CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD

0 views
Skip to first unread message

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 9:52:02 AM4/3/06
to
CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD

Not 1 in 1000 physicists knows what God is.

Why?

Because not 1 in 1000 physicists is even aware
that there ARE people who know what God is!

It is no wonder then that Physics does not know
the difference between the CLASSICAL GOD,
and the QUANTUM GOD.

------

Now to be fair, let me point out that the people who
"actually know what God is", only know what the
CLASSICAL GOD is.... in fact they do not know
what the QUANTUM GOD is because NOBODY
will know what the Quantum God is until the theory
of Quantum Gravity is discovered, and that may be
awhile!

In the meantime however, an empirical knowledge of
the CLASSICAL GOD is quite prevalent in the upper
reaches of society despite the fact that the scientific
sector (particularly Physics) remains completely
ignorant of it.

NOW HOWEVER it turns out that a hard scientific
proof of the existence of the CLASSICAL GOD has
been discovered and published in the peer reviewed
scientific literature:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now to be clear, this proof of God that has been discovered
is only a proof of the CLASSICAL GOD, not of the
QUANTUM GOD.


Interestingly, many physicists say they are more willing to consider
the possibility of a QUANTUM GOD than a CLASSICAL GOD.

Einstein himself said for instance that he did not believe in a
classical (anthropomorphic) God.... but that he did believe
in a "Cosmical" God (identified as the "Quantum God" by
this author).
It is ironic then, that Einstein's own classical Relativity turns
out to be the proof of the Classical (anthropomorphic) God,
which Einstein did not believe in, while the as yet undiscovered
theory of Quantum Gravity turns out to prove the existence of
his "Cosmical God"..... an as yet undiscovered theory.

SO AT THIS POINT,

I think we should explain in clear and concise terms what
exactly is the difference between the Classical God and
the Quantum God--

Let me explain the difference this way:

THE CLASSICAL GOD
Hammond (2003) has discovered that the "classical" God
of the Bible.... the "invisible man" God of the Old and
New Testaments, is in fact explained and proven as the
perceptual effect of the Secular Trend Growth Deficit
of the Human Brain.
Hammond has shown clearly how this braingrowth deficit
causes the world to appear LARGER and FASTER than
it actually is, to every human being on the Earth, past and
present.... and this phenomena is called "God". Moreover,
Hammond has proven that Psychometry is identical
to Linearized Relativity, and therefore that this magnification
and speeding up of reality, is actually a "curvature" of
"subjective spacetime" (subjective reality), and therefore
that Einstein's theory actually describes the
CLASSICAL GOD.....i.e.,

GOD = G_uv = - ln (braingrowth)


In other words, "God" appears as a "classical curvature
of 4-dimensional subjective spacetime", which is why we
can say, God is caused by gravity as far as classical
Physics is concerned.

However, it is now known that classical Relativity is not the
"ultimate" explanation of Gravity, that actually there is an
undiscovered "Quantum" theory of gravity, known as
"Quantum Gravity". Obviously then, when the quantum
explanation of classical gravity is found, we will then
have also a quantum theory of God as well as a
classical theory of God. In fact, while it can be proven
that the Classical God is a relativistic curvature of
subjective spacetime, caused by braingrowth.... roger
Penrose has shown that braingrowth, like all brain
functions ultimately, is moderated by "quantum brain
gravity", and therefore, the "classical curvature" that
causes the classical God, is ultimately caused by
"quantum Gravity", and therefore the Quantum God
is ultimately the cause of the Classical God.

Several key points should be emphasized:

1. The Quantum theory of God is still
unknown and undiscovered.

2. The classical theory of God has been
discovered, proven and published in the
peer reviewed literature (Hammond, 2003)

3. The classical God will remain true and valid
forever, even after the Quantum God has
been discovered, much the same as
Newtonian Gravity will remain valid forever,
despite the discovery of Relativity.

4. It must be recognized that the "Classical God"
has been the workhorse of religion for thousands
of years, and will doubtlessly remain so even after
the Quantum theory of God is discovered. The
discovery of the Quantum God however is
expected to elucidate the theory of Life After Death,
whereas the discovery and proof of the Classical God
does not resolve the question entirely.

5. Finally is must be noted and emphasized that many
scientists spend a great deal of time speculating
about the "Quantum God" even though that discovery is
likely centuries away..... and even more annoying
is the fact that the entire scientific community
remains ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS that the
CLASSICAL GOD has been discovered, proven,
and the proof published in the peer reviewed
literature by Hammond (2003).

--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================


Sean

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 11:40:24 AM4/3/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:KP9Yf.13236$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>>
> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>
> Not 1 in 1000 physicists knows what God is.
>
> Why?
>
> Because not 1 in 1000 physicists is even aware
> that there ARE people who know what God is!
>
> It is no wonder then that Physics does not know
> the difference between the CLASSICAL GOD,
> and the QUANTUM GOD.
>
> ------
>
> Now to be fair, let me point out that the people who
> "actually know what God is", only know what the
> CLASSICAL GOD is.... in fact they do not know
> what the QUANTUM GOD is because NOBODY
> will know what the Quantum God is until the theory
> of Quantum Gravity is discovered, and that may be
> awhile!
>

The Theory of Quantum Gravity States in part:

All Quantum Light Beings generate and maintain their own centre of quantum
gravity ......................... independent and yet in perfect Harmonic
symmetry with the Quantum God Field.

You do the Math. ;-))

Immortalist

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 1:10:17 PM4/3/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:KP9Yf.13236$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>
> Not 1 in 1000 physicists knows what God is.
>

All we can probably know for certain is that we have beliefs about things
and concepts abstracted from them.

T Wake

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 4:23:46 PM4/3/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 5. Finally is must be noted and emphasized that many
> scientists spend a great deal of time speculating
> about the "Quantum God" even though that discovery is
> likely centuries away..... and even more annoying
> is the fact that the entire scientific community
> remains ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS that the
> CLASSICAL GOD has been discovered, proven,
> and the proof published in the peer reviewed
> literature by Hammond (2003).

You are truly clueless.


Don H

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 4:45:23 PM4/3/06
to
"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:KP9Yf.13236$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
# Any word need defining, and all words have historical origins. "God"
originated in the many tribal deities, the gods, goddesses, etc, of
polytheism, then monotheism. The Old Man of the Tribe is the origin of the
tribal deity; a fearful memory of past tribal leaders; it is not for nothing
that God is envisaged as a stern old man with a beard - not as a
hydra-headed beetle monster, with hyper-drive centipede locomotion, to whom
we're but a mere experiment.
No, "I love me", and "God is Love"; hence, "if I am good, God will let me
live for ever". What? wearing a halo and singing psalms for all eternity -
or indulging in all those lustful pleasures deemed immoral in this sinful
world?
Then there's the theoretical, cosmic God, of George and some physicists.
Trouble is, you probably wouldn't recognise it if you encountered it.
A hypothetical construct, void of meaning.
True, there might be some such entity behind natural phenomena, but
Science is, by definition "knowledge of the natural world" so, unless God
intrudes, he remains unknown and unknowable.
Which is why the "God Hypothesis" is inferior to "Evolution Theory" - the
latter being backed by many empirical facts, while the former is not
scientific, being untestable. If George's "God" becomes testable, then it
might gain credence. Rationality is all very well, but Empiricism clinches
the deal.


George Hammond

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 7:22:46 PM4/3/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>
[Hammond]

=============NOTICE============
killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
===============================
note:
anyone replying to this post will be immediately
pushbutton killfiled.

recent killfile:

TMG T...@Nowhere.org
Wake taswak...@hotmail.com
ZenIsWhen here'slook...@youkid.com
Schornak nowh...@schornak.de
Stew Dean stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
Tom Capizzi etianshr...@verizon.ne
Dan Skunk dansk...@gmail.com
Toupin jtou...@telus.net
Dudley mdud...@king-cart.com
Mark Martin qed...@hotmail.com
Midjis midwinte...@hotmail.co.uk
Isham sock puppetS
JohnM eao...@cbpu.com
Don Freeman free...@sonic.net
hanson han...@quick.net
Cardinal Chunder c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com
Micheal Gray fle...@newsguy.spam.com
Nosterill r...@davinoptronics.com
Clive c...@selectron-uk.co.uk
Steve Ralph s...@steveralph.f9.co.uk
Androcoles Androc...@MyPlace.org
Demosthenes Demosthe...@looking.com
Zagan n...@jamesdunavant.comNOSPAM
Schoenfeld schoenfe...@gmail.com
A.Real Scient...@educated.com
cirejcon cirej...@yahoo.com
Murf rob_mur...@hotmail.com
Loudermilk t...@bellsouth.net
ben b...@adelphia.net
Jim Black ghytrfvbnmju7...@mail.com
Sleepyhead simonharp...@usa.net
TomGee l...@hotmail.com
Ken S. Tucker dynam...@vianet.on.ca
Bilge dubi...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
paranormal k...@s.cke
Helmut Wabnig EmailAddress
Uncle Al Uncle...@hate.spam.net
Bud news...@katxyzkave.net
softrat soft...@pobox.com
Peter Bowditch myfirstn...@ratbags.com
chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid
John Baker n...@biziniz.net
Bob Cain arc...@arcanemethods.com
Burgerman burger...@ntlworld.com
francoistremblay francoistrembla...@gmail.com
John Schutkeker jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam
donstockbauer donstockba...@hotmail.com
Ian Smith uce.bin....@which.net
Dave n...@nowhere.com
Turtoni tur...@alt.philosophy
Brian Fletcher bria...@bigpond.net.au
Wizard of Odd spiritualhealing2...@yahoo.co.uk
Not Martin Stone donts...@me.com
??R.L.Measures r...@somis.org
Roger Johansson" roger4...@gmail.com
Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com
platopes plato...@yahoo.com
Jean-Paul Turcaud mining_pion...@remove.yahoo.com
Art Deco art_d...@127.0.0.1
Aratzio a6ahly...@sneakemail.com
odin ragna...@yahoo.com
Woodchuck Bill bwr...@hotmail.com
turtoni turt...@somewhere.neT
Kadaitcha Man nos...@fuck-off-and-die.com
Real Vote Ranger yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com
raving.loonie raving.loo...@gmail.com
PJR p...@NOSPAMkookbusters.org
nightbat night...@home.ffni.com
Double-A doubl...@hush.ai
Fred Hall fkh...@gmail.com
Daedalus j...@my-deja.com
John Henry j...@kookblock.insurgent.orgy
tinplated throwawa...@yahoo.com
J. Horta b...@me.spam
Michael Baldwin Bruce mbbr...@mighty.co.za
Mahatana Dick nos...@invalid.invalid
Kain Hifford kain.hiff...@rec.activism....
john_ramsden john_rams...@sagitta-ps.com
jambaugh m...@jamesbaugh.info
Michael Gray fle...@newsguy.spam.com
The Ghost In The Machine e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
graham g.ste...@shaw.ca
euroxpoo eurox...@netscape.net
bartoszszczesny bartoszszcze...@yahoo.co.uk
Christopher A. Lee c...@optonline.net
xxein x...@bellsouth.net
ą b...@c.com
Jeff_Rel M...@Privacy.NET
Nick macromi...@yahoo.com
zzbunker zzbun...@netscape.net
Pyriform nob...@nowhere.com
Steve Ralph s...@steveralph.f9.co.uk
cl c...@midsouth.rr.com
Black Knight Androc...@castle.edu
ah splifing...@gmail.com
AcesLucky acesLu...@netscape.net
sm00101010 natsumisc...@hotmail.com
Tim qw...@qwerty.com
?.R.L.Measures r...@somis.org
Bret Cahill BretC...@aol.com
Desertphile deser...@hotmail.com
Robibnikoff" witc...@broomstick.com
quibbler quibb...@yahoo.com
Sanity's little helper elv...@noshpam.net
Mani Deli ma...@sympatico.ca
Pittsburgh G...@Steelers.com!
Bob Cain arc...@arcanemethods.com
Loki Loki lokili...@hotmail.co.uk
SleepyHeed simonh...@hotmail.co.uk
Cujo DeSockpuppet cu...@petitmorte.net
explainer gor...@explainer.com
Peter J Ross p...@kookbusters.org
Daedalus ja...@netkooks.org
Lizz Holmans di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk
Lorrill Buyens buy...@interlacken.com
a_friend a_f_r_...@hotmail.com
Gary Eickmeier geic...@tampabay.rr.com
goozlefotz gran...@yahoo.com
J notanymore
Josef Matz jose...@arcor.de
JanPB fil...@gmail.com
Hexenmeister vanq...@broom.Mickey
Kadaitcha Man <delete>
anonymous Reply74...@wmconnect.com
Angle butifyouloo...@yahoo.com
Matt Giwer jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com
Eric Gisse jow...@gmail.com
Darkwing theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com
don stockbauer donsto...@hotmail.com
Roy L. Fuchs royl...@urfargingicehole.org
rip...@Azonic.co.nz
Sanity's Little Helper elv...@noshpam.net
David A. Smith N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com
Sean santimva...@yahoo.com
Immortalist Reanima...@yahoo.com
Don H donlhu...@bigpond.com

Brian Fletcher

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 7:32:59 PM4/3/06
to

"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:DPfYf.23065$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Good points Don, but what do you see as being "the deal" ?

BOfL


Jeff…Relf

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 7:56:55 PM4/3/06
to
Hi George_Hammond,

Physicists, perhaps more than anyone else, certainly more than you,
know what the word God means. I say the word means this:

God is a position: I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.

See WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views

Einstein believed _True_ theorists are skeptical metaphysicists, saying:
" I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a 'positivist' he may fancy himself.
The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real.

The tamed metaphysicist believes that
not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality,
but that the totality of all sensory experience
can be 'comprehended' on the basis of
a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity."

He also believed physical processes determine absolutely everything, saying:
" But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past."
See Albert Einstein's "The World as I See It",
Secaucus, New Jersy, The Citadel Press, 1999, pp. 24-29,
http://stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_religion.html
( Note: This book is a collection of writings by Albert Einstein,
from around 1932 )

TMG

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 8:39:15 PM4/3/06
to
George Hammond wrote:
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>
>
> [Hammond]
>
> =============NOTICE============
> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
> ===============================
> note:
> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
> pushbutton killfiled.
>
> recent killfile:
>
> TMG T...@Nowhere.org

Yayyyy!!!

Wait, how will you know to killfile me?

Seems like a causality problem. Solution: We know you don't really use a
killfile.

platopes

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 9:23:58 PM4/3/06
to

TMG wrote:
>
>
> Wait, how will you know to killfile me?
>
> Seems like a causality problem. Solution: We know you don't really use a
> killfile.

Looks like he just goes from a comprehensive list of everyone who's
ever posted here.

p

dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 11:17:22 PM4/3/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:a7iYf.13438$sL2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>
> [Hammond]
>
> =============NOTICE============
> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
> ===============================
> note:
> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
> pushbutton killfiled.
>
> recent killfile:
...

> David A. Smith N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com

Excellent! I got added to his killfile list, and I never even
"recently" responded to him. Such good company too...

Funny how the Holy Bible said that God could not be found in the
World (which was given over to Satan), yet George is so smart he
can outsmart God.

David A. Smith


Coin

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 11:50:20 PM4/3/06
to
"Because not 1 in 1000 physicists is even aware that there ARE people
who know what God is!" ? You mean "Because not 1 in 1000 physicists
ARE even aware that there ARE people who know what God is!"

Errol

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 3:48:38 AM4/4/06
to
>"Which is why the "God Hypothesis" is inferior to "Evolution Theory" - the
>latter being backed by many empirical facts, while the former is not
>scientific, being untestable.

Very few reasonable people would entirely try and discredit Evolution
Theory
simply because of the sheer volume of substantiated eveidence, but what

about punctuated equilibrium, which notes that certain species
have evolved so rapidly that they have left no traces in the fossil
record.

Do you think this might open the door just ever so slightly to what you
call,
"the God Hypothesis"? (I would prefer to see the word God replaced here

with something more neutral like "observing intelligence" )

CrankHater

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 11:13:59 AM4/4/06
to

George Hammond wrote:
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

youre a mad cunt.

why dont you just kill file every fucker and have done with.

when you promised to never post here again, why cant you fucking keep
that promise.

T Wake

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 1:34:41 PM4/4/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:a7iYf.13438$sL2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>
> [Hammond]
>
> =============NOTICE============
> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
> ===============================
> note:
> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
> pushbutton killfiled.
>
> recent killfile:
>
> TMG T...@Nowhere.org
> Wake taswak...@hotmail.com

Please Mr Hammond-Crank,

Can you add my new email address to your "pushbutton" killfile?

Thanks.

By the way, you are still a raging crackpot.


use...@heathens.org.uk

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 2:52:38 PM4/4/06
to

George Hammond wrote:
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
> >
> [Hammond]
>
> =============NOTICE============
> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
> ===============================
> note:
> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
> pushbutton killfiled.

Good

Don H

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 4:48:34 PM4/4/06
to
"Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:LgiYf.23128$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
# "The deal" in any logical situation (as I see it) is that Rationality is
all very well. but it is Empiricism which provides conclusive proof - as in
a court of law; testimony is good, but evidence is better. Why nowadays,
the emphasis on DNA? even better than fingerprints, in establishing whether
someone was at a crime scene, or could not have been.
We need empirical data to start an argument, and also empirical data at
the end to verify the conclusion.
Even the words we use are human artefacts, with their own origins in
history, and etymology.
I would believe in God if empirical evidence convinced me of such being's
cosmic existence - but argument alone is insufficient.
Hence, while George Hammond might claim tto be "scientific", rationality
without empiricism is not enough, as empiricism is the essence of science.
If you've got a God, trot him out!


Brian Fletcher

unread,
Apr 5, 2006, 12:09:23 AM4/5/06
to

"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:CYAYf.23931$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> "Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:LgiYf.23128$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> >
>> Good points Don, but what do you see as being "the deal" ?
>>
>> BOfL
>>
> # "The deal" in any logical situation (as I see it) is that Rationality is
> all very well. but it is Empiricism which provides conclusive proof - as
> in
> a court of law; testimony is good, but evidence is better.

A teacher of mine many years ago asked 'knowingly', "I wonder what the
justice system will do when the 'criminal' gene is discovered"?

Should someone be condemned for becoming an alchoholic even though we know
that 'normal' drinking can lead to such an outcome when a person has a
genetic predisposition?


> Why nowadays,
> the emphasis on DNA? even better than fingerprints, in establishing
> whether
> someone was at a crime scene, or could not have been.
> We need empirical data to start an argument, and also empirical data at
> the end to verify the conclusion.

> Even the words we use are human artefacts, with their own origins in
> history, and etymology.

I have been fascinated by the increase awareness of the interpretation of
words, and how that interpretation is dictated to by ones consciousness at
the time.For example, the more one becomes self realised, the more one can
see the the limitation of 'group' references.

> I would believe in God if empirical evidence convinced me of such being's
> cosmic existence - but argument alone is insufficient.

"Belief" being an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Many years
ago I made a deep conscious decision that I am going to suspend any beliefs
and make room for 'knowing'. Of course, at that time I believed
paradoxically that this was a correct step. It proved to be so.(Beliefs are
great servants).

Amazing 'coincidences' started to take place, so when, for example I read
about the principle of quantum mechanics, I saw more evidence of the
process, and how it validated my experience.

The proof you are looking for is there, within you.

What have I 'prooved'.?

So far, many more dimensions than groups are aware of. The limitations and
purpose of religions and philosophies. The ongoing reality of the individual
life.

> Hence, while George Hammond might claim tto be "scientific", rationality
> without empiricism is not enough, as empiricism is the essence of science.
> If you've got a God, trot him out!

Old reference points can hold one back. If you look at God as "all there
is", then every new arena you discover becomes more evidence that there will
always be another step.

In that sense God will always be a step into the 'yet to be discovered'.

BOfL


Strife767

unread,
Apr 5, 2006, 12:16:00 AM4/5/06
to
...LOL

Why don't you submit this "proof" to some peer-reviewed group and see
what happens? :P

Claiming a proof so ambitious when it's hosted on geocities (with the
window so professionally titled "Page Title") is just too ridiculous. XD

fadeToblack

unread,
Apr 5, 2006, 3:23:56 AM4/5/06
to
"Claiming a proof so ambitious when it's hosted on geocities (with the
window so professionally titled "Page Title") is just too ridiculous. "

of course it's ridiculous but it's from the same lot that thinks
homosexulas should be put to death in the name of god and jesus.

Steve Ralph

unread,
Apr 5, 2006, 12:35:59 PM4/5/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:a7iYf.13438$sL2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>
> [Hammond]
>
> =============NOTICE============
> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
> ===============================
> note:
> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
> pushbutton killfiled.

Please add me so I can score a 3

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 5, 2006, 9:14:42 PM4/5/06
to

"Strife767" <stri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144210560.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> ...LOL
>
> Why don't you submit this "proof" to some peer-reviewed group and see
> what happens? :P
>

[Hammond]


2, My "proof" as you call it, has ALREADY
been published in the PEER REVIEWED
literature, in case you are UNAWARE OF IT:

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God


Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html


2.)


> Claiming a proof so ambitious when it's hosted on geocities (with the
> window so professionally titled "Page Title") is just too ridiculous. XD
>

[Hammond]
Both of the above PEER REVIEWED papers have been peer reviewed by
10 PhD professors in Physics and Psychometry by both Pergamon
Press (one of the world's leading academic publishers), and by
the Noetic Journal who has 8 PhD physicists on its editorial review
board.

And before you start with the ad hominem remarks, heckling, ridicule
etc....please cite your CV!,,,, either that or BE POLITE!!!!!!!!1

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 5, 2006, 9:40:08 PM4/5/06
to

"fadeToblack" <dwil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144221836.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> [strife 767]

> "Claiming a proof so ambitious when it's hosted on geocities (with the
> window so professionally titled "Page Title") is just too ridiculous. "
>
> [fadeTpBlack]

> of course it's ridiculous but it's from the same lot that thinks
> homosexulas should be put to death in the name of god and jesus.
>

[Hammond]
NOTE:.... I will reply to anyone who is
serious, polite and educated.


This is NOT AN AMATEUR DISCUSSION
and I am not an amateur:

------------------------------------------------------
CURRICULUM VITAE

GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U.who is presently Distinguished Professor at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God


Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in


New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167

Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

As you know Usenet is 99% uneducated amateurs with
nothing of interest to say. Amateur remarks will result in
the poster being immediately and permanently killfiled by
this author... in addition anonymous posters in general,
and hecklers in particular, are immediately killfiled.
Thank you.

killfile: fadeToblack" <dwil...@gmail.com

Strife 67 has not been killfiled (yet), even though he is an anonymous
poster because his commentary demonstrated at least a glimmer of
genuine credulity and was original, polite and serious.

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 5:37:45 AM4/6/06
to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:35:59 +0100, "Steve Ralph"
<st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>news:a7iYf.13438$sL2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>>
>> =============NOTICE============
>> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
>> ===============================
>> note:
>> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
>> pushbutton killfiled.
>

> [Steve Ralph]
>Please add me

[Hammond]
Sure, I though you were already on the list cocksuck.

T Wake

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 7:51:49 AM4/6/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:pun932hqc8tn91gpu...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:35:59 +0100, "Steve Ralph"
> <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>>news:a7iYf.13438$sL2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>>
>>> =============NOTICE============
>>> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
>>> ===============================
>>> note:
>>> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
>>> pushbutton killfiled.
>>
>> [Steve Ralph]
>>Please add me
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure, I though you were already on the list cocksuck.

He probably was. Your kill file isn't real.


Michael

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 4:17:31 PM4/6/06
to
In article <1144221836.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"fadeToblack" <dwil...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sounds a wee bit like something a Christophobe might say.

--
"-----------------"
May God Bless You
Michael

Strife767

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 4:50:38 PM4/6/06
to
http://www.insolitology.com/paranormal/georgehammond.htm

I think this will suffice; feel free to killfile me now. :P *shrugs*

No number of degrees makes one immune to buying into (or creating) a
ridiculous idea. Psychometry? Numerology? Please...

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 7:08:48 PM4/6/06
to

"Strife767" <stri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144356638.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

>
> ; feel free to killfile me
>
>

[Hammond]
No sooner said than done, sorry I hesitated cocksuck.
--

Strife767

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 7:49:04 PM4/6/06
to
George Hammond wrote:
> No sooner said than done, sorry I hesitated cocksuck.

Cocksuck?! *laughs hysterically*

So yeah, when this guy 'proves' something with concepts/'truths' less
akin to superstition and pseudoscience and more related to actual
science, then maybe he can call it proof. :P

TMG

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 9:53:20 PM4/6/06
to

George is quite insane. Hostile, enraged, committed (in the mental ward
sense) insane.

He responds to me *ALL* the time, and I'm #1 in his "killfile". He's
deranged.

He's reading this right now, and is fighting the compulsion to respond.

He will.

Strife767

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 11:17:32 PM4/6/06
to

I can't wait. XD

Strife767

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 12:20:02 AM4/7/06
to

I can't wait. XD

gig...@netscape.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 8:44:47 AM4/7/06
to

Michael wrote:
> In article <1144221836.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "fadeToblack" <dwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Claiming a proof so ambitious when it's hosted on geocities (with the
> > window so professionally titled "Page Title") is just too ridiculous. "
> >
> > of course it's ridiculous but it's from the same lot that thinks
> > homosexulas should be put to death in the name of god and jesus.
>
> Sounds a wee bit like something a Christophobe might say.
>

The original post, went to alt.religion.unification, which is a poor
copy
of "christianity". What you are refering to is something Sun Myung Moon

said. I'd be careful if I were you, who you decide to wrangle into an
alliance,
and on what pretense.

> --
> "-----------------"
> May God Bless You
> Michael

l8r..

bd4u

gig...@netscape.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 8:49:08 AM4/7/06
to

George Hammond wrote:
> "Strife767" <stri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144356638.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > ; feel free to killfile me
> >
> >
> [Hammond]
> No sooner said than done, sorry I hesitated cocksuck.


What a maroon, speaks of God, but can't control his own
tongue. Oh well...

gig...@netscape.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 9:13:56 AM4/7/06
to

George Hammond wrote:
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>
> Not 1 in 1000 physicists knows what God is.
>


Even primary school students, know E=MC2. How do ya
figure 1 in 1000 physicists don't?

gig...@netscape.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 9:35:16 AM4/7/06
to

figure 999 of 1000 physicists don't?

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 10:05:19 AM4/7/06
to

[Hammond]
Listen witless stooge... this isn't an amateur conversation.
Some of the most ignorant, vicious and mentally perturbed
PhD scientists on Usenet are following this discussion with
rapt attention.

When you can give me a respectable rational scientific
explanation as to why Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma have been
depicted as having multiple arms for thousands of years
in Hindu religious iconography.... and how scientifically
that is related to the "classical God of history" (e.g. the
God of the Bible for instance) .... then I'll talk to you.....
in the meantime your pathetic commentary is killfiled on
my computer as being "to stupid and boring to
bother with" just like all the others on the killfile list.

gig...@netscape.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 10:16:20 AM4/7/06
to


Is that the best arguement you got, is to threaten to "killfile"
anybody who questions your credibility? Well I'm not impressed.
As far as your request, I hope you don't mind if I use somebody
elses material (other than yours) to fill the void with..

Here's your "biblical" (scriptural) comparison to the mythology
of eastern religion.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Sefirot/Sefirot.html

Now I ask ya, where you think eastern religion got thier
knowledge of God from, if not the same source as others
have before them.

l8r..

bd4u

T Wake

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 2:11:37 PM4/7/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:vouZf.4164$i41....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
> news:omqc32193dsecd3vt...@4ax.com...

>>
> On 7 Apr 2006 06:13:56 -0700, gig...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> >
>>>
>>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>>
>>> Not 1 in 1000 physicists knows what God is.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Even primary school students, know E=MC2. How do ya
>>figure 1 in 1000 physicists don't?
>
> [Hammond]
> Listen witless stooge...

It is amusing that this was a reply to one of your own posts...

> this isn't an amateur conversation.

But you are amateur.

> Some of the most ignorant, vicious and mentally perturbed
> PhD scientists on Usenet are following this discussion with
> rapt attention.

That is one way of looking at it.

> When you can give me a respectable rational scientific
> explanation as to why Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma have been
> depicted as having multiple arms for thousands of years
> in Hindu religious iconography.... and how scientifically
> that is related to the "classical God of history" (e.g. the
> God of the Bible for instance) ....

It is truly amusing that you think the above paragraph makes sense.

You want scientific studies into religious iconography. Amazing.

> then I'll talk to you.....
> in the meantime your pathetic commentary is killfiled on
> my computer as being "to stupid and boring to
> bother with" just like all the others on the killfile list.

How will you know if he is already kill filed?


George Hammond

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 2:18:32 AM4/8/06
to

"George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:omqc32193dsecd3vt...@4ax.com...

>

>
[Hammond]

=========NOTICE===============
killfile anonymous posters, hecklers, amateurs
==============================

killfile list:

Steve Ralph st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk
Coin epics...@netscape.net
CrankHater yt5...@gmail.com
use...@heathens.org.uk
Errol erro...@hotmail.com
fadeToblack dwil...@gmail.com
Strife767 stri...@gmail.com
gig...@netscape.net gig...@netscape.net
Michael mike...@ix.netcom.com

gig...@netscape.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 2:49:19 AM4/8/06
to
Now that's what I call an "IGNORamous" with blinders on.
Can't see nothing but his own narrow minded point of view.
As he killfiled all the others.

Jens Tingleff

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 6:42:06 AM4/8/06
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

George Hammond wrote:

>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>

> [Hammond]
>
> =============NOTICE============
> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
> ===============================
> note:
> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
> pushbutton killfiled.

Me, add me, meeeeeeee, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[........]

Jens

- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"Go! And never darken my towels again!" Rufus T. Firefly 'Duck Soup'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEN5NZimJs3AlyPBIRAsFGAJ0YikqgOYhEVvDOe3x4b618Bua1MACcCFAm
wGrrF2bIgFPSsvZtnhq/Exs=
=SyST
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

George Hammond

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 9:11:06 AM4/8/06
to
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:42:06 +0100, Jens Tingleff
<jens...@tingleff.org> wrote:

>>
>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:6M9Yf.13235$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> CLASSICAL GOD vs QUANTUM GOD
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>>
>> =============NOTICE============
>> killfile: anonymous posts, hecklers, amateurs
>> ===============================
>> note:
>> anyone replying to this post will be immediately
>> pushbutton killfiled.
>
>Me, add me, meeeeeeee, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>[........]
>
> Jens

[Hammond]
killfile list:

Cris Isham (sock puppet)

± b...@c.com

ۥR.L.Measures r...@somis.org

riplin rip...@Azonic.co.nz

user13 use...@heathens.org.uk

gigo448 gig...@netscape.net
Michael mike...@ix.netcom.com
Jens Tingleff jens...@tingleff.org

Strife767

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 2:33:52 PM4/8/06
to

George Hammond wrote:
> Listen witless stooge... this isn't an amateur conversation.

Yeah...you are definitely a special, advanced breed of idiot. :P

> Some of the most ignorant, vicious and mentally perturbed
> PhD scientists on Usenet are following this discussion with
> rapt attention.

*glances at Hammond's 'credentials'* Sounds like a statement of
self-awareness. XD

> When you can give me a respectable rational scientific
> explanation as to why Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma have been
> depicted as having multiple arms for thousands of years
> in Hindu religious iconography.... and how scientifically
> that is related to the "classical God of history" (e.g. the
> God of the Bible for instance) .... then I'll talk to you.....
> in the meantime your pathetic commentary is killfiled on
> my computer as being "to stupid and boring to
> bother with" just like all the others on the killfile list.

Okay, I'll try to make it simple.

Some people made up some ideas.
Then others who didn't quite like those ideas either modified them or
made up some of their own.
Everyone was more or less content having an intangible, unprovable
entity to answer all of the questions that their current knowledge
didn't extend to.

It's the same logic as conspiracy theory...most people just get
_really_ freaked out at the suggestion that there is no plan, there is
no 'higher order,' and that there is not something or someone behind
the scenes controlling it all. So in the absence of such a plan etc.,
they are more comfortable inventing one than confronting the truth. The
more manipulative (whether naturally or made manipulative through
gullibility) people in this chunk will use these insecurities to
convert others into their 'belief system.' And organized religion was
born. :P

Scientifically explain why stuff we made up is the way we made it up?
What kind of a question is that, anyway? :P No different than asking a
child why his imaginary friend is so-and-so height, hair color, etc.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages