Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: Timberwoof (timberwoof_at_stimpberawoofm.com)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: Mitchell: "Rotational Acceleration's Limit and Gravity"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- In reply to: Double Felix: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:19:22 +0000 (UTC)
In article <nick-9A4F05.23103114092004@news.west.cox.net>,
Double Felix <nick@SKIPTHESECAPSbackpack.com> wrote:
> In article <nu6dnSBlV9_RXdrcRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Richard Crawford" <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
> > message news:ci7sk2$4v2$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > > "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:892cb437.0409140734.34c0af0@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > >>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > news:<86CdnUYZx7L0ItvcRVn-hw@comcast.com>...
> > > >
> > > >>>"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:2b68957a.0409132352.74c7a10d@posting.google.com...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>
> > > >>> news:<GsedneBgjYGGzNvcRVn-gw@comcast.com>...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>news:2b68957a.0409131451.dea5cc3@posting.google.com...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>
> > > >>> news:<B82dnSm4IuvbwtjcRVn-pg@comcast.com>...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in
> > > >>>>>>>message news:2b68957a.0409122328.4910c506@posting.google.com...
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>[Stew Dean]
> > > >>>>>>>....simply that there is no relationship between the arbitary N
> > > >>>>>>>dimentional space of the personality profiling and the non
> > > >>>>>>>arbitary N dimentional space of the universe.
> > > >>>>>>>Stew Dean
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>[Hammond]
> > > >>>>>>
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >>>>> -
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>How real space (X-Y-Z) causes Psychometry space (E-N-P)
> > > >>>>>>
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >>>>> -
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>[Hammond]
> > > >>>>>>>Hey... I've answered this many times before.
> > > >>>>>>>Let me outline it step by step:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>1. It is an experimental fact that real space has a
> > > >>>>>>> quadratic metric. This is why we say
> > > >>>>>>> "real space is Euclidean". "Euclidean" MEANS
> > > >>>>>>> "having a quadratic metric" e.g.:
> > > >>>>>>> dR^2 = dX^2 + dY^2 + dZ^2
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>2. This means that real space is a space of
> > > >>>>>>> "rigid body rotations". With any other metric
> > > >>>>>>> you could not rotate a rigid body in space without
> > > >>>>>>> rupturing it.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>3. It is known that there exist only 3 "simple"
> > > >>>>>>> coordinate systems in Euclidean space:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> A. Cartesian
> > > >>>>>>> B. Polar/Cylindrical
> > > >>>>>>> C. Spherical
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Coordinate systems are man made it should be worth noting.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>[Hammond]
> > > >>>>>No they are not. The fact that there are "only 3 simple coordinate
> > > >>>>>systems, Cartesian, Polar, Spherical" in real space, is a
> > > >>>>>PHYSICAL FACT, not a matter of
> > > >>>>>ARBITRARY CONVENTION.
> > > >>>>>You do greatly err.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>No you are the one who made the mistake. Time and space has
> > > >>>>dimensions, probably around 11 or so according to the latest work.
> > > >>>>Time and space does not have a coordinate system, that is something we
> > > >>>>made up. For example the earth has a coordinate system but there is
> > > >>>>equator is no a physical line.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>[Hammond]
> > > >>>No dimensions beyond 4 are of any interest whatsoever to
> > > >>>any "classical physics theory", and the SPoG is a
> > > >>>"classical physicis theory", end of that argument.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>You have confused the territory with the map.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>[Hammond]
> > > >>>No... you don't know what you are talking about.
> > > >>>The METRICAL properties of Euclidean space
> > > >>>IS WHAT DETERMINES the FACT that only 3
> > > >>>"simple" coordinate systems exist in Euclidean
> > > >>>space: Cartesian, Polar/Cylindrical and Spherical.
> > > >>>The "Euclidean (quadratic) metric" is the ONLY
> > > >>>metric known to man that produces a space where
> > > >>>"rigid body rotations" are possible. No other metric
> > > >>>will, and this is why the "Cartesian, Polar/Cylindrical,
> > > >>>and Spherical" coordinates are the "3 simple coordinate
> > > >>>systems" of REAL SPACE.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>This fact is actually PHYSICALLY MANIFESTED
> > > >>>in the "simple" shapes of common physical objects.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>In particular this FACT explains why all animals and plants
> > > >>>have a "Cartesian Body Plan".
> > > >>>I.e. It is BECAUSE of the mertical structure of real space.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>From this, it is a direct chain of causality from "spacetime"
> > > >>>to "psychometric space", and hence from Gravity
> > > >>>to God, via Einstein's curvature theory of Gravity.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Stew Dean
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>[Hammond]
> > > >>>Until you can understand that, which every physicist does,
> > > >>>you have nothing of any relevance to say about SPoG.
> > > >>>You're simply too uneducated scientifically.
> > > >>>====================================
> > > >>> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> > > >>> 1st mirror site:
> > > >>>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> > > >>> 2nd mirror site:
> > > >>>http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> > > >>> new site (under construction):
> > > >>>http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
> > > >>>====================================
> > > >>
> > > >>So, in a nutshell, the fact that all animals are three-dimensional
> > > >>proves that God exists.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > NO, DUMMY... will you listen up?
> > > > The fact all animals are "3-axis symmetric" is what
> > > > proves God exists.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Forgive me if I fail to be convinced.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Look Dumbo, a DOG TURD is "3-dimensional".
> > > > That does NOT MEAN it has "3-symmetry axes".
> > > > A CUBE has 3-symmetry axes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>RF
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm still trying to figure out ONE axis on which human beings are
> > > symmetrical.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > We're fundamentally structurally symmetric on
> > ALL 3 AXES.
>
> Somebody other than Hammond help me understand this...
>
> If we are symmetrical on the left-right axis,
Well, the left-right plane, if we must. This is a mirror-symmetry. A circle is
symmetrical around a point.
> that means we have a hand,
> a foot, an eye, an ear, a breast, a testicle etc. on each side. But
> other than the lungs, kidneys, adrenal glands, and ovaries, which if any
> internal organs are symmetrical?
brain, eyes, tongue, throat, trachea, esophagus ... the muscoloskeletal system.
Lungs aren't symmetrical; there are generally three lobes on the right side and
two on the left.
> If we are symmetrical on the dorsal-ventral axis, that means we should
> have a face and navel in front and in back, or an anus in front and in
> back, right?
Yep. And we don't, so we're not.
> If we are symmetrical on the anterior-posterior axis, that means we
> should have a head on top and on bottom, or feet on top and on bottom,
> c'est ne pas?
Yep. But we don't, so we're not.
> I'm with Richard on this one. I can't see how humans are structurally
> symmetrical on more than one axis, and even that one is questionable.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of 'symmetry.'
There are several kinds of symmetry. In one, you could slice it in half with a
mirror along a specific plane and what you see in the mirror looks like what you
expect. Bilateral symmetry, for instance, works this way. Humans are mostly
bilaterally symmetrical.
Then there is rotational symmetry, in which you can rotate something about a
specific axis and it still looks like it did before. A circle, cylinder, or
sphere can be rotated any amount about its axis and still look the same. An
octagon can be rotated only integer multiples of 360/8 degrees.
Starfish have five-way radial symmetry.
A sphere is symmetrical about its center point; it can be rotated in any
direction any amount and still look the same.
Some radiolaria have spherelike symmetry, but like polyhedron, not a sphere,
because the rotations must be in specific angles and amounts for it to work.
Things like snails and nautiuses have a strange symmetry in which you rotate and
magnify the beast and it still looks sort of the same.
Tribbles have spherical symmetry. I haven't seen one yet that had a mouth or an
anus. A Fizzgig has a double bilateral symmetry. It's like a tribble but with a
large and very loud mouth. You could flip it upside down and there would be no
apparent difference. You could make a left-right mirror image of it and still it
would look the same.
> > But you're one of those jackasses who says the
> > world is not round because Mt Kilamanjaro
> > is taller than Mt. McKinley, right? Mr. Pedant?
>
> I guess Hammond still hasn't figured out how to play nice with others.
>
> - Felix
-- Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com Otto: "Haha! Apes do not read philosophy!" Wanda: "Yes, they do. They just don't understand it."
- Next message: Mitchell: "Rotational Acceleration's Limit and Gravity"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- In reply to: Double Felix: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
