On 29 apr, 20:29, George Hammond wrote:
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
=====================================- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Same to you!

On 2008-04-24, George Hammond wrote:

This is the well known OMPHALOS THEORY which is a
perennial subject of discussion and was seriously
investigate by Russell, although it is originally due to
Gosse.
Incidentally the Opthalmos theory was discussed
extensively on ARK a few years ago.

Hang on, are we talking about the navel or the eye?


--
Classical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture,
indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us
doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and
Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995)

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:34:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




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

George Hammond wrote:
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
=====================================
Still no answers to the facts I presented?
Why are you afraid to discuss your theory?
I think it is because you know it is nonsense. If
it was true you could support it. All you do is
yell, swear and tell people to leave. Is that
why you failed graduate school?

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
=====================================