Newton didn't actually
> > realize what God is until after the age of 60... if ever.
>
> Newton didn't, but you do?
> Your inflated ego is preposterous!
[Hammond]
Hey... it's a world of specialization. Newton discovered Gravity,
I discovered God, Marco Polo discovered the condom.... so
what?
> > > Hammond's ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
> > > to the world at large.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Yes... I am TOTALLY INSANE (paranoid schizophrenic). I am
> > delusional, hallucinate, hear voices, drool, shit my pants... my hands
> > shake so bad I have to piss in the bathtub and I'm scared of the
> > dark. I chain smoke 3 pkgs. of Camel ciggarettes a day and cough
> > so bad I can barely talk. I am constantly asked to leave restaurants
> > because I smell bad and offend the other patrons (some kind of
> > fungii is growing under my armpits). My grammar is so full of 4
> > letter words most people assume I have Tourette's Syndrome.
> > I look worse than the marines who survived the Bataan Death March.
> > Naturally, because of these disabilities I get SSI, supported
> > housing, Food Stamps, Fuel Assistance, 27/7 security staffing
> > and free medical insurance.
>
> FINALLY .... something Hammond spoke that has a ring of truth!!!!
>
[Hammond]
I knew you'd just lap it up, scab.
bryan...@yahoo.com
been taking your Thorazine, Haldol, Risperdal, or Geodon dillignetly as
yoiur shrink has told you??? if you have been skipping them then GET
OFF THIS THREAD PUNK!
GOD=G_uv my ass non-sense.
Kamerynn
Kam:
No, it isn't irrelevant. It would mean that
people percieve different things. Unless you believe
that there are as many realities as there are people
(perceptions/percievers), it means that perception
doesn't create reality.
Try following thoughts to see where they lead you.
>
>
>
>
>>My point being
>>this: the "sensory image" is not in one to one correspondence with
>>"external reality".
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Sui generis it IS.
> By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
> prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
> is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
> other than to use a "human observer".
> Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
> statement.
Kam:
False. There are, for example, such things as
hallucinations. There are cases in which observation
is flawed, and *reason* must be resorted to. Take,
for example, the apparent trapezoidal appearance of
a table that is in fact rectangular. We see it in
perspective, but it is *in reality* rectangular.
There are plenty of ways in which appearance differs
from reality. Read some elementary philosophy...
or some particle physics, for that matter.
>
>
>
>>But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
>>of the "sensory image".
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Human observation of reality (by all and any means
> including deduction), is DE FACTO the ONLY evidence
> we have of the existence of said "reality".
> "Reality" is therefore, in fact a manifestion of the human
> sensory/brain system.
> Proof: If all men died tomorrow, "reality" would
> cease to exist.
>
>
>
>
>>>>'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Anyone who has to resort to words like "epistimology" is
> by definition a MORON and a low brow pseudointellectual.
Kam:
How about those that employ phrases like "sui generis?"
>
>
>
>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Oh for cripes sake:
>>>
>>> "Common human reality" = immediate sensory input + "knowledge"
>>
>>I don't know cripe so I'll not do anything for his sake...
>>but repeating your definition doesn't address my points.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You DON'T HAVE ANY POINT!
> You're simply an amateur moron wandering in circles
> with a dazed glassy eyed goofinicus look on his face
> trying to argue against a proven, measureable, axiomatic
> physics discovery using "homespun native logic"...
> you sound like a fool, and you are a fool.
Kam:
The pervasiveness of insults in a reasonless void
simple isn't convincing. It tells people that you've
run out of intelligent things to say.
>
>
>
>
>>Why the personal insults?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Because your posturing, your presumption and your
> sham opinionated self opinion of yourself IS AN INSULT,
> to the whole human race.
Kam:
Others are providing their views, and only you
seem to devote actual paragraphs to posturing...
attempting to highten your own pedestal by lowering
those of others. Your permanent, hostile attitude is
a dead give-away.
George Hammond
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
message news:bVsge.22$E7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> George, the Omniscient, is back. He has no "brain deficit", but sees the
> Invisible World, and knows God... His Revelations to the world of mundane
> humans (you and me) must be received with awe.
[Hammond]
I have a LARGE brain growth deficit... why do you think I'm studying
the problem for chrissakes... this is a case of doctor cure thyself.
Point is... if you don't have the brain growth power to actually SEE
the rest of reality (the invisible world, so called)...... the NEXT
BEST THING..... is to:
1. Figure out what is really there, and WHY.
2. Figure out what it looks like if you could see it.
3. Figure out what kind of power those who
CAN see it have over you and how to defend yourself
against them.
4. Possibly even invent some "virtual reality" devices that
will at least give you a "visul clue" as to what it looks
like (other than Van Gogh, Picasso, Da Vinci and other
traditional artistic sources).
5. Try and figure out who other people "really are" behind
those phoney masks (glued on psychotic facial expressions)
they can wear and can GET AWAY WITH because you can't
SEE WHO THEY REALLY ARE!
6. FYI.... the above 5 points are the REASON that "religion" exists.
The entire BIBLE is a survival handbook which tries to
TELL YOU (albeit metaphorically) the answer to the 5 above
questions, for chrissakes.
7. Up until now, we have only had the metaphorical teaching
of Religion (the Bible) to tell us this.. and few can understand it,
BUT NOW we have a simple 2+2=4 SCIENTIFIC explanation
of it all... and therefore this is a SCIENTIFIC MIRACLE!
8. STOP STANIDNG IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS!
> Nature decrees that every species of plant and animal has a life span,
> from hatching to death, but all reach a mature stage. Only George insists
> "there is no such thing as a fully grown human being".
[Hammond]
There is a "theoretical life span" (genotypic lifespan) and an
"actual lifespan" (phenotypic lifespan) and the two are NOT
EQUAL. In fact the phenotypic lifespan is ALWAYS shorter
than the genotypic lifespan.
The SECULAR TREND in Human Growth PROVES
that that his is true because NO ONE ever reaches full growth.
(not reaching full growth weakens you and shortens your life).
It has even been estimated that the "theoretical lifespan" of a
human being is 100.... fact is few ever reach it... mainly due
to the "human Secular Trend growth deficit" which shortens human
life to an average of 80 years (U.S.).... indicating right off the
bat a "growth deficit" of 20% in the U.S. population... and
much higher in Third World countries by the way!
> There is no evidence of a current "brain deficit",
[Hammond]
LIAR:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
The existence of the SECULAR TREND in human growth
(a proven fact for 100 years now)... is ABSOLUTE PROOF
of the "brain growth deficit" indicated in the above graph.
> or of an "invisible world".
[Hammond]
LIAR.
The Picture Fusion Frequency Test (PFF) is DIRECT PROOF
that a 20% "growth deficit" causes 20% of reality to be
INVISIBLE to the average person.
<snip... amateur crap>
[Hammond]
Comon, Don Ho, either argue the scientific evidence or go back
to selling coconuts.
The PFF test (cited above) is ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE
PROOF that 1/3 of the "reality" visible to an adult is
INVISIBLE to a 7 year old. QED a 7 year old is surrounded by
an INVISIBLE WORLD which he cannot see, while adults can
see it.
Similarly, the fact that Science has proven the average adult today
is only "80% fully grown" means LIKEWISE that 20% of
"full human reality" is INVISIBLE to the average adult in the
world today. You, me and every adult today is surrounded by
an INVISIBLE WORLD, and this explains what GOD is!
Now address the PROVEN FACTS... and stop posting your
unsupported, disproven, "personal opinions".
George Hammond
"Kamerynn" <idon'tdoe...@sorry.com> wrote in
message news:11867om...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> >>>[Hammond]
> >>>"Common human reality" DE FACTO IS nothing more than
> >>>the internal image of external reality created by our sensory
> >>>apparatus and brain.
> >>> The possession of this "sensory image" of "external reality"
> >>>is what makes us "conscious" so called.... i.e. "conscious of
> >>>external reality".
> >>> This is why anything with a brain and sensory system is
> >>>"conscious"... while say for instance a rock or a glass of water
> >>>is NOT conscious.
> >>
> >>But there is more to perception than just sensation. One's mental
> >>attitude, prior prejudices, etc can "color" perception.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > We already know that. Never said it didn't.
> > Fact that is does is irrelevant.
>
> Kam:
> No, it isn't irrelevant. It would mean that
> people percieve different things. Unless you believe
> that there are as many realities as there are people
> (perceptions/percievers), it means that perception
> doesn't create reality.
[Hammond]
Look.. Kam.... Science is not going to dispense with
proven fact for the sake of "flights of logical fancy".
First of all, Medicine and Science have determidned the
following facts:
1. In the world population, the "structure of a human being"
is (within statistical limits) "highly uniform", which is
to say:
A. We all have the same organs.
B. We all have the same "5 senses"
C. We all have very highly similar brains.
D. There is a definite species known as "Man".
THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
A. Something universal to Man known as
"Common Human Reality".
Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact, to PROVE
that "God exists".
So therefore... I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing
with someone who loves to type; whether or not "my Blue is
the same as your Blue"....... for chrissakes Kam ... quit posting
mindless and trivial diversion!
> Try following thoughts to see where they lead you.
[Hammond]
Try following proven scientific facts, such as the picture fusion
frequency test, and see where they lead you.
> >>My point being
> >>this: the "sensory image" is not in one to one correspondence with
> >>"external reality".
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Sui generis it IS.
> > By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
> > prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
> > is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
> > other than to use a "human observer".
> > Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
> > statement.
>
> Kam:
> False. There are, for example, such things as
> hallucinations.
[Hammond]
quit posting "exceptions which prove the rule".
Hallucinations can be proven to be abberations
because other people don't see them.
However the Secular Trend growth deficit
is UNIVERSAL among all human beings... so
it CANNOT be eliminated by "comparison".
<snip ad hominem tripe>
Garry...@garrydenke.com
Rev's mark, name, image, and number
G=G (the Letter)
JESUS=JESUS (the Word)
G'S US=G'S US (the Sentence)
666.x10^-13space^3/mass-time^2=666.x10^-13space^3/mass-time^2
(the Wisdom)
kicked his ass.
"universal relativity": h=h G=G c=c
"Jesus taught the language of rhyme, Old English,
to the druids and the disciples." ~Garry Denke
ZenIsWhen
What? That you finally started at least a mionor connection to reality?
ZenIsWhen
Bull Crap!
For the simple minded, like you, TRACKS give you the ability to know that a
deer has passed by recently ........ you don't have to see the deer to know
it's there.
For others, more intelligent, it's called scientific evidence.
>
>
> > But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
> > of the "sensory image".
>
> [Hammond]
> Human observation of reality (by all and any means
> including deduction), is DE FACTO the ONLY evidence
> we have of the existence of said "reality".
> "Reality" is therefore, in fact a manifestion of the human
> sensory/brain system.
> Proof: If all men died tomorrow, "reality" would
> cease to exist.
Your "proof" = nothing more than insane garbage!
>
>
>
> > >>'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
>
> [Hammond]
> Anyone who has to resort to words like "epistimology" is
> by definition a MORON and a low brow pseudointellectual.
IOW - it's beyond your ability to understand the definition.
ZenIsWhen
That's why your crap is constantly being rejected by anyone with a brain!
>
> First of all, Medicine and Science have determidned the
> following facts:
>
> 1. In the world population, the "structure of a human being"
> is (within statistical limits) "highly uniform", which is
> to say:
Some (claimed) scientist!
"Within Statistical limits" and "highly uniform" are meningless, and
contradictory, terms.
Using individually chosen, and prescribed, criteria - one can say that a
doughnut and a cup are the same thing.. they both have substance surrounding
an opening.
>
> A. We all have the same organs.
> B. We all have the same "5 senses"
> C. We all have very highly similar brains.
Sure .... and if you broaden your criteria - there is no difference between
manmle and female.
> D. There is a definite species known as "Man".
There is a DEFINED species, known as man - dipshit!
>
> THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
> are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
They are not facts...... they are YOUR DEFINED "groups".
>
> A. Something universal to Man known as
> "Common Human Reality".
Since the first pile was nothing more than invented crap - this is just more
of the same, smelly, substance!
>
> Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
> obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact, to PROVE
> that "God exists".
>
> So therefore... I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing
> with someone who loves to type; whether or not "my Blue is
> the same as your Blue"....... for chrissakes Kam ... quit posting
> mindless and trivial diversion!
Bwahahaaa.... people have been telling YOU that for YEARS!!!!
>
>
> > Try following thoughts to see where they lead you.
>
> [Hammond]
> Try following proven scientific facts, such as the picture fusion
> frequency test, and see where they lead you.
Your claims, based on your own ignorance, and psychotic mentality, are NOT
scientific facts!
ZenIsWhen
Not ... more than likely, it will mean a permanent residence at the state
hospital - right next to the guy who thinks he's Geezus!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> message news:bVsge.22$E7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > George, the Omniscient, is back. He has no "brain deficit", but sees
the
> > Invisible World, and knows God... His Revelations to the world of
mundane
> > humans (you and me) must be received with awe.
>
> [Hammond]
> I have a LARGE brain growth deficit... why do you think I'm studying
> the problem for chrissakes... this is a case of doctor cure thyself.
We already know your brain is severly limited by your ignorance and your
ego.
What makes YOU think that such a severly limited, and delusional, brain has
the ability to discover what YOU call the find of the ages?
Baugh
>
> [Hammond]
> Sui generis it IS.
> By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
> prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
> is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
> other than to use a "human observer".
> Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
> statement.
>
You're almost there, there is no method of "observing reality" period.
Forget "reality" and observe phenomena. What happens not "what is".
Stop worrying if a measurement is 'accurate' but rather if it is
'percise'. We build a "reality model" based on the consistancy of
phenomena. But it is only a model. Possibly a good and practical
model but none the less a model, not "what really is real".
>
>>But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
>>of the "sensory image".
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Human observation of reality (by all and any means
> including deduction), is DE FACTO the ONLY evidence
> we have of the existence of said "reality".
Exactly. But what it is evidence of, we cannot say. We can
only note that our observations are consistant and acheive percision.
How can you define "accuracy" when there is no direct conduit to
"reality out there".
> "Reality" is therefore, in fact a manifestion of the human
> sensory/brain system.
> Proof: If all men died tomorrow, "reality" would
> cease to exist.
OK! We actually agree completely, except I would not label your
"reality" with the same word. I would call it our "model". The term
"reality" has a prior distinct meaning from yours, more in line with
Plato's idealized reality to which our "model" is supposed to
asymtotically reach. I.e. "out there" instead of "in our heads".
In short the common usage asserts a "reality apart from the mind"
and thus one which will survive beyond an event such as all men dying.
From your earlier posts I misunderstood your position thinking you
ment "reality" was non-subjective.
>>>>'known' which depends on one's choice of epistimology,
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Anyone who has to resort to words like "epistimology" is
> by definition a MORON and a low brow pseudointellectual.
Anyone who has to resort to words like "MORON"...
I find "epistimology" to be a useful word, especially as
it distinguishes itself from "metaphysics" which implies
one can actually know something about the "out there"
objective reality.
Since you've acknowledge that "reality" as you define it is "in our
heads" then it hardly can be considered "common". At best we can
through extended conversation be assured that my "reality" and your
"reality" are "close".
> [...]
>>Why the personal insults?
>
> [Hammond]
> Because your posturing, your presumption and your
> sham opinionated self opinion of yourself IS AN INSULT,
> to the whole human race.
>
Oh? Well that's all right then... as long as you have a *good* reason.
I thought you where just being rude. My mistake.
Regards,
James Baugh
TMG
<snip>
> First of all, Medicine and Science have determidned the
> following facts:
>
> 1. In the world population, the "structure of a human being"
> is (within statistical limits) "highly uniform", which is
> to say:
>
> A. We all have the same organs.
> B. We all have the same "5 senses"
> C. We all have very highly similar brains.
To this point - several (many) species qualify.
> D. There is a definite species known as "Man".
A distinction of the ability to interbreed and produce fertile
offspring. Is this the crucial point the SPOG hinges upon?
> THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
> are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
This is one of many logical jumps. THIS is a step that needs a
scientific proof. "This fact alone" is not proof. Provide a classic
proof using the standard format. If one exists, it should be trivial for
you to provide it.
> A. Something universal to Man known as
> "Common Human Reality".
>
> Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
> obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact,
It is not commonly recognized. Provide the logical, scientific proof.
> to PROVE
> that "God exists".
>
> So therefore... I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing
> with someone who loves to type;
Meaning, there is no proof. If one exists, it would be trivial for you
to diagram it in the classic form, using accepted logical/maths constructs.
> whether or not "my Blue is
> the same as your Blue"....... for chrissakes Kam ... quit posting
> mindless and trivial diversion!
Substitute "God" for "Blue".
>
>
>
>> Try following thoughts to see where they lead you.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Try following proven scientific facts, such as the picture fusion
> frequency test, and see where they lead you.
>
To mildly interesting observations about visual perception - not god.
>
>
>
>>>>My point being
>>>>this: the "sensory image" is not in one to one correspondence with
>>>>"external reality".
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Sui generis it IS.
>>>By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
>>>prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
>>>is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
>>>other than to use a "human observer".
>>>Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
>>>statement.
>>
>>Kam:
>> False. There are, for example, such things as
>>hallucinations.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> quit posting "exceptions which prove the rule".
In a *real* proof, exceptions DISprove the rule. You're using a
pedestrian, colloquial phrase as if it were "proof". Exceptions _never_
"prove" the "rule". To say so is vapid.
> Hallucinations can be proven to be abberations
> because other people don't see them.
Not proved at all. Study mass hysteria.
By the way, what happened to "I will NEVER converse with you Usenet scum
again!" and "My posts will be read-only!".
That sure didn't last long.
ZenIsWhen
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
Hammond got very lonely in his closet/news group.
No one bothered going there to seek out his insane garbage.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
message news:b6OdnfCjyqb...@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > First of all, Medicine and Science have determidned the
> > following facts:
> >
> > 1. In the world population, the "structure of a human being"
> > is (within statistical limits) "highly uniform", which is
> > to say:
> >
> > A. We all have the same organs.
> > B. We all have the same "5 senses"
> > C. We all have very highly similar brains.
> > D. There is a definite species known as "Man".
>
> To this point - several (many) species qualify.
[Hammond]
In general ALL species are sufficiently identical to
have a "common sensory reality" which is why all
species have a "God" which is in the image of their
species.
> A distinction of the ability to interbreed and produce fertile
> offspring. Is this the crucial point the SPOG hinges upon?
[Hammond]
No... that is a low grade scientific fact which is capable of
titillating the retrograde intellect of a simpleton like you.
Please refrain from posting off topic and trivial non sequitors
merely because they are of fascination to your low
intellectual and cultural level.
>
> > THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
> > are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
>
>
> This is one of many logical jumps. THIS is a step that needs a
> scientific proof.
[Hammond]
It only needs a proof to someone with a thinking disorder
such as yourself. 20 billion normal people for 100,000
years have already universally recognized the fact, just as
they recognized the fact that fucking causes babies is not
in need of a formal scientific proof.
> "This fact alone" is not proof. Provide a classic
> proof using the standard format. If one exists, it should be trivial for
> you to provide it.
>
> > A. Something universal to Man known as
> > "Common Human Reality".
> >
> > Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
> > obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact,
>
> It is not commonly recognized. Provide the logical, scientific proof.
[Hammond]
The fact that "reality" has been in the dictionary for thousands
of years is sufficient proof that the human race recognizes
comprehends and understands what "common human reality" means.
Tedious simpleton.
<snip>
George Hammond
> Hammond got very lonely in his closet/news group.
> No one bothered going there to seek out his insane garbage.
[Hammond]
Plenty of people post to it (mostly aggravated simpletons
like you).. but I have the supreme pleasure as moderator of
simply trashing their submissions. I don't even bother to
send a rejection notice... I simply push the delete button...
Oh yeah... ahhhhhhhh.....!
Scab, scumbag..
bryan...@yahoo.com
Geodon going CRACKPOT? you shouldn't forget. you're sinking deeper and
deeper into your delusion.
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Sui generis it IS.
> > By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
> > prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
> > is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
> > other than to use a "human observer".
> > Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
> > statement.
> >
>
> You're almost there, there is no method of "observing reality" period.
> Forget "reality" and observe phenomena. What happens not "what is".
> Stop worrying if a measurement is 'accurate' but rather if it is
> 'percise'.
[Hammond]
We know all that!
The POINT IS, that ONLY A HUMAN can observe
"human reality"... reality being the sum total of everything
a human can observe.
THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
or "reality" for short.
No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
> We build a "reality model" based on the consistancy of
> phenomena. But it is only a model. Possibly a good and practical
> model but none the less a model, not "what really is real".
[Hammond]
The SPOG doesn't need any "models of reality".... the SPOG
simply DEFINES reality as "what the average human calls
reality". Since we have 6 billion humans using the word
"reality" and it is understood by all and appears in the dictionary,
we "all know" it exists.
try and remember... all of Physicis is based on Mass, Length,
and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
is constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
INTUITION.
AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
And furthermore, this does not mean precise laws of Mass, length
and Time cannot be formulated... because Physicis has already
demonstrated that they can. Exactly the same is true of "Reality"
as the SPOG proves.... EVEN THOUGH... "reality" is nothing
more than a "human sensory intuition" smae as "Mass, Length
or Time".
Sheeshhhh.........
> >>But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
> >>of the "sensory image".
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Human observation of reality (by all and any means
> > including deduction), is DE FACTO the ONLY evidence
> > we have of the existence of said "reality".
>
> Exactly. But what it is evidence of, we cannot say.
[Hammond]
TRUE BUT IRRELEVANT..... as I have just pointed out
all Laws of Physicis are based on the concept of "Mass,
Length and Time" but mass, length and time are no more
than "human sensory intuitions"... there IS NO "other"
definiton of these quantities... nor do we know "what they
really are".... other than being DEFINED as human sensory
intuitions......... same is true for "reality".
Yaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnn...........
<snip... further endless disputation of common
"universally known a priori physical axioms" in lieu
of a competent scientific discussion of the
new scientific discovery that God=G_uv)
Baugh
> "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:RGOge.4052$i03....@fe06.lga...
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Sui generis it IS.
>>>By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
>>>prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
>>>is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
>>>other than to use a "human observer".
>>>Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
>>>statement.
>>>
>>
>>You're almost there, there is no method of "observing reality" period.
>>Forget "reality" and observe phenomena. What happens not "what is".
>>Stop worrying if a measurement is 'accurate' but rather if it is
>>'percise'.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> We know all that!
>
> The POINT IS, that ONLY A HUMAN can observe
> "human reality"... reality being the sum total of everything
> a human can observe.
Now you are reversing yourself. A human observes phenomena which
updates his 'reality model'. He 'knows' his 'reality model'
implicitly it is in his mind. And it is different for each person.
So push it to the individual. Only I can know my 'reality model'
and only you can know yours.
>
> THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
> or "reality" for short.
> No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
But my 'reality' insists that phenomena will persist after I cease.
>>We build a "reality model" based on the consistancy of
>>phenomena. But it is only a model. Possibly a good and practical
>>model but none the less a model, not "what really is real".
>
>
> [Hammond]
> The SPOG doesn't need any "models of reality".... the SPOG
> simply DEFINES reality as "what the average human calls
> reality". Since we have 6 billion humans using the word
> "reality" and it is understood by all and appears in the dictionary,
> we "all know" it exists.
How can you average over what you cannot accurately compare?
> try and remember... all of Physicis is based on Mass, Length,
> and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
> other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
> that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
> is constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
> DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
> INTUITION.
> AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
You have no vote in my 'reality model' and apparently I have none in
yours. Believing doesn't make it so "out there" only in your mind where
the 'reality model' resides. My mental picture of a point is not an
electron. An electron is a phenomenon of detector clicks. I invent a
picture of a point particle traveling between emitter and detector, or
sometimes I invent a wave propagating between them. But that's on paper
and in my mind. Changing the way I visualize it doesn't alter the
phenomenon... except where it determines how I physically choose to act.
Ah, you are confusing your definition of reality with the old one.
You are expressing the classic semantic shift paradox. Using a word
in both a changed definition and the original.
By your reasoning of 'democratic reality' you are wrong because the
majority here believe you to be wrong.
> And furthermore, this does not mean precise laws of Mass, length
> and Time cannot be formulated... because Physicis has already
> demonstrated that they can. Exactly the same is true of "Reality"
> as the SPOG proves.... EVEN THOUGH... "reality" is nothing
> more than a "human sensory intuition" smae as "Mass, Length
> or Time".
> Sheeshhhh.........
The reason physical laws can be formulated is because there does appear
to be a consistancy of phenomena 'out there' which does not depend on
the 'reality model' in our heads. Stuff happens and happens in spite
of what we expect of believe should happen.
>>>>But be that as it may, your definition then is not of "reality" but
>>>>of the "sensory image".
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>> Human observation of reality (by all and any means
>>>including deduction), is DE FACTO the ONLY evidence
>>>we have of the existence of said "reality".
>>
>
>>Exactly. But what it is evidence of, we cannot say.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> TRUE BUT IRRELEVANT.....
Pardon my dwelling on what you find irrelevant, it may be irrelevant
your argument but not to mine.
> as I have just pointed out
> all Laws of Physicis are based on the concept of "Mass,
> Length and Time" but mass, length and time are no more
> than "human sensory intuitions"... there IS NO "other"
> definiton of these quantities... nor do we know "what they
> really are".... other than being DEFINED as human sensory
> intuitions......... same is true for "reality".
Agreed for now. But they are useful intuitions. The allow
us to manipulate the actualities of phenomena around us.
These phenomena appear independent of our minds. We observe phenomena
occuring in ways contrary to what the whole of the world expected or
predicted. Human Reality is shown to be 'false' at times as
a means of predicting phenomena. And this does not occur randomly.
Every time we repeat certain experiments we see consistantly the
same phenomena. When it defies our expectations it is not what's
out there which changes to suit our mental state. It is our 'reality
model' which gets changed.
There is a consistant structure to our experience which necessarily goes
beyond the mind. Otherwise we could never develop a common language
with which to communicate concepts. Again I use the analogy of
the weather models which are used to predict atmospheric phenomena.
Regards,
James Baugh
ZenIsWhen
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <here'sloo...@youkid.com> wrote in
> message news:11886jk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > Hammond got very lonely in his closet/news group.
> > No one bothered going there to seek out his insane garbage.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Plenty of people post to it (mostly aggravated simpletons
> like you).. but I have the supreme pleasure as moderator of
> simply trashing their submissions. I don't even bother to
> send a rejection notice... I simply push the delete button...
> Oh yeah... ahhhhhhhh.....!
> Scab, scumbag..
Yea..............right ...............
Then why are you breaking your sworn promise NOT to spam other newsgroups?
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:RGOge.4052$i03....@fe06.lga...
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Sui generis it IS.
> > > By definition, there is absolutely NO WAY to
> > > prove any assertion to the contrary, since there
> > > is NO ALTERNATIVE method of "observing reality"
> > > other than to use a "human observer".
> > > Therefore, your statment is MEANINGLESS
> > > statement.
> > >
> >
> > You're almost there, there is no method of "observing reality" period.
> > Forget "reality" and observe phenomena. What happens not "what is".
> > Stop worrying if a measurement is 'accurate' but rather if it is
> > 'percise'.
>
> [Hammond]
> We know all that!
>
> The POINT IS, that ONLY A HUMAN can observe
> "human reality"... reality being the sum total of everything
> a human can observe.
Bull shit, blatantly unscientific, statement!
But that's all Geroge seems to have.
>
> THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
> or "reality" for short.
> No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
I'll agree with that last part - you have to be brain deficient to bellow
that crap!
>
>
> > We build a "reality model" based on the consistancy of
> > phenomena. But it is only a model. Possibly a good and practical
> > model but none the less a model, not "what really is real".
>
> [Hammond]
> The SPOG doesn't need any "models of reality".... the SPOG
> simply DEFINES reality as "what the average human calls
> reality". Since we have 6 billion humans using the word
> "reality" and it is understood by all and appears in the dictionary,
> we "all know" it exists.
> try and remember... all of Physicis is based on Mass, Length,
> and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
> other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
> that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
> is constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
> DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
> INTUITION.
> AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
So no objects had mass until humans defined mass?
Your last two remaining brain cells are working overtime........aren't
they!?!?!?!
ZenIsWhen
posting their responses?
Too embarassing?
Don H
proof is needed.
(2) Any scientific theory must be testable by others (apart from the
originator).
(3) To postulate an entity, you must first define it; a "God" must thus be
defined - characteristics, etc, so that if you encountered it (in
laboratory, or on field trip) you'd recognise it.
(4) Ontology shouldn't be confused with Epistemology; ie. being, with
knowledge of that being.
(5) "Authorities" can be authentic or false; based on factual evidence, or
on dogmatic assertion. The traditional religions can be traced back to
their historic roots; and, while many, or most, clergy are quite sincere in
their beliefs, that, in itself, doesn't mean the beliefs are true.
(6) All traditional religions are pre-scientific in their cosmology; and
pre-humanistic in their ethics. They should not be put on a par with modern
knowledge and ethical (judicial, legal, political, moral) standards. Eg. a
retreat to Sharia law, or Christian fundamentalism, is just that - a
backward step.
(7) Phenotype is the external appearance and functioning ability of a living
thing, as determined by its genotype; each species differs in both. The
maturity and life-span is genetically limited for any species.
Environmental factors can enable an individual to reach its full potential,
but this is still restricted to what the genes allow. The two aspects are
intimately related. There is no gap, apart from that stated, both being
merely descriptive terms.
(8) George has "proved", to his own satisfaction, that "God" exists. His
task now, is to convince others.
But, unfortunately, most folk are so mentally-retarded, mendacious, or
malicious.
(9) A God may exist in some invisible realm; we just don't know; miracles,
visitations, etc (as per the Bible) happened in a primitive, superstitious
past. It is not without significance that such events don't occur in a
scientific age.
(10) It may be, that the Emperor doesn't wear New Clothes, but is actually
naked.
===================================news:QHFge.1389$LO1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
solar plexus
> Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> about the subject of "reality".
>
> "practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
> most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
maybe you should convert to islam, which is
more compatible with relativity then christianity
according to what i heard, their messia
mohamed or whatever, had experienced a trip
outside our dimensions
the trip tok no time her on earth but outthere
tok a few weeks
when he came back nobody belive him
George Hammond
"Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
message news:_J%ge.5560$i03....@fe06.lga...
> > THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
> > or "reality" for short.
> > No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
>
> But my 'reality' insists that phenomena will persist after I cease.
[Hammond]
1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
itself would cease to exist........ period!
3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
<snip>
> > try and remember... all of Physicis is based on Mass, Length,
> > and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
> > other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
> > that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
> > is constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
> > DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
> > INTUITION.
> > AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
>
> You have no vote in my 'reality model' and apparently I have none in
> yours. Believing doesn't make it so "out there" only in your mind where
> the 'reality model' resides.
[Hammond]
You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
Yawn........
> Regards,
> James Baugh
>
[Hammond]
Good luck with your odd ideas... after you have published them
in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
(as I have) maybe I'd bother to listen to you... in the
mean time... I suggest you post your tedious and serendipitious
daydreams to: alt.internet.amateur.typing-exercise.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
YES......... FOR CHRISSAKES YES..... where do you
think the word "existence" comes from? "Existence"
is a human sensory function. There IS NO such thing
as "existence" without humans. Nothing can "exist"
without humans, including mass, length, time, traffic
tickets or Massengill Douche Powder for chrissakes.
What's wrong with you?
George Hammond
> (1) A "rational" proof of God is not enough in the modern world; empirical
> proof is needed.
[gh] The SPOG is not only rational, it is empirically confirmed by
200 years of experimental evidence all of which is cited in
my peer reviewed publication of the discovery. Yawn...
> (2) Any scientific theory must be testable by others (apart from the
> originator).
[gh] All of the experiments proving the SPOG have been repeated
and confirmed by dozens if not hundreds of researchers
and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Yawn...
> (3) To postulate an entity, you must first define it; a "God" must thus be
> defined - characteristics, etc, so that if you encountered it (in
> laboratory, or on field trip) you'd recognise it.
[gh] Nothing is "postulated" therefore nothing needs to be "defined".
the SPOG is a DISCOVERY not a THEORY... such as the
discovery of Greenland. Greeland did not have to be "defined"
before it was accidently discovered.
> (4) Ontology shouldn't be confused with Epistemology; ie. being, with
> knowledge of that being.
[gh] Neither the term "ontology" nor the term "epistemonlgy" is
necessary for the scientific proof of God that has been
discovered, proven and published in the peer reviewed literature.
> (5) "Authorities" can be authentic or false; based on factual evidence, or
> on dogmatic assertion. The traditional religions can be traced back to
> their historic roots; and, while many, or most, clergy are quite sincere
in
> their beliefs, that, in itself, doesn't mean the beliefs are true.
[gh] The SPOG "scientifically proves" the truth of the Bible,
NOT VICE VERSA!
> (6) All traditional religions are pre-scientific in their cosmology; and
> pre-humanistic in their ethics. They should not be put on a par with
modern
> knowledge and ethical (judicial, legal, political, moral) standards. Eg. a
> retreat to Sharia law, or Christian fundamentalism, is just that - a
> backward step.
[gh] The pre-scientific world also believed that:
1. Fucking causes babies.
2. Anal sex is dangerous healthwise.
3. Matter probably consisted of "atoms".
4. Blood is thicker than water.
5. There is probably a God in the form of
an invisible all powerful man who rules
the fate and destiny of the world.
Note that ALL of these "pre-scientific" conjectures have now
been scientifically proven by modern Science.
> (7) Phenotype is the external appearance and functioning ability of a
living
> thing, as determined by its genotype; each species differs in both. The
> maturity and life-span is genetically limited for any species.
> Environmental factors can enable an individual to reach its full
potential,
> but this is still restricted to what the genes allow. The two aspects are
> intimately related. There is no gap, apart from that stated, both being
> merely descriptive terms
[gh] Any moron can see that if you don't water the corn it's
phenotype will not reach it's genotype. Third world
studies of malnutrition growth stunting confirm the
same thing in humans... to the extent of 20, 30, 40, even
50% stunting of the phenotype relative to the genotype.
> (8) George has "proved", to his own satisfaction, that "God" exists. His
> task now, is to convince others.
> But, unfortunately, most folk are so mentally-retarded, mendacious, or
> malicious.
[gh] Only on the Internet, which is NOT a representative
sample of the population at large.
BTW, you forgot "insouciance".
> (9) A God may exist in some invisible realm; we just don't know;
[gh] Who's "we"?
> miracles,
> visitations, etc (as per the Bible) happened in a primitive, superstitious
> past. It is not without significance that such events don't occur in a
> scientific age.
[gh] Really... tune into Benny Hinn on t.v. performing "faith
healing miracles" in front of live crowds numbering
over 3,000,000 at a whack.
> (10) It may be, that the Emperor doesn't wear New Clothes, but is actually
> naked.
[gh] That happens when the Emperor gets the idea that HE can
best see the "invisible world" when in fact his SUBJECTS can
see more of it than he can. Such an event always precedes
a major revolution. Fact is, it is the major CAUSE of
revolutions.
Don.... I *do* like your "giant overview" type of posting ......!
At least someone out there is concerned with the big picture
rather than tedious drivel.
George Hammond
"solar plexus" <r384923h...@sol.dk> wrote in message
news:1116015266.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> > about the subject of "reality".
> >
> > The scientific proof of God (SPOG) therefore uses a very
> > "practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
> > most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
>
> maybe you should convert to Islam, which is
> more compatible with relativity then christianity
>
> according to what I heard, their messiah
> Mohammed or whatever, had experienced a trip
> outside our dimensions
>
> the trip took no time here on earth but out there
> took a few weeks
>
> when he came back nobody belived him
>
[Hammond]
You're kidding... where'd you hear that story?... is that
written down anywhere.... is it in the Koran?
I'd like to know the source of that story!
TMG
George Hammond wrote:
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
> message news:b6OdnfCjyqb...@comcast.com...
>>>THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
>>>are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
>>
>>
>>This is one of many logical jumps. THIS is a step that needs a
>>scientific proof.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> It only needs a proof to someone with a thinking disorder
> such as yourself. 20 billion normal people for 100,000
> years have already universally recognized the fact, just as
> they recognized the fact that fucking causes babies is not
> in need of a formal scientific proof.
So, by your own admission, there is no proof. We all knew this, but it's
good for you to admit it. A major step in your therapy.
And by the way,...your crude, low-brow, pedestrian example *CAN* be
proved, diagrammed, and tested. That's the difference.
>
>
>>"This fact alone" is not proof. Provide a classic
>>proof using the standard format. If one exists, it should be trivial for
>>you to provide it.
>>
>>
>>> A. Something universal to Man known as
>>> "Common Human Reality".
>>>
>>>Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
>>>obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact,
>>
>>It is not commonly recognized. Provide the logical, scientific proof.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> The fact that "reality" has been in the dictionary for thousands
> of years is sufficient proof that the human race recognizes
> comprehends and understands what "common human reality" means.
> Tedious simpleton.
"The earth is flat" was common, accepted knowledge. It was known as the
absolute truth, and a cornerstone of "common human reality". PROVED
SCIENTIFIC FACT. Are you arguing for a flat earth?
You are defining "belief", not "reality". Belief is the assent to
proposition. Proposition is not truth or "reality".
You put far too much faith (and it is faith) in what the "human race
recognizes, comprehends, and understands". Are you honestly saying "if
the majority say" is science? How many examples of "when the majority"
say being flat out wrong do you need before it sinks in?
You have clearly found that "the majority" say you are wrong, and your
SPOG is a bucket of pus. Simple and straight forward. EVERY PRIMATE that
has looked at your writings and "thoughts" on your SPOG snickers.
According to your "everybody" says way of defining reality, where does
that leave you?
A plebiscite is not a gage of truth, accuracy, or reason.
You'll snip it again (being unable to face your lies), but why are you
responding when you SWORE you wouldn't? You SWORE you'd never again
engage in USENET conversation. You were going to post information on the
grand acceptance of the spog. All of your posts (you swore) were going
to be "read-only".
Post to whomever you'd like - Usenet is a free-form bin for all the
crazies. Just stop telling us you're going to stop. You can't, and your
repeating it over and over makes you a dullard.
You will now need to respond. You have BIG.SQUISHY.BUTTONS that are
really easy to push. It's a simple matter to make [Hammond] dance for
our amusement. You can't help it. You are compelled to respond.
Let's all now watch..........
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
> message news:_J%ge.5560$i03....@fe06.lga...
>
>
> > > THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
> > > or "reality" for short.
> > > No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
> >
> > But my 'reality' insists that phenomena will persist after I cease.
>
> [Hammond]
> 1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
> 2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
> itself would cease to exist........ period!
> 3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
and it takes someone with no brain to be able to made such a stupid
statement!
> > > try and remember... all of Physicis is based on Mass, Length,
> > > and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
> > > other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
> > > that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
> > > is constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
> > > DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
> > > INTUITION.
> > > AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
> >
> > You have no vote in my 'reality model' and apparently I have none in
> > yours. Believing doesn't make it so "out there" only in your mind where
> > the 'reality model' resides.
>
> [Hammond]
> You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
> However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
> what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
Oh? Is that why everyoone you write to - from scientists to clergy - laugh
at your insanity?
ZenIsWhen
Nothing ... and your junk is still crap.
The WORD "existence" is the HUMAN DEFINITION of something.
The REAL existence of anything does NOT depend on human descriptions for its
existence - turdbrain!
Dogs exist whether we have invented the word "dog" or not!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> message news:cr7he.1794$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > (1) A "rational" proof of God is not enough in the modern world;
empirical
> > proof is needed.
>
> [gh] The SPOG is not only rational, it is empirically confirmed by
> 200 years of experimental evidence all of which is cited in
> my peer reviewed publication of the discovery. Yawn...
Not enough oxygen getting to your brain?
This is just the same craap lies that you keep shoveling.
WHY aren't you staying in your own news group - like you said you would ....
troll??????
>
> > (2) Any scientific theory must be testable by others (apart from the
> > originator).
>
> [gh] All of the experiments proving the SPOG have been repeated
> and confirmed by dozens if not hundreds of researchers
> and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Yawn...
Then why have you NEVER provided cites for such support?
ANYTHING you have offered has been related to PAST experimentrs for PST
claims - that YOU ignorantly warp, and use, to support your psychotic
distorion of science!!!
>
> > (3) To postulate an entity, you must first define it; a "God" must thus
be
> > defined - characteristics, etc, so that if you encountered it (in
> > laboratory, or on field trip) you'd recognise it.
>
> [gh] Nothing is "postulated" therefore nothing needs to be "defined".
> the SPOG is a DISCOVERY not a THEORY... such as the
> discovery of Greenland. Greeland did not have to be "defined"
> before it was accidently discovered.
Bwahahaaaaa....... You're more Carny con man (and an insane one at that)
than you are scientist!!!!
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
message news:QLWdnZit_rb...@comcast.com...
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
> > message news:b6OdnfCjyqb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> >>>THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
> >>>are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
> >>
> >>
> >>This is one of many logical jumps. THIS is a step that needs a
> >>scientific proof.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > It only needs a proof to someone with a thinking disorder
> > such as yourself. 20 billion normal people for 100,000
> > years have already universally recognized the fact, just as
> > they recognized the fact that fucking causes babies is not
> > in need of a formal scientific proof.
>
> So, by your own admission, there is no proof. We all knew this, but it's
> good for you to admit it. A major step in your therapy.
[Hammond]
Hey Crackpot........ things that are "universally self evident"
do not need proof. the fact that you think they do simply
means that you are an abberent crackpot.. a fact we are
already aware of.
> And by the way,...your crude, low-brow, pedestrian example *CAN* be
> proved, diagrammed, and tested. That's the difference.
[Hammond]
Yeah, it can also be "proved" that humans need to breath air
in order to live, but who would bother proving it since the fact
has been universally recognized for 100,000 years by 20 billion
people. What do we have to do, put someone in a vacuum
chamber to prove it to you? Go jerk off on your 10 speed
bike and quit bothering real scientists with you psycho
crap.
> >
> >
> >>"This fact alone" is not proof. Provide a classic
> >>proof using the standard format. If one exists, it should be trivial for
> >>you to provide it.
> >>
> >>
> >>> A. Something universal to Man known as
> >>> "Common Human Reality".
> >>>
> >>>Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
> >>>obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact,
> >>
> >>It is not commonly recognized. Provide the logical, scientific proof.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > The fact that "reality" has been in the dictionary for thousands
> > of years is sufficient proof that the human race recognizes
> > comprehends and understands what "common human reality" means.
> > Tedious simpleton.
>
>
> "The earth is flat" was common, accepted knowledge. It was known as the
> absolute truth, and a cornerstone of "common human reality". PROVED
> SCIENTIFIC FACT. Are you arguing for a flat earth?
[Hammond]
Look moron, since the Earth is a quadratic surface, the first
deriviative vanishes locally.. which means (in the terminology
of differential geometry) that it is "locally flat" an observation
that has been known for 100,000 years. However, by the
4rd century B.C. it was known to be round and the diameter
thereof was actually experimentally measured in Ptolomaic
Egypt to within 10% accuracy.
> You have clearly found that "the majority" say you are wrong
[Hammond]
Majorioty of what? ......... psychotic internet kpooks like you,
halfass?
>You SWORE you'd never again
> engage in USENET conversation.
[Hammond]
Stop posting off topic commentary about low brow stoooopid
working class subjects such as "the internet", "typographical
errors".... and "shithead elementary undergraduate science".... go
back to your moronic social therapy job of anlayzing earthquakes
in the Sunda Straight or whatever other pee cee remedial moronic
Yuppie tasks the Wood's Hole Oceanographic Inst. sees fit to
keep you busy with.... and stop bothering real scientists like me
bucket of swill.
George Hammond
> > > So no objects had mass until humans defined mass?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > YES......... FOR CHRISSAKES YES..... where do you
> > think the word "existence" comes from? "Existence"
> > is a human sensory function. There IS NO such thing
> > as "existence" without humans. Nothing can "exist"
> > without humans, including mass, length, time, traffic
> > tickets or Massengill Douche Powder for chrissakes.
> > What's wrong with you?
>
> The REAL existence of anything does NOT depend on
> human descriptions for its
> existence - turdbrain!
[Hammond]
Bobblehead moron.
Give me an example of "existence" that does not make reference
either expressly or implied to the sensory function of a HUMAN BEING.
YOU CAN'T!
QED: No humans, no existence... of ANYTHING!
solar plexus
> "solar plexus" <r384923h...@sol.dk> wrote in message
> news:1116015266.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > > Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
> > > about the subject of "reality".
> > >
> > > The scientific proof of God (SPOG) therefore uses a very
> > > "practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
> > > most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
> >
> > maybe you should convert to Islam, which is
> > more compatible with relativity then christianity
> >
> > according to what I heard, their messiah
> > Mohammed or whatever, had experienced a trip
> > outside our dimensions
> >
> > the trip took no time here on earth but out there
> > took a few weeks
> >
> > when he came back nobody belived him
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> You're kidding... where'd you hear that story?... is that
> written down anywhere.... is it in the Koran?
> I'd like to know the source of that story!
>
actually i'm not
i cant do arabic and english version i never
saw, maybe there are in libraries
the whole their religion is based on that
description i understod
i have no sources,
do a google like everybody else
Baugh
> "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
> message news:_J%ge.5560$i03....@fe06.lga...
>
>>>THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
>>>or "reality" for short.
>>> No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
>>
>>But my 'reality' insists that phenomena will persist after I cease.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> 1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
> 2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
> itself would cease to exist........ period!
> 3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
So your "reality model" states. We can't decide whose is correct
by debating. We can't see empirically because by definition we
won't be around. So how is this meaningful in a *scientific*
discussion?
>
>>> try and remember... all of Physicis is based on Mass, Length,
>>>and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
>>>other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
>>>that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
>>>is constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
>>>DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
>>>INTUITION.
>>> AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
>>
>>You have no vote in my 'reality model' and apparently I have none in
>>yours. Believing doesn't make it so "out there" only in your mind where
>>the 'reality model' resides.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
> However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
> what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
But what I believe vs what you believe vs what the majority believes is
immaterial. What is observable and empirically verifiable is all that
matters. That is if you want to append the 'S' to your POG.
With regard to definitions of mass, et al, these are relational
definitions. You confuse intiutive perception with convention.
A certain block of brass is agreed to define mass by convention.
We all agree this label "mass" describes the same observed phenomena,
the weighting factor for the effects of the impacts of projectiles
traveling at common speeds, and so on. We build a model out of the
multiplicity of phenomena. This model is valid only in so far as
it is consistant with and predictive of phenomena.
Variables in the system, such as "is there or is there not an aether"
or "is there or is there not a God" are immaterial with regard
to scientific inquiry if the choice one makes in metaphysical opinion
effects no change in the prediction of observable phenomena.
It is a religious belief not a scientific one.
> [Hammond]
> Good luck with your odd ideas... after you have published them
> in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
> (as I have) maybe I'd bother to listen to you... in the
And so I have and shall. Shall I apply the same criterion
to your "odd ideas"?
Hmmm... had a hard time finding your peer reviewed articles . . .
Found though a couple of self published books and posted
websites.
I see your belligerance as a means to dismiss and evade
an argument. However you will not chase me away from pointing
out what I see as flaws in your definitions or inferences.
Not when you post them on a public forum. But if it continues
to make you feel better by all means keep the insults comming.
regardless,
James Baugh
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in
> > message news:_J%ge.5560$i03....@fe06.lga...
> >
> >>>THEREFORE.... humans are the creators of "human reality"..
> >>>or "reality" for short.
> >>> No humans... no reality. Its a no brainer.
> >>
> >>But my 'reality' insists that phenomena will persist after I cease.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > 1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
> > 2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
> > itself would cease to exist........ period!
> > 3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
>
> So your "reality model" states. We can't decide whose is correct
> by debating. We can't see empirically because by definition we
> won't be around. So how is this meaningful in a *scientific*
> discussion?
[Hammond]
You have to bear in mind the following:
1. You have no scientific education sufficient to
even KNOW what "G_uv" is, therefore you are
not QUALIFIED toe engage in a scientific
discussion of the SPOG except at a mundane,
boring, "philawsephy" level.
2. Even at that low level your LOW intelligence and
dimwit conprehension prevents you from engaging
in anything but namecalling.
> >>> try and remember... all of Physics is based on Mass, Length,
> >>>and Time.... and YET... there IS NO definiton of these quantities
> >>>other than a "majority vote" that when I hold up a brass cylinder
> >>>that the majority AGREES that according to their intuition
> >>>it constitutes a speciman of "Mass". THERE IS NO
> >>>DEFINITION of "Mass" other than RAW HUMAN SENSORY
> >>>INTUITION.
> >>> AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WORLD "REALITY".
> >>
> >>You have no vote in my 'reality model' and apparently I have none in
> >>yours. Believing doesn't make it so "out there" only in your mind where
> >>the 'reality model' resides.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
> > However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
> > what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
>
> But what I believe vs what you believe vs what the majority believes is
> immaterial.
[Hammond]
Prove it.
> What is observable and empirically verifiable is all that
> matters. That is if you want to append the 'S' to your POG.
[Hammond]
I've been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
That is sufficent CETIFICATION that the SPOG is
competent science.
> > [Hammond]
> > Good luck with your odd ideas... after you have published them
> > in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
> > (as I have) maybe I'd bother to listen to you... in the
>
> And so I have and shall. Shall I apply the same criterion
> to your "odd ideas"?
[Hammond]
Sure... here is where THE SPOG has been published in the
PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE:
---------------------------------------------------
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
(ONLINE FACSIMILE COPY AT:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html )
---------------------------------------------------
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
(ONLINE FACSIMILE COPY AT:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
----------------------------------------------------
Yawn......
>
> Hmmm... had a hard time finding your peer reviewed articles . . .
> Found though a couple of self published books and posted
> websites.
[Hammond]
Library references, plus online copies for your reading
convenience, fully cited above Jimmy.
Yawn........
> James Baugh
George Hammond
[Hammond]
I'm not like everybody else Crock.
Everybody else hasn't discovered the world's
first scientific proof of God, remember?
Don H
>
> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> message news:cr7he.1794$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Don.... I *do* like your "giant overview" type of posting ......!
> At least someone out there is concerned with the big picture
> rather than tedious drivel.
# George, I somewhat admire your SPOG, as a serious and ingenious attempt to
prove God exists, even if I think it a fallacy. All gods, goddesses, and
other such anthropomorphic deities originated in Ancestor Worship, in my
opinion; but there are also (theophanies) the animal deities, and
semi-animal hybrids, of, mainly, Egyptian mythology.
That still leaves the "God hypothesis" of philosophy: the cosmic designer.
As an atheist but empiricist, I don't see evidence for the actual
existence of any of them - but would be obliged to "believe in God" if he
presented himself (and wasn't Satan in disguise).
However, as Doctor Who said, in "The Pyramids of Mars": "the Age of the
Osirans is long past". I recomend this BBC-DVD as a really spooky episode;
with Suhtek the Destroyer.
ZenIsWhen
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <here'sloo...@youkid.com> wrote in
> message news:118bj7l...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > > > So no objects had mass until humans defined mass?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > YES......... FOR CHRISSAKES YES..... where do you
> > > think the word "existence" comes from? "Existence"
> > > is a human sensory function. There IS NO such thing
> > > as "existence" without humans. Nothing can "exist"
> > > without humans, including mass, length, time, traffic
> > > tickets or Massengill Douche Powder for chrissakes.
> > > What's wrong with you?
> >
>
>
> > The REAL existence of anything does NOT depend on
> > human descriptions for its
> > existence - turdbrain!
>
> [Hammond]
> Bobblehead moron.
>
> Give me an example of "existence" that does not make reference
> either expressly or implied to the sensory function of a HUMAN BEING.
> YOU CAN'T!
All the plants and animals that have yet to be discovered in the Amazon, and
other remote places in the world. .
All the plants and animals that became extinct before man came along.
All the stars and other heavenly bodies that have yet to be discovered by
man.
>
> QED: No humans, no existence... of ANYTHING!
B.S. - as usual - and typical ALL your crap!!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
> message news:QLWdnZit_rb...@comcast.com...
>
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > > "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
> > > message news:b6OdnfCjyqb...@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> > >>>THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
> > >>>are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>This is one of many logical jumps. THIS is a step that needs a
> > >>scientific proof.
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > It only needs a proof to someone with a thinking disorder
> > > such as yourself. 20 billion normal people for 100,000
> > > years have already universally recognized the fact, just as
> > > they recognized the fact that fucking causes babies is not
> > > in need of a formal scientific proof.
> >
> > So, by your own admission, there is no proof. We all knew this, but it's
> > good for you to admit it. A major step in your therapy.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey Crackpot........ things that are "universally self evident"
> do not need proof. the fact that you think they do simply
> means that you are an abberent crackpot.. a fact we are
> already aware of.
>
HEY CRACKBRAIN!
Just because YOU bellow somoething, does NOT mean it is universally evident!
Things that are "universally evident" have NOTHING TO DO with scientific
fact......just a few hundred years ago, it was universally evident that man
would never be able to take to the air.
Just a few thousand years ago, it was universally evident that the earth was
flat.
>
> > And by the way,...your crude, low-brow, pedestrian example *CAN* be
> > proved, diagrammed, and tested. That's the difference.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah, it can also be "proved" that humans need to breath air
> in order to live, but who would bother proving it since the fact
> has been universally recognized for 100,000 years by 20 billion
> people.
It has NOT been "proven" until science confirmed the FACTS behind breathing.
There is one hell of a difference between something that is factual, being
universally accepted - such as breathing ... and something that is WRONG
being universally accepted .... like bloodletting.
What do we have to do, put someone in a vacuum
> chamber to prove it to you? Go jerk off on your 10 speed
> bike and quit bothering real scientists with you psycho
> crap.
You volunteering?
Of course, having you brain in a vacuum would be nothing new to you!
ZenIsWhen
You have no idea what Baugh's actual qualifications are!
You have, yourself, delved into and spouted concepts from AMNY areaas where
YOU have no qualifications.
You just WELCOMED a faux supporter who admitted to NO qualifications.
and finally, if it smells like shit, and it squishes like shit, and it's in
a steaming warm pile like shit .. and it just came from a horses ass (that's
you, if you miss the implications) - one does not need a degree to show that
it IS SHIT!
>
> 2. Even at that low level your LOW intelligence and
> dimwit conprehension prevents you from engaging
> in anything but namecalling.
Pus brain ... YOU were the one calling names!
ZenIsWhen
Neither is anyone else at "The Ward".
> Everybody else hasn't discovered the world's
> first scientific proof of God, remember?
>
Neither have you!
BTW ........ why are you trolling here, instead of staying in your own
private (closet) news group ... like you promised?
TMG
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
> message news:QLWdnZit_rb...@comcast.com...
>
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>>"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in
>>>message news:b6OdnfCjyqb...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>THIS FACT ALONE tells us, to the same degree that we
>>>>>are "identical" (which is quite high), that there MUST BE:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is one of many logical jumps. THIS is a step that needs a
>>>>scientific proof.
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>It only needs a proof to someone with a thinking disorder
>>>such as yourself. 20 billion normal people for 100,000
>>>years have already universally recognized the fact, just as
>>>they recognized the fact that fucking causes babies is not
>>>in need of a formal scientific proof.
>>
>>So, by your own admission, there is no proof. We all knew this, but it's
>>good for you to admit it. A major step in your therapy.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey Crackpot........ things that are "universally self evident"
> do not need proof.
Where did you get that gem of scientific thought?
Even *if*, as you wrongly assert, they don't NEED formal proofs (and
they do), they CAN be successfully subjected to formal proofs.
"Universally self evident" is proved time and time again to be flat out
wrong.
> the fact that you think they do simply
> means that you are an abberent crackpot..
It's what the scientific method demands.
> a fact we are
> already aware of.
We? You and the voices?
>>And by the way,...your crude, low-brow, pedestrian example *CAN* be
>>proved, diagrammed, and tested. That's the difference.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah, it can also be "proved" that humans need to breath air
> in order to live, but who would bother proving it since the fact
> has been universally recognized for 100,000 years by 20 billion
> people. What do we have to do, put someone in a vacuum
> chamber to prove it to you?
Well, that little rant has nothing to do with the point that you have no
proof, but: Yes, it can be proved - and with a lot less effort and
drama than your straw man. IT CAN BE PROVED. Your Spog can not. Again,
if the spog is "universally evident" it's, by definition, a trivial
matter to type out the proof. If you want to take this to the next step,
take the 5 minutes and type it out.
Come on George - make my day. Type out the formal proof that you claim
exists.
> Go jerk off on your 10 speed
> bike
The fact that someone has (gasp) a 10 speed bike throws you into such a
tizzy says a lot George. You've mentioned that a few times. Guess what,
we have two new cars. What do you make of that?
> and quit bothering real scientists with you psycho
> crap.
Now, now, now George - you had been making such strong progress. Now
you're back to thinking you're a scientist??
>>>
>>>>"This fact alone" is not proof. Provide a classic
>>>>proof using the standard format. If one exists, it should be trivial for
>>>>you to provide it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A. Something universal to Man known as
>>>>> "Common Human Reality".
>>>>>
>>>>>Now the SPOG does not need to go any further than THAT
>>>>>obvious and commonly recognized scientific fact,
>>>>
>>>>It is not commonly recognized. Provide the logical, scientific proof.
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>The fact that "reality" has been in the dictionary for thousands
>>>of years is sufficient proof that the human race recognizes
>>>comprehends and understands what "common human reality" means.
>>>Tedious simpleton.
>>
>>
>>"The earth is flat" was common, accepted knowledge. It was known as the
>>absolute truth, and a cornerstone of "common human reality". PROVED
>>SCIENTIFIC FACT. Are you arguing for a flat earth?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Look moron, since the Earth is a quadratic surface, the first
> deriviative vanishes locally.. which means (in the terminology
> of differential geometry) that it is "locally flat" an observation
> that has been known for 100,000 years. However, by the
> 4rd century B.C. it was known to be round and the diameter
> thereof was actually experimentally measured in Ptolomaic
> Egypt to within 10% accuracy.
The earth is not flat, and no tap dancing makes those that (even today)
believed so correct. The "universally held" 15th century fear of sailing
off the edge of the world is pretty much set aside. Again, science is
not established by a count of hands. You cling to that hope (XXX number
believe in god, therefore it must exist), but that in not science.
>>You have clearly found that "the majority" say you are wrong
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Majorioty of what? ......... psychotic internet kpooks like you,
> halfass?
and each and every scientist that you have contacted ex-internet. Also,
each and every theologian you have contacted ex-internet. And each and
every person you have talked to in person. And each and every person
that has read anything you have ever written, as you have no evidence of
any supporters.
>
>>You SWORE you'd never again
>>engage in USENET conversation.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Stop posting off topic commentary about low brow stoooopid
> working class subjects such as "the internet", "typographical
> errors".... and "shithead elementary undergraduate science".... go
> back to your moronic social therapy job of anlayzing earthquakes
> in the Sunda Straight
I keep telling you that you're stalking the wrong person. Again, not my
field.
> or whatever other pee cee remedial moronic
> Yuppie tasks the Wood's Hole Oceanographic Inst. sees fit to
> keep you busy with.... and stop bothering real scientists like me
> bucket of swill.
Strong words from a broken man who's never held a job.
And whatever happened to your sworn claim that you'd never, EVER, argue
on USENET again? You've said so several times. Now, have you lost
control of yourself, or are you a liar?
Baugh
>>>[Hammond]
>>>1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
>>>2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
>>> itself would cease to exist........ period!
>>>3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
>>
>>So your "reality model" states. We can't decide whose is correct
>>by debating. We can't see empirically because by definition we
>>won't be around. So how is this meaningful in a *scientific*
>>discussion?
>
Now that you've vented your frustrations, answer the above question.
> [Hammond]
> You have to bear in mind the following:
>
> 1. You have no scientific education sufficient to
> even KNOW what "G_uv" is, therefore you are
> not QUALIFIED toe engage in a scientific
> discussion of the SPOG except at a mundane,
> boring, "philawsephy" level.
Not as you define science. I have no credentials from
so esteemed an organization as the Noetic Institute.
> 2. Even at that low level your LOW intelligence and
> dimwit conprehension prevents you from engaging
> in anything but namecalling.
>
Yes, Let's review the name's I've called you.... hmmm...
I'm having trouble with my news reader could you list them
for me please?
>>>[Hammond]
>>>You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
>>>However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
>>>what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
>>
>>But what I believe vs what you believe vs what the majority believes is
>>immaterial.
>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Prove it.
Very well: Shall we use your method of proof and vote here in the
Forum? Or shall I use reason and argument? If not voting then
I will have to use those dirty words such as "epistemology"
which you find proof of idiocy. I hope you will bear with me.
Consider some discipline, call it the 'alpha-discipline' so
we won't get into an argument over what is or isn't science.
Now within that discipline will inevitably arise conflicting
opinions as to the validity of certain asserted facts.
The discipline must therefore establish a consensus as to
how such conflicts will be resolved. This is the agreed upon
epistemology of the discipline.
Let me make a comment about 'consensus'. The consensus
must be unanimous as this will define the discipline.
Those who disagree with the choice of epistemology
will then by definition fail to adhere to the alpha-discipline.
They are welcome to establish another beta-discipline.
Some possibilities:
The consensus may be that a body of authorities will be
selected who will adjudicate the dispute. Or perhaps
a single individual may be selected. But this does not
determine the epistemology it simply defers the question,
in that it only defines *who's* epistemology not what that
epistemology shall be.
Another possibility is the method the knights used.
The proponents for the competing assertions will "duke it out"
in physical combat until one emerges victor. His opinion
is then taken as "the truth". A less violent similar
method is to draw lots or some other random method.
But lets suppose the alpha-discipline wished to select
an epistemology which was independent of political influence,
physical intimidation, and self contradiction.
Let us suppose that this alpha-discipline chooses to
adopt as its epistemology the determination of knowledge
only through repeatable empirical observation.
Note that you cannot have multiple epistemologies.
Given two epistemologies they either will always agree
or sometimes disagree. If the former then one may
dispense with one of the two as either will serve,
but that brings up the need for a meta-epistemology
by which one must decide whether this equivalence
is in fact known. The more important case is the second
given conflicting epistemologies one must outweigh
the other or else the discipline is not clearly defined.
It is a simple matter to split the issue into two disciplines
rather than attempt to include two conflicting epistemologies.
Now in the case of the alpha-discipline I have defined
it is by definition the case that belief be it individual
or majority is immaterial to the determination of truth.
The definition of that discipline is that observation of
empirical phenomena and only observation of empirical phenomena
is the relevant arbitrator of what is to be considered knowledge.
Now the rest is a question of semantics. But in semantics
a majority consensus is vital. We must agree on meaning so
that we may communicate clearly. In every definition of science
you find the ultimate arbitrator of the validity of a hypothesis
is and only is the empirical test. Not the vote of the population
or the power of the authority or the clarity and aesthetic appeal of the
presentation. The church may force Galileo to recant his statements
but the church is not abiding by an empirically based epistemological
discipline. Einstein may assert all day that 'God doesn't play dice'
but Einstein will not present this as a scientific proof, but rather
as he did, as a heuristic opinion based on his personal intuition.
So as a matter of semantics, your basis for reality is not purely
and wholly "scientific". Your POG is likewise not wholly "scientific".
Whether it is valid in a parallel "beta discipline" depends on the
arbitrating epistemological basis of that discipline. But you as
with many other claimants to "scientific truth" are attempting
to usurp the term and the authority it has generated in our culture
based on its success at empowering said culture.
The very fact that you use the term "proof" demonstrates this.
Science "proves" nothing. It rather disproves the validity of
hypotheses by empirical counter-examples... or fails to up to the
current experiments. The impossibility of definitive proof derives from
the pragmatic limits. We cannot continually and perpetually test to
infinite precision via empirical experiment every prediction of every
hypothesis of a theory. We can at best "spot check" and gather
statistical support.
You want to expand the discipline of science to cover your thesis?
Fine but call it meta-science, call it philosophy, call it what
you will but use the term "science" in the same fashion as
it is used in the majority of those peer reviewed scientific
journals. If you where to sell a man what everyone else calls
a mule by using the term 'horse' as you alternatively label
the beast, then the courts would have you up on charges of fraud.
You are trying to sell your mule with a sign reading "horse".
>>What is observable and empirically verifiable is all that
>>matters. That is if you want to append the 'S' to your POG.
>
> [Hammond]
> I've been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
> That is sufficent CETIFICATION that the SPOG is
> competent science.
Depends on the circle of peers and the publishing authority's
definition of 'science'.
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Good luck with your odd ideas... after you have published them
>>>in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
>>>(as I have) maybe I'd bother to listen to you... in the
>>
>>And so I have and shall. Shall I apply the same criterion
>>to your "odd ideas"?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure... here is where THE SPOG has been published in the
> PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
Two notes, why is it that your compare your "theory" with
other psychometricist's "models". Second, where are your
empirical predictions. In your conclusions you assert
that your "theory" will have grand impacts on various
social institutions however nowhere does your theory
actually express a prediction of human behavior which
does not already exist in prior models. You simply
analogize between Cartesian space in so far as it
has three dimensions and a number of models which
have three (and sometimes four and five) qualitative
components. Nowhere do I see any quantitative exposition
by which the distinction between "Cartesian"
can be distinguished from "non-Cartesian" geometries
with regard to the application you hypothesize.
Where is the metric? What does the metric measure.
Final question about this work. You refered to one
of the "axioms of physics" but you failed to cite a
source. For the elucidation of this humble ignorant
pesant, would you mind posting a reference to these
axioms?
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
>
A journal that by its own definition is stepping outside the bounds
of science:
"The noetic journal seeks to fill this gap by boldly addressing a
complete epistemology that is not just confined to current myopic limits
of scientific phenomenology. Science is inadequate to complete the task
of explaining consciousness without being drastically reformulated."
"Noetics is the study of mind which utilizes the rigors of science, the
logic of philosophy, and the humility and absolute truth of theology. "
So let's call your theory the NPOG instead of the SPOG!
I especially note that "absolute truth of theology" which
begs the question in my mind as to *which* theology and how
conflicts between theological truths and empirical ones
are decided. Does the church bully Gallileo into retracting
his stated observations or do the theologians revise their
interpetation of "theological truth" to encompass the
empirical phenomena?
What criterion determines theological truth over theological
heresy?
Or do you disagree with the founding principles of the journal
to which you submitted your publication?
Regards,
James Baugh
P.S. With regard to my own credentials/publications search your physics
publication databases, if it's something you find important.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> Come on George - make my day. Type out the formal proof that you claim
> exists.
[Hammond]
Been there, done that:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
(Online copy located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html )
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
(online copy located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
George Hammond
> > 2. Even at that low level your LOW intelligence and
> > dimwit conprehension prevents you from engaging
> > in anything but namecalling.
>
> Pus brain ... YOU were the one calling names!
[Hammond]
Scab, swill bucket, pisspot, crock a shit, scumbag.
Paul Der Guist
Ode to the Imbecile:
---------------------------
Hammond is an Idiot
Hammond is a Fool
Hammond is Full of Sh!t
Hammond is a Tool
Hammond can not Think at All
Hammond has no Mind
Hammond has an Ugly Soul
Hammond is so Blind
Hammond is a Waste of Skin
Hammond is Insane
And When he's Finally Done In
The World will be the Same.
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
> >>>[Hammond]
> >>>1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
> >>>2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
> >>> itself would cease to exist........ period!
> >>>3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
> >>
> >>So your "reality model" states. We can't decide whose is correct
> >>by debating. We can't see empirically because by definition we
> >>won't be around. So how is this meaningful in a *scientific*
> >>discussion?
> >
>
> Now that you've vented your frustrations, answer the above question.
[Hammond]
A. I have no frustrations.
B. You have no question to which the answer isn't
alrady self evident.
> > [Hammond]
> > You have to bear in mind the following:
> >
> > 1. You have no scientific education sufficient to
> > even KNOW what "G_uv" is, therefore you are
> > not QUALIFIED toe engage in a scientific
> > discussion of the SPOG except at a mundane,
> > boring, "philawsephy" level.
>
> Not as you define science. I have no credentials from
> so esteemed an organization as the Noetic Institute.
[Hammond]
Cite your DV.
Here's mine:
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
(Online copy located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html )
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
(online copy located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
>
> >>>[Hammond]
> >>>You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
> >>>However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
> >>>what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
> >>
> >>But what I believe vs what you believe vs what the majority believes is
> >>immaterial.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Prove it.
>
> Very well: Shall we use your method of proof and vote here in the
> Forum?
[Hammond]
Or you might take a vote in the lobby of the local Greyhound
Bus Station... which would amount to the same thing, and
certainly is irrelevant.
<snip... rant>
> > [Hammond]
> > I've been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
> > That is sufficent CETIFICATION that the SPOG is
> > competent science.
>
> Depends on the circle of peers and the publishing authority's
> definition of 'science'.
[Hammond]
Sure does, there are 25 internationally prominent PhD's on
the editorial board of the Noetic Journal, 10 of them PhD's
in Physics including the editor.
[Hammond]
Your so called question is a bunch of pseudo intellectual
word soup. Obviously you are not even scientifically
qualified to read the theory much less criticize it.
PROOF: It has been reviewed and published in the peer
reviewed scientific literature, and therefore is certifiably
competent science.
>
> Final question about this work. You refered to one
> of the "axioms of physics" but you failed to cite a
> source. For the elucidation of this humble ignorant
> pesant, would you mind posting a reference to these
> axioms?
[Hammond]
Go get a degree in Physics, I'm not a private tutor here
to give you a free education.
> P.S. With regard to my own credentials/publications search your physics
> publication databases, if it's something you find important.
>
[Hammond]
Cite your CV or get outta here.
I can tell you're a moron by talking to you.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
ALL of your statments are predicated by an unwritten assumption
to the effect:
"IF there was a person present to observe the situation
in the remote reeaches of the Amazon... THEN he would observe
species as yet undiscovered by Man"
Point is........ a HUMAN OBSERVER is "expressed or implied"
in ANY CONDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXISTENCE...... whether it be
"observerd or unobserved...... discovered or
undiscovered"
the same thing applies to the statment:
"The world existed 15 billion years before Man"
This statment ACTUALLY MEANS:
"IF a human observer were present 15 billion
years ago, he would see that the Universe existed".
but fact of the amtter is that a human observer DIDN'T EXIST
15 billion years ago........ so therefore the universe didn't "exist"
15 billion years ago....... and the original statment is only a
CONDITIONAL HYPOTHETICAL STATMENT.
NOW, YOU'RE A FUCKIN MORON WHO DOESN'T
EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT
......SO GET OUTTA HERE.
ZenIsWhen
Posting your resume is not going to help your case.
ZenIsWhen
>
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:G8KdnfgRpvK...@comcast.com...
>
>
> > Come on George - make my day. Type out the formal proof that you claim
> > exists.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Been there, done that:
You mean "shoveled that"!
>
> Peer reviewed publications:
Once again - these are NOT peer reviewed scientific journals!
They are the equivalent of the "National Enquirer" in the news world!
ZenIsWhen
> M.S. aka "More of the Same"!
> Ph.D. aka "Piled Higher and Deper"!
> Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
> N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
What does HE say about your crap?????
>
> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
> (Online copy located at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html )
>
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
> (online copy located at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
Supermarket tabloids!
The equivalent of a "New Age" religion.
" Science is inadequate to complete the task of explaining consciousness
without being drastically reformulated. "
IOW .... science doesn't fit our criteria, so we'll pretend that science has
its shortcomings rather than our criteria is not scientific!!!
There is NO evidence of any "peer review".
There is no evidence that you even KNOW what "peer review" means in the
scientific world.
Since you barely have one of your own?
Any REAL scientist would either have that information at hand - or - more
likely - have provided it with the original statement!
George Hammond
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Cfche.313$w21...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> > message news:cr7he.1794$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > (cut)
> > Don.... I *do* like your "giant overview" type of posting ......!
> > At least someone out there is concerned with the big picture
> > rather than tedious drivel.
>
> # George, I somewhat admire your SPOG, as a serious and ingenious attempt
to
> prove God exists, even if I think it a fallacy.
[Hammond]
Naturally what you think is of little relevance since we already
"know what you know and what you don't know".
> All gods, goddesses, and
> other such anthropomorphic deities originated in Ancestor Worship, in my
> opinion; but there are also (theophanies) the animal deities, and
> semi-animal hybrids, of, mainly, Egyptian mythology.
[Hammond]
Naturally this is what ALL people of your class and education
believe.... we already know that... and also know WHY that
is the case.
Fact of the matter is that "all gods and demigods" are
Psychometric Factors (eigenvectors) and there is a hierarchy
of them.
30-1st order factors = 30 demigods of the Hindu
and ancient religions
13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the
Greco-Roman Pantheon
4-3rd order factors = 4 Gospel Saints of Christianity:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
1-4th order factor = The God of Monotheism: God, Allah,
Yahweh, Brahma, Buddha, etc.
and the ENTIRE HISTORY of Religion is nothing more than
the slow historical process of the discovery of the higher and
heigher orders of factors by sucessive cultures, for instance:
(20,000-10,000 BC)
Stone Age Man discovered the 30-1st Order human personality
Factors and named them after various animals, weather
phenomena (wind, rain, lightening.. etc.) according to
the characteristics of the various personality factors in human
behavior.
(5,000-1500 BC)
Ancient Egypt discovered the 2nd order Factors which
were also discovered (and renamed) by the Greco-Roman
Cultures. Egypt modelled them as 13 deimigods with
the bodies of men and an animal head (alligator, ibis,
hawk, jackel, etc.) according to the personality
characteristics exihibited by the 13 types in human
behavior. The Greco-Romans dispensed with the
animal heads and named them after popular heroic
types in the society whoch by then were well known.
(1350 BC)
Ancient Egypt also discovered the single 4th order Factor and
Akhenaton (18th Dynasty) named it Aton the Sun God..
Moses brought up in the royal court of Egypt copied it
and renamed it YAHWEH where it appears in the first
5 books of the Bible called the Torah.
(50 AD)
Christianity discovered the 4-3rd order Factors and named them
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and adopted the Israeli
identification of the 4th order Factor (Yahweh) and renamed
it once again, calling it "God".
(2003 AD)
Hammond, an American physicist finally identified all of the above
Psychometric Factors and the axiomatic physics structure
(cubic correlation of the 13 2nd orders) underlying them
caused by the cubic cleavage structure of the brain, and
proved that the single 4th order Factor is a "curvature Factor"
of the Psychometric space itself (4D, 3rd Order space) caused
by the Secular Trend in human brain growth. Thus finally after
3,500 years of raging controversy PROVING THAT THE
HISTORICAL THEORY OF GOD IS AN AXIOMATIC
LAW OF PHYSICS, AND THAT THERE IS A REAL GOD.
> That still leaves the "God hypothesis" of philosophy: the cosmic
designer.
> As an atheist but empiricist, I don't see evidence for the actual
> existence of any of them - but would be obliged to "believe in God" if he
> presented himself (and wasn't Satan in disguise).
[Hammond]
Scientifically speaking, "GOD" is the top Factor in the heirarchy,
and is caused by the Secular Trend in brain growth.
> However, as Doctor Who said, in "The Pyramids of Mars": "the Age of the
> Osirans is long past". I recomend this BBC-DVD as a really spooky
episode;
> with Suhtek the Destroyer.
[Hammond]
We know you love working class t.v. and watch endless hours
of it and derive most of your intellectual opinions from the
t.v. program writers who formulate it for your consumption.
However, that doesn't mean people of higher education do.... nor
does it mean that you can use such programmmatic mass education
to argue with more educated people.......... such as me.
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> ALL of your statments are predicated by an unwritten assumption
> to the effect:
>
> "IF there was a person present to observe the situation
> in the remote reeaches of the Amazon... THEN he would observe
> species as yet undiscovered by Man"
>
> Point is........ a HUMAN OBSERVER is "expressed or implied"
> in ANY CONDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXISTENCE...... whether it be
>
> "observerd or unobserved...... discovered or
> undiscovered"
>
> the same thing applies to the statment:
>
> "The world existed 15 billion years before Man"
>
> This statment ACTUALLY MEANS:
>
> "IF a human observer were present 15 billion
> years ago, he would see that the Universe existed".
>
> but fact of the amtter is that a human observer DIDN'T EXIST
> 15 billion years ago........ so therefore the universe didn't "exist"
> 15 billion years ago....... and the original statment is only a
> CONDITIONAL HYPOTHETICAL STATMENT.
>
> NOW, YOU'RE A FUCKIN MORON WHO DOESN'T
> EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT
> ......SO GET OUTTA HERE.
George, do you have any idea how absurd a statement it is to say that
the existence of the universe depends on your brain?
Gary Eickmeier
ZenIsWhen
Now you're inventing unwritten assumptions?
It doesn't matter - the facts I've stated blow your crap argument out of
the water!
>
> Point is........ a HUMAN OBSERVER is "expressed or implied"
> in ANY CONDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXISTENCE...... whether it be
>
> "observerd or unobserved...... discovered or
> undiscovered"
>
> the same thing applies to the statment:
Expressed or implied by whom; a moronic asshole like you?
Show ANYWHERE in science, or evenin common sense, that outside of your
claim - such stupidity exists!!!
>
> "The world existed 15 billion years before Man"
>
> This statment ACTUALLY MEANS:
>
> "IF a human observer were present 15 billion
> years ago, he would see that the Universe existed".
>
> but fact of the amtter is that a human observer DIDN'T EXIST
> 15 billion years ago........ so therefore the universe didn't "exist"
> 15 billion years ago....... and the original statment is only a
> CONDITIONAL HYPOTHETICAL STATMENT.
The original statement is crap, and you've just added MORE crap to try anhd
support it!
We're talking about reality and science - not the crap claims YOU invent and
never support with REAL science!
>
> NOW, YOU'RE A FUCKIN MORON WHO DOESN'T
> EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT
> ......SO GET OUTTA HERE.
Careful, George ..... the attendants won't let you use the computer anymore
if you act up.
You may be a god in your own mind - but here, you're just an ignorant
psychotic.
ZenIsWhen
> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> message news:JVrhe.2747$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:Cfche.313$w21...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> > > message news:cr7he.1794$E7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > (cut)
> > > Don.... I *do* like your "giant overview" type of posting ......!
> > > At least someone out there is concerned with the big picture
> > > rather than tedious drivel.
> >
> > # George, I somewhat admire your SPOG, as a serious and ingenious
attempt
> to
> > prove God exists, even if I think it a fallacy.
>
> [Hammond]
> Naturally what you think is of little relevance since we already
> "know what you know and what you don't know".
With that last statement , he's already proven he knows more than you,
fungus brain!
George Hammond
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
message news:xIHhe.20914$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > [Hammond]
> > ALL of your statments are predicated by an unwritten assumption
> > to the effect:
> >
> > "IF there was a person present to observe the situation
> > in the remote reaches of the Amazon... THEN he would observe
> > species as yet undiscovered by Man"
> >
> > Point is........ a HUMAN OBSERVER is "expressed or implied"
> > in ANY CONDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXISTENCE...... whether it be
> >
> > "observerd or unobserved...... discovered or
> > undiscovered"
> >
> > the same thing applies to the statement:
> >
> > "The world existed 15 billion years before Man"
> >
> > This statment ACTUALLY MEANS:
> >
> > "IF a human observer were present 15 billion
> > years ago, he would see that the Universe existed".
> >
> > but fact of the amtter is that a human observer DIDN'T EXIST
> > 15 billion years ago........ so therefore the universe didn't "exist"
> > 15 billion years ago....... and the original statment is only a
> > CONDITIONAL HYPOTHETICAL STATMENT.
> >
> > NOW, YOU'RE A FUCKIN MORON WHO DOESN'T
> > EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT
> > ......SO GET OUTTA HERE.
>
> George, do you have any idea how absurd a statement it is to say that
> the existence of the universe depends on your brain?
> Gary Eickmeier
[Hammond]
Nothing absurd about it. The entire Christian Science Religion
is founded on it: "God is mind, infinite mind" (Mary Baker Eddy),
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/CS.html
Do you realize how ABSURD it is to have a mere country girl from
a farm in New Hampshire without even a college education to be
world famous for her knowledge of God and Religion and founder
of a worldwide church considered to be one of the most prestigeous
in the world (the Christian Science Monitor has won 7 Pulitzer Prizes
for instance).
Fact is, the only thing that is ABSURD is that someone of your
pathetic ignorance and moronic attitude is allowed to heckle
a graduate scientist and a theory that has been published in the
peer reviewed literature.
Of course publicly kicking your pseudointellectual ass day in
and day out is somewhat rewarding. Maybe a few years of that
will put a more responsible tongue in your head.
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> Do you realize how ABSURD it is to have a mere country girl from
> a farm in New Hampshire without even a college education to be
> world famous for her knowledge of God and Religion and founder
> of a worldwide church considered to be one of the most prestigeous
> in the world (the Christian Science Monitor has won 7 Pulitzer Prizes
> for instance).
Yes.
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond
>
> Yes.
[Hammond]
At least you got that one right dork... even if for the wrong reason.
Boy... if I were you I'd feel like the stupidist man on Earth..
having some farm girl convince some of the most educated
and powerful pillars of society that she knew enough to
to call you a "lay person".
Baaahahahahah hahah hah hah hah hah ahaahaaa aaa
You're nothing but a moronic laughing stock....
Baaaahahahhaaaahahah hah hah ha hah hah hah.....
>
> Gary Eickmeier
ZenIsWhen
Of course it's absurd - you're just to stupid to see that!
BTW .... what ever happened between you and the CSR ..... di they finally
tell you to get some serious psychological help?
>
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/CS.html
>
> Do you realize how ABSURD it is to have a mere country girl from
> a farm in New Hampshire without even a college education to be
> world famous for her knowledge of God and Religion and founder
> of a worldwide church considered to be one of the most prestigeous
> in the world (the Christian Science Monitor has won 7 Pulitzer Prizes
> for instance).
Bwahahyhaaaaaaa.......
You fucking idiot!
The CSM has won awards for its REPORTING ... not for it's place in
religion!!!!!
> Fact is, the only thing that is ABSURD is that someone of your
> pathetic ignorance and moronic attitude is allowed to heckle
> a graduate scientist and a theory that has been published in the
> peer reviewed literature.
When did you become a graduate? For years you only claimed a masters.
You still are as ignorant as someone fresh out of the sandbox, and as
worthless as something I wipe off my shoes!
> Of course publicly kicking your pseudointellectual ass day in
> and day out is somewhat rewarding. Maybe a few years of that
> will put a more responsible tongue in your head.
Been here for years .... NEVER saw you even come close to "kicking"someone's
intellectual ass.
I've see one hell of a lot of kicking go the other way, though.
(which reminds me of the old insult - if brains were dynamite - you couldn't
blow your nose!)
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> At least you got that one right dork... even if for the wrong reason.
> Boy... if I were you I'd feel like the stupidist man on Earth..
> having some farm girl convince some of the most educated
> and powerful pillars of society that she knew enough to
> to call you a "lay person".
> Baaahahahahah hahah hah hah hah hah ahaahaaa aaa
> You're nothing but a moronic laughing stock....
> Baaaahahahhaaaahahah hah hah ha hah hah hah.....
Maybe so, but I'm not the hysterical schizo that believed the farm girl.
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Whaddaru, calling the Christian Science Church a fraud?
Are you saying the canon of the Christian Science Church
is incorrect? Are you saying it's scientifically unproven?
Fact is, I'm on record as having scientifically proved
that the canon of the Christian Science church
has been proven to be scientifically CORRECT..
two 2 decimal place accuracy!
And that is a religion (Christian denomination) founded
single handedly by a self educated farm girl from
Concord Hew Hampshire.
You're an intellectual wimp compared to her, bigshot,
and that's a fact.
And I'm NOT a member of the Christian Science church
by the way.
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:M3The.21422$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > At least you got that one right dork... even if for the wrong reason.
> > > Boy... if I were you I'd feel like the stupidist man on Earth..
> > > having some farm girl convince some of the most educated
> > > and powerful pillars of society that she knew enough to
> > > to call you a "lay person".
> > > Baaahahahahah hahah hah hah hah hah ahaahaaa aaa
> > > You're nothing but a moronic laughing stock....
> > > Baaaahahahhaaaahahah hah hah ha hah hah hah.....
> >
> > Maybe so, but I'm not the hysterical schizo that believed the farm girl.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> [Hammond]
> Whaddaru, calling the Christian Science Church a fraud?
> Are you saying the canon of the Christian Science Church
> is incorrect? Are you saying it's scientifically unproven?
A: No more or less than any other "religion".
B: No more or less than any other "religion".
C: Yes.
>
> Fact is, I'm on record as having scientifically proved
> that the canon of the Christian Science church
> has been proven to be scientifically CORRECT..
> two 2 decimal place accuracy!
Bwahahaaa.. to two place decimal accuracy?
Now you're pretending to be a master mathematician .... and have NOTHING to
suport that claim ....either!
>
> And that is a religion (Christian denomination) founded
> single handedly by a self educated farm girl from
> Concord Hew Hampshire.
> You're an intellectual wimp compared to her, bigshot,
> and that's a fact.
>
> And I'm NOT a member of the Christian Science church
> by the way.
You're barely a member of the human race, scumbag!
Kamerynn
TMG wrote:
Well, that little rant has nothing to do with the point that you have no
proof, but: Yes, it can be proved - and with a lot less effort and
drama than your straw man. IT CAN BE PROVED. Your Spog can not. Again,
if the spog is "universally evident" it's, by definition, a trivial
matter to type out the proof. If you want to take this to the next step,
take the 5 minutes and type it out.
Come on George - make my day. Type out the formal proof that you claim
exists.
> [Hammond]
> Been there, done that:
>
> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
> (Online copy located at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html )
>
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
> (online copy located at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
Kam:
What's most revealing in the above "articles" is how
vague crap is taken as absolutely self-evident. Take the
following example:
"Intelligence and Personality are two different phenomena.
Historically, Psychometry is divided into two eras. 1900-35 saw the
study of Intelligence by Sir Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, Charles
Spearman and Sir Ronald Fisher whom founded Statistics and Factor
Analysis and which produced the modern IQ test by 1935. After that,
Louis Thurstone, R. B. Cattell and Hans Eysenck turned this new
mathematics on personality research, which with the aid of modern
computers resulted in the discovery of E,N,P in Personality by 1990.
Until now it has never been suspected that there might be a structural
connection between Intelligence and Personality, but as we are about to
see, there is. This connection turns out to be the same as the
connection between Time and Space, discovered by Albert Einstein!"
Kam continues:
There is a question of *what is meant by* "intelligence."
Please note that modern IQ tests assign an IQ score (of
more than zero) to inanimate objects... such as rocks.
That's because in certain cases, giving no response is
better (indicative of a higher IQ) than giving the wrong
response. So, perhaps we should ask, "is this what we
actually mean by 'intelligence?'" Furthermore, modern
IQ tests test nothing if not one's life experiences.
Surely, one's practice with spacial thinking will bear
on the results of the spacial thinking portion of an IQ
test. This point applies to all portions of such tests,
of course. So, again, I ask what is meant by "intelligence."
Some believe that intelligence is innate, i.e. nature (not
a result of nurture/experience), and that what IQ tests
actually test is a combination of that nature and our actual
knowledge/experience.
The point to all of this: intelligence is a *word*
that is used and misused. Like *all* words, this one
has multiple uses/meanings - multiple entries in the
dictionary. Sentences like "Until now it has never been
suspected that there might be a structural connection between
Intelligence and Personality," are clearly a waste of our
time. That such a connection clearly exists is what
underscores much criticism of IQ tests, for example.
It should be obvious that talk of a "scientifically
correct" use/meaning of "intelligence" is hogwash.
The same goes for a "scientifically correct" use/meaning
of "God." There is *nothing* in George's "works" that
compel us toward using "God" to mean "Guv." We are still
free to use "God" to mean "the creator of the universe
including brain growth deficit" instead of
"the product of brain growth deficit." There is no
proof of definition/meaning, here; meaning is determined
by (conventional) use and George's use is anything but
conventional. That he believes that he is the only one
who truely knows what "God" means is proof of this.
Kamerynn
George Hammond wrote:
You are ashamed of your own actions when you see others
do them. --Wittgenstein on hypocrisy.
Yours truely,
Kamerynn
professional Kook basher, and bearer of the
Heinz-Wollman kook bashing award ;-)
Kamerynn
ZenIsWhen wrote:
Kam:
roflmao!! That's a keeper! Thanks for lightening up my
day!
Kamerynn
George Hammond wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:M3The.21422$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>At least you got that one right dork... even if for the wrong reason.
>>>Boy... if I were you I'd feel like the stupidist man on Earth..
>>>having some farm girl convince some of the most educated
>>>and powerful pillars of society that she knew enough to
>>>to call you a "lay person".
>>>Baaahahahahah hahah hah hah hah hah ahaahaaa aaa
>>>You're nothing but a moronic laughing stock....
>>>Baaaahahahhaaaahahah hah hah ha hah hah hah.....
>>
>>Maybe so, but I'm not the hysterical schizo that believed the farm girl.
>>
>>Gary Eickmeier
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Whaddaru, calling the Christian Science Church a fraud?
> Are you saying the canon of the Christian Science Church
> is incorrect? Are you saying it's scientifically unproven?
Kam:
Yes! You don't even know what "proof" means, do you?
>
> Fact is, I'm on record as having scientifically proved
> that the canon of the Christian Science church
> has been proven to be scientifically CORRECT..
> two 2 decimal place accuracy!
Kam:
The assertions in said canon do not have decimal
place accuracy! You might as well tell us that the
assertion "murder is wrong" can be measured to
a certain decimal place! No one is fooled, George.
<flush>
Kamerynn
ZenIsWhen wrote:
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:ztrhe.1067$M36...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>"solar plexus" <r384923h...@sol.dk> wrote in message
>>news:1116075529.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>>"solar plexus" <r384923h...@sol.dk> wrote in message
>>>>news:1116015266.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any moron knows that one can write 10,000 volumes
>>>>>>about the subject of "reality".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The scientific proof of God (SPOG) therefore uses a very
>>>>>>"practical" definition of "reality"... in fact it is the world's
>>>>>>most COMMON and SIMPLE definition of reality:
>>>>>
>>>>>maybe you should convert to Islam, which is
>>>>>more compatible with relativity then christianity
>>>>>
>>>>>according to what I heard, their messiah
>>>>>Mohammed or whatever, had experienced a trip
>>>>>outside our dimensions
>>>>>
>>>>>the trip took no time here on earth but out there
>>>>>took a few weeks
>>>>>
>>>>>when he came back nobody belived him
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>You're kidding... where'd you hear that story?... is that
>>>>written down anywhere.... is it in the Koran?
>>>>I'd like to know the source of that story!
>>>>
>>>
>>>actually i'm not
>>>
>>>i cant do arabic and english version i never
>>>saw, maybe there are in libraries
>>>
>>>the whole their religion is based on that
>>>description i understod
>>>
>>>i have no sources,
>>>do a google like everybody else
>>
>>[Hammond]
>>I'm not like everybody else Crock.
>
>
> Neither is anyone else at "The Ward".
>
>
>>Everybody else hasn't discovered the world's
>>first scientific proof of God, remember?
>>
>
>
> Neither have you!
>
> BTW ........ why are you trolling here, instead of staying in your own
> private (closet) news group ... like you promised?
Kam adds:
And, why do you ignore the above question, *every time*
it is posed to you? Are you afraid to admit that nobody is
interested in your b.s., and so nobody peruses your NG?
George Hammond
"Kamerynn" <idon'tdoe...@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:118i7u0...@corp.supernews.com...
[Hammond]
ABSOLUTLY LUCID AND PROVEN FACT.
The SPOG confirms that the "metric of Psychology is LORENTIZAN",
and this is exactly what EINSTEIN discovered... that the metirc
of REAL SPACE IS LORENTZIAN.
NOTE: "Lorentzian" means that the metric is
A. Quadratic
B. Has signature (+ + + -)
the fact that both "personality and intelligence" appear as coequal terms
in this metric is an ASTOUNDING scientific discovery relating
"ointelligence to personality" just as I said above.
So what is your problem?
[Hammond]
Cut the crap.... if you think you can "beg the question" by
sitting there and arguing that "intelligence doesn't exist"
when all 50 states in the U.S. define a "legally retarded
person" as one having an "IQ less than 70"... and schools
and employers and even the U.S. Army have been using
IQ tests for years....... you're out of your mind!
MOREOVER....... today IQ has been found to be
predominantly caused by "mental speed" (of decision
making/problem solving) and this "mental speed"
can be directly physically measured in a person
(in actual bits/second) to 2 decimal place accuracy..
There is even a FORMULA by which you can
COMPUTE someone's IQ from a measurement of his
mental speed:
IQ = 5 (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
meaning, if your mental speed measures 15 bits/second
then you IQ will mesure 5*15+25 = 100 ... which is
the average IQ, meaning the average mental speed is
15 bits/second.... this formula is taken from the last
page of this well known paper:
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(see page 26)
With this kind of modern PHYSICAL measure of
IQ, and bear in mind this paper is almost 15 years old!..,
...... for you to sit there and try to argue that "IQ dosn't exist"
is a pure crock of shit!
George Hammond
>
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:M3The.21422$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >>George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>[Hammond]
> >>>At least you got that one right dork... even if for the wrong reason.
> >>>Boy... if I were you I'd feel like the stupidist man on Earth..
> >>>having some farm girl convince some of the most educated
> >>>and powerful pillars of society that she knew enough to
> >>>to call you a "lay person".
> >>>Baaahahahahah hahah hah hah hah hah ahaahaaa aaa
> >>>You're nothing but a moronic laughing stock....
> >>>Baaaahahahhaaaahahah hah hah ha hah hah hah.....
> >>
> >>Maybe so, but I'm not the hysterical schizo that believed the farm girl.
> >>
> >>Gary Eickmeier
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Whaddaru, calling the Christian Science Church a fraud?
> > Are you saying the canon of the Christian Science Church
> > is incorrect? Are you saying it's scientifically unproven?
>
> Kam:
> Yes! You don't even know what "proof" means, do you?
[Hammond]
I've got 2 degrees in theoretical physics from accredited
universities that CERTIFY that I know what scientific proof
is.......... and you DON'T by the way.
>
> >
> > Fact is, I'm on record as having scientifically proved
> > that the canon of the Christian Science church
> > has been proven to be scientifically CORRECT..
> > two 2 decimal place accuracy!
>
> Kam:
> The assertions in said canon do not have decimal
> place accuracy! You might as well tell us that the
> assertion "murder is wrong" can be measured to
> a certain decimal place! No one is fooled, George.
[Hammond]
More ignorant horseshit.... it is WELL KNOWN that
"psychometric measurements and calculations" are considered
accurate to "two decimal places"...... therefore,
the SPOG is "accurate to two decimal places".
A person's IQ for instance is reported as 85, or 99
or something.... that is "two decimal place accuracy"
for instance. Learn some science for chrissakes... it
won't kill you.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Reminds me of Jim Morrison.....
"Comon baby light my day....
comon baby light my daaaaaaaaaaay..........."
George Hammond
[Hammond]
It is a fixed rule of the Internet never to give personal
information to internet stalkers and harassers. Besides
this is only "tabloid discussion" being lugged on the
backs of Electronic Sherpas known as "internet kooks and hecklers".
The serious action is taking place in the peer reviewed literature
and in discussions with other competent scientists (who's names
of course I wouldn't mention in this whorehouse).
As a result I have another upcoming paper in an AIP journal soon.
NO DETAILS will be divulged until after it is published!
ZenIsWhen
(as George slowly drifts off into yet another trip to "La-La" land .....
singing the WRONG words to a song.)
ZenIsWhen
??????????????????
You bellowed LOUDLY when you created that nes group .... why aren't you
bellowing now - AND staying oin your own, private, "diddle" closet?
Your excuses have as little credibility as all your other crap!
Besides
> this is only "tabloid discussion" being lugged on the
> backs of Electronic Sherpas known as "internet kooks and hecklers".
> The serious action is taking place in the peer reviewed literature
> and in discussions with other competent scientists (who's names
> of course I wouldn't mention in this whorehouse).
Why would whore be interested in tabloid pseudo-science?
> As a result I have another upcoming paper in an AIP journal soon.
> NO DETAILS will be divulged until after it is published!
Yea ....... right ............
I'll add this to the other claims, such as: I'll contact the Vatican, and
they'll see ..... and "I'll contact the Christian Scientists, and THEY'll
see.......
ZenIsWhen
The only thing around here, lucidly proven, is your warped and fraudulent
insanity!
>
> The SPOG confirms that the "metric of Psychology is LORENTIZAN",
> and this is exactly what EINSTEIN discovered... that the metirc
> of REAL SPACE IS LORENTZIAN.
>
> NOTE: "Lorentzian" means that the metric is
>
> A. Quadratic
> B. Has signature (+ + + -)
>
> the fact that both "personality and intelligence" appear as coequal terms
> in this metric is an ASTOUNDING scientific discovery relating
> "ointelligence to personality" just as I said above.
> So what is your problem?
Thje fraudulent way your corrupt REAL physics and mathematics to conform to
your "pile-o-crap" claims.
We know it"always" doesn't .. you're a prime example of that.
ZenIsWhen
WHO CARES what "degrees" you bellow!?!?!?!?!
Your actions and claims on here show you have NO CLUE about REAL science!
> > > Fact is, I'm on record as having scientifically proved
> > > that the canon of the Christian Science church
> > > has been proven to be scientifically CORRECT..
> > > two 2 decimal place accuracy!
> >
> > Kam:
> > The assertions in said canon do not have decimal
> > place accuracy! You might as well tell us that the
> > assertion "murder is wrong" can be measured to
> > a certain decimal place! No one is fooled, George.
>
> [Hammond]
> More ignorant horseshit.... it is WELL KNOWN that
> "psychometric measurements and calculations" are considered
> accurate to "two decimal places"...... therefore,
> the SPOG is "accurate to two decimal places".
Yea!
and you can measure the height, weight and denisity of Casper the friendly
ghost ... too!!!
> A person's IQ for instance is reported as 85, or 99
> or something.... that is "two decimal place accuracy"
> for instance. Learn some science for chrissakes... it
> won't kill you.
Bwahahhaaaaa............. you fucking MORON!
"Two Decimal places means EXACTLY THAT .. !
85 is NOT TWO DECIMAL PLACES!
85.00 IS!
You're no scientist, your just an ignorant freak!
TMG
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>[Hammond]
>>ABSOLUTLY LUCID AND PROVEN FACT.
>
>
> The only thing around here, lucidly proven, is your warped and fraudulent
> insanity!
Whoa - this is where I must disagree with you Zen. [Hammond]'s insanity
is not fraudulent. It is completely genuine.
Baugh
> "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:m_Ahe.19853$rt1....@fe04.lga...
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>>1. Not for YOU they won't, and that's for sure!
>>>>>2. Hence... if ALL people died tomorrow, for sure, reality
>>>>> itself would cease to exist........ period!
>>>>>3. Like I say, it's a no brainer.
>>>>
>>>>So your "reality model" states. We can't decide whose is correct
>>>>by debating. We can't see empirically because by definition we
>>>>won't be around. So how is this meaningful in a *scientific*
>>>>discussion?
>>>
>>Now that you've vented your frustrations, answer the above question.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> A. I have no frustrations.
> B. You have no question to which the answer isn't
> alrady self evident.
But please, since I'm such an idiot please would you lay
out your argument in more detail.
How can an empirically unanswerable question meaningful in a
*scientific* discussion when the definition of *science*
which is common to the major academic community is that
"science" only addresses issues which may be determined via
empirical evidence.
>>>[Hammond]
>>>You have to bear in mind the following:
>>>
>>>1. You have no scientific education sufficient to
>>> even KNOW what "G_uv" is, therefore you are
>>> not QUALIFIED toe engage in a scientific
>>> discussion of the SPOG except at a mundane,
>>> boring, "philawsephy" level.
>>
>>Not as you define science. I have no credentials from
>>so esteemed an organization as the Noetic Institute.
>
> [Hammond]
> Cite your DV.
>
> Here's mine:
>
> ========Hammond's CV==============
>
> B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> Boston MA, USA
> Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
> N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
I take it then you never completed an actual disertation and
graduated?
> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
> (Online copy located at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html )
>
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
> (online copy located at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>>You are free to believe anything you want about "what's out there".
>>>>>However, Science, Law and Civilization, AND THE SPOG, is based on
>>>>>what the "overwhelming majority" believes to be true.
>>>>
>>>>But what I believe vs what you believe vs what the majority believes is
>>>>immaterial.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Prove it.
>>
>>Very well: Shall we use your method of proof and vote here in the
>>Forum?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Or you might take a vote in the lobby of the local Greyhound
> Bus Station... which would amount to the same thing, and
> certainly is irrelevant.
>
> <snip... rant>
>
>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>I've been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
>>>That is sufficent CETIFICATION that the SPOG is
>>>competent science.
>>
Yes you mentioned that a couple of times.
>>Depends on the circle of peers and the publishing authority's
>>definition of 'science'.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure does, there are 25 internationally prominent PhD's on
> the editorial board of the Noetic Journal, 10 of them PhD's
> in Physics including the editor.
As I quoted in the last post, they overtly admit to altering their
epistimological standard outside of the common definition of science.
I quoted them... you of course snipped out that embarrasing bit
of text. Address it would you please.
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>>Good luck with your odd ideas... after you have published them
>>>>>in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
>>>>>(as I have) maybe I'd bother to listen to you... in the
>>>>
>>>>And so I have and shall. Shall I apply the same criterion
>>>>to your "odd ideas"?
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Sure... here is where THE SPOG has been published in the
>>>PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE:
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>>> Pergamon Press.
>
>>Two notes, why is it that your compare your "theory" with
>>other psychometricist's "models". Second, where are your
>>empirical predictions. In your conclusions you assert
>>that your "theory" will have grand impacts on various
>>social institutions however nowhere does your theory
>>actually express a prediction of human behavior which
>>does not already exist in prior models. You simply
>>analogize between Cartesian space in so far as it
>>has three dimensions and a number of models which
>>have three (and sometimes four and five) qualitative
>>components. Nowhere do I see any quantitative exposition
>>by which the distinction between "Cartesian"
>>can be distinguished from "non-Cartesian" geometries
>>with regard to the application you hypothesize.
>>Where is the metric? What does the metric measure.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Your so called question is a bunch of pseudo intellectual
> word soup. Obviously you are not even scientifically
> qualified to read the theory much less criticize it.
> PROOF: It has been reviewed and published in the peer
> reviewed scientific literature, and therefore is certifiably
> competent science.
And how many rejected it until you found the Noetic Press?
>
>>Final question about this work. You refered to one
>>of the "axioms of physics" but you failed to cite a
>>source. For the elucidation of this humble ignorant
>>pesant, would you mind posting a reference to these
>>axioms?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Go get a degree in Physics, I'm not a private tutor here
> to give you a free education.
You evade... answer the question. You refered to a prior
axiom. If you are making it up then admit it, if you
got it from a source, cite the source. No evasions,
no insults, just a straight answer please.
>>P.S. With regard to my own credentials/publications search your physics
>>publication databases, if it's something you find important.
I find appealing to the authority of credenntials/publications
crass but since you put it ...
> [Hammond]
> Cite your CV or get outta here.
> I can tell you're a moron by talking to you.
this way,
and if it will stop your evasions, OK here it is minus employment
history and other details:
*******************
Degrees:
BS Applied Mathematic, Georgia College
MS Applied Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology
Thesis: "Symmetry Group Analysis of Reaction Diffusion Eqns."
PhD Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology
Thesis: "Regular Quantum Mechanics"
Publications:
Title: Elementary Operations
Authors: James Baugh (1), Andrei Galiautdinov (1), David Ritz
Finkelstein (1), Mohsen Shiri-Garakani (1), Heinrich Saller (2) ((1)
Georgia Institute of Technology, (2) Heisenberg Institute, Max Planck
Institute of Theoretical Physics, Munich)
Comments: Based on a talk given at the 5th International Quantum
Structure Association Conference, Cesena, Italy, 2001.To be published in
the International Journal of Theoretical Physics
Title: Ultraquantum Dynamics
Authors: James Baugh (1), David Ritz Finkelstein (1), Andrei
Galiautdinov (2), Mohsen Shiri-Garakani (1) ((1) School of Physics,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia (2) Department of
Mathematics and Science, Brenau University, Gainesville, Georgia)
Comments: 12 pages, Submitted to Foundations of Physics
Journal-ref: Found.Phys. 33 (2003) 1267-1275
Title: The Qubits of Qunivac
Authors: James Baugh, David Finkelstein, Andrei Galiautdinov
Comments: 9 pages, no figures. For the proceedings of Digital
Perspectives, NSF, Arlington, VA, July 2001
Journal-ref: Int.J.Theor.Phys. 42 (2003) 177-187
Title: Unimodular relativity and cosmological constant
Authors: David R. Finkelstein, Andrei A. Galiautdinov, James E. Baugh
Comments: 7 pages, no figures.
Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 42 (2001) 340-346
Title: Clifford algebra as quantum language
Authors: James Baugh, David Ritz Finkelstein, Andrei Galiautdinov,
Heinrich Saller
Comments: 13 pages, no figures. Some of these results were presented at
the American Physical Society Centennial Meeting, Atlanta, March 25, 1999
Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 42 (2001) 1489-1500
"General Covariance is Bose-Einstein Statistics"
J. Baugh, D.R. Finkelstein, H. Saller, and Zhong Tang
appearing in: "On Einstein's Path: Essays in Honor of Englebert Schucking"
Pub: Springer 1999
There's another couple which don't appear in lanl preprint archives.
But being degreed and published again doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't
make what I say any more or less valid. But if it will stop your
responding to argument with insults then maybe we can proceed.
Now I've asked a few questions to which you've replied with
insults and denegration. I can only assume you're being evasive.
I'll repeat the jist of my various points here:
1) No matter what additional criterion for "valid scientific theory" you
choose, if it doesn't agree with experimental evidence it is invalid.
2) No matter what definition of "science" you use, it is meaningless
unless it is also the definition others use. The semantic meaning
must be agreed upon.
3) The current convention of the English Language is quite specific
with regard to the sharp academic meaning of "science" and
that includes only empirically testible theses. (at least
testible in principle if not yet in practice).
4) Your POG is outside the scope of science and thus should not
be labeled SPOG. Call it a metaphysical proof, call it a
philosophical proof, call it a "common sense" proof.
Call it anything you like except "scientific".
I repeat again, you are trying to sell a mule by calling it
a horse. (Or selling a horse by calling it a mule, which
ever you find less offensive.)
Regards,
James Baugh
--
Regards,
James Baugh
ZenIsWhen
You've just been added to the Hammond "ignore" list.
George Hammond
message news:XEBie.186$G46...@fe02.lga...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:m_Ahe.19853$rt1....@fe04.lga...
> >
> [J.E. Baugh]
[Hammond]
Judas' priest!..... excuse me! I now realize you're a grad student at
the prestegeous Quantum Relativity Group at Georgia Tech's
Theoretical Physics Department.. and that David Finklestein whom
you're publishing papers with is "the Finklestein" who is famous for
discovering "Finklestein coordinates" historically one of the first
transformations to remove the R=2m singularity in the Schwarzchild
metric ............among other things!
Well...!! Certainly you are bright enough and educated enough to
know what a competent scientific theory is..... then again, so is
Prof. Chris Isham. However, ability is no guarantee against
insouciance, which my experience with Chris Isham, I feel, more than
adequately demonstrates!
OK... I am very grateful for your pro bono attention to this controversy..
and I won't even ask what your motives might be.... I don't even care,
I'm so grateful to be talking to someone competent and intelligent... not to
mention being young enough not to be disillusioned!
First... let me respond to a few line item statements of yours... and then
I will make a stand alone summary statement of what I think is an adequate
answer to your preliminary concerns regarding the SPOG:
> I'll repeat the gist of my various points here:
>
> 1) No matter what additional criterion for "valid scientific theory" you
> choose, if it doesn't agree with experimental evidence it is invalid.
[Hammond]
The SPOG is ENTIRELY based on experimental evidence.
There are no "hypotheses" in the entire theory!
>
> 2) No matter what definition of "science" you use, it is meaningless
> unless it is also the definition others use. The semantic meaning
> must be agreed upon.
[Hammond]
Cripes... I'm an M.S. in physics myself... of course I know what
a "scientific theory" is.
>
> 3) The current convention of the English Language is quite specific
> with regard to the sharp academic meaning of "science" and
> that includes only empirically testible theses. (at least
> testible in principle if not yet in practice).
[Hammond]
Agreed! Absolutely! Without equivocation!
... and I wouldn't be wasting my time with anything else!
> 4) Your POG is outside the scope of science and thus should not
> be labeled SPOG.
[Hammond]
Wrong! The SPOG is a "by the book" classic scientific
theory.... just as "Chemistry" is a by the book scientific
explanation of "Alchemy"....... the SPOG is a by the
book scientific explanation of "God and Religion"!
> Call it a metaphysical proof, call it a
> philosophical proof, call it a "common sense" proof.
> Call it anything you like except "scientific".
[Hammond]
Na, naw, naw, naw.... I have no use for metaphysics
or Philosophy. I'm a very simple minded scientific
person... and the SPOG is a very simple scientific theory
which clearly scientifically explains a huge, long standing
historical perceptual phenomenon known as "God and religion".
<snip>
<paste>
> >>Two notes, why is it that your compare your "theory" with
> >>other psychometricist's "models".
[Hammond]
It has been known for decades that the many 2,3,4,
5, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 Factor psychometric "models"
could be drawn as 3D geometrical figures by using
the arc-cosine of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient
as a construction angle. The FIRST discovery I
made was that ALL OF THEM can be unified
to form a CUBE whereby the 13 different models
are various redactions of the 13-symmetry axes of
the CUBE!
... I discovered this by recognizing that the brain
itself is CUBICALLY CLEAVED and that this
(the brain "lobes" are actually the corner octants
of a cube) is the ORIGIN of the cubic structure of
Psychometry. I published this epochical
discovery in 1994 in the moderately prestegous
Psychology journal New Ideas In Psychology
where it was reviewed by 5 professiorial rank
Factor Analysis experts who unanamously
recommended it for publication. This discovery
is known in the business as the long touted
"discovery of the Structural Model of Personality"
although of course it remains unrecognized by
Psychology because none of them can
understand Physics!
> >>Second, where are your
> >>empirical predictions. In your conclusions you assert
> >>that your "theory" will have grand impacts on various
> >>social institutions however nowhere does your theory
> >>actually express a prediction of human behavior which
> >>does not already exist in prior models.
[Hammond]
Wait a minute... I have discovered a "scientific proof
of God".. not merely "discovered the Structural
Model of Psychology".
It has been recognized for centuries what the significance
and impact of the discovery of a "scientific proof of God"
would be on the world... even Newton, DesCartes,
Leibnitz, Pascal and many others searched for it... particularly
DesCartes.
The Vatican even recognizes the "significance" of the
discovery of a scientific proof of God... though they have
expressed the sentiment that "they have no idea what such a
proof would consist of, or who might discover such a
proof" (Vatican encyclical, ca. 1960)
> >>You simply
> >>analogize between Cartesian space in so far as it
> >>has three dimensions and a number of models which
> >>have three (and sometimes four and five) qualitative
> >>components. Nowhere do I see any quantitative exposition
> >>by which the distinction between "Cartesian"
> >>can be distinguished from "non-Cartesian" geometries
> >>with regard to the application you hypothesize.
[Hammond]
Na, naw, naw, naw..... there is no "analogy".... I'm not an unhinged
simpleton who can't tell the difference between a random cooincidence
and a causal relationship for Pete's sake.... I'm a trained scientist
just like you... although obviously your mathematical-physics powers
considerably outrank mine.... I've simply made an (elementary) accidental
theoretical physics discovery in a very recondite corner of experimental
science simply because I (accidently) happened to be the only one
there! Problem is, the discovery has ENORMOUS social, political
and historical implications, since the quest for a "scientific proof of
God" is one of the oldest scientific conjectures known to man!
> >>Where is the metric? What does the metric measure.
[Hammond]
The "Psychometry metric" (which I have discovered) turns out
to be IDENTICAL to the spacetime metric... because it is physically
CAUSED by the spacetime metric:
Psychometry: dS^2 = dE^2 +dN^2 + dP^2 - dg^2
note: E,N,P are the 3 Personality dimensions (Factors)
and g is Intelligence (a.k.a. IQ)
Note that this is IDENTICAL to the spacetime metric:
ds^2 = dX^2 + dY^2 + dZ^2 - dt^2
and the CAUSAL REASON for this identity is that the
4 dimension of spacetime physically cause the 4 dimensions
of Psychometry space via the 3-axis orthogonal SPACIAL
cleavage of the brain, plus the "mental speed" (time function)
of the brain known as "intelligence".
Incidentally, the "proper distance" dS in Psychometry space
is a measure of "personality difference" and thus forms the basis
for a measure of "personality clash" so called.
> Regards,
> James Baugh
[Hammond]
OK.... having made a few random line item responses to some
of your initial questions...... lets get down to business!
In the first place... NO constructive discussion of the SPOG
can be undertaken on the basis of a "shootout" type of adversarial
dispute, whereby the adversary searches (in vain) for an
"obvious loophole" that will dispatch the theory and thereby
eliminate the effort needed to even try and comprehend it.
THAT IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.... and that is what
Chris Isham ever tried to do...... and of course he failed.
As you well know, no major scientific theory or discovery
is so simple minded that it can be "disproved" with a simple
one liner. In the first place major theories, such as Quantum
Mechanics, Relativity, etc. CANNOT be "axiomatically
derived" by simple mathematics. There is no "axiomatic reason"
for instance that the Scalar Curvature , R, must be the Hilbert
Lagrangian of Relativity, nor is there any "axiomatic derivation"
of the Schrodinger or Dirac equations.
Fact is, majpor theories like QM or GR are nearly
ad hoc propositions, usually accidentally arrived at, which:
1. Produce robust and comprehensive results
that make them of unignorable practical utility.
2. Are not supported by any "simple axiomatic derivation"
but insead are supported by a totality of comprehensive
evidence from a myriad of directions, plus the fact that
no contrary evidence can be found.
Well.... exactly the same is true of the SPOG. There is no
"axiomatic simple minded mathematical devivation" of the
SPOG any more than there is of Quantum Mechanics.
Secondly, the empirical support confirming the SPOG is
both massive and comprehensive. It explains ALL of
Psychometry.. and thus all of Psychology. It yields
the long sought for Structural Model, it supplies for the
first time the underlying METRIC of Psychology thus
unifying Personality and Intelligence, it explains every
existing psychometric model, it identifes the long sought
for "biological origin" of the Structural Model, it
incorporates the long enigmatic Sperrian Lateralization
into psychology theory, an outstanding lacunae for
many years, and finally, proves that psychological
structure is is axiomatically derived from spacetime
structure itself... thus founding Psychology as an
axiomatic science for the first time in history.
Beyond that, the SPOG finally produces the world's
first scientific explanation of "Religion".. an actual
scientific explanation of "God"... thus the world's first
"scientific PROOF of God". How does it do this you
ask. Simple. Religion (Christianity for instance) is
known historically to make several major phenomenological
claims:
1. There physically exists an "invisible world" known as
"Heaven" which is similar to Earth only that it is a paradise.
2. "God" is an invisible man who lives there and is all
powerful and rules the actual (visible) world from there.
3. This God can produce miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
4. Historically Religion has evolved from Polytheism
(many demigods) to Monotheism (one supreme God).
5. Christianity predicts the world is transforming itself into
Heaven and will actually arrive there at a date known as
"Kingdom Come"... or the "end of the world".
6. There is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
7. Jesus was the physical "incarnation of God"
8. The Cross for some reason is the central symbol of
(Western) Religion.
9. For some reason our main canonical text is written
in 4 identical versions known as the "4-Gospel Canon".
10. God "created the world" only a matter of "thousands"
of years ago (Genesis) not "billions" of years ago as
Science maintains.
11. God created man "in his own image".
12 The list goes on.....
OK... what I claim is that the SPOG identifies a new physical
phenomena (of human perception) heretofore unidentified
and unexplored by Science which SCIENTIFICALLY
EXPLAINS (and thereby proves the existence of)
ALL OF THE ABOVE CLAIMS OF RELIGION.
Moreover, the phenomena turns out to have an
AXIOMATIC PHYSICS basis (Gen'l. Relativity) and
can be (in fact has been) completely experimentally proved
by over 100 years of published Psychometry and Bilology
data!
-------------------------------------------------
Now, THAT, ... is what I claim is a "scientific proof of God"!
and it is an absolutely by the book, classical scientific
discovery in all respects... just as the discovery by Dalton
that the integer combination of atoms into molecules
SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINS all of Chemistry
(Alchemy)! SPOG is the same thing!
-------------------------------------------------
Now, before leaving off, let me just give you a simple
stick model sketch of HOW the SPOG explains the
above 11 points in Religion.. and bear in mind it is
already evident how it explains all of Psychometry
(the 13 known models etc.). I can do this quite simply
because YOU it turns out already understand Gen'l.
Relativity.
Now this explanation comes as close to a "heuristic
derivation" of the SPOG as is possible, but it in NO
WAY corresponds to the actual chronological history
of how the SPOG was actually discovered!
OK... for 100 years it has been known that the average
adult person is NOT fully grown... this is because Science
has discovered that there is a "Secular Trend" in human
growth, whereby each suceeding generation is larger,
stronger and more intelligent than past generations. This
effect is known to be NOT genetic, but in fact is caused by
sheer growth, due to the rising world standard of living,
particularly nutrition. Modern soldiers for instance cannot
even fit into a medieval suit of armor because they are so
much larger than men of 500 years ago. This fact means
that every organ in the body is less than fully grown,
including notably the human BRAIN.
OK.. turns out we already know what the "perceptual
effect" of not having a fully grown brain is... since we
are surrounded by CHILDREN who are prime examples
of what a "less than fully grown person" actually is. In
fact, it can esily be PROVED that a child sees
a "larger and faster" reality than the reality seen by an
adult! The proof is this (as if the point needs proving)
is for instance this (and there is much more btw):
It is a proven fact that (movie) Picture Fusion
Frequency (PFF) increases linearly during
childhood growth. In fact a 7 year old can only
discriminate 10 frames/sec as individual pictures
before it turns into a "movie", while an adult can
discriminate 15 frames/sec as indiviual still pictures.
This means then, that 1/3 of normal adult reality
is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old simply due to his
reduced mental (perceptual) speed due to incomplete
growth of the brain.
This has been long known to be due to the linear
increase in intelligence that occurs during childhood
growth ... recall this fact is WHY raw intelligence
has to be divided by AGE before the age of 18
when growth stops, in order to calculate (genetic)
IQ.
Furthermore, that a 7 year old sees a larger world
needs no proof, since obviously a 4 foot 7 year old
sees a world that is 1/3 larger than a 6 foot adult.
Similar to the speed effect... this "magnification"
causes spacial structure to exceed the bandwidth of
comprehensibility the same way the speed effect
does... for instance there is a well known parlor game
that consists of trying to identify common objects
from pictures taken at high magnification. Almost
anything becomes unrecognizeable at high magnification,
and therefore there is some proportional unrecognizeabilty
even at modest magnifications.. such as at 133%.
So what we see is that 1/3 of reality is actually INVISIBLE
to a 7 year old... meaning he is surrounded by an
INVISBLE WORLD (namely true reality) that he can't
see. It is for this reason that children require constant
supervision and protection, as every parent well knows.
Now the POINT of this, is that the Secular Trend proves
that as much as 20% of "true reality" is actually INVISIBLE
to the average person... for EXACTLY the same reason..
because the average person according to Secular Trend Data
is actually only about 80% full grown. This means that the
average person is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD
consisting of 20% of "true reality"... and this "invisible
world" is nothing other than the so called HEAVEN of
classical Religion! QED: Heaven exists!
Now surely, for someone of your intelligence, it doesn't
take a long elaboration to point out to you that the
"invisible man" (a.k.a. "GOD") of Religion is nothing more
than the "rest of our ungrown bodies" that of course is
"invisble" because we are not fully grown... nor to explain
to you that the rest of the "ungrown brain" is actually
of course "partially grown" and "partially functioning" and
is in fact what Freud called the "Unconscious Mind", and
that this invisible (e.g. spiritual.. but acting unconsciously)
perception is what we call "GOD"...... therefore,
"GOD EXISTS".
Now I will leave off here... but not before mentioning
that the "size and speed" dilation caused by this "brain
growth deficit" turns out to be mathematically (indeed
physically) a Relativistic Curvature of "seen" reality
as opposed to "true reality". In other words, we only
SEE a "Curved Version" of true reality.... and the magnification
and speeding up of this "seen version" simply puts
(on average) about 20% of said "true reality" outside
the "perceptual bandwidth" of the less than fully grown
person. The proof that this effect is a "Relativistic
Curvature" is given in my paper... but obviously, since
the 4 dimesnions of space cause the 4 dimensions of
Psychometry space.... this proof is trivial compared
to current research in Physics.. it consists merely of
pointing out that "Factor Analysis" is mathematically
identical to "Linearized Gravity" and therefore the
higher order factor of the 4x4 psychometry metric
(ENPg) is identified as "Gravity"... specifically
the curvature G_uv. Hence "God=G_uv", since
this higher order Factor is easily identifed as "brain
growth" which has been identified as "God" (above)
since it explains the 11 points there outlined as the
principle "phenomena of religion".
Finally not only is 20% of reality invisible, but the
80% of true realty that remains VISIBLE is so speeded
up and magnified that it literally TERRORIZES the
individual looking at it who thinks that it is actual reality
and THIS is why the world is so awesome, challenging,
death defying and overwhelms so many human beings...
especially those with large growth deficts... which is also
a well observed fact! Fact is, this change in size and
apeed can so drastically affect human Personality
and attitude that it can make other (psychotic) people look
FEROCIOUS and SINISTER to an such an extreme
degree that most even modestly ungrown people walk
around literally terrorized of being physically attacked
or otherwise exploited... while it is all decent (and well
grown people) can humanly do to try and police the
situation and preserve law and order and prevent open
warfare!
OK.... I'll leave off there. I have gone to this effort in your
case because there is at least some faint hope that you
might take a CONSTRUCTIVE attitude towards all this
rather than insouciantly wasting your time searching
for a "Krypton bullet" that will "easily debunk the theory".
I hope you're more perceptive than to waste time trying to do
that.
Regards, George Hammond.
PS: And give my best regards to professor emeritous
David Ritz Finklestein for me.
> --
> Regards,
> James Baugh
tetanos
George Hammond
ZenIsWhen
Neither is (claimed) education any indication of insanity - which you
constantly demostrate!
>
> OK... I am very grateful for your pro bono attention to this
controversy..
> and I won't even ask what your motives might be.... I don't even care,
> I'm so grateful to be talking to someone competent and intelligent... not
to
> mention being young enough not to be disillusioned!
>
> First... let me respond to a few line item statements of yours... and then
> I will make a stand alone summary statement of what I think is an adequate
> answer to your preliminary concerns regarding the SPOG:
>
>
> > I'll repeat the gist of my various points here:
> >
> > 1) No matter what additional criterion for "valid scientific theory" you
> > choose, if it doesn't agree with experimental evidence it is invalid.
>
> [Hammond]
> The SPOG is ENTIRELY based on experimental evidence.
> There are no "hypotheses" in the entire theory!
Bull crap!
You HAVE no experimental evidence, which has been shown MANY times over!
All you do is beg borrow and steal from previous work of others, and even
distort what they have accomplished. Even some of the eople YOU beg borrow
and steal from are NOT strongly recognized in the scientific comkmunity -
nor iw their work generally recognized aas physics.
Name ONE experiment YOU'VE done in relationship to spog!!!
>
> >
> > 2) No matter what definition of "science" you use, it is meaningless
> > unless it is also the definition others use. The semantic meaning
> > must be agreed upon.
>
> [Hammond]
> Cripes... I'm an M.S. in physics myself... of course I know what
> a "scientific theory" is.
No.... you don't! It's just another of your "often bellowed, never
supported" claims!
>
> >
> > 3) The current convention of the English Language is quite specific
> > with regard to the sharp academic meaning of "science" and
> > that includes only empirically testible theses. (at least
> > testible in principle if not yet in practice).
>
> [Hammond]
> Agreed! Absolutely! Without equivocation!
> ... and I wouldn't be wasting my time with anything else!
But you ARE ... withy your spog insanity - claiming it IS science!!!!
>
>
>
>
> > 4) Your POG is outside the scope of science and thus should not
> > be labeled SPOG.
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong! The SPOG is a "by the book" classic scientific
> theory.... just as "Chemistry" is a by the book scientific
> explanation of "Alchemy"....... the SPOG is a by the
> book scientific explanation of "God and Religion"!
One GIGANTIC pile of nothing more than BULL SHIT!!!
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Hey that's only par for the course... many doctors who cured
epidemic illness died of the same disease... the guy who discovered
SARS also died of SARS you know.
> > OK... I am very grateful for your pro bono attention to this
> controversy..
> > and I won't even ask what your motives might be.... I don't even care,
> > I'm so grateful to be talking to someone competent and intelligent...
not
> to mention being young enough not to be disillusioned!
> >
> > First... let me respond to a few line item statements of yours... and
then
> > I will make a stand alone summary statement of what I think is an
adequate
> > answer to your preliminary concerns regarding the SPOG:
> >
> >
> > > I'll repeat the gist of my various points here:
> > >
> > > 1) No matter what additional criterion for "valid scientific theory"
you
> > > choose, if it doesn't agree with experimental evidence it is invalid.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > The SPOG is ENTIRELY based on experimental evidence.
> > There are no "hypotheses" in the entire theory!
>
> Bull crap!
> You HAVE no experimental evidence, which has been shown MANY times over!
> All you do is beg borrow and steal from previous work of others, and even
> distort what they have accomplished. Even some of the eople YOU beg borrow
> and steal from are NOT strongly recognized in the scientific comkmunity -
> nor iw their work generally recognized aas physics.
[Hammond]
Hey, theoirsts do not conduct experimental work... they EXPLAIN
the eperimental work of others... such as Einsten explaining the
advance of the perihelion of Mercury which was experimentally
measured by Leverrier 100 years before Einstein.
Same with Hammond's SPOG... it THEORETICALLY EXPLAINS
150 years of published scientific quantitative experimental work in
Psychometry, Biology, Brain Science and Embryology and even
THEORETICALLY EXPLAINS 3500 years of
"qualitative in situ observations" of Religion (e.g. social psychology).
>
> Name ONE experiment YOU'VE done in relationship to spog!!!
[Hammond]
I've done EXACTLY the same number of experiments as Maxwell,
Schrodinger, Einstein and Hilbert put together ever did.... namely ZERO..
because as I told you I am a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST just
like them... I'm NOT an experimentalist.
> > > 2) No matter what definition of "science" you use, it is meaningless
> > > unless it is also the definition others use. The semantic meaning
> > > must be agreed upon.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Cripes... I'm an M.S. in physics myself... of course I know what
> > a "scientific theory" is.
>
> No.... you don't! It's just another of your "often bellowed, never
> supported" claims!
[Hammond]
Unsupportable assertion.
> > > 3) The current convention of the English Language is quite specific
> > > with regard to the sharp academic meaning of "science" and
> > > that includes only empirically testible theses. (at least
> > > testible in principle if not yet in practice).
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Agreed! Absolutely! Without equivocation!
> > ... and I wouldn't be wasting my time with anything else!
>
> But you ARE ... withy your spog insanity - claiming it IS science!!!!
>
[Hammond]
Unsupportable assertion. Sheer mindless hecklement.
>
> > > 4) Your POG is outside the scope of science and thus should not
> > > be labeled SPOG.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Wrong! The SPOG is a "by the book" classic scientific
> > theory.... just as "Chemistry" is a by the book scientific
> > explanation of "Alchemy"....... the SPOG is a by the
> > book scientific explanation of "God and Religion"!
>
> One GIGANTIC pile of nothing more than BULL SHIT!!!
[Hammond]
Don't call me by one of your family names.
ZenIsWhen
Which has nothing to do with the prior statement.
Can't you even READ?????