The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy
- Thread starter George E Hammond
- Start date
- Status
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
Huh ! So that's it? After I got my degrees in physics I could never get a job, they kept telling me I was "overqualified", so I spent 40 years living in homeless shelters on welfare and on the streets searching for the world's first scientific proof of God. Guess what, I actually found it !
... I wonder what happened to Jesus ? He must've gotten a PhD !
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
Post Script: here is a better picture of me taken with Hans Eysenck at the XXVI international Congress of psychology in Montréal in 1996, where we both spoke for half an hour from the same podium to an audience of 200 psychologists. Hans Eysenck was at that time the world's most famous living psychologist:
the photo was snapped by Prof. Peter F Miranda then chairman of the APA in Massachusetts.
______Hans Eysenck_________George Hammond________
________________Montreal 1996___________________
George
Having a avatar is not a desire for anonymity. I'm happy to share details about myself
My avatar appeals to the grain of whimsical in myself
Your particular photo really does not assist in identifying you, fine details which would help are missing plus is photo really you???
Why would that be?
Many of your postings seem to emphasise your qualifications and achievements (the biggest SPOG) as being YOU
Qualifications being what they are, an achievement with no identifying features, would be useless as identification
Very suss statement above!!!! says he in a raising tone of voice indicating just how suss he feels
Since numerous aspects of physics have yet to be conquered OVERqualified would not appear possible
Yours in perpetual motion
Michael
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That's a word I didn't know. Julius Caesar did that in his Gallic War. But that was really written as a newspaper, to be sent back to Rome and read out to tell the citizens what he was doing. So it was not necessarily a sign of egotism in his case. But in the case our friend here, it's clearly not that.Habitual illeism
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-psychology-of-referring-to-yourself-in-the-third-person
In particular this
rampant egoism
aspect
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What homeless shelter were you living in when this picture was taken?[George E Hammond MS physics]
Post Script: here is a better picture of me taken with Hans Eysenck at the XXVI international Congress of psychology in Montréal in 1996, where we both spoke for half an hour from the same podium to an audience of 200 psychologists. Hans Eysenck was at that time the world's most famous living psychologist:
the photo was snapped by Prof. Peter F Miranda then chairman of the APA in Massachusetts.
______Hans Eysenck_________George Hammond________
________________Montreal 1996___________________
George
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Well, George Ego Hammond, to be truthful, I think their all here to read my posts, other posts are just clutter.
Why are you here at this dead end site?
Same
Only found when looking for Reason why people talk about themselves in third person
Michael 345 has just added illeism to Word of the Day thread
Maybe they'd feel obliged for a full body avatar and thus would leave themselves open to a comparison to the height of God?
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
Noah Shelter - Homeless Shelter for Men and Women. 77 Winter Street Hyannis, MA 02601 · (508) 778-52xx Visit Website. The suit and tie courtesy of the Salvation Army.
__Hans Eysenck_____George ammond________
_________Montreal 996_____________
George
I'm not sure but maybe you were the subject that was being studied by the psychologists. I mean someone who has a masters in physics and lives in a homeless shelter unable to get a job... just saying. Were you telling them how tall God is by any chance?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps we should introduce him to Dennis Markuze. He's in Montreal.
Imagine the combined nuttery...
Can we add in members twenty-three and Michael Anteski perhaps Write4U with Tiassa as moderator
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
WARNING: continued
OFF-TOPIC, NON-SCIENTIFIC, NO-CONTENT
or HECKLING posts by this STALKER
will be reported via the REPORT button
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
WARNING: continued
OFF-TOPIC, NON-SCIENTIFIC, NO-CONTENT
or HECKLING posts by this STALKER
will be reported via the REPORT button
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
WARNING: continued
OFF-TOPIC, NON-SCIENTIFIC, NO-CONTENT
or HECKLING posts by this STALKER
will be reported via the REPORT button
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
WARNING: continued
OFF-TOPIC, NON-SCIENTIFIC, NO-CONTENT
or HECKLING posts by this STALKER
will be reported via the REPORT button
George has a point. Merely insulting him does nothing to address his actual claims, despite their being ridiculous. So, can we please restrict posts to addressing George's nonsense, and stop the ad hominems?
It's one thing to have a good laugh at ludicrous claims by George that he has calculated God's height, or that he has proven there's a 1 in 3 chance of life after death, or whatever, but criticising him for his homelessness or whatever is just mean.
George needs to realise that claiming he has a Masters degree in physics doesn't help to advance his arguments, even if it is true. Attempting to argue from authority is a fallacy. Nor does it matter whether George was pals with Einstein or if George met the President once, or if George was once on the cover of Vogue. The only thing that matters is whether George can establish the truth of any of his bizarre claims.
So far, we're turning up a blank on that last front. But maybe if George can get over feeling heckled, he might be able to put forth some kind of coherent argument. Let's see. (It's still perfectly fine to laugh at unsupported ludicrous claims.)
It's one thing to have a good laugh at ludicrous claims by George that he has calculated God's height, or that he has proven there's a 1 in 3 chance of life after death, or whatever, but criticising him for his homelessness or whatever is just mean.
George needs to realise that claiming he has a Masters degree in physics doesn't help to advance his arguments, even if it is true. Attempting to argue from authority is a fallacy. Nor does it matter whether George was pals with Einstein or if George met the President once, or if George was once on the cover of Vogue. The only thing that matters is whether George can establish the truth of any of his bizarre claims.
So far, we're turning up a blank on that last front. But maybe if George can get over feeling heckled, he might be able to put forth some kind of coherent argument. Let's see. (It's still perfectly fine to laugh at unsupported ludicrous claims.)
- Status