FYI: Black Holes and the Theory of Life After Death
George Hammond
The Scientific Proof of God discovered by Hammond
and presented on this website proves several fundamental
things about "God":
1. The discovery proves that "God exists".
2. The discovery proves that there is such a thing
as a physical condition of "Eternal Life".
However, the discovery sheds very little light on the
question of "Life After Death". Let me explain this
situation a little more explicitly.
According to the proven facts of this discovery,
a condition of "Eternal Life" will be obtained by every
living human being when the Secular Trend reaches 100%.
The Secular Trend is a historical Sigmoidal Curve
("S-Curve"), and all s-curves eventually reach a
plateau of 100%- meaning full growth in this case
(phenotype=genotype). As the theory shows, if and when
a human being reaches full growth, he is de facto in a
condition of "Eternal Life",
see: http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/growth5.JPG
which simply means in Psychological terms that the
ungrown portion of the brain has become grown and
the Unconscious Mind has become Conscious. In
Theological terms, this is expressed classically by
saying that "God has fully descended from Heaven to
Earth" (Kingdom Come, so called).. In terms of
Physics, what it means is that Man is no longer living
in relativistically "dilated time", but is living in
"proper time", or "real time" in common parlance.
Eternal Life, scientifically, refers to living in
undilated time, not living for an infinite length of
time as is commonly conceived by lay people.
OK, so there is such a thing as Eternal life, and
we know what it is. All human beings alive at the time
of "Kingdom Come" will be born in a condition of
Eternal life (full growth, zero growth deficit).
According to the Secular Trend data however, Kingdom
Come lies many thousands of years in the future.
see: http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/seculartrend.jpg
But this fact still leaves us wondering what God
does about death in the meantime, that is, what about
people who live and die presently, perhaps thousands
and thousands of years prior to "Kingdom Come"? Of course,
this is where the speculation of "Life After Death"
enters the picture. There are some who believe that
when we die, our consciousness proceeds into the realm
of the Unconscious Mind, and there experiences the
condition of Eternal Life in a virtual, or "spiritual"
state of consciousness. This theory by the way, as you
know, is thousands of years old, and first came into
great prominence shortly after the death of Jesus Christ,
when the doctrine of the "Resurrection" emerged in
Christianity.
What does the present scientific discovery have
to say about this conjecture of Life After Death?
Well, as we have just pointed out the discovery does
not say anything "directly" about a possible Life
After Death. The principle reason for this is that
the discovery is based on Psychometric data taken on
living people. There is no consideration, measure or
detection of the phenomena of "death" in Psychometry.
However, it turns out that the results of this
discovery do contain peripheral information that does
bear on the question of Life After Death.
First of all, the discovery shows that Psychometry
is "Relativistic". This immediately shows that the
classical "time dilation" of relativity is involved
in the human perception of reality. In connection with
the conjecture of Life After Death, one immediately
sees that the phenomena of a (massive) time dilation
might explain the mystery of how a dead persons brain
might continue to function so as to produce a "spiritual"
state of consciousness. It could be for instance, that
the last few seconds of life are "time dilated" into,
say, years. In this way, we see that possibly Life
After Death is actually life before death, but only
appears to be "life after death". In other worlds,
it might be a relativistic effect. This of course
is sheer conjecture, however, it is at least a
rational physical mechanism which solves one of the
oldest historical arguments against the theory of
life after death.
Beyond that, there is in fact one more major
intriguing facet of this discovery which might have
a connection to the conjecture of Life After Death,
and that has to do with the basic discovery that:
God = Guv
One of the most unusual, in fact stunning, discoveries
of Relativity has to do with the behavior of the
Einsteinian Curvature, Guv . It is known that this
quantity can become infinite in certain circumstances,
and this phenomena is known as a Black Hole in
gravitational theory. Now the question arises; that
if Psychometry Space is mathematically identical to
gravitational spacetime (real space), then is
there such a thing as a Black Hole in Psychometry
Space... and what would be the physical meaning of
such a thing?
Immediately, this phenomena raises the question
of Life After Death, for the following reasons:
1. Since God = Guv , then Guv = infinity implies
that God = infinity, which would be interpreted
in Psychometry space as meaning most logically
perhaps, a condition of death, i.e., a "100%
reality deficit".
2. In real space Guv = infinity implies the
existence of of an "event horizon" beyond
which a person can be alive, but beyond
which he cannot communicate with the rest of
the world. Prima facie, such a phenomena
certainly bears a striking resemblance to
what we know about the phenomena of "death".
So, to sum up the situation, we have the following
"intriguing" and newly discovered scientific facts
which bear on the question of "Life After Death":
1. We do now know that there actually is
(theoretically) such a thing as an actual
physical condition of "Eternal Life".. this
simply being a condition of "full growth".
2. We now know that no one will experience this
condition (in the flesh) until the Secular Trend
completes it's historical monotonic progress and
finally reaches 100%. From the data, the date
of this event appears to lie many thousands of
years in the future ("kingdom come" so called).
3. We now know that "reality" is controlled
relativistically and that there is a
"relativistic time dilation" in the perception
of reality. this immediately raises the
question of whether "life after death" may in
fact involve a massive time dilation, so that
life "after" death is actually life "before"
death, which only "appears" to occur after
actual death.
4. The discovery that God = Guv immediately raises
the question of whether there is a "Black Hole"
in Psychometry Space (indeed in perceptual space)
and whether or not this could represent the
traversal of an "event horizon" and therefore entry
into "another world" from which there is no
communication back into this world? According to
the theory, this event would be "entirely mental"
and would involve only the seat of "consciousness",
not the entire physical body itself. This prospect
of course, sounds entirely like the historic
(conjectural) descriptions of Life After Death,
so called.
CONCLUSION
So where does this leave us in the final analysis?
Well, as far as this discovery is concerned, we still
do not know whether there is such a thing as a literal
Life After Death. However, if anything, the present
discovery seems to present positive indications for
such a thing rather than negative... particularly the
mysterious connection of death to Black Hole
gravitational phenomenology.
So, in the end, as far as this discovery of the
"existence" of God is concerned, we are still left
with the mystery of the question of "life after death".
But I will leave you with this observation. For 2,000
years Western Religion has said that there was a God,
and basically most people tended to doubt that "God"
was a real material phenomena, but perhaps considered
it more of an "ideal" of human behavior. Now however,
we have discovered that in fact the Church was correct,
in fact there actually is a real God. So, it turns
out that Religion was correct, and the vast body
of common opinion was in fact wrong. Now, if they
were right about the "existence of God", might it be
the case that they are also right about "life after
death"? Personally, I don't know... but the unusual
connection between Relativity and Reality has now
presented some very concrete indications of an as
yet undiscovered phenomena, which could indeed, turn
out to be the long sought for Life After Death.
---------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX:
I attach here an internet post concerning an unusual paper
(widely known) written by Albert Einstein in 1935, in which
he points out that the existence of a Black Hole might
quite likely be involved in the phenomena of "two worlds".
I mention this simply because it is quite intriguing that
Einstein himself thought this idea had some scientific
cogency.
Posted to sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics March 7, 2002
(Note: edited 5-25-2002)
[Hammond]
In 1935 Einstein and Rosen published a novel 5-page
paper in Physical Review entitled:
The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity
(Physical Review, Vol 48, July 1935, pp 73-77)
In this paper Einstein first proposed the "wormhole" or
the "Einstein-Rosen Bridge". This paper has become legendary
in the lore and legend of quantum-gravity and is cited by
almost every author on the subject.
Now, Hammond has discovered and proven that:
God = Guv
as explained in:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/release.html
However, it is known that in GR that Guv can range from
0 to Infinity:
Guv = 0 (flat space)
Guv = infinity (black hole)
From the equation God=Guv, this immediately raises the
question of what the meaning of:
God=0
God=infinity
might be? We immediately recognize that God=0 simply means
flat space, or zero growth curve deficit. This is the
fully grown man, or "God in the flesh", in other words
"zero growth deficit" in the following diagram":
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/growth5.JPG
God=0 simply means that God is no longer present in Heaven,
having totally descended to Earth.
However, the interesting question is, what does
God=Infinity mean? Is there a Black Hole in Psychometry
Space? In this context I see the Einstein-Rosen paper
as a landmark discovery by Einstein, of the mathematical
theory of Life After Death. In other words, the equation:
God = Guv (Hammond, 1997)
means that Guv---> Infinity DESCRIBES DEATH, whereas
Guv=0 is obviously zero growth deficit and therefore
represents ETERNAL LIFE (God in the flesh, on Earth).
In the 1935 paper, Einstein makes the substitution:
u^2 = r-2m
in the Schwarzschild solution for the metric, and thereby
produces a solution to the EFE which has no singularity
at r=2m. Problem is the above equation means u has a
negative sqrt and a positive sqrt, so the solution consists
of "2-sheets" as the expression goes in complex variable
topology. IOW, there exists a "regular solution" to the
EFE for a central spherical mass which produces a solution
in which real space is divided into "two worlds". Dividing
these "two worlds" is a hyperplane surface at r=2m. This
is of course the "event horizon" of a Black Hole.
To sum up then, it appears that EINSTEIN not only
discovered the Field Equation which is apparently
(Hammond 1997) the scientific proof of God, because
it leads to the equation:
God = Guv
in Psychometry Space, but also EINSTEIN actually may have
stumbled on the discovery of LIFE AFTER DEATH in his 1935
paper in which he first discovered the "two worlds"
solution.
Now, of course, the solution Guv=Infinity in Psychometry
space would mean that the person is "dead". In other words,
the "growth deficit" increases to 100% when a person dies.
You can't give an IQ test to a dead person! The person
has simply become "psychologically invisible"... evidently
he has passed the event horizon into the other sheet and
is now "psychologically invisible".
In summary, it appears to me that the existence of the
EINSTEIN BRIDGE, points to the possibility that there
is in fact a literal "life after death". If so, it is
interesting that EINSTEIN not only discovered the
mathematical proof of God, but possibly discovered the
mathematical explanation of life after death too.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
Marco Nelissen
> finally reaches 100%. From the data, the date
> of this event appears to lie many thousands of
> years in the future ("kingdom come" so called).
Convenient...
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
[Hammond]
Matthew 6:10 KJV
"Thy KINGDOM COME, Thy will be done
in earth, as it is in heaven."
Luke 11:2 KJV
"Thy KINGDOM COME. Thy will be done,
as in heaven, so in earth."
Jesus of Nazareth, 30 A.D.
What do you think he was talking about?
He never said "when" KINGDOM COME would arrive.
Secular Trend data shows it to be at least
1-2,000 years in the future (my estimate).
Marco Nelissen
> What do you think he was talking about?
> He never said "when" KINGDOM COME would arrive.
That is assuming it will come at all. "the bible says so" is not
proof. In fact, since the bible is provably wrong on many things,
you should question everything else it says, instead of literally
accepting everything in it.
> Secular Trend data shows it to be at least
> 1-2,000 years in the future (my estimate).
That's a pretty large range. I would have expected more accurate
calculations from the graduate physicist who discovered proof of God...
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
Marco Nelissen wrote:
>
> In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
> (snip bible quotes)
> > What do you think he was talking about?
> > He never said "when" KINGDOM COME would arrive.
>
> That is assuming it will come at all. "the bible says so" is not
> proof. In fact, since the bible is provably wrong on many things,
> you should question everything else it says, instead of literally
> accepting everything in it.
[Hammond]
Why don't you run for president, chief?
>
> > Secular Trend data shows it to be at least
> > 1-2,000 years in the future (my estimate).
>
> That's a pretty large range. I would have expected more accurate
> calculations from the graduate physicist who discovered proof of God...
[Hammond]
Hey... get the fulck outta here... asswipe
Jan Bielawski
> THE QUESTION OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> The Scientific Proof of God discovered by Hammond
> and presented on this website proves several fundamental
> things about "God":
>
> 1. The discovery proves that "God exists".
What kind of nonsense is this. First of all, you have to stop using
the unadorned word "God" because this word denotes many vastly
different things to many people.
*Define* the notion existence of which you are proving, then *give it
a name* and use this name. If you just say "God", it makes no sense
simply because to many people God is not a notion that can be really
*thought about*, even in principle. It can only be experienced. For
such "God" your proofs are entirely irrelevant.
If by "God" you mean the God of the Old Testament then again you are
wasting your time since that "God" is not a scientific notion either.
Plus for many people "God" is not a part of the physical world so by
definition your proofs again cannot touch it.
If by "God" you mean some sort of "global energy field" then just say
so and use the corresponding terminology.
Jan Bielawski
Jan Bielawski
> [Hammond]
>
> Matthew 6:10 KJV
>
> "Thy KINGDOM COME, Thy will be done
> in earth, as it is in heaven."
>
>
> Luke 11:2 KJV
>
> "Thy KINGDOM COME. Thy will be done,
> as in heaven, so in earth."
>
> Jesus of Nazareth, 30 A.D.
>
> What do you think he was talking about?
You read it literally.
Jan Bielawski
Marco Nelissen
> Hey... get the fulck outta here... asswipe
Great argument there George. Which personality was that?
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
Jan Bielawski wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D102A47...@attbi.com>...
> > THE QUESTION OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
> >
> > The Scientific Proof of God discovered by Hammond
> > and presented on this website proves several fundamental
> > things about "God":
> >
> > 1. The discovery proves that "God exists".
>
> What kind of nonsense is this. First of all, you have to stop using
> the unadorned word "God" because this word denotes many vastly
> different things to many people.
[Hammond]
Hey J.B., I'm not talking about the fine distinctions about
"God" that are made by the liesure classes... I'm talking
about the "God" of the suffering masses of the world.. and
of the godfearing majority in the Christian world. There's
no argument there about what is meant by the word "God".
>
> *Define* the notion existence of which you are proving, then *give it
> a name* and use this name. If you just say "God", it makes no sense
> simply because to many people God is not a notion that can be really
> *thought about*, even in principle. It can only be experienced. For
> such "God" your proofs are entirely irrelevant.
[Hammond]
Hey listen "philasawfsy" expert.... we're not here to debate
academic distinctions.... I take the following fact to
be self evident:
There are 5 billion adherents to organized religion
worldwide and every one of them, over the age of 30,
knows what is commonly meant by the word "God".
>
> If by "God" you mean the God of the Old Testament then again you are
> wasting your time since that "God" is not a scientific notion either.
GH: Until you've actually read the theory, your objections
are irrelevant. From your statement it is OBVIOUS that
you have not read the discovery.
>
> Plus for many people "God" is not a part of the physical world so by
> definition your proofs again cannot touch it.
GH: Until you've actually read the theory, your objections
are irrelevant. From your statement it is OBVIOUS that
you have not read the discovery.
>
> If by "God" you mean some sort of "global energy field" then just say
> so and use the corresponding terminology.
GH: Until you've actually read the theory, your objections
are irrelevant. From your statement it is OBVIOUS that
you have not read the discovery.
>
> Jan Bielawski
[Hammond]
Sorry, I don't accept unsupported assertions, even
from natural born geniuses.
--
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Hey.. wake up, it IS a literal statement. Jesus simply
said that "when kingdom come arrives" (thy kingdom come),
then life on earth will be the same as life in heaven.
What the hell could be plainer and more direct than that.
He was telling us that "the Earth" (the world) is slowly
being transformed by God into "heaven" (heaven on Earth),
and referred to the completion date of this process as
"kingdom come".
As I say, Secular Trend data shows that the date of
"kingdom come" is perhaps a few thousand years in the future.
The following curve shows my distillation of the existing
data/literature on the Secular Trend:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/seculartrend.jpg
the right hand "plateau" of this curve represents "kingdom come".
>
> Jan Bielawski
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
Marco Nelissen wrote:
>
> In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > Hey... get the fluck outta here... aspwipe
>
> Great argument there George. Which personality was that?
[Hammond]
My true personality.
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
JJ wrote:
>
> my definition of God = the greatest lower bound of nonexistence. :-)
>
> ie.: God does not exist.
[Hammond]
You're so freakin stupid it's hard to believe you ever got
out of grade school. However, it's forgivable because
you're about average for the entire human race.
Just consider the spectacle which I have to behold from
my vantage point... a small class of moronic idiots
(like Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, the Shiek of Arabia,
and the Prince of England) presiding over a bunch of
underweight mannequins prancing around totally ignorant
of the existence of God, ready to kill anyone for jumping
a green light at an intersection. Meanwhile one of
Al Quaeda's terrorist engineers has now invented a stick of
dynamite with a smooth rounded end that can be used as
a suppository for the really serious suicide bomber.
--
JJ
> ======REGULARLY SCHEDULED KOOKIE KUTTER============= NOTE: The original
> post which this thread refers to
> may be seen at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
> ===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
>
> JJ wrote:
>>
>> my definition of God = the greatest lower bound of nonexistence. :-)
>>
>> ie.: God does not exist.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're so freakin stupid it's hard to believe you ever got out of grade
> school. However, it's forgivable because you're about average for the
> entire human race.
no you're stupid. :-)
> Just consider the spectacle which I have to behold from
> my vantage point... a small class of moronic idiots (like Dick Cheney,
> Bill Gates, the Shiek of Arabia, and the Prince of England) presiding
> over a bunch of underweight mannequins prancing around totally ignorant
> of the existence of God, ready to kill anyone for jumping a green light
> at an intersection. Meanwhile one of Al Quaeda's terrorist engineers
> has now invented a stick of dynamite with a smooth rounded end that can
> be used as a suppository for the really serious suicide bomber.
amen brother.
*RING* *RING*
oh wait, i have God Jr. on the phone...uhh yes LORD, i'll
tell Hammond exactly that. oh thanks. i love you too. bye...
Jesus says you should "STFU".
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
<snip>
GH: FOAD mutha-----r.
0gre
(edited for accuracy)
> ======REGULARLY SCHEDULED KOOKY OUTBURST============
> NOTE: The original poast which this thread refers to
> may be seen at:
> http://www.jwgh.org/ark/articles/cubeyscript.html
> ===========ENTERTAIN INTERNET HECKLERS==============
>
> Marco Nelissen wrote:
> >
> > In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > finally reaches 100%. From the data, the date
> > > of this event appears to lie many thousands of
> > > years in the future ("kingdom come" so called).
> >
> > Convenient...
>
> What do you think he was talking about?
He? Who's "he?" And why are you posting your idiot spew in
sci.skeptic, you blithering kook?
> He never said "when" KINGDOM COME would arrive.
> Secular Trend data shows it to be at least
> 1-2,000 years in the future (my estimate).
Hey, Hammond, is your brain still shaped like a cube? And aren't
you plagiarizing Gene Ray, the TimeCube guy? You're insane, out of
your gourd, and it isn't even an *original* sort of insanity. For
shame.
>
> =======================================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S AN INFAMOUS NET.KOOK
> http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html
> =======================================================
George Hammond
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:35:14 -0400, George Hammond wrote:
>
> > ======REGULARLY SCHEDULED KOOKIE KUTTER============= NOTE: The original
> > post which this thread refers to
> > may be seen at:
> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
> > ===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > GH: FOAD mutha-----r.
> >
> >
>
>
> oops.
>
> he doesn't exist.
>
> doh!
[Hammond]
You pathetic moron, you die another inch every time you say that.
You think people can't look at you and tell you're half brain
dead.. it's doing shit like that that's causing it... and by
the way... EVEN YOU'RE BEST FRIENDS CAN'T TELL YOU...
because:
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE
moron, ignorant nincompoop.... imbecile... nitwit.... fool.
Masturbation might cause blindsness, but blasphemy causes
brain death... and don't ever forget it.
JJ
> Sorry, I don't accept unsupported assertions, even from natural born
> geniuses.
how about natural born SubGenii, yetis, the abominable snowmen?
George Black
> JJ wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:35:14 -0400, George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > ======REGULARLY SCHEDULED KOOKIE KUTTER============= NOTE: The
original
> > > post which this thread refers to
> > > may be seen at:
> > > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
> > > ===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > GH: FOAD mutha-----r.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > tell God to make me die right now!
> >
> > oops.
> >
> > he doesn't exist.
> >
> > doh!
>
> [Hammond]
> You pathetic moron, you die another inch every time you say that.
> You think people can't look at you and tell you're half brain
> dead.. it's doing shit like that that's causing it... and by
> the way... EVEN YOU'RE BEST FRIENDS CAN'T TELL YOU...
> because:
>
> IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE
>
> moron, ignorant nincompoop.... imbecile... nitwit.... fool.
> Masturbation might cause blindsness, but blasphemy causes
> brain death... and don't ever forget it.
So that's what happened to you.............
and here I was thinking that it was genetic
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
[Hammond]
You've asked the same question twice, that's against the rules
since it was answered the first time.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
George Black wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > GH: FOAD mutha-----r.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > tell God to make me die right now!
> > >
> > > oops.
> > >
> > > he doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > doh!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You pathetic moron, you die another inch every time you say that.
> > You think people can't look at you and tell you're half brain
> > dead.. it's doing shit like that that's causing it... and by
> > the way... EVEN YOU'RE BEST FRIENDS CAN'T TELL YOU...
> > because:
> >
> > IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE
> >
> > moron, ignorant nincompoop.... imbecile... nitwit.... fool.
> > Masturbation might cause blindsness, but blasphemy causes
> > brain death... and don't ever forget it.
>
> So that's what happened to you.............
> and here I was thinking that it was genetic
[Hammond]
BTW, for the record, GOD IS NOT GENETIC, and you
can quote me on that one. At last we've put the
genetics crowd back in their place. No more
"selfish gene" bullshit... the scientific proof of God
has arrived.
--
George Black
You have no proof scientific or otherwise. You know it and most of us in the
group know it.
Aint no such thing as a god.
Now genetics IS a testable field..............
Ed Zampino
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:20:05 -0400, George Hammond wrote:
>
> > JJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:35:14 -0400, George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >> > ======REGULARLY SCHEDULED KOOKIE KUTTER============= NOTE: The
> >> > original post which this thread refers to
> >> > may be seen at:
> >> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
> >> > ===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > GH: FOAD mutha-----r.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> tell God to make me die right now!
> >>
> >> oops.
> >>
> >> he doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> doh!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You pathetic moron, you die another inch every time you say that.
> > You think people can't look at you and tell you're half brain dead..
> > it's doing shit like that that's causing it... and by the way... EVEN
> > YOU'RE BEST FRIENDS CAN'T TELL YOU... because:
> >
> > IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE
> >
> > moron, ignorant nincompoop.... imbecile... nitwit.... fool. Masturbation
> > might cause blindsness, but blasphemy causes brain death... and don't
> > ever forget it.
> >
> >
> ancient tales written by ignorant sheppards and malnourished mystics but
> hasn't in the 20th/21th century? what is it about recent history that
> allows today's Onans to enjoy themselves without fearing the wrath of old
> Papa Jehova I -- the eternally geosynchronized satellite -- without
> fearing his huge clammy palm?
>
> > =======================================================
> > GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
> > =======================================================
E.Zampino: You are not even close to understanding what the word God
means. When we use "god" with a small "g" we refer to human
conceptions
of divine beings that are somewhat above nature, like the mythological
gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Or, we may be speaking about
wealth, power, and/or possessions that people worship and place all
their trust in. In the ancient days of the Greeks, the principle
reality
was the COSMOS, and the "gods" that were created by the human mind
kind of revolved around the COSMOS. (Even if the Greek philosophers of
that day would not admit it.)
But, from the Jewish/Christian concept, when the word God is used with
a capital G, we refer to an UNCREATED being who transcends all space,
time, matter,the laws of physics, and Hammond's math model. HE IS the
center of all things and the COSMOS revolves around HIM.
People spend a great deal of time working on the ultimate questions
like how the universe was created. With all due respect to my
collegues in cosmology, I
think that we can understand the later processes maybe 10-24 sec. but
we cannot and will not ever grasp the creation itself. My respectful
critique of all the discussion on this webpage thread is that people
are trying to accomplish something that in principle they cannot
do..namely..they want to understand the nature of God by using math,
physics, and logic from within the human mind. My belief is that this
is not possible. God is love, mercy, wisdom, and transcending power.
HE does not require any of these intellectual cruches of the human
mind and REVEALS himself to us by his own power through HIS WORD, the
tiny
events of one's life and the world around you. Physicists could spend
a little bit of time contemplating God each day. Our intellectual
persuits can be spent on trying to understand what little we can about
nature and our
faith can be placed in GOD rather than in the math models.
Trying to use mathematics and physics to prove or "model" eternal
spiritual
life is like trying to use a sledge hammer to swat flies. It is not
even needed. We know that when christ was baptized, the heavens
literally tore open.
This is beyond black holes, wormholes, Krasnikov tubes, or Warp-drive
space-time bubbles, it was a huge, giant, ripping open of the
space-time continuum.
Through this huge gap or hole connecting the universe as we know it
and the eternity in which God himself exists, God's spirit or being
reached through to connect with HIS Son. There are no math models for
this. I'm sorry it is strictly a matter of faith. You either step out
and grab a hold of God's hand and believe that you will not fall, or
you do not. The decision to take the faith walk always rests with you.
We should devote more discussion on this relativity webpage to
relativity instead of trying to mathematically describe God.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Ya but, the one thing that shuts you up is when someone asks what your
CV is, and then we find out you're not a physicist, in fact not
even a college graduate, in fact not even employed in the skilled
trades, in fact not even employed... you're just some bum sitting
in a trailer in florida sipping scotch and fucking around with his
stepson's computer while his mother is at work.
You're such a fu--in waste you're not even worth listening to.
You haven't got the guts to ask a serious question.. because you've
never had the guts to face anything real in your entire miserable
42 year old life. You're a complete f---- phoney.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
With all due respect Ed (whatever that may mean), I don't think
you've said an original word since you were born. Everything you've
said above is something you've read in a book or something somebody has
told you. Endless buzz words, memorized litanies, hand waving
philosophy, blah, blah, blah.
What I'd like to see is a guy like you put in a position where he
HAD to do something original.. I mean do or die. Say for instance,
putting you in the pilot's seat of a 747 loaded with women and children
with the only other male on board being the pilot who has just died of
a heart attack. Not only that the radio is dead and you've never flown a
plane before, except watching it done in a movie. Not only that, it's
pitch dark, and you don't know where you are. Ed, I'd really like to
see you in that position.... I'd like to see the sweat bead up on
your forehead, I'd like to see those jaw muscles twitch to keep your
teeth from chattering. I'd like to see those eyes riveted straight ahead
like if you blinked you'd die. A worthless s.o.b. like you should have to
fight for his life at least once.. with nothing to go by but ORIGINAL
THINKING. I really wonder if you'd get those 400 people
down on the ground in one piece you bastard. I'll guarantee you
one thing Ed... I would.... and you're watching it right now.. and
the passenger list runs to 6-billion names.
If you want to play co-pilot pal, you better cut the crap and start
talking reality... I mean ask a relevant scientific question... otherwise
you're just a worthless magpie. We don't have a flight plan for this
one baby.
Sally Arturo
> ======REGULARLY SCHEDULED KOOKIE KUTTER=============
> NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
> may be seen at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
> ===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
>
> my vantage point... a small class of moronic idiots
> (like Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, the Shiek of Arabia,
> and the Prince of England) presiding over a bunch of
> underweight mannequins prancing around totally ignorant
> of the existence of God, ready to kill anyone for jumping
> a green light at an intersection. Meanwhile one of
> Al Quaeda's terrorist engineers has now invented a stick of
> dynamite with a smooth rounded end that can be used as
> a suppository for the really serious suicide bomber.
George, I know that you hate people being pedantic about the drivel
you post, but there is really no such person as 'the Prince of
England.' There is a Queen of England, she has a husband called the
Duke of Edinborough, and three sons called the Prince of Wales, the
Duke of York, and the Earl of Wessex, also she has a daughter called
the Princess Royal. Likewise it is silly to talk of 'the' sheikh of
Arabia, there are several hundred, you probably mean King Fahd, the
head of the Saudi royal family. Don't worry though you got the
American ones right. Like the rest of your country you seem to have
no idea about the world outside of the good 'ole US of A.
Let me guess, are you by any chance terrified of the Communists as
well as the Muslims? Do you believe that the world's only hope for
salvation is the American-Christian way? Would you like it if the
whole world could be part of the USA? The level of nationalistic
indoctrination and pure hate present in most Americans seems to rival
that of any brainwashed terrorist group. As a PRACTISING AMERICAN
CHRISTIAN your naivety, ignorance and downright intolerance of other
societies disgusts me - and I'm sure the Prince Of WALES (an
enlightened and peaceful man) would agree (though he might dispute the
notion that he presides over ANYONE!), if you actually knew anything
of the man or the work he has done to benefit society, I think you
would apologise. I do not however dispute the notion that King Fahd,
Dick Cheney and Bill Gates have a lot of power, often used in ways
that benefit no-one but themselves.
Sally Arturo
Peter Bowditch
>Ya but, the one thing that shuts you up is when someone asks what your
>CV is, and then we find out you're not a physicist, in fact not
>even a college graduate, in fact not even employed in the skilled
>trades, in fact not even employed... you're just some bum sitting
>in a trailer in florida sipping scotch and fucking around with his
>stepson's computer while his mother is at work.
I believe the person George was speaking to here lives in New Zealand.
I can imagine Florida breaking off and floating into the Gulf of
Mexico, but could it get through the Panama Canal?
Maybe New Zealand has moved. I'll just check.
Nope. Still there. Islands just over the horizon from my place,
population all in Bondi.
--
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
Sally Arturo wrote:
>
- and I'm sure the Prince Of WALES (an
> enlightened and peaceful man) would agree (though he might dispute the
> notion that he presides over ANYONE!), if you actually knew anything
> of the man or the work he has done to benefit society, I think you
> would apologise. I do not however dispute the notion that King Fahd,
> Dick Cheney and Bill Gates have a lot of power, often used in ways
> that benefit no-one but themselves.
>
> Sally Arturo
[Hammond]
Yeah... well if the Prince of Wales was on his toes, or
prince Charlie, they would be aware of the 20 years of
work I have done to benefit society by discovering the world's
first and only scientific proof of God.... and I'll appologize to
them right after they get off the phone to Sir Roger Penrose and
Lucasian Professor Stephen Hawking asking them to drop
everything and check out my discovery and confirm that it
is correct. Until that happens, every man is nothing more
than another dangerous liability to the world's most important
scientific discovery.
What, do you think I'm kidding.... you can't bluff a guy
who's holding the Royal Straight Flush.
George Black
Anything else you can get wrong??
Tell me the Lotto numbers that are not going to come up this Saturday.
And 42 I wish sigh
George Black
"Peter Bowditch" <pet...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:l1j3hucgel4c64als...@4ax.com...
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Ya but, the one thing that shuts you up is when someone asks what your
> >CV is, and then we find out you're not a physicist, in fact not
> >even a college graduate, in fact not even employed in the skilled
> >trades, in fact not even employed... you're just some bum sitting
> >in a trailer in florida sipping scotch and fucking around with his
> >stepson's computer while his mother is at work.
>
> I believe the person George was speaking to here lives in New Zealand.
> I can imagine Florida breaking off and floating into the Gulf of
> Mexico, but could it get through the Panama Canal?
Only with a couple of real big tugs
> Maybe New Zealand has moved. I'll just check.
Nah. Still here
> Nope. Still there. Islands just over the horizon from my place,
> population all in Bondi.
Thanks mate.. What a dork this character is........
George Black
brian0918
> Yeah... well if the Prince of Wales was on his toes, or
> prince Charlie, they would be aware of the 20 years of
> work I have done to benefit society by discovering the world's
> first and only scientific proof of God.... and I'll appologize to
> them right after they get off the phone to Sir Roger Penrose and
> Lucasian Professor Stephen Hawking asking them to drop
> everything and check out my discovery and confirm that it
> is correct.
How would they go about confirming your theory?
David Evens
wrote:
>NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
> may be seen at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sally Arturo wrote:
>>
>
> - and I'm sure the Prince Of WALES (an
>> enlightened and peaceful man) would agree (though he might dispute the
>> notion that he presides over ANYONE!), if you actually knew anything
>> of the man or the work he has done to benefit society, I think you
>> would apologise. I do not however dispute the notion that King Fahd,
>> Dick Cheney and Bill Gates have a lot of power, often used in ways
>> that benefit no-one but themselves.
>>
>> Sally Arturo
>
>[Hammond]
>Yeah... well if the Prince of Wales was on his toes, or
>prince Charlie,
Charles IS Prince of Wales. Perhaps you were thinking of his father,
the Prince Consort.
>they would be aware of the 20 years of
>work I have done to benefit society by discovering the world's
>first and only scientific proof of God.... and I'll appologize to
>them right after they get off the phone to Sir Roger Penrose and
>Lucasian Professor Stephen Hawking asking them to drop
>everything and check out my discovery and confirm that it
>is correct. Until that happens, every man is nothing more
>than another dangerous liability to the world's most important
>scientific discovery.
So you are on the point of violence against everyone who does not obey
your will.
> What, do you think I'm kidding.... you can't bluff a guy
>who's holding the Royal Straight Flush.
You should learn about poker some time, too. There is no such valid
writing of a poker hand, since the word 'straight' cannot avoid bveing
redundant.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
[Hammond]
Glad you asked. Same way Dick Feynman or any other competent
scientist would go about confirming it.
For instance... let me give you a hypothetical conversation
between a competent physicist (say Dick Feynman) and George
Hammond about the scientific proof of God.
Suppose the U.S. government asked Dick Feynman to talk to
me and get to the bottom of my scientific claim.... so he calls
me into his office at Cal tech and here's the way the conversation
might go:
FEYNMAN: OK Hammond, the government has asked me to look into
this scientific proof of God of yours and find out what it is.
Give me a rundown of how it works.
HAMMOND: Ok Dick, here's the scoop. There's something called
Psychometry, which is the modern version of Psychology. It uses
Factor Analysis, which as you know is the eigenvector reduction
of correlation matrices.
FEYNMAN: Yeah OK, Factor Analysis is used in many Natural
Science fields to determine what the underlying variables are
in a given scientific phenomena... it's mainly used when you
only have statistical correlations between different observable
variables rather than simple precise mathematical equations.
HAMMOND: Yes, for instance they will form a 100x100 correlation
matrix between all the questions of a personality test and then
compute the eigenvectors of the matrix.
FEYNMAN: What do they get usually when they do this?
HAMMOND: Well, here's the amazing thing. 100 years of
experimentation has discovered that no matter who writes the
test, or how many questions there are, the computer always finds
4 eigenvectors.
FEYNMAN: You're kidding?
HAMMOND: No... it's unbelievable. The 4 eigenvectors are known as
E,N,P and g.
FEYNMAN: Well how do they explain that, I mean what would cause
there to be only 4 dimensions to Psychology?
HAMMOND: that's why I'm here talking to you, I've discovered
why there are only, exactly, 4 dimensions to psychology.
FEYNMAN: OK, why?
HAMMOND: turns out they're caused by the 3-axis geometry of
the brain.
FEYNMAN: What 3-axis geometry, and by the way 3 isn't 4.
HAMMOND: The whole body is an axial quadrature, it comes from
the first 3 cleavages of the egg. the brain actually has 3 orthogonal
cleavages.. you know, you've heard of that sperrian Left-Right brain
thing.. that's one of them.. turns out there are 3 of them in the
brain. The whole body is like this.. that's why we have 4 feet for
instance, or why we are bilaterally symmetric. BTW, the 4th dimension
is simply the time operation of the brain, what they call mental speed.
FEYNMAN: Ok, ok.... what does this have to do with a scientific proof
of God?
HAMMOND: Well, the reason the human body is a 3-axis orthogonal
machine is because space is Riemanian. the quadratic metric of
space causes it.
FEYNMAN: Ok.. I see that.. what you're saying is that a salt
crystal is cubic because the metric of space is a quadratic.. sure ok.
HAMMOND: right, now here's the amazing thing.. it's known that there is
a curvature in psychometry space, the correlation matrix of ENPg is
oblique.
FEYNMAN: Oh no... your not gong to tell me that the curvature of
real space causes a curvature of psychometry space are you?
HAMMOND: Yep. And guess what Dick... that curvature in Psychometry
space causes what we call "God".
FEYNMAN: You're kidding... that's crazy... how do you know it's God?
HAMMOND: Because they know the Factor produced by this curvature is
caused by "brain growth", specifically, the celebrated Secular Trend
in human brain growth.
FEYNMAN: Braingrowth causes God? How do you figure that?
HAMMOND: The first clue is that braingrowth causes mental speed. We know
this since as we grow up, our brain gets bigger, and our intelligence
increases linearly with age for the first 18 years while this happens.
Since the curvature of the metric indicates that this dilation in mental
speed is relativistic, this means braingrowth in psychometry space is
equivalent to the Newtonian potential in real space which as we know
causes the classic gravitational time dilation. percentage of brain
growth in psychometry space is the same thing as "mass density" in real
space, which is what causes curvature.
FEYNMAN: Wait a minute.. first you say the God is caused by gravity,
then you say it's caused by brain growth... which is it?
HAMMOND: Both. Gravity controls braingrowth.
FEYNMAN: How?
HAMMOND: According to Roger Penrose it's quantum gravity in the brain.
FEYNMAN: Well.. that's just a theory.
HAMMOND: True... but as you can see, this thing is a scientific explanation
of god without even mentioning the word gravity. The existence of
the Secular Trend in braingrowth, and the known perceptual phenomena of
braingrowth is sufficient to explain God. Not only that, since we KNOW
that the 4 metrical dimensions of spacetime cause the 4 metrical dimensions
of Psychometry, that means "axiomatically" that there is only one single
final
Factor in Psychometry. Those 3 facts together are sufficient to prove
that the Factor is God, without even mentioning the word Gravity.
The connection to Gravity is just the frosting on the cake, obviously.
FEYNMAN: By George I think you've got something, it probably is
the scientific explanation of God. that means Einstein actually
discovered the mathematical proof of God when he discovered
relativity..
HAMMOND: Right.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You're a fuckin moron. A "Royal Flush" needn't be "straight", for instance
a 7,J,Q,K,A of Spades would be a "Royal Flush" but it isn't "straight".
However a 10,J,Q,K,A of Spades, is a "Royal Straight Flush".
You're so f---in stupid and asinine you're boring.
--
brian0918
So, basically, the way a person would go about confirming your theory is to
have you explain the theory to him?
Kevin
> JJ wrote:
> >
> > my definition of God = the greatest lower bound of nonexistence. :-)
> >
> > ie.: God does not exist.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're so freakin stupid it's hard to believe you ever got
> out of grade school. However, it's forgivable because
> you're about average for the entire human race.
> Just consider the spectacle which I have to behold from
> my vantage point... a small class of moronic idiots
> (like Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, the Shiek of Arabia,
> and the Prince of England) presiding over a bunch of
> underweight mannequins prancing around totally ignorant
> of the existence of God, ready to kill anyone for jumping
> a green light at an intersection. Meanwhile one of
> Al Quaeda's terrorist engineers has now invented a stick of
> dynamite with a smooth rounded end that can be used as
> a suppository for the really serious suicide bomber.
>
>
[snip]
George, I simply don't understand why you have to keep pushing your "theory"
on everyone in this group. You've informed us countless times (this last
post as an example) that we don't have the intelligence to understand this
"theory". I propose that you take your ideas to another forum where people
are capable of understanding your proof.
Also, if you're confident that your ideas are correct, then why do you
insist on trying to convince us that this proof is indeed the proof of God.
If this proof is correct, won't your ideas propagate themselves?
Sabbir Rahman
> hehe. that was actually quite funny and original.
>
> congratulations.
>
> btw, is it the insomnia talking? 8-}
Actually I thought he took it straight out of the
movie "Airplane". Very amusing nevertheless.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Sabbir Rahman
news:873d34a2.02062...@posting.google.com
> But, from the Jewish/Christian concept, when the word God is used with
> a capital G, we refer to an UNCREATED being who transcends all space,
> time, matter,the laws of physics, and Hammond's math model. HE IS the
> center of all things and the COSMOS revolves around HIM.
...
> Through this huge gap or hole connecting the universe as we know it
> and the eternity in which God himself exists, God's spirit or being
> reached through to connect with HIS Son.
Quite respectfully, if God "transcends all space, time, matter, the
laws of physics, and Hammond's math model", then how can He possibly
have a "Son"? Doesn't make any sense at all.
- Sabbir.
JJ
> Quite respectfully, if God "transcends all space, time, matter, the laws
> of physics, and Hammond's math model", then how can He possibly have a
> "Son"? Doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> - Sabbir.
Quite disrespectfully, it makes as much sense as the Boran -- excuse me
-- the Qur'an.
Hey, where's the barrier of Dhu-l-Qarnain and where are Y'ajooj wa
M'ajooj hiding?
allah having a Son makes as much sense as your definition of allah.
- Iblis.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
[Hammond]
Hey look.... there's no need to go mental over the "Science can't prove
God because God created Science" horseshit.
Science (Physics) never has claimed that it can explain the "a priori"
existence of reality... it only claims to be able to discover the
LAWS OF REALITY.
Theology on the other hand DOES claim to be able to explain the
"a priori" existence of Reality. it simply says "God created it".
Therefore, WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF PHYSICS, it is correct to say that
"science has discovered that God is caused by Gravity", but within
the domain of Theology it is still correct to say the "God created
Physics".... there IS NO conflict here.
Basically, Physics proves the existence of God by detecting the
"modulation of Reality" caused by brain growth, said braingrowth
being mediated by gravity. From this "modulation of Reality" it
infers, or extrapolates, to the deduction that "God exists" (since
they can observe God "creating" Reality, science concludes that
God must have "created" Reality). This is a classic "scientific proof",
as rigorous as the "proof" that F=ma. In fact, obviously, it confirms
the Theological statement: "God created reality and everything in it,
including Physics"- nevertheless, IT IS a classic "scientific proof"
that God exists, within the domain and principles of Physics.
So, in the end, what we find is that making up "philawsafsy"
canards does not, and cannot, prove that you are a superior genius
to a trained physicist... sorry, there is no royal road to genius.
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
--
George Hammond
[Hammond]
No, basically what I'm saying is that the discovery and proof
is manifestly obvious to any competent scientist who has a
brain in his head... that does not include you of course, or
any of the rest of these internet jokers.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
Kevin wrote:
>
> > JJ wrote:
> > >
> > > my definition of God = the greatest lower bound of nonexistence. :-)
> > >
> > > ie.: God does not exist.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You're so freakin stupid it's hard to believe you ever got
> > out of grade school. However, it's forgivable because
> > you're about average for the entire human race.
> > Just consider the spectacle which I have to behold from
> > my vantage point... a small class of moronic idiots
> > (like Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, the Shiek of Arabia,
> > and the Prince of England) presiding over a bunch of
> > underweight mannequins prancing around totally ignorant
> > of the existence of God, ready to kill anyone for jumping
> > a green light at an intersection. Meanwhile one of
> > Al Quaeda's terrorist engineers has now invented a stick of
> > dynamite with a smooth rounded end that can be used as
> > a suppository for the really serious suicide bomber.
> >
> >
> > --
> [snip]
>
> George, I simply don't understand why
[Hammond]
How many times do I have to tell you I don't
give a f--- what you can understand or can't
understand? If you don't like it, use your
killfile button, I don't need you for anything.
TMG
wrote clear threats to the common good and peace:
TO: George Hammond (self-claimed to be from Hyannis MA, actual
domicile within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
Your constant and escalating ranting has risen to the point that those
of us who live in the same community are concerned for our basic
safety and well-being. I'm concerned that you are a threat to the
community; Other members of the local community are equally (if not
more) concerned.
I, and our common neighbors, are increasingly terrified that you are
allowed to roam our common thoroughfares.
You have threatened members of the local community, scientists, and
other "nay sayers" for some perceived benefit to your particular
aggressive religious opinions. The concern is not related to your
opinions, but to your dangerous and documented threats to the life,
person, and property of those who displease you.
Let this serve as notice of the common "real world" community distress
and actionable terror you continue to inflict.
Continue your threats and general real world discord, distress, and
disharmony at your own peril. Last I checked, the local community can
still have you picked up as a "general threat to the common peace" and
evaluated. Is this really what you're looking for?
Jan Bielawski
> Jan Bielawski wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D102A47...@attbi.com>...
> > > THE QUESTION OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
> > >
> > > The Scientific Proof of God discovered by Hammond
> > > and presented on this website proves several fundamental
> > > things about "God":
> > >
> > > 1. The discovery proves that "God exists".
> >
> > What kind of nonsense is this. First of all, you have to stop using
> > the unadorned word "God" because this word denotes many vastly
> > different things to many people.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey J.B., I'm not talking about the fine distinctions
They are not fine distinctions, they are simple basic questions
without resolution of which one cannot have a theory.
> I'm talking
> about the "God" of the suffering masses of the world.. and
> of the godfearing majority in the Christian world. There's
> no argument there about what is meant by the word "God".
You talk as if you were born yesterday. Of course the word "God" means
very different things for different people, even of the same faith.
> > *Define* the notion existence of which you are proving, then *give it
> > a name* and use this name. If you just say "God", it makes no sense
> > simply because to many people God is not a notion that can be really
> > *thought about*, even in principle. It can only be experienced. For
> > such "God" your proofs are entirely irrelevant.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey listen "philasawfsy" expert.... we're not here to debate
> academic distinctions....
This is nothing academic, it's just a statement of a simple fact, like
"the grass is green". It is a fact that to many people (and that
includes many Christians) "God" does not mean anything in the physical
universe.
> I take the following fact to be self evident:
>
> There are 5 billion adherents to organized religion
> worldwide and every one of them, over the age of 30,
> knows what is commonly meant by the word "God".
That's hand waving. Where is the definition of *that* *which* you
claim to prove exists?
> > If by "God" you mean the God of the Old Testament then again you are
> > wasting your time since that "God" is not a scientific notion either.
>
> GH: Until you've actually read the theory, your objections
> are irrelevant.
No. Until you define what you mean by "God" in your theory, it is your
theory that's irrelevant.
> From your statement it is OBVIOUS that
> you have not read the discovery.
Of course not. I have absolutely no intent to waste even a minute on
this baloney. I would look at it if there was in your postings just a
smidgeon of common decency, sanity, manners, maturity, competence, let
alone such a basic thing as a *definition of the object* the existence
of which you are claiming to prove.
> > If by "God" you mean some sort of "global energy field" then just say
> > so and use the corresponding terminology.
>
> GH: Until you've actually read the theory, your objections
> are irrelevant. From your statement it is OBVIOUS that
> you have not read the discovery.
I won't read anything until you define what it is that you are trying
to prove.
If your theory is not about the physical universe, then it's not
physics. If OTOH it is about physical universe then by definition it
cannot cover "God" of those people who believe in God as an entity
beyond the physical universe.
Choose one or the other - you can't have both.
Jan Bielawski
Jan Bielawski
> Jan Bielawski wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D105054...@attbi.com>...
> >
> > > [Hammond]
> > >
> > > Matthew 6:10 KJV
> > >
> > > "Thy KINGDOM COME, Thy will be done
> > > in earth, as it is in heaven."
> > >
> > >
> > > Luke 11:2 KJV
> > >
> > > "Thy KINGDOM COME. Thy will be done,
> > > as in heaven, so in earth."
> > >
> > > Jesus of Nazareth, 30 A.D.
> > >
> > > What do you think he was talking about?
> >
> > You read it literally.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey.. wake up, it IS a literal statement.
Well, for you it is. For someone else it might not be. There exist
excellent grounds for the belief these statements were never meant to
be taken literally but instead are metaphors expressing truths not
otherwise expressible in words (or thoughts) - they can only be
directly experienced or lived.
> Jesus simply
> said that "when kingdom come arrives" (thy kingdom come),
> then life on earth will be the same as life in heaven.
It's your decision to read this as referring to a fact in physical
reality. (Actually, the Gospel of Thomas would probably disagree with
you on that little point you mention above.)
> What the hell could be plainer and more direct than that.
There is no room here to debate this plus this medium of communication
is too slow. Suffice to say there are reasons to read it differently.
> He was telling us that "the Earth" (the world) is slowly
> being transformed by God into "heaven" (heaven on Earth),
> and referred to the completion date of this process as
> "kingdom come".
Whatever makes you happy.
Jan Bielawski
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
JJ wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:32:35 -0400, Sabbir Rahman wrote:
>
> > Quite respectfully, if God "transcends all space, time, matter, the laws
> > of physics, and Hammond's math model", then how can He possibly have a
> > "Son"? Doesn't make any sense at all.
> >
> > - Sabbir.
>
> Quite disrespectfully, it makes as much sense as the Boran -- excuse me
> -- the Qur'an.
>
> Hey, where's the barrier of Dhu-l-Qarnain and where are Y'ajooj wa
> M'ajooj hiding?
[Hammond]
Look intrepid know it all... you're not smart enough to
understand stupid people, or mean enough to understand
human sympathy. Every human utterance makes sense at
some level.. including the Koran.
The above statement (if indeed it appears in the test of the
Koran), is easily interpreted by one familiar with the exegesis of
rote scriptural doctrine. The "barrier of Dhu-l-Quarnain" is
the restraining power of God on evildoers and "Y'ajooj wa M'ajooj"
are evil doers who are hiding. The passage is intended to
mimic (or mock) the classical complaint of the unbeliever that
God (Allah) is not effective and the evil ones are in fact not hiding.
Now don't write back to me and call me an idiot because the
passage is not from the Koran but you just made it up... point is
you are a classic unbeliever, and in your attempt to make up
a "meaningless" line of the Koran, you have of course written
a line of Koranic Gospel... since; "from the mouths of babes and
idiots, proceeds the truth". And believe me my friend, there
are MILLIONS of people who understand the Koran, and the Bible,
even if you don't.
>
> allah having a Son makes as much sense as your definition of allah.
>
> - Iblis.
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
[Hammond]
You're off your medication again. I suggest you go down to the police
department and talk to them about it... I doubt that you'll be
allowed to leave. They'll probably give you a free ride to the
nearest mental hospital. This is the last time I will reply to
you, but I will be filing any further threatening posts you make,
and they can and will be used against you in a court of law or a
competency hearing.
Meanwhile, I've lived in this community for more than 55 years, and
thousands of people know me, many hundreds for more than 50 years. I
went through all 12 grades of the local small town public school
system, and all those people today are in positions of public
responsibility, some in elected office. You'r complaints wouldn't
amount to a pisshole in the snow. By the way, my lawyer and legal
council is a lifelong friend and the elected state representative,
Thomas N. George. Maybe you should call him with your complaints if
you feel like an unexpected visit to a doctor.
I will of course identify you and make a routine report to the
local police about your threats.
So finally, let me close this communication with a more down to
earth reply...: screw.
Sabbir Rahman
> Hey, where's the barrier of Dhu-l-Qarnain and where are Y'ajooj wa
> M'ajooj hiding?
If you live long enough you may even find out for yourself.
David Evens
Then why did you just claim that a flush containing ANY face cards was
a 'royal flush', when in reality only a flush containing what you
pretend would be called a 'royal striaght flush' is actually called a
'royal flush'. As I previously pointed out, your level of knowledge
about poker is about the same as it is for anything else you have ever
claimed knowledge of.
Peter Bowditch
>Muhammad spent far too much time fasting and looking directly
>at the sun: this would explain his hallucinations, visions of winged
>monsters, self-delusion, feeling of grandiosity, etc. much like our dear
>friend, George Hammond
Don't do it, please. Hammond comparing himself to Gregor Mendel is bad
enough, but this might start him comparing himself to Mahommed. We can
all guess who it will be next after that.
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
> Don't do it, please. Hammond comparing himself to Gregor Mendel is bad
> enough, but this might start him comparing himself to Mahommed. We can
> all guess who it will be next after that.
Jesus?
Bob Kolker
Peter Bowditch
<snip most of Hammond/Feynman conversation>
>FEYNMAN: By George I think you've got something, it probably is
>the scientific explanation of God. that means Einstein actually
>discovered the mathematical proof of God when he discovered
>relativity..
>
>HAMMOND: Right.
[Exuent HAMMOND]
[FEYNMAN picks up telephone, pushes button for secretary]
FEYNMAN: Joyce, as soon as the kook is out of sight, please get me a
cup of coffee and some paracetemol. Oh, and get everyone around to my
office in, say, half an hour. This is too funny a story to wait until
Tuesday's staff meeting.
[Fade lights to black. Restore lights to reveal department staff
standing around FEYNMAN'S fish tank]
FEYNMAN: And then the kook tells me that his "theory" identifies
gravity with God. At least I think that's what he meant. I'm not the
smartest man in the world. [Laughs]
CAST: Stop it, Dick. You're making this up. [All laugh]
FEYNMAN: No, he's got a web site.
JOYCE: Excuse me, Professor Feynman, Stephen Hawking's on line 2.
[FEYNMAN picks up telephone]
FEYNMAN: Excuse me, folks. Hello Steve, what's up.
HAWKING [voice only]: Hello ... Dick ...I ... hear ... that ... George
... Hammond ... has ... been ... talking ... to ... you ... isn't ...
he ... a ... hoot? ... He ... wrote ... to ... me ... and ... I ...
laughed ... for ... a ... week ... Did ... you ... hear ... that ...
even ... Zygote ... rejected ... his ... paper?
FEYNMAN: I don't know how I stopped laughing while he was in my
office. Will you be at the Nature Christmas party?
HAWKING: I ... think ... that ... I'm ... scheduled ... to ... record
... another ... Simpsons ... episode ... that ... weekend ... but ...
I ... will ... check ... Talk ... to ... you ... later.
FEYNMAN: Bye, Steve. OK, group, I think we had better all get back to
work. That's enough fun for one day.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
[Hammond]
You're not only a snot nosed asinine and boring writer, you've
got an ugly smelling contempt and ignorance for the higher
levels of scientific ability. It's scum like you who need
to be cleaned out of Science and put back in uniform where you
belong. It's time that the academic community stopped
mollycoddling loudmouthed yuppie scumbags like you. You're
a disgrace to your family name.
> --
> Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
> Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
> Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
--
Peter Bowditch
>[Hammond]
>You're not only a snot nosed asinine and boring writer, you've
>got an ugly smelling contempt and ignorance for the higher
>levels of scientific ability. It's scum like you who need
>to be cleaned out of Science and put back in uniform where you
>belong. It's time that the academic community stopped
>mollycoddling loudmouthed yuppie scumbags like you. You're
>a disgrace to your family name.
That's a keeper. Thank you, George, for the comments. I will include
your remarks in my CV.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ER-LAD.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >[Hammond]
> >You're not only a snot nosed asinine and boring writer, you've
> >got an ugly smelling contempt and ignorance for the higher
> >levels of scientific ability. It's scum like you who need
> >to be cleaned out of Science and put back in uniform where you
> >belong. It's time that the academic community stopped
> >mollycoddling loudmouthed yuppie scumbags like you. You're
> >a disgrace to your family name.
>
> That's a keeper. Thank you, George, for the comments. I will include
> your remarks in my CV.
[Hammond]
Good, thanks.. fine... mumble, grouse, sulk... s.o.b.... bastard...
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
> Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
> Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
--
G=EMC^2 Glazier
that spectrum we were a non-life. Best regards Bert