"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:44:02 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


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


"George Hammond" wrote in message
m...
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.,

[Hammond]
Simple: You come into existence, and when you come into
existence anything you see "exists".
3 across is HAMMOND.

The clue was - "Biggest asshole in all the news groups".

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:47:08 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:
[Hammond]
answer this 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 sufficient.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head, you're a f---in phony.
ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT

[Hammond]
Just as I thought, you can't answer the question,
you're a psycho-phony, probably a junior lab technician.
Physics PhD my ass! Get outta here.
ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT

[Doug, physics fraud and laughing stooge]
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.

[Hammond]
I'll believe the answer if it is correct, that's for
certain. You don't know the answer because you're a Physics
fraud and a Scientific braggart and imposter, a mere
halfwit heckler, and congenital moron. Besides that you
suck!
First you say you would not believe it and now you say you
will. More contradictions as suits your purposes. Again
you try to "win" by insults. That is not what they taught
me in graduate school. Maybe that is why I finished and you
did not.

ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT

[Doug, physics fraud and laughing stooge]
You got the number of gods in the various religions wrong,


[Hammond]
And you're a liar, the SPOG correctly predicts the
canonical gods of the Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon, and the
canonical God/4 Gospel Saints of Xtianity to better than 92%
accuracy. You're a vicious, sadistic and aggravated scumbag
and psychotic moron.
In other words, you think that saying 12==13 is close enough.
Pointing out that 12 does not equal 13 is being vicious, sadistic
etc. No wonder you had trouble in school.

ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT
[Doug, physics fraud and laughing stooge]
you ignored most of the gods in other religions


[Hammond]
More horse****.... the SPOG correctly predicts and proves
the existence of the 30 demigods of Hinduism (30-1st order
eigenvectors).... you don't know what the f--- you're
talking about and care less because you're an irresponsible
psychotic scumbag.

Again, you are trying to prove the existence of an arbitrary
(and wrong) number of nonexistent beings. Of course, since
they do not exist, you can try for any number if you like as
any number is wrong.

ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT

[Doug, physics fraud and laughing stooge]
have nothing in your "proof".


[Hammond]
More lying horse****..... the SPOG proves that the
eigenvector structure of Psychometric Factor Analysis is
CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to Linearized Relativistic Gravity.
That's a HARD SCIENTIFIC RESULT, confirmed experimentally to
3 significant figures. An actual scientific proof of God,
dimwit.
12=13 is correct to 3 significant figures. You went to a different
school than I did.
And, as another hint, word salad is not a "proof" where I went
to school.


ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT

[Doug, physics fraud and laughing stooge]
study and learn from your mistakes?


[Hammond]
You're the one who made the mistake, the mistake of
trying to smear Hammond.... I've just turned your ass into
mince meat, and that's only a sample of what'll happen to
assholes like you after the scientific community and the
public learn about your treacherous behavior towards the
SPOG on Usenet.

So swearing at me and threatening me is what you consider
scientific discussion. The SPOG is neither scientific, nor
proof nor has anything to do with a god. You got the "of"
partially correct though.



ANSWER THE QUESTION OR GET OUT
The answer is you have no proof of anything.


=====================================
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 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:44:02 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


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


"George Hammond" wrote in message
m...
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.,

[Hammond]
Simple: You come into existence, and when you come into
existence anything you see "exists".

That doesn't explain anything.It just looks like you don't understand the
question.
If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:56:04 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP CRAP


[Hammond]
If you're a Physicis PhD then prove it by answering this
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 sufficient.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head then you're an imposter and a phony.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.... PUT UP OR SHUT UP
=====================================
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 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:40:47 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:44:02 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


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


"George Hammond" wrote in message
om...
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.,

[Hammond]
Simple: You come into existence, and when you come into
existence anything you see "exists".

That doesn't explain anything


[Hammond]
Horse****, it answers your question directly.



It just looks like you don't understand the question.
If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.

[
[Hammond]
No... YOU don't understand the question, or the answer.
It's SIMPLE:

1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
Universe came into existence simultaneously
including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.


If you're too stupid to understand that, that's YOUR
problem, not mine!
=====================================
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 Apr 25, 9:59*am, George Hammond wrote:

1. *If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.

My dog seems to have a different opinion.

I wonder if you will propose to test this hypothesis?

hmmmm...

2. *When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
* * * Universe came into existence simultaneously
* * * including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.

Man has not come into existence yet. What we see is a simulation of
what will happen if man comes into existence. The simulation provides
everything so that we think man already came into existence.

And they lived happily ever after they came into existence...

Mike

On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

[Hammond]
* *Wrong Pizzaman. *Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". *In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. *This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".

You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
* Of course not, don't be ridiculous. *People (any people)
believe what they see.
* *What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
* *Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
* *Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
* *The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
* * *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
=====================================- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.

As for phenomenon.

Maybe you could explain wich phenomenon you mean,
instead of leaving me rather agnostic :-)
I surely want to take some measures,
before the hideous thing kills me!

(must be something evil, if it kills me)


Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS Don't you mind that reply by John Smith,
We know you are more than an asshole!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:40:47 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:44:02 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


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


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news:rn8t04pl2u7i9bhgnkofvl16j26jihkmko@4ax. com...
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.,

[Hammond]
Simple: You come into existence, and when you come into
existence anything you see "exists".

That doesn't explain anything

George doesn't ever explain anything - he just bellows more and more
ignorance ......



[Hammond]
Horse****, it answers your question directly.

see ................





It just looks like you don't understand the question.
If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.

[
[Hammond]
No... YOU don't understand the question, or the answer.
It's SIMPLE:

1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
Universe came into existence simultaneously
including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.

Why?
What "time" What universe? Why this paticular universe?
Why this particular planet? Why this particular solar system?
Where did this "Man" come from?
Where did this "universe" come from?





If you're too stupid to understand that, that's YOUR
problem, not mine!

There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
insanity.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:51:53 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
insanity.

[Hammond]
You don't think so? How else could you discover the
world's first scientific proof of God?
=====================================
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 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

[Hammond]
* *Wrong Pizzaman. *Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". *In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. *This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".

You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
* Of course not, don't be ridiculous. *People (any people)
believe what they see.
* *What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
* *Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
* *Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
* *The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
* * *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
=====================================



Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.


[Hammond]
There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
atheist. Common opinion holds that public officals are less
ignorant than the highly educated. So I'm afraid you're
mistaken.



As for phenomenon.
Maybe you could explain wich phenomenon you mean,
instead of leaving me rather agnostic :-)
I surely want to take some measures,
before the hideous thing kills me!
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
Read my website


PS Don't you mind that reply by John Smith,
We know you are more than an asshole!


[Hammond]
"We" apparently means people who are of sufficient
decency to use their real names; not the overwhelming
majority of Usenet who, like criminals, prefer to use
aliases.
=====================================
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
=====================================