I have noticed that nobody competent has ever given a serious commentary on Hammond's claim that that GOD=G_uv
I notice that 99.99% of his detractors are incompetent anti-religious, anti-scientific amateurs who like to push computer buttons.
Hammond's dilemma is that his discovery requires expertise in Physics and Religion, and there are simply no such experts. This because most "Sci-Rel" organizations are either hopelessly incompetent, politically corrupt, money making endeavors, or all three.
HOWEVER, recently Hammond's research has taken a fascinating turn.
The first thing anyone might ask is:
If there is a scientific proof of God, why isn't there any great social sign of it?
It turns out there is!
It turns out that the Christian Science Religion is nothing other than a massive experimental verification of Hammond's discovery. Given this fact, there is no longer any question that Hammond's discovery is true!
The Christian Science Religion is 130 years old, and it is one of the most successful modern religions in the world. There is a Christian Science Church in every city in America and in 75 foreign countries. There are Christian Science "reading rooms" on the main street of almost every town in the country. The Mother Church in Boston is a national landmark. They also publish the Pulitzer Prize winning Newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor. The church has millions of followers and millions of copies of Mary Baker Eddy's bible, _Science and Health_, are in print.
Mary Baker Eddy founded the church in 1879 in Boston as a "scientific" Church. Her "science of God" amounted to the following:
1. "God is mind" 2. "Heaven is a mental state" 3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind 4. There is no perfect man on Earth
Now, bear in mind, this is the first religion in history to make an actual scientific statement about what God is: It says, "God is mind".
No other Religion on Earth makes such a statement.
Jesus never made such a statement (although he did say "God is a spirit" (Jn 4:24), which it turns out as Hammond has now proved, is an equivalent statement).
The scientific statement is original with Mary Baker Eddy. (although some argue Bishop Berkeley published a similar theory in 1710). Maybe he did, but he never got a million followers to agree with him.
It turns out according to Hammond's discovery, that Mary Baker Eddy is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT about her scientific explanation of God. Absolutely correct! And, now Hammond has discovered the explanation of line 4 above:
5. The Secular Trend in human growth shows that there is no such thing as a "fully grown man" and this is the reason there is no "perfect man".
Hammond's discovery, GOD=G_uv, is an axiomatic, experimentally confirmed discovery that God is explained by the Secular Trend in Growth (braingrowth) and that this causes a "curvature of perceptual reality" called "GOD". Thus it proves that "God is mind"... a "curvature of the mind" to be scientifically precise. Christian Science it turns out is the massive empirical confirmation of the SAME THEORY! Thus, we have OVERWHELMING CONFIRMATION OF HAMMOND'S DISCOVERY.
The details of this exact concordance between Eddy and Hammond is given at:
AT ANY RATE, a word to the wise should be sufficient. Don't pay any attention to the thousands of hecklers stalking Hammond, they are simply the "troops of error" that follow every great pioneer. Hammond's "theory" has been PROVEN TRUE, not just by laboratory psychometric data and Relativity, but by a major religion, one of the most highly respected and influential religions in the world! It takes 2 people to make a motion. One person to make it and another to second it. HAMMOND and EDDY are now 2-people who are saying the same thing... one by "scientifically proving that GOD=G_uv" and the other by "socially proving that God is mind". These two theories are shown to be EXACTLY CONGRUENT AND IDENTICAL. Of course Hammond's discovery being more modern, goes one step further by proving exactly what it is about the mind that causes "God", and why God is related to General Relativity by the equation GOD=G_uv. Therefore, its now time to face the fact that the thousands of jeering hecklers stalking Hammond around are WRONG and their opinions are MEANINGLESS, and that they should be IGNORED. ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ====================================
> I have noticed that nobody competent has ever > given a serious commentary on Hammond's > claim that that GOD=G_uv
Why the hell should anyone take such utter drivel seriously ? George fromed his own newsgroup and instead of answering questions about his theory he took the time to hurl abuse at anyone that said he was wrong. He has no credability. That is why no one will give his work any serious attention.
> I notice that 99.99% of his detractors are > incompetent anti-religious, anti-scientific > amateurs who like to push computer buttons.
Sorry but that isn't true. Further more I would say that a number of detractors are religious people who find his idea of god has nothing to do with their idea of god - so his theory does nothing for theists.
> The first thing anyone might ask is:
> If there is a scientific proof > of God, why isn't there any > great social sign of it?
The first thing ? Come of it. Did you invent this post yourself George ? It is bull !
> 1. "God is mind" > 2. "Heaven is a mental state" > 3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind > 4. There is no perfect man on Earth
> > I have noticed that nobody competent has ever > > given a serious commentary on Hammond's > > claim that that GOD=G_uv
> Why the hell should anyone take such utter drivel seriously ? George fromed > his own newsgroup and instead of answering questions about his theory he > took the time to hurl abuse at anyone that said he was wrong. > He has no credability. That is why no one will give his work any serious > attention.
[GH] No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education who have "no credibility".
> > I notice that 99.99% of his detractors are > > incompetent anti-religious, anti-scientific > > amateurs who like to push computer buttons.
> Sorry but that isn't true.
[GH] It is completely true, obviously.
> Further more I would say that a number of > detractors are religious people who find his idea of god has nothing to do > with their idea of god - so his theory does nothing for theists.
[GH] Horseshit.... you haven't a clue as to what God is.
> > The first thing anyone might ask is:
> > If there is a scientific proof > > of God, why isn't there any > > great social sign of it?
> The first thing ? Come of it. Did you invent this post yourself George ? It > is bull !
[GH] You're bullshit from beginning to end.
> > 1. "God is mind" > > 2. "Heaven is a mental state" > > 3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind > > 4. There is no perfect man on Earth
> [GH] > No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education > who have "no credibility".
You act in the same way as any other Internet troll. Name calling and abusive you fail to argue your case. When the going gets tough, try and dis the other guy.
Pathetic !
If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge to debate your case. You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
> "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > [GH] > > No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education > > who have "no credibility".
> You act in the same way as any other Internet troll. Name calling and > abusive you fail to argue your case. When the going gets tough, try and dis > the other guy.
[GH] LOL. The point is, I'm not going to sit here and listen to unqualified people who can't understand the theory but happen to know some little tidbit of common knowledge in biology, physicis or something and stand on this piece of trivia and say that they have "disproved my theory"... you gotta be kidding.... these people may not be outright blatent hecklers like the rest, but lets face it... they are kooks to do something like that.
> Pathetic !
[GH] You're pathetic.
> If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge to > debate your case.
[GH] Debate with WHO? Some line professional prig who "knows there can't be a scientific proof of God" so starts taking an insulting attitude towards me... gimme a break... I won't take that kid of shit from even the world's leading physicists (like Chris Isham for instance).. why the f--- shoud I take it from some professor of Biology at a midwestern Jr. college.... who the fcu- do you think you're talking to....? Get real.
You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and
> conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
[GH] You're a fcu--n fairy. Try watching some WWII movies, it might make a man out of you.
> [GH] > LOL. The point is, I'm not going to sit here and listen > to unqualified people who can't understand the theory > but happen to know some little tidbit of common knowledge > in biology, physicis or something and stand on this piece of > trivia and say that they have "disproved my theory"... you > gotta be kidding.... these people may not be outright > blatent hecklers like the rest, but lets face it... they > are kooks to do something like that.
You are now calling your proof a theory. That at least is a step forward. I can certainly understand it. What I am pointing out are inherent flaws merely from a point of logic which you have failed to proprly address.
It would seem that you are the one heckling me. It is up to you to show that you are more than just another troll and yet you don't. Why should anyone believe someone that acts like a that ?
> > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge to > > debate your case.
> [GH] > Debate with WHO? Some line professional prig who > "knows there can't be a scientific proof of God"
There can be scientific proof of god if you first establish what god is. You have not. Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
> starts taking an insulting attitude towards me... gimme > a break... I won't take that kid of shit from even the > world's leading physicists
You should stop being so defensive if you want to be taken at all seriously. Your attitude stinks. No-one is going to take you seriously with your behaviour which can hardly be described as Christian. How can anyone accept what you say, whether it is truthful or not ?
> You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and > > conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
> [GH] > You're a fcu--n fairy. Try watching some > WWII movies, it might make a man out of you.
Again you guess and again you are wrong. I've seen plenty of WWII movies and talked a lot with relatives who's job it was to pull bodies out of the rubble.
You don't know what you are talking about and can't argue your case without resorting to insults. Your posts betray you as a fraudster with nothing to offer.
> "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > [GH] > > No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education > > who
have "no credibility".
> You act in the same way as any other Internet troll. Name calling and >
abusive you fail to argue your case. When the going gets tough, try and dis
> the other guy.
> Pathetic !
> If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge to > debate your case. You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and >
conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
Yes I thought I would reply to him in the way that he replies to other people, to see how he would react!
Very predictably was the answer to that one LOL!
Adrian.
All emails except those from contacts are blocked, because of the Fundamentalist garbage I get sent. To contact me by email post that you wish to do so, and I will add your address to my contacts.
> "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > [GH] > > LOL. The point is, I'm not going to sit here and listen > > to unqualified people who can't understand the theory > > but happen to know some little tidbit of common knowledge > > in biology, physicis or something and stand on this piece of > > trivia and say that they have "disproved my theory"... you > > gotta be kidding.... these people may not be outright > > blatent hecklers like the rest, but lets face it... they > > are kooks to do something like that.
> You are now calling your proof a theory. That at least is a step forward. > I can certainly understand it. What I am pointing out are inherent flaws > merely from a point of logic which you have failed to proprly address.
[GH] There isn't any such thing. Which marks you as a kook immediately for thinking there could be such a thing.
> It would seem that you are the one heckling me. It is up to you to show that > you are more than just another troll and yet you don't.
[GH] don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> Why should anyone > believe someone that acts like a that ?
[GH] If you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when you see it... you're not worth talking to.
> > > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge > to debate your case.
[GH] The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> > [GH] > > Debate with WHO? Some line professional prig who > > "knows there can't be a scientific proof of God"
> There can be scientific proof of god if [sic: unless] you first establish what god is. You > have not.
[GH] WRONG aggravated and treacherous fool. The scientific evidence ESTABLISHES what God is.
> Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
[GH] yes it does if you have the evidence to back up your claim WHICH I DO. Simply because you're unqualifed to read the evidence does NOT mean it doesn't exist.
> > starts taking an insulting attitude towards me... gimme > > a break... I won't take that kid of shit from even the > > world's leading physicists
[GH] neither will I (yawn...)
> You should stop being so defensive if you want to be taken at all
seriously.
[GH] Same to you.
> Your attitude stinks.
[GH] Same to you.
> No-one is going to take you seriously with your > behaviour which can hardly be described as Christian.
[GH] Same to you.
> How can anyone accept > what you say, whether it is truthful or not ?
[GH] Same to you.
> > You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and > > > conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
[GH] Same to you.
> > [GH] > > You're a fcu--n fairy. Try watching some > > WWII movies, it might make a man out of you.
> Again you guess and again you are wrong. I've seen plenty of WWII movies and > talked a lot with relatives who's job it was to pull bodies out of the > rubble.
[GH] Same to you.
> You don't know what you are talking about and can't argue your case without > resorting to insults. Your posts betray you as a fraudster with nothing to > offer.
> [GH] > don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing. Educated people tend to *sound* educated.
> [GH] > If you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when > you see it... you're not worth talking to.
Stop then, troll.
> > > > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge > > to debate your case.
> [GH] > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
In which case, why bother posting here?
> > There can be scientific proof of god if [sic: unless] you first establish > what god is. You > > have not.
> [GH] > WRONG aggravated and treacherous fool. The scientific evidence > ESTABLISHES what God is.
This isn't even English.
> > Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
> [GH] > yes it does if you have the evidence to back up your > claim WHICH I DO. > Simply because you're unqualifed to read the evidence does > NOT mean it doesn't exist.
> "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > [GH] > > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
[GH] A. Because I feel like it.
B. To reach the "responsible public" which I apparently have. Cite statistics say that more than 10,000 people have typed "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my websites. I'm not interested in you kook...; you're just a splooge of gum on the sidewalk. It's the 500,000 people who have hit my websites in the past 4 years that count. THAT'S WHY I POST TO THE PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS KOOK. You're just a meaningless minor annoyance with no significance. Nothing you say has any impact on the public response to my discovery and it certainly has no impact on me. Sorry kook.
> > [GH] > > don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and > > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing. Educated people > tend to *sound* educated.
> > [GH] > > If you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when > > you see it... you're not worth talking to.
> Stop then, troll.
[GH] Get out of here kook. i'm talking to the 500,000 people who have visited my website in the past 4 years and the hundreds a day who are visiting it now, and the 10,000 people who have typed "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my website. You're just a spot of gum on the sidewalk kook.
> > > > > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your > knowledge > > > to debate your case.
> > [GH] > > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> In which case, why bother posting here?
[GH] A. because i feel like it.
B. Because I'm talking to the 500,000 people who have visited my website in the past 4 years and the hundreds a day who are visiting it now, and the 10,000 people who have typed "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my website. You're just a spot of gum on the sidewalk kook.
> > > There can be scientific proof of god if [sic: unless] you first > establish > > what god is. You > > > have not.
> > [GH] > > WRONG aggravated and treacherous fool. The scientific evidence > > ESTABLISHES what God is.
> This isn't even English.
> > > Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
> > [GH] > > yes it does if you have the evidence to back up your > > claim WHICH I DO. > > Simply because you're unqualifed to read the evidence does > > NOT mean it doesn't exist.
> How is someone 'not qualified to read'?
[GH] By deminstrating that he has never read what he is shooting off his mouth about. Screw kook, it's obvious you're barking up the worong tree and I've plantd my size 14 Keds on your backside you're beginning to look like a treadmill.
> > > [GH] > > > don't be rediculous... what "troll" has an MS in physics and > > > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> > Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing.
[GH] We know you're guessing POSTER BOY VARNEY. We also know you're guessing wrong... (naturally anybody known as "poster boy Varney" would guess wrong). 1. My CV is a matter of public record. 2. My publications are a matter of public record.
> Educated people > > tend to *sound* educated.
[GH] You wouldn't know what "sounding educated" sounds like.
> Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
[GH] Because you're too lazy to check the public record. You'd rather lie.
> However, he has > not peer reviewed papers in physics.
[GH] The Scientific Proof of God is a physics paper. It has been published in an (applied) Physicis Journal, the Noetic Journal. The editor of said Journal is Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are a LIAR poster boy Varney.
> He is quite simply, a nut case.
[GH] No... YOU are a well known "nut case" (psychotic personality). you seem to have taken a number of "unexplained vactions" from the university in the past few years..; check into a psych ward maybe. i think you're a screwball and according to the mile long thread entitled "POSTER BOY VARNEY" a hell of a lot of other people on the internet think you're a nut case too. Take a hike moron, you're barking up the wrong tree.
> > > > [GH] > > > > don't be rediculous... what "troll" has an MS in physics and > > > > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> > > Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing.
> [GH] > We know you're guessing POSTER BOY VARNEY. > We also know you're guessing wrong... (naturally > anybody known as "poster boy Varney" would guess > wrong). > 1. My CV is a matter of public record. > 2. My publications are a matter of public record.
I guess you have great diffuclty in parsing message threads. God sure played a mean trick on your Hammered! *smirk*
> > Educated people > > > tend to *sound* educated.
> [GH] > You wouldn't know what "sounding educated" > sounds like.
> > Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
> [GH] > Because you're too lazy to check the public record. > You'd rather lie.
Umm..... huh? I checked the public record and indeed you do have an MS in physics. Did I lie?
> > However, he has > > not peer reviewed papers in physics.
> [GH] > The Scientific Proof of God is a physics paper. > It has been published in an (applied) Physicis Journal
No.. it has not.
,
> the Noetic Journal.
The Noetic Journal is not a peer reviewed physics journal, crackpot.
> The editor of said Journal is > Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally > known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are > a LIAR poster boy Varney.
Yes. Dening the fact does not make it false Hammered. It should be noted that you have admitted to having been sent to the funny farm. Yes or no Hammond... do you consider yourself cured?
>... YOU are a well known "nut case" (psychotic personality).
Adjust your medications, crank.
> you seem to have taken a number of "unexplained vactions" > from the university in the past few years
??? Really? Hahahahahahaha! As a graduate student there are no vacations.
>..; check into a psych > ward maybe. i think you're a screwball and according to > the mile long thread entitled "POSTER BOY VARNEY"
Well... darn it.... I guess that is proof then.
> a hell of a lot of other people on the internet think you're > a nut case too.
Note the company you keep in that regard, Hammond. *smirk*
> Take a hike moron, you're barking up the > wrong tree.
Time to send the rubber room roundup team to your house Hammered.
Michael Varney wrote: > "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:vQbpc.50681$iF6.4567859@attbi_s02... >>The editor of said Journal is >>Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally >>known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are >>a LIAR poster boy Varney. > Not at all. > http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/
Cool journal. I also note that its editor, Richard L. Amoroso seems to be the primary author as well, with one or two articles in each issue.
The journal claims to be peer reviewed, but there is no listing of the editorial board or referees. The related links are interesting. Appearently one big contributor has been doing Old Testament numerology for 20 years. Another at least has an advanced degree as an MD, but still is remarkably vague about where he got his degree and did his residence. Another MD actually does post his details. It looks like his last real job ended 20 years after he completed his internship.
Anyway, as I look at it, there is one respected physicist who I could imagine wanting to publish there: Alan Sokal.
As for me, I'm a PhD drop-out with no academic affiliation. I guess I would fit right in with that crowd.
> >>The editor of said Journal is > >>Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally > >>known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are > >>a LIAR poster boy Varney.
> Cool journal. I also note that its editor, Richard L. Amoroso seems to > be the primary author as well, with one or two articles in each issue.
[GH] Yes.... he founded and owns the journal. He is also a well known author in RELATIVITY. For instance he was recently co-editor of _GRAVITATION_ (Kluwer 2002) with papers by Wolfgang Rindler and other Relativity luminaries, including 2 papers in the book by himself 9on the CMBR and other topics). He knows roger Penrose personally and is well known in the physicis community generally, and is a solid reliable theorist PhD in physicis and internationally known author in Relativity, was also a chairman at the recent VIGIER IV Gravity Symposium in Paris. what we're talking about here is a competent, leading, well known physicist, who is experienced enough in human affairs tos KNOW WHO I AM, and is able to recognize a persecuted dedicated scientists who has discovered somethsding of value. He is famous for knowing this by his popular NOETIC JOURNAL. and people like Roger Penrose personally respect him for it.
> The journal claims to be peer reviewed, but there is no listing of the > editorial board or referees.
[GH] Referees are anonomous in all journals. He *IS* the "editorial board".
> The related links are interesting. > Appearently one big contributor has been doing Old Testament numerology > for 20 years. Another at least has an advanced degree as an MD, but > still is remarkably vague about where he got his degree and did his > residence. Another MD actually does post his details. It looks like > his last real job ended 20 years after he completed his internship.
[GH] Hey... publishing a journal is a business too... a lot of articles have high motivational and general interest value.... after all, even in NATURE we find articles like _The Mating Habits of Clown Fish_ which are of dubious scientific value, but have a very high "psycholgical impactr index" and sell copies. Mt artticle is of course a "serious scientific contribution" and I am certainly indebted to Amoroso for publishing it.
> Anyway, as I look at it, there is one respected physicist who I could > imagine wanting to publish there: Alan Sokal.
[GH] Henry Stapp publishes there quite regularly. Wolfe, who has 6 (count em, six) best selling science books on the book selves of your local Borders Bookstore also publishes their regularly, so does Karl Pribram one of the world's most famous neuropsychologists. Sorry you small time local yocals couldn't get published theire and have to write graffitti on the internet.
> As for me, I'm a PhD drop-out with no academic affiliation. I guess I > would fit right in with that crowd. > -j
[GH] If you were smart you'd figure out that Hammond has stumbled onto the Sutter's Fort gold fields of 2,000 and follow him and stake out a claim and get rich and retire famous.... all you'd have to do to gain INSTANT CELEBRITY and guarantee an early retiremant to fame and glory is be the FIRST ONE to come out and support HAMMOND. You'd be an instant celebrity, end up being hailed as a hero (like Karl Jung) and wind up rich and famous for doing NOTHING except being brave enough to support HAMMOND when nobody else would.... think about it..... "one good investment is worth a lifetime of work", so I've been told. dollars to donuts however, you're too stupid, foolish and cowardly to make the right choice. So long sucker, never say I didn't give you a break. ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ====================================
> > > [GH] > > > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> > If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
> [GH] > A. Because I feel like it.
And if you feel like doing so isn't it going to be debated ? Yes it is.
That is where you get found out. Because you don't know how a brain works. You've proved that.
> B. To reach the "responsible public" which I apparently have. > Cite statistics say that more than 10,000 people have typed > "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my websites. > I'm not interested in you kook...; you're just a splooge of gum > on the sidewalk. It's the 500,000 people who have hit my > websites in the past 4 years that count. THAT'S WHY I > POST TO THE PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS KOOK. > You're just a meaningless minor annoyance with no significance. > Nothing you say has any impact on the public response > to my discovery and it certainly has no impact on me. Sorry kook.
Having people visit your site proves nothing. I visited it and your newsgroup - as did others. We disagree with you. Where is your evidence ? Where are the papers cited to prove what you say ?
You have proved nothing but that you are a troll. Your repeated abuse and namecalling shows what standards you have.
> "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > [GH] > > > > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> > > If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
> > [GH] > > A. Because I feel like it.
> And if you feel like doing so isn't it going to be debated ? Yes it is.
> That is where you get found out. Because you don't know how a brain works. > You've proved that.
> > B. To reach the "responsible public" which I apparently have. > > Cite statistics say that more than 10,000 people have typed > > "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my websites. > > I'm not interested in you kook...; you're just a splooge of gum > > on the sidewalk. It's the 500,000 people who have hit my > > websites in the past 4 years that count. THAT'S WHY I > > POST TO THE PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS KOOK. > > You're just a meaningless minor annoyance with no significance. > > Nothing you say has any impact on the public response > > to my discovery and it certainly has no impact on me. Sorry kook.
> Having people visit your site proves nothing. I visited it and your > newsgroup - as did others. We disagree with you. Where is your evidence ?
[Hammond]
1. All the evidentiary papers are CITED ON MY WEBSITE listed in the bibliographies of my published papers. over 200 citations of the experimental evidence.
2. We KNOW you are too lazy and uneducated to actually read scietific papers.. you're attention span is so short only a "one liner" is all you are capable of dealing with, so here is a "one liner" piece of MAJOR EVIDENCE:
1. The Christian Science Religion FULLY SUPPORTS AND CONFIRMS Hammond's scientific result.
So even if you can't read the 10,000 peer reviewed scientific papers that support (prove) my theory.... at least you can read enough to know what thwe Christian Science Religion is.
> Where are the papers cited to prove what you say ?
[HAMMOND] answered fully above.
> You have proved nothing but that you are a troll. Your repeated abuse and > namecalling shows what standards you have.
[HAMMOND] hey dude.... you just called me a name... you called me a "troll".... if you wanna play the "name calling game" you better wear an ass protector and a helmut..because I can out insult you any day.
> > > > > Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
> > > > [GH] > > > > Because you're too lazy to check the public record. > > > > You'd rather lie.
> > > Umm..... huh? I checked the public record and indeed you do have an MS > > in > > > physics. Did I lie?
> > [GH] > > "POSTER BOY VARNEY" > > please go back to your LIGO > > experiments.
> I don't do LIGO, ingnorant Hammond.
> ><...>GOD > > is a little bit over your head.
> "Father who art in heaven"
> Ok.
> > So long POSTER BOY VARNEY
> Are you taking a much needed vacation, crackpot Hammond?
[HAMMOND] No POSTER BOY, I'm inviting you to leave and go do some of your gravitometer homework and leave this discussion to the big boys. ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ====================================
> > > "George Hammond" <research...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > <SNIP> > > > > So long POSTER BOY VARNEY
> > > Are you taking a much needed vacation, crackpot Hammond?
> > [HAMMOND] > > No POSTER BOY, I'm inviting you to leave > > and go do some of your gravitometer homework > > and leave this discussion to the big boys.
> Now I see where Cesar got is misconception of my experiment being a > gravometer [sic]. > Cesar sure likes to take his cues from idiots and cranks!
> In any event, perhaps Monday I will call your local mental health > establishment and see about having them help you on your way.
HAMMOND] Yeah... but you numbskulls on sci.physicis.relativity refuse to address the issue of GOD=G_uv which is a "completely serious relativity theory". THANK GOD FOR ALT.RELIGION.KIBOLOGY they appear to be the only people who are sympathetic to the mediation of a furious dispute between HAMMOND and the "academic prigs of the physics department". If the SCIENCE people continue to stonewall Hammond's discovery of a "Relativistic proof of God" it is apparently NOT going to escape the suspicion and notice of the KIBOLOGISTS. Kibology appears to be the Sheriff's department. I am grateful for their support, and salute them for their undaunted bravery in facing the priggish wrath of the aggravated and hypocritical physicists on sci.physics.relativity who are deliberately SUPPRESSING HAMMOND (a physicist) by ignoring his PHYSICS DISCOVERY. The maltreatment of Hammond by world famous physicist Chris Isham is simply an example of what underlies the maltreatment of Hammond on sci.physics.relativity. ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ====================================
> 1. All the evidentiary papers are CITED ON MY WEBSITE > listed in the bibliographies of my published papers. > over 200 citations of the experimental evidence.
Funny, I couldn't find them. Found your own one which I searched for elsewhere adn didn't find it. All you seem to wat to do is promote your website. You won't quote your references here. I've had enough spyware from looking around your site.
> 2. We KNOW you are too lazy and uneducated to actually > read scietific papers
You have no idea what my education is. If this was scientific you'd present the papers properly.
> 1. The Christian Science Religion FULLY > SUPPORTS AND CONFIRMS Hammond's > scientific result.
But that is just some crappy little cult. You'll not find conventional Christians too much in favour of "Christian Science" - (What an oxymoron !)
> > Where are the papers cited to prove what you say ?
> [HAMMOND] > answered fully above.
Nope. Where ?
> > You have proved nothing but that you are a troll. Your repeated abuse and > > namecalling shows what standards you have.
> [HAMMOND] > hey dude.... you just called me a name... you called > me a "troll".... if you wanna play the "name calling > game" you better wear an ass protector and a > helmut..because I can out insult you any day.
Your actions betray you. If you had any real credibility and wanted people to take you seriously you wouldn't behave like any other troll. That's all. I'm not calling you names, I'm giving you a description of what you are.
