George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:52:01 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:51:39 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!


[Hammond]
LIAR. Here's a list of the Psychmetric experiments taken
from the bibliography opf my 1994 peer published paper
(Pergam Press), you don't know what you're talking about,
and you are a LIAR:

REFERENCE

[
[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
?????????????????
This, unless you warp it just as much as you psychotically warp everything
else, has nothing to do with your SPO Crap!
There's nothing here that is even remoely related to physics!

All of these things are related to social behavior and psychology ....
fields in which you have ABSOLUTELY NO degree!
IOW - your claimed CV's mean NOTHING here.

[Hammond]
All of these are published reports of EXPERIMENTAL Factor
Analytic eigenvector extractions from experimental
psychological correlation matrices. What I've discovered
is what CAUSES THE EIGENVECTOR STRUCTURE, and that is a
PHYSICS problem, because it turns out to be a:

EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE OF
SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME (i.e. "GOD")
THAT CAUSES THE CURVATURE.

Oh good, We are all convinced now. Lots of capital letters makes things
true.

Social studies and psychology are not "hard" sciences; so make a "hard
(physics) science" conclusion using them is mere FRAUD.


George seems to have missed this point. They do make good random
sentence generators though. That seems to be necessary for his
"proof".



[Hammond]
Baloney, what it provides is a concise PHYSICS
explanation of God. Get out of here, you're an uneducated,
scientifically illiterate asshole. Whddau think, an
ignorant asshole like you is qualified to understand the
world's first scientific proof of God..... getoutta here!

The rest of the scientific method, swearing and insults. This
certainly strengthens your arguments.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:14:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Screw pedant. Dalton's published thesis that historical
data PROVED his thesis that:

"All of chemistry was explained by
atoms combining to form molecules
because integral moles of reagents
were (historically) always combined
in chemical experiments"

was accepted as a PRIMA FACIE proven theory the day he
published it.... he didin't have to repeat the experiments,
they were WELL KNOWN to everybody.
Same with the SPOG, jerk.

Unsupported assertion!
WHAT EXPERIMENTS?
Just because one "CASE" happens by one particular method, does NOT mean
yours gets the same treatment.

Whaddumean "one case"? The annals of Scence are littered
with such cases of "race ipso" discoveries. For instance:

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination

One case. Maybe.

That's called a "precedent" in Law.

First, I see I was wrong for not immediately disagreeing with
George. Dalton did quite a bit of experimentation before
publishing his work. Also his work was done fairly early before
science was done as we do it now. Of course "precedent" applies
to law and not science (and only in certain cases, anyway).

So,...

This makes George's claims of science publication bypassing the scientific
method 0 for 7. That right, George. Zero cases. You got it wrong each
time.

Therefore, the
S.P.O.G. is not the first "purely theoretical discovery
based on existing data" in scientific history.

That's right, simply because it's definitely not any sort of "discovery"

Dirac never did any experiments,
and neither did I, I simply "theoretically explained the
existing phenomenon of God"

Here we have your admission of not following the scientific method. You
did no experiments.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:52:01 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!


[Hammond]
LIAR. Here's a list of the Psychmetric experiments taken
from the bibliography opf my 1994 peer published paper
(Pergam Press), you don't know what you're talking about,
and you are a LIAR:

REFERENCE

NO experiments attempting to verify or refute your so-called theory.
None! All was done before, so it would be the basis of the first step,
forming the initial hypothesis. Congrats George, you did the first step
of the scientific method. Now get to work, there's an awful lot of work
for you to do.

This, unless you warp it just as much as you psychotically warp everything
else, has nothing to do with your SPO Crap!
There's nothing here that is even remoely related to physics!

All of these things are related to social behavior and psychology ....
fields in which you have ABSOLUTELY NO degree!
IOW - your claimed CV's mean NOTHING here.

All of these are published reports of EXPERIMENTAL Factor
Analytic eigenvector extractions from experimental
psychological correlation matrices. What I've discovered
is what CAUSES THE EIGENVECTOR STRUCTURE, and that is a
PHYSICS problem, because it turns out to be a:

NONE of the work you quote has any physics. If you want to develop
a theory in physics, you're going to have to show some physics
experimental results. Simple as that.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:53:24 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:49:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?" .... IS the top question asked by ANY
employer
or person seeking the qualifications of another person;
NOT what you did 40 years ago!

Well, I got a minor traffic ticket and the judge asked me
the same question:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?"

I told him I had discovered the world's first scientific
proof of God and published it in a peer reviewed scientific
journal.
They showed a copy of the paper to the Massachusetts
Department of mental Health and the result is that they put
me on welfare, assisted housing, full medical
coverage and Food Stamps.

I tried to tell them I wasn't crazy, that I was a
scientist and actually had discovered the world's first
scientific proof of God... but the more I told them the less
they believed me and kept telling me to take the welfare
check and go to McDonald's and get something to eat. Finally
I just said o.k.

Unfortunately, I suspected as much. This is not something that
you'd expect from a judge handling a minor traffic ticket case.

On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:51:53 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:14:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Screw pedant. Dalton's published thesis that historical
data PROVED his thesis that:

"All of chemistry was explained by
atoms combining to form molecules
because integral moles of reagents
were (historically) always combined
in chemical experiments"

was accepted as a PRIMA FACIE proven theory the day he
published it.... he didin't have to repeat the experiments,
they were WELL KNOWN to everybody.
Same with the SPOG, jerk.

Unsupported assertion!
WHAT EXPERIMENTS?
Just because one "CASE" happens by one particular method, does NOT mean
yours gets the same treatment.

Whaddumean "one case"? The annals of Scence are littered
with such cases of "race ipso" discoveries. For instance:

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination

One case. Maybe.

That's called a "precedent" in Law.

First, I see I was wrong for not immediately disagreeing with
George. Dalton did quite a bit of experimentation before
publishing his work. Also his work was done fairly early before
science was done as we do it now. Of course "precedent" applies
to law and not science (and only in certain cases, anyway).

So,...

This makes George's claims of science publication bypassing the scientific
method 0 for 7. That right, George. Zero cases. You got it wrong each
time.

Therefore, the
S.P.O.G. is not the first "purely theoretical discovery
based on existing data" in scientific history.

That's right, simply because it's definitely not any sort of "discovery"

Dirac never did any experiments,
and neither did I, I simply "theoretically explained the
existing phenomenon of God"

Here we have your admission of not following the scientific method. You
did no experiments.


[Hammond]
Neither did Einstein, 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
=====================================

On Sun, 04 May 2008 10:46:52 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



SNIP

[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
You have no idea what I have and have not read.
Your previous behavior and posts indicate one hell of a lot of distorting
other peoples writings to fit your own insane claims ...
and they have constantly been pointed out to you.
As is your habit - you just ignored that too!

[JOHN SMITH, HECKLER]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
=====================================
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 Sun, 04 May 2008 06:57:23 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but have no CV,
real name, or verification.
Your totally non-scientific postings show you are
a crackpot with possibly a charity degree in applied
Science at best.
You have not posted a single competent scientific
somment to this thread, merely off topic inane
heckling.
Get off this thread.
=====================================
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 Sun, 04 May 2008 10:38:42 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


[Hammond]
I tried to tell them I wasn't crazy, that I was a
scientist and actually had discovered the world's first
scientific proof of God... but the more I told them the less
they believed me and kept telling me to take the welfare
check and go to McDonald's and get something to eat. Finally
I just said o.k.


[JOHN SMITH, HECKLER]
Here's a hint ... the more you talked to them, the more insane they
thought
you were.
You probably won't get it anyway.


[Hammond]
2 months later I gave a specially invited talk to 200
research psychologists at the XXVI INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
PSYCHOLOGY in Montreal Canada on August 18, 1996. I sat on
the dais for 2 hours with Prof. Hans Eysenck himself (then
the world's most famous living psychologist) and we
discussed my discovery of the Structural Model of
Personality. I received a robust ovation from the audience
and many personal complements..... obviously they don't
think I'm crazy!

Hey ......... that's the same day I saw Elvis.
What a coincidence!


[Hammond]
Why is that a cooincidence, ape****?
=====================================
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 Sun, 04 May 2008 06:57:23 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP RANT

[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but have no CV,
real name, or verification.
Your totally non-scientific postings show you are
a crackpot with possibly a charity degree in applied
Science at best.
You have not posted a single competent scientific
somment to this thread, merely off topic inane
heckling.
Get off this thread.

So you are afraid to answer the question. I thought so.


=====================================
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 Sun, 4 May 2008 16:05:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:


Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
Unfortunately, I suspected as much. This is not something that
you'd expect from a judge handling a minor traffic ticket case.


[Hammond]
2 months later I gave a specially invited talk to 200
research psychologists at the XXVI INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
PSYCHOLOGY in Montreal Canada on August 18, 1996. I sat on
the dais for 2 hours with Prof. Hans Eysenck himself (then
the world's most famous living psychologist) and we
discussed my discovery of the Structural Model of
Personality. I received a robust ovation from the audience
and many personal complements..... obviously they don't
think I'm crazy!
=====================================
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
=====================================