Re: Jastrebski, Schornak & McDermid.

From: TMG (TMG_at_Nowhere.org)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:11:30 -0400

bv_schornak wrote:

> George Hammond wrote:

> Maybe you should try some other ways of marketing? Think of a logo
> for cell phones, just imagine "GOD = G_uv" in fat letters on every
> display! (I can hear the teenies saying "Dunno wot tis is - but it
> looks coool...")

He should contact Nokia at once.

By the way, why haven't the Scandinavians been spammed with spog yet?
People that eat lutefisk certainly need salvation.

(bv_schornak)
>>> Maybe we should debug SPoG, first? If it is more convincing
>>> in its structure, written in a more scientific style, using
>>> a lot of verifiable references (e.g. links), it might win a
>>> larger audience than it has now. There are some thoughts in
>>> SPoG which could be a scientific breakthrough, but they are
>>> related to the field of psychology, not relativity. Surely,
>>> it will be a lot of work, but it could be done. Even if you
>>> consider to correct the things I have listed in Aniti-SPoG,
>>> it would improve your site a lot.

Now where's [Hammond]'s percentage in that? Sounds like work. Sounds
like something that will leave him (again) in gym class playing
dodgeball with his shorts down around his ankles (I'm not sure that this
particular cultural picture translates - but you're surprising).

>> [Hammond]
>> Well... I'm not about to argue with you about the scientific
>> bona fides of SPoG.

Good thing - he's already pointed out the overwhelming nonsense that is
spog.

>> Relativity was as you know pretty much the
>> work of "one man", Albert Einstein.
<snip>
>>
>
> Einstein's theory only was "one amongst many" in his epoch. Due to
> experimental confirmation of some of his predictions (bending of a
> light beam in the gravitational field of the sun, Mercury's orbit)
> the theory was approved by scientists. But: Einstein never sneaked
> around to discuss his ideas. Think of the dispute with Heisenberg,
> Planck and many others. If he wouldn't have defended his thoughts,
> no one would know today who Einstein was or what he said.

You're trying to make a point with facts and reason - let's see how that
works.

> Science has nothing to do with "believing in an idea", it is about
> the knowledge how and why something works. The theories explaining
> physical laws can be defended with ease. There is no authority nor
> something like a "belief", it's pure (and applied) knowledge.
>
>
> Greetings from Augsburg
>
> Bernhard Schornak
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQs OVER 150
    ... Real scientists acknowledge that fact. ... but it's still part of physics. ... > It makes no difference that most of the physicists before Einstein ... Tell us an actual application of the SPOG that anybody could ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: An Open Letter to [Hammond]
    ... How can Einstein 'authorize' a book in 1999? ... > the scientists find out about SPoG before the Creationists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
    ... "In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180 ... claims Hammond has made. ... thesis is based on the work of other scientists, ... eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... what do you think of Russ Rierson's conversion to SPoG ... they're objective and able scientists ... >> I'd remind you that both of them are far more capable in math ... internationally recognized Relativity expert about this work. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
    ... claims Hammond has made. ... thesis is based on the work of other scientists, ... Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. ... eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast