"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 05:23:45 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:53:24 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:49:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



[John Smith, irate S.P.O.G. critic]
"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?" .... IS the top question asked by ANY
employer
or person seeking the qualifications of another person;
NOT what you did 40 years ago!



[Hammond]
Well, I got a minor traffic ticket and the judge asked me
the same question:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?"

I told him I had discovered the world's first scientific
proof of God and published it in a peer reviewed scientific
journal.
They showed a copy of the paper to the Massachusetts
Department of mental Health and the result is that they put
me on welfare, assisted housing, full medical
coverage and Food Stamps.

I tried to tell them I wasn't crazy, that I was a
scientist and actually had discovered the world's first
scientific proof of God... but the more I told them the less
they believed me and kept telling me to take the welfare
check and go to McDonald's and get something to eat. Finally
I just said o.k.

Sure ........ all patients at "The Ward", claim they are sane ... and all
criminals in prison are really innocent.


Here's a hint ... the more you talked to them, the more insane they
thought
you were.
You probably won't get it anyway.


[Hammond]
2 months later I gave a specially invited talk to 200
research psychologists at the XXVI INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
PSYCHOLOGY in Montreal Canada on August 18, 1996. I sat on
the dais for 2 hours with Prof. Hans Eysenck himself (then
the world's most famous living psychologist) and we
discussed my discovery of the Structural Model of
Personality. I received a robust ovation from the audience
and many personal complements..... obviously they don't
think I'm crazy!

Hey ......... that's the same day I saw Elvis.
What a coincidence!






Now THAT'S probably the most honest thing you have ever posted.


[Hammond]
EVERYTHING I write is the gospel truth, including the
scientific proof of God, asshole.

Then why not back it up with VALID arguments and honest responses ...
instead of fraudulent lying, running away and psychotic behavior?

[Hammond]
All your questions have been answered 1000 times on
Usenet, and are fully answered on my website which you are
TOO LAZY TO READ...... I don't give private tutorials to
crackpots.


B U L L S H I T!
I have asked several questions (included with rebuttals), and you ignored
EVERY ONE!
The exact same thing has happened to others who have questioned and/or
rebutted your claims.

You're full of ****, you ****ing liar!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 05:20:23 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:52:01 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:51:39 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!


[Hammond]
LIAR. Here's a list of the Psychmetric experiments taken
from the bibliography opf my 1994 peer published paper
(Pergam Press), you don't know what you're talking about,
and you are a LIAR:

REFERENCE

[

[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
?????????????????
This, unless you warp it just as much as you psychotically warp
everything
else, has nothing to do with your SPO Crap!
There's nothing here that is even remoely related to physics!

All of these things are related to social behavior and psychology ....
fields in which you have ABSOLUTELY NO degree!
IOW - your claimed CV's mean NOTHING here.

[Hammond]
All of these are published reports of EXPERIMENTAL Factor
Analytic eigenvector extractions from experimental
psychological correlation matrices.


Bull ****!

[Hammond]
"Bull ****" is de facto an unsupported assertion.

[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
You're just making warped and deranged claims about what was actually
written.

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion, since you've read none of it.


You have no idea what I have and have not read.
Your previous behavior and posts indicate one hell of a lot of distorting
other peoples writings to fit your own insane claims ...
and they have constantly been pointed out to you.
As is your habit - you just ignored that too!



[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
Still, it has NOTHING TO DO with physics.

[Hammond]
WRONG, since Hammond has showed that the eigenvectors are
CAUSALLY related to the 4 spacetime dimensions via the
cartesian cleavage of the body, and thus the 4x4 eigenvector
matrix is RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED. Relativistic Curvature,
I would rmind you, is a PHYSICS subject.

Psycho - talking in the third person again. I guess "The Ward" doesn't have
a medication for that.

All you are doing here is bellowing the same pile of crap you always bellow.
You have shown nothing but your own egomaniacal ignorance.





What I've discovered
is what CAUSES THE EIGENVECTOR STRUCTURE, and that is a
PHYSICS problem, because it turns out to be a:

EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE OF
SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME (i.e. "GOD")
THAT CAUSES THE CURVATURE.

You've "discovered" nothing more than your own psychotic delusions and
warped lies.





Social studies and psychology are not "hard" sciences; so make a "hard
(physics) science" conclusion using them is mere FRAUD.



[Hammond]
Baloney, what it provides is a concise PHYSICS
explanation of God.

Re-claiming the same stupid thing you've been lying about for years does
not
make it any less smelly!


Get out of here, you're an uneducated,
scientifically illiterate asshole.

[Hammond]
OFF TOPIC NON-SCIENTIFIC STATEMAENT


[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
????
And your education in psychology is?
And your education in social studies is?
And you education in the fields shown in ANY of the books cited is?

[Hammond]
Peer published paper in the prestigeous Journal _New Ideas
In Psychology_ (Pergamon Press) 1994, unanamously
recommended by 5 reviewing professors of Factor Analytic
Psychometry. This paper announced the (Physics) discovery
of the Structural Model of Personality which has been the
subject of research for 2,500 years.... a feat described by
Prof. Lew Goldberg as "worth a Nobel Prize" in itself.



If I'm so uneducated and scientifically illiterate - why do you keep
ducking
even the simplest rebuttal statement I've made?

[Hammond]
Because your questions have been answered 1000 times on
Usenet, and are clearly answered in the FAQ LIST prominently
located on my website at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/page2.html
(scroll down to "SPOG FAQS")

Whddau think, an
ignorant asshole like you is qualified to understand the
world's first scientific proof of God..... getoutta here!

I am qualified to see a fraudulent, unscientific, psychotic, deranged,
egomaniacal asshole .... you!

[Hammond]
You're an echollaliated loudmouth moronic tape recorder.
I answer you simply to drive this thread up over 500 posts
to rankle the ire of the hypocritical PhD physicists who are
hiding under their desks from Hammond and watching this and
reaching the boiling point...... until a COMPETENT physicsit
comes on here and asks some COMPETENT physics questions
about the SPOG. You're just a pawn. They'd cross a
crackpot like you without even thinking about it; it's me
they're politically afraid of!



YO!

**** for brains!

Posting in a news group is NOT going to get the attention of many competent
physicists.
That's why they have JOURNALS and symposiums. ...... you know ...... the
kind that won't even look at your SPO CRAP!.

Were you a real scientist .... or even sane ..... you would know that!

George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2008 00:56:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:


[Michael Moroney, heckler]
YOU are the one who insists on posting your CV, usually as an unrelated
response to something (like whether you even know what the scientific
method is).


[Hammond]
Citing an advanced degree in Physics IS A LEGITIMATE
RESPONSEj to his question, any legitimate scientist knows
that.

[Michael Moroney, heckler]
YOU are the one who keeps pestering Doug to post _his_ CV


[Hammond]
He's the one who came on this thread bragging he was a
Physics PhD, I asked him to prove it by posting his CV......
turns out he's a fake.... which anybody could tell since
his remarks are even more stupid and non scientific than
yours.

So if I post my CV, you will immediately realize that SPOG
is nonsense and apologize to everyone for wasting their
time?

My posting my CV will have no effect on your beliefs. It also
has no effects on the facts that show you are wrong. Anyone
who reads your "proof" can see it is wrong as to state it
is to refute it. You say that people see things differently
and then leap to the conclusion that this proves god.
That is nonsense whether a PhD (I did not flunk out of graduate
school like you did) or a high school student says it. Facts
are facts whether you like them or not.

=====================================
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 Sat, 03 May 2008 16:47:09 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[snip crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.
Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.
Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...
Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Doug, fake Physics PhD and heckler]
There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong (that is being kind as it is
not even close enough to be wrong) that no one who has completed
even high school can begin to believe. It is a word salad of
unrelated sentences.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

Since everyone who has posted here sees it is wrong, it is a
well backed assertion.


=====================================
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 Sun, 04 May 2008 03:52:01 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:51:39 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!


[Hammond]
LIAR. Here's a list of the Psychmetric experiments taken
from the bibliography opf my 1994 peer published paper
(Pergam Press), you don't know what you're talking about,
and you are a LIAR:

REFERENCE

[
[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
?????????????????
This, unless you warp it just as much as you psychotically warp everything
else, has nothing to do with your SPO Crap!
There's nothing here that is even remoely related to physics!

All of these things are related to social behavior and psychology ....
fields in which you have ABSOLUTELY NO degree!
IOW - your claimed CV's mean NOTHING here.

[Hammond]
All of these are published reports of EXPERIMENTAL Factor
Analytic eigenvector extractions from experimental
psychological correlation matrices. What I've discovered
is what CAUSES THE EIGENVECTOR STRUCTURE, and that is a
PHYSICS problem, because it turns out to be a:

EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE OF
SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME (i.e. "GOD")
THAT CAUSES THE CURVATURE.

Oh good, We are all convinced now. Lots of capital letters makes things
true.

Social studies and psychology are not "hard" sciences; so make a "hard
(physics) science" conclusion using them is mere FRAUD.


George seems to have missed this point. They do make good random
sentence generators though. That seems to be necessary for his
"proof".



[Hammond]
Baloney, what it provides is a concise PHYSICS
explanation of God. Get out of here, you're an uneducated,
scientifically illiterate asshole. Whddau think, an
ignorant asshole like you is qualified to understand the
world's first scientific proof of God..... getoutta here!

The rest of the scientific method, swearing and insults. This
certainly strengthens your arguments.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:14:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Screw pedant. Dalton's published thesis that historical
data PROVED his thesis that:

"All of chemistry was explained by
atoms combining to form molecules
because integral moles of reagents
were (historically) always combined
in chemical experiments"

was accepted as a PRIMA FACIE proven theory the day he
published it.... he didin't have to repeat the experiments,
they were WELL KNOWN to everybody.
Same with the SPOG, jerk.

Unsupported assertion!
WHAT EXPERIMENTS?
Just because one "CASE" happens by one particular method, does NOT mean
yours gets the same treatment.

Whaddumean "one case"? The annals of Scence are littered
with such cases of "race ipso" discoveries. For instance:

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination

One case. Maybe.

That's called a "precedent" in Law.

First, I see I was wrong for not immediately disagreeing with
George. Dalton did quite a bit of experimentation before
publishing his work. Also his work was done fairly early before
science was done as we do it now. Of course "precedent" applies
to law and not science (and only in certain cases, anyway).

So,...

This makes George's claims of science publication bypassing the scientific
method 0 for 7. That right, George. Zero cases. You got it wrong each
time.

Therefore, the
S.P.O.G. is not the first "purely theoretical discovery
based on existing data" in scientific history.

That's right, simply because it's definitely not any sort of "discovery"

Dirac never did any experiments,
and neither did I, I simply "theoretically explained the
existing phenomenon of God"

Here we have your admission of not following the scientific method. You
did no experiments.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:52:01 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!


[Hammond]
LIAR. Here's a list of the Psychmetric experiments taken
from the bibliography opf my 1994 peer published paper
(Pergam Press), you don't know what you're talking about,
and you are a LIAR:

REFERENCE

NO experiments attempting to verify or refute your so-called theory.
None! All was done before, so it would be the basis of the first step,
forming the initial hypothesis. Congrats George, you did the first step
of the scientific method. Now get to work, there's an awful lot of work
for you to do.

This, unless you warp it just as much as you psychotically warp everything
else, has nothing to do with your SPO Crap!
There's nothing here that is even remoely related to physics!

All of these things are related to social behavior and psychology ....
fields in which you have ABSOLUTELY NO degree!
IOW - your claimed CV's mean NOTHING here.

All of these are published reports of EXPERIMENTAL Factor
Analytic eigenvector extractions from experimental
psychological correlation matrices. What I've discovered
is what CAUSES THE EIGENVECTOR STRUCTURE, and that is a
PHYSICS problem, because it turns out to be a:

NONE of the work you quote has any physics. If you want to develop
a theory in physics, you're going to have to show some physics
experimental results. Simple as that.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:53:24 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:49:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?" .... IS the top question asked by ANY
employer
or person seeking the qualifications of another person;
NOT what you did 40 years ago!

Well, I got a minor traffic ticket and the judge asked me
the same question:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?"

I told him I had discovered the world's first scientific
proof of God and published it in a peer reviewed scientific
journal.
They showed a copy of the paper to the Massachusetts
Department of mental Health and the result is that they put
me on welfare, assisted housing, full medical
coverage and Food Stamps.

I tried to tell them I wasn't crazy, that I was a
scientist and actually had discovered the world's first
scientific proof of God... but the more I told them the less
they believed me and kept telling me to take the welfare
check and go to McDonald's and get something to eat. Finally
I just said o.k.

Unfortunately, I suspected as much. This is not something that
you'd expect from a judge handling a minor traffic ticket case.

On 3 mei, 22:24, George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
On 2 mei, 22:13, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:30:34 -0700 (PDT),

[Peter van Velzen]
I finally visited your website,

[Hammond]
* *Better late than never.
*Now you know something, even if you don't have the
education to understand and comprehend it.

[Peter van Velzen]
You lost me already when you concluded that the growth of the human
body is equal to the growth of then human brain.

[Hammond]
* *We're only talking robust first order effects. We're not
interested in pedants who want to dispute 2nd order terms.
* *If someone says "the world is round", we're not
interested in some pedant who wants to take up everybodies
time by arguing that the Earth is actually ellipsoidal when
everybody *else is already completely aware of that.
* *the point is that the brain grows MONOTONICALLY LARGER
because the BODY GROWS MONOTONICALLY LARGER, that is an
indisputabgle fact, and in fact mental age (mental speed)
increases LINEARLY with age due to brain growth which is why
Intelligence is divided by age up to age 18 (when growth
stops) to obtain IQ
* *We're not here to listen to amateur argumentative pedants
who want to argue that the world isn't round. *that's simply
heckling by unqualified wannabees.

[Peter van Velzen]
I have no doubt your great discovery will never reach the newspapers.

[Hammond]
No one ios interested in the off topic opinions of amateurs
either.

[Peter van Velzen]
But really brain-growth and relativity?
I do not think there is a correlation there.

[Hammond]
* *"Think"... what makes you think anybody is concerned with
what an unqualified amateur "thinks"? *Who do you think you
are, the Prince of Holland?

[Peter van Velzen]
Back to Tatian,

He might have had no idea that the four gospels he used were to become
cannonical.

[Hammond]
* *Many other authorities and the eccliastical *community in
general have pointed out that the "appearance of the
Diatesseron" as the canon of the the Syriac Church is
EVIDENCE that the 4-Gospel form had preminence in
Christianity by the end of the 2nd. century.
* *End of argument.

Wether it's the end of the argument, I doubt, but I do agree with your
conclusion on the 4 Gospels. They undoubtedly were well known and
valued high even halfway thru the 2nd century I think.

As to you "scientific proof" however, I am afraid experts in several
scientific fields will consider you an amateur in their field too. So
if even this amatuer founds holes in your reasoning, the experts will
probably rip it to threads. But of course if you do not care whether
you convince anyone, you can leave the website as it is. (in which
state - I fear - it will only convince morons).

Your claim that the brain continues to grow monotonically larger is
not supported anywhere else (though some studies seem to indicate it
does grow into adolesency). The fact that we do accumulate more
knowledge after it has grown to full size, doesn't mean it keeps
growing, just as my computer doesn't grow every time I download
something. If you want to convince me that I am wrong, you should do
more than just claim you personal superiority.
But again, if you do not care wether you convinve morons only. . .

Best to you!

Peter vsn Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:51:53 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:14:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Screw pedant. Dalton's published thesis that historical
data PROVED his thesis that:

"All of chemistry was explained by
atoms combining to form molecules
because integral moles of reagents
were (historically) always combined
in chemical experiments"

was accepted as a PRIMA FACIE proven theory the day he
published it.... he didin't have to repeat the experiments,
they were WELL KNOWN to everybody.
Same with the SPOG, jerk.

Unsupported assertion!
WHAT EXPERIMENTS?
Just because one "CASE" happens by one particular method, does NOT mean
yours gets the same treatment.

Whaddumean "one case"? The annals of Scence are littered
with such cases of "race ipso" discoveries. For instance:

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination

One case. Maybe.

That's called a "precedent" in Law.

First, I see I was wrong for not immediately disagreeing with
George. Dalton did quite a bit of experimentation before
publishing his work. Also his work was done fairly early before
science was done as we do it now. Of course "precedent" applies
to law and not science (and only in certain cases, anyway).

So,...

This makes George's claims of science publication bypassing the scientific
method 0 for 7. That right, George. Zero cases. You got it wrong each
time.

Therefore, the
S.P.O.G. is not the first "purely theoretical discovery
based on existing data" in scientific history.

That's right, simply because it's definitely not any sort of "discovery"

Dirac never did any experiments,
and neither did I, I simply "theoretically explained the
existing phenomenon of God"

Here we have your admission of not following the scientific method. You
did no experiments.


[Hammond]
Neither did Einstein, 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
=====================================