"Kamerynn" wrote in message
...
George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Look... lets cut the malarkey..... you claim to be a PhD physicist.
This means that professional technical terms and language are not
supposed to be beyond your understanding.

First off, let me apologise to Kamerynn - for information, I am replying to
George, via Kam's post as I have George happily killfiled now and have yet
to see any reason to change this. If anyone is still following this thread,
other than the usual combatants, you may be interested to know if you Google
G_uv, nearly every his is from Hammond. One interesting link is
http://www.usenetreligion.com/archiv.../t-662200.html. This gives
light to the futility of educating George, however the other reasons for
responding to him are fully valid.

To date, George you have been consistently rude and avoided responding to
all questions with anything but un-scientific assumptions and assertions. As
long as you feel you have the right to avoid answers and proof, then I too
claim that right.

Your claim that the SPOG is either scientific or proof is founded on such
shaky reasoning it almost becomes impossible to know where to start telling
you how wrong you are. You are a living example of circular reasoning.

At this juncture in our conversation I think it will "help" to remind you of
some quotes, that as a well studied MSc Physics you will be no doubt aware
of:

"Young men should prove theorems, old men should write books" - GH Hardy

"Work rarely improves after the age of twenty five or thirty. If little has
been accomplished by the, little will ever be accomplished" - Alfred Alder

This is simply to point out the errors of your assumptions that only people
"advanced in years" can have any meaningful contribution to either your SPOG
or science in general.

One of the greatest mathematicians - Srinivasa Ramanujan - had no formal
education before he was elected to the Royal Society. This is to point out
the errors that people with less than PhD level educations can point faults
in your SPOG.

Lastly, your assertions that "PROOF" has to be eternal and a scientific
proof is a bedrock that remains unchallengeable is totally false. There are
two commonly accepted ways of using a proof (without going down the road of
alcohol contents etc). I am, as you repeated request, staying on topic here.

You can either have a mathematical proof or a scientific proof. A
mathematical proof is the unchanging type. Pythagoras' theorem will remain
valid until the end of time. This is why pure maths is a distinct subject
and worthy of study in its own right. If you truly had a mathematical proof
of God, then your reasoning and logic would be un-assailable until the end
of everything. You don't have a MPOG.

Scientific proof is totally different and dependant on several factors that
allow error to creep in. A scientific proof is simply the best available
explanation based on the evidence available at the time. This is why
scientific proofs are repeatedly revised, overhauled or overthrown. Even
with this, much easier, set of criteria you don't have a SPOG.

That said, on to the weary task of reminding you where your errors lie.

First of all, as a PHD PHYSICIST you're supposed to be aware
that the PFF test PROVES that the FREQUENCY BANDWIDTH
of "all comprehended motion" is 1/3 LESS for a 7 year old than
it is for an adult.

Motion. Key phrase here. Motion. Say it again.

You have repeatedly stated that the PFF data implies that part of the static
world is invisible to children. This is not so.

My children can see everything that I can see. Your theory implies that they
see 1/3 less of the floor than I do. This is not the case. They see all the
floor. If I throw a ball quickly, they cant track its movement perfectly.
This is what your PFF supports.

There is nothing in your reasoning to show where this missing 1/3 is. This
in turn implies that for the statement to be true, they must only see 2/3 of
EVERYTHING. As this is not the case, the reasoning must be wrong.

If you are stating that the PFF data implies only 2/3 of movement is missed,
then I may agree. Logic now demands that your SPOG implies Heaven must be
moving in excess of 25 frames per minute. Nothing in Heaven can be static or
it would immediately become visible to "mere mortals."

Assuming that this is the case, Heaven must be moving at such a speed that
even when it changes direction, or I change direction in relation to Heaven,
it is still moving faster than can be comprehended. To account for people in
cars, planes etc., we now need Heaven to be clocking up a pretty hefty
speed.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, how do you account for still
photography?

If I set a camera with its aperture open for 24 hours, all movement in its
field of view will be recorded. The speed of movement is irrelevant to the
camera. It has no brain, therefore its BGD=0. Why hasn't this camera ever
shown Heaven in all its glory?

What this means is that 1/3 of the entire
Fourier frequency spectrum of "normal adult reality" is simply
INVISIBLE to a 7 year old. It means that the brain growth deficit of
a 7 year old acts like a LO PASS FILTER and simply blocks
or makes "incomprehensible" , or "invisible", the upper 1/3 of the
frequency spectrum of reality that a normal full grown adult can
see and comprehend!

I have at my work a wide spectrum analyser. It can snapshot a spectrum far
beyond that visible to the human eye. It has yet to show me Heaven.

What frequency is Heaven on? I will tune my equipment to it and check.

The machinery has a BGD=0 therefore it should be able to recognise heaven.

snip

You are misusing Einstein's work here. You are implying the size of Earth's
gravitational field is sufficient to warp space and time to such a degree
that Heaven is invisible. Assuming this is correct, why hasn't Heaven been
seen from the moon?

Given everything else, lets drop the algebra and start using some figures.

What frequency is Heaven working on? How much would we need to negate the
Earth's gravitation field to see Heaven? How much is time dilated to render
Heaven invisible?

If the formula are sound, the numbers will work.


G_uv = BGD (=brain growth deficit)

snip

1. 20% of "theoretical adult reality" is actually INVISIBLE
to the average "normal" adult.

Theoretical is an interesting choice of words.

Implication being that BGD=20% therefore GOD=20%. Odd way to describe your
All Mighty Creator.

Does this mean that when I look at a wall 10m long it is actually 12m long
and I should keep hitting the edge of it?

2. Why the VISIBLE WORLD (the 80% that is visible) is
actuall7y "magnified and speeded up" by 20% thus
making it "terrifying, awesome and dangerous" to the
average person.

You state this and have no way to prove it with ANY of your formula. I have
tried to plug values in at every stage of your SPOG and it still doesn't
result.

Your assumption that only 80% is visible is weak at best, to then assume
that the remaining 20% is speeded up by 20% is odd. Just because the numbers
are the same doesn't mean they add up. If you multiply 20% by 20% you get
4%.

When you try to prove your formula the numbers and the logic goes awry.

doesn't And I submit that this explains, scientifically, the
phenomena of "GOD" so called.

You are making two assumptions and using them as evidence for a third
assumption. I honestly think you can't see how this is both wrong and so far
from "scientific" as can be imagined.

You have no way of identifying what your "invisible" world is. How have you
discounted your "proof" as being a SPOD?

The clincher, for me anyway, is even if you assume your SPOG is correct -
what does it achieve? You make no predictions for ANYTHING that can be
tested. You rely on historical experimental evidence. Your theory doesn't
help advance any understanding. It explains no phenomena that haven't
already been satisfactorily explained. In short, your SPOG contains no proof
and even less science.

As an aside George, and I am sure you are dying for an excuse to get away
from answering or responding to any of my questions or statements (I fully
expect a reply along the lines of your incredibly witty PhD KUTTER.... must
have taken you hours to think of that one), I have a religious question for
you.

Why did God create the universe in six days?

Kamerynn - I am sorry for hijacking your post, I hope you don't mind.

"T Wake" wrote in message
...


[Hammond]
Look... lets cut the malarkey..... you claim to be a PhD physicist.
This means that professional technical terms and language are not
supposed to be beyond your understanding.


[Hammond]
Note that Wake claims to have a "PhD in Physics", from the tripe
that he's posting I would suggest that:

1. Either Wake is a fraudulent liar about his scientific competence.
2. Or, the University that granted him a PhD is fraudulent.



You have repeatedly stated that the PFF data implies that part of the
static
world is invisible to children. This is not so.

[Hammond]
1. You are IGNORING the proven fact that the
PFF proves that 1/3 of the motion spectrum
is invisible.

2. Magnification is known to produce "invisibility"
in the same way, since any object becomes
unidentifiable at high magnification.


My children can see everything that I can see. Your theory implies that
they
see 1/3 less of the floor than I do. This is not the case. They see all
the
floor. If I throw a ball quickly, they cant track its movement perfectly.
This is what your PFF supports.

[Hammond]
Wrong on both counts.
I don't believe you're a PhD in physics.
OBVIOUSLY is there is a 50% MAGNIFICATION
of the floor (to a 5 year old) then he CAN'T POSSIBLY
be "seeing all the floor you're seeing".
I believe you to be an imposter and a fraud.


There is nothing in your reasoning to show where this missing 1/3 is. This
in turn implies that for the statement to be true, they must only see 2/3
of
EVERYTHING. As this is not the case, the reasoning must be wrong.

If you are stating that the PFF data implies only 2/3 of movement is
missed,
then I may agree. Logic now demands that your SPOG implies Heaven must be
moving in excess of 25 frames per minute. Nothing in Heaven can be static
or
it would immediately become visible to "mere mortals."

[Hammond]
Your lack of comprehension that the PFF is a mesure of the
"frequency spectrum" of motion that a child can see is
EVIDENCE of your scientific incompetence... clearly the
PFF shows that the upper 1/3 of the (Fourier spectrum)
of all motion is INVISIBLE to a child compared to an adult.
Your scientific ignorance leads me to suspect you are a
scientific FRAUD.







Assuming that this is the case, Heaven must be moving at such a speed that
even when it changes direction, or I change direction in relation to
Heaven,
it is still moving faster than can be comprehended. To account for people
in
cars, planes etc., we now need Heaven to be clocking up a pretty hefty
speed.


[Hammond]
YOUR remark is of such ABJECT SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE
as to be LUDICROUS AND RIDICULOUS.

How in the christ does a "PhD physicist" confuse the
"frequency spectrum" of motion, with the SPEED
of motion.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSTER AND A FRAUD!



Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, how do you account for still
photography?

If I set a camera with its aperture open for 24 hours, all movement in its
field of view will be recorded. The speed of movement is irrelevant to the
camera. It has no brain, therefore its BGD=0. Why hasn't this camera ever
shown Heaven in all its glory?


[Hammond]
You are ignoring the MAGNIFICATION of
the camera, which is relevant to the content of
the photograph, Moron.
AGAIN.... you demonstrate that you are a

INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

In the first place, "time dilation" is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
than "space magnification".
As a PhD physicist you're supporsed to BE AWARE that
the "time dilation alone" is the cause of ALL of NEWTONIAN
GRAVITY... the space dilation of GR doesn't have any impact
on Newtonian Gravity whatsoever (which is why Newtonian gravity
is a "scalar theory").
Exactly the same is true of "GOD"... the "time dilation" accounts
entirely for the "classical" explanation of God.

In the 2nd place, you IGNORE the well known fact that
"magnification" causes invisiblility in the same way that
"frequency magnification" causes invisibility. The fact that
a child's world is MAGNIFIED by 200% simply puts half
of it out of the field of view.... same as it does in a photograph
taken at 200% magnification.

AGAIN, YOU ARE DEMONSTRATED TO BE A
SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT... and I doubt your claim
that you are a "PhD physicist".







What this means is that 1/3 of the entire
Fourier frequency spectrum of "normal adult reality" is simply
INVISIBLE to a 7 year old. It means that the brain growth deficit of
a 7 year old acts like a LO PASS FILTER and simply blocks
or makes "incomprehensible" , or "invisible", the upper 1/3 of the
frequency spectrum of reality that a normal full grown adult can
see and comprehend!

I have at my work a wide spectrum analyser. It can snapshot a spectrum far
beyond that visible to the human eye. It has yet to show me Heaven.

[Hammond]
You're such a SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT that you don't
know the difference between the "frequency spectrum of
simple mechanical motion" and the "frequency spectrum
of light"... which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with the discussion.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD!





What frequency is Heaven on? I will tune my equipment to it and check.

[Hammond]
Again, a demonstration that you are a scientific incompetent,
and your claim of being a "PhD physicist"
is FRAUDULENT.


The machinery has a BGD=0 therefore it should be able to recognise heaven.

[Hammond]
But the "machinery" has a fixed MAGNIFICATION which
you seem to ignore, and which affects the content of the
photograph, to say nothing of it's comprehensibility.
Again you are confusing the "frequency spectrum of ordinary
mechanical motion" with the "frequency spectrum of light"..
you are a bigger IDIOT than Prof. Chris Isham... a scientific
moron, and an incompetent.... just like him... only WORSE!



snip

You are misusing Einstein's work here. You are implying the size of
Earth's
gravitational field is sufficient to warp space and time to such a degree
that Heaven is invisible. Assuming this is correct, why hasn't Heaven been
seen from the moon?


[Hammond]
AGAIN, just like Chris Isham, you are a scientific MORON.
"God" has NOTHING to do with terrestrial or cosmological
gravity.



Given everything else, lets drop the algebra and start using some figures.


[Hammond]
Figures of what.... your playpen?



What frequency is Heaven working on?

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

How much would we need to negate the
Earth's gravitation field to see Heaven?

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.


How much is time dilated to render
Heaven invisible?

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.


If the formula are sound, the numbers will work.

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.


G_uv = BGD (=brain growth deficit)

snip

1. 20% of "theoretical adult reality" is actually INVISIBLE
to the average "normal" adult.

Theoretical is an interesting choice of words.

Implication being that BGD=20% therefore GOD=20%. Odd way to describe your
All Mighty Creator.

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.


Does this mean that when I look at a wall 10m long it is actually 12m long
and I should keep hitting the edge of it?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.




2. Why the VISIBLE WORLD (the 80% that is visible) is
actuall7y "magnified and speeded up" by 20% thus
making it "terrifying, awesome and dangerous" to the
average person.

You state this and have no way to prove it with ANY of your formula. I
have
tried to plug values in at every stage of your SPOG and it still doesn't
result.

[Hammond]
You're an incompetent... you are not even aware that the
fromula:

God = G_uv = BGD (=brain growth defitcit)

has the solution:

METRIC = ds^2 = (1-BGD) dR^2 - (1+BGD) dt^2

thus giving DIRECTLY the "magnification and speed increase"
of "reality" as seen by someone with a brain growth deficit.

Get the **** outta here you mental midgit!
Go back in the army where you belong, and
stay the **** away from the physics department.






Your assumption that only 80% is visible is weak at best, to then assume
that the remaining 20% is speeded up by 20% is odd. Just because the
numbers
are the same doesn't mean they add up. If you multiply 20% by 20% you get
4%.


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



=======KOOKY KUTTER========
This poster is a self professed "atheist" and
obviously intent on posting harassment. He
claims to have a PhD in physics but shows no
evidence of competence in physics.. claims he
had a military career before studying physics,
and I suspect the university simply granted
him a degree in physics out of deference to his
military service... sort of a "football scholarship".
No further reply to this atheistic harasser
and scientific incompetent will be made.
==IGNORE USENET HARASSERS====


====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

"Kamerynn" wrote in message
...


George Hammond wrote:

"RyanT" wrote in message
ups.com...



Well the real test now is convincing your collegues and withstanding
the barrage of criticism,


[Hammond]
Collegues? What collegues? I'm the only graduate physicist
working on a scientific proof of God.... and in fact I've
(accidentally found it... and published it).

Kam:
Not with that kind of terrible use of parenthesis,
you didn't. Every time you post you damage your
credibility.


=======KOOKY KUTTER========
This poster is a "philawsephy harasser"
with no scientific degrees. He posts
off topic "philawsephy harassment" to
scientific threads believing his
"scintillating logic" to be fascinating.
==IGNORE USENET HARASSERS====


====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

George E. Hammond wrote:
"T Wake" wrote in message
...



[Hammond]
Look... lets cut the malarkey..... you claim to be a PhD physicist.
This means that professional technical terms and language are not
supposed to be beyond your understanding.



[Hammond]
Note that Wake claims to have a "PhD in Physics", from the tripe
that he's posting I would suggest that:

1. Either Wake is a fraudulent liar about his scientific competence.
2. Or, the University that granted him a PhD is fraudulent.

Kam:
That's precisely what I believe about *you*. You're ignorant
of even the most elementary necessities of scientific writing,
such as referencing your sources. You can merely assert, for
example, whatever you wish about what the bible says. Until you
quote it, no one has any grounds on which to believe you.

P.S. I certainly don't mind if you (T. Wake) use my posts
for the purpose of criticizing George. That is, after all,
what I'm using them for ;-)

flush

George E. Hammond wrote:
"T Wake" wrote in message
...



[Hammond]
Look... lets cut the malarkey..... you claim to be a PhD physicist.
This means that professional technical terms and language are not
supposed to be beyond your understanding.



[Hammond]
Note that Wake claims to have a "PhD in Physics", from the tripe
that he's posting I would suggest that:

1. Either Wake is a fraudulent liar about his scientific competence.
2. Or, the University that granted him a PhD is fraudulent.




You have repeatedly stated that the PFF data implies that part of the

static

world is invisible to children. This is not so.


[Hammond]
1. You are IGNORING the proven fact that the
PFF proves that 1/3 of the motion spectrum
is invisible.

2. Magnification is known to produce "invisibility"
in the same way, since any object becomes
unidentifiable at high magnification.



My children can see everything that I can see. Your theory implies that

they

see 1/3 less of the floor than I do. This is not the case. They see all

the

floor. If I throw a ball quickly, they cant track its movement perfectly.
This is what your PFF supports.


[Hammond]
Wrong on both counts.
I don't believe you're a PhD in physics.
OBVIOUSLY is there is a 50% MAGNIFICATION
of the floor (to a 5 year old) then he CAN'T POSSIBLY
be "seeing all the floor you're seeing".
I believe you to be an imposter and a fraud.



There is nothing in your reasoning to show where this missing 1/3 is. This
in turn implies that for the statement to be true, they must only see 2/3

of

EVERYTHING. As this is not the case, the reasoning must be wrong.

If you are stating that the PFF data implies only 2/3 of movement is

missed,

then I may agree. Logic now demands that your SPOG implies Heaven must be
moving in excess of 25 frames per minute. Nothing in Heaven can be static

or

it would immediately become visible to "mere mortals."


[Hammond]
Your lack of comprehension that the PFF is a mesure of the
"frequency spectrum" of motion that a child can see is
EVIDENCE of your scientific incompetence... clearly the
PFF shows that the upper 1/3 of the (Fourier spectrum)
of all motion is INVISIBLE to a child compared to an adult.
Your scientific ignorance leads me to suspect you are a
scientific FRAUD.







Assuming that this is the case, Heaven must be moving at such a speed that
even when it changes direction, or I change direction in relation to

Heaven,

it is still moving faster than can be comprehended. To account for people

in

cars, planes etc., we now need Heaven to be clocking up a pretty hefty
speed.



[Hammond]
YOUR remark is of such ABJECT SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE
as to be LUDICROUS AND RIDICULOUS.

How in the christ does a "PhD physicist" confuse the
"frequency spectrum" of motion, with the SPEED
of motion.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSTER AND A FRAUD!




Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, how do you account for still
photography?

If I set a camera with its aperture open for 24 hours, all movement in its
field of view will be recorded. The speed of movement is irrelevant to the
camera. It has no brain, therefore its BGD=0. Why hasn't this camera ever
shown Heaven in all its glory?



[Hammond]
You are ignoring the MAGNIFICATION of
the camera, which is relevant to the content of
the photograph, Moron.
AGAIN.... you demonstrate that you are a

INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

In the first place, "time dilation" is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
than "space magnification".
As a PhD physicist you're supporsed to BE AWARE that
the "time dilation alone" is the cause of ALL of NEWTONIAN
GRAVITY... the space dilation of GR doesn't have any impact
on Newtonian Gravity whatsoever (which is why Newtonian gravity
is a "scalar theory").
Exactly the same is true of "GOD"... the "time dilation" accounts
entirely for the "classical" explanation of God.

In the 2nd place, you IGNORE the well known fact that
"magnification" causes invisiblility in the same way that
"frequency magnification" causes invisibility. The fact that
a child's world is MAGNIFIED by 200% simply puts half
of it out of the field of view.... same as it does in a photograph
taken at 200% magnification.

AGAIN, YOU ARE DEMONSTRATED TO BE A
SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT... and I doubt your claim
that you are a "PhD physicist".







What this means is that 1/3 of the entire
Fourier frequency spectrum of "normal adult reality" is simply
INVISIBLE to a 7 year old. It means that the brain growth deficit of
a 7 year old acts like a LO PASS FILTER and simply blocks
or makes "incomprehensible" , or "invisible", the upper 1/3 of the
frequency spectrum of reality that a normal full grown adult can
see and comprehend!

I have at my work a wide spectrum analyser. It can snapshot a spectrum far
beyond that visible to the human eye. It has yet to show me Heaven.


[Hammond]
You're such a SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT that you don't
know the difference between the "frequency spectrum of
simple mechanical motion" and the "frequency spectrum
of light"... which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with the discussion.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD!





What frequency is Heaven on? I will tune my equipment to it and check.


[Hammond]
Again, a demonstration that you are a scientific incompetent,
and your claim of being a "PhD physicist"
is FRAUDULENT.


The machinery has a BGD=0 therefore it should be able to recognise heaven.


[Hammond]
But the "machinery" has a fixed MAGNIFICATION which
you seem to ignore, and which affects the content of the
photograph, to say nothing of it's comprehensibility.
Again you are confusing the "frequency spectrum of ordinary
mechanical motion" with the "frequency spectrum of light"..
you are a bigger IDIOT than Prof. Chris Isham... a scientific
moron, and an incompetent.... just like him... only WORSE!



snip

You are misusing Einstein's work here. You are implying the size of

Earth's

gravitational field is sufficient to warp space and time to such a degree
that Heaven is invisible. Assuming this is correct, why hasn't Heaven been
seen from the moon?



[Hammond]
AGAIN, just like Chris Isham, you are a scientific MORON.
"God" has NOTHING to do with terrestrial or cosmological
gravity.



Given everything else, lets drop the algebra and start using some figures.



[Hammond]
Figures of what.... your playpen?



What frequency is Heaven working on?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.


How much would we need to negate the
Earth's gravitation field to see Heaven?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



How much is time dilated to render
Heaven invisible?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



If the formula are sound, the numbers will work.


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



G_uv = BGD (=brain growth deficit)


snip

1. 20% of "theoretical adult reality" is actually INVISIBLE
to the average "normal" adult.

Theoretical is an interesting choice of words.

Implication being that BGD=20% therefore GOD=20%. Odd way to describe your
All Mighty Creator.


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



Does this mean that when I look at a wall 10m long it is actually 12m long
and I should keep hitting the edge of it?



[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.




2. Why the VISIBLE WORLD (the 80% that is visible) is
actuall7y "magnified and speeded up" by 20% thus
making it "terrifying, awesome and dangerous" to the
average person.

You state this and have no way to prove it with ANY of your formula. I

have

tried to plug values in at every stage of your SPOG and it still doesn't
result.


[Hammond]
You're an incompetent... you are not even aware that the
fromula:

God = G_uv = BGD (=brain growth defitcit)

has the solution:

METRIC = ds^2 = (1-BGD) dR^2 - (1+BGD) dt^2

thus giving DIRECTLY the "magnification and speed increase"
of "reality" as seen by someone with a brain growth deficit.

Get the **** outta here you mental midgit!
Go back in the army where you belong, and
stay the **** away from the physics department.






Your assumption that only 80% is visible is weak at best, to then assume
that the remaining 20% is speeded up by 20% is odd. Just because the

numbers

are the same doesn't mean they add up. If you multiply 20% by 20% you get
4%.



[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



=======KOOKY KUTTER========
This poster is a self professed "atheist" and
obviously intent on posting harassment. He
claims to have a PhD in physics but shows no
evidence of competence in physics.. claims he
had a military career before studying physics,
and I suspect the university simply granted
him a degree in physics out of deference to his
military service... sort of a "football scholarship".
No further reply to this atheistic harasser
and scientific incompetent will be made.
==IGNORE USENET HARASSERS====


====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

George E. Hammond wrote:

"T Wake" wrote in message
...



[Hammond]
Look... lets cut the malarkey..... you claim to be a PhD physicist.
This means that professional technical terms and language are not
supposed to be beyond your understanding.



[Hammond]
Note that Wake claims to have a "PhD in Physics", from the tripe
that he's posting I would suggest that:

1. Either Wake is a fraudulent liar about his scientific competence.
2. Or, the University that granted him a PhD is fraudulent.




You have repeatedly stated that the PFF data implies that part of the

static

world is invisible to children. This is not so.


[Hammond]
1. You are IGNORING the proven fact that the
PFF proves that 1/3 of the motion spectrum
is invisible.

2. Magnification is known to produce "invisibility"
in the same way, since any object becomes
unidentifiable at high magnification.



My children can see everything that I can see. Your theory implies that

they

see 1/3 less of the floor than I do. This is not the case. They see all

the

floor. If I throw a ball quickly, they cant track its movement perfectly.
This is what your PFF supports.


[Hammond]
Wrong on both counts.
I don't believe you're a PhD in physics.
OBVIOUSLY is there is a 50% MAGNIFICATION
of the floor (to a 5 year old) then he CAN'T POSSIBLY
be "seeing all the floor you're seeing".
I believe you to be an imposter and a fraud.

Kam:
We can easily test your assertions and discover
that they are false. When a child reports the existence
of the same floor - all of it, no missing corners, or
anything - that adults see, I suppose you'd believe he's
lying.




There is nothing in your reasoning to show where this missing 1/3 is. This
in turn implies that for the statement to be true, they must only see 2/3

of

EVERYTHING. As this is not the case, the reasoning must be wrong.

If you are stating that the PFF data implies only 2/3 of movement is

missed,

then I may agree. Logic now demands that your SPOG implies Heaven must be
moving in excess of 25 frames per minute. Nothing in Heaven can be static

or

it would immediately become visible to "mere mortals."


[Hammond]
Your lack of comprehension that the PFF is a mesure of the
"frequency spectrum" of motion that a child can see is
EVIDENCE of your scientific incompetence... clearly the
PFF shows that the upper 1/3 of the (Fourier spectrum)
of all motion is INVISIBLE to a child compared to an adult.
Your scientific ignorance leads me to suspect you are a
scientific FRAUD.

Kam:
Where are your references!!? Quit acting like a fraud
and quote your sources!



Assuming that this is the case, Heaven must be moving at such a speed that
even when it changes direction, or I change direction in relation to

Heaven,

it is still moving faster than can be comprehended. To account for people

in

cars, planes etc., we now need Heaven to be clocking up a pretty hefty
speed.



[Hammond]
YOUR remark is of such ABJECT SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE
as to be LUDICROUS AND RIDICULOUS.

How in the christ does a "PhD physicist" confuse the
"frequency spectrum" of motion, with the SPEED
of motion.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSTER AND A FRAUD!




Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, how do you account for still
photography?

If I set a camera with its aperture open for 24 hours, all movement in its
field of view will be recorded. The speed of movement is irrelevant to the
camera. It has no brain, therefore its BGD=0. Why hasn't this camera ever
shown Heaven in all its glory?



[Hammond]
You are ignoring the MAGNIFICATION of
the camera, which is relevant to the content of
the photograph, Moron.
AGAIN.... you demonstrate that you are a

INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

In the first place, "time dilation" is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
than "space magnification".
As a PhD physicist you're supporsed to BE AWARE that
the "time dilation alone" is the cause of ALL of NEWTONIAN
GRAVITY... the space dilation of GR doesn't have any impact
on Newtonian Gravity whatsoever (which is why Newtonian gravity
is a "scalar theory").
Exactly the same is true of "GOD"... the "time dilation" accounts
entirely for the "classical" explanation of God.

Kam:
Although Einstien's work on what he called the curvature
of space-time better predicted the orbits of planets than
Kepler's theory (and equation), it still doesn't solve the
conundrum that scientists see about gravity. Particle physicists,
for example, believe that when we finally discover what gravity
is, we will have discovered the graviton particle. What gravity
is, is still being debated.


In the 2nd place, you IGNORE the well known fact that
"magnification" causes invisiblility in the same way that
"frequency magnification" causes invisibility. The fact that
a child's world is MAGNIFIED by 200% simply puts half
of it out of the field of view.... same as it does in a photograph
taken at 200% magnification.

Kam:
I highly doubt that he's ignoring any such thing.
Sure, the solid, liquid, and gaseous world is invisible
to someone viewing reality from such a great magnification
that they can see atoms. Perhaps there is yet 'more reality'
that is a higher level emergent feature of the reality we
live in, much like how solidity is a higher level emergent
feature of the interaction of molecules in solid objects.
I believe, for example, that the mind is a higher level
emergent feature of the interaction of brain-stuff. None
of this has anything to do with heaven or god.


AGAIN, YOU ARE DEMONSTRATED TO BE A
SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT... and I doubt your claim
that you are a "PhD physicist".







What this means is that 1/3 of the entire
Fourier frequency spectrum of "normal adult reality" is simply
INVISIBLE to a 7 year old. It means that the brain growth deficit of
a 7 year old acts like a LO PASS FILTER and simply blocks
or makes "incomprehensible" , or "invisible", the upper 1/3 of the
frequency spectrum of reality that a normal full grown adult can
see and comprehend!

I have at my work a wide spectrum analyser. It can snapshot a spectrum far
beyond that visible to the human eye. It has yet to show me Heaven.


[Hammond]
You're such a SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT that you don't
know the difference between the "frequency spectrum of
simple mechanical motion" and the "frequency spectrum
of light"... which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with the discussion.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD!





What frequency is Heaven on? I will tune my equipment to it and check.


[Hammond]
Again, a demonstration that you are a scientific incompetent,
and your claim of being a "PhD physicist"
is FRAUDULENT.


The machinery has a BGD=0 therefore it should be able to recognise heaven.


[Hammond]
But the "machinery" has a fixed MAGNIFICATION which
you seem to ignore, and which affects the content of the
photograph, to say nothing of it's comprehensibility.
Again you are confusing the "frequency spectrum of ordinary
mechanical motion" with the "frequency spectrum of light"..
you are a bigger IDIOT than Prof. Chris Isham... a scientific
moron, and an incompetent.... just like him... only WORSE!



snip

You are misusing Einstein's work here. You are implying the size of

Earth's

gravitational field is sufficient to warp space and time to such a degree
that Heaven is invisible. Assuming this is correct, why hasn't Heaven been
seen from the moon?



[Hammond]
AGAIN, just like Chris Isham, you are a scientific MORON.
"God" has NOTHING to do with terrestrial or cosmological
gravity.

Kam:
And yet Einstein's curvature of space-time has
EVERYTHING to do with the orbits of planets.




Given everything else, lets drop the algebra and start using some figures.



[Hammond]
Figures of what.... your playpen?



What frequency is Heaven working on?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.


How much would we need to negate the
Earth's gravitation field to see Heaven?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



How much is time dilated to render
Heaven invisible?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



If the formula are sound, the numbers will work.


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



G_uv = BGD (=brain growth deficit)


snip

1. 20% of "theoretical adult reality" is actually INVISIBLE
to the average "normal" adult.

Theoretical is an interesting choice of words.

Implication being that BGD=20% therefore GOD=20%. Odd way to describe your
All Mighty Creator.


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



Does this mean that when I look at a wall 10m long it is actually 12m long
and I should keep hitting the edge of it?



[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.




2. Why the VISIBLE WORLD (the 80% that is visible) is
actuall7y "magnified and speeded up" by 20% thus
making it "terrifying, awesome and dangerous" to the
average person.

You state this and have no way to prove it with ANY of your formula. I

have

tried to plug values in at every stage of your SPOG and it still doesn't
result.


[Hammond]
You're an incompetent... you are not even aware that the
fromula:

God = G_uv = BGD (=brain growth defitcit)

has the solution:

METRIC = ds^2 = (1-BGD) dR^2 - (1+BGD) dt^2

thus giving DIRECTLY the "magnification and speed increase"
of "reality" as seen by someone with a brain growth deficit.

Get the **** outta here you mental midgit!
Go back in the army where you belong, and
stay the **** away from the physics department.






Your assumption that only 80% is visible is weak at best, to then assume
that the remaining 20% is speeded up by 20% is odd. Just because the

numbers

are the same doesn't mean they add up. If you multiply 20% by 20% you get
4%.



[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.



=======KOOKY KUTTER========
This poster is a self professed "atheist" and
obviously intent on posting harassment. He
claims to have a PhD in physics but shows no
evidence of competence in physics.. claims he
had a military career before studying physics,
and I suspect the university simply granted
him a degree in physics out of deference to his
military service... sort of a "football scholarship".
No further reply to this atheistic harasser
and scientific incompetent will be made.
==IGNORE USENET HARASSERS====


====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

"Kamerynn" wrote in message
...
George E. Hammond wrote:
"T Wake" wrote in message
...

Kamerynn,

Thank you for this post. I notice George has refused to respond to my last
post (as I suspected he would) and has simply resorted to his inane attempts
to distract from the topic at hand.


[Hammond]
Note that Wake claims to have a "PhD in Physics", from the tripe
that he's posting I would suggest that:

1. Either Wake is a fraudulent liar about his scientific competence.
2. Or, the University that granted him a PhD is fraudulent.

Your opinions about either my educational acheivements or the establishments
I have been to mean nothing to me.

Mr Hammond, may I draw your attention to your claims that I carry out "Ad
Hominem" attacks on you. So far, I dont really think I have - however your
statement above is a classical example of that method of diverting from the
points raised.

Please, Mr Hammond, try to abide by the standards you request from others.

You have repeatedly stated that the PFF data implies that part of the
static
world is invisible to children. This is not so.
[Hammond]
1. You are IGNORING the proven fact that the
PFF proves that 1/3 of the motion spectrum
is invisible.

No I am not. I addressed that as a separate point. You are ignoring 99% of
the questions you are asked or the facts you are presented with.

2. Magnification is known to produce "invisibility"
in the same way, since any object becomes
unidentifiable at high magnification.

Do you understand why? It is not the object is "invisible" more that we are
seeing such a small portion of it, our brains are not easily able to
identify the whole object. Puzzle books and tabloid journals used to be full
of zoomed in snapshots where people had to guess what the object was.

It was not invisible, it was un-recognisable.

There is a difference.

My children can see everything that I can see. Your theory implies that
they see 1/3 less of the floor than I do. This is not the case. They see
all
the floor. If I throw a ball quickly, they cant track its movement
perfectly.
This is what your PFF supports.

[Hammond]
Wrong on both counts.
I don't believe you're a PhD in physics.
OBVIOUSLY is there is a 50% MAGNIFICATION
of the floor (to a 5 year old) then he CAN'T POSSIBLY
be "seeing all the floor you're seeing".
I believe you to be an imposter and a fraud.

I am correct on both counts. I dont belive you are a member of the human
race.

Please make your mind up about what your argument is - either magnification,
in which case the remaining floor is simply outside the childs field of view
(moving backwards will show more etc), or its your PFF theory that 20% of
"reality" is invisible.

Your theory truly is built on foundations of sand, Mr Hammond.

Previously you were very careful to not make testable statements which is
why the scientific part of your theory was lacking. Now, through your
increased posting rate I suspect, you are making more "hard and fast"
statements.

If the child is seeing the floor 50% magnified, lifting him or her off the
floor by twice his/her height will show the whole floor.

Testable.

Following on, you are using this as evidence that Heaven is invisible. This
means you think we are seeing Reality at x% magnification. Therefore, moving
away from Earth will show Heaven when we look back.

Hasn't worked yet.

Additionally, you make no claims as to where the magnification applies and
doesnt. Your "evidence" implies it is a constant action and therefore
everything is magnified by x%. If this is the case, how do we not keep
hitting the inivisible things?

[Hammond]
Your lack of comprehension that the PFF is a mesure of the
"frequency spectrum" of motion that a child can see is
EVIDENCE of your scientific incompetence... clearly the
PFF shows that the upper 1/3 of the (Fourier spectrum)
of all motion is INVISIBLE to a child compared to an adult.
Your scientific ignorance leads me to suspect you are a
scientific FRAUD.


Motion. Once again we come back to motion. This bears no relationship to
your 50% magnification idea from before and I assume is simply another
example of your sandy foundations.

1/3 of motion may well be invisible to children. As my post said, children
generally cant track moving objects well. However, they can see stationary
ones perfectly.

You are repeating your statements and not responding to the logical
questions they result in.


Assuming that this is the case, Heaven must be moving at such a speed
that
even when it changes direction, or I change direction in relation to
Heaven, it is still moving faster than can be comprehended. To account
for people in cars, planes etc., we now need Heaven to be clocking up a
pretty hefty speed.

[Hammond]
YOUR remark is of such ABJECT SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE
as to be LUDICROUS AND RIDICULOUS.

Nonsense.

You have yet to tell me what frequency Heaven is on. I have my equipment
ready, a wideband spectrum analyser, for the test.

How in the christ does a "PhD physicist" confuse the
"frequency spectrum" of motion, with the SPEED
of motion.

I dont, however as earlier stated children cant see moving objects. Movement
implies a speed.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSTER AND A FRAUD!

Worse still, you are an imposter, a fraud and slightly insane.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, how do you account for still
photography?
If I set a camera with its aperture open for 24 hours, all movement in
its
field of view will be recorded. The speed of movement is irrelevant to
the
camera. It has no brain, therefore its BGD=0. Why hasn't this camera ever
shown Heaven in all its glory?

[Hammond]
You are ignoring the MAGNIFICATION of
the camera, which is relevant to the content of
the photograph, Moron.
AGAIN.... you demonstrate that you are a

What magnification do I need to account for? Give me some numbers George.

INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

In the first place, "time dilation" is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
than "space magnification".
As a PhD physicist you're supporsed to BE AWARE that
the "time dilation alone" is the cause of ALL of NEWTONIAN
GRAVITY... the space dilation of GR doesn't have any impact
on Newtonian Gravity whatsoever (which is why Newtonian gravity
is a "scalar theory").
Exactly the same is true of "GOD"... the "time dilation" accounts
entirely for the "classical" explanation of God.

So, by how much is time dilated to "hide" Heaven then George?

Your theory that time dilation alone is the cause of "ALL of NEWTONIAN
GRAVITY" is spurious.

In the 2nd place, you IGNORE the well known fact that
"magnification" causes invisiblility in the same way that
"frequency magnification" causes invisibility. The fact that
a child's world is MAGNIFIED by 200% simply puts half
of it out of the field of view.... same as it does in a photograph
taken at 200% magnification.

The photgraph isnt a child, the camera has no brain.

You are saying then that Heaven and God are no longer related to brain
growth?

AGAIN, YOU ARE DEMONSTRATED TO BE A
SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT... and I doubt your claim
that you are a "PhD physicist".

If I have demonstrated that, then fine. However it is not relevant to the
argument and is simply your assumptions because I dont agree with your
process and logic.

If your logic was iffrefutable, then everyone would belive you. A proof can
be explained in terms a moron can understand. Your myths are so complex you
even confuse yourself.


[Hammond]
You're such a SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENT that you don't
know the difference between the "frequency spectrum of
simple mechanical motion" and the "frequency spectrum
of light"... which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with the discussion.

So, what spectrum is Heaven on then? I made no reference to the spectrum of
light, I was talking about the entire electro-magnetic spectrum.

If it is invisible, that means its frequency is related to the photons being
emited.

The PFF data you base your theory so heavily on, is talking about the
spectrum of light that results from the motion of objects.

Mr Hammond, you are losing your consistency.

YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD!

You are a crackpot.

So what?

[Hammond]
Again, a demonstration that you are a scientific incompetent,
and your claim of being a "PhD physicist"
is FRAUDULENT.

Does this mean you dont know what frequency Heaven is on?

Does this imply your "theory" is so far from complete its a joke?


The machinery has a BGD=0 therefore it should be able to recognise
heaven.

[Hammond]
But the "machinery" has a fixed MAGNIFICATION which
you seem to ignore, and which affects the content of the
photograph, to say nothing of it's comprehensibility.
Again you are confusing the "frequency spectrum of ordinary
mechanical motion" with the "frequency spectrum of light"..
you are a bigger IDIOT than Prof. Chris Isham... a scientific
moron, and an incompetent.... just like him... only WORSE!

Not fixed at all. Better still, there is nothing on the pictures that
implies a larger object we can not see.

If magnification is the key - how big is Heaven? Where should I mount the
camera to see it?



[Hammond]
AGAIN, just like Chris Isham, you are a scientific MORON.
"God" has NOTHING to do with terrestrial or cosmological
gravity.

I am flattered that you lump me in with Mr Isham.

I take it you are now saying your "Gravity" is theological gravity? Nice
invention George.


Given everything else, lets drop the algebra and start using some
figures.

[Hammond]
Figures of what.... your playpen?

Witty response to mask not having an answer. Well done.

What frequency is Heaven working on?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Translation: "I dont know."


How much would we need to negate the
Earth's gravitation field to see Heaven?


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Translation: "I dont know."

How much is time dilated to render
Heaven invisible?

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Translation: "I dont know."


If the formula are sound, the numbers will work.


[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Translation: "I dont know and my brain is hurting. Make the bad people go
away"


Theoretical is an interesting choice of words.

Implication being that BGD=20% therefore GOD=20%. Odd way to describe
your
All Mighty Creator.
[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

It wasnt a question. It was a statement based on your words.

Does this mean that when I look at a wall 10m long it is actually 12m
long
and I should keep hitting the edge of it?
[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Translation: "I dont know."

[Hammond]
You're an incompetent... you are not even aware that the
fromula:

God = G_uv = BGD (=brain growth defitcit)

has the solution:

METRIC = ds^2 = (1-BGD) dR^2 - (1+BGD) dt^2

thus giving DIRECTLY the "magnification and speed increase"
of "reality" as seen by someone with a brain growth deficit.

So put the figures in then smart pants..

What number do you get?

Get the **** outta here you mental midgit!
Go back in the army where you belong, and
stay the **** away from the physics department.

A sign of why you are in my kill file George. Any debate with you descends
into this farce when you can no longer come up with circular reasoning
arguments.

Your assumption that only 80% is visible is weak at best, to then assume
that the remaining 20% is speeded up by 20% is odd. Just because the

numbers

are the same doesn't mean they add up. If you multiply 20% by 20% you get
4%.

[Hammond]
INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Not a question your kook.

Your numbers not mine. Your mathematics is at fault. Your logic is
non-existent.

"George E. Hammond" wrote in message
ink.net...
OBVIOUSLY is there is a 50% MAGNIFICATION
of the floor (to a 5 year old) then he CAN'T POSSIBLY
be "seeing all the floor you're seeing".

So a child, an ungrown man, by inversion could see the ceiling better
than a man, because he's further away from it?

Then I say, maybe a child can see heaven even better, which is
completely opposite of your premise in spog. Let's see if there's
support for the idea.

Matthew 18:3 NIV And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change
and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven."

I like the King James Version, more explicit and familiar, Matthew 18:3
KJV "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

And another very explicit point: Matthew 19:14 NIV Jesus said, "Let the
little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of
heaven belongs to such as these."


There's a direct refutation of your SPOG by a spiritual authority, named
Jesus, recorded by Matthew his disciple. Jesus says your full grown man
will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says you're completely
wrong and have it all backwards, George.

For another interesting view on the title of this thread, George's
invisible world of heaven, do a google search on invisible world Mather
and you will see the N.E. origin of the phrase according to the famous
NewEnglander Cotton Mather relates to witches and demons. (Actually the
invisible world concept dates back further to the middle ages, but has
essentially the same meaning.)

So again we find George promoting anti-biblical material, and
characterizing heaven as the realm of witches and demons. Not only is
SPOG debunked, but it is becoming more and more obvious that is it
instead SPOD, Sacrilegious Promotion of the Devil. Clearly George is an
amature, unschooled in anything religious, lacking degree or self
education to understand what he is promoting.

The devil you say!

--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.

"Kamerynn" wrote in message
...


George E. Hammond wrote:
"T Wake" wrote in message
...



[Hammond]
Look... lets cut the malarkey..... you claim to be a PhD physicist.
This means that professional technical terms and language are not
supposed to be beyond your understanding.



[Hammond]
Note that Wake claims to have a "PhD in Physics", from the tripe
that he's posting I would suggest that:

1. Either Wake is a fraudulent liar about his scientific competence.
2. Or, the University that granted him a PhD is fraudulent.

Kam:
That's precisely what I believe about *you*. You're ignorant
of even the most elementary necessities of scientific writing,
such as referencing