GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Don Stockbauer wrote:

Hey, Hammond Lack-Of-An-Organ:

Here's yer scientific proof of God, bud:

The Universe and God are identical.

Have a nice day.


Hello!


I understand any word except 'identical'. How? You have the power to
conclude!?
I think the word identical can't be possible, otherwise we wouldn't
have the chaos defined Universe we like to live.

Just think to the snowflake theory! But, even that . Nobody can
really say, that there is NO identical snowflake. (Though! ... more, a
dough :-), IMOO)
But you can say, there are no indentical trees, no identical human.



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: However. It would have been enough when you have said: "The
Universe and God"!

;-) (nobody is interested in your specific adjectives, as Universe is
knowable and God is up to anyone each!) Stey 'realistical' please !

Next you need a super Astronmy knower (science) and the Pope (theology)
to undercement your line, THOUGH! hehe
Both (Universe and God) are not really fully known. If we would know
both, out of the middle we would do the best.... Who cares when God was
born or when the the Universe will collapse.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:00:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP AD HOMINEM RANT


[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.

The supportive evidence for his assertions are found in EVERY one of your
insane bellowings and posts.

You HAVE no peer reviewed, published papers. That's just another of your
many mentally psychotic warps of reality.
You have been told, MANY times, that even the publishers admit that their
publications have no real scientific merit.

(and, as usual, you won;t even bother to answer this reality based fact).


Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.

Your bellowing reflects outrageous arrogance and insanity - NOT to mention a
complete disregard of REAL science.


You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such.

So?
Your standard criteria is to flip flop - saying those with an education are
stupid, while the ignorant masses understand your concepts of "gawd".
Those who do not laugh at you cannot ALL be as ignorant as you claim (and
egomaniacally need) them to be.
Educatino means nothing to you more than something else you can warp to your
deranged and delusional standards.


Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.

Yet more indication of your own psychotic behavior.

(snip foaming at the mouth ranting of a deranged lunatic.)

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:08:30 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEIST RANT

[Hammond]
You haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. You keep
mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say
Your commentary reflects low aggravated naiveté and
little sophistication or experience in Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Until you provide detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume you
are a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and typical of the
average ranting aggravated psychotic atheistic nut.
Finally, because frauds usually claim they can't
post their CV because they must remain anonymous
(which is crap); I posted a TEST QUESTION that any
COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:

Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google) which proves that
you're a half baked "applied physics" jerk who can't
understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectually BORING!


Here's a test question, **** for brains...............
Why has NO ONE ELSE, either in science or religion, come out in support of
your crap?
Instead, THEY dismiss you as a worthless kook!

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:15:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:


If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
why?

120
[GH] 2 significant figures
120.
[GH] 2 significant figures

If you were familiar with conventions with significant figures, you'd know
that if the zero in the units portion is significant (and there is no
fractional portion), you add a decimal point, otherwise you don't. The
correct answers are therefore 2 and 3 respectively.
Of course this is better resolved by using scientific notation.

469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures

6. There is no reason to write the zero unless it was significant. If
that number was measured to 5 sig figs, it should be written as 469.23 .

Since you didn't answer the question about showing how 12=13 to 3
significant figures (as you claim), your overall grade is really 5 out of
8, or 62.5%, which is an F. I'm being generous since you didn't answer any
of the "why" for the first seven questions. Please turn in your degrees to
the institutions that mistakenly awarded them to you.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:22:43 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:08:30 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEIST RANT

[Hammond]
You haven't posted ONE ON TOPIC SCIENTIFIC
STATMENT since you arrived on this thread. You keep
mouthing the hand waving phrase "word salad" in
response to everything I say
Your commentary reflects low aggravated naiveté and
little sophistication or experience in Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Until you provide detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume you
are a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and typical of the
average ranting aggravated psychotic atheistic nut.
Finally, because frauds usually claim they can't
post their CV because they must remain anonymous
(which is crap); I posted a TEST QUESTION that any
COMPETENT Physics PhD should be able to
answer off the top of his head:

Physics PhD Test Question
What is the relationship between the
Dirac gamma matrices of QED and the
Christoffel Symbols of General Relativity?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google) which proves that
you're a half baked "applied physics" jerk who can't
understand the SPOG which is based on "real Physics".
Screw psycho, go back to alt.atheism and talk to your
asshole buddies, and get off this thread. You're worthless
as a scientist and worst of all intellectually BORING!


[John Smith]
Here's a test question, **** for brains...............
Why has NO ONE ELSE, either in science or religion, come out in support of
your crap?
Instead, THEY dismiss you as a worthless kook!


[Hammond]
I sent it to a world famous physicist and asked him what
he thoughtt and he told me:

"I don't know what to think because
I'm the only one who has read it."

On the other hand, Usenet is dominated by antireligious,
antiscientific and anti intellectual nuts, so Usenet opinion
is a "scalar" not a "vector"; it has a magnitude, but no
direction.
=====================================
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
=====================================

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:20:52 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



[John Smith, rabid atheist]
You HAVE no peer reviewed, published papers.


[Hammond]
LIAR

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
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_proo...ammond5s1.html


[Hammond]
Pergamon Press (cited above) is one of the world's
premier academic publishers, you're a liar.
=====================================
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
=====================================

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:30:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:15:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:


If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
why?

120
[GH] 2 significant figures
120.
[GH] 2 significant figures

If you were familiar with conventions with significant figures, you'd know
that if the zero in the units portion is significant (and there is no
fractional portion), you add a decimal point, otherwise you don't.


[Hammond]
With typical sloppy Usenet typing I though that was a
period, not a decimal point. That isn't conventional
notation.


[Michael Moroney]
Of course this is better resolved by using scientific notation.


[Hammond]
No kiddin.


[Michael Moroney]
469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures

Michael Moroney
6. There is no reason to write the zero unless it was significant. If
that number was measured to 5 sig figs, it should be written as 469.23 .



[Hammond]
I mentioned that it would be 6 is in a post yesterday to
Doug, before you did, and said it would be 6 IF the final
zero was actually a measurement.
More commonly people add unnecessary zero's to figures,
which are meaningless. It is only in high quality
scientific publications that addional zero's would be
considered "significant".
Get outta here with your high school crap, this isn't an
amateur discussion.
=====================================
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
=====================================
Since you didn't answer the question about showing how 12=13 to 3
significant figures (as you claim), your overall grade is really 5 out of
8, or 62.5%, which is an F. I'm being generous since you didn't answer any
of the "why" for the first seven questions. Please turn in your degrees to
the institutions that mistakenly awarded them to you.

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:30:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:15:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
why?

120
[GH] 2 significant figures
120.
[GH] 2 significant figures

If you were familiar with conventions with significant figures, you'd know
that if the zero in the units portion is significant (and there is no
fractional portion), you add a decimal point, otherwise you don't.

With typical sloppy Usenet typing I though that was a
period, not a decimal point. That isn't conventional
notation.

Making up excuses for getting it wrong, I see. You weren't clued off by
my listing the number 120 twice, one with and without the decimal point.
That should have been a dead giveaway, but you still got it wrong.

469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures

6. There is no reason to write the zero unless it was significant. If
that number was measured to 5 sig figs, it should be written as 469.23 .

I mentioned that it would be 6 is in a post yesterday to
Doug, before you did, and said it would be 6 IF the final
zero was actually a measurement.

More excuses, I see. The notation I gave is standard.

More commonly people add unnecessary zero's to figures,
which are meaningless. It is only in high quality
scientific publications that addional zero's would be
considered "significant".

I explicitly stated a physicist was writing these down.

Anyway, your grade of F stands. You haven't even tried to explain your
failure of showing how 12=13 to three significant figures. Now write the
word "VOID" in indelible marker on any and all diplomas in your
possession, and mail them to the issuer for destruction. (OK, you can
keep the kindergarten graduation diploma, assuming you didn't cheat on the
'I no longer pee my pants' test)

this isn't an amateur discussion.

OK so you finally admit that your SPOG crap doesn't belong in sci.physics
and sci.physics should be for the science of physics only. Bye! Don't
come back now!

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:34:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




[Hammond]
Get the f--- outta here moron.

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:34:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

[Hammond]
Get the f--- outta here moron.

Tut tut, George. Keep that up and the asylum will permanently revoke
your computer privileges.

Besides, I'm here to read about and discuss physics. You can help by
taking your proof-of-God hallucinations someplace more appropiate, perhaps
alt.stupidity, or better yet, the nearest dumpster.