| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
27 Jul 2005 04:04:25 AM |
| Object: |
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
[George E. Hammond]
This post concerns some preliminary thoughts on
the notion that human growth can be modelled
as a "conformal expansion" of spacetime.
"In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)
This historic passage is among one of the world's oldest recorded
reference to the existence of "2 realities" .... or what modern
Science would call, the "2 spacetimes of Relativity".
As you know, Relativity is the study of "spacetime".
In fact, as far as Science is concerned, spacetime IS reality,
i.e. :
spacetime = reality
However, modern research (Hammond 2003) has revealed that there
are actually TWO SPACETIMES relevant to what we call "reality".
These 2-spacetimes are commonly referred to as "objective reality"
and "subjective reality".
In fact, it turns out that:
1. SCIENCE is the study of objective reality.
2. RELIGION is the study of subjective reality.
In fact, the entire notion of "God" is due to the fact
that subjective reality has a different size and speed
than objective reality and the difference between the
two is commonly called "GOd".
This difference is caused by the incomplete growth of
the body, something known as the Secular Trend in human
growth.
-----------------
According to Hammond's discovery of the Scienctific Proof
of God (known as the S.P.O.G. for short):
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
Hammmond has discovered that what we call "subjective reality" is a
CURVED VERSION of "objective reality". This curvature is caused by
the Secular Trend in human growth which shows that no human being
is fully grown, and therefore no one's brain is fully grown
and this causes our subjective reality to be a curved version of
actual objective reality (true reality). The above published paper
explains all this, as well as the simple introductory pages of
my website, URL below.
At any rate, the question has arisen as to whether this "curved
version" of reality could be modelled as a "spacetime expansion"
of our subjective world relative to the objective world.
In this model we could consider childhood growth to be something
like a "Big Bang expansion", whereby the human body begins as a
single cell at conception, and during the first 18 years of life
"expands" to become 6' tall. Meanwhile, as is commonly known,
the objective world appears to become smaller and smaller, and
the speed of this world becomes slower and slower, due to our
increasing mental speed (a.k.a. intelligence).
It has been hypothesized that this could be modelled as a
"conformal expansion" where the well known conformal metric
would apply:
ds^2 = a(t)^2 [dR^2 - dt^2]
where:
a(t) = the cosmic expansion factor
t = the conformal time (t=a(t)t')
This "conformal metric" is well known to Relativity,
(see _Gravity_ Hartle 2003 Addison Wesley p382 eqn 18.45)
Now, the first thing to consider is this:
In the classic "slow speed, weakfield" model (i.e. the late stages
of the cosmic expansion), the Stress energy Tensor is taken to be:
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 | = T_uv = G_uv
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 rho |
where "rho" = the mass density of the Universe
while the corresponding tensor in Psychometric (subjective)
space is given by:
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 | = T_uv = G_uv
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 BGD |
where "BGD" = the childhood growth brain growth deficit.
As is well known, the cosmological model corresponding to the
first equation above is the "Big Bang" model where rho runs
from infinity to zero, corresponding to an expansion of
space (Hubble expansion) from 0 size to infinite size.
Now we immediately see a problem. While the BGD clearly goes to
zero in Psychometry space as one approaches full growth, the mass
density in cosmology only approaches zero for an infinite space,
a(t)=infinity.
But we know the human body does not become infinitely large.. in
fact it reaches a finite size and stops growing... while for rho=0
real space has expanded to an INFINITE size! How can we model
growth then as an expansion of space, since body siZe is finite
and space is infinite?
The answer to this dilemma, I believe, lies in the fact that we are
now dealing essentially with the COMPARISON of two different spaces.
We are comparing the size of subjective space to objective space.
In that case, only the relative "magnification" between the two has
any physical meaning... the actual dimensions of the spaces being
meaningless.
In other words, the
growth of the body (that is, the concommitent shrinking of the size
of the apparent world) is actually a "magnification", and not an
expansion, directly. In other words, it is the "apparent
magnification"
of the size of reality that is occuring as we grow.
Now, "magnification" is known to be the RATIO of two sizes. In this
case the RATIO of the size of the subjective world compared to the
objective world. In other words, it does not matter if real space is
considered to be "flat and infinite".
The only thing that matters is the "magnification ratio" between
objective and subjective space. Hence, when the BGD reaches zero,
the magnification=1; meaning that subjective space=objective space
when Man reaches full growth.
There is in other words, a "magnification factor" of subjective space
relative to objective space. This would be for instance the length
of an adults foot divided by the length of a childs foot... this is
the
same as the "apparent length" of a ruler as seen by and adult in ratio
to the "apparent length" of the same ruler seen by a child.
The metric of "subjective space" is then properly given by:
ds^2 = A(t)^2 [ dR^2 - dt^2}
where A(t) is the "expansion" of subjective reality".
Hence A(t) ranges from 0 to infinity as BGD goes from 1
to 0 (since rho = BGD/(1-BGD) see note 3 p 243, my paper
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
The "magnification" then is given by
a(t)
---- = M(t)
A(t)
Now a(t) is already equal to infinity for an infinite
flat real space. While A(t) ranges from 0 to infinity,
as the BGD ranges from 1 --> 0 (since rho = BGC/(1-BGD)
this means that the magnification, M(t)=a(t)/A(t) ranges from:
a(t)
--- ranges from (infty/0)=infty to (infty/infty)=1
A(t)
i.e. M(t) ranges from infinity-->1
===========================
SO THE CONCLUSION IS:
YES..... childhood growth CAN be modelled as a "Big Bang expansion"
of "subjective reality".
To be noted however, is that while we can model childhood growth
and it's explansion of subjective reality as a "relativistic
expansion of subjective space" governed by Einstein's field Equations
.... we must remember that the Big Bang so called is a THERMAL
EXPLOSION, while the growth of the brain is certainly not a
thermal explosion phenomenon. It is in fact a biological growth
mechanism; details unknown. So while the exact mechanism of
the expansion of subjective space is NOT known in detail, while
the expansion of real space is known in quite elaborate detail,
NONETHELESS, it has now been demonstrated that the growth of
subjective reality during childhood is CLEARLY a Relativistic
"expansion of space" that is in fact governed by Einstein's
theory.
This is simply more evidence that, "God is caused by gravity",
or God=G_uv.
PS... I must thank Dr. Stepehn Unwin PhD Gravity Physics,
and author of the clebrated new book, the Probability
of God, for first suggesting to me that childbirth might
be the result of a Big Bang.
===========================
========================================
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
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
===========================
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
27 Jul 2005 05:47:47 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:objee1plco9au9m4g4pc430bvmnv6q4j04@4ax.com...
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
[George E. Hammond]
This post concerns some preliminary thoughts on
the notion that human growth can be modelled
as a "conformal expansion" of spacetime.
"In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)
This historic passage is among one of the world's oldest recorded
reference to the existence of "2 realities" .... or what modern
Science would call, the "2 spacetimes of Relativity".
As you know, Relativity is the study of "spacetime".
In fact, as far as Science is concerned, spacetime IS reality,
i.e. :
spacetime = reality
However, modern research (Hammond 2003) has revealed that there
are actually TWO SPACETIMES relevant to what we call "reality".
These 2-spacetimes are commonly referred to as "objective reality"
and "subjective reality".
In fact, it turns out that:
1. SCIENCE is the study of objective reality.
2. RELIGION is the study of subjective reality.
In fact, the entire notion of "God" is due to the fact
that subjective reality has a different size and speed
than objective reality and the difference between the
two is commonly called "GOd".
This difference is caused by the incomplete growth of
the body, something known as the Secular Trend in human
growth.
-----------------
According to Hammond's discovery of the Scienctific Proof
of God (known as the S.P.O.G. for short):
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
Hammmond has discovered that what we call "subjective reality" is a
CURVED VERSION of "objective reality". This curvature is caused by
the Secular Trend in human growth which shows that no human being
is fully grown, and therefore no one's brain is fully grown
and this causes our subjective reality to be a curved version of
actual objective reality (true reality). The above published paper
explains all this, as well as the simple introductory pages of
my website, URL below.
At any rate, the question has arisen as to whether this "curved
version" of reality could be modelled as a "spacetime expansion"
of our subjective world relative to the objective world.
In this model we could consider childhood growth to be something
like a "Big Bang expansion", whereby the human body begins as a
single cell at conception, and during the first 18 years of life
"expands" to become 6' tall. Meanwhile, as is commonly known,
the objective world appears to become smaller and smaller, and
the speed of this world becomes slower and slower, due to our
increasing mental speed (a.k.a. intelligence).
It has been hypothesized that this could be modelled as a
"conformal expansion" where the well known conformal metric
would apply:
ds^2 = a(t)^2 [dR^2 - dt^2]
where:
a(t) = the cosmic expansion factor
t = the conformal time (t=a(t)t')
This "conformal metric" is well known to Relativity,
(see _Gravity_ Hartle 2003 Addison Wesley p382 eqn 18.45)
Now, the first thing to consider is this:
In the classic "slow speed, weakfield" model (i.e. the late stages
of the cosmic expansion), the Stress energy Tensor is taken to be:
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 | = T_uv = G_uv
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 rho |
where "rho" = the mass density of the Universe
while the corresponding tensor in Psychometric (subjective)
space is given by:
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 | = T_uv = G_uv
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 BGD |
where "BGD" = the childhood growth brain growth deficit.
As is well known, the cosmological model corresponding to the
first equation above is the "Big Bang" model where rho runs
from infinity to zero, corresponding to an expansion of
space (Hubble expansion) from 0 size to infinite size.
Now we immediately see a problem. While the BGD clearly goes to
zero in Psychometry space as one approaches full growth, the mass
density in cosmology only approaches zero for an infinite space,
a(t)=infinity.
But we know the human body does not become infinitely large.. in
fact it reaches a finite size and stops growing... while for rho=0
real space has expanded to an INFINITE size! How can we model
growth then as an expansion of space, since body siZe is finite
and space is infinite?
The answer to this dilemma, I believe, lies in the fact that we are
now dealing essentially with the COMPARISON of two different spaces.
We are comparing the size of subjective space to objective space.
In that case, only the relative "magnification" between the two has
any physical meaning... the actual dimensions of the spaces being
meaningless.
In other words, the
growth of the body (that is, the concommitent shrinking of the size
of the apparent world) is actually a "magnification", and not an
expansion, directly. In other words, it is the "apparent
magnification"
of the size of reality that is occuring as we grow.
Now, "magnification" is known to be the RATIO of two sizes. In this
case the RATIO of the size of the subjective world compared to the
objective world. In other words, it does not matter if real space is
considered to be "flat and infinite".
The only thing that matters is the "magnification ratio" between
objective and subjective space. Hence, when the BGD reaches zero,
the magnification=1; meaning that subjective space=objective space
when Man reaches full growth.
There is in other words, a "magnification factor" of subjective space
relative to objective space. This would be for instance the length
of an adults foot divided by the length of a childs foot... this is
the
same as the "apparent length" of a ruler as seen by and adult in ratio
to the "apparent length" of the same ruler seen by a child.
The metric of "subjective space" is then properly given by:
ds^2 = A(t)^2 [ dR^2 - dt^2}
where A(t) is the "expansion" of subjective reality".
Hence A(t) ranges from 0 to infinity as BGD goes from 1
to 0 (since rho = BGD/(1-BGD) see note 3 p 243, my paper
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html )
The "magnification" then is given by
a(t)
---- = M(t)
A(t)
Now a(t) is already equal to infinity for an infinite
flat real space. While A(t) ranges from 0 to infinity,
as the BGD ranges from 1 --> 0 (since rho = BGC/(1-BGD)
this means that the magnification, M(t)=a(t)/A(t) ranges from:
a(t)
--- ranges from (infty/0)=infty to (infty/infty)=1
A(t)
i.e. M(t) ranges from infinity-->1
===========================
SO THE CONCLUSION IS:
YES..... childhood growth CAN be modelled as a "Big Bang expansion"
of "subjective reality".
To be noted however, is that while we can model childhood growth
and it's explansion of subjective reality as a "relativistic
expansion of subjective space" governed by Einstein's field Equations
... we must remember that the Big Bang so called is a THERMAL
EXPLOSION, while the growth of the brain is certainly not a
thermal explosion phenomenon. It is in fact a biological growth
mechanism; details unknown. So while the exact mechanism of
the expansion of subjective space is NOT known in detail, while
the expansion of real space is known in quite elaborate detail,
NONETHELESS, it has now been demonstrated that the growth of
subjective reality during childhood is CLEARLY a Relativistic
"expansion of space" that is in fact governed by Einstein's
theory.
This is simply more evidence that, "God is caused by gravity",
or God=G_uv.
PS... I must thank Dr. Stepehn Unwin PhD Gravity Physics,
and author of the clebrated new book, the Probability
of God, for first suggesting to me that childbirth might
be the result of a Big Bang.
===========================
Do you drool over your keyboard while you type?
You reference your own work and supposition as supporting evidence for your
arguments. Circular logic at its best. You define your own set of terms
which are then justified by your arguments. Once again circular reasoning.
Once you get that out of the way you descend into your almost trade marked
madness.
You refer to yourself in the third person. This is also a sign of madness.
George, why did you stop posting this to AUK? I am sure you were going down
a treat there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
27 Jul 2005 10:51:10 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:objee1plco9au9m4g4pc430bvmnv6q4j04@4ax.com...
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
[George E. Hammond]
This post concerns some preliminary thoughts on
the notion that human growth can be modelled
as a "conformal expansion" of spacetime.
IOW .............. more empty, thoughtless, "sandbox" garbage!
"In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)
A christian religious claims that's NEVER been supported with evidence!
This historic passage is among one of the world's oldest recorded
reference to the existence of "2 realities" ....
It is not more "historic" than "Once upon a time"!
or what modern
Science would call, the "2 spacetimes of Relativity".
Modern science wouldn't call it anything other than a delusional fairy tale!
YOUR crap claims do NOT qualify as "modern science"!
(snip remaining Hammondcrap)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
27 Jul 2005 07:17:13 AM |
|
|
George Hammond <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote:
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
Let's go through it again then, shall we?
"In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)
This historic passage is among one of the world's oldest recorded
reference to the existence of "2 realities" .... or what modern
Science would call, the "2 spacetimes of Relativity".
Science, as far as I'm aware, doesn't recognise two "spacetimes".
Nor does Genesis make any reference to spacetime. "Heaven and Earth"
refers to the world around us (Earth) and what is or might be in the sky
(Heaven - traditionally the sky was the dwelling-place of God). Genesis
certainly makes no reference to relativity, any more than it describes
the "planetary density profile" - a favourite of your counterpart in
pseudo-science, John P. Boatwright(*).
(*) See http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/index.html for details of
another 'scientific proof of God', no less scientific than yours.
However, modern research (Hammond 2003) has revealed that there
are actually TWO SPACETIMES relevant to what we call "reality".
You cite yourself in the manner of a scientific reference, but miss the
point. The point is that your 'research' has not been subjected to peer
review and is therefore worthless. The lay community cannot merely
accept every hypothesis that comes along - that is why the scientific
community regulates itself. Without peer review your 'research' has no
credibility.
Science - real science - does not indicate 'two spacetimes'. Without
establishing this premise, ALL reasoning based on it collapses.
In fact, it turns out that:
1. SCIENCE is the study of objective reality.
2. RELIGION is the study of subjective reality.
Science is the study of the world around us. Religion is a matter of
faith, not observation.
Though religious myself, and without wishing to 'bash' religion in
general terms, the two are not comparable. Science teaches us things
about the world. Religion might allow us to learn things about
ourselves - always presuming we actually wish to learn them.
According to Hammond's discovery of the Scienctific Proof
of God (known as the S.P.O.G. for short):
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
You cannot get around the fact that the only 'journal' (if it can be
graced with such a description) that you have persuaded to carry your
'SPOG' is the 'Noetic Journal' - which, as a casual glance will tell,
will cheerfully carry ANYTHING, and indeed prides itself in its
dismissal of the scientific method.
Hammmond has discovered that what we call "subjective reality" is a
Hammond has discovered nothing. Hammond has made up a load of
nonsensical codswallop that sounds to him impressively scientific, and
is vainly trying to convince others of his genius.
At any rate, the question has arisen
No questions have arisen, George, save the ones you are unwilling to
answer.
Meanwhile, as is commonly known,
the objective world appears to become smaller and smaller, and
the speed of this world becomes slower and slower, due to our
increasing mental speed (a.k.a. intelligence).
No, that would be the SUBJECTIVE world, not the objective world. The
objective world is objective, and thus remains as it is, independent of
the growth of the individual.
Now we immediately see a problem.
Well, George, WE certainly do see a problem. The trouble is, it seems
to escape you entirely.
[snip remainder of George's wannabe-scientific claptrap]
This is simply more evidence that, "God is caused by gravity",
or God=G_uv.
The fact remains that if your God is 'caused by gravity', then He is of
no consequence and religion could safely be dismantled. You are
attempting to prove the irrelevance of the religion you advocate above
all others.
PS... I must thank Dr. Stepehn Unwin PhD Gravity Physics,
and author of the clebrated new book, the Probability
of God, for first suggesting to me that childbirth might
be the result of a Big Bang.
Your arrogance is breathtaking. Dr Unwin has a doctorate in theoretical
physics and a true scientific understanding of quantum gravity. He has
worked in science and has had papers published *and subjected to peer
review*. In short, regardless of his conclusions on the existence or
not of God (he gives it 67% in favour, apparently), for YOU to thank HIM
as though he has had some minor input into your great work? That is
incredibly bad form, George.
Let's remember, this man, whatever connection you have with him (what
would he say if we asked him, George?), is a real, genuine scientist.
You are a deluded hack whose intellectual superiority stretches only as
far as your patience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
27 Jul 2005 10:57:22 PM |
|
|
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns96A0875FAEB2FZRHGRGGNVWLDRAVKW@213.123.26.234...
George Hammond <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote:
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
Let's go through it again then, shall we?
"In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)
This historic passage is among one of the world's oldest recorded
reference to the existence of "2 realities" .... or what modern
Science would call, the "2 spacetimes of Relativity".
Science, as far as I'm aware, doesn't recognise two "spacetimes".
Nor does Genesis make any reference to spacetime. "Heaven and Earth"
refers to the world around us (Earth) and what is or might be in the sky
(Heaven - traditionally the sky was the dwelling-place of God). Genesis
certainly makes no reference to relativity, any more than it describes
the "planetary density profile" - a favourite of your counterpart in
pseudo-science, John P. Boatwright(*).
(*) See http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/index.html for details of
another 'scientific proof of God', no less scientific than yours.
However, modern research (Hammond 2003) has revealed that there
are actually TWO SPACETIMES relevant to what we call "reality".
You cite yourself in the manner of a scientific reference, but miss the
point. The point is that your 'research' has not been subjected to peer
review and is therefore worthless. The lay community cannot merely
accept every hypothesis that comes along - that is why the scientific
community regulates itself. Without peer review your 'research' has no
credibility.
Science - real science - does not indicate 'two spacetimes'. Without
establishing this premise, ALL reasoning based on it collapses.
In fact, it turns out that:
1. SCIENCE is the study of objective reality.
2. RELIGION is the study of subjective reality.
Science is the study of the world around us. Religion is a matter of
faith, not observation.
Though religious myself, and without wishing to 'bash' religion in
general terms, the two are not comparable. Science teaches us things
about the world. Religion might allow us to learn things about
ourselves - always presuming we actually wish to learn them.
According to Hammond's discovery of the Scienctific Proof
of God (known as the S.P.O.G. for short):
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
You cannot get around the fact that the only 'journal' (if it can be
graced with such a description) that you have persuaded to carry your
'SPOG' is the 'Noetic Journal' - which, as a casual glance will tell,
will cheerfully carry ANYTHING, and indeed prides itself in its
dismissal of the scientific method.
Hammmond has discovered that what we call "subjective reality" is a
Hammond has discovered nothing. Hammond has made up a load of
nonsensical codswallop that sounds to him impressively scientific, and
is vainly trying to convince others of his genius.
"Codswallop" - such an interesting, accurate, description!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
27 Jul 2005 06:28:16 AM |
|
|
Hi George,
this is the best [Hammond] posting I've ever seen. I couldn't stop
laughing for quite a while - your "two spacetimes" are worth to be
published in "MAD"! Where did you hide the humorous side of George
E. Hammond all the time? Do you know more jokes like this one? I'd
like to hear them!
Grinning in Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George E. Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
29 Jul 2005 02:12:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:51:27 GMT, Edward Cherlin
<edward.cherlin@etssg.com> wrote:
puffy wrote:
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
[George E. Hammond]
This post concerns some preliminary thoughts on
the notion that human growth can be modelled
as a "conformal expansion" of spacetime.
Nope. This post of yours is an excercise in utter futility,
pseudo-science, and balderdash.
If you can't find something funny to say about George E. Peorge E., or at
least trollerate him, why bother? He has been told he is an idiot by far
better than you or I.
[Hammond]
Urban legend.... only amateurs on amateur alt. newsgroups heckle
Hammond.
Check out this post on sci.physics.research a moderated competent
newsgroup where YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED to post:
"George E. Hammond" wrote in sci.physics.research 7-28-05
message news:p7sfe1hkps194qlo48crsj76bovvptl8v2@4ax.com...
You won't find anyone ridiculing or heckling me there. That's because
they are "real scientists"... not moronic cranks like you.
========================================
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
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
===========================
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
29 Jul 2005 03:49:44 PM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sgvke1phopbmc45nojkr4atlks41qr1thf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:51:27 GMT, Edward Cherlin
[Hammond]
Urban legend.... only amateurs on amateur alt. newsgroups heckle
Hammond.
Very true. Its only a legend that you get ridiculed on alt newsgroups. The
reality is you get ridiculed on almost every newsgroup you post on.
Check out this post on sci.physics.research a moderated competent
newsgroup where YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED to post:
He has the same rights to post on the moderated group as you do.
"George E. Hammond" wrote in sci.physics.research 7-28-05
message news:p7sfe1hkps194qlo48crsj76bovvptl8v2@4ax.com...
You won't find anyone ridiculing or heckling me there. That's because
they are "real scientists"... not moronic cranks like you.
That is your own post. How do you know no one is going to call you for it
yet?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
29 Jul 2005 06:13:46 PM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sgvke1phopbmc45nojkr4atlks41qr1thf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:51:27 GMT, Edward Cherlin
<edward.cherlin@etssg.com> wrote:
puffy wrote:
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY
[George E. Hammond]
This post concerns some preliminary thoughts on
the notion that human growth can be modelled
as a "conformal expansion" of spacetime.
Nope. This post of yours is an excercise in utter futility,
pseudo-science, and balderdash.
If you can't find something funny to say about George E. Peorge E., or at
least trollerate him, why bother? He has been told he is an idiot by far
better than you or I.
[Hammond]
Urban legend.... only amateurs on amateur alt. newsgroups heckle
Hammond.
Those amateurs obviously know more about science, (and reality) than YOU
do - asswipe!
They are only heckling you because you're a psychotic moron!
Check out this post on sci.physics.research a moderated competent
newsgroup where YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED to post:
Been there ........... your posts are no where to be found.
ANYONE can write to a news group, ***** for brains!
"Moderated" means that TOPICS (and language, and insults and such) will be
rejected - NOT PEOPLE!
Wow ............ big surprise ......... another area in which you are a
completel moron!
"George E. Hammond" wrote in sci.physics.research 7-28-05
message news:p7sfe1hkps194qlo48crsj76bovvptl8v2@4ax.com...
You won't find anyone ridiculing or heckling me there. That's because
they are "real scientists"... not moronic cranks like you.
You won't find Hammond either .......... because they are real science
topics - not psychotic bull *****!
Even if your messagae DID show up - it only shows that your own posts don't
ridicule your own insanity!
(BTW ... I've never been ridiculed, heckled or shut out of
sci.physics.research either).
.
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv THE 2 WORLDS OF RELATIVITIY |
29 Jul 2005 08:41:45 PM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
Even if your messagae DID show up - it only shows that your own posts don't
ridicule your own insanity!
(BTW ... I've never been ridiculed, heckled or shut out of
sci.physics.research either).
And I post quite frequently to s.p.research - not that our resident
crank [Hammond] seems to be able to follow. He's clearly stopped by a
simple name change. A Groucho nose and glasses
(http://www.groucho-marx.com/) will totally baffle him/her/it. Talk
about his pat phrase "You don't know who you're talking to!!!" being true.
Now, IF one really reads the newsgroups in question, they will see
[Hammond] mocked, riducled, "made-fun-of", called stupid, proved
impotent (in ALL meanings), showed-up, dismissed, and just flat out
"funned".
Now, is [Hammond] going to report back on his reaming, or is he going to
bluster? WE all know the answer.
George: (though you swear you don't read my posts - BUT you will
respond) follow the maths. Follow the thread of who is "talking" to you.
Think about it. Does it make sense? Why would "they" say that? Maybe
you're being mocked. Maybe you don't really read s.p.research - so you
don't understand why the "Thank you SIRS" is being laughed at....
Then again,...you probably don't understand.
Read some more of Uncle Al's posts to s.p.research to frame your place
in the world.
Follow the maths George. Think. Reason. Pause a second and stop raving.
Follow the path to some of the other newsgroups (think maths) and bask
in your glory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
