Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (ahmed.ouahi_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:45:06 +0000 (UTC)

.............. ...It has indeed been said that the highest praise of
God consists in the denial of him by the atheist, who finds creation so
perfect that it can dispense with a creator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................
...

--Marcel Proust 

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
.............       ...A mathematician may say anything he pleases, but a
physicist must be at least partially sane!!!!!!!!!!!.............     ...
-- Josiah Willard Gibbs
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message
news:cjhge9$ev1$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> .............       ...If God had meant us to do philosophy he would have
> created us!!!!!!!!!!!!!..............     ...
>
> -- Marek Kohn
>
> --
> Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
> Best Regards!
>
> "bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
> news:cjhc9e$ihn$04$2@news.t-online.com...
> > George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > >stew dean wrote:
> > >
> > >>George Hammond wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>stew dean wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>George Hammond wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>bv_schornak wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>bv_schornak wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>I mean go to the North Pole by dog sled.  When you get there,
> > >>>>>>>>>take off your wrist watch and set it face up on the ground.
> > >>>>>>>>>Notice that the Stars rotate in the same direction as the hands
> > >>>>>>>>>on your watch.  Then go to the South Pole and do the same
> > >>>>>>>>>thing... and notice that the stars in the sky rotate in the
> > >>>>>>>>>opposite direction as the hands on your watch.  That's
> > >>>>>>>>>a case of "mirror symmetry".
> > >>>>>>>>>PS... use an analog watch, not a digital.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>If you cross the equator the stars begin to turn in the other
> > >>>>>>>>direction? What do you expect to observe, if you are standing
> > >>>>>>>>exactly on the equator line - stars which do not move at all?
> > >>>>>>>>Is your imagination that bad
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>[Hammond]
> > >>>>>>>Wahddaru stupid or something Bernie?  Take a dinner plate
> > >>>>>>>and spin it on the end of your finger (better use a paper plate).
> > >>>>>>>If you look at the bottom it's rotating clockwise, but if
> > >>>>>>>you look at the top it's rotating counterclockwise.  Now
> > >>>>>>>look directly at the edge... has it stopped moving... NO!
> > >>>>>>>What the f--k is wrong with you?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[Hammond] - if you would have done your own "experiment"
> > >>>>>>prior to your claim, no one would have a reason to laugh
> > >>>>>>about you now. This is so stupid it stinks... :(
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>[Hammond]
> > >>>>>I don't NEED to do any experiments, I have degrees in Physics
> > >>>>>remember.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>George. I can't resist.
> > >>>>That is one of the dumbest things I heard you say.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>If yoiu have a degree in Physics you will know to prove a hypothesis
> > >>>>requires or theory requires it to be disprovable - therefore
> > >>>>experiments must be done to check you theory. Otherwise it is a
> > >>>>hypothesis.
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >You're such a glassy eyed googinicus it s pathetic.
> > >The SPoG is already EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED
> > >By 150 years of peer published esperimental data.
> > >We don;t need to "re-prove" it!!
> > >
> >
> > No, George - _we_ don't have to do your homework.
> >
> > _You_ make the assertions - _you_ have to do the research
> > and _you_ have to _prove_ that you're right!
> >
> > >>>[Hammond]
> > >>>don't be STUPID... every graduate physicist KNOWS that
> > >>>"rotation" is an "axial vector" and therefore reverses direction
> > >>>under mirror symmetry.  We don't need to do any "experiments"
> > >>>... you're an idiot..... the fact has been known in mathematical
> physics
> > >>>for 300 years.
> > >>>
> > >>And gravity is also proven. It doesnt mean that gravity causes god.
> > >>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >No... the SPoG proves that "gravity causes God" numbskull.
> > >
> >
> > No, George Hammond published this opinion. George Hammond
> > still owes us the _proof_ his private opinion matches any
> > known thing in the real world.
> >
> > >>Just because X is true doesnt mean if you have a theory with X in it
> > >>the rest must be true!
> > >>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >Never said it did, Bozo.
> > >
> >
> > Then we can forget SPoG => there you use this method more
> > than often...
> >
> > >>At the moment you understanding of the basic elements you are
> > >>mentioning is under question.
> > >>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >My understanding of the basic elements of Physics is certified
> > >by two accredited major Universites in the state of Massachusetts
> > >who duly authorized the granting of me two degrees in the subject.
> > >
> >
> > This year? Last year? When did you "refresh" your (wrong)
> > knowledge the last time? Seems this must have been in the
> > 19th century...
> >
> > >Just what the fcuk authorizes you to make such an unsupported
> > >statement?
> > >
> >
> > The knowledge of more recent facts, making us see you are
> > wrong?
> >
> > >>>>I doubt you remember but I did ask you how you can disprove your
> > >>>>theory. If the answer is 'you can't' then it is not a theory.
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >that's correct.. my use of the world "theory" is a gratuitious
> > >pandering to halfwits like you... actually the SPoG is an
> > >"experimentally proven axiomatic fact".
> > >
> >
> > Then show the world your test reports. If you did any ex-
> > periments you've to publish: The description, conditions,
> > a detailed report and all your results to the public - so
> > everyone can _verify_ the validity of your experiments. A
> > claim you (or anybody else) has done this work counts the
> > same as the remark that a bike was stolen in Beijing. You
> > have to provide facts to support your opinion.
> >
> > >>>[Hammond]
> > >>>It has already been proved.  It is an axiom of Science that:
> > >>>
> > >>>         "A proven theory cannot be falsified"
> > >>>
> > >>I would love for you to come up with a reference of where you got this
> > >>from.
> > >>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >No problem, I found it in Webster's Dictionary.  The words
> > >"proven true" and "false" are mutually exclusive according
> > >to Webster.
> > >
> >
> > Go to school. Learn what _science_ means.
> >
> > >>You  claim to be a scientist and you come up with complete
> > >>rubbish like this?
> > >>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >Just told you.... the Dictionary.
> > >
> >
> > Every Dumbo can ask a dictionary. Go and visit a school -
> > from inside this time!
> >
> > >>It is true than an unprovable theory cannot be falsified.
> > >>
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > >That is what I said.
> > >
> >
> > Did you? If it is unprovable it is no theory, it's a the-
> > sis or a dogma.
> >
> > >>Any proven
> > >>theory CAN be falsified, otherwise it's not a proven theory.
> > >>
> > >
> > ><off topic insults and ranting snipped>
> > >
> > >Let me make one thing perfectly clear:
> > >
> > >1.  You are stupid and incompetent.
> > >
> > >2.  you are arrogant and impudent
> > >
> > >3.  you have nothing of interest to say.
> > >
> > >4.  You sound like a tape recording of a
> > >     kindergarten class in science.
> > >
> >
> > All the above applies to [Hammond]. Now enlist for a real
> > school...
> >
> > <obligatory insults snipped>
> >
> >
> > Greetings from Augsburg
> >
> > Bernhard Schornak
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... Newtonian ballistics is unworkable hence there is never a real need to ... However, you mentioned the principles, as I would be very glad to mention ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... of non-Euclidean just as well as in an Euclidean geometry. ... plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... that you are a just a matter of repetition turning around the universe. ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect ... > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... >>>>and repeating again and again, what it has had been done and made ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... Ahmed Ouahi, Architect ... > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: ... >>that among all his creations, his preference goes always to the humans. ... >>and repeating again and again, what it has had been done and made without ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)