Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:02:15 -0800 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 94 Message-ID: <63F12EC7.6BBC@ix.netcom.com> References: <63EFCC83.55E5@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="56bc42af39b204cdb655dff618361e40"; logging-data="133407"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bRtkAk24jcum6btEAIZvUzpwaDE385l8=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:0QRY0zOr7XT/tzOkUq+gU0O3WPw= X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 230218-4, 02/18/2023), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:601650 sci.physics:869932 worm food wrote: > > On 2/17/2023 1:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > worm food wrote: > >> > >> On 2/15/2023 5:40 AM, George Hammond wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, worm food wrote: > >>>> [worm food] wrote: > >>>> You, and he, (Hans Geesink) and others, have > >>>> clearly "seen something" and you are utilizing > >>>> what you consider the best and most relevant > >>>> known language to describe that "something". > >>>> -wf > >>> . > >>> (hmm... Notice the perfect typographical > >>> "justification" of that paragraph... g.e.h.) > >>> . > >>> [George E Hammond MS Physics] > >>> HISTORIC discoveries can be > >>> described in a few words. > >>> Hammond's Scientific Proof of God > >>> is a HISTORIC discovery. > >>> . > >>> ROUTINE scientific research discoveries > >>> requires dozens of pages. of explanation. > >>> Hans Geesink's QM/EM/BIO discoveries > >>> require voluminous description. > >>> . > >>> The SPOG can be understood by a High > >>> School student – assuming that he: > >>> WANTS TO UNDERSTAND IT ! > >>> . > >>> Frankly, I'm more interested in YOUR > >>> opinion of the SPOG then I am in > >>> Hans Geesink's opinion. > >>> . > >>> That is, assuming you are actually > >>> CURIOUS as to what "God" actually is! > >>> BECAUSE if you are actually interested > >>> in what God is – that would make you > >>> the 2nd most interested person in the > >>> world; – after ME ! > >>> . > >>> George > >> > >> George, > >> I cannot comment on the mathematical accuracy of your theory, nor on the > >> scientific rigor. I can only comment that I believe you are earnest. > >> -wf > > > > > > yeahhh, when you say the word "earnest"...you make it sound like an > > insult! (which is your M.O.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Text-based communication media are particularly interesting because, in > the absence of context (and sometimes in spite of it), one can impose > one's own psychoemotional context onto the words. "psychoemotional"???? is dat a compliment? or just your ...M.O.? > > But, I can see what you mean about my communication style. Perhaps I > should retrain the algorithm. > > Thanks for the tip, Loki. > > Anyway, you're both correct. To my thinking, the concept of "god" cannot > be understood without experiencing a change in "magnification". It's > akin to the idea that causality actually doesn't break down at any > level, despite the protestations of several generations of scientists. > Our ignorance of the cause of a phenomenon is simply that: ignorance. > Objectivism tends to break down in the face of this realization, due not > least in part to our seemingly ingrained reductionist tendencies. In > short, not one of us knows anything about anything. I know everthing about everything, go ahead..ask me any question on...Relativity. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.