Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #869932

Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-17 10:50 -0800
  Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD worm food <wormfood@compostpunk.com> - 2023-02-18 14:40 -0500
    Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-18 12:02 -0800
      Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-18 14:29 -0600
    Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-19 12:22 -0800

csiph-web