"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:uv2dnVZLJOe1SSbd4p2dnA@comcast.com...

Beable van Polasm wrote:

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> writes:

Fact is, you have to go all the way to an intellect the size of
MARY BAKER EDDY before you find someone who actually knows
(scientifically) what God is.

Has the Christian Science Church shown any interest in your theory
yet?

Careful heretic - Hammond "knows what you think, and why".

[Hammond]
Boy... you said it

How come you never post your proof to any Islamic newsgroups? Surely
once they see SPOG, all the terrorism will STOP!

"They seem to have noticed him, and have issued the requisite death

threats.

[Hammond]
the Christians are mor apt to shoot me than the Moslems.

We need a "religious bomb" to deal with this situation.. and I am
proud to say, the PHYSICS DEPARTMENT has once again stepped up to the
plate and delivered the wonder weapon that will help end the war.. the
world's first true scientific proof of God!

<Snip>

PLEASE try to engage Hammond in a rational scientific discussion
of this physics discovery

It's slightly unfair for you to put all the burden of rationality onto
other people in the debate, while accepting none of that burden for
yourself.

[Hammond]
As soon as I meet a rational person
I'll let you know.

Who else in your conversation can shoulder the burden of rationality?

lest it be said sometime in the future that the physics department
dragged its feet

PHYSICS DEPARTMENT GOT FEET!

Yeah - but like everything else, its got 4 feet.

[Hammond]
Right... and I'm the only guy in the world who knows WHY!

[Hammond]
Why don't you join the thousands of nit wit kooks
on sci.physicis.relativity who claim that Einstein's
theory is "gibberish" or join the crowd trying to
prove the "Einstein hoax".... stumblebum.

"Dr. Flonkenstein" <gregoriy_raspoutine_NOSPAM_@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2004.06.01.01.17.54.915530@hotmail.com...

Being tired of lurking, on Mon, 31 May 2004 23:51:00 +0000, Beable van
Polasm posted:

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> writes:

Fact is, you have to go all the way to an intellect the size of
MARY BAKER EDDY before you find someone who actually knows
(scientifically) what God is.

Has the Christian Science Church shown any interest in your theory
yet?

TERRORISM.... THAT'S WHAT!

A massive an unending wave of Moslem terrorism appears to be the
inevitable consequence of the end of the Oil Age. Islam and
Christianity have fought tooth and nail for 1400 years, and the
geographical accident of primary oil supplies being in Moslem
territory promises to fan this historic dispute into a crescendo of
violence that hasn't been seen since the Crusades.

THAT IS WHY THE DISCOVERY OF A SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD IS OF VITAL
IMPORTANCE, NOW!

We need a "religious bomb" to deal with this situation.. and I am
proud to say, the PHYSICS DEPARTMENT has once again stepped up to the
plate and delivered the wonder weapon that will help end the war..
the world's first true scientific proof of God!

Can your theory explain the animosity between kibology and alt.slack?
My theory is that it's all the fault of that horrible little
cross-posting brine shrimp, Artemia Salina. But what does SPOG have to
say about it? Will there ever be PEACE between alt.slack and
alt.religion.kibology?

And

will Artemia Salina ever stop making his provocative cross-posting

raids,

trying to incite WAR between ark and alt.slack?

PLEASE try to engage Hammond in a rational scientific discussion
of this physics discovery

[Hammond]
See... this is an example of the non-rationality I am faced with.

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god

While perusing this URL I discovered how a hoax is made. I've read some
other cranky articles before, but this one seems to be a school example.

How to procede:

1. Amazingly enough you should start your article with the Bibliography.
Chosing a good bibliography is already half of your article. Make sure
you mix several scientific disciplines. For instance a good mix of
economics, relativity and psychology is a very good start (as in the
quoted URL). But a potpourri of egyptology, astrophysics and
microbiology would do equally well!

[Hammond]
We already know how morons like you think...

you really do not need to
explain it in detail.

2. Unlike in real scientific articles, make a list of numbered "notes",
just before the bibliography, and refer in the body of the article to
these "notes", giving the impression you are referencing genuine
scientifical work.

[Hammond]
We know how you concoct pseudoscience. Problem is you have no degrees in
Science and therefore can't tell science from pseudoscience. Go to night
school, get that GED!

3. Make sure that these notes contain obscure sentences involving lots
of "formula's" that you rip from existing texts and paste them
together, to give the impression that they come from a professional
scientist. Each sentence should at least have two fancy jargon terms
from different disciplines. Take into account that a "believing" reader
will never bother to check the details and will swallow everything as
granted scientifically proven stuff. In the quoted URL there are
beautiful examples of it, like this one:

"Since the generalized "gravitational force" in Relativity is G
which is proportional to the negative gradient of F (the metric),
we see that there is a constant "gravitational force" pointing in a
specific direction in psychometry space."

[Hammond]
This is a perfectly clear and precise scientific statement.

It explains
the existence of "social pressure" as a psychological force
mathematically having the same description as "gravity".

this force is
MEASURED by the way, every time we have a national election.... at that
time we determine whether the force is pointing to the RIGHT or the LEFT
for instance. You're stupid. What's more, you're IMPUDENT.

4. The body of the article should not seem too scientifical, but
scientifical enough to lure the gullible into believing it is. You can
always make references to your "notes" whenever you want to use the
"science" wand!
Like here :

"Adding 2 standard deviations, 1 and h, does not yield (1+h) but
actually Ö(12+h2) » (1+1/2 h2); to first order. Therefore we see
physically that h corresponds to F, or hii=F. Further however, the
magnitude of h44 which is the "communality"(4) of the 4th
psychometry dimension, g or Mental Speed, is proportional to the
standard deviation of brain growth from the population mean M."

[Hammond]
absolute and trivilly correct mathematical staqtement which I'm sure
sounds foreign to an amateur like you

but will immediately be recognized
as standard terminology by anyone with a degree in mathematics.

Standard deviations add as the "root mean square", meaning:
If h<<1 then sqrt[1^2+h^2] = 1 + 1/2 h^2 to first order

Any competent mathematician will tell you that.

5. Do not forget to put some kind of religious/moral/philosophical
message in your text, people need to "believe" in something!

"These then are the immediate Relativistic laws by which God governs
human reality, by dictating the size and speed of the world, or the
percentage of the world that each individual is permitted to see.
Since this is an absolute governance of human reality, we say that
God rules the World."

[Hammond]
Absolutely true statment. "What you see is what you get" to put it in
more familiar parlance.

6. And most of all, make an introduction warning the reader that if he
doesn't understand the article, it is probably because he has not
enough scientifical background and has to accept the theory for
granted.

[Hammond]
That goes without saying, imbecile.

"You MUST however, read the following 4 pages before attempting to
read that professional level paper."

I was thinking writing a cute little article about Dark Emitting
Diodes, involving anti-protons and quantum flucutations of the vacuum
:-)

[Hammond]
Why don't you join the thousands of nit wit kooks on
sci.physicis.relativity who claim that Einstein's theory is "gibberish"
or join the crowd trying to prove the "Einstein hoax".... stumblebum.