On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:08:20 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain Natural Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated amateur
speculation. Get off this thread.
=====================================
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 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond wrote:
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)


In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 02:20:22 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



[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"?


[John Smith, antiSPOG activist]
My religious beliefs are not up for discussion.


[Hammond]
The religious beliefs of anyone who is irrationally
opposed to the discovery of a scientific proof of God are de
facto of interest if he is posting a tirade of ad hominem
remarks such as the following:.

Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it as
anyone else.

This says NOTHING about the pile of CRAP you offer from your deranged,
psychotic mind.

Speaking of "ad hominem" ..... YOU put the words after my handle ... not me,
asshole!





[John Smith, antiSPOG activist]
There IS no "scientific proof of god".
That is merely the product of an insane, fraudulent, ranting, psychotic
lunatic ............. 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
=====================================

"monkfish" monkfish@nowhere wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

"monkfish" monkfish@nowhere wrote in message
John Smith wrote:

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


That's an opinion.

Supported by evidence gathered from George's insane, ranting posts.


Still just an opinion.
Can you define sanity scientifically?

One definition is one who denies or distorts reality beyond reason.
That's George.

George's defenders have ALWAYS been George - using another name.
That you ... George?

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 02:17:01 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"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.


[Hammond]
Many internationally known physicists and scientists have
published in the journal, including Rupert Sheldrake, Henry
Stapp, Karl Pribram, Richard Amoroso and others, and there
are 10 internationally known physicists on the editorial
board.

And how much of it has been scientifically verified?
N O N E !

It is, to the scientific comunity, like the National Enquirer is to the
National news community.

If an "internationally known" physicist told me 2 + 2 = 4.6477 .... he'd
still be wrong!

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond wrote:
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)


In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).
This proof demonstrates clearly that the 4-gospel Canon is
NOT an arbitrary convention, but in fact originates in the
axiomatic existence of a 4-eigenvector symmetry in
theoretical Physics and Psychometry. This has been
overwhelmingly experimentally confirmed.
Therefore, in all scientific fairness, it is now accurate
to say that:

The 4-Gospel Canon is based
on an axiomatic law of Physics

I'm sure Irenaeus would be overjoyed to find out that his
historic conclusion 1900 years ago was in fact correct!
=====================================
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 Thu, 01 May 2008 06:44:37 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 May 2008 02:20:22 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



[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"?


[John Smith, antiSPOG activist]
My religious beliefs are not up for discussion.


[Hammond]
The religious beliefs of anyone who is irrationally
opposed to the discovery of a scientific proof of God are de
facto of interest if he is posting a tirade of ad hominem
remarks such as the following:.


[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it as
anyone else.


[Hammond]
The discovery is now a "political" issue. What your
"interest" is, depends on your political situation.
We can be sure the Christians and Jews will be glad about
it. Whether the Moslems will be happy about it is
problematical since an American Christian has discovered the
proof, not a Moslem. Atheistic Communists of course will be
sorely stung by the development, however, as Gorbachev said,
"Russia is a Christian country" and I certainly agree.
Chinese Communism however is going to have to accept the
idea that "God" is now a scientific reality to be tought in
their public schools as a scientific subject.....
suprisingly, the Chinese Communists may have less trouble
with this than the American public school system where
"seperation of Church and state" will indubitably attempt to
trumph Science education.


snip 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
=====================================

George Hammond writes:

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.

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

[snip irrelevant CV]

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

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.

none ""doug\"@(none)" writes:

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

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

[snip irrelevant CV]

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

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

CURRICULUM VITAE

[snip]

If you cannot answer the question, just say so. He asked
a question and you posted your CV. He did not ask for your
CV, he asked if you understood the scientific method. It
was, however, a rhetorical question since it is clear you
do not understand it. Hints: bluster and swearing are not
part of it. You can look up the rest.

Ding ding ding! Give Doug a gold star!

On 1 May, 08:51, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
wrote:
On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond wrote:
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)

In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

[Hammond]
* *In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.

I believe so. As you rightly note, this is tangential to the point
that you are making, on which, of course, I have nothing special to
contribute.

All the best,

Roger Pearse