Inquiry to Physicists and Atheists on Life After Death

[George Hammond]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Bashwitz
<h3...@mixmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 20, 11:20 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> LOG 10-20-11 "CREATION OF THE SOUL"
>>
>> Note: Hammond has advanced a well known theory of Life
>> After Death in which it is the microtubules (mT) of the
>
>wrong, it is life after life, not life after death,
>because once you are dead your consistency
>dissipate, and you cant possibly wake up to
>life once you cant remember who you are
>
>and it is [uT] not (mT), mT is militubules
>
>[this space intentionally left blank]
>
>
[George Hammond, M.S.Physics]
Copyright 2011
This inquiry is generally for physicists but
also this message is for Father Haskel, SkyEyes, JohnN,
Kurt Bashwitz, Don Stockbauer and anybody else who is
listening, particularly the Wiseguys of alt.atheism. Why
the latter? Because the first qualification is being
INTERESTED. Skeptic or believer doesn't matter, not knowing
any physics doesn't matter, the first thing that matters is
whether you are INTERESTED in whether or not there is life
after death. My presumption is that all of you are
interested, so I'll give you my question straight from the
shoulder in short, fast, and plain English..
First, I'm short on time, so I'm not sitting here typing
this on my keyboard, I'm dictating it at 150 words a minute
which is the only reason I can afford to talk to you.
I NEED TO KNOW if there actually is such a thing as life
after death. Okay, Kurt Bashwitz as pointed out above the
well known fact that "DEAD BRAINS CAN'T DREAM", and he
thinks this is sufficient proof that they can't be such a
thing is life after death.
Well, Kurt Bashwitz is in need of a short crash course in
EFP (Elementary Friggin Physics)....so I'll start with that
As it applies to the question of life after death:

------- CRASH COURSE IN E.F.P.----------------------

1. Penrose and Hameroff has sufficiently established that
the microtubule cytoskeleton structure of the neurons in the
brain constitute a gigantic biomolecular computer
constituting 15 orders of magnitude more computing power
than was previously suspected before 1994.

2. It is well known that the microtubule cytoskeleton
structure in the brain remains viable for up to 30 minutes
after death.

3. The cytoskeleton system is composed of hollow waveguides
called microtubules which transmit microwave and infrared
energy at Froehlich's frequency which is 1 billion times
higher than the neuronal firing frequency. This means that
a pre-recorded afterlife careen could be downloaded to flood
the entire cytoskeleton of the entire body in a fraction of
a second after death which would then be viewed by the
Dearly departed in proper time ( real-time) which could
be weeks years or even decades long. Thus the bedside
observer would see the person die in a fraction of a second
but the dearly departed could live on in cyber paradise
for years.

Okay, this crash course in EFP should demonstrate
convincingly to a fast study that the old argument that DEAD
BRAINS CAN'T DREAM is a forlorn and pass� objection from the
past which no longer has any credibility in the argument.

--------------END CRASH COURSE IN E.F.P-----------------

Okay, so let's back up a minute and take up the question
of OVERALLCREDIBILITY. What credible evidence actually
exists that they are IS such a thing is life after death in
the first place? Where does the idea of life after death
come from? It turns out that if you actually take the time
to investigate where the idea of life after death came from,
you can actually find the answer to that question, and the
answer is this:

1. The theory of life after death first emerged in the
documented record about 5000 years ago in ancient Egypt. The
theory first appeared in written form in thousands of lines
of carefully chiseled raised hieroglyphics on the interior
walls of dozens of still existing pyramids from the fifth
and sixth dynasties of Pharoahnic Egypt.

2. The same ancient Egyptians maintained extensive "dream
incubation temples" at Memphis and dozens of other
locations,
and it has been advanced generally by a number of scholars
including the famous Egyptologist Reissner that the study of
nocturnal dreams was the origin of the theory of life after
death.

3. Today the most profitable source of data on human
dreaming, believe it or not, comes from the thousands of
eyewitness videos made by "Lucid Dreamers" and posted on
YouTube. Sigmund Freud had to hang out a shingle and call
in a few talkative patients to investigate dreams. It
turns out that a week of watching these eyewitness video
testimonials on YouTube furnishes more information on human
dreaming than Sigmund Freud could've collected in a
lifetime.
In fact I have spent a number of weeks watching these videos
made mostly by college educated people more than half of
them women. In these dreams they describe not only the
content but the REALITY-QUALITY of these lucid dreams. They
describe full-blown ALL 5-SENSES dreaming in which they
can feel their clothes itching their skin and the force of
gravity on the soles of their feet straining every muscle in
their legs while running. They report full audio and being
able to taste and smell things and feel them with their
hands. The sheer overwhelming extent of these modern
reports immediately leads us to conclude that this is
EXACTLY what the ancient Egyptians were doing in these
"dream incubation temples". Moreover these temples existed
in Mesopotamia, Assyria, Malta and later on even in Rome!

4. Thus it is when one finally encounters the full extent
of human nocturnal dreaming, one clearly perceives that this
is indeed the origin of the belief that there could be a
full-blown virtual reality dream state that occurs after
death.

================================

Okay, so now we have the OVERALL MOTIVATION for the belief
in the theory of life after death, and now we even have a
plausible mechanism that could underwrite the phenomenon
without even appealing to "woo woo physics".
BUT THERE IS STILL A PROBLEM. And it turns out the
problem still lies with the question of overall credibility.
The question is this: what would be the point of just going
on living a few more years of the same old life that we've
already lived. I mean why would the body as a biological
machine bothered to do such a thing.... what DARWINIAN
SURVIVAL VALUE would such a biological mechanism have. NONE
is the obvious answer. So therefore it's simply not
believable that the body would bother to do such a thing!
But there we run into the final part of the argument, and
that is the argument for the BEATIFIC VISION !
It turns out that the reason for the afterlife is not
simply the desire for an "after hours club"... it turns out
that there is a major and overwhelming reason for the
afterlife:

-----REAL REASON FOR THE AFTERLIFE-------

100 years ago they discovered something called the
"SECULAR TREND" in human growth. Evidence of the secular
trend is commonplace. Modern soldiers can�t even fit into a
medieval suit of armor they are so small. US schoolchildren
have increased to 3 1/2 inches in height since 1900.
Worldwide human IQ is rising as fast as 10 points per decade
due simply to brain growth caused by the increase in the
standard of living, mainly nutrition.
Okay, so the existence of the secular trend in human
growth means that we've never been fully grown. How short
of full growth are we? A learned estimate of this
indicates that the average human being today is about 20%
short of his full height, weight and intelligence.... the
human phenotype is about 20% short of the human genotype.
What this basically means is that the entire human race is
basically 20% MENTALLY RETARDED. Of course nobody really
cares, because it affects everybody, so what's the
difference? Well turns out there is a difference, and the
leadership and intelligentsia of the world noticed it many
many thousands of years ago. Just as you can look at a
mentally retarded person and see what they can't see, the
leadership and intelligentsia of the world was able to look
at the entire human population thousands of years ago and
notice that there was something that the entire human race
couldn't see and didn't know.... and they named this
phenomenon, you guessed it,.. GOD !
The theory is that if you and I could see the other 20%
of reality, we would be in PARADISE. We would literally be
GOD IN THE FLESH. As such we would be absolutely fearless,
we wouldn't even feel pain... oh we�d feel it all right, but
it wouldn't "hurt" the way it does now. In fact they say we
wouldn't even fear death, because we would be in possession
of "total life"... and therefore we already have everything
there is to have, and by dying we wouldn�t miss anything...
and
they call this condition ETERNAL LIFE.

Okay, so it must have immediately occurred to these
ancient people who surmised that there might be a dreamlike
state of reality after death, that what they might see
there, is the long lost MISSING 20% OF REALITY that we in
this world are UNABLE to see! They surmised that you could
actually go to PARADISE... ULTIMATE REALITY when you died.

Okay guys, that's it, that's the current
state-of-the-art from yours truly concerning scientific
research into the theory of life after death. And here we
meet up with a SCIENTIFIC DILEMMA, and it is this scientific
dilemma that has driven me to write this post to you. I'm
up against a scientific problem that I can't find a solution
to, and that is this: While it is easy to see how the
mechanism of a microtubule download could produce a life
after death dream in the body as it exists, I am unable to
explain how the human body as it currently exists, could
possibly dream up a fully-grown ( a.k.a. "Beatified") body
to experience this dream in the afterlife. It is a
well-known principle that you can't dream of anything that
that isn't already in your memory banks. The problem is,
you've never had a perfect fully 100% grown body during your
entire life. You've always had a 20% growth deficit since
the day you were born.... so how can you possibly dream up,
calculate up, extrapolate up, or conjure up, a perfect 100%
grown body with no growth deficit That is going to be able
to experience this afterlife dream of true reality in
heaven?
Now, this is the last piece of the puzzle needed to
complete a credible scientific theory of life after death.
And I have been beating my head against the wall for a long
time trying to solve this problem and find this piece of the
puzzle.
Oh it's easy enough to say something like, "well the DNA
molecule has the complete plan for the human body so
therefore it must be able to dream up a perfect body just
from using the roadmap in the DNA molecule". Well that
argument is not good enough, the DNA molecule is just a
recipe, the first stage in a long cascade of chemical
reactions which, largely by natural selection ends up being
the human body. There really is no BLUEPRINT for the human
body, there is only a cookbook recipe for creating one in
the DNA molecule.
So this is the problem that I'm up against now and like I
said been beating my head against the wall for a long time
trying to solve it... and until I can solve it, I am unable
to reach a firm conclusion as to whether or not life after
death exists, YES or NO.
Without a solution to this problem, I currently put the
scientific probability that there is an afterlife at about
35%. With no solution to this missing piece of the puzzle I
can go no higher. On the other hand if I could find a
solution to this problem, the overall probability might then
exceed 51%

Any comments, ANY comments, will be of interest since I've
gotten to be pretty good at reading between the lines of
even a single sentence comment.

Finally I apologize for glitches in this voice recognition
system (Dragon-10) and the occasional odd word or mistake in
capitalization etc. I don't have time to proofread.

P.S. I have proof read this copy and corrected most or all
Of the errors.

George Hammond
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================

[Don Stockbauer]

When you die, George, welcome to Blessed Eternal Nothingness (BEN).

[be...@iwaynet.net]

> BRAINS CAN'T DREAM is a forlorn and passé objection from the

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/22/2011 4:39 AM, George Hammond wrote:

> Okay, so the existence of the secular trend in human
> growth means that we've never been fully grown. How short
> of full growth are we? A learned estimate of this
> indicates that the average human being today is about 20%
> short of his full height, weight and intelligence.... the
> human phenotype is about 20% short of the human genotype.
> What this basically means is that the entire human race is
> basically 20% MENTALLY RETARDED. Of course nobody really
> cares, because it affects everybody, so what's the
> difference? Well turns out there is a difference, and the
> leadership and intelligentsia of the world noticed it many
> many thousands of years ago. Just as you can look at a
> mentally retarded person and see what they can't see, the
> leadership and intelligentsia of the world was able to look
> at the entire human population thousands of years ago and
> notice that there was something that the entire human race
> couldn't see and didn't know.... and they named this
> phenomenon, you guessed it,.. GOD !

George you are a moron. And I mean that in the best possible 20% sense!

You are SO wandering in the fucking wilderness! You have NOT a clue.

You've been hanging with too many Social Darwinist atheist science types
for too long. Go buy a guitar and learn to play it. Expand your ignorant
consciousness for a bit. It's not 20% of humans are retarded it's 100%
of humans are retarded! Just check on how much brain capacity we have
vs how much we use!

If you want the hint about "afterlife" then go take a gander at the
folks who promote it the most. What is the essence of most religious
doctrine? It has to do with the persistence of mind, persistence of
memory, and the persistence of form. And just for your miniscule
intellect, all me to explain that this persistence is all related to
unseen dimensions. Yes the universe has more dimensions than the 3 you
are familiar with. And surprisingly consciousness resides NOT in the
brain or other matter as you erroneously propose, but in unseen
other-dimensional structures that mimic the structures in this space.

Thus, it is obvious, and evidence for this abounds, that the stooopid
idea of death meaning lapse into nothingness is quite wrong. Since
consciousness resides in OTHER dimensions, loss of your material
structure does not end it. It persists. And since all material
structures have a higher dimensional counterpart they persist as well
and even worse, RELATIONSHIPS between those structures persist as well
which forms the basis of action-reaction (often termed "punishment" or
"rewards") persists as well.

There are many scientist who understand these things but are not allowed
to talk about them as Social Darwinism pretty much rules the 3D world
and does not permit promotion of ideas beyond their agenda. But that
won't stop YOU from looking into it, will it?

[Uncle Ben]

> won't stop YOU from looking into it, will it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

George, consider the problem from a cow's point of view. After death
your body is mostly eaten. Who are you then?

You are doomed to have to make up your answer. Feel free! Whatever
soothes your fear of death. Speculate away!

But there is no reason to post on a physics newsgroup, since physics
is involved with evidence.

[mpc755]

The present state of physics is to be in denial of the evidence.

EVERY TIME a double slit experiment has EVER been performed with
detectors at the entrances to the slits the particle is ALWAYS
detected entering a single slit.

EVERY TIME a double slit experiment has EVER been performed with
detectors at the exits to the slits the particle is ALWAYS detected
exiting a single slit.

This is EVIDENCE the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit.

If you choose to believe the particle does not ALWAYS enter and exit a
single slit in a double slit experiment then that is your choice.
However, it is not support by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. In fact, you have
to DENY the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Which means, what you choose to believe
has NOTHING to do with physics.

A particle has an associated physical wave. The particle enters and
exits a single slit and the associated physical wave enters and exits
both.

In aether displacement, the physical wave is an aether wave.

[Uncle Ben]

> In aether displacement, the physical wave is an aether wave.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You say,

> If you choose to believe the particle does not ALWAYS enter and exit a
> single slit in a double slit experiment then that is your choice.
> However, it is not support by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. In fact, you have

But you are wrong. When there are no detectors at either slit, there
is a two-slit interference pattern on the screen, unlike the one-slit
diffraction pattern one sees when a detector is present.

That is an open-and-shut disproof of your claim.

It is a strange and mysterious effect, but it is easily observable. If
you deny it, ask your local physics department to give you a
demonstration. It may be too expensive to conduct the experiment live,
but it has been filmed.

Even when the beam is so weak that one computes there to be only one
particle in the beam at a time, if there are two slits, you get a two-
slit interfere pattern. It works with photons and with electrons. In
theory it works with any particle but it is easier to demonstrate with
these two.

Uncle Ben


Uncle Ben

[tirebiter]

On Oct 22, 6:18 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When you die, George, welcome to Blessed Eternal Nothingness (BEN).

It's the same state as life before birth, which was a fairly stable
state for around 14 billion years.

---
a.a. #2273

[mpc755]

It is not strange or mysterious at all. It is evidence the moving
particle has an associated physical wave. Only in the absurd
ridiculous stupefying state of physics today is it deemed strange and
mysterious.

When detectors are placed at the entrances to the slits what has
ALWAYS been detected?

The particle has ALWAYS been detected entering a single slit.

When detectors are placed at the exits to the slits what has ALWAYS
been detected?

The particle has ALWAYS been detected exiting a single slit.

The fact that you are unable to understand this is evidence the
particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit is evidence how screwed
up physics is.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

The particle is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit
because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit.

It is the associated physical aether displacement wave which enters
and exits both slits.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Oct 22, 4:39 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Bashwitz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <h3...@mixmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 20, 11:20 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
> >> LOG  10-20-11  "CREATION OF THE SOUL"
>
> >> Note:  Hammond has advanced a well known theory of Life
> >> After Death in which it is the microtubules (mT) of the
>
> >wrong, it is life after life, not life after death,
> >because once you are dead your consistency
> >dissipate, and you cant possibly wake up to
> >life once you cant remember who you are
>
> >and it is [uT] not (mT), mT is militubules
>
> >[this space intentionally left blank]
>
> [George Hammond, M.S.Physics]
> Copyright 2011
>     This inquiry is generally for physicists but
> also this message is for Father Haskel, SkyEyes, JohnN,
> Kurt Bashwitz, Don Stockbauer and anybody else who is
> listening, particularly the Wiseguys of alt.atheism.  Why
> the latter?  Because the first qualification is being
> INTERESTED.  

Holy cow, a George Hammond sighting. Jeez, I thought he'd be living on
the street by now.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/hammond.htm

(mensa snecked, AUK added)

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

[Uncle Ben]

> and exits both slits.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The best evidence for what the particle does is the experiment in
which the beam is so weak that there is only one particle at a time in
the apparatus. With a detector in one of the paths, there is no two-
slit pattern. Without any detector, there is a two-slit pattern.

I cannot tell whether you accept or deny the result. Your ether wave
may encompass it.

[mpc755]

The ether wave is turned into chop by the detector, there is no wave
interference, the direction the particle travels is not altered, and
there is no two-slit pattern.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:18:50 -0700 (PDT)

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:54:33 -0700 (PDT),

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:28:08 -0400

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:59:47 -0700 (PDT)

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:02:26 -0700 (PDT),

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:45:26 -0700 (PDT),

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:56:06 -0700 (PDT),

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT)

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:15:10 -0700 (PDT),

[<SNIP OT CRAP>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT),

[Kurt Bashwitz]

this is a speech not a question, condense and cut
your question in small portion, I dont have time to
read this shit, I have too much to do

in any case, you are wrong

[JCA]

On Oct 22, 5:50 pm, Kurt Bashwitz <h3...@mixmail.com> wrote:

> this is a rant, not a question

IFYPFY

J

[George Hammond]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Bashwitz

[ Kurt Bashwitz]

> I dont have time to
>read this shit, I have too much to do
>

[Hammond]
Lack of time is your problem, not mine.

>
>in any case, you are wrong
>

[Hammond]
Go back to the skilled trades where you belong.

[George Hammond]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT), JCA
<JCA...@bell.net> wrote:

>On Oct 22, 5:50 pm, Kurt Bashwitz <h3...@mixmail.com> wrote:
>
>> this is a rant, not a question
>

[Hammond]
You're unqualified to read it.. if you disagree cite your CV
or other qualifications.

[<my reply to Jim Greenfield>]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:39:17 -0400, George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Jim Greenfield
<jgreen...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
[Hammond]
<Snip Hammond's original target post?
>
[ Hammond]
Note: I'm only answering you Jim because you're posting
under your real name. I rarely talk to pseudo-anonymous
posters.
?
>[Jim Greenfield]
>Hair, toenails keep growing for hours after death.
>Meanwhile, maggots keep chewing away.
>
[Hammond]
Wrong Jim, The Afterlife takes place within
microseconds after you die; in terrestrial time. Mmeanwhile
the dearly departed experiences years in the Afterlife in
"proper time" e.g. his "wristwatch time"..
Your computer can download a three hour movie in a
matter of seconds. As far as the computer is concerned it
has spent three hours in the movie while you have only
noticed a few seconds pass.
This is elementary relativity Jim, you have to have a
few degrees in physics if you want to argue with me.
>
>[Jim Greenfield]
>When you die, you are as you were before conception (unless a Buddist)
>Before the earth was formed (x by ago)
>
>
[Hammond]
Your statement is juvenile ignorance and rote
memorization of pedestrian platitudes.
The actual origin of the theory of life after death is
in the observation of " lucid dreaming" in the ancient
dream incubation temples of Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia.
>
>[Jim Greenfield]
> they have a problem too.
>Canny Ma Nature has inbued us with a fear of dying, in order to get us
>to run from lions.
>A belief in an "after life" may help the cowardly overcome the fear,
>but will never be due to a reality.
>Jim G
>
[Hammond}
That is ignorant pablum told to children to keep them
from mentally toying with intellectual ideas that are over
their heads. Iit's a statement designed for people like
you.
It's time for people like you to step up Jim. Having
your socio-economic sector walking around reciting juvenile
platitudes has long since become a national embarrassment
and in today's world even on national security risk.

[Doc Smartass]

George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in
news:hqu4a7pk1ob5upvt0...@4ax.com:

> From: George Hammond

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

Tea Parties are for little kids.

[JCA]

On Oct 22, 9:46 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT), JCA
>
> <JCA...@bell.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 5:50 pm, Kurt Bashwitz <h3...@mixmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> this is a rant, not a question
>
> [Hammond]
> You're unqualified to read it.. if you disagree cite your CV
> or other qualifications.

Seriously? You expect me to provide personal details online, where
any nut (hint, hint) can access it? Or did you just want me to claim
to have professional qualifications without proving it?

Oh, and independent of anyone's ability to follow your line of
"reasoning", recognizing a rant is generally not that hard to do.

When you cross-post to alt.atheism, rec.org.mensa AND
alt.religion.kibology, you leave yourself wide open.

J

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 22, 4:39 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>  Skeptic or believer doesn't matter, not knowing
> any physics doesn't matter, the first thing that matters is
> whether you are INTERESTED in whether or not there is life
> after death.

Only for the maggots.

[JohnN]

On Oct 23, 4:59 am, "<my reply to Jim Greenfield>"

<Nowhe...@notspam.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:39:17 -0400, George Hammond
>

> <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Jim Greenfield
>

> <jgreenfiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Hammond]
> <Snip  Hammond's original target post?
>
> [ Hammond]
>  Note:  I'm only answering you Jim because you're posting
> under your real name.   I rarely talk to pseudo-anonymous
> posters.
> ?>[Jim Greenfield]
> >Hair, toenails keep growing for hours after death.
> >Meanwhile, maggots keep chewing away.
>
> [Hammond]
>     Wrong Jim,  The Afterlife takes place within
> microseconds after you die;  in terrestrial time. Mmeanwhile
> the dearly departed experiences years in the Afterlife in
> "proper time" e.g. his "wristwatch time"..
>      Your computer can download a three hour movie in a
> matter of seconds.   As far as the computer is concerned it
> has spent three hours in the movie while you have only
> noticed a few seconds pass.
>      This is elementary relativity Jim,  you have to have a
> few degrees in physics if you want to argue with me.

George pleaee make up your mind, if you can. Your original posts told
us that:

> Skeptic or believer doesn't matter, not knowing
> any physics doesn't matter, the first thing that matters is
> whether you are INTERESTED in whether or not there is life
> after death.

And now you insist anyone who dares question the Great and Powerful
George OZ Hammond produce degrees in physics.

What you pass as intellectual discourse could be improved by actually
being concise, to the point, and consistant for more than a few hours.
Until then don't bother me.

JohnN

>                       Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond

[JohnN]

On Oct 22, 9:46 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT), JCA
>
> <JCA...@bell.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 5:50 pm, Kurt Bashwitz <h3...@mixmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> this is a rant, not a question
>
> [Hammond]
> You're unqualified to read it.. if you disagree cite your CV
> or other qualifications.
> ========================================
> GEORGE  HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

>                       Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond

>                       Mirror site
>      http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>      HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
>      http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================

George, if Kurt is not qualified to answer you then why did you
specifically ask him to answer?

JohnN

[<snip crap>]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:32:46 -0700 (PDT)

[<snip crap>]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:39:49 -0700 (PDT)

[<snip crap>]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:26:51 -0700 (PDT)