Re: Hammond sees the obvious

From: ZenIsWhen (ZenIsWhen_at_anywhere.com)
Date: 08/25/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:39:40 -0400

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ph0Xc.87785$TI1.52959@attbi_s52...
>
> "Alan" <gper@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:847702a8.0408242036.645cfd59@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > > > The point is NOT that one is a noun and the other an adjective; it
is
> > > > that one is used in a scientific sense, and the other is not, and
the
> > > > meanings are NOT the same.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Oh yes they are.
> >
> >
> > Mr. Hammond, you simply fail to understand the difference - or you are
> > ignoring it because it would undermine your position. Or some
> > combination.
>
> [Hammond]
> No... I have a masters degree in Physics and I know very well
> what an "observable" is in physics and it clearly means
> "observable by a human being".
> YOU'RE the one who doesn't know what it means.

Why, then, is that NOT what dictionaries ( or science dictionaries) state?
You ADD words .. and then claim others don't understand - and you con't
comprehend why others don't accept your added words!

> > You have re-discovered N-Rays, Cold Fusion, and The Piltdown Man.
> > Congratulations.
> >
> >
> > > > "Observable", in the COMMON sense, means, in referring to something,
> > > > that it can be sensed, as by a human.
> > > >
> > > > "Observables", in the SCIENTIFIC sense, is a property, such as
angular
> > > > momentum, location in space, or what have you, "that can be
determined
> > > > by some sequence of physical operations".
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The final step in ANY such "sequence of operations" is the
"observation"
> > > of that result by a human observer. Whaaddau think "science" can
> > > be carried out by mindless automotons or something... you're crazy.

Whether it can or not is not the point.
The ability/potential to be observed by humans has NOTHING TO DO with
existance.

> > > >That doesn't mean, or imply,
> > > > that a human must be involved in order for observables to exist.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Idiotic statement. There is no such thing as a "scientific
experiment"
> > > that does not involve "human observation". Don't be stupid.

So what?
There is nothing that supports your claim that humans must "observe" in
order for something to exist!
You just keep going off on more, and more fraudulent, tangents.

> > > > Read
> > > > through the entire Wikipedia definition of "observable", and note
> > > > particularly the part about the measurement process, and recall that
> > > > the measurement process in QM does NOT necessarily refer to "some
guy
> > > > looking through a microscope", but could be ANY interaction that
> > > > changes the wave state of a particle or system.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The wavefunction must be SQUARED to produce an "observable
> > > probability"... for Christ's sake I'm a graduate physicist,
> > > don't try to lecture me with an encyclopedia article, it's ludicrous.

Oh; so now you claim not only dictionaries are wrong .. but encyclopedias as
well?
Should we burn ALL books of knowledge, and only listen to you?

> > Yes, it is. You SHOULD know and understand this stuff already. When
> > you were in school, though, did you really UNDERSTAND the material
> > being taught, or did you just "go through the motions", applying
> > formulae to solve problems?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Cut the ad hoominem crap. "Obervables" in physics means
> EXACTLY "something that is observable by a human being".
> there IS NO other kind of an "observer" in Physics.

Then why do you need to distort a definition YOU provided - in a misguided
attempt to support your fraudulent claims?

> > > > In the broadest scientific sense, an observable is "any thing, or
> > > > property of a thing, which can effect changes in OTHER things or
> > > > properties".
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > No ***.... and all of those "observable properties" must be
> > > things that can be "observed" (i.e. measured or detected
> > > or known) by a HUMAN BEING. You don't know what you are
> > > talking about.

Since he is just repeating what others have said ... and since what he is
saying is more true to scientific and common definitions - it is obviously
YOU who don't know what you are talking about.

> > But it is NOWHERE assumed that a person has to be able to make an
> > observation. Something can be an "observable" WITHOUT being observed.
> > Hence, there is no requirement that humans exist.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Don''t be an idiot... you're appealing to the "if I shut my eyes the world
> doesn't exist"... a moron wouldn't appeal to such an argument.
> Clearly, "the a priori existence of Human Beings is what causes
> "observables" to exist".

Wrong!
That is is basic CLAIM of your argument - it is not only wronog, but
COMPLETELY contradicted by reality, logic, and REAL science!

You seem to thing that just because you bellow something, and do it ofen
enough, it becomes a fact - in spite of the REAL fact that you have nothing
to support it.

This doesn't mean that if you turn your
> back on the moon it will blink out of existence.
> It DOES mean that if "all men died tomorrow", the Universe
> WOULD "blink out of existence".
> The PROOF of that, is that no experiment can be concocted that
> would PROVE that it existed if all men were dead. On the other
> hand an experiment CAN BE CONCOCTED to prove the
> "moon exists" when your eyes are shut.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Look... I'm getting tired of going around and around on this
> > > philosophy debate which has been going on for 1700 years
> > > with no resolution.
> > >
> > > I'VE FOUND THE RESOLUTION TO IT WHICH
> > > IS THE DISCOVERY THAT GOD=G_uv
> >
> >
> > But GOD=G_uv is only valid IF (among other things), the definition of
> > "existence" which you use is accepted. You claim that Science backs up
> > your claim, but as has been pointed out, repeatedly, Science does not.
>
> [Hammond]
> LOL.... NO ONE can refute the statement that
> "the a priori existence of Man is necessary in order
> that "observables" exist".

Archaelology does it all the time!
Astronomy does it all the time.
Logic does it all the time.

> Stop your LYING about this empirically accepted fact
> which happens to be the basis of ALL OF CLASSICAL
> PHYSICS.

Again, then why do you have to, insanely, distort a scientific definition in
order to support your claim?
Why do you have to distort ANY definition - and even all of science AND
religon, to support your claims?
Why is there nothing IN science, or from scientists, that supports your
claim?

I assume you have tried to contact scientists to spreda your
claims........... I assume you have tried to get your claims printed in
valid scientific journals...........I know you have been making the same
claims, for years, in these news groups.

If this information IS scientific, basic, and common .. why have you no
support?
Why have you no support from the religous sector (I get these messages via
alt.religion.christian)?

> STOP RESORTING TO BLATENT LIES

The only lies anyone ever sees are yours.

> > You then claim that GOD=G_uv proves your claim - but GOD=G_uv is
> > itself dependent on the validity of your view of existence. THAT is
> > circular reasoning, Mr. Hammond.
>
> [Hammond]
> LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> STOP YOUR LYING.

i.e. another non-rebuttal.
yet you still claim to be a scientist!

>
> It is not "my" definitons of esistence.
> It is the univerrsally accepted SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION
> of existence, and is empirically confirmed by the
> historical success of CLASSICAL PHYSICS
> (and now quantum physics).
> QUIT YOUR LYING

Then prove it by provide a NON distorted defintion FROM physics!

> > > What I'm disgusted with is the fact that we have assembled
> > > enought manpower on these two threads to start a political
> > > party.... and yet between the 30 of us no one can
> > > make any penetration into the SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY..
> >
> >
> > WE don't believe there IS a scientific discovery here, Mr. Hammond.
>
> [Hammond]
> What YOU BELIEVE is of no consequence to anyone,
> because you HAVE NO CREDENTIALS IN SCIENCE,
> and this is a "scientific theory".

You have no credentials in religon, yet it is not only a religous claim -
but you use religon to try and support it.
You use claims based on psyciatry - yet have no credentials in psychiatry.
You use claims based on sociology, yet have no credentials IN sociology.
You use claims based in astronomy and astro-physics - yet have no degree in
either.

In fact, you have nothing in science - nor any reputable scientist, who
supports your claims.

Just YOUR claim that it is science, does not make it so!

Can you even comprehend THAT simple fact?

> > > all we can do is keep circiling around on the "philosophy issue"
> > > which as is well known....CANNOT BE DECIDED without
> > > some NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
> >
> >
> >
> > But your "SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY" is not itself valid if you are wrong
> > about the "philosophy issue", so IT cannot decide the point. You're
> > not CONSCIOUSLY advocating circular reasoning, are you?
>
> [Hammond]
> Cut the "tautological lying".
> It has already been pointed out it is not "my"
> definiton of existence, it is the accepted
> SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of existence.

but it has been pointed out - by myself and others.....who have included
specific, and with extended support, evidence that your "scientific
defintion" is either totally distorted, by you; totally misunderstood, by
you ... or both.

> therefore there is nothing circular about it.
> My discovery simply CONFIRMS CLASSICAL
> SCIENCE.

Then where are the "classical scientist's" support?

>
>
>
> <snip tautological crap>
>
> > Whoa! You said, "General Relativity and Linear Algebra Psychometry".
> > No problem, there. As far as accepting SPOG, that's a different
> > matter.
>
> [Hammond]
> Really.... since when are you competent in Linear
> Algebra and General Relativity?

Since when are you competant in ALL the fields you call on to support your
claims?
BTW ... the question of "Alan's" competence in those subjects is totaly
irrelivent!

Or, again, is even that simple fact beyond your abilities to understand?