GOD, RELATIVITY & THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
in [Relativity]
|
From: Madge on 12 Nov 2009 11:33 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:32:50 -0000, <SNIP HECKLER> <..@..com> wrote: > Message-ID: <81inf5tf64oe1cpue318m82v0d64agis6c(a)4ax.com> Oh please don't make me come over there and teach/smack you. Earlier message header From: "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.jewish,alt.religion.kibology,alt.atheism Subject: Re: GOD, RELATIVITY & THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:49:39 -0000 Message-ID: <0e1nf5p7ghqrmoc5585s95dul9ltl190fu(a)4ax.com> ^^^^^^^^ -- http://www.madge.tk Madges Links http://twitter.com/MadgeTwits Yes IKNOW.
From: Bob Casanova on 12 Nov 2009 14:46 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:43:02 -0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net>: >On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:35:01 -0700, Bob Casanova ><nospam(a)buzz.off> wrote: > > >> >>Sorry, but this... >> >>"First, since gravity is real, God is real. Secondly, >>tradition tells us that God is "supernatural" and we find >>that Relativity explains the supernatural aspect of God. >>Relativity is the only physical phenomena which causes a >>'supernatural' effect on reality; reality being space and >>time itself." >> >>...contains *at least* 3 significant errors. >> >>First, the existence of gravity implies nothing about the >>existence of God. Gravity is a function of the curvature of >>space-time. >[Hammond] > Okay try and pay attention: > >Gravity is a curvature of OBJECTIVE space time. Correct. >God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE space time . This is meaningless handwaving, of exactly as much value as "The snark is a boojum", and exactly as testable by science. >Definition: > >OBJECTIVE space time is measured relative to the clock on >the wall and a ruler. > >SUBJECTIVE space time is what any given individual actually >sees. > >Clearly objective space time is universal for all people. >And just as clearly subjective space time is different for >every individual. For instance a five-year-old kid sees a >larger and faster world than eight point-year-old adult. So >that is an example of how SUBJECTIVE SPACE TIME varies from >person to person. This is a matter of psychology, and has zero to do with physics. >So your first objection is immediately thrown out of court. So your handwaving is rejected. >>Second, tradition is not evidence for anything (in a >>scientific sense); evidence must be visible to all and not >>rely on any particular system of belief (other than the >>belief that reality is observable) to be considered >>scientific. >[Hammond] >your second objection is rule of court as follows. We >assume the entire history of religion to be an >"unsubstantiated claim". And then we discover an actual >proven scientific phenomenon which turns out to predict that >precise claim in every exact detail! That is what is known >as a scientific proof of God. There is no such phenomenon, since all religions are mutually contradictory and all religious writings are allegory and metaphor, not science texts. >So your second objection has been tossed out of court. So your second "explanation" is rejected as more unsubstantiated handwaving. >>Third, the supernatural is *by definition* outside the >>purview of science, which addresses only observable >>reality. Relativity is about observable reality; >>supernatural entities are not. >>Your beliefs don't constrain reality, nor do they constitute >>evidence. >> >> >[Hammond] > Wrong again Toynbee. Science claims that so-called >supernatural phenomena are simply phenomena for which the >scientific explanation HAS NOT YET been discovered. Nope. Science categorically rejects evaluation of "supernatural" phenomena, since none has been shown to exist outside the minds of proponents. Physical phenomena can be evaluated, but until they are observable *by a disinterested observer* science will not and cannot address them. > So >therefore I am simply pointing out that the previously >called "supernatural" phenomena of God actually has been >found to have a PROVEN experimentally measured and >theoretically known, scientific explanation. Your "proof" doesn't seem to exist except in your mind, and no amount of handwaving can change that. You have demonstrated nothing but an ability to conjecture and define an unobserved phenomenon, then "prove" its existence by first assuming it exists; IOW by assuming the consequent, or, if you prefer, by circular logic. >So your third objection has now been rudely ejected from the >courtroom. So your third "explanation" is summarily rejected for faulty logic and poor science. > But don't go away mad, Never fear; errors in the conception of what "science" actually means isn't something which generates anger in the observer. > although your commentary is based >on elementary misconception of the theory, You have no theory, which in science is an explanation of at least one, and usually several, tested and unrefuted hypotheses. You have a conjecture which you're unable to support with evidence; IOW, you have a personal belief. Sorry 'bout that. > I am more than >impressed by your professional and polite demeanor which >indicates a significant ability, awareness, and above all >else serious motivation. >======================================== >GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > Primary site >http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond > Mirror site > http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto > http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 >======================================= -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
From: George Hammond on 12 Nov 2009 15:46 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:30:21 -0000, Madge <deletethisbit.itsreallyhere(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:41:56 -0000, M Otis Beard <atomdebris(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >> On Nov 11, 10:30�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.net> wrote: >>> >>> � �Wake up dimwit, I'm not incompetent, the establishment is. >> >> >> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA >I wonder if he means legally competent. I think you missed out the BWA at >the start of that heckle. > [Hammond] Don't invite hecklers. I'm not here to carry on off-topic discussion.
From: George Hammond on 12 Nov 2009 15:53 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:36:24 -0000, Madge <deletethisbit.itsreallyhere(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >George, that's just a kneejerk reply. Put some spunk into it? Not for >fnarring by UKain readers > > [Hammond] Look Madge, 90% of USENET is populated with criminal hecklers. By posting off-topic which includes everything you've posted to this discussion, you're just contributing to the problem.
From: Madge on 12 Nov 2009 16:51
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:53:52 -0000, George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:36:24 -0000, Madge > <deletethisbit.itsreallyhere(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> George, that's just a kneejerk reply. Put some spunk into it? Not for >> fnarring by UKain readers >> >> > [Hammond] > Look Madge, 90% of USENET is populated with criminal > hecklers. By posting off-topic which includes everything > you've posted to this discussion, you're just contributing > to the problem. Criminal? Ay! Then I'm the man for the job. http://home.btconnect.com/kibo/madgeatwork.jpg -- http://www.madge.tk Madges Links http://twitter.com/MadgeTwits Yes IKNOW. |