On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:22:43 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"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!


[John Smith]
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!


[Hammond]
I sent it to a world famous physicist and asked him what
he thoughtt and he told me:

"I don't know what to think because
I'm the only one who has read it."

On the other hand, Usenet is dominated by antireligious,
antiscientific and anti intellectual nuts, so Usenet opinion
is a "scalar" not a "vector"; it has a magnitude, but no
direction.
=====================================
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 15:20:52 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



[John Smith, rabid atheist]
You HAVE no peer reviewed, published papers.


[Hammond]
LIAR

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]
Pergamon Press (cited above) is one of the world's
premier academic publishers, you're a liar.
=====================================
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 28 apr, 21:30, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:

[Peter van Velzen, uneducated amateur]
So all of a sudden all the idolatrists are worshipping the Christian
Creator God?

[SNIP AMATEUR CRAP

[Hammond]
* *You're all through punk... you're dime a dozen on Usenet.
Now that you've discovered this is not an amateur discovery
and you sound like a fool; go back to your beer and computer
games.
*Yawn.
=====================================
* * *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
=====================================

Punk is it?
I am totally astonished you rightly guessed I drink bear
(after you totally flunked on guessing my age.
By the way, as I have only been mentioninf widely available
statistics, and you have only been inventing numbers without
apperantly ever trying to get to the facts, you are - by now - looking
rather foolish yourself.

Your wrong idea about existence is one of the more intelligent things
you said. The rest has been pure ignorance.

Just try and guess my IQ will you?
(or you could google that up too)

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

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.


[Hammond]
With typical sloppy Usenet typing I though that was a
period, not a decimal point. That isn't conventional
notation.


[Michael Moroney]
Of course this is better resolved by using scientific notation.


[Hammond]
No kiddin.


[Michael Moroney]
469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures

Michael Moroney
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 .



[Hammond]
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 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".
Get outta here with your high school crap, this isn't an
amateur discussion.
=====================================
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
=====================================
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.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 28 apr, 21:30, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:

[Peter van Velzen, uneducated amateur]
So all of a sudden all the idolatrists are worshipping the Christian
Creator God?

[SNIP AMATEUR CRAP

[Hammond]
* *You're all through punk... you're dime a dozen on Usenet.
Now that you've discovered this is not an amateur discovery
and you sound like a fool; go back to your beer and computer
games.
*Yawn.
=====================================
* * *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
=====================================

Punk is it?
I am totally astonished you rightly guessed I drink bear
(after you totally flunked on guessing my age.
By the way, as I have only been mentioninf widely available
statistics, and you have only been inventing numbers without
apperantly ever trying to get to the facts, you are - by now - looking
rather foolish yourself.

Your wrong idea about existence is one of the more intelligent things
you said. The rest has been pure ignorance.

Just try and guess my IQ will you?
(or you could google that up too)

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands


[Hammond]
If you're 18 your IQ is 123
If you're 25 your IQ is 113
In either case you're lack of originality and acceptance
of pedantic counterfactual argumentation does not indicate a
scintillating intelligence.
=====================================
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 29 apr, 19:17, George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 28 apr, 21:30, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:

[Peter van Velzen, uneducated amateur]
So all of a sudden all the idolatrists are worshipping the Christian
Creator God?

[SNIP AMATEUR CRAP

[Hammond]
* *You're all through punk... you're dime a dozen on Usenet.
Now that you've discovered this is not an amateur discovery
and you sound like a fool; go back to your beer and computer
games.
*Yawn.
=====================================
* * *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
=====================================

Punk is it?
I am totally astonished you rightly guessed I drink bear
(after you totally flunked on guessing my age.
By the way, as I have only been mentioninf widely available
statistics, and you have only been inventing numbers without
apperantly ever trying to get to the facts, you are - by now - looking
rather foolish yourself.

Your wrong idea about existence is one of the more intelligent things
you said. The rest has been pure ignorance.

Just try and guess my IQ will you?
(or you could google that up too)

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
If you're 18 your IQ is 123
If you're 25 your IQ is 113

Well your worst guess of my IQ is about five times better than your
best guess for my age. But I have to make apologies.
There seems to be more than one Peter van Velzen in Amstelveen, so a
Google search on my Birthday would be hard.
You would have a better chance using my wife's name
(Kesinee Daengprasert)
For my IQ you can best search within alt.atheism.

But you aren not interested in facts, isn't it?

Peter van Velzen Daengprasert
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 28 apr, 21:30, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:

[Peter van Velzen, uneducated amateur]
So all of a sudden all the idolatrists are worshipping the Christian
Creator God?
[SNIP AMATEUR CRAP
[Hammond]
You're all through punk... you're dime a dozen on Usenet.
Now that you've discovered this is not an amateur discovery
and you sound like a fool; go back to your beer and computer
games.
Yawn.
=====================================
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
=====================================
Punk is it?
I am totally astonished you rightly guessed I drink bear
(after you totally flunked on guessing my age.
By the way, as I have only been mentioninf widely available
statistics, and you have only been inventing numbers without
apperantly ever trying to get to the facts, you are - by now - looking
rather foolish yourself.

Your wrong idea about existence is one of the more intelligent things
you said. The rest has been pure ignorance.

Just try and guess my IQ will you?
(or you could google that up too)

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands


[Hammond]
If you're 18 your IQ is 123
If you're 25 your IQ is 113
In either case you're lack of originality and acceptance
of pedantic counterfactual argumentation does not indicate a
scintillating intelligence.

No, you misread him again. He said he does NOT accept your
pedantic counterfactual argumentation.

=====================================
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 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:





Well your worst guess of my IQ is about five times better than your
best guess for my age. But I have to make apologies.
There seems to be more than one Peter van Velzen in Amstelveen, so a
Google search on my Birthday would be hard.
You would have a better chance using my wife's name
(Kesinee Daengprasert)
For my IQ you can best search within alt.atheism.

But you aren not interested in facts, isn't it?

Peter van Velzen Daengprasert
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands


[Hammond]
Google seach??? I could care less if you dropped dead
never mind your age. I know who you are the minute you open
your mouth.... you're a nobody, worthless delusional amateur
punk. Screw; get off this thread. You got nothing to say.
=====================================
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 10:54:14 -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 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
verification of your educational claims, I presume 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 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!