GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
Next: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
From: Guy Svenhardt on 24 Mar 2005 04:51 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:8ut0e.7183$S46.1201(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in > message news:1Gs0e.176277$FM3.73422(a)fed1read02... > > > > if you > > continue to try to promulgate your S.P.O.G. on your own, it will, if it > > happens at all, take much longer than if you accept assistance from > > those more intelligent than yourself. > > [Hammond] > I'm not worried about "intelligence"... that's common enough. > What I'm concerned about is the more expensive commodities of: > > 1. Seriousness > 2. Responsibility > 3. Courage > 4. Caution > 5. Awareness > > So far I haven't seen any examples of that on Usenet. > > > > Being passionate about getting the word out about what may indeed be > > the greatest scientific _and_ social discovery made to date is a fine > > thing, but placing your ego as its discoverer before refining, > > developing, and sharing it with humanity is mere selfishness. > <snip deluded, sociopathic and psychotic episode> AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm From AntiSPOG: "In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180 claims Hammond has made. 11 (eleven) of these 180 claims can be seen as true. Most of the agreed statements are trivial like "Today the world faces enormous crises in population, oil resources, terrorism and Third World poverty.". This statement alone includes four of the eleven agreed claims. A thesis based on 11 true and 169 false claims must be discarded as inadequately thought-out. Scientific work published in the internet should be based on traceable thoughts and backed up with references which are accessible for everyone - e.g. by quoting passages out of a book or adding links to other websites. This isn't the case in Hammond's work. Mentioning names of (questionable) "authorities" doesn't make a claim true, it only might be used to back up the own position. If a thesis is based on the work of other scientists, a detailed description should be added to see what they've contributed to the new thesis. If - like Hammond says - statistical data of other scientists are involved, it is a usual thing to add a link to these data or to give detailed information where they were published. Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. It lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. It claims to be "scientific", but it doesn't show any example of scientific experiments to back it up nor does it follow basic scientific rules. The best example surely is Hammond's attempt to assign his virtual "psychometric space" to real space. This attempt alone disqualifies Hammond as an incompetent amateur who never has understood anything regarding real sciences. If I - as an autodidactic amateur - can see these flaws, errors and misinterpretations, then I ask myself why Hammond expects that professional scientists should consider to agree with something like his SPoG. On the other hand, no real Christian will need Hammond's SPoG. In the eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic, the work of a heretic. Even if I don't believe in higher entities, I do respect the beliefs of others. Hammond doesn't have such qualms - he insults all Christians and rubs their deity through the dirt. In the end, Hammond neither will win the hearts of true Christians nor will he convince the reason of scientists. It took me two weeks to gather all the information to disprove SPoG, a professional scientist could do the same in less than two minutes... "
From: Steve Ralph on 24 Mar 2005 08:20 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:TSp0e.6855$S46.1216(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Steve Ralph" <steve(a)steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in > message news:42420144$0$65073$ed2619ec(a)ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > >> >> "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in message >> news:BVk0e.174144$FM3.168639(a)fed1read02... >> > Maleki wrote: >> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote: > >> > The most important question isn't "What's the nature of reality?" or >> > "What is god?" or anything like that; the most important question for > any >> > human is, "What am I going to do next?". > > [Hammond] > WRONG. The first question in LIFE actually IS: > > Why am I such a loser.. You do well to ask yourself this question Hammond! LOL SR and > who are all those winners? > And why do they all seem > superior to me.. even though > I know they're wrong and abusive? > > And the ANSWER to that is: > > You are not aware that you have > a "growth deficit" and therefore > you are NOT AWARE that those > people AREN'T who you think they > are.. and don't even look like you > think they do... the problem is > YOU CAN'T SEE REALITY! > > And THEN... is when you discover what 5-billion > people are talking about when they say the > word "GOD"!......... because THAT is what > "God" is........ the explanation of why YOU can't > see REALITY.... and WHY.... and what it really > looks like.... AND WHO THE BAD GUYS > REALLY ARE....... and why you can't SEE them > for who they really are. > And without knowing that....... YOU'RE DEAD MEAT, > or just plain LUCKY! > ==================================== > SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god > mirror site: > http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > ==================================== > Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent) > Send a blank email to COSAchurch(a)hotmail.com > and your email address will be added to the > COSA discussion list (free, no obligation) > ==================================== > and please ask your news service to add: > alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated > =================================== > > > > > > > > > >> >> Nonsense. It's what comes before the question that is important. >> >> SR >> > >> > Mark L. Fergerson >> > >> >> >> > > >
From: Kamerynn on 24 Mar 2005 09:26 George Hammond wrote: > "Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail(a)sorry.com> wrote in message > news:1144las8fin5if9(a)corp.supernews.com... > >> >>George Hammond wrote: >> >>>"George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in >>>message news:ER8%d.981$Vi3.793(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... >>> >>>[Hammond] >>>Dear Philosophy newsgroup readers..... can't I get some kind of >>>an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS comment from someone..... the nerds >>>on the physics newsgroups are driving me crazy with nonsense about this. >>>George Hammond, physicist >>>================================= >>> ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC >>> PROOF OF GOD >>> >>> >>><snip citations about mental speed and IQ> >>> >>> >>>[Hammond] >>>OK, ... let me give you a simple heuristic picture >>>that explains what GOD is, in TWO STEPS: >> >>Kam: >> Of course your first step is to "explain what God >>is." >>1 - God is (defined as) x >>2 - x is proven to exist >>3 - Therefore, God is proven to exist. >> >> The above, circular argument doesn't prove that >>God exists, but merely redefines God as something that >>already exists. > > >>[Kam] >> If you were about to prove the existence of God, you >>would *not* begin by explaining what God is, but by >>calling upon our already available accounts of God, and >>observing that such a thing exists. You've always put the >>cart before the horse on this one, although you've never >>admitted it. > > > [Ham] > Kam.... I've already DONE THAT and published it in > the peer reviewed academic literature. But THAT involves > 16 pages of print: > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html > which nobody including YOU has time to read... so THIS > EXERCISE is a synopsis of the RESULT based on that > EXISITNG AND PUBLISHED rigorous scientific proof. > And, BTW, that is eaxctly what the proof consists of... > a demonstration that "X phenomena" which is proven to > exist.... completely and overwhemingly explains in complete > detail... everything that has ever been reported about the > phenomena of God, including the entire Bible. Kam: You've posted that link before, and it still doesn't rectify your cart/horse problem. It leaves the discussion open as to whether or not God *really is* brain growth deficit. Of course, many people don't believe that He is. *Instead*, they believe that God created brains, and that brain growth deficit itself is a part of His divine plan. Orthodoxy directly contradicts your "explanation" of God - the one you created for no purpose but to serve your theory.
From: Tim on 24 Mar 2005 10:16 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:MB_%d.1250$z.1093(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in > message news:ER8%d.981$Vi3.793(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... Why is your helmet all beat up? http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/dcp00105.JPG You fall off your bike and hit your head allot don't you George? Did you know that crash helmets are intended to be replaced after a single serious impact. They are, after one use, like your SPOG - they are of no use. Another thing George: see that big book that appears next to your right ear? You should buy one and learn how to use it.
From: Don H on 24 Mar 2005 13:32
Thanks for answers, even when only quoting Chapter and Verse from the Scriptures. Consider - [Hammond] "Yawn... the God of that species will disappear. Remember, the God of a man is a full grown man, the god of a horse is a full grown horse, the God of a Frog is a full grown frog. Therefore if frogs disappear, the God of a Frog disappears too, but not the God of the Giraffe's." Questions: (1) Does this mean polytheism? (2) Or is it merely the same "God" manifesting Himself in various species? (3) Even if invisible, intangible, and totally undetectable by any scientific experiment? (4) When do we have a "full grown" anything? (5) And when and how would we recognise it if we encountered it? (6) If respective Gods disappear when species disappear that brings us back to the enduring deity of traditional religion, ie. the one who is there for all eternity and which supposedly explains the existence of you and me, and the universe? (7) This God is, presumably, detached from any specific species; what is his character?, and how do you prove his existence, i.e. independently of psychometric species-dependency? (8) If such detached God is not Human-related, then he/she/it could be a bug-eyed monster, with a sadistic sense of humour, living solo, or one of a clan of similar beasts? (9) Is the human brain a case of over-specialisation, an evolutionary defect, which will cause our imminent extinction? (10) If I say I've been on hotline-to-heaven and assert George H to be a false prophet, how can you prove me wrong - except by force of arms? PS: Is "Yawn", like "Amen", except at start, instead of at end, of Sermon? ================================ "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:nYl0e.3151$S46.342(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Don H" <donlhumphries(a)bigpond.com> wrote in > message news:_Of0e.9185$C7.2490(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > > [Hammond] > Thanks Don for posting some rational comment... I know it takes > much strength and bravery to do so when the kooks are screaming > "Barabbas, Barabbas..." at the top of their lungs........ (Etc) |