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: George Hammond on 24 Mar 2005 18:54 "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:i4w0e.15001$C47.14883(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > AntiSPOG: > http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm > http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm > http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm > http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm > http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm > > From AntiSPOG: > "In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180 > claims [Hammond] NOTE: "shornak" in the above URL's is an unemployed German truck driver from Danzig who never attended college and can't even read physics. ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ==================================== Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent) Send a blank email to COSAchurch(a)hotmail.com and your email address will be added to the COSA discussion list (free, no obligation) ==================================== and please ask your news service to add: alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated ===================================
From: Guy Svenhardt on 24 Mar 2005 19:27 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:%kI0e.7872$S46.1892(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:4tu0e.14990$C47.108(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:Yts0e.7089$S46.5522(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > "Brandon Loudermilk" <toe11(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in > > > message news:rOr0e.51612$c72.37089(a)bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > > > > > Guy, you have offered considerable insight into the various > > > > falsifications/psychotic "thinking" paraded in "Hammond's" "Spog". > > > > > > [Hammond] > > >.... since Pergamon Press does not > > > publish psychobabble. > > > > The only thing that you've ever proven in your miserable excuse for a > > life is that Pergamon Press will publish complete trash. > > > > 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 > > > > [Hammond] > NOTE: "shornak" in the above URLs is an unemployed > German truck driver from Danzig who never attended > college and can't even read physics. You can't counter the obvious truths of what he says so you dismiss him instead. How typically stupid of you. You can't shoot the messenger no matter how badly you want to. 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... " 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: Guy Svenhardt on 24 Mar 2005 19:44 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:UqI0e.7876$S46.3955(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > message news:i4w0e.15001$C47.14883(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > 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] > NOTE: "shornak" in the above URL's is an unemployed > German truck driver from Danzig who never attended college > and can't even read physics. > You can't counter the obvious truths of what he says so you dismiss him instead. How typically stupid of you. You can't shoot the messenger no matter how badly you want to. 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... " 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: George Hammond on 24 Mar 2005 22:04 "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:PNF0e.15157$C47.4295(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou(a)spro.net> wrote in message > news:ck3641dgmu97j3jnkcedtr370c4iahbqo0(a)4ax.com... > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:11:56 GMT, "Guy Svenhardt" > > <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >From AntiSPOG: ( http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm ) > > >"Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. > It > > >lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. > > > > Also from AntiSPOG: > > > > "His detailed speculations about this assignment can be found here. Be > > aware that the page has an awfully small font, making it almost > > unreadable!" [Hammond] Schornak is an uneducated German truck driver from Danzig who never attended college and can't even read physics. On the other hand.... his expenditure of so much energy certainlyu shows he takes the discovery of a scientific proof of God SERIOUSLY.... which is more than you halfwits are able to do. and don't think the public doesn't realize it. ==================================== 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 ===================================
From: George Hammond on 24 Mar 2005 22:25
"Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MVI0e.15214$C47.7842(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > > [Hammond] > > > >.... since Pergamon Press does not > > > > publish psychobabble. > > > > > > The only thing that you've ever proven in your miserable excuse for > a > > > life is that Pergamon Press will publish complete trash. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > NOTE: "shornak" in the above URLs is an unemployed > > German truck driver from Danzig who never attended > > college and can't even read physics. ==================================== 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 =================================== |