| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2006 04:43:26 AM |
| Object: |
HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A
CURVATURE OF "SUBJECTIVE" SPACETIME
The mystery of "God" stems from the fact that the
average adult DOES NOT REALIZE that he is not
in fact "fully grown" although of course he thinks
that he is.
The fact that adults are not fully grown was discovered
100 years ago when scientists first noticed a "Secular
Trend" in human growth... that people are getting
taller and heavier with each suceeding generation, and
thHAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS Aat this is due to the
rising world Standard Of Living.
Believe it or not, this SIMPLE FACT explains the
most profound, mysterious and controversial fact
of human existence... the phenomenon of "God"!
Simply explained, the human phenotype has not
cought up with the human genotype... there is in other
words a "growth deficit" in the human race which is
slowly being reduced with each passing generation.
Of particular im[portance is that the human
BRAIN has a growth deficit. In fact, since the average
adult today is only about 80% grown, the average
human BRAIN is also 20% shy of full growth. Not
only that, people are not generally even aware of it!
Hammond however, has discovered and PROVEN
that this 20% growth deficit of the human brain
causes 20% of reality to be INVISIBLE and this
invisible part of reality is called "Heaven"
and only a 100% full gorwn person (called "God")
could actually see it.
All of this has been theoretically explained,
and experimentally proven, and PUBLISHED
by Hammond in the peer reviewed scientific
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
15 Oct 2006 08:55:39 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A
CURVATURE OF "SUBJECTIVE" SPACETIME
The mystery of "God" stems from the fact that the
average adult DOES NOT REALIZE that he is not
in fact "fully grown" although of course he thinks
that he is.
The fact that adults are not fully grown was discovered
100 years ago when scientists first noticed a "Secular
Trend" in human growth... that people are getting
taller and heavier with each suceeding generation, and
thHAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS Aat this is due to the
rising world Standard Of Living.
Believe it or not, this SIMPLE FACT explains the
most profound, mysterious and controversial fact
of human existence... the phenomenon of "God"!
Simply explained, the human phenotype has not
cought up with the human genotype... there is in other
words a "growth deficit" in the human race which is
slowly being reduced with each passing generation.
Of particular im[portance is that the human
BRAIN has a growth deficit. In fact, since the average
adult today is only about 80% grown, the average
human BRAIN is also 20% shy of full growth. Not
only that, people are not generally even aware of it!
Hammond however, has discovered and PROVEN
that this 20% growth deficit of the human brain
causes 20% of reality to be INVISIBLE and this
invisible part of reality is called "Heaven"
and only a 100% full gorwn person (called "God")
could actually see it.
All of this has been theoretically explained,
and experimentally proven, and PUBLISHED
by Hammond in the peer reviewed scientific
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
Good work, George. God is a figment of our underdeveloped minds.
I agree.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
15 Oct 2006 10:20:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:55:39 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A
CURVATURE OF "SUBJECTIVE" SPACETIME
The mystery of "God" stems from the fact that the
average adult DOES NOT REALIZE that he is not
in fact "fully grown" although of course he thinks
that he is.
The fact that adults are not fully grown was discovered
100 years ago when scientists first noticed a "Secular
Trend" in human growth... that people are getting
taller and heavier with each suceeding generation, and
that this is due to the rising world Standard Of Living.
Believe it or not, this SIMPLE FACT explains the
most profound, mysterious and controversial fact
of human existence... the phenomenon of "God"!
Simply explained, the human phenotype has not
cought up with the human genotype... there is in other
words a "growth deficit" in the human race which is
slowly being reduced with each passing generation.
Of particular im[portance is that the human
BRAIN has a growth deficit. In fact, since the average
adult today is only about 80% grown, the average
human BRAIN is also 20% shy of full growth. Not
only that, people are not generally even aware of it!
Hammond however, has discovered and PROVEN
that this 20% growth deficit of the human brain
causes 20% of reality to be INVISIBLE and this
invisible part of reality is called "Heaven"
and only a 100% full gorwn person (called "God")
could actually see it.
All of this has been theoretically explained,
and experimentally proven, and PUBLISHED
by Hammond in the peer reviewed scientific
literature:
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
[Meister Eickmeier]
Good work, George. God is a figment of our underdeveloped minds.
I agree.
Gary Eickmeier
[Hammond]
You are proven wrong:
God is not a "figment".
God is physically real and can be
measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
any day of the week.
I win, you lose....it happened
that way moving West.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
15 Oct 2006 11:40:50 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:3tj4j2ld5mf40mgj8stdjokp4j6iam37bt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:55:39 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[Meister Eickmeier]
Good work, George. God is a figment of our underdeveloped minds.
I agree.
Gary Eickmeier
[Hammond]
You are proven wrong:
God is not a "figment".
God is physically real and can be
measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
any day of the week.
Hahahha. You are still talking gibberish to people in your "kill file."
I win, you lose....
Only in your imagination.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
22 Oct 2006 12:59:44 AM |
|
|
[Hammond]
You are proven wrong:
God is not a "figment".
God is physically real and can be
measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
any day of the week.
I win, you lose....it happened
that way moving West.
What is God? To two decimal places, of course.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
22 Oct 2006 05:07:28 AM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2006 22:59:44 -0700, wrote:
[Hammond]
You are proven wrong:
God is not a "figment".
God is physically real and can be
measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
any day of the week.
I win, you lose....it happened
that way moving West.
What is God? To two decimal places, of course.
[Hammond]
"God" is a real physical phenomena which makes the world
look like it's BIGGER AND FASTER than it really is. Not
only does it make what you can see bigger and faster than it
really is, it also makes part of reality actually INVISIBLE.
Naturally this scares the ***** out of everyone, which is why
"God" is such a scary subject.
The "biological" cause of the phenomenon is something
called the SECULAR TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH which shows that
the average adult is only about 85% full grown, therefore
the WORLD appears to be 15% BIGGER AND FASTER than it really
is.
You might not think that 15% is a big deal, but in fact
IT IS because of it's effect on HUMAN IDENTITY! It turns
out that a small change in your ability to see SIZE AND
SPEED causes a large change in your IDENTITY. This is
because it only takes a small difference in SIZE AND SPEED
for one human being to become DOMINANT over another. This
then, is what accounts for the HISTORICAL DRAMA of God all
of which is described in the BIBLE for instance.
Finally, it turns out that this increase in SIZE AND
SPEED of the world is, mathematically speaking, what the
physicists call a "CURVATURE" of spacetime... hence the
discovery proves that GOD is ultimately CAUSED BY GRAVITY.
Meanwhile, Psychometry measurements are used to measure
(experimentally) this "curvature of subjective spacetime"
and thus to "measure God" to two decimal point accuracy.
And meanwhile, someone like Richard Dawkins who concludes
that "God almost certainly does not exist" is proven to be a
complete fool, dead wrong, and a presumptious and reckless
idiot.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
22 Oct 2006 08:22:50 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:ppfmj21ksmavd3nhom85nojslpu0cf847r@4ax.com...
On 21 Oct 2006 22:59:44 -0700, wrote:
[Hammond]
You are proven wrong:
God is not a "figment".
God is physically real and can be
measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
any day of the week.
I win, you lose....it happened
that way moving West.
What is God? To two decimal places, of course.
[Hammond]
"God" is a real physical phenomena which makes the world
look like it's BIGGER AND FASTER than it really is.
He asked to two decimal places, not to two nonsense paragraphs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
22 Oct 2006 03:05:45 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
"God" is a real physical phenomena which makes the world
look like it's BIGGER AND FASTER than it really is. Not
only does it make what you can see bigger and faster than it
really is, it also makes part of reality actually INVISIBLE.
Naturally this scares the ***** out of everyone, which is why
"God" is such a scary subject.
The "biological" cause of the phenomenon is something
called the SECULAR TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH which shows that
the average adult is only about 85% full grown, therefore
the WORLD appears to be 15% BIGGER AND FASTER than it really
is.
You might not think that 15% is a big deal, but in fact
IT IS because of it's effect on HUMAN IDENTITY! It turns
out that a small change in your ability to see SIZE AND
SPEED causes a large change in your IDENTITY. This is
because it only takes a small difference in SIZE AND SPEED
for one human being to become DOMINANT over another. This
then, is what accounts for the HISTORICAL DRAMA of God all
of which is described in the BIBLE for instance.
Finally, it turns out that this increase in SIZE AND
SPEED of the world is, mathematically speaking, what the
physicists call a "CURVATURE" of spacetime... hence the
discovery proves that GOD is ultimately CAUSED BY GRAVITY.
Meanwhile, Psychometry measurements are used to measure
(experimentally) this "curvature of subjective spacetime"
and thus to "measure God" to two decimal point accuracy.
And meanwhile, someone like Richard Dawkins who concludes
that "God almost certainly does not exist" is proven to be a
complete fool, dead wrong, and a presumptious and reckless
idiot.
George, do you have any idea how stupid this theory looks to others?
God, even if he does exist, is not some "physical phenomenon" that is
"caused" by something else, like a frog or an oak tree. By saying that
he is caused by something within our brains suggests that he is not
real, but is a figment of our imaginations. If you say that he is real,
but temporarily undetectable by our puny Earth minds, then you are still
left with proving his existence from outside our brains, or independent
of our brain growth. If you say you have done that, then you must show
him to us. Have you captured him with a high speed camera? Show us, and
describe the experiments you say you have done.
I say again, if this is some elaborate troll, or joke, I get it. You can
stop any time. The joke is over.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
25 Oct 2006 06:14:15 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
"God" is a real physical phenomena which makes the world
look like it's BIGGER AND FASTER than it really is. Not
only does it make what you can see bigger and faster than it
really is, it also makes part of reality actually INVISIBLE.
Naturally this scares the ***** out of everyone, which is why
"God" is such a scary subject.
The "biological" cause of the phenomenon is something
called the SECULAR TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH which shows that
the average adult is only about 85% full grown, therefore
the WORLD appears to be 15% BIGGER AND FASTER than it really
is.
You might not think that 15% is a big deal, but in fact
IT IS because of it's effect on HUMAN IDENTITY! It turns
out that a small change in your ability to see SIZE AND
SPEED causes a large change in your IDENTITY. This is
because it only takes a small difference in SIZE AND SPEED
for one human being to become DOMINANT over another. This
then, is what accounts for the HISTORICAL DRAMA of God all
of which is described in the BIBLE for instance.
Finally, it turns out that this increase in SIZE AND
SPEED of the world is, mathematically speaking, what the
physicists call a "CURVATURE" of spacetime... hence the
discovery proves that GOD is ultimately CAUSED BY GRAVITY.
Meanwhile, Psychometry measurements are used to measure
(experimentally) this "curvature of subjective spacetime"
and thus to "measure God" to two decimal point accuracy.
And meanwhile, someone like Richard Dawkins who concludes
that "God almost certainly does not exist" is proven to be a
complete fool, dead wrong, and a presumptious and reckless
idiot.
George, do you have any idea how stupid this theory looks to others?
God, even if he does exist, is not some "physical phenomenon" that is
"caused" by something else, like a frog or an oak tree. By saying that
he is caused by something within our brains suggests that he is not
real, but is a figment of our imaginations. If you say that he is real,
but temporarily undetectable by our puny Earth minds, then you are still
left with proving his existence from outside our brains, or independent
of our brain growth. If you say you have done that, then you must show
him to us. Have you captured him with a high speed camera? Show us, and
describe the experiments you say you have done.
I say again, if this is some elaborate troll, or joke, I get it. You can
stop any time. The joke is over.
Gary Eickmeier
SNR
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
26 Oct 2006 09:26:30 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
"God" is a real physical phenomena which makes the world
look like it's BIGGER AND FASTER than it really is. Not
only does it make what you can see bigger and faster than it
really is, it also makes part of reality actually INVISIBLE.
Naturally this scares the ***** out of everyone, which is why
"God" is such a scary subject.
The "biological" cause of the phenomenon is something
called the SECULAR TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH which shows that
the average adult is only about 85% full grown, therefore
the WORLD appears to be 15% BIGGER AND FASTER than it really
is.
You might not think that 15% is a big deal, but in fact
IT IS because of it's effect on HUMAN IDENTITY! It turns
out that a small change in your ability to see SIZE AND
SPEED causes a large change in your IDENTITY. This is
because it only takes a small difference in SIZE AND SPEED
for one human being to become DOMINANT over another. This
then, is what accounts for the HISTORICAL DRAMA of God all
of which is described in the BIBLE for instance.
Finally, it turns out that this increase in SIZE AND
SPEED of the world is, mathematically speaking, what the
physicists call a "CURVATURE" of spacetime... hence the
discovery proves that GOD is ultimately CAUSED BY GRAVITY.
Meanwhile, Psychometry measurements are used to measure
(experimentally) this "curvature of subjective spacetime"
and thus to "measure God" to two decimal point accuracy.
And meanwhile, someone like Richard Dawkins who concludes
that "God almost certainly does not exist" is proven to be a
complete fool, dead wrong, and a presumptious and reckless
idiot.
George, do you have any idea how stupid this theory looks to others?
God, even if he does exist, is not some "physical phenomenon" that is
"caused" by something else, like a frog or an oak tree. By saying that
he is caused by something within our brains suggests that he is not
real, but is a figment of our imaginations. If you say that he is
real, but temporarily undetectable by our puny Earth minds, then you
are still left with proving his existence from outside our brains, or
independent of our brain growth. If you say you have done that, then
you must show him to us. Have you captured him with a high speed
camera? Show us, and describe the experiments you say you have done.
I say again, if this is some elaborate troll, or joke, I get it. You
can stop any time. The joke is over.
Gary Eickmeier
SNR
Gary Eickmeier
SNR
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
15 Oct 2006 10:54:14 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:55:39 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[Meister Eickmeier]
Good work, George. God is a figment of our underdeveloped minds.
I agree.
Gary Eickmeier
[Hammond]
You are proven wrong:
God is not a "figment".
God is physically real and can be
measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
any day of the week.
I win, you lose....it happened
that way moving West.
If that is true, George, then God's existence has nothing to do with
human growth, brain development, or anything else you have in your main
theory. So you have just proven yourself wrong.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
19 Oct 2006 06:52:13 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
If that is true, George, then God's existence has nothing to do with
human growth, brain development, or anything else you have in your main
theory. So you have just proven yourself wrong.
SNR (still no response from Hammond. Hmmm.....)
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew L. Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
24 Oct 2006 09:29:20 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
If that is true, George, then God's existence has nothing to do with
human growth, brain development, or anything else you have in your
main theory. So you have just proven yourself wrong.
SNR (still no response from Hammond. Hmmm.....)
You can't believe that you defeated him that easily. See the ending of
any horror movie that desires a sequel.
Matthew
--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
.
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
24 Oct 2006 10:56:34 PM |
|
|
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
If that is true, George, then God's existence has nothing to do with
human growth, brain development, or anything else you have in your
main theory. So you have just proven yourself wrong.
SNR (still no response from Hammond. Hmmm.....)
You can't believe that you defeated him that easily. See the ending of
any horror movie that desires a sequel.
I just love science. Clearly the correct theory is the one foisted by
the scariest proponent.
Truth jumps out of the closet and stabs you in the neck.
QED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
25 Oct 2006 06:13:43 PM |
|
|
TMG wrote:
I just love science. Clearly the correct theory is the one foisted by
the scariest proponent.
Truth jumps out of the closet and stabs you in the neck.
I love Hammond's "it turns out that" proof.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "reply to J.Horta" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
17 Oct 2006 07:51:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:43:26 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:50:46 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
[Horta]
"The Data" you speak of is of no relavance. And calling
me names might make you feel better but it doesn't do
anything to shore up a flawed and incomplete arguments.
[Hammond]
OK... look Horta.... I've examined your posting history for
the last couple of years, and have discovered this much:
1. You are a PhD (1985) from UW where you did a
PhD thesis on particle physics involving Deutron
polarization etc. Incidentally this puts your age
at approximately 47, and identifies you as
mainly a Quantum Mechanics physicist.
2. You are a strong mathematical physics type as
evidenced by numerous postings to sci.physics,
sci.math, sci.physics.relativity and notably to
sci.physics.research (moderated) etc.
3. There is no evidence of a strong liberal arts
knowlege (History, Psychology, Biology,
... nor far less....Theology).
4. There is little evidence of a "strong general physical
practicality" nor of a general physics
forensic ability... as I say.. you're mainly
a "math major" similar to j.m.Baugh for instance.
5. On the other hand... you appear to be
"psychologically sensitive" (so am I of course),
unlike someone like Baugh who is 27 and nearly
totally clueless psychologically.
6. You have a strong predisposition that "God"
is a "socio-political argument" and are
apparently highly aggravated by the claim
that "God" could possibly be a real physical
phenomenon that can be measured using classical
Physics.
7. You are quite convinced by these "predispositions"
of yours that therefore Hammond must be a
quack and a mental case (who nevertheless
intrigues you) but that therefore his "theory"
couldn't possibly be worth reading, and MUST
be totally preposterous and incompetent and
therefore EASILY REJECTED OUT OF HAND
without any serious consideration whatsoever.
OK, in view of all that, you apparently have AN AGGRAVATED
CURIOSITY about Hammond's claim that he has proven that:
HAMMOND'S CLAIM
That "God" is a "classical curvature"
of "subjective" spacetime.
OK.... Your objections seem to be the following:
1. That Hammond's entire theory seems to be necessarily
predicated on an arbitrary and ad hoc "definition of
God".
2. That somehow Hammond's theory does not fit the standard
definition of a classical scientific theory.
3. That Hammond has not presented sufficient or acceptable
experimental proof of the theory.
OK... I'm here to correct these "erroneous preconceived
notions" of yours as listed above.
As to point 1, above:
Hammond does not posit any "definition of God". Hammond
assumes that God is a physical phenomenon and takes the
"historical observations of that phenomenon" to be the 1,333
pages of the King James Bible, and simply shows that he has
DISCOVERED A PROVEABLE SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON that indeed
DOES EXPLAIN THAT 1,333 PAGE HISTORICAL OBSERVATION.
As to point 2, above:
Hamond's theory is obviously a "classic scientific
theory" because:
1. It has an axiomatic physics basis. I.e., the theory is
directly deriveable from the known laws of Physics,
including:
A. The laws of classical mechanics:
1. That a machine designed to span N dimensional
Space must have N-degrees of freedom.
B. General Relativity.
2. That space is (locally) Euclidean
3. That Gravity is described by a 4D
Curvature of spacetime.
2. The theory has direct experimental confirmation
including:
A. 150 years of Biology.
B. 100 years of Psychometry.
C. 100 Years of Neuropsychology.
D. 90 years of General Relativity.
As to point 3 above:
The experimental evidence falls into several catagories
and the published data in those catagories is CLEARLY CITED
in my published papers in the extensive bibliographies in
those papers and consists mainly of the following:
A. 150 years of Biology.
1. Roux's experiment 1888
2. Owen Cartesian Body plan 1880
B. 100 years of Psychometry.
1. (Thurstone's) demonstration
that Factor Analytic Psychometry
is mathematically identical to
einstein's "Linearized Gravity".
2. The discovery of IQ 1935
3. Eysenck-Cattell discovery of ENP 1970
C. 100 Years of Neuropsychology.
1. Bell-Magendie 1850
2. Sperrian Lateralization 1960
D. 90 years of General Relativity.
1. Einstein's Linearized Gravity 1915
All of these THOUSANDS of published experiments in Biology,
Psychometry and GR have been cited in my published papers.
OK.... that's it.... your basic PREMISE that Hammond's SPOG
is not a true scientific theory is REFUTED.
Now, if you can calm down enough to rationally discuss this,
I would be glad to... but I WILL NOT discuss it under the
ruberic of "Hammond's Reality" which is an amateur insult,
therefore I am posting this reply to you under the thread
HAMMOND HAS PROVEN GOD IS A
CURVATURE OF SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME
and if you would like to talk to me I will respond to you
there.
Regards, Hammond
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Horta" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
17 Oct 2006 09:31:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:51:10 +0000, reply to J. Horta wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:43:26 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:50:46 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
Just to start things off, as you read my response it's not
worth getting mad at me for holding this or that
world view. Oddly enough people who study physics
don't generally believe, like is fashionable in
some theological circles, in killing all people that
don't agree with their world view (although, from time
to time they might have aided others in doing so :)
From what I understand of physics and how physics is
done SPOG can't be classified as physics.
[Horta]
"The Data" you speak of is of no relavance. And calling
me names might make you feel better but it doesn't do
anything to shore up a flawed and incomplete arguments.
[Hammond]
OK... look Horta.... I've examined your posting history for
the last couple of years, and have discovered this much:
1. You are a PhD (1985) from UW where you did a
PhD thesis on particle physics involving Deutron
polarization etc. Incidentally this puts your age
at approximately 47, and identifies you as
mainly a Quantum Mechanics physicist.
4 of it at WPI btw :)
2. You are a strong mathematical physics type as
evidenced by numerous postings to sci.physics,
sci.math, sci.physics.relativity and notably to
sci.physics.research (moderated) etc.
I tend to like theory and math but my training is
in experimental physics.
3. There is no evidence of a strong liberal arts
knowlege (History, Psychology, Biology,
... nor far less....Theology).
Got me there but then I did not claim SPOG isn't Psychology
Biology or Theology. That will best be left to others.
4. There is little evidence of a "strong general physical
practicality" nor of a general physics
forensic ability... as I say.. you're mainly
a "math major" similar to j.m.Baugh for instance.
Hum, well I reserve the right to question your ability to see
that one way or the other.
5. On the other hand... you appear to be
"psychologically sensitive" (so am I of course),
unlike someone like Baugh who is 27 and nearly
totally clueless psychologically.
Look, I'm just saying SPOG isn't classifyable as physics.
It likely isn't science either.
6. You have a strong predisposition that "God"
is a "socio-political argument" and are
apparently highly aggravated by the claim
that "God" could possibly be a real physical
phenomenon that can be measured using classical
Physics.
Yes, God is a pure fiction.
7. You are quite convinced by these "predispositions"
of yours that therefore Hammond must be a
quack and a mental case (who nevertheless
intrigues you) but that therefore his "theory"
couldn't possibly be worth reading, and MUST
be totally preposterous and incompetent and
therefore EASILY REJECTED OUT OF HAND
without any serious consideration whatsoever.
What's at least of passing interest is that a person
could have such low intellectual standards when it comes
to the concept of "proof" or factual demonstration. What
I can't understand is how do you lie to yourself?
OK, in view of all that, you apparently have AN AGGRAVATED
CURIOSITY about Hammond's claim that he has proven that:
HAMMOND'S CLAIM
That "God" is a "classical curvature"
of "subjective" spacetime.
OK.... Your objections seem to be the following:
1. That Hammond's entire theory seems to be necessarily
predicated on an arbitrary and ad hoc "definition of
God".
Very good.
2. That somehow Hammond's theory does not fit the standard
definition of a classical scientific theory.
Right on.
3. That Hammond has not presented sufficient or acceptable
experimental proof of the theory.
Data? anyone can quote data. The question is what does it
prove and how does it prove it.
OK... I'm here to correct these "erroneous preconceived
notions" of yours as listed above.
As to point 1, above:
Hammond does not posit any "definition of God". Hammond
assumes that God is a physical phenomenon and takes the
"historical observations of that phenomenon" to be the 1,333
pages of the King James Bible, and simply shows that he has
DISCOVERED A PROVEABLE SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON that indeed
DOES EXPLAIN THAT 1,333 PAGE HISTORICAL OBSERVATION.
I completely reject the Bible as a source of anything including
as an account of historical fact. It's mostly hearsay and there
aren't really any verifiable facts or references. There is a
vast difference between 1) a man did this and that and 2) a man
was the son of God and did this and that.
clearly 1) != 2) and 2) is not proved or observed
By in large Physics isn't done with history books. Now, having
read your paper I know you might be inclined to funnel said book
through your correlation matrix. At which point you say shazam!
SEE THERE ARE N EIGENVECTORS, ALL IS PROVED!!. Well, no all is
not proved.
1) For me at least SPOG IS predicated on arbitrary (and largely
nonsensical) definition of God.
As to point 2, above:
Hamond's theory is obviously a "classic scientific
theory" because:
1. It has an axiomatic physics basis. I.e., the theory is
directly deriveable from the known laws of Physics,
including:
A. The laws of classical mechanics:
1. That a machine designed to span N dimensional
Space must have N-degrees of freedom.
B. General Relativity.
2. That space is (locally) Euclidean 3. That Gravity is
described by a 4D
Curvature of spacetime.
2. The theory has direct experimental confirmation
including:
A. 150 years of Biology.
B. 100 years of Psychometry.
C. 100 Years of Neuropsychology.
D. 90 years of General Relativity.
What am I supposed to say to this, if you say so? I don't
buy any of these things as being connected in the way you say
they are. And what do you mean by a "machine designed to span N
dimensional space must have N-degrees of freedom?" So a wheel fixed to an
axis has 1 (rotational) degree of freedom (as defined in text books). What
space is it said to span? And so what if it does. All that you've
said above is simple a listing of things you think are facts. Point
2 still holds.
As to point 3 above:
The experimental evidence falls into several catagories
and the published data in those catagories is CLEARLY CITED in my
published papers in the extensive bibliographies in those papers and
consists mainly of the following:
A. 150 years of Biology.
1. Roux's experiment 1888
2. Owen Cartesian Body plan 1880
B. 100 years of Psychometry.
1. (Thurstone's) demonstration
that Factor Analytic Psychometry
is mathematically identical to
einstein's "Linearized Gravity".
Yes like every occurrence of a matrix makes two
subjects "identical" mathematically.
2. The discovery of IQ 1935
IQ is a construct not a discovery.
3. Eysenck-Cattell discovery of ENP 1970
C. 100 Years of Neuropsychology.
1. Bell-Magendie 1850
2. Sperrian Lateralization 1960
D. 90 years of General Relativity.
1. Einstein's Linearized Gravity 1915
All of these THOUSANDS of published experiments in Biology, Psychometry
and GR have been cited in my published papers.
OK.... that's it.... your basic PREMISE that Hammond's SPOG is not a
true scientific theory is REFUTED.
Perhaps this is your view but I come away just shaking my head asking
myself how can people be this delusional and still type? The human
mind is truly amazing.
Now, if you can calm down enough to rationally discuss this, I would be
glad to... but I WILL NOT discuss it under the ruberic of "Hammond's
Reality" which is an amateur insult, therefore I am posting this reply
to you under the thread HAMMOND HAS PROVEN GOD IS A CURVATURE OF
SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME
and if you would like to talk to me I will respond to you there.
Regards, Hammond
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
18 Oct 2006 04:10:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:31:06 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:51:10 +0000, reply to J. Horta wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:43:26 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:50:46 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
Just to start things off, as you read my response it's not
worth getting mad at me for holding this or that
world view. Oddly enough people who study physics
don't generally believe, like is fashionable in
some theological circles, in killing all people that
don't agree with their world view (although, from time
to time they might have aided others in doing so :)
[Hammond]
I've read your entire post thru and my conclusion is, once
again, that you are not worth talking to. You're simply to
low brow, uneducated, and apparently psychologically
aggravated to have any hope of ever contributing anything
useful to a discussion of the SPOG.
However, just for the record I have posted a few
(obivious) rebuttals to your rather worthless remarks.
From what I understand of physics and how physics is
done SPOG can't be classified as physics.
[Hammond]
No one ever said the SPOG was "classified as physics".. stop
making things up. Obviously a "Scientific Proof of God"
would de facto be "classified as Science".... but Science
hardly means exclusively Physics. In fact of course, much
of the Science of the SPOG is classified as Physics, such as
the theory of General Relativity upon which the SPOG is
based.
[Horta]
"The Data" you speak of is of no relavance.
[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.
[Hammond]
I tend to like theory and math but my training is
in experimental physics.
[Hammond]
I don't think an "experimentalist" is qualified to evaluate
the SPOG which is a theoretical work in the first place...
even though of curase it is experimentally confirmed.
3. There is no evidence of a strong liberal arts
knowlege (History, Psychology, Biology,
... nor far less....Theology).
Got me there but then I did not claim SPOG isn't Psychology
Biology or Theology. That will best be left to others.
[Hammond]
whats that one supposed to be, a prophecy?
5. On the other hand... you appear to be
"psychologically sensitive" (so am I of course),
unlike someone like Baugh who is 27 and nearly
totally clueless psychologically.
Look, I'm just saying SPOG isn't classifyable as physics.
It likely isn't science either.
[Hammond]
The first statement is IRRELEVANT as has already been
pointed out. The second statement is apparently another one
of your "unsupported assertions".
6. You have a strong predisposition that "God"
is a "socio-political argument" and are
apparently highly aggravated by the claim
that "God" could possibly be a real physical
phenomenon that can be measured using classical
Physics.
Yes, God is a pure fiction.
[Hammond]
Now you are advancing your own "personal opinions" as
arguments. Clearly you're an incompetent fool.
7. You are quite convinced by these "predispositions"
of yours that therefore Hammond must be a
quack and a mental case (who nevertheless
intrigues you) but that therefore his "theory"
couldn't possibly be worth reading, and MUST
be totally preposterous and incompetent and
therefore EASILY REJECTED OUT OF HAND
without any serious consideration whatsoever.
What's at least of passing interest is that a person
could have such low intellectual standards when it comes
to the concept of "proof" or factual demonstration. What
I can't understand is how do you lie to yourself?
[Hammond]
The only low opinion I have is of your ability. Obviously
you haven't read the paper, either that or you can't
understand it, which is perhaps more likely. The fact that
it has been unanamously recommended by all the reviwers in
TWO peer reviewed scientific journals gives lie to your
statment that it is not de facto a "factual demonstration"
or a "proof".
OK, in view of all that, you apparently have AN AGGRAVATED
CURIOSITY about Hammond's claim that he has proven that:
HAMMOND'S CLAIM
That "God" is a "classical curvature"
of "subjective" spacetime.
OK.... Your objections seem to be the following:
1. That Hammond's entire theory seems to be necessarily
predicated on an arbitrary and ad hoc "definition of
God".
Very good.
[Hammond]
Yes... very good... because the statment is easily proven to
be FALSE!
2. That somehow Hammond's theory does not fit the standard
definition of a classical scientific theory.
Right on.
[Hammond]
Yes... right on... because the statement is easily proven to
be FALSE!
3. That Hammond has not presented sufficient or acceptable
experimental proof of the theory.
Data? anyone can quote data. The question is what does it
prove and how does it prove it.
[Hammond]
If you had read the paper (or understood it) you wouldn't be
asking such an absurd question since the paper CLEARLY
explains in blow by blow, step by step fashion JUST EXACTLY
THAT!
OK... I'm here to correct these "erroneous preconceived
notions" of yours as listed above.
As to point 1, above:
Hammond does not posit any "definition of God". Hammond
assumes that God is a physical phenomenon and takes the
"historical observations of that phenomenon" to be the 1,333
pages of the King James Bible, and simply shows that he has
DISCOVERED A PROVEABLE SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON that indeed
DOES EXPLAIN THAT 1,333 PAGE HISTORICAL OBSERVATION.
I completely reject the Bible as a source of anything including
as an account of historical fact.
[Hammond]
"Reject" ? Is that supposed to be a scientific concept?
There are hundreds of kooks who "reject Einstein's
theory"... that doesn't mean anything other than the fact
that they are kooks.
Fact is there are1.3 BILLION Christians. Certainly the
Bible is therefore the CAUSE OF 1.3 BILLION CHRISTIANS!
You cannot "reject" that fact can you?
By in large Physics isn't done with history books. Now, having
read your paper I know you might be inclined to funnel said book
through your correlation matrix. At which point you say shazam!
SEE THERE ARE N EIGENVECTORS, ALL IS PROVED!!. Well, no all is
not proved.
1) For me at least SPOG IS predicated on arbitrary (and largely
nonsensical) definition of God.
[Hammond]
Hammond DOES NOT POSIT ANY "DEFINITION OF GOD".
The phenomenon of God" is DESCRIBED in the 1,333 pages of
the Bible, and the SPOG simply "scientifcally explains" the
existence of that historical description.
As to point 2, above:
Hamond's theory is obviously a "classic scientific
theory" because:
1. It has an axiomatic physics basis. I.e., the theory is
directly deriveable from the known laws of Physics,
including:
A. The laws of classical mechanics:
1. That a machine designed to span N dimensional
Space must have N-degrees of freedom.
B. General Relativity.
2. That space is (locally) Euclidean 3. That Gravity is
described by a 4D
Curvature of spacetime.
2. The theory has direct experimental confirmation
including:
A. 150 years of Biology.
B. 100 years of Psychometry.
C. 100 Years of Neuropsychology.
D. 90 years of General Relativity.
What am I supposed to say to this, if you say so?
[Hammond]
Knock off the crap, the above is the CLASSIC definition of a
scientific theory:
Classical definition o f
a Scientific theory:
1. A scientific(theoretical) explanation of a phenomenon.
2. Which is then confirmed by experiment.
THAT is the "classic definition" of a "Scientific Theory"
and that is EXACTLY WHAT THE SPOG IS. For chrissakes...
what's wrong with you? You've got a hair across your *****
when it comes to discussing God as a scientific theory!
buy any of these things as being connected in the way you say
they are. And what do you mean by a "machine designed to span N
dimensional space must have N-degrees of freedom?" So a wheel fixed to an
axis has 1 (rotational) degree of freedom (as defined in text books). What
space is it said to span? And so what if it does. All that you've
said above is simple a listing of things you think are facts. Point
2 still holds.
[Hammond]
We are talking about "Machines". If a machine only has one
degree of freedom, then it only spans a one dimensional
space (a line). In the case of a wheel this would be the
tire track of the wheel.
To the point, the HUMAN MACHINE must have 3-degrees of
freedom because it must be able to reach every point in (or
span) 3D space . These 3 degrees of freedom are most easily
mechanically realized by giving the machine 3 orthogonal
axes of structure (and movement), which is WHY the human
body has a "Cartesian" body plan (the skeleton), which
ultimately, is WHY the brain is cleaved by 3 orthogonal
cleavages, and WHY brain cleavage is responsible for 3
orthogonal EIGENVECTORS of huuman personality
(psychological) structure. E.g. this explains how and why
"real space causes psychological space". It is the CAUSAL
CONNECTION between real space and psychometry space. And
ultimately therefore why a curvature of psychometric space
is caused by a curvature of real space and hence that "God
is caused by Gravity" sui generis.
As to point 3 above:
The experimental evidence falls into several catagories
and the published data in those catagories is CLEARLY CITED in my
published papers in the extensive bibliographies in those papers and
consists mainly of the following:
A. 150 years of Biology.
1. Roux's experiment 1888
2. Owen Cartesian Body plan 1880
B. 100 years of Psychometry.
1. (Thurstone's) demonstration
that Factor Analytic Psychometry
is mathematically identical to
einstein's "Linearized Gravity".
Yes like every occurrence of a matrix makes two
subjects "identical" mathematically.
[Hammond]
Quit being an *****.... the identity is CAUSAL as is
clearly pointed out in the paper, and as I have just
indicated above... i.e. how real space CAUSES psychometry
space.
2. The discovery of IQ 1935
IQ is a construct not a discovery.
[Hammond]
Horseshit... IQ has been identified in modern times as
MENTAL SPEED (in bits/second) of information processing. In
fact the MENTAL SPEED of the average adult is 16
bits/second, and this speed corresponds to an IQ of 100 and
this peed is IQ dependant. You don't know what you are
talking about.
3. Eysenck-Cattell discovery of ENP 1970
C. 100 Years of Neuropsychology.
1. Bell-Magendie 1850
2. Sperrian Lateralization 1960
D. 90 years of General Relativity.
1. Einstein's Linearized Gravity 1915
All of these THOUSANDS of published experiments in Biology, Psychometry
and GR have been cited in my published papers.
OK.... that's it.... your basic PREMISE that Hammond's SPOG is not a
true scientific theory is REFUTED.
Perhaps this is your view but I come away just shaking my head asking
myself how can people be this delusional and still type? The human
mind is truly amazing.
[Hammond]
You are a low brow simpleton your PhD not withstanding.
You are superficial, unsophisticated, meagerly educated, and
have no natural authority and the idea of you even
UNDERSTANDING the SPOG is problematical, much less being in
a position to evaluate it.
I'm afraid my original judgement was correct... you're
worthless, aggravated and not worth talking to. I suggest
you go back to the lab and leave the scientific proof of God
to more able and dedicated people.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Horta" |
|
| Title: Hammond's failed argument |
18 Oct 2006 06:35:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:10:36 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:31:06 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:51:10 +0000, reply to J. Horta wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:43:26 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:50:46 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
[Hammond] does not posit any "definition of God". Hammond
assumes that God is a physical phenomenon and takes the
"historical observations of that phenomenon" to be the 1,333
pages of the King James Bible, and simply shows that he has
DISCOVERED A PROVEABLE SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON that indeed
DOES EXPLAIN THAT 1,333 PAGE HISTORICAL OBSERVATION.
I completely reject the Bible as a source of anything including
as an account of historical fact.
[Hammond]
"Reject" ? Is that supposed to be a scientific concept?
There are hundreds of kooks who "reject Einstein's
theory"... that doesn't mean anything other than the fact
that they are kooks.
Fact is there are1.3 BILLION Christians. Certainly the
Bible is therefore the CAUSE OF 1.3 BILLION CHRISTIANS!
You cannot "reject" that fact can you?
As our readers probably can guess, I can.
The cause of Christians is to a good approximation due
to Christians. The same is true for Muslims and all the
other loony toons inhabit this particular planet. One
good killer asteroid and its all over for me, you, George
and oddly enough George's laughable God concept.
The fact is 600 years ago most of Christians believed
the earth was flat. One thing George fails to comprehend is
that science isn't democratic. The earth is round independent
of the number of people holding a particular belief. It is
also a fact that God is a fiction constructed and maintained
entirely by man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond's failed argument |
19 Oct 2006 06:54:29 AM |
|
|
J. Horta wrote:
The fact is 600 years ago most of Christians believed
the earth was flat. One thing George fails to comprehend is
that science isn't democratic. The earth is round independent
of the number of people holding a particular belief. It is
also a fact that God is a fiction constructed and maintained
entirely by man.
Then George is right - God is a figment of our underdeveloped brains.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond's superb proof of God ! |
20 Oct 2006 08:51:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:35:34 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
[J. Horta spewed]
The cause of Christians is to a good approximation due
to Christians.
The fact is 600 years ago most of Christians believed
the earth was flat.
God is a fiction constructed and maintained
entirely by man.
[Hammond]
Look Horta.... anyone can write that kind of monotonous high
school crap.
The ONLY THING of interest about you is your claim to be
a PhD in physics.
Therefore, if you're not actually talking physics.... YOU
HAVE NOTHING OF INTEREST TO SAY.
Now.... I have posted a lengthy "physics rebuttal" to
you at message ID:
How about "talking physics" for a change and getting off
the high school atheist soap box before you give us all a
fuckin headache!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin S. Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond's failed argument |
19 Oct 2006 09:48:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:35:34 -0700, "J. Horta" <bite@me.spam> wrote:
As our readers probably can guess
^^^^^^^^^^^
You. Hammond. Anyone else?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J. Horta" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
18 Oct 2006 09:01:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:10:36 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
You are a low brow simpleton your PhD not withstanding.
You are superficial, unsophisticated, meagerly educated, and
have no natural authority and the idea of you even
UNDERSTANDING the SPOG is problematical, much less being in
a position to evaluate it.
I'm afraid my original judgement was correct... you're
worthless, aggravated and not worth talking to. I suggest
you go back to the lab and leave the scientific proof of God
to more able and dedicated people.
Well, that response was predictable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: HAMMOND HAS PROVED THAT "GOD" IS A |
18 Oct 2006 11:14:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:01:32 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:10:36 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
You are a low brow simpleton your PhD not withstanding.
You are superficial, unsophisticated, meagerly educated, and
have no natural authority and the idea of you even
UNDERSTANDING the SPOG is problematical, much less being in
a position to evaluate it.
I'm afraid my original judgement was correct... you're
worthless, aggravated and not worth talking to. I suggest
you go back to the lab and leave the scientific proof of God
to more able and dedicated people.
Well, that response was predictable.
[Hammond]
You finally got one right.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
