GOD, RELATIVITY & THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
in [Relativity]
|
From: George Hammond on 13 Nov 2009 17:43 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:54:21 +0000 (UTC), Bryce Utting <butting(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote: >George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> 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. > >oh, pish and tosh: heckling [HAMMOND] is on-topic anywhere. > > [Hammond] that's because heckling the author of the world's bona fide scientific proof of God, IS EXPECTED... after all the crucified the last guy.... it's part of our religion don't you know? > > >besides, heckling is the one true peer-review. if your theories can't >survive a little heckling, best look for new theories. >butting > > [Hammond] NO ONE, NO ONE, is man enough to support a scientific proof of God hjistory has already proven that. Hecklers are merely the exception that proves the rule! ======================================== 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 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 13 Nov 2009 18:05 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:59:26 +0000 (UTC), Bryce Utting <butting(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote: >George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: >> WRONG aggravated ignoramus. A person's SUBJECTIVE time >> is measured by his mental speed in bits per second (e.g. >> intelligence,or aka IQ). > >hah! MY brain contains tribits, so I'm 50% faster right out of the >gate. it also contains tribbles, so real soon now I'm gonna have lots >and lots of tribbits, pulling ahead of you exponentially, and you'll >all be overrun by my braininess. be afraid. > >butting > > [Hammond] There is a direct relation between mental speed in bits per second and intelligence. If you're a IQ is 100 then your mental speed is 16 bits per second. They discovered this 100 years ago when they invented the motion picture projector. They discovered that the minimum speed for average people was 16 frames per second. That corresponds to 16 bits per second since the mental decision that a picture has changed from the last one requires one bit of information. In fact the formula relating IQ to mental speed has been found experimentally to be: IQ = 5 (mental speed bits/sec) + 25 or reversing the equation we have: Mental speed in bits/sec = (IQ -25)/5 This can actually be measured using a variable speed movie projector with a knob on it, the subject cranks up the speed by turning the knob and when the pictures start to move they read off the frame rate and calculators his IQ from the above formula. Your IQ is a measure of the "speed" of your internal biological brain clock. That is called SUBJECTIVE time, as opposed to OBJECTIVE time which is measured by the clock on the wall And is therefore the same for everybody. ======================================== 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 =======================================
From: Bill Marcum on 13 Nov 2009 17:48 ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] On 2009-11-06, George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net> wrote: > Copyright 2009 George Hammond M.S. Physics > > WASHINGTON D.C. > I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt > on my right. It was 3 am in a honky tonk section of Laural > Maryland a block from where George Wallace was shot. The > three punks in the car started blowing their horn. I knew > it was run or pull the K-Bar over my visor and probably kill > one of them in a fight. I jambed it into reverse flooring > the accelerator and spinning the steering wheel. The car > spun into a 180 facing the wrong way on a divided highway. I > gunned it into the oncoming traffic. The three punks in the > sedan followed suit and came after me! That was the day I > discovered the world's first scientific proof of God. ....And I was so pleased to be informed of this that I ran twenty red lights in His honor. Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord. (Thank you, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards)
From: haiku jones on 13 Nov 2009 18:24 On Nov 13, 3:43 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:54:21 +0000 (UTC), Bryce Utting > > > > <butt...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote: > >George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> 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. > > >oh, pish and tosh: heckling [HAMMOND] is on-topic anywhere. > > [Hammond] > that's because heckling the author of the world's bona fide > scientific proof of God, IS EXPECTED... after all the > crucified the last guy.... it's part of our religion don't > you know? > > >besides, heckling is the one true peer-review. if your theories can't > >survive a little heckling, best look for new theories. > >butting > > [Hammond] > NO ONE, NO ONE, is man enough to support a scientific proof > of God hjistory has already proven that. Hecklers are > merely the exception that proves the rule! Um...you are aware, are you not, that the (now slightly archaic) meaning of the verb "proves" in that saying is not "demonstrates the truth of", but is actually quite the opposite? Haiku Jones > ======================================== > GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > Primary sitehttp://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 > =======================================
From: Doctroid on 13 Nov 2009 21:52
In article <jsnrf5p0c0l4pg4c26o3j8bi08uql73763(a)4ax.com>, George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: > CURRICULUM VITAE > > GEORGE HAMMOND > > B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute > Worcester MA, USA Dear God, have I missed this fact all these years or did I just succeed in suppressing it? Funny how in my 4 years in the WPI Physics Dept. I never saw any plaques saying "George Hammond Slept Here". Hey, was Heller there then? Hilsinger? Or that bald guy, whatshisname... > 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. and who is presently Distinguished > Professor of Physics at TAMU Excellent. So you were a physicist 41 years ago. Even without a PhD, you can still be a physicist, you know. So how come you're not a physicist any more, George? I mean... > Peer reviewed publications: > > Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in > New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 > Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published > paper is posted at: > http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/cart.html See, this isn't a physics journal. > Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God > Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic > Press) > Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at: > http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html And this isn't either. Here's a bit of advice: If you're trying to establish your credentials as a physicist, admitting you've published only two peer reviewed papers in the 45 years since your Bachelor's is actually counterproductive. And when they're in a psychology publication and Noetic Journal, even worse. My suggestion is to bury that information, not trumpet it, and use a little misdirection to try to get people to think you're another Newton, who didn't publish much either. Of course Newton was something of an egomaniacal whacko who believed in pseudoscience (alchemy) and ended up running the Royal Mint, not exactly a choice physics position, so that approach has its pitfalls too -- God forbid anyone should ever start thinking of you as an egomaniacal whacko pseudoscientist who can't get a real physics job, George! But anyway, Newton had calculus, universal gravitation, celestial mechanics, optics, and fluid dynamics, among other advances, to his credit. He may not have had physics jobs all his life, but he certainly was doing physics. What have you been doing? Physics-wise, I mean, and leaving aside the God business which, as you may be aware, has taken the world somewhat less by storm than, say, calculus did. I mean, you say you're a physicist, but where's the physics? -- Sig available on request. - Doctroid |