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.

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:

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

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.



[Hammond]

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

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

Hence, I'm not going anywhere.

I suggest you quit posting off topic, ad hominem spute, and,
get the f--- off this thread. High school moron.
=====================================
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 20:30:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:34:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
[Hammond]
Get the f--- outta here moron.
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.



[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.

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

Try doing some physics and not just word babble. Or read up
on the world religions and put out religious writings. But
science and religion do not go together and your pitiful
attempt only provokes laughter.

Hence, I'm not going anywhere.

I suggest you quit posting off topic, ad hominem spute, and,
get the f--- off this thread. High school moron.

You do not like it when your mistakes are pointed out do you?

=====================================
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 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.
I'll make it simple: If there is no such thing as an
observer, there can be no such thing as an "observable".
Look. you're pretty stupid and naieve, and the subject of
"God" is a little over your head.... why don't you take a
hike?
Besides that, I am VERY FAMILIAR with your brand of
psychotic disturbance, (anti-religious aggravation) which
can last for DECADES, and know full well that there is no
such thing as a rational discussion with such a person.
Besides that, you opinion isn't worth anything to begin
with.
The ONLY thing you have to offer is the ability to make
some kind of "scientific content" statements.... but you are
so beside yourself with anti-religious aggravation, that you
are UNABLE to even do that. Screw.... you're useless in
this discussion.
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution!
=====================================
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 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.
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.

I'll make it simple: If there is no such thing as an
observer, there can be no such thing as an "observable".
No, what you are saying is that there is nothing without
man. That is not supported by evidence.

Look. you're pretty stupid and naieve, and the subject of
"God" is a little over your head.... why don't you take a
hike?
Remember I outrank you. I have a PhD and you failed graduate
school. I have also studied both science and religion ever
since. People do not laugh at what I propose.

Besides that, I am VERY FAMILIAR with your brand of
psychotic disturbance, (anti-religious aggravation) which
can last for DECADES, and know full well that there is no
such thing as a rational discussion with such a person.
Besides that, you opinion isn't worth anything to begin
with.
My opinions are backed by a PhD. Remind us again what you
do for a living

The ONLY thing you have to offer is the ability to make
some kind of "scientific content" statements.... but you are
so beside yourself with anti-religious aggravation, that you
are UNABLE to even do that. Screw.... you're useless in
this discussion.
I am not antireligious. All of the religions have their places
in the lives of those who believe in them. But I do not put
fable above science though.

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution!

I am trying to help you and you are refusing help. Who then
is the problem?


=====================================
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 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.
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.


[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!.


[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.
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:

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

This proves that:

God = G_uv = A curvature of subjective spacetime

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.
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.
=====================================
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 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
=====================================

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.

Nope, it's your unsupported rantings and delusions. For it to be physics
(or any science) you have to follow the Scientific Method, which you have
not. Do you even know what the Scientific Method is?

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

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

Look at http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...c_method.shtml
and follow that colored flowchart on that page. Apply it to your "SPOG"
claims. I don't know about the first two steps, but at some point you
reached the "Construct Hypothesis" step (yellow). Note the word
"hypothesis". The next state is "Test with an Experiment". Did you do
that? No! Next is "Analyze Results". How can you do that without an
experiment? What you did next was "Jump to Conclusion" (not Draw
Conclusion) and went to "Hypothesis is True" and "Report Results" step
by blathering it here. Except, of course, there are no 'Results' so
you replace that step with "Blather Hypothesis" instead. Since you
have no results to analyze, you skip the 'false/partially true' path
and try again. Nobody gets it perfectly right the first time so every
hypothesis will go around the loop a few times.

Now what many people, including myself, have done is take your ideas as a
hypothesis and testing it. For example, you blather something about 13
eigenvectors=13 gods (whatever that means). We all point out the fact the
Greeks had a Dodekatheon with only 12 gods. Oops, off by 1. You /should/
follow the "partially true/false" path, modify your Hypothesis and try
again. But no, you want to cheat and go straight for the finish, and get
mad that we point out your cheating the scientific method.

So, if you want anyone serious about physics to _ever_ take you seriously,
you'll have to follow the scientific method. You'll have to come up with
some sort of test or experiment (green on chart) that when evaluated fairly
esp. by other scientists, will either agree or disagree with your
hypothesis.

Now if you are in the least bit worthy of a BS in physics, you'll fully
understand this and agree with it, and will go off to come up with some
sort of tests of your hypothesis. The best tests to come up with are
ones that will _disprove_ your hypothesis, and if it has merit, these
tests will _fail_.

A good example is Einstein and GR. He said that gravity bends light.
Classic theory has no effect on light by gravity. He came up with an
experiment. Observe a certain star during an eclipse. Einstein said that
if he's correct, that star will appear at a certain spot because its light
was bent by the sun. If classical theory is correct, it'll appear at a
different position. Very straightforward, and it was tested during that
eclipse.

Hence, I'm not going anywhere.

Come back when you have tests of your hypothesis.

I suggest you quit posting off topic, ad hominem spute, and,
get the f--- off this thread. High school moron.

You can't defend yourself or your hypothesis so you again report to
cursing and namecalling. That only shows you know how weak your support
is.

If there's no scientific method to SPOG, it is what's off topic
in a science group.