George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

No, everyone who sees your writings here are laughing - and they're
laughing AT you. It's not just a few, it's everyone. Except for those
who just pity you.

That's a property of the corpulent academy boy Usenet
environment which isheavily infected by psychotic avant
guard wannabees, like you.

That's your problem, George. You are too blind to see, or (more
likely) simply refuse to see that your so-called "proof" is crap,
not the rest of the world for laughing at it.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:42:41 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

VITA FOR 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
[Hammond]
Ok, I've read your post, and have concluded with absolute
certainty that my first impression was correct: Either you
are a fraud and not actually a PhD as you claim, or are
actually a PhD in some phony applied physics field such as
"Atmospheric Physics" which any mentally challenged halfwit
could achieve, or, there actually are Universities who will
grant a "mercy degree" in physics to incompetent,
unoriginal, and worthless stooges such as you.

[Doug]
Thank you for more humor as you try to thrash your way to
some position that does not look too bad. Since you failed
out of graduate school does that mean that you are not even
up to the "mentally challenged halfwit" level of getting some
PhD? Or did not you not qualify for a "mercy degree"?


[Hammond]
You claim you're a Physics PhD. I'll believe it when you
post your CV. You're too argumentative to be credible....
no competent Physics PhD could possibly be as asinine and
trivial as you are... you're obviously a low brow
horselaughing stooge and a bozo.
And, of course YOU are the one showing how high brow and
civil people with degrees in physics are. I am sorry but
I cannot match your anger.

One of the things you are missing is that my opinion of my
career is not dependent on your approval. I am quite happy
with what I have done. Your lack of accomplishment is not
my problem.

You are not going to change so I will continue to laugh
at your new ideas (you are going to come up with some new
"theories I hope) and enjoy passing them around for
levity.

By the way, no one has replied who does not consider your
"theories" worthy of a laugh.


Dozen's of anonymous jackass high school dropouts show up
on Usenet claiming they're "PhD's", who are you kidding?
Oh... going to claim anonymity as an excuse for not
posting your CV?.... then answer a Physics test question for
us:

What is the relationship between the Dirac
Gamma matrices of QED and the Christoffel Symbols
Of General relativity?

A 25 word answer will be sufficent.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head, you're a f---in phoney.
And even if you find the answer by searching Google, I
still won't believe you until I see a CV.

You are getting desperate aren't you? You contradict yourself
within one sentence. You want an answer but have already said
you will not believe that answer. There is as much logic
in this as there is in your so called proof.

=====================================
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 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:36:47 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



Dozen's of anonymous jackass high school dropouts show up
on Usenet claiming they're "PhD's", who are you kidding?
Oh... going to claim anonymity as an excuse for not
posting your CV?.... then answer a Physics test question for
us:

What is the relationship between the Dirac
Gamma matrices of QED and the Christoffel Symbols
Of General relativity?

A 25 word answer will be sufficent.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head, you're a f---in phoney.
And even if you find the answer by searching Google, I
still won't believe you until I see a CV.

You are getting desperate aren't you? You contradict yourself
within one sentence. You want an answer but have already said
you will not believe that answer. There is as much logic
in this as there is in your so called proof.



[Hammond]
Just as I thought, you're a psycho-phoney, probably a
junior lab techncian. Physics PhD my ass! Get outta here.
=====================================
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 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:34:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

No, everyone who sees your writings here are laughing - and they're
laughing AT you. It's not just a few, it's everyone. Except for those
who just pity you.

That's a property of the corpulent academy boy Usenet
environment which is heavily infected by psychotic avant
guard wannabees, like you.

That's your problem, George. You are too blind to see, or (more
likely) simply refuse to see that your so-called "proof" is crap,
not the rest of the world for laughing at it.

[Hammond]
Screw heckler. Nobody's listening to you, they're listening
to me.
=====================================
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 in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:33:45 +0100, "marc"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:fqWPj.11363$aq4.9829@trnddc02...


Odd that you cannot seem to comprehend the contradictive stupidity of
your
own stance.

Language does not posses adequate functionality to articulate what Hammond
cannot comprehend.

Marc


It's retrodictive stupidity, not contradictive stupidity.


"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·tra·dic·tive Audio Help /?k?ntr?'d?kt?v/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[kon-truh-dik-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
-adjective tending or inclined to contradict; involving contradiction;
contradictory.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1620-30; contradict + -ive]

-Related forms
con·tra·dic·tive·ly, adverb
con·tra·dic·tive·ness, noun "


****************************
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retrodictive
"No results found for retrodictive."

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:36:47 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


Dozen's of anonymous jackass high school dropouts show up
on Usenet claiming they're "PhD's", who are you kidding?
Oh... going to claim anonymity as an excuse for not
posting your CV?.... then answer a Physics test question for
us:

What is the relationship between the Dirac
Gamma matrices of QED and the Christoffel Symbols
Of General relativity?

A 25 word answer will be sufficent.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head, you're a f---in phoney.
And even if you find the answer by searching Google, I
still won't believe you until I see a CV.
You are getting desperate aren't you? You contradict yourself
within one sentence. You want an answer but have already said
you will not believe that answer. There is as much logic
in this as there is in your so called proof.



[Hammond]
Just as I thought, you're a psycho-phoney, probably a
junior lab techncian. Physics PhD my ass! Get outta here.

This is getting funnier as you get continually more desperate
to ignore the truth. You already told me you would not believe
the answer so there is no point in answering. My PhD is doing
just fine without your belief.

You also try to attack the messenger rather than the message.
The truth is that you are putting out nonsense that we all
laugh at and it is fun to watch you fume and sputter but we
still pity you and hope that you learn what you are actually
trying to do.

You have no physics content to discuss in any of your "proofs"
and you know that if you ever did go to school. Psychobabble
does not constitute proofs. Bullying does not constitute proof.
Swearing does not constitute proof. Putting your fingers in
your ears and pretending to not hear the truth does not consitute
proof.

You got the number of gods in the various religions wrong,
you ignored most of the gods in other religions and you
have nothing in your "proof". Live with it. But why not
study and learn from your mistakes?


=====================================
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 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:34:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
No, everyone who sees your writings here are laughing - and they're
laughing AT you. It's not just a few, it's everyone. Except for those
who just pity you.

That's a property of the corpulent academy boy Usenet
environment which is heavily infected by psychotic avant
guard wannabees, like you.
That's your problem, George. You are too blind to see, or (more
likely) simply refuse to see that your so-called "proof" is crap,
not the rest of the world for laughing at it.

[Hammond]
Screw heckler. Nobody's listening to you, they're listening
to me.
No, you got the wrong word. We are laughing at you. You
have to appreciate how funny this all seems with your
desperate flailing around hoping to randomly hit on some
truth somewhere. Although it is getting a bit embarrassing
to watch your continued difficulties.

=====================================
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 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:49:00 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:34:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
No, everyone who sees your writings here are laughing - and they're
laughing AT you. It's not just a few, it's everyone. Except for those
who just pity you.

That's a property of the corpulent academy boy Usenet
environment which is heavily infected by psychotic avant
guard wannabees, like you.
That's your problem, George. You are too blind to see, or (more
likely) simply refuse to see that your so-called "proof" is crap,
not the rest of the world for laughing at it.

[Hammond]
Screw heckler. Nobody's listening to you, they're listening
to me.
No, you got the wrong word. We are laughing at you. You
have to appreciate how funny this all seems with your
desperate flailing around hoping to randomly hit on some
truth somewhere. Although it is getting a bit embarrassing
to watch your continued difficulties.

Was this lunatic ever sane?

My father once knew somebody at work who asked everybody if they were
sane. Could they prove it? He had a certificate certifying he was.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:25 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


[Andy F.]
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe
has
been around for billions of years.

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.

[Andy F.]
This means the universe existed before
humans did.


[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.

1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.

2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.

An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When
you
look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you
look
through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened
millions
of years ago.

[Hammond]
Idiocy, the Universe didn't "exist" until the human race
arrived to "make" it exist by seeing it. Makes no
difference that the light took 13 billion years to get here,
it didn't "exist" until the human race arrived to see it.


3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.

[Andy F.]
So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!

But a human can't confirm that something exists until after it
exists.Which
would make it logically impossible for anything to come into existence.

[Hammond]
Idiot..... nothing existed until Humans arrived to "make" it
exist by seeing it. You're an imbecile who will never rise
above moronic world games... I suggest you try crossword
puzzles. Moron.


OK. As soon as you've explained how you can 'see' something that doesn't
exist, I'll go and do the crossword.,

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:34:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

That's your problem, George. You are too blind to see, or (more
likely) simply refuse to see that your so-called "proof" is crap,
not the rest of the world for laughing at it.

[Hammond]
Screw heckler. Nobody's listening to you, they're listening
to me.

They're listening to you and not me, alright. They listen to your latest
"proof" and they start rolling on the floor laughing. They smile when
they see you put in your place by a (real) PhD and then try to squirm out
of it. Me? I'm far less entertaining. I don't post hilarious "proofs"
that appear to be fresh from the local asylum. I know how to count to 13.
I'm rather boring in comparison. But I'd rather be considered boring
than insane.