George Hammond wrote:
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.

You called them all to ask?

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.
This is exactly the point. You are making the assumption that
man is somehow special. This is not true biologically as we
are just another one of the animals. You are making the
religious assumption that man is special. That is not science,
that is religion and there is no proof or justification of
that assumption.


[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!.
It has no meaning for me but the world continues for the
others and the cats. Thus your statement is wrong.


[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.
I assume you meant philosophy but the spog is based on
hope and delusion. None of it is in any way correct.

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:
This is wrong as has been pointed out by everyone.


The entire Factor Analytic structure of Psychometry
is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the 4x4 matrix structure of
Linearized Gravity in Relativity. CAUSALLY IDENTICAL!

A lovely example of word salad. This has no meaning and
so is not even wrong.


This proves that:

God = G_uv = A curvature of subjective spacetime

This is in no way related to the previous statements. You
pulled this out of your hat (being nice) to get to the
end point you hoped would work but did not.


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.

The "stunning" part is how many wrong things get put in
one "theory". My pointing out the truth is not any of the
things you say it is, it is public service in case some
one is silly enough to start to swallow what you are
putting out.

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.

I am well up to speed. Remember that I have my PhD. You
talking is not in any way flattering.

If you have better things to do, just admit defeat and
quit posting replies.


=====================================
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 20:30:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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

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.

1. The "Relativistic Anthropi9c Principle" is
manifestly a Physics Subject.

Nope, it's your unsupported rantings and delusions. For it to be physics
(or any science) you have to follow the Scientific Method, which you have
not. Do you even know what the Scientific Method is?

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true. Perhaps you need a reminder.

Look at http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...c_method.shtml
and follow that colored flowchart on that page. Apply it to your "SPOG"
claims. I don't know about the first two steps, but at some point you
reached the "Construct Hypothesis" step (yellow). Note the word
"hypothesis". The next state is "Test with an Experiment". Did you do
that? No! Next is "Analyze Results". How can you do that without an
experiment? What you did next was "Jump to Conclusion" (not Draw
Conclusion) and went to "Hypothesis is True" and "Report Results" step
by blathering it here. Except, of course, there are no 'Results' so
you replace that step with "Blather Hypothesis" instead. Since you
have no results to analyze, you skip the 'false/partially true' path
and try again. Nobody gets it perfectly right the first time so every
hypothesis will go around the loop a few times.

Now what many people, including myself, have done is take your ideas as a
hypothesis and testing it. For example, you blather something about 13
eigenvectors=13 gods (whatever that means). We all point out the fact the
Greeks had a Dodekatheon with only 12 gods. Oops, off by 1. You /should/
follow the "partially true/false" path, modify your Hypothesis and try
again. But no, you want to cheat and go straight for the finish, and get
mad that we point out your cheating the scientific method.

So, if you want anyone serious about physics to _ever_ take you seriously,
you'll have to follow the scientific method. You'll have to come up with
some sort of test or experiment (green on chart) that when evaluated fairly
esp. by other scientists, will either agree or disagree with your
hypothesis.

Now if you are in the least bit worthy of a BS in physics, you'll fully
understand this and agree with it, and will go off to come up with some
sort of tests of your hypothesis. The best tests to come up with are
ones that will _disprove_ your hypothesis, and if it has merit, these
tests will _fail_.

A good example is Einstein and GR. He said that gravity bends light.
Classic theory has no effect on light by gravity. He came up with an
experiment. Observe a certain star during an eclipse. Einstein said that
if he's correct, that star will appear at a certain spot because its light
was bent by the sun. If classical theory is correct, it'll appear at a
different position. Very straightforward, and it was tested during that
eclipse.

Hence, I'm not going anywhere.

Come back when you have tests of your hypothesis.

I suggest you quit posting off topic, ad hominem spute, and,
get the f--- off this thread. High school moron.

You can't defend yourself or your hypothesis so you again report to
cursing and namecalling. That only shows you know how weak your support
is.

If there's no scientific method to SPOG, it is what's off topic
in a science group.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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."

That reply is as insane as your posts.
A "world famous" physicist would have an opinion of the scientific merit of
the argument, and the details of the study.

you made this up - just as you invent all of your other insanities!


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.

Usenet has many people who have asked you valid, scientific and reality
based questions - and you have ignored them all .... and insulted the
posters.
Hardly the work of a true and honest scientist.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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

These papers have no more been "peer reviewed" than a comic book about
Spiderman.
Your lack of education about what constitutes VALID peer review is blatantly
obvious.

Again - EVEN THE PUBLICATIONS admit they don't have the same standards as
real science!!!!




[Hammond]
Pergamon Press (cited above) is one of the world's

premier academic publishers, you're a liar.

The printing company has nothing to do with the validity of the information
it prints - **** for brains!
You've been told that FACT over and over again!

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:19:59 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:




[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."

[John Smith]
That reply is as insane as your posts.

[Hammond]
More so, doncha know...

[John Smith]
A "world famous" physicist would have an opinion of the scientific merit of
the argument, and the details of the study.

[Hammond]
That's what you think...!


[Hammond]
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.


[John Smith]
Usenet has many people who have asked you valid, scientific and reality
based questions -

[Hammond]
LOL, not one...!

[John Smith]
and you have ignored them all .... and insulted the
posters.


[Hammond]
Throughly I hope!


[John Smith]
Hardly the work of a true and honest scientist.

[Hammond]
That's what you think...!
=====================================
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 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:44 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
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


[John Smith, rabid atheist]
These papers have no more been "peer reviewed" than a comic book about
Spiderman.
Your lack of education about what constitutes VALID peer review is blatantly
obvious.

Again - EVEN THE PUBLICATIONS admit they don't have the same standards as
real science!!!!




[Hammond]
Pergamon Press (cited above) is one of the world's

[John Smith, rabid atheist]
premier academic publishers, you're a liar.

[Hammond]
You're disputing a well known documented public fact.
Pergamon Press is one of the world's PREMIER academic
publishers as any google search will confirm.

[John Smith, rabid atheist]
The printing company has nothing to do with the validity of the information
it prints - **** for brains!
You've been told that FACT over and over again!


[Hammond]
LIAR.....LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
My 1994 paper was peer refviewed by 5 PROFESSORIAL RANK
REVIEWERS including the editor and was UNANIMOUSLY recommed
for publication by all 5. My 2003 paper was published by a
journal which has 10 Physicists on it's editorial review
board and the editor is a world ernouned Phd physicist
himself and recommeded the paper for publication. You don't
know what you're talking about. QUIT LYING.
=====================================
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
=====================================

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

God and the Universe are identical.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:26:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
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.


[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
You called them all to ask?


[Hammond]
Obviously no one has to ask when their published
posititons on the subject are already famous and all over
Google including Hawking's book which cites the AP 15 times
and has sold 15 million copies.
QUIT POSTING IRRELEVANT AMATEUR TRIVIA


[Hammond]
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.


[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
This is exactly the point. You are making the assumption that
man is somehow special. This is not true biologically as we
are just another one of the animals. You are making the
religious assumption that man is special. That is not science,
that is religion and there is no proof or justification of
that assumption.


[Hammond]
That's a piece of asinine stupidity. We are taling about
"the observers" in PHYSICS who can observe physical
measurements. There is only ONE OBSERVER who can do
this......namely MAN. What's wrong with you? A cat can't
do it, a mouse can't do it, neither can any other animal.
What's wrong with you?


[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!.


[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
It has no meaning for me but the world continues for the
others and the cats. Thus your statement is wrong.


[Hammond]
WRONGt.... "existence" is only a perceptual property of
MAN......... no MAN; no existence..... you're level of
intellectual incompetence is becoming painfully apparent.





[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.


[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
I assume you meant philosophy but the spog is based on
hope and delusion. None of it is in any way correct.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE


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:
This is wrong as has been pointed out by everyone.


The entire Factor Analytic structure of Psychometry
is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the 4x4 matrix structure of
Linearized Gravity in Relativity. CAUSALLY IDENTICAL!

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
A lovely example of word salad. This has no meaning and
so is not even wrong.

[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

This proves that:

God = G_uv = A curvature of subjective spacetime

[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
This is in no way related to the previous statements. You
pulled this out of your hat (being nice) to get to the
end point you hoped would work but did not.


[Hammond]
You don't know what your taliking about. the first
statement says that the "entire sturcture of Factor Analysis
in Psychometry is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the sturcture of
Linearized Gravity in Generakl Relativity.
THEREFORE, it is a MANIFEST RESULTANT FACT that
Psychometry is described by the SAME FIELD EQUATION as
General Relativity (with a different source term), thus the
second statement God=G_uv is the result.
Your statment that 2 does not follow 1 is obviously WRONG
AND SCIENTIFICALLY INCOMPETENT.

FURTHERMORE this result is described in painstakingly
elaborate detail in my peer published paper a copy of which
is prominantly posted on my website:

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

WHICH YOU ARE TOO LAZY AND INCOMPETENT TO READ...!!


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.


[Doug, anonymous unverified Physics PhD claimant and rabid atheist]
The "stunning" part is how many wrong things get put in
one "theory". My pointing out the truth is not any of the
things you say it is, it is public service in case some
one is silly enough to start to swallow what you are
putting out.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE


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.

I am well up to speed. Remember that I have my PhD. You
talking is not in any way flattering.


[Hammond]
No... you have presented no verification that you have a
PhD, or if you do whether it is in Underwater Basket Weaving
or some other half baked field of study. As far as I'm
concerned you're a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER until your
credentials are verified. Which I doubt.




If you have better things to do, just admit defeat and
quit posting replies.


=====================================
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 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:35:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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:

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.

1. The "Relativistic Anthropi9c Principle" is
manifestly a Physics Subject.

[Michael Moroney]
Nope, it's your unsupported rantings and delusions.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

2. I'm a graduate physicist.


[Michael Moroney]
I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.


SNIP AMATEUR SPUTE


CURRICULUM VITAE

GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

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

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:35:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

1. The "Relativistic Anthropi9c Principle" is
manifestly a Physics Subject.

Nope, it's your unsupported rantings and delusions.

UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION LACKING ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE

That's correct. Your "Relativistic Anthropic Principle"
is nothing more than UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS LACKING ANY
FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Now we're getting somewhere.

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

[snip worthless CV]

No comments on the Scientific Method at all? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT
IT IS? How the hell can you even claim to have a scientific proof
of anything without knowing what the scientific method is, much less
applying it?