George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:00:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP AD HOMINEM RANT

[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and 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 either), proving that
you're some kind of 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
=====================================

You already posted this. Repeating it does not make it
correct any more than your blustering fixes any of the
mistakes in you physics.
Your "proof" is a joke. Get over it and move on.
We need something new to laugh at.

George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:49:40 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



[Hammond]
Look you Physics dufus the dozen Egyptian gods are
EXACTLY REAL in the same way Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and
Porky Pig are real; they are Personality types that show up
as accurately measured EXPERIMENTAL EIGENVECTORS in
Psychometry and further turn out to be CUBICALLY CORRELATED.
Look .. "Charm, Color, and Strangeness" are REAL because
they show up as EIGENVECTORS in Quantum Field Theory, and
are experimentally verified. SAME THING IS TRUE OF THE 13
GODS OF THE Egypto-Greco-Roman Pantheon.



[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
Or 12 assuming that the Greeks did not know the difference
between 12 and 13 as you have claimed earlier.



[Hammond]
Look, I already told you 3 times, the only EXACT
scientific fact is that there are EXACTLY 13-2nd ORDER
EIGENVECTORS, extracted by mainframe computers.
The ancients didn't know what an eigenvector is, or that
the 13-2nd orders are CUBICALLY intercorrelated. Hammond
discovered that (1994) They just took an educated guess and
called it an even DOZEN (the Greek Dodekatheon so called).
They were right to within 7.7%, pretty good for ancient
science.
So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.

Since you got the number wrong, it just means that your theory
is wrong. Very simple. I know you are looking for glory but
you do not get it with wrong ideas.


[Hammond]
How many different ways do I have to say it.... you believe
particle physics don't you..... guess what..... Religion has
been proven in the SAME WAY ( By Hammond (2003))

[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
The only differences being that competent experimenters have
confirmed predictions by competent theorists. This is the
way science is done. Wild speculation backed only by a
mishmash of unrelated babble does not constitute either
a theory or a proof of anything.


[Hammond]
12 is within 92% of 13. This is well within the expected
experimental accuracy of historical data.

This is a pretty humorous statement all by itself. If the
greeks had 13 gods they would not have called the group
12.

Furthermore, the
SPOG predicts EXACTLY 4-3rd order factors, which is 100%
ACCURATE, since these are exactly the 4-Gospel Saints
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council of Nicea
to be in the New Testament. The council also voted as to
whether women were humans. The point of the council was to
try to unify the various christian sects and so it accepted
the texts from various ones even though there are terrible
discrepancies between them.

It's becoming painfully apparent that you're an
incompetent phony who hasn't even read the paper, doesn't
know what it's about, and is simply an aggravated
anti-religious psycho.

SNIP PHONY INCOMPETENT BULL****

[Hammond]
The exact calculation of the number of "gods" is in
section VI:

VI Elementary science evidence that
the 4th order factor is "God".


[Hammond]
If you're too lazy to read this ELEMENTARY section of the
peer published paper I'm not going to argue with you about
"12 or 13 gods". There is no point in arguing with someone
who doesn't even know what he's arguing about, just because
he wants to argue.


[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
This is the most humorous part of your "proof".


[Hammond]
Your constant reference to laughter is making you sound
suspiciously like a lowbrow giggling idiot, which I suspect
is the case.

[Doug, unverified Physics Phd claimant]
You want to
somehow, with no justification, identify perception of reality
as a god. This is pretty bizarre as it comes out of nowhere
with no justification and is, in fact, completely opposite to
what happens in the real world. The more educated people
are, the less they cling to the myths of the religions.
Even if it were true, and it is not, you have shown no
connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.




[Hammond]
You're so obviously incompetent its jpathetic. Look, the
basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
would explain it.
In this case this means itimizing the CENTRAL CLAIMS of
Religion (take Biblical religion for instance) and seeing if
the discovered mechanism (curvature of subjective spacetime)
COMPELLINGLY AND QUANTITATIVELY EXPLAINS EACH
AND EVERY ITEM.
The SPOG scientifically and quantitatively explains the
following 16 (central and comprehensive) items which
characterize Religion:

1. Why there physically exists an "invisible world"
known as "Heaven" which is similar to Earth but
is a paradise.
(Because the Growth Deficit reduces mental
speed and thus reduces the Fourier cutoff
frequency of visual movement) This can be
easily measured directly by theMotion Picture
Fusion Frequency, which increases directly with
gross brain growth)
2. Why God is an "invisible man" who lives there
and is all powerful and rules the actual (visible)
world from there.
("God" is the perfect fully grown man, hence the
part of us that is latent, or ungrown, is called
the "invisible God", also the "Unconscious mind")
3. Why this God can effect miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
(Because, a change in Repression causes a
dramatic change in Curvature of subjective
spacetime suddenly making more of reality
visible).
4. Why Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
(This is confirmed by the SPOG which shows that
"God" is the unconscious mind, which is a
"spirit")
5. Why historically Religion has evolved from
Polytheism to Monotheism.
(The SPOG proves that there are 4 orders of
eigenvectors, which is a "hierarchy of gods".
the entire history of Religion is accounted for
as a successive discovery of the orders from
1st=(demigods), 2nd=(Olympian gods), 3rd=
(4-Gospel Saints), 4th=(God of Monotheism)
6. Why Christianity says the world is transforming
itself into Heaven and will actually complete this
at a date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the
"end of the world".
(Because the Secular Trend curve in Human
Growth is a Sigmoidal Logistics curve (S-curve)
and the final plateau is 100% growth of
the individual, or "Kingdom Come")
7. Why there is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
(Because full growth means flat subjective
spacetime.. no time dilation.. aka eternal time)
8. Why it is believed that Jesus was the physical
"incarnation of God"
(Because, nominally Jesus was a "fully grown
specimen". Of course we know this wasn't
actually possible, but in fact he must have
been an impressive specimen to conduct
such a startling public ministry.)
9. Why the Cross for some reason is the central
symbol of (Western) Religion.
(Because the human body is an "axial quadrature"
and the brain actually "cubic" causing a cross
structure (Cartesian structure) of Personality)
10. Why for some reason our main canonical text is
written in 4 identical versions known as the
"4-Gospel Canon".
(Because the Structural Model is CUBIC,
represented as a square; 4 Gospel Canon
represents the 4 canonical personalities
of Man... cf. the Bicameral/2 Party system)
11. How God "created the world" only a matter of
"thousands" of years ago (Genesis) not "billions"
of years ago (Big Bang) as Science believes.
(Because subjective spacetime only came into
being when Man came into being 200,000 years
ago, causing the Biblical Creation).
12. Why God created man "in his own image".
(Because God is the invisible (fully grown)
version of Man).
13. Why there is a "Trinity of God" and what it is,
functionally or scientifically speaking.
(the Trinity is simply the cybernetic feedback
loop (input, output, feedback) describing the
operation of the Father (invisible man), Son
actual Man, and feedback (UNCS mind) that
transforms the latter into the former).
14. Why there are (approximately) 13 gods in the
Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon.
(Because the 2nd orders are caused by the
13 symmetry axes of the cubic str. of the brain).
15. Why there are exactly 4-gospel Saints named
Matthew, mark, Luke, John.
(Because the Cubic str. of Personality can be
represented by a section through the Cube,
yielding the 4 canonical personalities of Man)
16. Why there are 30 odd "lesser demigods" in Hinduism.
(Because there are 30 1st-order eigenvectors
caused by myriad lower level brain structures;
not geometrically intercorrelated)


THIS OVERWHELMING, COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF THE
ENTIRE BODY OF CLASSICAL RELIGION, BY A SIMPLE RELATIVISTIC
CURVATURE MECHANISM, IS PRIMA FACIE THE WORLD'S FIRST AND
ONLY BONA FIDE "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD".
Now you can sit there and giggle like a flat footed fat
ass academy boy all you want, but it certainly is NOT
convincing.
either show us some of your scintillating PhD forensic
scientist genius a la ronald Reagan, or go back to work
designing Widgets at Quintessential Trinkets where you
belong.
snip argumentative no content crap

=====================================
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 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:00:46 -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 low 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 detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume 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 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:00:46 -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 low 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 detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume 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
=====================================
My goodness, my comments must have hit home for you to
just repeat your previous post and snip the comments that
show you are wrong. Do you not have anything new to say?

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:46:14 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
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?

12
[GH] 2 significant figures
13
[GH] 2 significant figures
0.000876
[GH] 3 significant figures
1.000876
[GH] 7 significant figures
120
[GH] 2 significant figures
120.
[GH] 2 significant figures
469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures
[GH] Why? Because I've got 2 significant college degrees
in Physics from accredited Universities in Massachusetts.

[Michael Moroney]
Congratulations. Only two wrong. 71%, a D. I guess if you did better in
your other courses you won't flunk out.


[Hammond]
Bull****....all 7 of my answers are CORRECT. 100%="A+".
You're the moron who doesn't know what a "significant
figure" is? Get the f--- outta here.
They must give out easy degrees where you went to school since
you are wrong here too. Or is this why you failed out of graduate
school?


[Hammond]
OK, 469.230 is 6 significant figures assuming the final 0 is
measured, however in common documents it usually isn't, its
just assumed, which is why I said 5.


meanwhile anser this:



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 low 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 detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume 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 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:06:55 -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 low 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 detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume 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 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:46:14 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
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?

12
[GH] 2 significant figures
13
[GH] 2 significant figures
0.000876
[GH] 3 significant figures
1.000876
[GH] 7 significant figures
120
[GH] 2 significant figures
120.
[GH] 2 significant figures
469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures
[GH] Why? Because I've got 2 significant college degrees
in Physics from accredited Universities in Massachusetts.
[Michael Moroney]
Congratulations. Only two wrong. 71%, a D. I guess if you did better in
your other courses you won't flunk out.


[Hammond]
Bull****....all 7 of my answers are CORRECT. 100%="A+".
You're the moron who doesn't know what a "significant
figure" is? Get the f--- outta here.
They must give out easy degrees where you went to school since
you are wrong here too. Or is this why you failed out of graduate
school?


[Hammond]
OK, 469.230 is 6 significant figures assuming the final 0 is
measured, however in common documents it usually isn't, its
just assumed, which is why I said 5.

meanwhile anser this:


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 low 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 detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume 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
=====================================
Repeating yourself again george. You know what that is a sign
of.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:00:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP AD HOMINEM RANT


[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.

The supportive evidence for his assertions are found in EVERY one of your
insane bellowings and posts.

You HAVE no peer reviewed, published papers. That's just another of your
many mentally psychotic warps of reality.
You have been told, MANY times, that even the publishers admit that their
publications have no real scientific merit.

(and, as usual, you won;t even bother to answer this reality based fact).


Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.

Your bellowing reflects outrageous arrogance and insanity - NOT to mention a
complete disregard of REAL science.


You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such.

So?
Your standard criteria is to flip flop - saying those with an education are
stupid, while the ignorant masses understand your concepts of "gawd".
Those who do not laugh at you cannot ALL be as ignorant as you claim (and
egomaniacally need) them to be.
Educatino means nothing to you more than something else you can warp to your
deranged and delusional standards.


Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.

Yet more indication of your own psychotic behavior.

(snip foaming at the mouth ranting of a deranged lunatic.)

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:08:30 -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 low 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 detailed
verification of your educational claims, I resume 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!


Here's a test question, **** for brains...............
Why has NO ONE ELSE, either in science or religion, come out in support of
your crap?
Instead, THEY dismiss you as a worthless kook!

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. The
correct answers are therefore 2 and 3 respectively.
Of course this is better resolved by using scientific notation.

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 .

Since you didn't answer the question about showing how 12=13 to 3
significant figures (as you claim), your overall grade is really 5 out of
8, or 62.5%, which is an F. I'm being generous since you didn't answer any
of the "why" for the first seven questions. Please turn in your degrees to
the institutions that mistakenly awarded them to you.