George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:31:03 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:57:52 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



[Hammond]

1. The "Relativistic Anthropi9c Principle" is
manifestly a Physics Subject.

No, it is a religious tract which is in conflict with physics
and history. The world did not start when man was "created".
That is false as is the rest of what you said.



[Hammond]
Horse****. "Reality itself" began when Man appeared,
BECAUSE, "Reality", or "observables" have no operational
definition without an "observer".... namely Man.

[Doug]
This is where your "logic" falls apart. You have made an
assumption that man is important and unique. This is a
religious view having nothing to do with science. A cat
is a perfectly good observer so your conclusion is wrong.



[Hammond]
Don't be stupid. Stephen Hawking cites the Anthropic
Principe 15 times in his _Brief History of Time_ which has
sold 15 million copies. Hawking does not think the AP is a
"religious theory" neither does Penrose, Weinberg, Wheeler
or the majority of the physicis community.

You called them all to ask?

The "observer" of Physics is Man. If you're going to
call a cat an observer, why not a mouse or a fly or an
earthworm, or a bacterium... don't be stupid for chrissakes.
This is exactly the point. You are making the assumption that
man is somehow special. This is not true biologically as we
are just another one of the animals. You are making the
religious assumption that man is special. That is not science,
that is religion and there is no proof or justification of
that assumption.


[Hammond]
I'll make it simple: If there is no such thing as an
observer, there can be no such thing as an "observable".

[Doug]
No, what you are saying is that there is nothing without
man. That is not supported by evidence.



[Hammond]
The statement "there is nothing without Man" is self
evident and proveable. tell me how you would confirm that
the Universe "still existed" at 9:01am if every single
person were suddenly to die at 9am tomorrow morning. Go
ahead and tell me!
YOU COULDN'T, because the word "existence" would no
longer have ANY OPERATIONAL MEANING WHATSOEVER!.
It has no meaning for me but the world continues for the
others and the cats. Thus your statement is wrong.


[Hammond]
Look lame brain, I don't have time to sit here and argue
amateur philawswphy with an aggravated atheist.
BECAUSE the SPOG is not based on "philawseopy".... that's
just conversational material for Usenet amateurs.
I assume you meant philosophy but the spog is based on
hope and delusion. None of it is in any way correct.

What YOU are guilty of (if you are a physics PhD) is
IGNORING the hard scientific discovery that Hammond has made
(and peer published); that:
This is wrong as has been pointed out by everyone.


The entire Factor Analytic structure of Psychometry
is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the 4x4 matrix structure of
Linearized Gravity in Relativity. CAUSALLY IDENTICAL!

A lovely example of word salad. This has no meaning and
so is not even wrong.


This proves that:

God = G_uv = A curvature of subjective spacetime

This is in no way related to the previous statements. You
pulled this out of your hat (being nice) to get to the
end point you hoped would work but did not.


For a horse's ass of a PhD physicist to come in here
where physicis amateurs are only able to jawbone about the
elementary (and ancient!) philosophical foundation of the
phenomena, and DELIBERATELY IGNORE the stunning scientific
discovery of the CURVATURE OF REALITY that proves "God"
exists, is less than unethical and despicable, it's very
near criminal.

The "stunning" part is how many wrong things get put in
one "theory". My pointing out the truth is not any of the
things you say it is, it is public service in case some
one is silly enough to start to swallow what you are
putting out.

Believe me, unless you can get up to speed and start
talking hard science... I have no intention of flattering an
ignorant asshole like you by sitting here and talking
amateur Philawsepy with you. Unlike you, I have better
things to do.

I am well up to speed. Remember that I have my PhD. You
talking is not in any way flattering.

If you have better things to do, just admit defeat and
quit posting replies.


=====================================
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
=====================================