Hammond's Theory: I don't know what the theory is!
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed Zampino wrote:
<snip>
> > >
> > > You've interpreted it correctly. George's "proof" rests on two
> > > monumentally fallacious leaps of faith:
> >
> > > - any two four-dimensional spaces are the same space.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > WRONG, STUPID LIAR. The SINE QUA NON of Hammond's theory
> > is that he has discovered and proved that:
> >
> > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
> >
>
> and you've proven this....how, exactly? Just saying something
> (even in CAPITAL LETTERS) doesn't make it true, George.
[Hammond]
It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
and morons, sorry.
Just try and answer the question:
1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
When you finally figure that out, you'll know why the quadratic
metric of spacetime causes the human body (and brain) to have
3-orthogonal mirror symmetry planes, and therefore, that:
4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
just like I said.
Now i'm not going to sit here and listen to some overgrown
moron who claims he's a PhD in physics, but is obviously a
moron and can't understand why the "quadratic metric" of
space causes a horse to have 4-feet. If you're so f---in
stupid that you can't understand that.. you belong in the
skilled trades, not in physics... i don't care who gave you
a PhD. You're an insult to Physics, the spirit of Physics,
the profession of Physics, and the objectives of Physics.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
David Evens
wrote:
>Eric Prebys wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> > Eric Prebys wrote:
>> > > Ed Zampino wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > >
>> > > You've interpreted it correctly. George's "proof" rests on two
>> > > monumentally fallacious leaps of faith:
>> >
>> > > - any two four-dimensional spaces are the same space.
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > WRONG, STUPID LIAR. The SINE QUA NON of Hammond's theory
>> > is that he has discovered and proved that:
>> >
>> > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
>> >
>>
>> and you've proven this....how, exactly? Just saying something
>> (even in CAPITAL LETTERS) doesn't make it true, George.
>
>[Hammond]
> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
>too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
>understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
>problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
>and morons, sorry.
> Just try and answer the question:
>
>1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
The answer sane people get comes out as something like 'because
reptiles have four feet'.
>When you finally figure that out, you'll know why the quadratic
>metric of spacetime causes the human body (and brain) to have
>3-orthogonal mirror symmetry planes, and therefore, that:
>
>4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
>
>just like I said.
erhaps you should produce your pretended proof of that, George. After
all, you DO claim to have a PROOF somewhere of your delusional
ravings.
> Now i'm not going to sit here and listen to some overgrown
>moron who claims he's a PhD in physics, but is obviously a
>moron and can't understand why the "quadratic metric" of
>space causes a horse to have 4-feet. If you're so f---in
>stupid that you can't understand that.. you belong in the
>skilled trades, not in physics... i don't care who gave you
>a PhD. You're an insult to Physics, the spirit of Physics,
>the profession of Physics, and the objectives of Physics.
Why are you talking about yourself in the second person, George?
Sally Arturo
GEORGE YOU ARE SUCH AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you not see that the evidence sited ad nauseum on your website is
ALL just you saying THIS IS SO BECAUSE I CAN SEE THAT IT IS SO - IT IS
OBVIOUS. Could there not perhaps be another reason why horses have
four legs? NO BECAUSE NOTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH THE GREAT SPOG IS
PERMISSIBLE. The reason that nobody in Physics takes you seriously is
because you use terms like "IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THIS...." jumping from
assumption to fact in the blink of an eye. You then persist in
insulting people for not accepting your theory - do you think this
makes it more likely that people will accept your theory or less
likely? Man you are such an IDIOT. I'm starting to think that you
don't care at all about your theory's validity, you just want abuse
from Physicists. Is it something you miss from your college days?
Sally Arturo
Brad McFarlane
Let me get this right: you're saying it's because of the *fours*
involved in both cases? In other words, 4-d spacetime causes horses to
be 4-footed?
-Brad
Eric Hocking
<snip>
>
> [Hammond]
> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
> too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
> understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
> problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
> and morons, sorry.
> Just try and answer the question:
>
> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
Because if it had 3 it would limp...
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
SPAM TRAP:Replace "com" with "co.uk" to reply
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Eric Prebys
George Hammond wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > You've interpreted it correctly. George's "proof" rests on two
> > > > monumentally fallacious leaps of faith:
> > >
> > > > - any two four-dimensional spaces are the same space.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > WRONG, STUPID LIAR. The SINE QUA NON of Hammond's theory
> > > is that he has discovered and proved that:
> > >
> > > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
> > >
> >
> > and you've proven this....how, exactly? Just saying something
> > (even in CAPITAL LETTERS) doesn't make it true, George.
>
> [Hammond]
> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
> too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
> understand it in the first place, is not my problem..
Not only can I read, I can actually understand logic (I hate
to keep rubbing this in George, but I was able to finish
graduate school, and didn't need to take any breaks in
a mental institution).
You don't *prove* anything at your website. You merely
pronounce things true based on your own psychotic
delusion.
it's your
> problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
> and morons, sorry.
Eh, George, if you're trying to intellectually intimidate
me, save your time; you're shooting blanks.
In a battle of wits, you're just plain unarmed, George.
> Just try and answer the question:
>
> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>
> When you finally figure that out, you'll know why the quadratic
> metric of spacetime causes the human body (and brain) to have
> 3-orthogonal mirror symmetry planes, and therefore, that:
>
As *many* people have pointed out, George, the human body
has one *approximate* plane of symmetry. If it had
three, you'd have feet on your head and a face on your
back (come to thing of it, I've never actually *seen* you
Geoerge).
I think you need to study the basics.
> 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
>
> just like I said.
> Now i'm not going to sit here and listen to some overgrown
> moron who claims he's a PhD in physics, but is obviously a
> moron and can't understand why the "quadratic metric" of
> space causes a horse to have 4-feet.
Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
in a different dimension than we do?
> If you're so f---in
> stupid that you can't understand that.. you belong in the
> skilled trades, not in physics... i don't care who gave you
> a PhD.
Don't care about a PhD, George? but you want everyone
else to be so impressed that you got as far as flunking
out of graduate school.
Make up your mind. Do credentials count, or don't they?
-Eric
vertner vergon
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3D19C592...@fnal.gov...
>
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > >
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
Vergon writes:
Eric, if you were walking down the strreet and a little tiny, nuttty poodle
dog came wildly
yapping and slobering at your heels, would you get down on your hands and
knees
and yap back at it?
Well that's what you're doing with cracko here.
Grant yourself a little dignity. He's not worth tolerance.
We all have disagreements (that's what makes it fun) but this is ridiculous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Lizz Holmans
<ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3D193CBF...@attbi.com...
><snip>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
>> too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
>> understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
>> problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
>> and morons, sorry.
>> Just try and answer the question:
>>
>> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>
>Because if it had 3 it would limp...
I've seen one of those.
Lizz 'Hello, Dali' Holmans
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Hey listen bubblebutt... this is no place for women... that space
between your front teeth is so wide someone might back a pickup truck
through it.
Evans said a horse has 4-feet because "reptiles had 4-feet"..
that's the stupidest thing ever... why does he think reptiles had
4-feet? and what's that got to do with a Chevrolet having 4-wheels
for christs sakes... you're gonna tell me a car has 4-wheels because
of "Evolution".... don't be stupid.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
No... not quite. Remember "4D space" consists of "3D space" plus
the time dimension, 3+1=4. So "real space" is 3D (as you can see
by looking around the 3D room your sitting in).
A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
BTW, all of this is caused by the fact that real space is "Euclidean".
Euclidean Geometry is just the geometry of "rigid body rotations"
(i.e. "rotation" as in the sense used above in the case of a horse
falling over). It turns out that "rigid rotations" and "Euclidean Geometry"
ONLY EXIST for a "Quadratic Metric" (commonly known as the pythagorean
theorem).
Therefore, Hammond is correct when he say, "a horse has 4-feet because
of the quadratic metric of real space".
Now, I have to "explain" this to you dinks, because you are not
physicists,
in fact there are PhD physicists who don't know it... only a
"competent" physicist, like Feynman, Hawking, etc. actually KNOW THIS.
>
> -Brad
--
George Hammond
[Hammond]
yeah, and that's about as old as the riddle of the Sphinx too.
>
> Lizz 'Hello, Dali' Holmans
--
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > >
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> Not only can I read, I can actually understand logic (I hate
> to keep rubbing this in George, but I was able to finish
> graduate school, and didn't need to take any breaks in
> a mental institution).
GH: you're a mollycoddled moron.
> As *many* people have pointed out, George,
GH: I'm sure you are aware that many people (most people)
are stupid.
> the human body
> has one *approximate* plane of symmetry. If it had
> three, you'd have feet on your head and a face on your
> back
[Hammond]
You're a superficial moron and an asswipe. You're
asshole is a mirror image of your mouth or haven't you
noticed)... that's the 2nd axis of symmetry (you admit
the first one).
The 3rd axis is Dorso-ventral, naturally you're too
much of an uneducated asswipe to know it, but the entire
CNS is "mirror symmetric" dorso-ventrally, the front being
motor, and the back being sensory, and the motor-sensory
cortex is MIRROR SYMMETRIC across the central fissure.
you're a slow witted, mental retard and an aggravated
asswipe... I'd go nuts talking to you, you talk so slow.
Get the fu-- outta here.
> Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> in a different dimension than we do?
GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
> Make up your mind. Do credentials count, or don't they?
>
> -Eric
GH: In your case they don't count... you're a moron and
an aggravated slow witted asswipe. You have no original insight,
nothing to say, and I'm tired of listening to you.
Cyberia
> A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
> which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
> In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
> axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
> why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
> or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
...which explains precisely why centipedes only walk on the 50-dimensional
surface of the earth.
--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?
"An unquestioned answer is more dangerous than an unanswered question." -
Unknown
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
George Hammond
GH: Get the f--- outta here
brian0918
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > You've interpreted it correctly. George's "proof" rests on two
> > > > monumentally fallacious leaps of faith:
> > >
> > > > - any two four-dimensional spaces are the same space.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > WRONG, STUPID LIAR. The SINE QUA NON of Hammond's theory
> > > is that he has discovered and proved that:
> > >
> > > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
> > >
> >
> > and you've proven this....how, exactly? Just saying something
> > (even in CAPITAL LETTERS) doesn't make it true, George.
>
> [Hammond]
> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
> too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
> understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
> problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
> and morons, sorry.
> Just try and answer the question:
>
> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>
Why do insects have six feet? Why do spiders have 8? What about the
centipede or millipede?
brian0918
> that's the stupidest thing ever... why does he think reptiles had
> 4-feet?
Why do most insects have 6 legs? What about spiders? Centipedes? Millipedes?
> and what's that got to do with a Chevrolet having 4-wheels
> for christs sakes... you're gonna tell me a car has 4-wheels because
> of "Evolution".... don't be stupid.
"Will I ever be a real boy?" asked the straw man. "No! Now stop with these
fallacious arguments!" Gepetto replied.
Richard Smol
> A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
> which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
> In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
> axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
> why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
> or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
> BTW, all of this is caused by the fact that real space is "Euclidean".
> Euclidean Geometry is just the geometry of "rigid body rotations"
> (i.e. "rotation" as in the sense used above in the case of a horse
> falling over). It turns out that "rigid rotations" and "Euclidean Geometry"
> ONLY EXIST for a "Quadratic Metric" (commonly known as the pythagorean
> theorem).
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So how do you account for insects
then, which have 6 feet? Or spiders? Or centipedes? Crabs? What about
animals with no legs?
RS
JWBrittland
<snip>
> [Hammond]
> No... not quite. Remember "4D space" consists of "3D space" plus
> the time dimension, 3+1=4. So "real space" is 3D (as you can see
> by looking around the 3D room your sitting in).
> A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
> which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
> In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
> axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
> why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
> or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
> BTW, all of this is caused by the fact that real space is "Euclidean".
> Euclidean Geometry is just the geometry of "rigid body rotations"
> (i.e. "rotation" as in the sense used above in the case of a horse
> falling over). It turns out that "rigid rotations" and "Euclidean
Geometry"
> ONLY EXIST for a "Quadratic Metric" (commonly known as the pythagorean
> theorem).
> Therefore, Hammond is correct when he say, "a horse has 4-feet because
> of the quadratic metric of real space".
> Now, I have to "explain" this to you dinks, because you are not
> physicists,
> in fact there are PhD physicists who don't know it... only a
> "competent" physicist, like Feynman, Hawking, etc. actually KNOW THIS.
A couple more questions:
When did geometry become causal?
Wouldn't the existence of motorcycles, using your logic, disprove the
existence of God?
Britt
JWBrittland
"Cyberia" <cyb...@newsfeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3d19d...@goliath.newsgroups.com...
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D19D22B...@attbi.com...
> > A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
> > which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
> > In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
> > axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
> > why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
> > or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
>
> ...which explains precisely why centipedes only walk on the 50-dimensional
> surface of the earth.
>
explain why we find them so repulsive. It is a well known fact...(HEY,
LISTEN to me or I'll slap you around)...that all superdimensional entities
are, by their very nature...(are you still listening? you'd BETTER
be!)...fundamentally UGLY. This much is OBVIOUS! Any INTELLIGENT person
would recognize this fact without being told. And remember whenever I write
to you again, that I MEAN for you to PAY ATTENTION...OR ELSE!!!
Britt
(I hope you've seen his web site or you might misunderstand my little satire
here.)
Eric Hocking
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > in a different dimension than we do?
>
> GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
one word amongst many.
birds
JWBrittland
> vertner vergon wrote:
>
>
> GH: Get the f--- outta here
Actually, compared to this, I would prefer the yapping, slobbering
poodle, but I haven't seen any lately, so George will have to do in the
meantime.
Britt
Eric Prebys
As I said, the first one is only approximate, unless
you are ambidextrous and born with two hearts, livers,
spleens, etc (as I said, I've never seen you...).
I thing the asshole-mouth symmetry only applies to
you, George. Most of the human race is quite *asymmetric*
front to back.
> The 3rd axis is Dorso-ventral, naturally you're too
> much of an uneducated asswipe to know it, but the entire
> CNS is "mirror symmetric" dorso-ventrally, the front being
> motor, and the back being sensory, and the motor-sensory
> cortex is MIRROR SYMMETRIC across the central fissure.
Whatever approximate symmetries may exist in the central
nervous system, it remains that the body itself is
not the least bit top-bottom, or front-back symmetric
(your personal asshole-mouth symmetry notwithstanding).
I recommend you pick up an introductory textbook and
look up the proper definition of "plane of symmetry",
and a lot of this confusion will clear up.
> you're a slow witted, mental retard and an aggravated
> asswipe... I'd go nuts talking to you, you talk so slow.
> Get the fu-- outta here.
>
> > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > in a different dimension than we do?
>
> GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
>
So now not only do you get everything else wrong, you even
misquote yourself. Since you conveniently snipped your
actual quote, I'll restore it...
GH wrote:
> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>
> When you finally figure that out, you'll know why the quadratic
> metric of spacetime causes the human body (and brain) to have
> 3-orthogonal mirror symmetry planes, and therefore, that:
>
> 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
>
> just like I said.
> Now i'm not going to sit here and listen to some overgrown
> moron who claims he's a PhD in physics, but is obviously a
> moron and can't understand why the "quadratic metric" of
> space causes a horse to have 4-feet.
You clearly said "four", not "minimum of four". But OK, I've
heard thorazine makes you forget things, so I'll stipulate
"minimum of four". In that case, George, what about worms?
You should really think things through, George. Just ask
yourself "What would Gregor Mendel do?".
> > Make up your mind. Do credentials count, or don't they?
> >
> > -Eric
>
> GH: In your case they don't count... you're a moron and
> an aggravated slow witted asswipe. You have no original insight,
> nothing to say, and I'm tired of listening to you.
>
But hey, I was having so much fun!
-Eric
JWBrittland
invectives and insults you use. I fear I have missed many that you may have
used before. Will you continue to use them, so I can see them all? I
thought, since you have claimed to be one of the very few truly intellectual
people around here, that I might emulate your conversational methods, as
this will give my reputation a fighting chance of climbing higher on the
ladder of scholastic credibility and influence...like you have done.
As far as God is concerned...don't you think God has a better chance of
survival if he remains a matter of faith? Claiming some scientific proof of
God would merely condemn him, (it), to an eternity of mundane physicality.
Britt
JWBrittland
Cyberia
>
> GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
But, we *are* paying attention to the asswipe.
How many legs does a chicken have ?
Paul Cardinale
<snip>
> GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
>
What about birds and people? I count two legs for them. And the last
time I checked, two was less than four.
Paul Cardinale
P.S. Your idea is also falsified by the existance of tricycles.
greysky
> Eric Prebys wrote:
<Snip>
> Just try and answer the question:
>
> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
That reminds me of a "Science Joke"
A scientist was doing an experiment on a frog.
He put the frog on a table and said "Jump frog, jump!" The frog jumped 20
feet.
He cut one of the frogs legs off, and repeated the experiment - this time
the frog only jumped 15 feet.
He cut a second leg off. This time the frog jumped 10 feet.
Cuttting the third leg off, caused the frog to move only 5 feet.
He cut the last leg off the frog, and this time the frog didn't jump at all.
His Conclusion: When you cut all a frog's legs off, it goes deaf.
*Disclaimer. No Frogs were hurt in the production of this joke.....*
Greysky
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> <snip>
> > > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > > in a different dimension than we do?
> >
> > GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
>
> one word amongst many.
>
> birds
[Hammond[
Don't be an idiot.... those 2 wings were originally legs.
And forget starfish too... the larval form of a starfish
is as bilaterally symmetric as you are.
George Hammond
>
> Whatever approximate symmetries may exist in the central
> nervous system, it remains that the body itself is
> not the least bit top-bottom, or front-back symmetric
> (your personal asshole-mouth symmetry notwithstanding).
[Hammond]
You're an imbecilic dork... here is a TEXTBOOK picture
of the generalized vertebrate body plan:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/FIG2AN3.jpg
Now what the f--- is wrong with your mind? CLEARLY in this
diagram there are:
THREE INTERSECTING ORTHOGONAL PLANES:
1. The Median Septum
2. The Horizontal Septum
3. The Transverse Septum
The vertebrate body is MIRROR SYMMETRIC across ALL THREE of
these symmetry planes. And, these 3 PLANES are continued
right up the axis and into the skull, where they form the:
1. Medial Fissure
2. Central Fissure
3. Neuraxial Cleavage
OF THE BRAIN, which cause the 3-eigenvectors, E,N,P, in Psychometry
Space.
Now if you're so blind so as to not be able to see this
diagram... go see an eye doctor.. because you don't know what
the fu-- you're talking about.
And furthermore, you're observations and thinking is SO SUPERFICIAL
as to make you sound like an IDIOT... which is what i suspect you are.
> > > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > > in a different dimension than we do?
> >
> > GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
> >
>
> So now not only do you get everything else wrong, you even
> misquote yourself. Since you conveniently snipped your
> actual quote, I'll restore it...
> You clearly said "four", not "minimum of four". But OK, I've
> heard thorazine makes you forget things, so I'll stipulate
> "minimum of four". In that case, George, what about worms?
> You should really think things through, George. Just ask
> yourself "What would Gregor Mendel do?".
[Hammond]
Worms don't have legs... the statement only applies to animals
that HAVE LEGS...dorkus infinicus
And i don't believe you have a PhD either..... you're TO FUC---
STUPID, and probably a liar to boot.
Do you know how many amateurs I've been through this argument with
in the past 3 years.... DOZENS.... and everyone of them lost
the argument.... I'm not ABOUT to go thru it all over again
with you....... you're TOO STUPID to understand the scientific
proof of God.
George Hammond
The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
George Hammond
Fuck off
--
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Hey... newbies.... this discussion has already taken place 100
times on the internet.... the "complete" statemtn is:
WHY THERE ARE NO 3 LEGGED ANIMALS
For animals that have legs; 4 is
the minimum number of legs.
A CENTIPED has 100 legs, remember dork?
I have won this argument a long time ago with dozens of
other dorks on the internet..... I don't intend to go thru it
all over again with every set of new dorks who happen to come
down the pike.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Great story.. I'll try to remeber it the next time I'm cought in
a situation where I have to explain science to idiots.
--
George Black
> [Hammond]
> Hey listen bubblebutt... this is no place for women... that space
> between your front teeth is so wide someone might back a pickup truck
> through it.
> Evans said a horse has 4-feet because "reptiles had 4-feet"..
> that's the stupidest thing ever... why does he think reptiles had
> 4-feet? and what's that got to do with a Chevrolet having 4-wheels
> for christs sakes... you're gonna tell me a car has 4-wheels because
> of "Evolution".... don't be stupid.
>
Yep. Just leave this pissant wit (Hammond) to his particular brand of
stupidity.
He's much better at it!
George Black
> news:3D19D22B...@attbi.com...
> > A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
> > which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
> > In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
> > axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
> > why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
> > or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
>
> ...which explains precisely why centipedes only walk on the 50-dimensional
> surface of the earth.
and the milli-peed a bucket full
=-----
George Black
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat...@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:MPG.17840ab46...@news.versatel.net...
They should give up drinking?
George Black
> vertner vergon wrote:
>
>
> GH: Get the f--- outta here
Such a riposte!
George Black
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.0206...@posting.google.com...
and tracked vehicles!
and boats
George Black
Because it is wrong isn't it .
Want to tell us how many legs a centipede REALLY has?
>
0gre
> Lizz Holmans wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:35:38 +0100, "Eric Hocking"
> > <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3D193CBF...@attbi.com...
> > >>
> > >> [Hammond]
> > >> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
Everything about you is "ad nauseam," Hammond. You make my gorge
rise.
So answer me. Is your brain still shaped like a cube? If so,
isn't your psychosis just plagiarizing Gene Ray's psychosis?
You are stone batshit nuts, Hammond. And you can't even be
*insane* in an original way. For shame.
Glenn G. D'mello
> A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth,
> upon which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for
> instance). In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two
> points on each axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse
> has 4-feet, or why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO
IANAP, but there's no reason why an automobile *has* to have 4 wheels.
http://www.roleximpex.com/rolex-impex-auto-rickshaw.html
'nuff said.
Glenn.
--
Apologies. Due to the insane amounts of spam I get on every post to
usenet, mail sent to the posting address is delivered to /dev/null.
Post to the group or use my name at my sending domain for emailing.
Peter Bowditch
>you're gonna tell me a car has 4-wheels because
>of "Evolution".... don't be stupid
Subaru and Mitsubishi both use the name "Evolution" for the super-fast
models of cars that they run in the world rally championship. Both
cars not only have four wheels, but also have four-wheel drive. A
coincidence? I think not.
Further linking of animals and cars can be found at Ferrari, where
four-wheeled cars have a picture of a four-legged horse on the badge.
They don't have four-speed gearboxes any more, though, so the nexus is
breaking down.
--
Peter Bowditch
It's Kooks Day somewhere right now
Celebrate at http://www.ratbags.com/loon/
Peter Bowditch
Can worms walk at all? What must life be like in zero dimensions. If
Thomas Nagel were writing today, his article would be "What is it like
to be a worm?"
Peter Bowditch
>A couple more questions:
>
>When did geometry become causal?
>Wouldn't the existence of motorcycles, using your logic, disprove the
>existence of God?
What about fuel dragsters, which have really big wheels at one end and
little wheels a long way away at the other end. Does this prove that
4d space is not orthogonal?
George Black
"Peter Bowditch" <pet...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:64kkhu8246uv6k6qm...@4ax.com...
Eric Prebys
Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
"plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
-Eric
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Burton
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > >
> > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've interpreted it correctly. George's "proof" rests on two
> > > > > > monumentally fallacious leaps of faith:
> > > > >
> > > > > > - any two four-dimensional spaces are the same space.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > WRONG, STUPID LIAR. The SINE QUA NON of Hammond's theory
> > > > > is that he has discovered and proved that:
> > > > >
> > > > > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > and you've proven this....how, exactly? Just saying something
> > > > (even in CAPITAL LETTERS) doesn't make it true, George.
> > >
> > > It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
> > > understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
> > > problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
> > > and morons, sorry.
> > > Just try and answer the question:
> > >
> > > 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
> > >
> > > metric of spacetime causes the human body (and brain) to have
> > >
> > > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
> > >
> > > Now i'm not going to sit here and listen to some overgrown
> > > moron who claims he's a PhD in physics, but is obviously a
> > > moron and can't understand why the "quadratic metric" of
> > > space causes a horse to have 4-feet.
> >
> > involved in both cases? In other words, 4-d spacetime causes horses to
> > be 4-footed?
>
> [Hammond]
> No... not quite. Remember "4D space" consists of "3D space" plus
> the time dimension, 3+1=4. So "real space" is 3D (as you can see
> by looking around the 3D room your sitting in).
> A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth, upon
> which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for instance).
> In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two points on each
> axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse has 4-feet, or
> why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO DO with "Evolution",
> or "Natural Selection", it is caused by "axiomatic geometry".
John
Horses evolved 4 legs as one means of moving across the "axiomatic geometry"
(roughly flat surface) of the ground. Insects developed 6. We ended up with
two. All three adaptations work. You're just applying your new terminology
to the obvious, then declaring that this somehow "prooves" all sorts of
purely hypothetical and/or trivial things.
Are you going to deal with millipedes?
> BTW, all of this is caused by the fact that real space is "Euclidean".
> Euclidean Geometry is just the geometry of "rigid body rotations"
> (i.e. "rotation" as in the sense used above in the case of a horse
> falling over). It turns out that "rigid rotations" and "Euclidean
Geometry"
> ONLY EXIST for a "Quadratic Metric" (commonly known as the pythagorean
> theorem).
> Therefore, Hammond is correct when he say, "a horse has 4-feet because
> of the quadratic metric of real space".
So, then, insects dwell in a sextic metric? Spiders in an octic metric? They
live in some alternate reality with 4 and 6 dimensions respectively?
> Now, I have to "explain" this to you dinks, because you are not
> physicists,
> in fact there are PhD physicists who don't know it... only a
> "competent" physicist, like Feynman, Hawking, etc. actually KNOW THIS.
>
>
> >
> > -Brad
David Evens
wrote:
>> > > > is that he has discovered and proved that:
>> > > >
>> > > > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > and you've proven this....how, exactly? Just saying something
>> > > (even in CAPITAL LETTERS) doesn't make it true, George.
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
>> > too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
>> > understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
>> > problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
>> > and morons, sorry.
>> > Just try and answer the question:
>> >
>> > 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>> >
>> > When you finally figure that out, you'll know why the quadratic
>> > metric of spacetime causes the human body (and brain) to have
>> > 3-orthogonal mirror symmetry planes, and therefore, that:
>> >
>> > 4D SPACETIME PHYSICALLY CAUSES 4D PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
>> >
>> > just like I said.
>> > Now i'm not going to sit here and listen to some overgrown
>> > moron who claims he's a PhD in physics, but is obviously a
>> > moron and can't understand why the "quadratic metric" of
>> > stupid that you can't understand that.. you belong in the
>> > skilled trades, not in physics... i don't care who gave you
>> > a PhD. You're an insult to Physics, the spirit of Physics,
>> > the profession of Physics, and the objectives of Physics.
>> >
>> >
>> > =======================================================
>> > GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
>> > =======================================================
>>
>> Can you not see that the evidence sited ad nauseum on your website is
>> ALL just you saying THIS IS SO BECAUSE I CAN SEE THAT IT IS SO - IT IS
>> OBVIOUS. Could there not perhaps be another reason why horses have
>> four legs? NO BECAUSE NOTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH THE GREAT SPOG IS
>> PERMISSIBLE. The reason that nobody in Physics takes you seriously is
>> because you use terms like "IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THIS...." jumping from
>> assumption to fact in the blink of an eye. You then persist in
>> insulting people for not accepting your theory - do you think this
>> makes it more likely that people will accept your theory or less
>> likely? Man you are such an IDIOT. I'm starting to think that you
>> don't care at all about your theory's validity, you just want abuse
>> from Physicists. Is it something you miss from your college days?
>>
>> Sally Arturo
>
>[Hammond]
> Hey listen bubblebutt... this is no place for women... that space
>between your front teeth is so wide someone might back a pickup truck
>through it.
Not syurprisingly, George is a sexiost of convenience...Prof. Arturo
demonstrates that she is qualified as both a physicist (wich a better
pure physics degree than his) and a theologian (with a doctorate on
the interaction of physics and theology), so he decries her for being
a woman. Stuill pretending that George doesn't start from the get-go
with random insults, Tom?
> Evans said a horse has 4-feet because "reptiles had 4-feet"..
>that's the stupidest thing ever... why does he think reptiles had
>4-feet?
Because finned fish have 1 pair of caudal fins and 1 pair of pectoral
fins.
>and what's that got to do with a Chevrolet having 4-wheels
>for christs sakes... you're gonna tell me a car has 4-wheels because
>of "Evolution".... don't be stupid.
Indeed, using your methods WOULD be stupid, George. Sane people know
that your methods produce nonsense. Sane people also know that cars
have 4 wheels because that is the simplest design that produces a
well-performing vehicle in the normal weight range of passanger
vehicles.
David Evens
<bria...@DIESPAMadelphia.net> wrote:
>Evans said a horse has 4-feet because "reptiles had 4-feet"..
>> that's the stupidest thing ever... why does he think reptiles had
>> 4-feet?
>
>Why do most insects have 6 legs? What about spiders? Centipedes? Millipedes?
Actrually, ALL insects have 6 legs. If it doesn't have 6 legs, it's
some other kind of arthropod, since 6 legs is part of the body-plan
definition we use in clasifying something as being an insect or not.
>> and what's that got to do with a Chevrolet having 4-wheels
>> for christs sakes... you're gonna tell me a car has 4-wheels because
>> of "Evolution".... don't be stupid.
>
>"Will I ever be a real boy?" asked the straw man. "No! Now stop with these
>fallacious arguments!" Gepetto replied.
David Evens
><snip>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> It's explained ad nauseaum on my website.. just because you're
>> too stupid and lazy to read, and of too low intelligence to
>> understand it in the first place, is not my problem.. it's your
>> problem. I don't give private tutorials to lab technicians
>> and morons, sorry.
>> Just try and answer the question:
>>
>> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>
Actually, I think if you were to work out the physics of the thing, I
think you would find that with 4 legs, a walking gate allows the
animal to stay stable by only moving 1 foot at a time off the ground
and still have 3 feet on the ground, ensuring stability.
David Evens
wrote:
>Eric Prebys wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> > Eric Prebys wrote:
>> > > George Hammond wrote:
>> > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
>> > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>
>> to keep rubbing this in George, but I was able to finish
>> graduate school, and didn't need to take any breaks in
>> a mental institution).
>
>GH: you're a mollycoddled moron.
As everyone but Tom Potter (who doesn't read George's posts) can see,
George's immediate reaction to being exposed as an idiot is to spew
insults.
>> As *many* people have pointed out, George,
>
>GH: I'm sure you are aware that many people (most people)
> are stupid.
You included yourself, as you stated that ALL people who post are
incompetents or cranks, which OBVOIOUSLY includes you, and have
declared that to include the proffesional physicists and theologians
who post here.
>> the human body
>> has one *approximate* plane of symmetry. If it had
>> three, you'd have feet on your head and a face on your
>> back
>
>[Hammond]
>You're a superficial moron and an asswipe. You're
>asshole is a mirror image of your mouth or haven't you
>noticed)... that's the 2nd axis of symmetry (you admit
>the first one).
As predicted, George literally cannot tell his head from his ass.
> The 3rd axis is Dorso-ventral, naturally you're too
>much of an uneducated asswipe to know it, but the entire
>CNS is "mirror symmetric" dorso-ventrally, the front being
>motor, and the back being sensory, and the motor-sensory
>cortex is MIRROR SYMMETRIC across the central fissure.
The central fissure, for the benefit of those people (like George)
with no familiarity if brain anatomy, rung from the front to back,
allong the upper surface of the brain, and functions in HUMANS are
distinctly assymettrical accross it. The motor cortex, of course, is
not at the front, it is on the sides and on the top, in the temporal
and parietal lobes, mostly, as is several of the sensory processing
areas. The optical lobes are at the back, and are, of course,
sensory, since they process visual input. The frontal lobes are where
the consciousness centers are located.
> you're a slow witted, mental retard and an aggravated
>asswipe... I'd go nuts talking to you, you talk so slow.
>Get the fu-- outta here.
As everyone but Tom Potter (who doesn't read George's posts) can see,
George's immediate reaction to being exposed as an idiot is to spew
insults.
>> Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
>> in a different dimension than we do?
>
>GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
This was after it was ponted out to you that the vast majority of
animals have MORe than 4 legs. Insect have 6. Arachnids have 8.
Centipedes have 1 pair per body segment. Millipedes have 2 pairs per
body segment. Since all of these animals are under the same forces,
there is obviously nothing cvausing animals to have only 4 legs.
>> Make up your mind. Do credentials count, or don't they?
>>
>> -Eric
>
>
>GH: In your case they don't count... you're a moron and
>an aggravated slow witted asswipe. You have no original insight,
>nothing to say, and I'm tired of listening to you.
That is to say, credentials ONLY matter if you AGREE with George. Too
bad Tom 'The Vandal' Potter won't read anything his idol writes.
David Evens
wrote:
>Eric Hocking wrote:
>> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > Eric Prebys wrote:
>> > > George Hammond wrote:
>> > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
>> > > > > George Hammond wrote:
>> > > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
>> > > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
>> > > > <snip>
>> > > >
>> <snip>
>> > > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
>> > > in a different dimension than we do?
>> >
>> > GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
>> > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
>>
>> one word amongst many.
>>
>> birds
>
>[Hammond[
>Don't be an idiot.... those 2 wings were originally legs.
And the bird is as non-3-planar symetric as all OTHER animals.
>And forget starfish too... the larval form of a starfish
>is as bilaterally symmetric as you are.
Yes, and just as totally non-3-planar symetric.
David Evens
wrote:
>greysky wrote:
>> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> news:3D193CBF...@attbi.com...
>> > Eric Prebys wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>> > Just try and answer the question:
>> >
>> > 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
>>
>> That reminds me of a "Science Joke"
>>
>> A scientist was doing an experiment on a frog.
>> He put the frog on a table and said "Jump frog, jump!" The frog jumped 20
>> feet.
>> He cut one of the frogs legs off, and repeated the experiment - this time
>> the frog only jumped 15 feet.
>> He cut a second leg off. This time the frog jumped 10 feet.
>> Cuttting the third leg off, caused the frog to move only 5 feet.
>> He cut the last leg off the frog, and this time the frog didn't jump at all.
>> His Conclusion: When you cut all a frog's legs off, it goes deaf.
>>
>> *Disclaimer. No Frogs were hurt in the production of this joke.....*
>>
>> Greysky
>
>
>[Hammond]
>Great story.. I'll try to remeber it the next time I'm cought in
>a situation where I have to explain science to idiots.
Since you never HAVE, it is clear you never got into such a situation.
brian0918
You should save a copy of the argument and paste it in whenever one of us
dorks asks the question. Is there a specific place where i can read this
argument by itself? Don't just point to your website, please.
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > ERRATA:
> >
> > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
> >
> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
>
> Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
> "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
>
> -Eric
[Hammond]
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
has 3-planes of symmetry, and so does Stick Dog.
Suggest you look up Sir Richard Owen's
"Vertibrate Archetype" which also has 3-planes
of symmetry. Either that or just stick to your
name calling and harassment rather than risk
getting involved in Science and being made a fool
of, Goofinicus.
JWBrittland
> ERRATA:
>
> The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
>
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
This was supposed to show *symmetry*??? In a previous post you stated
that the human body is symmetrical across all three orthagonal axes. Did
you actually mean to say this or did I misunderstand? I feel compelled to
make the following observations:
1) The body is mostly non-symmetrical across the vertical axis that divides
front and back and is *totally* asymmetrical across the horizontal dividing
plane.
2) The symmetry, or lack of such, has absolutely nothing to do with your
own thesis relating spatial and psychometric dimensions.
3) Anybody who can claim symmetry across all three dividing planes is
capable of making up virtually *anything* he wishes, without dependence on
any facts whatsoever. This may make the claimant feel powerfully autonomous
of the restrictions of the real world but it will NEVER serve as a means of
convincing *anyone* of *anything*.
Britt
JWBrittland
<snip>
> WHY THERE ARE NO 3 LEGGED ANIMALS
>
> For animals that have legs; 4 is
> the minimum number of legs.
So WHAT???? There are no people with four eyes. There are no buildings that
are capable of floating up in the air. There are no storms that actually
rain cats and dogs. None of these OR your insistence on four-legged animals
is relevant to any of your subsequent conclusions.
> A CENTIPED has 100 legs, remember dork?
Sorry, George, but they do not.
For such a smart guy, I have seen you make an awful lot of elementary erors
in the last couple of days...generally while criticising others for their
errors...which, in most cases were not errors at all.
Britt
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Nope.... the FAQ is prominently posted on my website:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/3-leggedFAQ.html
I'm not here to do research legwork for lazy dorks, if you
want to refute me you'll have to do your own research.
OF COURSE you won't find anything about it in a BO0K... fu--head,
this is ORIGINAL RESEARCH.... I don't copy stuff out of books
and talk about it like you do, dork. if you want to "read all about it"
you have to READ HAMMOND, because he's the one who discovered it,
and it's not in anything published except Hammond's paper,
copy cited on my website.
"Read it in a book".... GET THE F--- OUTTA HERE DIP---T, this is
ORIGINAL DISCOVERY AND RESEARCH.... not one of your dip---t textbook
recitations.
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D1A1DB0...@attbi.com...
>
> <snip>
> > WHY THERE ARE NO 3 LEGGED ANIMALS
> >
> > For animals that have legs; 4 is
> > the minimum number of legs.
>
> So WHAT????
[Hammond]
So; I KNOW THE REASON WHY, SLIME BUCKET ASININE INTERNET SCUM
> There are no people with four eyes.
[Hammond]
SO WHAT?
> There are no buildings that
> are capable of floating up in the air.
[Hammond]
SO WHAT?
> There are no storms that actually
> rain cats and dogs.
[Hammond]
SO WHAT, internet asswipe?
> None of these OR your insistence on four-legged animals
> is relevant to any of your subsequent conclusions.
[Hammond]
I HAVE PROVEN WHY AN ANIMAL HAS A MINIMUM OF 4 LEGS,
AND THE REASON IS AXIOMATIC CARTESIAN GEOMETRY OF THE
HEMAN BODY PLAN, and that fact, is the foundation of
the dioscovery of the scientific proof of God, dorkshit
scum bag internet piece of filth.
Your examples are of course IRRELEVANT.
>
> > A CENTIPED has 100 legs, remember dork?
[Hammond]
Sludge bucket piece of filth and slime... I said
the MINIMUM number was 4, said it a year ago in the
first line 0f the FAQ on the subject:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/3-leggedFAQ.html
>
> Sorry, George, but they do not.
> For such a smart guy, I have seen you make an awful lot of elementary erors
> in the last couple of days...generally while criticising others for their
> errors...which, in most cases were not errors at all.
[Hammond]
No moronic slumbag piece of harassing internet filth,
swine, scumbucket.... you're just an asinine halfwitted
button pushing computer hobbiest and mental case internet
harasser with a big mouth and nothing to say.. filth, swine, scum,
guttersnipe, rubber trash, dipsh--, as----e, jackass.... criminal
guttersnipe filth... I'd like to see you in a cell where
you belong.
> Britt
--
Peter Bowditch
I will be relaunching Full Canvas Jacket next month. I may have to
declare George Hammond ineligible, as words like the above make the
task for other people attempting to write the "Unhinged Lunatic Rant
of the Week" almost impossible. Things should be fair, and George is
not fair to other kooks.
--
Peter Bowditch
It's Kooks Day somewhere right now, sport.
Celebrate at http://www.ratbags.com/loon/
brian0918
Yeah, you're here to make things up. Whenever you state something on your
website, you say that "it turns out that..." You never actually provide any
evidence, you just say that that's the way it is.
> "Read it in a book".... GET THE F--- OUTTA HERE DIP---T, this is
> ORIGINAL DISCOVERY AND RESEARCH.... not one of your dip---t textbook
> recitations.
Hey degenerate, when did i say "Read it in a book"??? You quote me as if I
said that, when I never did. You've got some issues you need to work out.
Bryan Reed
George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>[Hammond]
>http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
>has 3-planes of symmetry, and so does Stick Dog.
Clear verification of what we all knew. You have no idea what a plane of
symmetry is. There really isn't any room for difference of opinion on
this one.
Bryan
George Black
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > ERRATA:
> > >
> > > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
> > >
> > > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> >
> > Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
> > "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> [Hammond]
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> has 3-planes of symmetry, and so does Stick Dog.
> Suggest you look up Sir Richard Owen's
> "Vertibrate Archetype" which also has 3-planes
> of symmetry. Either that or just stick to your
> name calling and harassment rather than risk
> getting involved in Science and being made a fool
> of, Goofinicus.
Sir Richard Owen eh. Who else would you quote?
Charles Darwin didn't enjoy his particular form of stupidity
Eric Prebys
George Hammond wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > ERRATA:
> > >
> > > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
> > >
> > > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> >
> > Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
> > "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> [Hammond]
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> has 3-planes of symmetry, and so does Stick Dog.
> Suggest you look up Sir Richard Owen's
> "Vertibrate Archetype" which also has 3-planes
> of symmetry. Either that or just stick to your
> name calling and harassment rather than risk
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Find me a place where I have called you any name
but "George", George. I'm afraid you're the only
one that resorts to name-calling and obscenity when
you can't put together an honest argument.
> getting involved in Science and being made a fool
> of, Goofinicus.
>
Sorry, George. You obviously have no idea what a
plane of symmetry is (hint: it's NOT the same as an
orthogonal axis).
Your stick dog has only one. Your stick dog also
lacks the internal organs that make even that plane only
approximate in a real dog.
-Eric
P.S. I'm still chuckling about your "mouth-asshole"
symmetry. Maybe you should try to publish *that*.
Anyway, as usual, thanks for the laugh.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
No.. you're the one who has an issue that has to be worked out,
and the issue is this: Despite the fact that you THINK (or hope,
let us say) that you're talking to a crackpot, in fact you're talking
to a competent physicist. Said competent physicist happens to
have made a discovery which is going to make the entire field of
Physics look stupid.. the big shots have yet to recognize this, but
they're beginning to get suspicious from the looks of the caltech.edu,
oxford, and various other .edu IP's reading my website for 50 and 60
minutes in the middle of the night. In the meantime, a jaboni like
you figures it's "party time" and that he's found a physicist down
on the ground and it looks like a good opportunity for him to look
like a bigshot by kicking him. WRONG ASSHOLE, stupid mistake on
your part... it's a trap and you'll get your butt kicked.. which is what
you and the rest of your internet goon squad buddies are finding out.
Beware of something that looks too fu--in easy, asswipe, that's how
people end up getting creamed.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You're both stupid and flippant... do you really think the scientific
proof of God can be analysed using high school science. You should
look for a "mark" to have some "party time" somewhere else.. you're
barking up the wrong tree here asshole. IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN
SERIOUS DISCUSSION, you would have read:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/CartesianBody.html
or at least looked at the 15 URL illustrations in that paper.
But you're not serious.. you're just another half assed internet goon
hoping to find a serious intellectual down on the ground that
you can kick to look like a big shot... SORRY, your mistake, better go
look for a target of opportunity somewhere else, assw--e,
I don't argue with amateurs about high school science.
--
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You're not paying attention high school science genius. the statement
is:
4-legs is the MINIMUM NUMBER of legs
that any animal has, if it has legs.
In particular, the explanation of this LAW explains WHY, there is
no such thing a 3-legged animal in the animal kingdom.
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/3-leggedFAQ.html
the explanation of this law ALSO EXPLAINS why every (multicellular)
Plant and Animal has a "Cartesian, 3-axis, bodyplan":
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/BodyplanFAQ.html
which is the basis for discovering the scientific proof of God.
George Hammond
>
> "JWBrittland" <jwbri...@isp01.net> wrote:
>
> >A couple more questions:
> >
> >When did geometry become causal?
[Hammond]
when Einstein discovered that geometry causes gravity.
> >Wouldn't the existence of motorcycles, using your logic, disprove the
> >existence of God?
[Hammond]
No, and neither do unicycles or pogo sticks.
>
> What about fuel dragsters, which have really big wheels at one end and
> little wheels a long way away at the other end. Does this prove that
> 4d space is not orthogonal?
[Hammond]
No, but it may indicate curvature.
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch
> It's Kooks Day somewhere right now
> Celebrate at http://www.ratbags.com/loon/
--
brian0918
Give me another 4 years and I'll be a true "competent physicist." Don't
worry, I never follow along ignorantly absorbing what professors say, but I
also don't claim that "reason" is the process of "building facts on top of
assumptions on top of assumptions, without providing any experimental
evidence besides my own beliefs of what is correct."
> Said competent physicist happens to
> have made a discovery which is going to make the entire field of
> Physics look stupid.. the big shots have yet to recognize this, but
> they're beginning to get suspicious from the looks of the caltech.edu,
> oxford, and various other .edu IP's reading my website for 50 and 60
> minutes in the middle of the night.
How many different people are we talking about? A couple people from
caltech.edu viewing your website aren't necessarily big shots, but probably
students doing reports on pseudoscience or looking for a laugh.
> In the meantime, a jaboni like
> you figures it's "party time" and that he's found a physicist down
> on the ground and it looks like a good opportunity for him to look
> like a bigshot by kicking him.
So you think that's the reason everyone criticizes your claims? We want to
*somehow* look like bigshots? You're forgetting that this is just a
NEWSGROUP on the INTERNET.
> WRONG ASSHOLE, stupid mistake on
> your part... it's a trap and you'll get your butt kicked..
Is that a threat?
> which is what
> you and the rest of your internet goon squad buddies are finding out.
I know none of these people, and can barely understand a few of them.
>
> Beware of something that looks too fu--in easy, asswipe, that's how
> people end up getting creamed.
>
Mmmmm.... Coconut cream pie.... *drools*
Dr. Dickie
> Eric Hocking wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > <snip>
> > > > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > > > in a different dimension than we do?
> > >
> > > GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> > > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
> >
> > one word amongst many.
> >
> > birds
>
> [Hammond[
> Don't be an idiot.... those 2 wings were originally legs.
>
> And forget starfish too... the larval form of a starfish
> is as bilaterally symmetric as you are.
>
> =======================================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
> =======================================================
How about a snail, or other gastropods? How about an octopus or other
cephalopods?
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
------------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
A. Einstein
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking wrote:
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > <snip>
> > > > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > > > in a different dimension than we do?
> > >
> > > GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> > > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
> >
> > one word amongst many.
> >
> > birds
>
> [Hammond[
> Don't be an idiot.... those 2 wings were originally legs.
No, George, they weren't. Another word for you...
therapods.
> And forget starfish too...
Well considering 5 > 4, I wouldn't have used starfish as an example of an
animal having a minimum of four legs, but in the context of all your other
factual errors, I'm not surprised you didn't realise starfish are not 4
legged.
Note too that they have many more times the number of feet than they do
legs. How does that work George?
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
SPAM TRAP:Replace "com" with "co.uk" to reply
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Eric Hocking
> Lizz Holmans wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:35:38 +0100, "Eric Hocking"
> > >"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > ><snip>
> > >> 1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
> > >
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> yeah, and that's about as old as the riddle of the Sphinx too.
Yer right - the punchlines on your website are newer and much, much funnier.
> > Lizz 'Hello, Dali' Holmans
She was a sheep not a horse (?)
Lizz Holmans
<ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote:
>
>Note too that they have many more times the number of feet than they do
>legs. How does that work George?
Eric, that's easy. I have five feet, but only two legs.
Lizz 'Star Star' Holmans
pz
wrote:
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > ERRATA:
> >
> > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
> >
> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
>
> Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
> "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
His embryology is all out of whack, too.
His diagram of the first 3 cleavage planes is *not* representative of
the vertebrate plan, nor is that pattern a necessary one. The fish I
work on, for instance, have a first division plane, then a second that
is orthogonal to the first, and then a third that is *parallel* to the
first, and the 4th is parallel to the 2nd; only in the 5th division do
you get a division plane that is at right angles to both the 1st and
second.
Birds, reptiles, and most insects are even more different, with a series
of partial divisions that generate a syncytial sheet. Molluscs throw out
the right angle business altogether, going through a spiral pattern of
cleavage (except for the cephalopods, which do the syncytial sheet
business). Mammals are just plain sloppy and don't maintain a consistent
relationship between cells. His picture only fits amphibians and
echinoderms.
He's got Roux's experiment all wrong. Yes, Roux got partial embryos when
he killed one of the blastomeres at the 2-cell stage; however, it was an
artifact of his experimental technique, which left the dead blastomere
in place. Later experiments in which the blastomeres were separated
showed that each was totipotent (as long as they contained part of the
grey crescent) and could generate complete embryos. Driesch's
experiments with echinoderms that demonstrated regulation are better
examples of how vertebrate early development works.
His figure 9 <http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig9.jpg> is rank
nonsense. There is no simple association between the 4 blastomeres of
the early embryo with the D/V L/R quadrants of the spinal cord
cross-section, nor does the Hirose & Jacobson say what he claims it does
-- I was working in a lab that disagreed strongly with Jacobson's
interpretations at the time it came out, did similar lineage tracer
experiments, and was very familiar with those results. Jacobson *did*
argue for a much earlier representation of the fate map on the amphibian
embryo than anyone expected (or that some of us believed), but it would
not fit with Hammond's diagram. Virtually all of the CNS would have been
derived from the anterior pair of blastomeres, for instance.
From what I've looked at, it seems his physics is just as silly and
confused as his biology.
--
pz
Randy Poe
>
> >[Hammond]
> > Hey listen bubblebutt... this is no place for women... that space
> >between your front teeth is so wide someone might back a pickup truck
> >through it.
>
> Not syurprisingly, George is a sexiost of convenience
More to the point, why are "bubblebutt" and "nummynuts"
considered terms of derision in George's universe?
- Randy
pz
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > ERRATA:
> > >
> > > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
> > >
> > > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> >
> > Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
> > "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> [Hammond]
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> has 3-planes of symmetry, and so does Stick Dog.
Of *symmetry*? Are you saying that it's top half is mirror-symmetric to
its bottom half, and its front half is mirror-symmetric to its back
half? What a funny looking dog.
> Suggest you look up Sir Richard Owen's
> "Vertibrate Archetype" which also has 3-planes
> of symmetry. Either that or just stick to your
> name calling and harassment rather than risk
> getting involved in Science and being made a fool
> of, Goofinicus.
--
pz
JWBrittland
> JWBrittland wrote:
> >
> > Hi, George. I'm Britt. I'm new here and have noticed how many
colorful
> > invectives and insults you use. I fear I have missed many that you may
have
> > used before. Will you continue to use them, so I can see them all? I
> > thought, since you have claimed to be one of the very few truly
intellectual
> > people around here, that I might emulate your conversational methods, as
> > this will give my reputation a fighting chance of climbing higher on the
> > ladder of scholastic credibility and influence...like you have done.
> >
> > As far as God is concerned...don't you think God has a better chance
of
> > survival if he remains a matter of faith? Claiming some scientific
proof of
> > God would merely condemn him, (it), to an eternity of mundane
physicality.
> >
> > Britt
>
> Fuck off
I guess that answers my first question. I suppose I'll have to hang
around a while longer to see more of the "good stuff." As for an answer to
my question about the de-mystifying of God, I guess it's just one of those
religious type responses at a theological level I'm not able to understand
yet.
Britt
Eric Prebys
Your "theory" can be trivially "analyzed" and debunked merely
by looking up the term "theory" in the dictionary and showing
that your bleating does not qualify.
> You should
> look for a "mark" to have some "party time" somewhere else.. you're
> barking up the wrong tree here asshole. IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN
> SERIOUS DISCUSSION, you would have read:
>
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/CartesianBody.html
>
> or at least looked at the 15 URL illustrations in that paper.
So what, you took a bunch of things of various shapes and drew
Cartesian coordinates on top of them. I could just as easily draw
cylindrical, spherical, or a variety of conformally mapped
systems on top of them and it would be equally valid.
George's proofs always make me think of the Monty Python
line "That's not a cat license. That's a dog license with
the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" written in in crayon".
> But you're not serious.. you're just another half assed internet goon
> hoping to find a serious intellectual down on the ground that
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, I'm laughing too hard to keep typing.
-Eric
Cardinal Chunder
>
>> A "surface" in 3D space is 2D, like the surface of the Earth,
>> upon which a horse walks. A 2D surface has 2-axes (X and Y for
>>instance). In order to prevent "rotation" w.r.t. the plane, two
>>points on each axis must be fixed, and 2x2=4 which is why a horse
>>has 4-feet, or why an automobile has 4-wheels. It has NOTHING TO
>
>
>
> http://www.roleximpex.com/rolex-impex-auto-rickshaw.html
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> Glenn.
Also do a search for "Reliant Robin" - a very crap 3 wheeled car (though
loved by enthusiasts).
Bryan Reed
George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>brian0918 wrote:
>>
>> Hey degenerate, when did i say "Read it in a book"??? You quote me as if I
>> said that, when I never did. You've got some issues you need to work out.
>
>[Hammond]
that it seems to be responding to.)
Whaddaya know . . . nothing left?
Yet another of the countless examples of Georgie being called (correctly)
on a simple point of fact, and ignoring the point while resorting to
name-calling.
This guy's funny. Tee hee.
Bryan
Bryan Reed
pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <3D1A5DF9...@fnal.gov>, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov>
>wrote:
>
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> >
>> > ERRATA:
>> >
>> > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
>> >
>> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
>>
>> Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
>> "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
>
>His embryology is all out of whack, too.
>
In short, not only are his examples hand-chosen to support his
pre-selected conclusion, but they don't even work!
Anyone want to estimate the probability that Georgie will actually respond
in an intelligible way to these very specific arguments, rather than
switching to pure name-calling mode?
Bryan
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Look... there isn't one person here who can see the forest for the trees.
If you think I'm going to sit here and waste my breath talking high school
science with amateurs you're crazy.
Unless someone can give me a one paragraph synopsis of the ENTIRE THEORY
demonstrating he knows what the conversation is about, I'm no longer
interested in talking to them.
George Hammond
>
> In article <3D1A5DF9...@fnal.gov>, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > ERRATA:
> > >
> > > The correct URL for the Vertibrate Body Plan is:
> > >
> > > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig2an3.jpg
> >
> > Way cool stick dog, George, but I really suggest you look up
> > "plane of symmetry". You're stick dog only has one.
>
> His embryology is all out of whack, too.
>
> His diagram of the first 3 cleavage planes is *not* representative of
> the vertebrate plan, nor is that pattern a necessary one. The fish I
> work on, for instance, have a first division plane, then a second that
> is orthogonal to the first, and then a third that is *parallel* to the
> first, and the 4th is parallel to the 2nd; only in the 5th division do
> you get a division plane that is at right angles to both the 1st and
> second.
[Hammond]
YOU'RE NUTS. Any jerk can walk up to the fish counter in the
local supermarket and look at a swordfish steak for mimself.
A swordfish steak is a CROSSECTION of the swordfish, and you will
see that there is a BIG CROSS right in the middle and the steak, it
is made up of 4-LARGE QUADRANTS. Also, this pattern is repeated
with each vertebra.. the Cross (2-axes) plus the spinal column
(1-axis) makes up the 3-axis Cartesian bodyplan of the animal.
>
> Birds, reptiles, and most insects are even more different, with a series
> of partial divisions that generate a syncytial sheet. Molluscs throw out
> the right angle business altogether, going through a spiral pattern of
> cleavage (except for the cephalopods, which do the syncytial sheet
> business). Mammals are just plain sloppy and don't maintain a consistent
> relationship between cells. His picture only fits amphibians and
> echinoderms.
[Hammond]
Amateurs are alway unable to perceive structural theory from superficial
characteristics. that's where yo separate the scientists from the
stamp collectors.
>
> He's got Roux's experiment all wrong. Yes, Roux got partial embryos when
> he killed one of the blastomeres at the 2-cell stage; however, it was an
> artifact of his experimental technique, which left the dead blastomere
> in place. Later experiments in which the blastomeres were separated
> showed that each was totipotent (as long as they contained part of the
> grey crescent) and could generate complete embryos. Driesch's
> experiments with echinoderms that demonstrated regulation are better
> examples of how vertebrate early development works.
[Hammond]
LIAR... there are "mosaic" and "regulative" eggs. Mosaic
(non regulative) eggs are more primitive evolutionarilly,
and will produce 1/2 and even 1/4 embryos when SEPARATED
in the 2 and 4 cell stages (tunicates are an example). Regulative
eggs are merely an evolutionary advance incorporating totipotency
for and extra safty factor. HOWEVER, the underlying and OBVIOUS
relation between the first 3 cleavages and the cartesian (3-axis)
body plan for ALL PLANTS AND ANIMALS is obvious to a congenital
idiot.
>
> His figure 9 <http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig9.jpg> is rank
> nonsense. There is no simple association between the 4 blastomeres of
> the early embryo with the D/V L/R quadrants of the spinal cord
> cross-section, nor does the Hirose & Jacobson say what he claims it does
> -- I was working in a lab that disagreed strongly with Jacobson's
> interpretations at the time it came out, did similar lineage tracer
> experiments, and was very familiar with those results. Jacobson *did*
> argue for a much earlier representation of the fate map on the amphibian
> embryo than anyone expected (or that some of us believed), but it would
> not fit with Hammond's diagram. Virtually all of the CNS would have been
> derived from the anterior pair of blastomeres, for instance.
[Hammond]
you're just another asswipe laboratory technician who is trying to
grab my coatails for a free ride.. i wouldn't spend 2 seconds talking
to a moron like you who knows no theoretical physics... you're a
fri---- stamp collector. Mosaic eggs PROVE the direct geometrical
relation of the 1st 3 cleavages to adult body geometry because
1/2 and 1/4 symmetric embryos are produced. THERE IS NO WAY that
you can agrgue around that no matter what MORASS of laboratory
technician hodgepodge of irrelevant data you spew out.
> From what I've looked at, it seems his physics is just as silly and
> confused as his biology.
>
> --
> pz
[Hammond]
You're another asinine and aggrevated technician with no fundamental insight
into physics. You're attempt to IGNORE MOSAIC EGG CLEAVAGE and it's
production of 1/2 and 1/4 symmetric embryos (Roux 1888, Conklin 1905)
is sheer asinine facetious boring pedantry... I've heard it all before
fromo ther asswipes like you... and thankfully i'm in a position to
simply call you that.... A SEOND RATE AGGREVATED ASSWIPE... and i don't
have to listen to you or talk to you. Thank God i'm beyond your reach
and don't have to be contaminated by your pedantic academy filth.
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > Eric Hocking wrote:
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > > > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ed Zampino wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Why does an insect have 6 legs, George? Do they live
> > > > > in a different dimension than we do?
> > > >
> > > > GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> > > > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
> > >
> > > one word amongst many.
> > >
> > > birds
> >
> > [Hammond[
> > Don't be an idiot.... those 2 wings were originally legs.
> >
> > And forget starfish too... the larval form of a starfish
> > is as bilaterally symmetric as you are.
> How about a snail, or other gastropods?
[Hammond]
a snail doesn't have legs.
> How about an octopus or other
> cephalopods?
[Hammond]
I said 4 is the MINIMUM number, 8 is greater than 4.
When you find a 3-legged animal let me know.
George Black
pz
George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
This is a non sequitur. I am discussing your diagram of *cleavage
planes* in the first divisions of the early embryo, not the arrangement
of the somites.
The cleavage pattern you describe is not representative of the majority
of vertebrates.
>
>
> >
> > Birds, reptiles, and most insects are even more different, with a series
> > of partial divisions that generate a syncytial sheet. Molluscs throw out
> > the right angle business altogether, going through a spiral pattern of
> > cleavage (except for the cephalopods, which do the syncytial sheet
> > business). Mammals are just plain sloppy and don't maintain a consistent
> > relationship between cells. His picture only fits amphibians and
> > echinoderms.
>
> [Hammond]
> Amateurs are alway unable to perceive structural theory from superficial
> characteristics. that's where yo separate the scientists from the
> stamp collectors.
I believe that what the observations of real biology show is that the
orientation of the cleavage planes into those 3 orthogonal planes is NOT
a significant characteristic of early development. There's too much
variation (which you ignore) between different lineages.
>
>
>
> >
> > He's got Roux's experiment all wrong. Yes, Roux got partial embryos when
> > he killed one of the blastomeres at the 2-cell stage; however, it was an
> > artifact of his experimental technique, which left the dead blastomere
> > in place. Later experiments in which the blastomeres were separated
> > showed that each was totipotent (as long as they contained part of the
> > grey crescent) and could generate complete embryos. Driesch's
> > experiments with echinoderms that demonstrated regulation are better
> > examples of how vertebrate early development works.
>
> [Hammond]
> LIAR... there are "mosaic" and "regulative" eggs. Mosaic
> (non regulative) eggs are more primitive evolutionarilly,
> and will produce 1/2 and even 1/4 embryos when SEPARATED
> in the 2 and 4 cell stages (tunicates are an example). Regulative
> eggs are merely an evolutionary advance incorporating totipotency
> for and extra safty factor.
This is simply incorrect. Mosaic vs. regulative development is a
continuum, first of all, and it's best not to try and pigeonhole
organisms inappropriately. It is also most likely that regulative
development is the *primitive* condition. Mosaicism tends to be found in
more highly derived organisms, and probably evolved with the appearance
of redundant and maternal factors that improve the fidelity of
development.
> HOWEVER, the underlying and OBVIOUS
> relation between the first 3 cleavages and the cartesian (3-axis)
> body plan for ALL PLANTS AND ANIMALS is obvious to a congenital
> idiot.
Like I said, there is a great deal of variation in the pattern of the
first 3 cleavages, so this is extraordinarily unlikely. Birds, as an
extreme example, don't cleave anything like you've described, instead
forming a blastodisc of cells that are incompletely separated from the
yolk. Flies don't even bother with any kind of cellular division in the
early stages -- nuclei just replicate, then migrate to the surface of
the egg, and ingression of the cell membrane then secondarily isolates
individual cells.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > His figure 9 <http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Fig9.jpg> is rank
> > nonsense. There is no simple association between the 4 blastomeres of
> > the early embryo with the D/V L/R quadrants of the spinal cord
> > cross-section, nor does the Hirose & Jacobson say what he claims it does
> > -- I was working in a lab that disagreed strongly with Jacobson's
> > interpretations at the time it came out, did similar lineage tracer
> > experiments, and was very familiar with those results. Jacobson *did*
> > argue for a much earlier representation of the fate map on the amphibian
> > embryo than anyone expected (or that some of us believed), but it would
> > not fit with Hammond's diagram. Virtually all of the CNS would have been
> > derived from the anterior pair of blastomeres, for instance.
>
> [Hammond]
> you're just another asswipe laboratory technician who is trying to
> grab my coatails for a free ride.. i wouldn't spend 2 seconds talking
> to a moron like you who knows no theoretical physics... you're a
> fri---- stamp collector. Mosaic eggs
Vertebrate eggs are NOT, I repeat, NOT mosaic in the classical use of
the term. The existence of an arguable fate map is NOT evidence of
mosaicism.
> PROVE the direct geometrical
> relation of the 1st 3 cleavages to adult body geometry because
> 1/2 and 1/4 symmetric embryos are produced.
You seem to have your claims muddled up. Are these embryos mosaic, or
are they symmetrical in 3 planes? Those are contradictions, you know.
> THERE IS NO WAY that
> you can agrgue around that no matter what MORASS of laboratory
> technician hodgepodge of irrelevant data you spew out.
>
> > From what I've looked at, it seems his physics is just as silly and
> > confused as his biology.
> >
> > --
> > pz
>
> [Hammond]
> You're another asinine and aggrevated technician with no fundamental insight
> into physics. You're attempt to IGNORE MOSAIC EGG CLEAVAGE and it's
> production of 1/2 and 1/4 symmetric embryos (Roux 1888, Conklin 1905)
Roux's experiment was flawed, as he himself readily admitted. Conklin's
work on ascidians illustrated the existence of *asymmetric*
distributions of cytoplasmic determinants in certain organisms. Nobody
is ignoring mosaicism here...you're just trying to cling to an erroneous
picture of development because it fits your rather bizarre
preconceptions.
> is sheer asinine facetious boring pedantry... I've heard it all before
> fromo ther asswipes like you
Ah. You've had your errors pointed out to you before, then?
> ... and thankfully i'm in a position to
> simply call you that.... A SEOND RATE AGGREVATED ASSWIPE... and i don't
> have to listen to you or talk to you. Thank God i'm beyond your reach
> and don't have to be contaminated by your pedantic academy filth.
Are you by any chance related to Gene Ray? Your numerological obsessions
and weirdly hysterical megalomania are rather reminiscent of the Time
Cube theory at <http://www.timecube.com/>.
--
pz
Bryan Reed
pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>Are you by any chance related to Gene Ray? Your numerological obsessions
>and weirdly hysterical megalomania are rather reminiscent of the Time
>Cube theory at <http://www.timecube.com/>.
Whoa . . . that just might be the most bizarre rant I've ever seen.
At no point does it give more than the barest hint what it's talking
about, yet it goes on for a Very Long Time.
Fascinating.
Bryan
0gre
still shaped like a cube?
Lorrill Buyens
on Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:58:41 GMT, they issued this poignant cry for
help:
> Just try and answer the question:
>
>1. Why does a horse have 4 feet
`Cause if it didn't, it'd fall over?
--
"An unnatural sex act is one you haven't the courage or
imagination to perform."
- Patrick Ireland
JWBrittland
"Bryan Reed" <bwr...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:afg8cq$28k4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
I went to Ray's site out of curiosity and yes, for a guy who despises
words so much he sure does use a lot of them. Did you check the MIT link?
It looks legit. There *was* a lecture and debate scheduled. Can you
IMAGINE the kind of reception someone would get if he started in on a rant
even remotely approximating the one on his web site???
Wow, I have seen some looney people on the Internet, but this one has to
be about the strangest I have ever seen. Does he ever post here?
Britt
David Evens
wrote:
In reality, of course, there are no three-legged animals because of
the builateral symetry of all the more structurally advanced animals.
This prevents odd numbers of legs.
>the explanation of this law ALSO EXPLAINS why every (multicellular)
>Plant and Animal has a "Cartesian, 3-axis, bodyplan":
You are, of course, aware, that this was proven wrong. Several times.
>http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/BodyplanFAQ.html
>
>which is the basis for discovering the scientific proof of God.
Ah, so you really ARE using fantasy the entire way allong.
George Hammond
GH: Yeah but you've got 4 eyebrows, that makes up for it.
--
JJ
> GH: Yeah but you've got 4 eyebrows, that makes up for it.
I have a unibrow.
Eric Hocking
> Lizz Holmans wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:55:15 +0100, "Eric Hocking"
> > <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Note too that they have many more times the number of feet than they do
> > >legs. How does that work George?
> >
> > Eric, that's easy. I have five feet, but only two legs.
> >
> > Lizz 'Star Star' Holmans
>
> GH: Yeah but you've got 4 eyebrows, that makes up for it.
So what - I only have one.
But you still have not addressed the fact that
a. birds have two legs.
b. birds are animals
c. two < four
d. who's not paying attention?
GH: Hey asswipe... i said 4 is the "minimum" number of legs
> > > for animals that have legs. You're not paying attention asswipe.
--
pz
"JWBrittland" <jwbri...@isp01.net> wrote:
> "Bryan Reed" <bwr...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:afg8cq$28k4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> > In article <myers-524E17....@laurel.tc.umn.edu>,
> > pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Are you by any chance related to Gene Ray? Your numerological obsessions
> > >and weirdly hysterical megalomania are rather reminiscent of the Time
> > >Cube theory at <http://www.timecube.com/>.
> >
> >
> > Whoa . . . that just might be the most bizarre rant I've ever seen.
> >
> > At no point does it give more than the barest hint what it's talking
> > about, yet it goes on for a Very Long Time.
> >
> > Fascinating.
> >
> > Bryan
>
> I went to Ray's site out of curiosity and yes, for a guy who despises
> words so much he sure does use a lot of them. Did you check the MIT link?
> It looks legit. There *was* a lecture and debate scheduled.
More than scheduled, it happened. There's a quicktime video of the event
online.
> Can you
> IMAGINE the kind of reception someone would get if he started in on a rant
> even remotely approximating the one on his web site???
They treated him with a kind of patronizing mockery. Ray was completely
oblivious to it.
>
> Wow, I have seen some looney people on the Internet, but this one has to
> be about the strangest I have ever seen. Does he ever post here?
--
pz
Cyberia
>
> A swordfish steak is a CROSSECTION of the swordfish, and you will
> see that there is a BIG CROSS right in the middle and the steak,
...if you look really really close, you'll see a big Jesus condiment on that
cross. That's why they taste so good.
--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?
"An unquestioned answer is more dangerous than an unanswered question." -
Unknown
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Bryan Reed
pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <afgv6f$h1e$1...@news.chatlink.com>,
> "JWBrittland" <jwbri...@isp01.net> wrote:
>
>> "Bryan Reed" <bwr...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>> news:afg8cq$28k4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>> > In article <myers-524E17....@laurel.tc.umn.edu>,
>> > pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Are you by any chance related to Gene Ray? Your numerological obsessions
>> > >and weirdly hysterical megalomania are rather reminiscent of the Time
>> > >Cube theory at <http://www.timecube.com/>.
>
>online.
>
>> Can you
>> IMAGINE the kind of reception someone would get if he started in on a rant
>> even remotely approximating the one on his web site???
>
>They treated him with a kind of patronizing mockery. Ray was completely
>oblivious to it.
>
Too bad those videos have been pulled. Sounds entertaining.
Bryan
Martin Striz
> >
> > <snip>
> > > WHY THERE ARE NO 3 LEGGED ANIMALS
> > >
Because most animals are bilaterally symmetrical, which means that an
even number of legs is optimum. Not all animals have 4 legs though.
Snakes, eels and snails, among others, have none. Birds and humans
have two. Most mammals have four, because their ancestors (amphibians
and reptiles) already had four, and evolution never selected against
it. Four is both efficient and effective, as it's kind of difficult
-- though not impossible -- to walk on two legs, literally lurching
and falling from one leg to the other. Four allow at least two points
of contact at any one time. Nothing magical about that. Also, some
have six or eight or more.
Some animals that are radially symmetrical have no legs/appendages
(jellyfish) or five appendages (star fish). Only in radially
symmetrical animals does an odd number of legs make sense in the first
place, and there aren't that many radially symmetrical animals on
earth. They are mostly confined (as my examples show) to aquatic
ecosystems. Mammals with legs, living on land, aren't radially
symmetrical at all, and THAT is why there are no three-legged animals.
Not because of your pseudoscience.
-Martin Striz
John Burton
you missed something]
John B.
My parrot wants to talk to you. (Watch out, he's mean after 30 years in that
cage.)
> the explanation of this law ALSO EXPLAINS why every (multicellular)
> Plant and Animal has a "Cartesian, 3-axis, bodyplan":
>
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/BodyplanFAQ.html
>
Wow! Plants and animals are 3-dimensional! How novel!
> which is the basis for discovering the scientific proof of God.
>
Why can't it be the basis for proving anything which is speculative? Please
prove that it cannot be. Answer this one question, if nothing else! If not,
you have disproven nothing, and you must therefore accept all alternative
theories which might also result from your assertions.
John Burton
> [Hammond[
> Don't be an idiot.... those 2 wings were originally legs.
>
> And forget starfish too... the larval form of a starfish
> is as bilaterally symmetric as you are.
John
So then, maybe God only meets your specification in a prior larval form?
Which part of your theory states that this is not the case, and what
supports it?