Re: Hammond sees the obvious

From: Bill (wmech_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/25/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:50:18 GMT

You are trying to impose logic and real science on a psychopath. Hammond
needs mental help. 

-- 
Bill
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10ipclrt3nd85f9@corp.supernews.com...
> "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?
>
>
Quantcast