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: jillarontown on 27 Mar 2005 17:12 Most posts are not addressing the idea that some people see more clearly a phenomenon than others. If we put aside Mr Hammond's conclusions and isolate the secular trend deficit premise we can examine it in the current practice of professional baseball. It will give us a real space/time environment for discussing the visual tracking of an object in which the ability to perform the correct reaction is vital to one's career. 1] It is widely acknowledged by most ballplayers in the sport of American baseball that there have been those hitters that can 'see' the spin on a fast ball traveling +90/mph over 60'6" as if it were in slow motion. Seeing the threads, or the rotation of spin on the baseball is how some hitters have phrased it. Those that have made the claim have statistics to support their explanation of how they 'saw' a baseball travel in those space/time environments. Contrary, when hitters slumped they have said they are not seeing the spin or threads of the ball. Any fan of baseball can name those players for you. I will not. 2] The use of STEROIDS, which are human growth hormones [HGH], have been used by recent ball players to overcome a growth/healing DEFICIT and enhance performance. The performance enhancement is correlated to having the confidence to play better, and better 'contact' the ball to the swing of the bat. And this is done in the face of modern pitchers throwing faster traveling pitches compared to decades ago. The latest congressional hearings on steroid use in professional baseball had one player, who admitted to using steroids, state on record this correlation and why players will continue to take HGH to enhance performance to overcome their deficit. It is arguable that HGH can enhance the ability of brain/visual to body/baseball location, anticipation, and placement in the space/time environment. However, the MLB home run record, which lasted for decades, was surpassed by 3 players in less than one decade. HGH is the suspected cause of this trend in American baseball. Keep this in mind when trying to refute the premise of the secular trend deficit and the modern 'practice' of overcoming physical deficit perceptions of reality in terms of space/time and sports performance. In the interest of a rational discussion, please put Mr Hammond's theistic conclusions aside for a moment and address the premise of the secular trend deficit while reflecting on the problem of HGH in American baseball. I find it something interesting to consider and fitting into the discussion of the secular trend. Mr Hammond. I hope your SPOG discussions on the internet is not a future sales pitch to sell HGH to overcome growth deficit to the unsuspecting? [This is intended as a statement of light humor on my part, but perhaps a disclosure is in need since some will take it seriously.] jillaront
From: George Hammond on 27 Mar 2005 20:53 "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1111913304.701852.267050(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > Stew Dean [Hammond] "We" don't think so. You've had your chance at world fame" Stew... and have proved yourself to be a gutless wonder and a breezy smug, dimwitted, pedantic hypocrit... as Donald Trump put it...."you're fired". ==================================== 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 27 Mar 2005 20:57 "David Iain Greig" <greig(a)ediacara.org> wrote in message news:slrnd4dc85.34t.greig(a)darwin.ediacara.org... > 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. > [Hammond] You're a psychotic halfwit who isn't fit to be a moderator. ==================================== 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 23:57 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:ayk1e.5732$z.282(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote in > message news:rWh1e.1424$vd.481(a)tornado.tampabay.rr.com... > > > > > > > > But here's the question: If brain growth deficit is indicated by human > > growth deficit, and Jesus was fully grown, does that mean he was a > > giant? Help me out here, George. > > > > Gary Eickmeier > > [Hammond] > Glad to see you are still capable of original thought. > You are correct that: > > "the brain growth deficit is indicated > by the human growth deficit" > > I congratulate you on that monumental piece of > scientific learning. > > First... a "fully grown man" would only be 5 or 6 > inches taller than we are, and only have an IQ of > say 15 or 20 points higher than ours. this man > would of course be "God in the flesh" as the > Bible puts it. > Supposedly, Jesus WAS "God in the flesh"... > but we know scientifically that is impossible > because of the Secular Trend... however there is > NO DOUBT that he was a far above average > physical specimen (probably looked like > Elvis Presley for instance).. this is evidenced > by the fact that he could stand and preach > a controversial doctrine to huge crowds without > getting stoned to death. and the fact that he > appeared before Kings, Chief priests, Roman > governors etc. > The POINT IS, that by public acclaim, he > was ELECTED to "play the role of God in > the flesh" (Son of God so called) and he > certainly played the role admirably and > threfore passed into history as the world's > most famous person... and remains so to this > day. > Yawn.... 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." 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 28 Mar 2005 02:43
George Hammond wrote: > "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1111913304.701852.267050(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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. > > > > Stew Dean > > [Hammond] > "We" don't think so. Let me repeat... 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 your scientific knowledge is anyway credible now for many reasons - the main one being your lack of demonstration of understanding. Currently I'm very suspect you even took a degree based upon your avoidance of a chance to totally demolish me. If you had a good knowledge of physics you could easily ask me questions I couldnt answer and I'd hold my hand up. Now I am not a physicist or a scientist and despite some qualifications in science nothing at degree level. The issue is I don't think that you are more able to do science than myself. Prove me wrong. Stew Dean |