FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Hey georgie...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 232 [3478 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 230, 231, 232 Next
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Hey georgie... Reply with quote

Geo Incog wrote:
Quote:
Are you that naive? What did you expect? There is a bloody war
out there with tremendous amounts of oil involved, insurgents,
nationalism, pride... its a real war out there. Of course they will
take any chances to humiliate you. Did you think they are going
to be nice to you and delete some personal disturbing stuff from
google for you? Go away from this newsgroup and stop being
so stupid. Get a life idiot.

Thank you for educating us about your war facts. It's much
appreciated. I don't have a TV or a radio, I don't read the newspaper
or magazines. I'm stuck in this shack in the middle of nowhere. I
can't even access the Internet. If it weren't for this one newsgroup I
found, this alt.sci.physics.new-theories newsgroup, and for some reason
the only one I have access to, I just never would have learned so much
from you about those nasty republicans, and the war, and the evil
president. I applaud you for keeping me informed - I never would have
found out anywhere else.
Back to top
Bob1169
science forum addict


Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE Reply with quote

Robert E. McElwaine

You certainly generated some feedback to your msg. Assuming that the
rate of radioactive decay is variable (speeds up) due to the presence
of an extraneous energy field as you infer - this would obviously
result in older than actual ages for geological events, include the age
of the Earth. But the process(es) that you allude to needs to be
described; even tested. Much of our understanding of chemistry is
based on studies and experiments on particles (atoms and subatomic
particles) that we cannot see, yet we can predict results of chemical
reactions based on a foundation of knowledge that contributes to our
understanding of chemistry and physical science. So I think that it is
only fair that someone raising the question that you do - should
describe the process and provide the evidence (or cite the appropriate
technical papers) that we can review. I don't think that making a
claim that radioactive dating has flaws - and asking the scientific
community to show that your statement is 'false' is helpful. It is bad
science actually. One needs to provide the evidence or the citation
from the literature that support your conclusion or raise the doubt
that you advocate.

Remember the scientific method: ask the question first, go after the
data (evidence), then analyze and come up with your best conclusion.
One should not start with the conclusion and ask us to disprove it.

I went to and scanned the Photn Belt web site that you gave us
(http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm), and it seems religiously oriented
(creationist?) to me. I note this and also the comment of one of
readers (see Bob Kolker's reply) that a distrust in radioactive dating
is characteristic of creationists.

The information on your photon belt is presented as a definition (see
below) and not a scientific statement or article that we

"Photon Belt: Huge torroid or "belt" of inter-dimensional Light that
passes through this part of Milky Way galaxy in 26,000-year cycle. Last
encountered at beginning of 1997. Fortunately, Earth was put into
special hole in it that was drilled by a coherent bow wave of gamma
particles from a nova that was first observed by astronomers in 1987."

might seriously consider, so I'm not buying what you're selling.
Robert Altamura
Back to top
Tom11
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

Quote:
Although I suppose that to prevent WW2, SPOG would have had to
give Germany some way to get around the problems of the
crippling reparations from The Great War. I don't think we've
seen many SPOGoNOMICAL threads.

If we'd have had Usenet in the 1930's Hitler would have spent all
his time trying to argue with people in alt.mein.kampf and
would have been unable to make it to the Beerkellar, thus preventing
WWII

HP

Watch your mouth, pig!
George Hammond.
Back to top
robert casey
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE Reply with quote

So I think that it is
Quote:
only fair that someone raising the question that you do - should
describe the process and provide the evidence (or cite the appropriate
technical papers) that we can review. I don't think that making a
claim that radioactive dating has flaws - and asking the scientific
community to show that your statement is 'false' is helpful. It is bad
science actually. One needs to provide the evidence or the citation
from the literature that support your conclusion or raise the doubt
that you advocate.


Set up some lab experiments using some material with a
conveniently short half life, and expose it to the
radiation your idea suggests speeds up its decay. Use
a control sample not exposed to the radiation and
compare it to the sample that was exposed. Do it
several times to rule out errors and mistakes. Then
use different equipment and materials and do it yet
again. Play "devil's advocate" to think of other
reasons the observations came out the way they did,
and then redesign the experiments to avoid those
pitfalls. Then do the new experiments. You don't
want to be fooled by yourself.
If your theory survives past these, then publish
the paper. If not, well the theory needs work or
else must be thrown out.

[quote] our Solar System passes
through an extremely energetic area of space (sometimes
called the "Photon Belt"

"Photons", that's light, aka electromagnetic radiation.
We should be able to see some of this light reflected off of
dust particles in interstellar space just ahead or just
behind us where these photon belts exist.

[quote] During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !

Part of science is setting up observations and experiments
to TEST theories. If something is not testable, it's not
really science. It might still be true, but not science.
Back to top
Cardinal Chunder
science forum addict


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE Reply with quote

REM121504@aol.com wrote:
Quote:
Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE

Nor are your thought processes.
Back to top
George Hammond
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 954

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:1100pfp5401nhb8@corp.supernews.com...
Quote:

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6wSLd.6637$Ix.2305@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:10vujlc38uv1u36@corp.supernews.com...
"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:l2GLd.6291$Ix.3989@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in
message news:10vt4kcdjenfge7@corp.supernews.com...


Show ONE THING in religon that has been proven.



[Hammond]
This has been experimentally proven to two decimal
points:
-----------------------------------------------
LAYMAN'S SCIENTIFIC
DEFINITION OF GOD

God is an Einsteinian Curvature of
"subjective reality"... meaning that Man
does not see "true reality" but only a
"curved version" of it. The word
"Curvature" technically means a visual
magnification and speeding up of the
subjectively seen world. This size and
speed magnification is caused by the
Secular Trend in human braingrowth,
and it causes among other things a
VISUAL CONCEALMENT of every
person's true identity... and this fact is
the CENTRAL MYSTERY of the
MIRACULOUS historical DRAMA of
God. 90% of the Bible is an
instruction to the lay person on how
to protect oneself from evil perpetrated
by people who know about this, and can
'see you', while you are still ignorant of
"God" and do not know about it. Your
survival and destiny depends on knowing
about it and protecting yourself from the
exploiting forces in society who abuse it.
----------------------------------------------


You were asked before .... WHAT experiments?
You have shown NONE!

[Hammond]
the experiments have all been cited in the bibliography
of my published papers... since you are too lazy to
read them... here's just a small sample:


REFERENCE

ADORNO, T.W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK, E., LEVINSON, D.J., & SANFORD, R.N.
(1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (1987, 1994), Diagnostic and
Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Washington D.C.: APA
BRAND, C.R. (1981). Personality and political attitudes. In: Dimensions
of
Personality, Richard Lynn (Ed.). London: Pergamon Press
BRAND, C.R. (1995) Dimensionalizing personality: The "Big 5", the
"Gigantic
3"
and the "Capacious 6". Manuscript in preparation
CARROLL, J.B. (1953). An analytical solution for approximating simple
structure
in factor analysis. Psychometrika, Vol. 18, pp. 23-38
CLARIDGE, G. (1985). Origins of Mental Illness. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
CLARIDGE, G. (1986). Eysenck's Contribution to the Psychology of
Personality,
Consensus & Controversy: Papers in Honor of Hans Eysenck, Modgil &
Modgil
(eds), .......
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T., McCRAE R.R. & DYE D.A. (1991), Facet Scales for
Agreeableness
and
Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory,
Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 887-898
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality inventory (NEO
PI-RTM)
and NEO Five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa,
FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992a), Four Ways Five Factors are Basic,
Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol.13, No.6, pp. 653-665
DE RAAD, B. &, HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1993). A circumplex approach to the five
factor
model: A facet structure of trait adjectives supplemented by trait
verbs.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 15, No. 5, 493-505
DIGMAN, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor
model.
Annual Revue of Psychology, 41, 417-440
EYSENCK, H.J. (1940). Some factors in the appreciation of poetry, and
their
relation to temperamental qualities. Character and Personality, 9,
160-167
EYSENCK H.J. (1944a), General Social Attitudes, Journal of Social
Psychology,
19, 207-227
EYSENCK, H.J. (1944b). Types of personality- a factorial study of 700
neurotics.
Journal of Mental Science, 90, 851-861
EYSENCK H.J. (1947), Dimensions of Personality. London, U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1950). Clyclothymia-schizothymia as a dimension of
personality.
I. Historical review. Journal of Personality, 19, 123-153
EYSENCK H.J. (1952), The Scientific Study of Personality, Routledge &
Kegan
Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. (1954), The Psychology of Politics, London, U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1955). A dynamic theory of anxiety and hysteria, Journal
of
Mental Science, 101, 28-51
EYSENCK, H.J. (1964). Principles and methods of personality description,
classification and diagnosis. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 3,
285-294
EYSENCK H.J. (1967), The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield,
IL:
Charles C. Thomas
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970), The Structure of Human Personality,(3rd ed.),
Methuen,
London
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970b). A dimensional system of psychodiagnostics.
In:A.R.
Mahrer
(Ed.), New Approaches to Personality Classification. New York: Columbia
University Press
EYSENCK, H.J. (1971), Social Attitudes and Social Class, Brit. J. Soc.
Clin.
Psychol., 10, 201-212
EYSENCK H.J. (1976), The Measurement of Personality, Lancaster
EYSENCK, H.J. (1987). The definition of personality disorders and the
criteria
appropriate for their descriptions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1,
211-
219
EYSENCK H.J. (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3?- Criteria
for
a
Taxonomic Paradigm, Person. Individ. Diff., Vol. 12, No. 8, 773-790
EYSENCK H.J. (1992), Four Ways Five Factors Are Not Basic, Personality &
Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No. 6, 667-673
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992b). The definition and measurement of Psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, 7, 757-785
EYSENCK, H.J. (1993), Comment on Goldberg, American Psychologist,
December
1993,
p. 1299
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK M.W. (1985), Personality and individual
differences:
A
natural science approach. New York, Plenum
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G. (1969), Personality Structure &
Measurement,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G (1976), Psychoticism as a Dimension of
Personality.
London: Hodder & Stoughton
EYSENCK H.J. & WILSON G.D. (1978), The Psychological Basis of Ideology,
University Park Press, Baltimore
FERGUSON G.A. (1954), The concept of parsimony in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, vol. 19, pp. 281-290
FERGUSON L.W. (1939), Primary Social Attitudes, J. Psychology, 8,
217-223
FERGUSON L.W. (1973), Primary Social Attitudes of the 1960s and Those of
the
1930s, Psychological Reports, 33,655-664
FRANCIS, L.J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian Neuroticism
scales:
A
question of sex differences? Personality and Individual Differences, Vol
15,
1, 43-59

GOLDBERG, L.R. (1981), Language and Individual Differences: The Search
for
Universals in Personality Lexicons, In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of
Persoality
and Social Psychology, Vol.2, pp. 141-165, Beverly Hills CA: Sage
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1990), An Alternative "Description of Personality": The
Big-Five
Factor Structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1216-1229
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992), The Development of markers for the Big-Five
factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, pp. 26-42
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1993), The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,
American
Psychologist,48, 26-34
GORSUCH, R.L. (1983), Factor Analysis, London: Erlbaum
GRAY J.A. (1970), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extroversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266
GRAY J.A. (1972), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion:
A Modification of Eysenck's Theory, In: Nebylitsyn V.D., Gray J.A.
(eds.),
The Biological Basis of Individual Behavior, pp. 185-205, The Academic
Press,
New York
GRAY J.A. (1981), A Critique of Eysenck's Theory of Personality, In:
Eysenck
H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality, Springer, New York
GRAY J.A. (1982), The Neuropsychology of Anxiety, An Enquiry Into the
Functions
of the Septohippocampal System, Oxford University Press, New York
GRAY J.A. (1987a), The Psychology of Fear and Stress, second edition,
Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England
GRAY J.A. (1987b), The Neuropsychology of Emotion and Personality, In:
S.M.
Stahl, S.D. Iverson & E.C. Goodman (eds.), Cognitive Neurochemistry,
Oxford
University Press, Oxford, England
GRAY J.A. (1987c), Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity: A
Commentary,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 21, 493-509
GRAY J.A. (1988), Behavioral and Neural-System Analyses of the Action of
Anxiolytic Drugs, Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, Vol. 29, 767-769
GRAY J.A. (1991a), Neural Systems, Emotion and Personality, In: John
Madden
IV
(ed.), Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and Affect, Raven Press
GRAY J.A. (1991b), The Neuropsychology of Temperament, In: J. Strelau &
A.
Angleitner (eds.), Explorations in Temperament, Plenum Press
GRAY J.A. et al. (1991c), The Neuropsychology of Schizophrenia,
Behavioral
and
Brain Science, Vol. 14, 1-84
HAMMOND, G.E. (1988). The Origin of the Cross. Self published, ISBN
0-940915-02-
2 LC 87-80586
HAMMOND, G.E. (1994). The Cartesian Theory: Unification of Eysenck and
Gray,
New
Ideas in Psychology,Vol. 12, 2, 153-167
HARMAN, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis (3rd ed.), Chicago:
University
of
Chicago Press
HENDRICKSON A.E. & WHITE P.O. (1964), PROMAX: A quick method for
rotation to
oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology,
vol.
17,
pp. 65-70
HEYMANS G. (1929), Inleiding in de speciale psychologie [Introduction
into
special psychology]. Haarlem, Bohn
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., De RAAD, B., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1992). Integration of the
Big-
Five and Circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of
Personality
and
Social Psychology, 63, 146-163
HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1994a), The Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) Model of
Trait
Structure: Heymans' Cube, Kiesler's Circle and Peabody and Goldberg's
Double
Cone Model, Revue europeenne de Psychologie Applique, 1st trimestre,
vol.
44,
No. 1, pp. 27-33
HORST, P.A. (1941), A non-graphical method for transforming an
arbitrary
factor
matrix into a simple structure matrix, Psychometrika, vol. 6, pp. 79-99
JOHN O.P. (1990), The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of
Personality
in
the Natural Language and Questionnaires, In: L. Pervin (ed.), Handbook
of
Personality: Theory and Research, 66-100, Guilford, New York
JOHNSON, J.A. &, OSTENDORF, F. (1993). Clarification of the five-factor
model
with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex. Journal of
Personality
and
Social Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 3, 563-576
KAISER, H.F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in
factor
analysis. Psychometrika, vol. 23(3), pp. 187-200
KASS, F., SKODOL, A., CHARLES, E., SPITZER, R.L., & WILLIAMS, J.B.W.
(1985).
Scaled ratings of DSM-III personality disorders. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 142, 627-630
KRAEPELIN, E. (1897). Psychiatrie (6th Edn). Leipzig: Barth
KRETSCHMER, E. (1946). Medizinische Psychologie. Leipzig: Thieme
KRETSCHMER, E. (1948). Korperbau und Charakter. Berlin: Springer
KRUG S.E. & JOHNS E.F. (1986), A Large Scale Cross-Validation of
Second-Order
Personality Structure Defined by the 16PF, Psychological Reports, 59,
683-693
LEARY, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York:
Ronald
Press
MERENDA P.F. (1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3), 367-374
MERENDA P.F. (1989), Four-factor models of personality and Walter
Clarke's
Activity Vector Analysis. Tenth Clarke Memorial Lecture, Bryant
College,
Providence RI, November 30, 1989. (Available from Peter F. Merenda)
MERENDA P.F. & CLARKE W.V. (1959), Factor analysis of a measure of
social
self.
Psychological Reports, 5, pp. 597-605
MODGIL, S. &, MODGIL, C. (1986). Hans Eysenck, Consensus and
Controversy.
Philidelphia: Falmer Press
NEUHAUS J.O. & WRIGLEY C. (1954), The Quartimax method: an analytical
approach
to orthogonal simple structure. British Journal of Statistical
Psychology,
vol. 7, pp. 81-91
NORMAN, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality
attributes:
replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings.
Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583
O'BOYLE, M., & HOLZER, C. (1992). DSM-III-R personality disorders and
Eysenck's
personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13,
No.
10, 1157-1159
PEABODY, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality
perception: A reappraisal. Journal of personality and social psychology,
1970, Vol.16, 4, 639-646
PEABODY, D. (1984). Personality dimensions through trait inferences.
Journal
of
personality and social psychology, Vol.46, 2, 384-403
PEABODY, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal
of
personality and social psychology, Vol.52, 1, 59-71
PEABODY, D., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1989). Some determinants of factor
structures
from
personality-trait descriptors. Journal of personality and social
psychology,
Vol.57, 3, 552-567
RAY J. (1986), Eysenck on social attitudes: An historical critique, In
S.
Modgil
& C. Modgil (Eds.), Hans Eysenck, Consensus and Controversy, Falmer,
U.K.:
Falmer Press
REICH, J.H., & THOMPSON, W.D. (1987). Differential assortment of DSM-III
personality disorder clusters in three populations. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 150, 471-475
SAUCIER, G., & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1994 in press). The language of
personality:
Lexical perspectives on the Five-Factor model. In: J.S. Wiggins (Ed.),
Theoretical perspectives for the Five-Factor model. New York: Guilford
SMITH B.D. (1988), Chapter 20, In: Nesselroade and Cattell eds.:
Handbook
of
multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.), Plenum Press, NY NY
THURSTONE, L.L. (1933), The vectors of the mind, Psychological Review,
vol.
41(1), pp. 1-32
THURSTONE, L.L. (1947), Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago: University of
Chicago
Press
TUPES, E.C., & CRYSTAL, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based
on
trait ratings (Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX:
U.S.
Air Force
WIGGINS, J.S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In: L
Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
265-294).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
ZUCKERMAN M., KUHLMAN M. & CAMAC C. (1988), What Lies Beyond E and
N? Factor
Analyses of Scales Believed to Measure Basic Dimensions of Personality,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107
ZUCKERMAN et al. (1991), Five (or Three) Robust Questionnaire Scale
Factors
of
Personality Without Culture, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol.
12,
No. 9, 929-942
ZUCKERMAN M. (1993), A comparison of three structural models for
personality:
The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 65, No. 4, pp. 757-768

Bwahahaaaa... All this is, is more evidence that you are NOT a
scientist!!!
"Critique"
"Contribution to the Psychology of Personality,"
"Personality Inventory Manual"
"Some factors in the appreciation of poetry, and their relation to
temperamental qualities. Character and Personality"
"Personality and individual differences"
"The language of personality"

NOT ONE experiment in the bunch!!!!

[Hammond]
Horseshit... 90% of those publications report the Factor
Analysis of EXPERIMENTAL data (measurements) on real
people. (Factor Analysis of written questionnaires).


Quote:
Do you even KNOW what an experiment is ... how to do one ...how to collect
facts and data to FORM a rational conclusion?

[Hammond]
Cut the s**t... I've got an M.S. degree in Physics... and you
have NO DEGREES in Science. Your statment is
DISPROVED by the facts.



Quote:

Not the mention the FACT that ALL of these topics are in fields you DO NOT
have a degree in ..... and YOU are the one who constantly bellows about
the
ignorance of others - because THEY do not have degrees!!!!!!!

[Hammond]
These are papers on Factor Analysis in Psychometry.
I have published two papers on Factor Analysis and the
first one was "peer reviewed" by 5 Factor Analysts of professorial
rank and unanomously recommended for publication.
That PROVES my competence in the field:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.


Quote:

and, whoa, what do we hve here ... using your OWN - UNSCIENTIFIC crap
(some
"published" at the local Kinko's) - as "evidence"????

[Hammond]
Kinko's... what the hell are you talking about? The
SPOG has been published in two papers both of
them in the peer reviewed academic journal literature:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)

Pergamon Press is one of the world's leading scientific
publishers... and is not owned by "Kinko's"!

You're the one who is a "fraud" Zippy!

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
George Hammond
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 954

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:1101krnkqen2d12@corp.supernews.com...
Quote:
One has to wonder .................

A short time ago, George was bellowing that his silliness proved the
"Christian Science" concepts of religion.....
He even roared when one of them too the time to actually TALK to him.

Now, he is silent on the subject - something he wouldn't be IF they were
supporters.

One must assume that they, like everyone else, have found out that he is
nothing more than a kook.

Now he is bellowing that his fraudulent ideas suport Catholicism (looking,
and hoping for suport THERE). Obviously, they aren't that dumb either.

What'cha doing,m George, going through a religion alphabet, looking for
ANYONE who will follow your insanity?

What's next? Mormons? Southern Baptists? 20 person cults?



[Hammond]
I'll keep you posted, hecklebot.

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
Bryce Utting
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

George Hammond <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote:
Quote:
[Hammond]
Hey.. wait a minute... knowledge of SPOG isn't going to give
you power over any "good guys"... it's going to increase
your defenses against the "bad guys".
The Vatican is full of "good guys" for christ sakes... not
bad guys.

I suggest you read some David Yallop ASAP, since the role of the
Vatican Bank in the Vatican's rejection of the SPOG seems to've passed
you RIGHT by.


HTH!
butting
Back to top
Mr Clarke
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

Not as much as Perpetual Motion will hit you!
(No quote)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
"DrPostman" <Looky@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:49b001dp2puboclopvs6unmj7sa1cuqns7@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:42:19 -0000, "Mr Clarke"
ashley@UNBOGUSa-clarke.demon.co.uk> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:

top posting corrected.


"DrPostman" <Looky@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:b40sv0ts81ivb15dbg7fj9as9mmp3ei0ot@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:48:46 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:


"Mr Clarke" <ashley@UNBOGUSa-clarke.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cspikh$qc4$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
How old is the term "Free Energy"?
I make it about 2 or 3 years.

From 1987... Course the term go's back a lot further than this....


And Vonnegut came up with the best phrase to describe the
effort:
"Nothing compares to the complicated futility of ignorance."


Thankyou to those that have studied the appreciation of PM and Free
Energy
in more depth than I have. My estimated term is contrived from its
increased
use
on internet mail lists over this period.
Someone must have dug it up!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------


That quote hit home pretty hard, eh?







--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com

"I venture to say there is no one writing on the
Internet today who is providing a greater purpose
for mankind than that found in my writings."
- Felonious Ray, destroyer of irony meters
Back to top
George Hammond
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 954

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"Brian Eable" <beable+unsenet@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:5kk6prvfe7.fsf@dingo.beable.com...
Quote:
"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> writes:

"Brian Eable" wrote:

By your own admission, you know more about SPOG than anybody, and
yet you are no match for a few panty-waisted Jesuit PhDs wearing
frocks!

[Hammond]
Hey.. wait a minute... knowledge of SPOG isn't going to give you
power over any "good guys"... it's going to increase your defenses
against the "bad guys".

But, didn't you say before... [See Below]

All this SPOG is going to do is to create another way for powerful
people to gain control over powerless people.

[Hammond]
Wrong... it is utterly useles to anyone of evil intent. It is only
useful to the masses of oppressed who are being victimized.

Here is what you said a few posts up in the tree:

-> 90% of the Bible is an instruction to the lay person on how to
-> protect oneself from evil perpetrated by people who know about
-> this, and can 'see you', while you are still ignorant of "God" and
-> do not know about it. Your survival and destiny depends on knowing
-> about it and protecting yourself from the exploiting forces in
-> society who abuse it.

You said that people who know about SPOG are perpetrating evil,

[Hammond]
I Never said that... hey you missed the point.... there are people
and have been people throughout history who:

1. Are totally aware of the phenomenon and know it's "God".
These people are Ministers, Bishops, Cardinals, Rabbis,
Popes etc.

2. There are other people who know a little about the phenomenon
but don't know what it is but know enough to be dangerous...
these people are psychotics, psychopaths, mentally ill people,
and most common criminals.

OBVIOUSLY, it is catagory 2, not catagory 1 that we have to worry
about.

Quote:
that they are abusing SPOG to exploit people. Isn't that what you
meant? Did I misunderstand when I thought you said that SPOG could
be abused to exploit people?

[Hammond]
Obviously not. Letting the cat out of the bag is going to
enable people to protect themselves from catagory 2
people.... We don't need to worrry about catagory 1 people,
they are already trying to protect us (by teaching God
to us).. and it will only make their job easier.
Of COURSE you misunderstood. The Bible was written 2,000 years
before the SPOG was discovered... how could organized religion be
using the SPOG to exploit people?

Quote:

Is SPOG "utterly useless" as a tool of EVIL? Or can it be abused to
exploit people who are ignorant of God?

Whether the SPOG could have prevented WWII is debatable.

We'll probably need another thread to discuss whether SPOG could have
prevented WW2. After all, this thread is about SPOG proving
Catholicism, and we wouldn't want to go off-topic. Although I suppose
that to prevent WW2, SPOG would have had to give Germany some way to
get around the problems of the crippling reparations from The Great
War. I don't think we've seen many SPOGoNOMICAL threads.


--
It's explained on my website.. but you have to have a bona fide degree
in science to understand it Mr. Ruken Dukin Kookin. -- George Hammond
http://beable.org


[Hammond]
Your innocent candor is certainly refreshing. I hope you can
support it with some well balanced intelligence.

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
George Hammond
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 954

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"Tom" <tom@ridgecrop.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1107366248.297817.111440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Although I suppose that to prevent WW2, SPOG would have had to
give Germany some way to get around the problems of the
crippling reparations from The Great War. I don't think we've
seen many SPOGoNOMICAL threads.

If we'd have had Usenet in the 1930's Hitler would have spent all
his time trying to argue with people in alt.mein.kampf and
would have been unable to make it to the Beerkellar, thus preventing
WWII

HP

Watch your mouth, pig!
George Hammond.

[Hammond]
One has to realize that the discovery of the world's
first bona fide scientific proof of God represents
among other things a COMPLETE VINDICATION
OF THE JEWISH FAITH.
After all, throughout history it is the Jews who have
been in the leadership of Western Religion. THEY
are the ones who FIRST said there was a God. Christianity
is COPIED from them. And they have been persecuted
mightily because of their belief in God.
Now therefore, that we have an actual scientific proof of
God... what we have is finally, an actual scientific
proof that the JEWS WERE CORRECT, and have always
been correct, about the existence of God.
The discovery of the world's first scientific proof of God
therefore clearly tolls the final death knell for the corrupt
theory of Antisemitism.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
george Hammond1
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"Bryce Utting" <butting@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ctrhna$a9a$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Quote:
George Hammond <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote:
[Hammond]
Hey.. wait a minute... knowledge of SPOG isn't going to give
you power over any "good guys"... it's going to increase
your defenses against the "bad guys".
The Vatican is full of "good guys" for christ sakes... not
bad guys.

I suggest you read some David Yallop ASAP, since the role of the
Vatican Bank in the Vatican's rejection of the SPOG seems to've passed
you RIGHT by.


HTH!
butting

[Hammond]
The Vatican hasn't rejected the SPOG... they don't
even know about it

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
george Hammond1
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
message news:VMudnbHmaLPxI5zfRVn-rg@gbronline.com...
Quote:

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:x0cMd.6409$S3.2900@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:Rv2dnQAVQ9VcAp3fRVn-iw@gbronline.com...

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:MPWLd.5433$S3.4858@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in
message news:10vujh4lrmhj1e7@corp.supernews.com...



[ZenIsWhen]
Also note that the (insanely described, by Hammond)
"Layman's definition" of god is not only NOT a
common, layman, description - it far different from
Frank's definition.


[Hammond]
Na.... Frank's definition of God is identical to
Jesus's definition of God which is:

"God is a spirit". (Jesus, John 4:24 KJV)

CLEARLY Hammond's scientific definition of God
merely identifies the scientific phenomenological
explanation of said "spirit":

-----------------------------------------------
LAYMAN'S SCIENTIFIC
DEFINITION OF GOD

(GOD=G_uv)

God is an Einsteinian Curvature of
"subjective reality" (God=G_uv) meaning
that Man does not see "true reality" but
only a "curved version" of it. The term
"Curvature" (G_uv) technically means a
visual magnification and speeding up of
the subjectively seen world. This size
and speed magnification is caused by the
Secular Trend in human braingrowth,
and it causes among other things a
VISUAL CONCEALMENT of every person's
true identity... and this fact is
the CENTRAL MYSTERY of the MIRACULOUS
historical DRAMA of God.
90% of the Bible is an instruction to
the lay person on how to protect oneself
from evil perpetrated by people who know
about this, and can 'see you', while you
are still ignorant of "God" and do not
know about it. Your survival and destiny
depends on knowing about it and protecting
yourself from the exploiting forces in
society who abuse it.

No Hammond. Your ill and need help.

[Hammond]
Ditto.



Youre definition of god is as follows.
god is an optical distortion of a brain caused by a size differential
between what is and what isnt. (potential) Combined with time
dilation
effects.

[Hammond]
Not bad for a high school dropout with no
science education... however it's too crude
to be considered logically correct.

That has nothing to do with anything spiritual... at... all...

[Hammond]
That statement alone proves you're not only ignorant..
it proves you're an impudent screwball of subnormal
intelligence.


[Rob Duncan]
Allow me to ask this, how does your god, being the result of potential
differential and time dilation, afford it any properties/abilities? Even
a
sentience? From the previous how does it acquire any of the latter?

[Hammond]
OK Rob.. now you're talking logical analytical language.... believe me
I will LEAP at the opportunity to talk to anyone who can pose a
constructive question like that. What it means is that they are actually
curious about God and would like to get an answer.... and that is
exactly where I'm coming from!
First of all... the "properties/abilities of God" have to be distinguished
from the "identity of God".

1. The "identity of God" is that he is identified as a
"fully grown man". But the Secular Trend in human
growth tells us that there is no such thing as a fully
grown man. Man is composed of a fully grown part
and a "partially grown" part. This includes every
organ, cell and tissue in the body including the brain.
The average person is about 85% grown and 15%
partially grown. The partially grown part represents
the part of Man that is "invisible" while the 85% part
represents the "visible Man".
Now "God" therefore is "15% invisible"... however,
due to common parlance... the world "God" is commonly
used to denote only the 15% invisible part... therefore it
is said that "God is totally invisible"..but in other
contexts it may be used to denote the whole 100% Man...
but in either case... "God is therefore an invisible Man".

2. However, the "properties/abilities" of God, arise from
the following fact: We KNOW what the effect of a
less than fully grown brain is- from the existence of
children! A child is the prime example of someone
who has a large percentage of his brain which is
"ungrown"! It is known that a child sees a world
which is LARGER and FASTER than the world
seen by an adult. Therefore, we can conclude
immediately that the world seen by an "adult" who
has a 15% Secular Trend growth deficit, is de facto
going to see a world which is 15% LARGER and
15% FASTER than it really is. This "magnification
of size and speed" of the world is called by physicists,
a "curvature of reality" (hence the eqn. God=G_uv).

So... we now see "who God is" and "what God is" and
what the main "property/ability of God is".

[Hammond]
I'm sure you have some further questions. If you stick to a
rational (non disputive) method of inquiry such as your
question above... I will respond. Simply try to realize
that a dedicated scholar like myself immediately goes ballistic
at the first hint of insincerity. If you sound sincere, you
will definitely get a sincere answer from me.

Quote:

Can you understand our problem in understanding your concepts?

[Hammond]
Yes: The problem is that you have been raised from youth
to believe anybody who would claim to have discovered a
scientific proof of God must be a goofball, a kook, a fraud,
or a historic miracle... and the odds are not high that he is
a historic miracle. Problem is... I AM. And I would strongly
suggest that if you are actually so curious as to want to talk
to me..... the ONLY WAY is to "humor me" and at least
"pretend" you are serious. Like I say... any hint of insincerity
will immediatly drive me to ballistic levels of verbal insult
and terminate the discussion.


Quote:
LOL, I just
saw Buster get blown up again.

[Hammond]
By me... ?


Quote:


Rob



====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
.sSweetMarie
science forum addict


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: gods part 4 Reply with quote

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:28:52 -0800, esseeooo wrote:

<SNIP>
Quote:

But because I don't believe in nonlocal connections, I can't see how
there can be a universal God. Even tachyons would have their limits in
space time. And the Transactional Interpretation seems like a loser as
far as explaining the notion of nonlocal connections. I believe
Einstein was right about resisting the "spookiness" of belief in
nonlocal connections.

SNIP

I made a nice dissertation on non-local connections in
alt.sci.physics.new-theories.

REF > Re: the big bang .. why & what was before it ? Bert's theory of

It doesn't prove that there is "A God", but it does demonstrate that we
are not damned by the forces of entropy to a cold cold death.

..sSweetMarie
Back to top
ZenIsWhen
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 413

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uUbMd.6403$S3.2983@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Quote:

Bwahahaaaa... All this is, is more evidence that you are NOT a
scientist!!!
"Critique"
"Contribution to the Psychology of Personality,"
"Personality Inventory Manual"
"Some factors in the appreciation of poetry, and their relation to
temperamental qualities. Character and Personality"
"Personality and individual differences"
"The language of personality"

NOT ONE experiment in the bunch!!!!

[Hammond]
Horseshit... 90% of those publications report the Factor
Analysis of EXPERIMENTAL data (measurements) on real
people. (Factor Analysis of written questionnaires).

Bull!!!!!

Quote:


Do you even KNOW what an experiment is ... how to do one ...how to
collect
facts and data to FORM a rational conclusion?

[Hammond]
Cut the s**t... I've got an M.S. degree in Physics... and you
have NO DEGREES in Science. Your statment is
DISPROVED by the facts.

What facts?
You've done nothing to show ANY facts that relate to your "god" claims!
You still claim to have a degree, yet the ignorance you post (and the
ignorance of your own attitude) totally contradicts that claim!!

Quote:
Not the mention the FACT that ALL of these topics are in fields you DO
NOT
have a degree in ..... and YOU are the one who constantly bellows about
the ignorance of others - because THEY do not have degrees!!!!!!!

[Hammond]
These are papers on Factor Analysis in Psychometry.
I have published two papers on Factor Analysis and the
first one was "peer reviewed" by 5 Factor Analysts of professorial
rank and unanomously recommended for publication.
That PROVES my competence in the field:

You avoided the question, moron!

Quote:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.

This supermarket rag is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal.
You NEVER (nor do they in any of their web site information) said anything
(before) about ANYONE "peer reviewing" your claims.
Anyone "reading your susbmission" for printing is NOT the same as "peer
reviewed"; any REAL scientist would know that!!!!



Quote:
and, whoa, what do we hve here ... using your OWN - UNSCIENTIFIC crap
(some
"published" at the local Kinko's) - as "evidence"????

[Hammond]
Kinko's... what the hell are you talking about? The
SPOG has been published in two papers both of
them in the peer reviewed academic journal literature:

" HAMMOND, G.E. (1988). The Origin of the Cross. Self published"

Quote:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)

Pergamon Press is one of the world's leading scientific
publishers... and is not owned by "Kinko's"!

This has ben covered, idiot!
The PUBLISHER has nothing to do with the creditibility of the claim!



Quote:

You're the one who is a "fraud" Zippy!

Then why have you constantly, and totally, ignored the core of ALL of my
rebuttals - only repeating your arrogant, and ignorant, claims?

Why are you back to spamming this newsgroup, when YOU said you would stay
away from here, in your own self created, closet?


Why, in this list, do you corrupt that fact that someone doing work on -
let's say - psychiatric attitudes - does NOTHING to support YOUR claims
about a connection to god?

That's akin to saying ......because the Wright brothers proved we can fly -
I can claim their work supports MY claim that heavier than-air-flight proves
god!

That's nothing more than ignorant folly, by a PRETEND intellectual - NOT the
work of a scientist!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 232 [3478 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 230, 231, 232 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:51 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Lawyer: come georgie, pay me pay me Geo Incog New Theories 0 Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:13 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0898s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0455s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]