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: Gary Eickmeier on 22 Mar 2005 23:30 George Hammond wrote: > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in > message news:ER8%d.981$Vi3.793(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > [Hammond] > Dear Philosophy newsgroup readers..... can't I get some kind of > an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS comment from someone..... the nerds > on the physics newsgroups are driving me crazy with nonsense about this. > George Hammond, physicist Sorry, George, but whenever someone tries to reason with you about this nonsense, you either don't answer or you tell him he is beneath you. You are not taking input. Gary Eickmeier
From: Rob Duncan on 22 Mar 2005 23:42 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:fmZ%d.1836$S46.294(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... >> Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. > > [Hammond] > No the don't kook... you don't know what "G_uv" is, so how > could you POSSIBLY understand the proof that GOD=G_uv. > Neither do any of the others have any education in relativity, kook. The entire world, except for you, are kooks? Please understand, theres not a single person on earth who agrees with what youre saying. They understand it, they simply disagree. Youre wrong. Thats all there is to it. If you cant find a single person on a planet of billions, to agree with your great discovery, that should be a sign somethings wrong with your thinking process. >> Its that >> they feel you are wrong. How can the difference between what is >> (reality) >> and what isnt (full potential) be considered a god? > > [Hammond] > Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and > my explanatory website? > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html > I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie > kook like you who walks down the pike! To be fair to you I read your site long ago. Ive looked at what youve written several times in fact. I enjoy reading such things. Its what I like. The reality is there is no "one" way to describe reality, as nobody has a complete picture of it. Your problems are attributable to thinking something that doesnt exist in the physical or spititual world can affect or influence things. A "difference" is a construct of the mind. Not an actual "thing." It is a word, descriptive of two different states. Not an actual thing. Its nothing, other than a concept. You think a concept magically turns into something real, and then has powers to affect the entire universe. Delusional. Psychotic. Maniacal. Thats why nobody whos read your stuff agrees with you. Not because the entire earth is to stupid or stubborn to understand. > >> How does this >> difference (your god) have powers? > > [Hammond] > Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and > my explanatory website? > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html > I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie > kook like you who walks down the pike! > >> From where did it aquire powers? > > [Hammond] > Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and > my explanatory website? > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html > I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie > kook like you who walks down the pike! As I mentioned, I have. Youve made no attempt to describe where this physically non-existent difference, aquired its powers. How can something existing only in the mind, exist in a way that has powers? >> And besides, youre wrong, millions of people grow into their full > potential >> every year. > > [Hammond] > No they don't kook. The SECULAR TREND PROVES they > don't: > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif You cant use your own theories to dispute the fact that most all normal healthy people who are fed well and well educated reach their full potential, physically, intelectually, and emotionally. Just because you "want" something to be so, doesnt make it so. Millions upon millions grow into complete and full versions of what their genetics demand, every, single, year. Its undisputable. Find someone, anyone, besides yourself, who disputes millions of people dont grow into their full and complete potential every year. You cant. Not one. Theyde be an idiot. Now, admitadly, many, if not most, dont, for one reason or another, but millions do, and thats indisputable. Prior to my Hydro and MS theres no question I was at my full potential. None. > snip.... lazy uninformed kookery by the poster Ironic you are the one calling me that. Rob
From: George Hammond on 23 Mar 2005 00:46 "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:nh60e.190313$pc5.68384(a)tornado.tampabay.rr.com... > > > George Hammond wrote: > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in > > message news:ER8%d.981$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 > > Sorry, George, but whenever someone tries to reason with you about this > nonsense, you either don't answer or you tell him he is beneath you. You > are not taking input. > > Gary Eickmeier [Hammond] CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD! ========Hammond's CV============== B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USA (Deans List) M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USA Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ. Boston MA Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU Peer reviewed publications: Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press. Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press) ==================================== 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 23 Mar 2005 00:46 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:Nm70e.2226$S46.87(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:y%50e.543$zl.9(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:CP50e.1606$z.617(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:6o50e.531$zl.371(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > > news:I_40e.1552$z.91(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "Tim" <qwery(a)qwerty.com> wrote in > > > > > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpXWC93fRVn-qw(a)aci.on.ca... > > > > > > > > > > get off this thread > > > > > 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: George Hammond on 23 Mar 2005 00:55
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan(a)gbronline.com> wrote in message news:bLOdnfYdeKM9ct3fRVn-qw(a)gbronline.com... > > "Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou(a)spro.net> wrote in message > news:haj041taegcht6aecbali4mjochfce2ikq(a)4ax.com... > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:04:53 -0800, "Rob Duncan" > > <robduncan(a)gbronline.com> wrote: > > > >> > >>Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. Its that > >>they feel you are wrong. [Hammond] How can someone with no degrees in science or physics understand a physics theory.... don't be stupid. [Hammond] CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD! ========Hammond's CV============== B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USA (Deans List) M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USA Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ. Boston MA Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU Peer reviewed publications: Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press. Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press) ==================================== 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 =================================== |