On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:35:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:30:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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

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.

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

[Michael Moroney]
Nope, it's your unsupported rantings and delusions.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

2. I'm a graduate physicist.


[Michael Moroney]
I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.


SNIP AMATEUR SPUTE


CURRICULUM VITAE

GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

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

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:35:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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

Nope, it's your unsupported rantings and delusions.

UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

That's correct. Your "Relativistic Anthropic Principle"
is nothing more than UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS LACKING ANY
FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Now we're getting somewhere.

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

[snip worthless CV]

No comments on the Scientific Method at all? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT
IT IS? How the hell can you even claim to have a scientific proof
of anything without knowing what the scientific method is, much less
applying it?

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:


2. I'm a graduate physicist.

[Michael Moroney chronic heckler]
I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

CURRICULUM VITAE

GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

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

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

George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:26:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

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.

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
You called them all to ask?


[Hammond]
Obviously no one has to ask when their published
posititons on the subject are already famous and all over
Google including Hawking's book which cites the AP 15 times
and has sold 15 million copies.
QUIT POSTING IRRELEVANT AMATEUR TRIVIA

[Hammond]
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.

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
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]
That's a piece of asinine stupidity. We are taling about
"the observers" in PHYSICS who can observe physical
measurements. There is only ONE OBSERVER who can do
this......namely MAN. What's wrong with you? A cat can't
do it, a mouse can't do it, neither can any other animal.
What's wrong with you?
[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!.

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
It has no meaning for me but the world continues for the
others and the cats. Thus your statement is wrong.


[Hammond]
WRONGt.... "existence" is only a perceptual property of
MAN......... no MAN; no existence..... you're level of
intellectual incompetence is becoming painfully apparent.

This is your religious bias again. Man in not special.
This makes the rest of your "proof" wrong. It is that
simple. You started with a faulty premise.

Or you can try to prove it. But you just want to try
to bully your way to acceptance.



[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.

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
I assume you meant philosophy but the spog is based on
hope and delusion. None of it is in any way correct.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

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!
[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
A lovely example of word salad. This has no meaning and
so is not even wrong.

[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

Then put some proof in your unsupported assertion.

This proves that:

God = G_uv = A curvature of subjective spacetime
[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
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.


[Hammond]
You don't know what your taliking about. the first
statement says that the "entire sturcture of Factor Analysis
in Psychometry is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the sturcture of
Linearized Gravity in Generakl Relativity.

Repeating wrong statements does not help make them correct.
You have shown no connection (or ability to spell) between
the fields.

THEREFORE, it is a MANIFEST RESULTANT FACT that
Psychometry is described by the SAME FIELD EQUATION as
General Relativity (with a different source term), thus the
second statement God=G_uv is the result.
Your statment that 2 does not follow 1 is obviously WRONG
AND SCIENTIFICALLY INCOMPETENT.

You are the one who must show they are the same and you did
not even try. You just said it and then claimed because you
said it, it must be true.


FURTHERMORE this result is described in painstakingly
elaborate detail in my peer published paper a copy of which
is prominantly posted on my website:

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

WHICH YOU ARE TOO LAZY AND INCOMPETENT TO READ...!!

Oh good. So if I want to prove something, all I have to do
is put up a web page. I read your posting and it is hilarious.


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.

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
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.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

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.


[Hammond]
No... you have presented no verification that you have a
PhD, or if you do whether it is in Underwater Basket Weaving
or some other half baked field of study. As far as I'm
concerned you're a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER until your
credentials are verified. Which I doubt.

You should spend more time on doubting your own "theory".
If you want to get it accepted, try making it at least
sound plausible. Right now it is a major joke but it is
good for a laugh or two.



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

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

2. I'm a graduate physicist.
[Michael Moroney chronic heckler]
I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

George apparently thinks that list this is the scientific method.
Or does he believe since he has a degree (but failed his PhD) that
the scientific method does not apply to him? Maybe that is why he
did not finish school. Those of us who needed the scientific method
required more time to finish. Those proofs really did take a lot of
time. It is easier and faster to just declare you are right and
swear at those who point out you are wrong.

CURRICULUM VITAE

GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA

We note that you did not finish. It is pretty hard to fail
out if you make it to candidacy.

Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

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

This article is very impressive. It manages to put more
buzz words, nonsense and speculation in one place than
I have seen for awhile.


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

Of course, this is the classic in terms of nonsense.


=====================================
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 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:52:07 -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 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
verification of your educational claims, I presume 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!
=====================================
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 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -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 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
verification of your educational claims, I presume 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!
=====================================
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
=====================================

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -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 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
verification of your educational claims, I presume 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!
=====================================
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
=====================================

So when specific flaws are pointed out in your "theory" you
have chosen to attack the person who brings up the flaws
because you know you cannot defend your "proof". The flaws
I pointed out are facts which are not dependent on the fact
that I have a PhD and you do not (I know that bothers you but
that is the way it is).

If you could defend your work, you would. You cannot so you
just try to bluster. That is not the scientific method.

Answer the facts that point out your errors if you want to
be taken seriously. Now you are just trying to hide.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:44 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:
[Hammond]
You're disputing a well known documented public fact.
Pergamon Press is one of the world's PREMIER academic
publishers as any google search will confirm.

[John Smith, rabid atheist]
The printing company has nothing to do with the validity of the
information
it prints - **** for brains!
You've been told that FACT over and over again!


[Hammond]
LIAR.....LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
My 1994 paper was peer refviewed by 5 PROFESSORIAL RANK
REVIEWERS including the editor and was UNANIMOUSLY recommed
for publication by all 5. My 2003 paper was published by a
journal which has 10 Physicists on it's editorial review
board and the editor is a world ernouned Phd physicist
himself and recommeded the paper for publication. You don't
know what you're talking about. QUIT LYING.

You edit and add "rabid atheist" to my handle .... and call me a liar?
You know nothing about my religious beliefs - asswipe!

THE PEER REVIEW process has NOTHING TO DO with editorial review!!!!

When a scientist submits a paper for publication to a VALID scientific
journal, the paper is first sent out to other competent scientists who have
nothing to do with either the first scientist or the publication.

THEY investigate the paper, its claims and the experimental data used to
make the conclusions. Many times, they even try to recreate the experiments
to see if the results they get are the same as the original paper.

Then, and only if they find no fault with the information, is the paper
cleared for publication.

Your crap was checked for spelling errors - little more.


Were you a REAL scientist - you would have known that!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -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 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
verification of your educational claims, I presume 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!


Facts are facts - no matter what the source.
The FACT is - George Hammond is nothing more than a raving lunatic.