Then maybe you should be a Director - you have such great ideas!Crude? - perhaps
Porno? - no
The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy
- Thread starter George E Hammond
- Start date
- Status
Thank you - I think
My only "experience" (really nowhere close) was providing a comic sketch to be performed in front of the curtain while stuff was being rearranged behind
Only involved 3 of us trainee nurses but it went down well, for a couple of reasons
Oh there was another sketch I provided which also raised a few laughs
Both took place same year at the Nurses Christmas Show about 50 years ago
Thanks for the recalled memory
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
It isn’t ask river. But I don’t think you have what you think you have
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
Well "The Son" part of him did
The Father - The Holy Spirit (Ghost before the name change) - those two, no troddy the Earth
Would you count The Father having it off with Mary as Trodding the Earth?
Or was it The Holy Spirit (Ghost) who paid Mary a visit?
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hi Michael 345 – long time no see!
I ran across the TRINITY 20 years ago.
Today we now know that the Trinity is
simply the cybernetic loop more commonly
referred to as the "feedback loop" of
"input – out ut – feedback".
In 2006 back when I was on USENET where
only ASCI communication was possible I
posted this article: –
https://www.academia.edu/78085788/TRINITY_FAQ
It is absolutely AMAZING that the
Catholic Church actually figured out
what the Trinity was over 1000 years
ago.
George
So, it's a Catholic porn.
No, you merely claim it is.
Your assertion is more a matter of philosophy than even pseudoscience.
There is no science behind it.
Metaphor, perhaps.
Science, no.
Knowledge, most certainly not.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
The fact that the:
3 branches and the BI/2P system
are psychologically founded on
the Trinity plus the Cross – is
intuitively obvious to even a
casual observer.
Go back to selling shoes where
you belong.
George
The more you use phrases such as "intuitively obvious" so as to avoid actually providing any substance to support your claim, the more you are confirming yourself to be nothing but a highly dishonest crank.
You are being given every opportunity to provide the detail, detail that actually shows what you claim it does, but to date you have offered nothing.
I and others have explained why it doesn't show what you think it does.
The flaws in your "proof" have been highlighted over and over again.
And all you do is tip yet more garbage on to the ever increasing pile.
Dishonest cranks will do as dishonest cranks will do, I guess.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
You have absolutely no credentials in science
– I have 2 Degrees in Physics.
You wouldn't know the:
difference between
"Statistical covariance" and
"Relativistic covariance" !
You're scientifically incompetent
and unqualified to critique this
advanced scientific theory.
Like I said – go back to selling shoes
where you belong – and quit calling
me names !
George
So you keep claiming, with no evidence.
So you say, but that doesn't alter that your "proof" is demonstrably garbage, as shown, again and again and again.
I have told you before that credentials are irrelevant compared to what you actually write.
It is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Look it up if you still don't accept my explanation of it.
I've told you before, your continued use of it is nothing but a dishonest effort to evade the issues raised.
So all you do by continually asserting your credentials, and claiming others to not have any, is confirm again and again that you are dishonest.
Or is it simple stupidity on your part?
After all, who would so willingly confirm to everyone else that they are so clearly dishonest?
If you say so, albeit once again without evidence, like so much of your "proof".
So you keep asserting, yet the flaws I have clearly highlighted in your "proof" / "theory" remain.
Deal with the issue raised, not the person.
Can you do that, or will you just continue to be dishonest?
Given the clear flaws already raised, and that remain unaddressed by you, it is quite clear that I have all the qualifications necessary to show that it is garbage, and that it is you lacking the competence or honesty (or both) to address them.
One doesn't need to know how to paint a ceiling like Michelangelo to know that the plaster has fallen off.
I will call you what the evidence clearly indicates you to be: a dishonest crank.
You can address that by, you know, not being dishonest, and, well, by not being a crank.
Address the issues.
Stop evading / ignoring them.
Stop appealing to authority (or lack thereof) of credentials when they are irrelevant compared to the content of what is actually written.
Stop simply cutting/pasting that which already has issues raised against it that you have yet to address / resolve.
Start supporting your "proof" / "theory" with more than just bald assertions.
Unfortunatley I have little confidence that you will, because you are too proud, too much of a narcissist, suffering delusions of grandeur, and simply too dishonest, coupled with an actual incompetence in putting a valid argument together where it matters.
But, hey, maybe you can prove me wrong, and, well, you know, at least then you'll have proved one thing here.
Your call, though.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
You wouldn't know the difference between –
Statistical covariance and
Relativistic covariance
[GE Hammond MS physics]
You're a run-of-the-mill anti-scientific
heckler.
I read a quote from you elsewhere on the net
where you were talking to someone and you
said "I'm posting messages elsewhere now in
"of all things, science"".
If you go on sci.physics.relativity you will find
dozens of similar hecklers arguing that
"Einstein's theory is wrong"and doing it
nonstop decade after decade.
And every one of them is constantly shown to be ludicrously INCORRECT. And they all
sound EXACTLY LIKE YOU !
Like I say – go back to selling shoes where you belong and quit heckling innocent science
discussion forums. You're just a loser.
George
You wouldn't know the difference between –
Statistical covariance and
Relativistic covariance
[GE Hammond MS physics]
You're a run-of-the-mill anti-scientific
heckler.
I read a quote from you elsewhere on the net
where you were talking to someone and you
said "I'm posting messages elsewhere now in
"of all things, science"".
If you go on sci.physics.relativity you will find
dozens of similar hecklers arguing that
"Einstein's theory is wrong"and doing it
nonstop decade after decade.
And every one of them is constantly shown to be ludicrously INCORRECT. And they all
sound EXACTLY LIKE YOU !
Like I say – go back to selling shoes where you belong and quit heckling innocent science
discussion forums. You're just a loser.
George
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
It sounds like you are stalking him.
That is the very definition of stalking!
He's not stalking.
He's simply making stuff up in a pathetic attempt to discredit me, rather than face the reality that his "proof" is garbage.
Unfortunately he has nowhere left to turn: he's not competent or honest enough to address the issues that people have raised, so he thinks that if he can discredit me he can ignore the issues.
And with nothing genuine with which to do that, he simply makes stuff up about me.
It is fallacious, dishonest, and probably the lowest thing I have seen anyone stoop to on this website.
And still his "proof" is garbage.
Go figure.
What does either of them have to do with proving the existence of God? There are plenty of questions about your "proof" that you could answer instead of evading with nonsense like this.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Einstein's theory is wrong, that's a fact!
https://imgur.com/B85h7mp
Look at frame 2 in the pic in the link. The light hits the z receiver in .65 seconds and the light sphere has not yet contacted the x receiver, and doesn't do so until 1.38 seconds.
In the box the distance from the center of the box (where the light sphere was sent from) to the receivers is the same for both of them.
So the distance is the same but the time for the light to hit them is different. That means the speed of light is measured to be faster to the z receiver than it is for the x receiver.
So in the box when you measure the speed of light it is different in different directions.
So Einstein's BS 2nd postulate is in fact BS, as shown in MD's Box! There is NO WAY IN HELL that the speed of light is the same in the box. The light sphere CAN'T contact the receivers in the same amount of time.
If you think that is BS then explain IN DETAIL!
Last edited by a moderator:
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
George E Hammond said:
Today we now know that the Trinity is simply the cybernetic loop more commonly referred to as the "feedback loop" of"input – output – feedback".
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Oh – so now I'm a Philosopher and not a
pseudoscientist! Hedging our bets are we?
I don't think so – I'm a Physicist via
academic degrees – and a Psychometrist
via years of private study and by peer reviewed
publication in the field.
I heard you say somewhere that you had a PhD
in something – I now think it was
in Philosophy – no?
If so – I think you would be interested in what
America's greatest philosopher – William James
founder and chairman of the Harvard psychology department said about the matter of God in 1900 –
[Matt Faunce wrote on alt..philosephy.debate:]
George – – I think this quote by William James
fits your theory.
“[T]he theologian’s contention that the religious
man is moved by an external power is vindicated,
for it is one of the peculiarities of invasions from
the subconscious region to take on objective
appearances, and to suggest to the Subject an
external control. In the religious life the control is
felt as ‘higher’; but since on our hypothesis it is
primarily the higher faculties of our own hidden
mind which are controlling, the sense of union with
the power beyond us is a sense of something, not
merely apparently, but literally true.”
–William James, in The Varieties of Religious
Experience, Lecture XX, Conclusions,
paragraph 512.
[GE Hammond MS physics]
So Baldeee, If You're of Philosophy major
I think you should realize William James'
opinion of what "God" actually is
psychologically – and maybe then you can
finally realize that Hammond has found the
SCIENTIFIC PROOF of William James'
authoritative definition of God 120 years
ago – whereas of course – without modern
psychometry – he could not prove it.
George
Today we now know that the Trinity is simply the cybernetic loop more commonly referred to as the "feedback loop" of"input – output – feedback".
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Oh – so now I'm a Philosopher and not a
pseudoscientist! Hedging our bets are we?
I don't think so – I'm a Physicist via
academic degrees – and a Psychometrist
via years of private study and by peer reviewed
publication in the field.
I heard you say somewhere that you had a PhD
in something – I now think it was
in Philosophy – no?
If so – I think you would be interested in what
America's greatest philosopher – William James
founder and chairman of the Harvard psychology department said about the matter of God in 1900 –
[Matt Faunce wrote on alt..philosephy.debate:]
George – – I think this quote by William James
fits your theory.
“[T]he theologian’s contention that the religious
man is moved by an external power is vindicated,
for it is one of the peculiarities of invasions from
the subconscious region to take on objective
appearances, and to suggest to the Subject an
external control. In the religious life the control is
felt as ‘higher’; but since on our hypothesis it is
primarily the higher faculties of our own hidden
mind which are controlling, the sense of union with
the power beyond us is a sense of something, not
merely apparently, but literally true.”
–William James, in The Varieties of Religious
Experience, Lecture XX, Conclusions,
paragraph 512.
[GE Hammond MS physics]
So Baldeee, If You're of Philosophy major
I think you should realize William James'
opinion of what "God" actually is
psychologically – and maybe then you can
finally realize that Hammond has found the
SCIENTIFIC PROOF of William James'
authoritative definition of God 120 years
ago – whereas of course – without modern
psychometry – he could not prove it.
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
George E Hammond said:
You wouldn't know the difference between –
Statistical covariance and
Relativistic covariance
[GE Hammond MS physics]
NO – if you can't answer that question and
a dozen more just like it – then you are
SCIENTIFICALLY UNQUALIFIED to
publicly conclude and state in print
that Hammond's scientific proof of
God (SPOG) is incorrect.
And being thus disqualified – attempting to
harass the author with inconsequential
arguments and claiming they are of great
consequence will also be ignored.
George
You wouldn't know the difference between –
Statistical covariance and
Relativistic covariance
[GE Hammond MS physics]
NO – if you can't answer that question and
a dozen more just like it – then you are
SCIENTIFICALLY UNQUALIFIED to
publicly conclude and state in print
that Hammond's scientific proof of
God (SPOG) is incorrect.
And being thus disqualified – attempting to
harass the author with inconsequential
arguments and claiming they are of great
consequence will also be ignored.
George
I merely commented that your latest claim was more a matter of philosophy than even pseudoscience.
That doesn't mean I'm calling you a philosopher, any more than I'm calling you a scientist.
Even a clown can talk about a philosophical matter.
It doesn't make him less of a clown, or even more of a philosopher.
Still appealing to authority I see.
No.
I have already responded to that quote when first you posted it.
If you were in any way not ignorant you would understand that there are almost as many different philosophies as there are philosophers.
But again you can't help but appeal to authority.
Not surprising.
Still making assertions with no support, I see.
Any chance you'll ever support them with more than just confidence, or appeals to authority?
Any chance you'll ever lift your "theory" from being garbage?
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Your entire post is nothing but one long
ad hominem rant with no on-topic
content.
It is absolutely clear now that
Hammond has scientifically proven William James' (1900) well known
psychological explanation
of God.
Q ED
George
- Status