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 26 Mar 2005 16:49 <apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111828947.150138.63920(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > [String] > Seriously though. One person may percieve 12 frames > per second.... another may percieve 30... but by all > accounts reality actually progresses at millions of > frames per second -- if it's discreet at all, which is an > open question. So by that logic, reality isn't 15% invisible, > it's 99.9% invisible! [Hammond] Wrong logic. It's like having a lo-pass filter over your entire sensory system. You can't notice that small twich, that small glint in the eye before the gunslinger slaps leather... and you wind up in boot hill with a lot of other suckers who thought they were "fast". > [String] > So where is God in that analogy? Is he the gunsmith? Boot hill? > The small twitch? [Hammond] God is higher speed. > [String] > That seems like a very abstract way to define God. > What is divine about higher speed? > Why not just say "higher speed is faster"? [Hammond] You got a lot to learn dude. Religion says there exists an "invisible world".. they are correct... and science has now explained what it is and why it is invisible. > [String] > I don't get it. > > Say I watch a ball roll downhill at 10 frames per second... and my > friend watches it at 20 frames per second. If there was an "invisible > world" for me, it doesn't seem like a very exciting invisible world; in > the in-between times, the ball was just at in-between places -- as my > friend can verify. I can even predict the position accurately with some > simple math. What's special about the invisible part? [Hammond] Hey.... you're TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!! 1. Suppose you were ONLY PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of SEEING 10 indiviual frames per second as "individual pictures"... but your friend was PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of seeing 20 frames a second as "individual pictures". 2. Then OBVIOUSLY his mind is 2 TIMES FASTER than yours when it comes to "seeing visual reality"..... TWICE as fast as yours! 3. THEREFORE: He is capable of seeing "twice as much of reality as you are". If you can't understand that... I suggest you go back and try to get your GED. <snip rest.... you really can't expect me to answer 150 lines of amateur confusion when you don't even understand what is being talked about!> ==================================== 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 26 Mar 2005 16:55 "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:_ha1e.15644$C47.4338(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > 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 > [Hammond] "professional scientists"... who are you kiddin.... "Schornak" in the above URL is an unemployed German truck driver and part time Rock musician from Danzig who never attended college and can't even read physics. ROFL!! ==================================== 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 26 Mar 2005 17:12 "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1111828078.071435.236100(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > George Hammond wrote: > > "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in > > message news:1111738287.929683.10190(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > George Hammond wrote: > > > <apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1111726276.980668.315310(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > [apieceofstring] > > > > Seriously though. > > > > One person may percieve 12 frames per second.... another > > > > may percieve 30... but by all accounts reality actually > progresses > > > > at millions of frames per second -- if it's discreet at all, > which is > > > > an open question. So by that logic, reality isn't 15% invisible, > > > > it's 99.9% invisible! > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > Wrong logic. It's like having a lo-pass filter > > > > > over your entire sensory system. You can't notice > > > > > that small twich, that small glint in the eye before > > > > > the gunslinger slaps leather... and you wind up in > > > > > boot hill with a lot of other suckers who thought > > > > > they were "fast". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > </snip> > > > > > > > > > > > So where is God in that analogy? Is he the gunsmith? Boot hill? > > > > The small twitch? > > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > God is higher speed. > > > > > > > > > That seems like a very abstract way to define God. > > > > What is divine about higher speed? > > > > Why not just say "higher speed is faster"? > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > You got a lot to learn dude. > > > > Religion says there exists an "invisible world".. > > > > they are correct... and science has now explained > > > > what it is and why it is invisible. People who are more > > > > fully grown can of course see more of it (see more > > > > of reality) while as much as 10 to 20% of reality is > > > > actually INVISIBLE to you and the average man. > > > > > > > > [Stew Dean] > > > I think the reason you get some much greif from people is you don't > > > define the phrases you use. Vauge concept builds upon vauge concept > and > > > we end up with a kind of mush. You probably think it's pedentic, > well > > > being pedantic is part of science. > > > > [Hammond] > > It's only "vague" to people who have no scientific degrees > > and are not qualified to read a physics paper. I'm sure > > Einstein's theory looks "very vague" to them.. and you too! > > Then you should be able to answer this - what is meant by the curvature > of space. How can something follow the shortest possible path between > two points yet appear to move in a curve? [Hammond] 1. I won't change the subject of this thread to an off topic discussion just because you wish to. 2. I have a master's degree in Physics which is LEGAL PROOF that I can answer the question. That will have to suffice for you, since it suffices for the rest of academia. 3. I'm not here to give you free tutorials in Physics. <snip rest of ad hominem amateur tripe> > > Stew Dean > ==================================== 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 26 Mar 2005 17:39 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:yTk1e.5893$z.4001(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > message news:_ha1e.15644$C47.4338(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > 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 > > > > [Hammond] > "professional scientists"... who are you kiddin.... "Schornak" > in the above URL is an unemployed German truck driver and > part time Rock musician from Danzig who never attended > college and can't even read physics. ROFL!! > How typically stupid of you. Since you can't find fault with anything that he says, you rant and rave true to your psychotic form. You can't shoot the messenger no matter how badly you want to. Of course it would be futile to point out to an idiot such as yourself that he claims to be an "autodidactic amateur". If you were capable of actually reading and comprehending what he said you might not misrepresent his accurate analysis of your inane spew. But since you are wholly incapable of intelligent discourse, no one expects anything different from you. Here's what he concludes (yet again): "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" The whole summary: "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... " See 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: stew dean on 26 Mar 2005 17:49
George Hammond wrote: > "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1111828078.071435.236100(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > George Hammond wrote: > > > [Hammond] > > > It's only "vague" to people who have no scientific degrees > > > and are not qualified to read a physics paper. I'm sure > > > Einstein's theory looks "very vague" to them.. and you too! > > > > Then you should be able to answer this - what is meant by the curvature > > of space. How can something follow the shortest possible path between > > two points yet appear to move in a curve? > > [Hammond] > > 1. I won't change the subject of this thread to an > off topic discussion just because you wish to. This whole discussion is off topic. Why stop now > > 2. I have a master's degree in Physics > which is LEGAL PROOF that I can answer the question. That could not be any more incorrect if you wanted it to be. A degree is an indication of what you should know - it's legal proof you had enough knowlege to pass a degree. Now you could not pass that degree. Your answers confirm this. > That will have to suffice for you, since it suffices for the > rest of academia. It doesnt. Once again you state something that everyone does that they don't. The paper gets you in the door - it doesnt do your work for you George. > 3. I'm not here to give you free tutorials in Physics. Good because that's not what I'm after. I'm after some kind of demonstration that you know the first thing about physics. Stating we don't know how gravity works some kind of indication, stating it is a weak force might have helped. If you want respect George it's easy, you just have to appear that you know what you're talking about. Instead you make up some bullshit about what a degree is, a degree you took before I was born. Most people forget most of the stuff they learnt on the course in five years - but with your history and the length of time - I doubt you remember much about it. That time frame also means things have moved on. So I ask you a question that you could use to vindicate yourself and put me in my place. Instead you once again mess it up. As I've said before, if you do know anything then your own works sabotage this each and everytime - it's almost like you want everyone to think you're wrong so you can be a martyr. Perhaps you could ask me a physics question - see if I really am an idiot - an please nothing you've made up. I'll either answer it or admit I don't know. Your shot. Stew Dean |