On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:20:09 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

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.




[Peter van Velzen]
.........., 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.

[Hammond]
Obviously.


[Peter van Velzen]
As to you "scientific proof" however, I am afraid experts in several
scientific fields will consider you an amateur in their field too.

[Hammond]
Unsupported meaningless amateur opinion.

[Peter van Velzen]
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).


[Hammond]
You'r e an incompetent amateur who doesn't even know what
he's talking about.
it is a well known FACT that: Intelligence increases
uniformly from age 0 to 18, and this is PROVEN by 100 years
ofresearch in which intelligence was LINEARLY divided by AGE
(up to 18) to obtain IQ. It is also known that this is due
to BRAIN GROWTH since the human brain increases for 0 to 3
lbs during the first 18 years of life.
Anyone who would presume to dispute this PROVEN AND
OBVIOSUS FACTS is of course an idiotic amateur and/or simply
a helcker.


Best to you!

Peter vsn Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
=====================================
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 Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.

Look asshole,

Resorting to name-calling is more of an admission of defeat by yourself
than anything.

it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!

George, either you are extremely forgetful or are just trolling. You
didn't mention Einstein's famous eclipse experiment. I mentioned, several
times, Einstein's General Relativity as a perfect example of the
Scientific Method at work because he DID propose a beautiful experiment.
That experiment was to observe a certain star during the eclipse, and if
Einstein's GR hypothesis was correct, the star, because its light was bent
by the Sun's gravity, would appear in a different location.

The SPOG is confirmed by:

[snip]

I see no experiments suggested by yourself. I repeat: So what
experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have done that will
verify or refute your hypothesis?

80 years of General Relativity research.

Now, that's delusional.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:05:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

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

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.

As a test subject, perhaps?

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 06:51:59 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:




SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but have no CV,
real name, or verification.
Your totally non-scientific postings show you are
a crackpot with possibly a charity degree in applied
Science at best.
You have not posted a single competent scientific
comment to this thread, merely off topic inane
heckling.
Get off this thread.

Since all of your cites point to psychiatry, psychology and social studies
type books .... what are your educational qualifications in THESE areas?
Or didn't you know that an alleged degree in physics carries no weight in
psychiatry!?!?!?!

Please - no lame excuses (like you tried before) like "I've studied
thoroughly".
That's a con man's fraud since you demand, all the time, that others provide
valid CV's.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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.

Trust me - you're no Einstein. You're one hell of a lot closer to Alfred E.
Neuman.

Einstein DID make theoretical predictions that turned out true.
You haven't. You just keep bellowing crap!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




[Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.



[Hammond]
Look asshole, it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!
The SPOG is confirmed by:

150 years of Biology research in embryology by Roux,
Conklin, Speman, Dreisch and others.

100- years of neuropsychology research by Bell-Magendie,
Sperry, McClain and others.

80 years of General Relativity research.

50 years of computer research extraction of eignvector
models Psychometry including the Eysenck-3, AVA-4, Big-5,
Brand-6, Cattell-7, Saucier-8, Cattel-13 and many others...
in fact EVERY published psychometric model in the
literature.

110 years of measurement of the Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) since the time of Thomas Edison and recently by Lehrl
and Fischer.

80 years of research on the Secular Trend in human growth by
the WHOI, Unicef, Red Cross and hundreds of academic
studies.

40 years of modern measurements of IQ vis. Mental Speed.

20 years of research on the Anthropic Principle in Physics.

The list goes on, and is all cited in my published papers.

ALL THIS EVIDENCE is EQUIVALENT to Leverrier's Perihelion
measurement in GR. Einstein was right about GR, and Hammond
is right about the SPOG.

Claiming ancient works support your crap MEANS NOTHING - since those people
are not around to deny your warped claims!
THAT'S why YOU have to do the experiments AS THEY APPLY TO YOUR CLAIMS.
(You've already been shown wrong several times in your distortions of the
meaning of other people's work.).
You can't.
You haven't.
You won't.

You'll just keep on bellowing the same UNSUPPORTED CRAP!

"Michael Moroney" wrote in message
...
George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:05:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

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

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.

As a test subject, perhaps?

:-)

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 10:46:52 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



SNIP

[John Smith, atheist, raving S.P.O.G. critic]
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, HECKLER]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

If you already knew your assertion was unsupported - why did you bother
posting it?

Note that, once again, you ignore the points of the conversation and resort
to childish name calling.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 10:38:42 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


[Hammond]
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.


[JOHN SMITH, HECKLER]
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!


[Hammond]
Why is that a cooincidence, ape****?


what is "cooincidence?

Your claim has exactly the same validity as alleged sightings of Elvis.

Unlike George Hammond's daydreams, General Relativity
and the second law of thermodynamics are falsifiable.

The Scientific method can be ( and is ) applied to them;
it's not random metaphysics.

No one ( including George himself ) knows how George's daydreams
might be different from G.R. or the 2nd law,
or how it might be falsified.

When it comes to gods, my thinking is like this:
The only lord that matters is the landlord ( including the government ).
Going up a level, every landlord finds that he's also a tenant.

It's the right of every landlord to evict on a whim.. that's just life.
The U.S. ( for example ) is the landlord of Iraq,
evicting whoever it will ( e.g. Saddam Hussain ).