George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

[Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimer]

you have shown no
connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.


[Hammond]
Your answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
you haven't answered it:

[Hammond]
You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
would explain it.
In this case this means itimizing the CENTRAL CLAIMS of
Religion (take Biblical religion for instance) and seeing if
the discovered mechanism (curvature of subjective spacetime)
COMPELLINGLY AND QUANTITATIVELY EXPLAINS EACH
AND EVERY ITEM.

No, you started off with a conclusion and then tried to
contort the facts to match them. It does not work but you
still persist.

The SPOG scientifically and quantitatively explains the
following 16 (central and comprehensive) items which
characterize Religion:

1. Why there physically exists an "invisible world"
known as "Heaven" which is similar to Earth but
is a paradise.
(Because the Growth Deficit reduces mental
speed and thus reduces the Fourier cutoff
frequency of visual movement) This can be
easily measured directly by theMotion Picture
Fusion Frequency, which increases directly with
gross brain growth)

This is meaningless work salad. Wrong and silly.

2. Why God is an "invisible man" who lives there
and is all powerful and rules the actual (visible)
world from there.
("God" is the perfect fully grown man, hence the
part of us that is latent, or ungrown, is called
the "invisible God", also the "Unconscious mind")

Unsupported hopeful assertion backed by nothing.

3. Why this God can effect miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
(Because, a change in Repression causes a
dramatic change in Curvature of subjective
spacetime suddenly making more of reality
visible).

You define him as someone who can do anything and then
draw the conclusion that he can do anything.

4. Why Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
(This is confirmed by the SPOG which shows that
"God" is the unconscious mind, which is a
"spirit")

There is no support for this statement.

5. Why historically Religion has evolved from
Polytheism to Monotheism.
(The SPOG proves that there are 4 orders of
eigenvectors, which is a "hierarchy of gods".
the entire history of Religion is accounted for
as a successive discovery of the orders from
1st=(demigods), 2nd=(Olympian gods), 3rd=
(4-Gospel Saints), 4th=(God of Monotheism)

Christianity moved to one god but Hinduism and others
have not so this is wrong also.


6. Why Christianity says the world is transforming
itself into Heaven and will actually complete this
at a date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the
"end of the world".
(Because the Secular Trend curve in Human
Growth is a Sigmoidal Logistics curve (S-curve)
and the final plateau is 100% growth of
the individual, or "Kingdom Come")

This is even more bizarre than the rest.


7. Why there is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
(Because full growth means flat subjective
spacetime.. no time dilation.. aka eternal time)

There is no content to comment on.

8. Why it is believed that Jesus was the physical
"incarnation of God"
(Because, nominally Jesus was a "fully grown
specimen". Of course we know this wasn't
actually possible, but in fact he must have
been an impressive specimen to conduct
such a startling public ministry.)

This is the claim because otherwise he would not have
seemed important.

9. Why the Cross for some reason is the central
symbol of (Western) Religion.
(Because the human body is an "axial quadrature"
and the brain actually "cubic" causing a cross
structure (Cartesian structure) of Personality)

So the Romans chose a christian symbol to crucify people
on? It was chosen for convenience.


10. Why for some reason our main canonical text is
written in 4 identical versions known as the
"4-Gospel Canon".
(Because the Structural Model is CUBIC,
represented as a square; 4 Gospel Canon
represents the 4 canonical personalities
of Man... cf. the Bicameral/2 Party system)

The four versions of the new testament are not identical.
They are in fact completely contradictory in some areas.

11. How God "created the world" only a matter of
"thousands" of years ago (Genesis) not "billions"
of years ago (Big Bang) as Science believes.
(Because subjective spacetime only came into
being when Man came into being 200,000 years
ago, causing the Biblical Creation).

This has been shown to be untrue by science. You do not
want to believe it but that does not change the facts.

12. Why God created man "in his own image".
(Because God is the invisible (fully grown)
version of Man).

You got that backwards, man created god in his own image.

13. Why there is a "Trinity of God" and what it is,
functionally or scientifically speaking.
(the Trinity is simply the cybernetic feedback
loop (input, output, feedback) describing the
operation of the Father (invisible man), Son
actual Man, and feedback (UNCS mind) that
transforms the latter into the former).

This silliness is even worse than that above.

14. Why there are (approximately) 13 gods in the
Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon.
(Because the 2nd orders are caused by the
13 symmetry axes of the cubic str. of the brain).

This is where you claim again that 12=13 to 3 significant
figures.

15. Why there are exactly 4-gospel Saints named
Matthew, mark, Luke, John.
(Because the Cubic str. of Personality can be
represented by a section through the Cube,
yielding the 4 canonical personalities of Man)

The council of Nicea chose the books to unify the various
christian sects. There were several main sects and this
is why Revelation, which has no part in the bible since it is
just a forecast of Rome's destruction is in there.

16. Why there are 30 odd "lesser demigods" in Hinduism.
(Because there are 30 1st-order eigenvectors
caused by myriad lower level brain structures;
not geometrically intercorrelated)


You forgot the other millions. You are also ignoring the
various earth gods and other traditional gods.


THIS OVERWHELMING, COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF THE
ENTIRE BODY OF CLASSICAL RELIGION, BY A SIMPLE RELATIVISTIC
CURVATURE MECHANISM, IS PRIMA FACIE THE WORLD'S FIRST AND
ONLY BONA FIDE "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD".

No, it is just babble that no one takes seriously.

Now you can sit there and giggle like a flat footed fat
ass academy boy all you want, but it certainly is NOT
convincing.

And your nonsense is?

either show us some of your scintillating PhD forensic
scientist genius a la ronald Reagan, or go back to work
designing Widgets at Quintessential Trinkets where you
belong.

Remind us again where you work?


snip argumentative no content 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
=====================================

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:09:29 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:




snip no content line item drivil post


[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and 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 either), proving that
you're some kind of 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
=====================================

George Hammond writes:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.

Whaddau mean "redefine eigenvector"? An eigenvector is a
principle axis of a matrix ellipsoid, whether it's in
quantum mechanics, Psychometry Factor Analysis or the moment
of Inertia in Mechanics, makes no difference. An
eigenvector is an eigenvector.
The Pagan "gods" are 2nd order psychometry eigenvectors
caused by the cubic anatomical symmetry cleavage of the
brain. They form a CUBE.

Yup. Add 'eigenvector' to the growing list of redefined words.


7.7% "pretty good for ancient science". Let's imagine,
just for a moment, that the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon with some
of the Doric columns 12 meters tall and others 13 meters tall. The 12m
and 13m columns all mixed up. That would be "pretty good for ancient
science", right? Only 7.7% off, right? Wrong - if they ever did that,
the Parthenon would look pathetic. Instead of the ancient Greeks being
revered by western society, they'd be the laughing stock of the ancient
world! I'm laughing just thinking about it!

Cut the **** Moroney, measureing something with a ruler
like the Parthenon is kid stuff.

And counting as far as 13 is even more kid stuff. My kid could count past
13 when she was just 2.

Fact is Eratosthenes estimated the Earth's circumference
around 240 BCE. The Sun was directly overhead in Syene at
the summer solstice but in Alexandria it still cast a
shadow. Using the distance and angles he estimated the
Earth's circumference. Eratosthenes' figure has an error of
around five to ten percent.
So "7.7%" was par for the course in advanced scientific
measurement in ancient Greece.

We're not talking about measuring angles of sunlight, time or distance
(all of which would be necessary to do what Eratosthenes did) or
even just distance (enough to get the columns of the Parthenon to the same
height), we're talking about _counting gods_!

The fact that they could estimate "God" to 7.7% is a
phenomenal scientific achievement by comparison!

Counting to 13 is *not* a phenomenal scientific achievement! It's
something that some two-year-olds can do!

So you'll have to find some other trivia to rag on, I've
beaten your "12 vs. 13" objection to death.

You're the one who makes it a big deal about your claim that there are
"EXACTLY 13 2nd order Eigenvectors". Well guess what. 12 is NOT "exactly
13".

Like I said, the Greeks were 7.7% off, same as their
measuremet of the Earth's circumference.

We're not talking about 'measuring' anything (and even so they could
measure Parthenon columns to much better than 7.7% error), we're talking
about simple counting.

BTW, 12 and 13 are not within 3 significant figures of each other. (do
you even know what that means?) Try 1 sig fig.

I've got 2 degrees in Physics from accredited
universities in Massachusetts, that certifies that I KNOW
what it means.

Maybe, just maybe, you knew the definition once, but it appears you no
longer do.

If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
why?

12
13
0.000876
1.000876
120
120.
469.230

Let's hear your "definition" of significant figure. I'll add it to
the ever-growing List of Words Redefined by George Hammond.

"Exist"
"Prove"/"Proof"
"Peer-reviewed"
"Eigenvector" (kewl sounding word that makes my 'proof' sound scientific)
"Twelve" (a number considered unlucky by many)
"Thirteen" (number of eggs in an egg carton)
"Thirty" (number of dollars you need to be considered a multimillionaire)

Modern Science has proved that there are 13-2nd order

Another one. "Modern Science" = "Hammond's imagination"

Of course, perhaps words like "are" "that" "has" etc. should be on the
list and their redefinitions completely change the meaning of what you
write to something completely different.

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:09:29 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



snip no content line item drivil post

[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Since you have no answer to the comments, you snip them. That
means you know you are wrong.

Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Your opinion has nothing to do with the validity of my PhD.
The university, my advisor and my committee decided that many
years ago.
It is sad that you consider reasoned comments as ranting. Most
of the world considers swearing and insults as ranting. Maybe
you are right to 7.7%
You still did not tell us what you do for a living.

Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
This sort of paranoid comments shows you know you are wrong
and are trying to bluster.

Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and 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 said you would not believe my answer. Are you lying now
or were you lying then?

You don't know the answer, and can't answer the question
(and you won't find it on Google either), proving that
you're some kind of 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!

I guess I forgot that to win an argument, I must swear, insult
and USE CAPITAL LETTERS. Does that help my argument? You seem
to think it helps yours.

You have shown you cannot answer challenges to your wild
assumptions which means you know they are wrong and you are
still just hoping no one will notice. Unfortunately for you,
they have noticed. You are the joke of the newsgroups.

=====================================
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 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:47:54 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT



[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and 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 either), proving that
you're some kind of 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
=====================================

Sers George et all

George Hammond schrieb:

SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT

LOL.

richie
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two

George Hammond writes:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:06:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
OK, EXACTLY 13 2nd order eigenvectors (however you redefine 'eigenvector').
Not 14, not 12, but EXACTLY 13. Got it.

Whaddau mean "redefine eigenvector"? An eigenvector is a
principle axis of a matrix ellipsoid, whether it's in
quantum mechanics, Psychometry Factor Analysis or the moment
of Inertia in Mechanics, makes no difference. An
eigenvector is an eigenvector.
The Pagan "gods" are 2nd order psychometry eigenvectors
caused by the cubic anatomical symmetry cleavage of the
brain. They form a CUBE.

Yup. Add 'eigenvector' to the growing list of redefined words.

My definition of an eigenvector is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT,

And we add to the redefined word list:

"SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT" : George Hammond hallucinated it so it must be
true.

and the "Pagan gods" are 2nd order EIGENVECTORS as so

"EIGENVECTOR" : Only God and George Hammond know about that, and I'm not
so sure about God.

defined in Personality Psychometry

"Personality Psychometry" : Possibly what George suffers from

and experimentally
measureable to 3 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES

3 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES : One or maybe two significant figures.

and have been so
measured and peer published

Peer published : Posted on a vanity press website.

for 30 years.

I guess this yet another definition for "thirty".

If a physicist making measurements writes down the following figures as
lab measurements, how many significant figures are in each number, and
why?

12
[GH] 2 significant figures
13
[GH] 2 significant figures
0.000876
[GH] 3 significant figures
1.000876
[GH] 7 significant figures
120
[GH] 2 significant figures
120.
[GH] 2 significant figures
469.230
[GH] 5 significant figures

[GH] Why? Because I've got 2 significant college degrees
in Physics from accredited Universities in Massachusetts.

Congratulations. Only two wrong. 71%, a D. I guess if you did better in
your other courses you won't flunk out.

Now please explain how 12=13 to 3 sig figs. (this ought to be good!)

Now get the f--- outta here atheistic moron; get off this
thread and stay off it, this is not a juvenile discussion
for mentally retarded loudmouths lijke you.

Silence, imbecile. Show more respect to your superiors or else the
asylum will revoke your computer privileges.

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:47:54 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT


[Hammond]
Your post contains nothing but UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
lacking any factual evidence, while my post is based on peer
reviewed and published papers.
Your commentary is idiotic, juvenile and reflects a low
intelligence and little proficiency or experience in
Science.
You CLAIM to have a "PhD in Physics" but refuse to cite
your CV, your real name, or any verification of such. Your
commentary does not rise above the level of the average jr.
grade laboratory technician. Therefore, until you provide
verification of your educational claims, I must presume you
are a FAKE, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER, and you are certainly
typical of the average ranting aggravated psychotic
atheistic nut.
Many atheist frauds claim false credentials, such as T.
Wake from alt.atheism who also claimed he was a "Physics
PhD" but investigation showed he was in fact a civil
engineer employed in bridge building, or TMG who claimed to
be a "Physics PhD" but who actually turned out to be a WHOI
("Whoee") employee who has a degree in "Ocean Physics" which
any halfwit engineering level graduate could achieve.
Judging from your language and science content surely you
fall in the same category, a half baked near do well
"applied physics" nut, at best, and probably unemployed
judging from your lengthy weekday posts. You're a worthless
screwball.
Finally, because all these screwballs claim they can't
post their CV because they have "high security gov't jobs"
and 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 either), proving that
you're some kind of 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
=====================================
So Hammond is unable to support his laughable proposals so he
snips the part that shows him to be wrong and tells people to
leave. That shows he knows he is wrong and has no business bothering
intelligent people with his ignorance or hope or delusions or whatever
it is that makes him say really embarrassing things so that he looks
really bad.

Can you point out one rational person that has agreed with you?

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


[Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimer]

you have shown no
connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.


[Hammond]
Your answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
you haven't answered it:


[Hammond]
You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
would explain it.

You forgot onoe important step ... (as is usual for ignorant assholes like
you) - what is inivestigated must have a basis in REALITY!
Religious beliefs do NOT!

Only those things that exist in reality have supportive FACTS and EVIDENCE.
Your S.P.O.Crap has produced none of either.

You cannot start out with (your) crap ........ add your own psychotically
delusional, UN-scientific bellows ... and then come up with ANYTHING that
has any relationship to science, reality or sanity!

You're nothing more than a psychotic asshole!

John Smith wrote:
"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:01:19 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

[Doug, anonymouss unverified Physics PhD claimer]

you have shown no
connection with a god. This is just you hoping that no
one will notice that this assuming what you want to prove.


[Hammond]
Your answer to that FALSE STATEMENT is posted below, and
you haven't answered it:

[Hammond]
You're so obviously incompetent its pathetic. Look, the
basic plot, as in any scientific investigation, is to
itemize the characteristics of the phenomenon, and then see
if there is any known simple scientific mechanism which
would explain it.

You forgot onoe important step ... (as is usual for ignorant assholes like
you) - what is inivestigated must have a basis in REALITY!
Religious beliefs do NOT!

Only those things that exist in reality have supportive FACTS and EVIDENCE.
Your S.P.O.Crap has produced none of either.

You cannot start out with (your) crap ........ add your own psychotically
delusional, UN-scientific bellows ... and then come up with ANYTHING that
has any relationship to science, reality or sanity!

You're nothing more than a psychotic asshole!



He wants it to be true. He has nothing else to offer so he hopes
he gets glory by doing something that is obviously wrong and then
hoping that no one notices.

None of the steps in his "proof" is connected to any facet of
reality. He takes a few random phrases that have some truth in
them and then puts in conclusions that are totally bogus and
expects people to tell him how great he is. He does not like
it that I have a PhD and he does not so he attacks that rather
than try to defend his nonsense.

Should we pity him or be mad at him? I would go for pity because
he is making himself unhappy.