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 27 Mar 2005 03:08 "Brandon Loudermilk" <toe11(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:cxr1e.61406$6g7.51170(a)bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > news:FOk1e.5843$z.2270(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > <apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > > message news:1111828947.150138.63920(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > [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 > > So a blind guy's mind doesn't work at all since he/she cannot see? [Hammond, M.S. Physics] Get off this thread punk. ==================================== 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 27 Mar 2005 03:36 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:NMt1e.6500$z.3681(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Cwl1e.15808$C47.14947(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "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 > > > > > > > How terribly sad you are. What horrible circumstances could have produced such a worthless individual as you? If you don't get help soon then you will probably kill yourself like most untreated psychotics. If your abject stupidity is the result of long untreated syphilis then I suppose that it is much too late. The result of your untreated syphilis has caused what's left of your brain to resemble swiss cheese. That would actually explain your behavior quite well. You are completely insane, inane and inept. From AntiSPOG: "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." 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 27 Mar 2005 03:48 George Hammond wrote: > "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in > message news:1111877375.501550.283270(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > <snip> > <snip> > <snip> > <snip> > > > > > > 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. > > [Hammond] > Sure: State your CV in Physics... punk. > George - you've missed the point. a) That's not a question. b) Your degree idicates you knew enough about physics to pass a degree at the time you took your degree - that's it. Legaly it means the exact same - not that you now know anything. By all means check but you'll find I'm right again. c) I don't believe you scientific knowledge is anyway credible now for many reasons - the main one being your lack of demonstration of understanding. As you take offence as being asked physics questions I wanted to demonstrate I'm happy for you to do the same with me. Appears you don't want to ask me a question about physics but want to go back to your degree, that doesnt help you George, not now. Stew Dean
From: David Iain Greig on 27 Mar 2005 08:11 George Hammond <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote: > > "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in > message news:1111877375.501550.283270(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > ><snip> ><snip> ><snip> ><snip> > > > > >> 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. > > [Hammond] > Sure: State your CV in Physics... punk. I have a B.A.Sc. in Engineering Physics and an M.Sc. in Medical Biophysics where I did heteronuclear NMR studies. You're still an insane clown who's a failed scientist. --D.
From: Dubh Ghall on 27 Mar 2005 16:05
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:53:35 -0500, "Brandon Loudermilk" <toe11(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >Not all "Religion" is such. Do some searching first. No? How about an example of a major religion that is not inimical to science. BTW, when I say "religion", I do not mean "philosophy" |