John Smith wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -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!


Facts are facts - no matter what the source.
The FACT is - George Hammond is nothing more than a raving lunatic.


That's an opinion.

--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spammers is to ignore them.
But if you must reply to them,
you should at least set the followup-to header
to something other than your own newsgroup.

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.

These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. It sounded wrong, based on what I knew of Tertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. You can consult them he

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.

The council also voted as to whether women were humans. *

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects

No, I'm afraid it was not. Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.

This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? I know that I do. I hope that
helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

monkfish wrote:


How do you prove the validity of the scientific method?

You don't prove the validity as in a mathematical proof. You show the
practical consequences of science which is the engineering art that has
produced our sophisticated technology.

No finite set of empirical verifications will -prove- that a scientific
theory or hypopthesis is generally true.

Bob Kolker

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:


On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.


[Roger Pearse]
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.


[Hammond]
The 4-Gospel canon "emerged" from hitory thru wide
circulation as a "popular convention"; true Ireanus, Bishop
of Lyon put the final stamp of approval on it when he edited
the NT:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For since there
are four zones of the world in which we live, and four
principal winds, while the church has been scattered
throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground"
of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is
fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing
incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.
(Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon ca. 150ad)


but like the Bicameral/2-Party System which is in fact a
representation of the 4-Gospel Canon, it is now PROVEN by
Modern Science (Hammond, 1994,2003) to be caused by the
SCIENTIFIC FACT of the quadrature cleavage of the brain
which causes 4-EIGENVECTORS to emerge at the 3rd-Order in
Psychometry Factor Analysis.
This scientific fact not only explains the 4-Gospel Canon
but also the Bicameral 22Party System and the 4-Varnas of
Hinduism.



All the best,
Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
Likewise I'm sure.
=====================================
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
=====================================

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

You don't prove the validity as in a mathematical proof. You show the
practical consequences of science which is the engineering art that has
produced our sophisticated technology.

No finite set of empirical verifications will -prove- that a scientific
theory or hypopthesis is generally true.

Bob Kolker


What is the philosophical justification of the scientific method?


--
monkfish

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:33:12 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:




SNIP AMATEUR ATHISTIC RANT


[Hammond]
Look lame brain, I don't have time to sit here and argue
amateur philosophy with an aggravated atheist and
scientific incompetent.
BECAUSE the SPOG is not based on "philosophy".... that's
just conversational material for Usenet amateurs.
What YOU are guilty of (if you are a physics PhD, which I
seriously doubt) 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!
Thus proving that Psychometry is governed by the same
Field Equation as General Relativity but with a
different source term, so that:

God = G_uv = A curvature of subjective spacetime

For a horse's ass of a PhD physicist (claimant) to come
in here where physics 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 Philosophy 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
=====================================

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:45:48 -0400, monkfish
monkfish@nowhere wrote:

John Smith wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:44 -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 naivet?nd 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!


Facts are facts - no matter what the source.
The FACT is - George Hammond is nothing more than a raving lunatic.

[John Smith]
That's an opinion.


[Hammond]
Balls of a lion; thanks for clarifying that!

monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
=====================================
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 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

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

CURRICULUM VITAE

[Michael Moroney chronic heckler]
[snip irrelevant CV]

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?



[Hammond]
Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

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

=====================================
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 16:55:33 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:23:44 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:
[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.



[John Smith, (alleged) rabid atheist]
You edit and add "rabid atheist" to my handle .... and call me a liar?
You know nothing about my religious beliefs - asswipe!


[Hammond]
Ok..... what is your "opinion" of a religious belief in
"God"? A short answer would be appreciated. Do you believe
there is such a thing as a "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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

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

CURRICULUM VITAE

[Michael Moroney chronic heckler]
[snip irrelevant CV]

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?



[Hammond]
Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

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


The Noetic Journal sounds exactly like a religious fanatics bellowing -
saying science does not get into the realm of whatever THEY want to study -
so they demean science, and pretend their "expansion" IS real science.
Their "peer review", then, would be excatly like one Roman Catholic priests
judging the believes and statements of another Roman Catholic priest.

George wouldn't know a real peer reviewed scientific journal if one was
shoved up his ass.