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

Groups > sci.physics > #864440 > unrolled thread

Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-10 22:04 -0800
    Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-11 12:00 -0800
      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-13 10:56 -0800
        Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-14 21:00 -0800
          Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-15 13:07 -0800
            Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-16 10:25 -0800
              Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-16 11:18 -0800
                Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Jules Scotti <ujsl@ocjssuis.os> - 2022-11-19 15:08 +0000
                  Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-19 11:50 -0800
                    Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-19 15:57 -0800
                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-20 11:32 -0800
                        Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-20 15:06 -0800
                        Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-20 19:53 -0800
                          Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-23 12:35 -0800
                            Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-23 23:03 -0800
                              Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-23 23:25 -0800
                                Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-25 14:50 +0000
                                Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-25 15:05 +0000
                                  Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-25 19:58 +0000
                                    Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-25 22:07 +0000
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-11-25 14:35 -0800
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-25 22:46 +0000
                                        Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-26 00:28 +0000
                                          Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-26 00:40 +0000
                                            Re: crackpot George Hammond puts the foot in his mouth, FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-26 13:56 +0000
                                              Re: crackpot George Hammond puts the foot in his mouth, FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Micheal Agnelli <algm@lmcemel.ae> - 2022-11-26 14:00 +0000
                                                Re: uneducated troll George Hammond puts the foot in his mouth - FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Coke Alfero <ckao@olfoaree.oe> - 2022-11-26 18:40 +0000
                                Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-25 20:07 -0800
                                  Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Coke Alfero <ckao@olfoaree.oe> - 2022-11-26 19:14 +0000
                                  Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:15 -0800
                                    Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 00:28 -0800
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 17:56 +0000
                                        Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 18:56 +0000
                                          Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <efftard@donglemeier.com> - 2022-11-29 12:10 -0800
                                          Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Finis Mari <fmnf@isiifain.ii> - 2022-11-29 21:14 +0000
                                        Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God Lee Barsetti <erre@battaete.tr> - 2022-11-29 21:10 +0000
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 13:32 -0800
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 16:28 -0800
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-02 21:14 -0800
                                    Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 14:00 -0800
                                      Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 20:09 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#864440 — Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God

George Hammond wrote:
> 
dis thing you call 'the God of the Bible'...wat is dat mean?

Have you George
ever, ever..
read the whole
bible from 
front to back,
ever?

You know, read the whole thing?




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#864458

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:03:36 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > dis thing you call 'the God of the Bible'...wat is dat mean?
> >
> > Have you George
> > ever, ever..
> > read the whole
> > bible from
> > front to back,
> > ever?
> >
> > You know, read the whole thing?
> > --
> >
> [George E Hammond MS physics, Hyannis MA USA]
> ..... I've only read 50 pages of it: – if you already know
> what it is, how and why it was written, and who wrote it: –
> you don't have to read any more of it than that to know
> what it is !

Wait a minute, help me understand...

You talk about the 'God of the Bible' many times..

You spent over twenty years coming up with proof that God exist..

Here is what I don't understand...

If you believe in God

and you say you only read "50 pages" of the bible...


You don't sound you are really interested
in what God has to say..
otherwise you would have read the whole bible.

I mean, I just don't get it. I simply don't have the
ability to understand.

Why would you spend over twenty years coming up with
some formula to prove God exist if you're
not even interested in what
God has to say???


I just don't get it. I simply don't have the
ability to understand. Help me to understand.


Why are you not interested in what God has to say?












-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864602

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 3:00:21 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > and you say you only read "50 pages" of the bible...
> >
> [George E Hammond MS physics, Hyannis MA USA]
> .... Look StarMaker – the Bible is a "PSYCHOLOGY book" –
> it is not a "PHYSICS book".
> .
> .... The Bible is a lecture on the dangers of the Psychotic
> personality.  All criminals are psychotics in some degree.
> And the Bible is a history of Civilization's struggle
> against evil.
> .
> We are now in a scientific age – and it turns  out that a
> Scientific Proof of God has been discovered.
> .
> Therefore the now (large) scientific world can
> leave the Bible for the use of the scientifically illiterate,
> and deduce the psychology ramifications of God directly
> from the scientific explanation of God.
> .
> The Bible will never go out of date as long as there are
> scientifically illiterate people in the world – however
> now the scientifically literate can skip the psychology
> lecture and get the full description of the phenomenon
> of God Scientifically..
> .
> George


Maybe you don't understand...
Math is not Science..

and your so-called "proof of God" is based on Math...(an algebra program
on your mac computer)

So, your 'proof of God' is not...Scientifically.


It is Mathematically. 

And math does not exist except in the mind of...men.

There is no other place in the universe where math resides.

So, go back to the drawing board and come up with proof without using
Math.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864717

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:16:10 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > you spent 20 YEARS studying PSYCHOMETRY????
> > There is no scientific evidence that psychometry exists..
> > is a form of extrasensory perception characterized by the claimed
> > ability to make relevant associations from an object of unknown history
> >
> >
> [George E Hammond MS physics]
> .... Listen you MORONIC FOOL – there are
> .
> TWO DEFINITIONS of  "PSYCHOMETRY"
> .
> – and every educated person in
> the world is aware of this – BUT YOU !!
> .
> 1 – PSYCHOMETRY =
> the statistical analysis of Intelligence
> and Personality tests In Psychology
> .
> 2 – PSYCHOMETRY =
> an archaic and now thoroughly
> debunked theory of Divination
> .
> Modern PSYCHOMETRY is the leading academic tool used in
> modern Psychology.
> .
> And by the way – here's a picture of me with  HANS EYSENCK
> the world's most famous living PSYCHOMETRIST  taken in
> Montréal in 1996 at the XXVI International Conference of
> Psychology where we were both invited speakers to the same
> podium and the same audience!
> .
> https://www.academia.edu/10591150/How_George_Hammond_discovered_the_worlds_first_Scientific_Proof_of_God
> .
> George

a person (such as a clinical psychologist) who is skilled in the
administration and interpretation of *objective* psychological tests.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychometrician

You're into 'subjective', that is the COMPLETE opposite of 'objective'!

you spent 20 YEARS studying PSYCHOMETRY...dats Paranormal,
non-scientific bodies of knowledge!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometry_(paranormal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal


You're into ...Exorcism!

    Astral projection Astrology Aura Bilocation Breatharianism
Clairvoyance Close encounter Cold spot Crystal gazing 
Conjuration Cryptozoology Demonic possession Demonology Ectoplasm
Electronic voice phenomenon Exorcism Extrasensory perception 
Forteana Fortune-telling Ghost hunting Indigo children Magic Mediumship
Miracle Occult Orb Ouija Paranormal fiction Paranormal television 
Precognition Preternatural Psychic Psychic reading Psychokinesis
Psychometry Reincarnation Remote viewing Retrocognition Spirit
photography Spirit possession 
Spirit world Spiritualism Stone Tape Supernatural Telepathy
Table-turning Ufology

Crystal gazing...


Are you Romanian??? a Gypsy?


A pickpocket??



non-scientific


HOW DARE YOU COME HERE AND USE THE WORD...Scientifically.










-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864757

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:33 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > > [George E Hammond MS physics]
> > > .....THERE ARE TWO DEFINITIONS of "PSYCHOMETRY"
> > > 1 – PSYCHOMETRY =
> > > the statistical analysis of Intelligence
> > > and Personality tests In Psychology
> > > 2 – PSYCHOMETRY =
> > > an archaic and now thoroughly
> > > debunked theory of Divination
> > >
> > > And by the way – here's a picture of me with HANS EYSENCK
> > > the world's most famous living PSYCHOMETRIST taken in
> > > Montréal in 1996 at the XXVI International Conference of
> > > Psychology where we were both invited speakers to the same
> > > podium and the same audience!
> > > .
> https://www.academia.edu/10591150/How_George_Hammond_discovered_the_worlds_first_Scientific_Proof_of_God
> > > .
> >[STARMAKER]
> > You're into 'subjective', that is the COMPLETE opposite of 'objective'!
> > You're into ...Exorcism!
> > Crystal gazing...
> > Are you Romanian??? a Gypsy?
> > HOW DARE YOU COME HERE AND USE THE WORD...Scientifically.
> > --
> [GEORGE HAMMOND MS PHYSICS]
> .... Listen you FRIGGIN MORON  I'm  a "Swamp Yankee Protestant"
> and 13 generations of my New England ancestors are buried in the
> Newburyport Cemetery.  My great uncle was police chief of the town of
> Newbury!
> .... That picture of me with Hans Eysenck (URL above) was taken by
> Prof. Peter F Miranda then chairman of the APA in Rhode Island and a
> personal friend of mine.
> .... Throwing this WELL-KNOWN CANARD about the 2 dictionary
> definitions of "Psychometry"  is a STALE CANARD that only an
>  uneducated FIGGIN MORON like you would think is funny !
> .... I know you're half Jewish – and a classic SON OF SAM stereotype
> personality – but you better wise up and realized that while you
> HAVE THE STAGE and are talking to a qualified physicist – you better
> start making sense and talk physics – especially about something like this:
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = THE METRIC OF GOD     (according to Hammond)
> |o o a² o. |
> |ooo-1/a²|
> .
> Which is a HISTORY MAKING DISCOVERY  !!!!!
> .
> George

Yeahhhh, but you haven't mentioned any Physics At All!

Just  a lot of psycho stuff..
PSYCHOMETRY
PSYCHOMETRIST
Psychology
Psychometrician's
massive STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOMETRICS!!!!
1, 000 man army of PhD Psychologists!

You're a PSYCHO!!!!


noun, plural psy·chos.
a psychopathic or psychotic person.
a crazy or mentally unstable person.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/psycho


A MASSIVE PSYCHO!!!!

Where is the physics? 
https://independent.academia.edu/GeorgeHammond
I no see no physics there? Where is the physics? 



and btw, dis guy already came out wit a 
https://bahai-library.com/pdf/h/hatcher_proof_existence_god.pdf

and he uses the same arguement as you do but WITHOUT math...



Here is what 'other's say about you...

"Crazier than a sack of tomcats.  Bet Roger Penrose would have a good laugh at the guy's microtubule "airbag" theory. "



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864845

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:07:38 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > massive STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOMETRICS!!!!
> > 1, 000 man army of PhD Psychologists!
> > Where is the physics?
> >
> [GE Hammond MS Physics]
> POST SCRIPT ---- TO STARMAKER
> .... Look STARMAKER – if you're so goddamed interested in this
> "Scientific Proof of God" – why don't you take 10 MINUTES to
> watch this video – which I made – and I am shown in person
> narrating it – and which explains the ENTIRE "PSYCH" BASIS
> for the scientific proof of God: – we can't get to she Physics until you
> can understand this  first !!!
>  ... then we can explain:
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = THE METRIC OF GOD
> |o o a² o. |
> |ooo-1/a²|
> WHICH IS THE "PHYSICS"... ....ASSHOLE  !! !
> .
> WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
> ...... https://youtu.be/GXRA_vrZMYk
> ............... (YouTube 12-min)
> .
> UNTIL YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO YOU HAVE NO IDEA
> WHAT THIS IS DISCOVERY IS ALL ABOUT !!!
> .
> You can only comprehend the PHYSICS of this, AFTER
> you understand the PSYCHOLOGY of it...  I'm not kust
> a PHYSICS GENIUS... I'm  a PSYCHOLOGY genius also..
> Friggin wake up... DUMMY UP for chrissakes... this isn't
> KID STUFF... HOLOCAUST, ATOM BOMBS, GLOBAL WARMING
> .... MAN UP for chrissakes... AND SHOW SOME INTELLIGENCE
> George


Okay, i heard you like to hold up the fort against attacking indians..

Over hundred thousands results for "scientific proof of God"
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q="scientific+proof+of+God"


'All in Title' brings you these results -- Get your "scientific proof of God" at Amazon, Walmart or Ebay...(and hundreds of other places)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=allintitle%3A"scientific+proof+of+God"


"My publisher told me that the number of readers of this book will be inversely proportional to the number of equations it contains."     --Stephen Hawking ,



In other words, get someone to Translate your 'God formula' math language into the English language. Then you'll be on your way on the book shelves at Walmart too!









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864852

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:24:54 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> .
> [George Hammond MS physics]
> .... STATE YOUR ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS
> .
> I don't believe YOU HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS
> .
> NONE IN MATH, NONE IN SCIENCE AND NONE IN RELATIVITY
> .
> SCREW... TAKE YOU'RE HECKLING SOMEWHERE ELSE  !!
> . George

Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ


Boston MA, USAPh.D. Candidate

A Moderator online said this about your credentials..."I'd say there is a reason why he did not go beyond the point of a PhD candidate."






I discovered at a very early age that there is no God. Scientific proof by Observation.

There was a newsstand where a blind man was selling newspapers and comic books.
I stole a few comic books from him but I stood there next to the newsstand
and waited for some kind of consequences...I even looked up to
see if God was going to do anything about it.

Nothing. Not even bird poop.

I had the biggest collection of comic books on my block!


There is no God. 




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865030

George Hammond wrote:

>>[STARMAKER]
>> There is no God.
>> --
> [HAMMOND, MS Physics]
> You're DEAD WRONG and I have proved it.

let us hear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865044

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 10:08:54 AM UTC-5, Jules Scotti wrote:
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >>[STARMAKER]
> > >> There is no God.
> > > [HAMMOND, MS Physics]
> > > You're DEAD WRONG and I have proved it.
> >
> >[Jules Scotti, academic credentials unknown]
> > let us hear.
> .
> [George Hammond MS Physics (1967)]
> .... If you have any Academic or other professional credentials
> now is the time to mention it.  You don't have to give names, dates,
> addresses – I'll take you at your word – since at age 80 and a
> lifelong intellectual and scientific researcher – I'll know if you're
> lying in 5 minutes flat!
> .... I'm looking for any EDUCATED person to discuss this
> "Worlds First Discovery Of a Scientific Proof of God"
> .
> Yours, George


"Worlds First Discovery..."????


"Discovery"? 

Let me explain something to you...here's the thing..


You made a discovery
there are two realities
the visible reality and
the invisible reality..

Your discovery was made
in the invisible reality..

meaning, you dreamt it up.

Your discovery occured in
your mind while sleeping.

You're dreaming! Wake Up!

Tech support! Tech support!!


I mean, I understand...
sometimes I have trouble
figuring out am I dreaming
or am i awake.

So, what I do to test
whether I'm draming or
not is I reach over the light switch
and turn it off or on..

In a dream, the light switch doesn't work.


Have you tried this metric of God formula
using paper and pencil only?


In a visible reality, I mean...












-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865068

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > [STARMAKER]
> > Let me explain something to you...here's the thing..
> > there are two realities
> > the visible reality and
> > the invisible reality..
> >
> [George E Hammond MS physics]
> ... Let me explains something to YOU: –
> there is no "INVISIBLE REALITY"  (dreaming) nvolved in
> my "Scientific Proof of God"
> .... Both OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE space-time
> I are absolutely physically real  REALITIES.
> .
> 1 – is what we ACTUALLY SEE
> 2 – OBJECTIVE reality is what we ACTUALLY MEASURE
> ......(with clocks and rulers)
> .
> They are NOT THE SAME SIZE OR SPEED DUE to the fact
> that no human being is actually "100% fully grown" – and this
> makes us SEE a size and speed of actual "measurable" reality
> that is 10 to 20%  LARGER THAN IT ACTUALLY MEASURES !
> (Some people more, some people less)
> .
> IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do WITH DREAMING  !!!!!
> .
> ... You don't even understand what the theory is about.
> You're not a qualified scientist.
> .
> .... Go read some more Comic Books for  chrissakes !
> .
> George

SUBJECTIVE reality 
OBJECTIVE reality

it's all dreamworld..

https://stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/09/subjective-reality-simplified/


Maybe this will help you make your numbers more simple for others to understand...


Here are the numbers to : Proof that God Exist
950
0950
91950
4-30-34-45-51 19
18-35-56-58-64 9


Just convert your dreams to numbers!


https://lotterypredictor.com/wordtranslator
https://lotterytexts.com/blog/lottery-dream-numbers/
https://www.numerando.it/en/dreams-interpretation-numbers.php



I bet your grandmother used to play the numbers...







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865118

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:57:06 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >[George Hammond MS Physics]
> > > IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do WITH DREAMING !!!!!
> > > .... Go read some more Comic Books  !
> > > .
> > [STARMAKER]
> > it's all dreamworld..
> > Just convert your dreams to numbers!
> >
> [George E Hammond MS Physics]
> Listen  PUTZ – if a 6-month-old child looks up at the bottom
> of a kitchen table while a 20-year-old looks down at the top
> of the table –
> .
> THE TABLE LOOKS 4 TIMES LARGER TO THE
> CHILD  THAN IT DOES TO THE 20-YEAR-OLD
> .
> Are you so FRIGGIN STUPID t or something –  it's caused by
> human growth !
> .
> The child's "subjective space" is magnified by 400% compared to
> the subjective space of the 20-year-old..
> .
> Dummy up SCHMUCK – that isn't hard to understand !.
> .
> And excuse my Yiddish – I know damn well you're half
> Jewish or something – which is making you tick !
> .
> George


what is this obsession you have with...kitchen tables????



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWTuBWVXgAAFkyB.jpg:large


  




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865136

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 2:32:37 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > [George E Hammond MS Physics]
> > > A TABLE LOOKS 4 TIMES LARGER TO A
> > > CHILD THAN IT DOES TO A 20-YEAR-OLD
> > > George
>  > >
> >[STARMAKER]
> > what is this obsession you have with...kitchen tables????
> >
>  [GEORGE E HAMMOND MS Physics]
> .... Nothing special about tables – here's the same story for –
> WINDMILLS: –
> ....DUTCH WINDMILL POST (sci.physics.relativity)
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/lkvb-IXoFyA/m/VnhEVHBAAQAJ
> .... Windmills are better than tables because they involve
> BOTH SIZE AND SPEED  !!! – – They not only look LARGER to a child –
> they look like they are going FASTER to a child ALSO !
> .................. THIS IS THE PHENOMENON OF GOD !
> .......................... TRY AND UNDERSTAND IT  !
> ..................... DON'T BE AN IGNORANT PERSON
> Are you confessing. that you can't UNDERSTAND the SIMPLE BASIC principle
> of the world's first "Scientific Proof of God"  ?
> .... IF SO what the hell are you doing on sci.physics.relativity  ????
> .
> After all – we're here to show that this effect causes the
> GOD METRIC : –
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = THE RELATIVISTIC METRIC OF GOD.
> |o o a² o. |
> |ooo-1/a²|
> .
> That is the ENTIRE POINT of this THREAD !
> .
> George

So, do you believe that God lives in the future? 


And maybe travels from the future to here in a UFO type of aircraft...

or maybe through some...Stargate? (you know like the movie Stargate)










-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865152

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 2:32:37 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > [George E Hammond MS Physics]
> > > A TABLE LOOKS 4 TIMES LARGER TO A
> > > CHILD THAN IT DOES TO A 20-YEAR-OLD
> > > George
>  > >
> >[STARMAKER]
> > what is this obsession you have with...kitchen tables????
> >
>  [GEORGE E HAMMOND MS Physics]
> .... Nothing special about tables – here's the same story for –
> WINDMILLS: –
> ....DUTCH WINDMILL POST (sci.physics.relativity)
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/lkvb-IXoFyA/m/VnhEVHBAAQAJ
> .... Windmills are better than tables because they involve
> BOTH SIZE AND SPEED  !!! – – They not only look LARGER to a child –
> they look like they are going FASTER to a child ALSO !
> .................. THIS IS THE PHENOMENON OF GOD !
> .......................... TRY AND UNDERSTAND IT  !
> ..................... DON'T BE AN IGNORANT PERSON
> Are you confessing. that you can't UNDERSTAND the SIMPLE BASIC principle
> of the world's first "Scientific Proof of God"  ?
> George


"...the world's first "Scientific Proof of God"????



Okay, here is where you completely messed up...

I notice there are a lot of fraudulent science books.

The Titles of these book are to attract attention to
get suckers to buy the book.

But by the end of the book these science authors
always admit they have no idea what they are talking about.
It's always...speculation. (they hope 'others' will take
the road further from where they left off...)

You're no different then they are.

You come up with a title: "Scientific Proof of God"


but you end it the same way all these others fraudulent
science writers end it...By saying to the effect
"I don't know, I don't know, I don't know."


And at the *very end* (the very last sentence) of "Scientific Proof of God"
pdf paper

you write:

"If a scientific proof has actually been found, we have every
reason to expect an immanent and miraculous advance in Civilization."

"If a scientific proof has actually been found, ...."????

IF? IF? IF???  If a scientific proof has ACTUALLY has been found????



WHAT?? IT HASN'T BEEN FOUND????




If a scientific proof has ACTUALLY has been found????

https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God


How can you write here "...the world's first "Scientific Proof of God"????


then your paper ends with:

"If a scientific proof has actually been found, we have every
reason to expect an immanent and miraculous advance in Civilization."


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&sxsrf=ALiCzsbZHHVX8m47E5zfJkh9KvI5Z1MBJw%3A1669002657178&q=%22If+a+scientific+proof+has+actually+been+found%22&oq=%22If+a+scientific+proof+has+actually+been+found%22&aqs=heirloom-srp..
https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God



mendacity





 













-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865228

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 10:53:37 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > [GEORGE E HAMMOND MS Physics]
> > > .... Nothing special about tables – here's the same story for –
> > > WINDMILLS: –
> > > ....DUTCH WINDMILL POST (sci.physics.relativity)
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/lkvb-IXoFyA/m/VnhEVHBAAQAJ
> > > .... Windmills are better than tables because they involve
> > > BOTH SIZE AND SPEED !!! – – They not only look LARGER to a child –
> > > they look like they are going FASTER to a child ALSO !
> > > .................. THIS IS THE PHENOMENON OF GOD !
> > > .......................... TRY AND UNDERSTAND IT !
> > > ..................... DON'T BE AN IGNORANT PERSON
> >
> > [STARMAKER]
> > I notice there are a lot of fraudulent science books.
> > The Titles of these book are to attract attention to
> > get suckers to buy the book.
> > You're no different then they are.
> >
> [George E Hammond MS physics]
> .... LOOK – you spent days reading "The Scientific Proof of God"
> on my website – THAT PAPER IS 20 YEARS OLD
> ... That paper was written only halfway through my 40 year research!
> READ SOMETHING UP TO DATE: –
> https://tinyurl.com/4jkdd34e
> which I wrote within the last year !
> .
> Look STARMAKER – you are a "POLITICAL FORCE" – I am a "SCIENTIFIC FORCE".
> I appreciate the fact that you have single-handedly kept this thread on the
> FRONT PAGE of sci.physics.relativity
> .
> So you work the POLITICAL ANGLE and I'll work the SCIENTIFIC ANGLE
> and maybe we can "kick ass" hard enough so some COMPETENT SCIENTIST
> will notice the  WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD !
>    I won't challenge you on your political talk – but for chrissakes  don't
> try to challenge me on the scientifici talk !
> .
> George

A "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD" is equivalent to a "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EVERYTHING"!

and no one has come up with a theory of everything yet, let alone proof of everything.

You don't expect You can take out your calculator and come up with  a..."SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD"?

which is the same-thing as coming up with a "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EVERYTHING".


Even Einstein could not prove that Time or Gravity exist.


There is no Time
There is no Gravity
There is no Space
There is no Universe
There is no God.

You're just a collection of atoms with illusions of grandeur.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865232

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 3:35:24 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > A "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD" is equivalent to a "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EVERYTHING"!
> > and no one has come up with a theory of everything yet
> > You don't expect You can take out your calculator
> > and come up with a..."SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD"?
> >
> [GEORGE E HAMMOND MS PHYSICS, HYANNIS MA USA]
> .
> You're POLITICALLY SAVVY – because you're not timid about  ANTI-SEMITISM
> On a scale of 1 to 100 that's worth 90 POINTS.
> .
> But you only get 5 POINTS for SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE.
> You don't know SHIT about SCIENCE.
> .
> FYI – – a scientific PROOF OF GOD IS A PROOF OF EVERYTHING  !!!
> ..
> LOOK STARMAKER when I say that: –
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = THE (Highly Curved) RELATIVISTIC METRIC OF GOD.
> |o o a² o. |
> |ooo-1/a²|
> .
> THAT DOES NOT COME OUT OF A CALCULATOR –  YOU IDIOT
> It come  from taking 2-1/2  Academic degrees in THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
> .
> I've told you 10 times that the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that this metric describes
> GOD – has been supplied by a $50 million dollar, 50 year effort by a 1000 man
> PhD Army of Psychometrists – and THIS 10 MINUTE YOUTUBE VIDEO
> .
> PROVES THAT THE ABOVE METRIC  is the GFP – the top EIGENVECTOR of this
> 50 year, global measurement ! – And therefore is the: –
> .
> WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
>  ........... https://youtu.be/GXRA_vrZMYk
>  ................... (YouTube 12-min)
> .
> THIS VIDEO DID NOT COME OUT OF A CALCULATOR  !!
> .
> UNTIL YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
> .
> George


So, ...you keep mentioning some other guy named Hammond.

"Fortunately for us, Hammond has provided the simple scientific
explanation..."


Who is this other guy you call Hammond? Seems to have the same last name
as
yours but, but...sounds like another person? i'm confused...  




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865234

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 3:35:24 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > A "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD" is equivalent to a "SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EVERYTHING"!
> > > and no one has come up with a theory of everything yet
> > > You don't expect You can take out your calculator
> > > and come up with a..."SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD"?
> > >
> > [GEORGE E HAMMOND MS PHYSICS, HYANNIS MA USA]
> > .
> > You're POLITICALLY SAVVY – because you're not timid about  ANTI-SEMITISM
> > On a scale of 1 to 100 that's worth 90 POINTS.
> > .
> > But you only get 5 POINTS for SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE.
> > You don't know SHIT about SCIENCE.
> > .
> > FYI – – a scientific PROOF OF GOD IS A PROOF OF EVERYTHING  !!!
> > ..
> > LOOK STARMAKER when I say that: –
> > .
> > |a² o o o. |
> > |o a² o o. | = THE (Highly Curved) RELATIVISTIC METRIC OF GOD.
> > |o o a² o. |
> > |ooo-1/a²|
> > .
> > THAT DOES NOT COME OUT OF A CALCULATOR –  YOU IDIOT
> > It come  from taking 2-1/2  Academic degrees in THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
> > .
> > I've told you 10 times that the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that this metric describes
> > GOD – has been supplied by a $50 million dollar, 50 year effort by a 1000 man
> > PhD Army of Psychometrists – and THIS 10 MINUTE YOUTUBE VIDEO
> > .
> > PROVES THAT THE ABOVE METRIC  is the GFP – the top EIGENVECTOR of this
> > 50 year, global measurement ! – And therefore is the: –
> > .
> > WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
> >  ........... https://youtu.be/GXRA_vrZMYk
> >  ................... (YouTube 12-min)
> > .
> > THIS VIDEO DID NOT COME OUT OF A CALCULATOR  !!
> > .
> > UNTIL YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
> > .
> > George
> 
> So, ...you keep mentioning some other guy named Hammond.
> 
> "Fortunately for us, Hammond has provided the simple scientific
> explanation..."
> 
> Who is this other guy you call Hammond? Seems to have the same last name
> as
> yours but, but...sounds like another person? i'm confused...

In other words, ...which Hammond said this:

"Namely, Hammond proved that the data constituted the first experimental
measurement of God, to 2 decimal point accuracy." 


Or, which Hammond PERFORMED the first experimental measurement of God?
Was it You that perfomed the experiment, or was it
the 'other' Hammond that perfomed the experimental measurement of God,
to 2 decimal point accuracy?

Or was it 1000 monkies on a typewriter? 


The Truth is...there never was any a first experimental measurement of
God.


No measurement exist...not even to 2 decimal point accuracy.


Ask Hammond, he'll tell you...he's under the kitchen table.
















-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865282

George Hammond wrote:

> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 2:24:47 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > [STARMAKER]
>> > So, ...you keep mentioning some other guy named Hammond. "Fortunately
>> > for us, Hammond has provided the simple scientific explanation..."
>> > Who is this other guy you call Hammond?
>> >
> [GEORGE HAMMOND MS PHYSICS]
> .... Cut the bullshit Starmaker – you're supposed to know about writing
> in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd PERSON by the time you're  outta the 6th grade.

Americans Are Fat, Lazy, & Have Low Testosterone, Men Are Weak. Useless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865284

George Hammond wrote:

> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 2:24:47 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > [STARMAKER]
>> > So, ...you keep mentioning some other guy named Hammond. "Fortunately
>> > for us, Hammond has provided the simple scientific explanation..."
>> > Who is this other guy you call Hammond?
>> >
> [GEORGE HAMMOND MS PHYSICS]
> .... Cut the bullshit Starmaker – you're supposed to know about writing
> in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd PERSON by the time you're  outta the 6th grade.

good news, Turkey is bombing nato "allies", which are nazis and 
*state_terrorists* blowing up countries and continents energy pipelines. 
Very good news.

Turkish military reacts to claims it endangered US troops  
https://%72%74.com/news/567158-t%C3%BCrkiye-us-troops-syria/

Putting the lives of NATO allies at risk is “in of the question,” the 
defense minister said. They are sons of the nazi bitches, destroying the 
fucking europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865295

George Hammond wrote:

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:06:05 AM UTC-5, Forest Vaccaro wrote:
> [George Hammond MS physics]
> Hey  NYMSHIFTER  "Forest Vaccaro" – keep political trash off this thread
> George . [GEORGE HAMMOND MS PHYSICS – – TO PROF. A.C. BOWDEN]
> Hello Prof. Athel C. Bowden –
> .... Look – the only thing that counts in this discussion is how much
> EDUCATION one has.

it has nothing to do with politics, old friend, but with some real bombs, 
as those used by your shithole of a country, destroying energy pipelines 
to an entire continent. Can't you see it coming? As those dropped over
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Hiroshima and Nagasak. You repulsive impertinent 
nazi sons of the bitches.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865301

George Hammond wrote:

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 2:58:30 PM UTC-5, Micheal Agnelli wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> 
>> > On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:06:05 AM UTC-5, Forest Vaccaro
>> > wrote:
>> > [George Hammond MS physics]
>> > Hey NYMSHIFTER "Forest Vaccaro" – keep political trash off this
>> > thread George .
> .
> [Micheal Agnelli]
>> real bombs, as those used by your shithole of a country, destroying
>> energy pipelines  to an entire continent.
> .
> [George Hammond MS physics USA]
> .... Listen you technical flunky moron – the Baltic Sea is only 150 FOOT
> DEEP!
> There are thousands of fishing boats with fish finding depth sounder
> ONBOARD SONAR  that could EASILY locate that 3 foot diameter concrete

old and lying, piss off. Can't believe it, 80 years old and still lying. 
It required stronger bombs than Hiroshima, fucking stupid. Under water you 
need stronger bombs, plus, that a bed of strong concrete were to be blown 
into pieces likewise, as I understood. Learn Physics from a school, you 
idiot, not from internet and wikipedia. A normal bomb under water pressure 
is *NOTHING*. You fucking uneducated idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web