GOD, RELATIVITY & THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
in [Relativity]
|
From: George Hammond on 10 Nov 2009 17:35 On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:31:02 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 1:15�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: >> In article <g7hjf511pcgo1oqp9j5jiir2vi1j0jc...(a)4ax.com>, >> �George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.net> wrote: >> >> > � �Dragon-10 is a 2-GIG program! �That's almost the size of >> > Windows for chrissakes! >> >> OMG! You can't count, either! >> WindoZe is over 14 'GIG' ! > >Relaivity is the theory of the appearance of things moving around you. > >Mitch Raemsch > > [Hammond] WRONG. General Relativity includes the theory of gravitational fields causing time dilations and space contractions WITHOUT ANYTHING MOVING AT ALL! In fact, it is the theory of General Relativity that is the cause of God.... NOT the theory of Special Relativity which is the theory of relativistic MOTION. ======================================== 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: John Stafford on 10 Nov 2009 17:50 In article <mvpjf5dkae1ik964k9kuv9npke59mrq2tc(a)4ax.com>, George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:03 -0600, John Stafford > <nhoj(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > >In article <g7hjf511pcgo1oqp9j5jiir2vi1j0jcvcg(a)4ax.com>, > > George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net> wrote: > > > >> Dragon-10 is a 2-GIG program! That's almost the size of > >> Windows for chrissakes! > > > >OMG! You can't count, either! > >WindoZe is over 14 'GIG' ! > > > [Hammond] > Thanks for the information gopher. I had no idea what > the size of Windows is, so to find out all I do is take a > guess and some mindless pedantic drone like you will > immediately give us the right answer. Its easier than > Google, schmuck. Yup, and guessing and presuming is your version of the scientific method.
From: Bob Casanova on 11 Nov 2009 01:14 On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:54:39 -0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net>: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:57:53 -0700, Bob Casanova ><nospam(a)buzz.off> wrote: > >>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared in >>sci.skeptic, posted by "Otto Bahn" <ei(a)eio.com>: >> >>>"Nicko" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>>> WASHINGTON D.C. >>>> I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt >>>> on my right. >> >>><You never told us that you had telekinetic powers. That is just, >>><like, sooo cool! >> >>I think he's going for a Bulwer-Lytton award: >> >>http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/ >> >>It would have been easier if he'd managed to combine his >>screed into one sentence, like this one: >> >>"It came to him in a cocaine rush as he took the Langley >>exit that if Aldrich had told Filipov about Hancock only >>Tulfengian could have known that the photograph which Wagner >>had shown to Maximov on the jolting S-bahn was not the >>photograph of Kessler that Bradford had found at the dark, >>sinister house in the Schillerstrasse the day that Straub >>told Percival that the man on the bridge had not been >>Aksakov but Paustovsky, which meant that is was not Kleist >>but Kruger that Cherensky had met in the bleak, wintry >>Grunewald and that, therefore, only Frau Epp could have >>known that Muller had followed Droysen to the steamy, >>aromatic cafe in the Beethovenstrasse where he told Buerger >>that Todorov had known since the Liebermann affair that >>McIntyre had not met Stoltz at the Goerlitzer Bahnhof but >>instead had met Sommer at the cavernous Anhalter Bahnhof." >>(Winner, Spy Fiction category, 1984) >> >> >> >[Hammond] >There are more interesting answer-bot programs littering the >Internet. That one apparently uses a German dictionary. What a shame, then, that it wasn't the product of a 'bot at all, but exactly what it claimed to be. Perhaps you're in transference mode...? > Simple minded dimwit! Yes, you are. Which is what I believe I showed. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
From: George Hammond on 11 Nov 2009 14:43 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:00:27 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbigtoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > �It's a common fallacy to >> >assume your conclusion, then try to prop it up. >> >> [Hammond] >> Never did that. �I derived a proven result. > >Yes, you most certainly did. > [Hammond] Your apology is magnanimously accepted. >> >> >Primitive man >> >couldn't explain why water would periodically fall from the sky, so >> >lacking an answer they attributed it to proof of the existence of a >> >Rain God >> >> [Hammond] >> � �Who told you that, your grandmother? > >Ph.D. in History, and plain old common sense. > > [Hammond] PhD in history? Tell me something doc, do you think Arthur Koestler is correct that the entire Khazar empire in 740 A.D. and 5 million strong without a drop of Semitic blood flowing in their veins, converted overnight en masse from primitive atheism to Judaism, as he claims in his celebrated book _The 13th Tribe_? Is that a historical fact? If that is true, doesn't that mean that the "Jews" are actually a religion and not a race, same as "Christians" are a religion and not a race? ======================================== 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: Otto Bahn on 11 Nov 2009 14:44
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.net> wrote >>> >And through all of that, it still boils down to bullshit. >>> >>> [Hammond] >>> You wish. >> >> >>Sorry, but it's simply bullshit. >> >> > [Hammond] > You wish. Why would he wish for bullshit? Even if doesn't believe in SPOG, you'd still think he'd *want* it to be true. --oTTo-- |