Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150
From: George Hammond (nospam1_at_nospam.net)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: georgehammond_at_hotmail.com: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Previous message: Daniel Weston: "Re: Why being devens SUCKS"
- In reply to: Mich: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Next in thread: Mich: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Reply: Mich: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:02:09 GMT
"Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:110s9f11dt5ktd7@corp.supernews.com...
> Hello George:
>
> I find your theory very inspiring and have therefore saved your site as
a
> favorite. I will start to read it as time permits.
[Hammond]
Right off the bat you get 95 points for:
1. Knowing how to say something new and interesting.
2. Knowing how to be polite.
3. Knowing how to be constructive.
4. Knowing how to let people know you're intelligent.
5. Knowing how to let people know they shouldn't insult
you because you're old enough to know better.
6. The list goes on....
> There are many questions
> I would like to ask you but some of them concerns theology, and not
physics.
[Hammond]
Fire away...
> Do you take part in religious newsgroups?
[Hammond]
No... I'm overqualified.
> I am sometimes exchanging
> opinions in alt.religion.christian.roman catholic.
[Hammond]
Interesting... I'm somewhat unfamiliar with Catholics,
coming from the other side of the political coin.
I'm basically a middle of the road Protestant by birth
and upbringing... which means I'd feel uncomfortable
in either a Jewish Synagog (Left wing) or a Catholic Church
(right wing).
> I am by no means a
> scientist, nor a theologian of any kind, but am interested in your theory
.
[Hammond]
That is itself is a major qualification in many cases.
> To begin with, what is your concept of time as such? In my opinion, our
> concept of time flowing from past to present seems to be an illusion
> stemming from the fact that our brains can remember past events. Because
of
> this, we have discovered the essence of cycles, and interpretated such
> cycles as the flow of time. But what if future events could be capable of
> being "remembered" as well? I'm not speaking here of prophecies, but every
> "time increments" as such? Then our concept of the "flow of time" would
> greatly change, it seems.
[Hammond]
Let me clue you in on the following well
known fact:
People who are ignorant of something very
SIMPLE... will immediately propel themselves
into the realm of outer space with elaborate
theories to try and explain the very simple
fact that they are unaware of.
Basically I consider all "esoteric" ideas such
as the one you have just stated to be the result
of the fact that you are totally UNAWARE
of the simple (scientific) explanation of God.
You of course being able and healthy are not
in any danger pursuing such futile exercises,
but less intelligent and less healthy people
quite commonly drive themselves "crazy"
with such ideas if they are under a great deal of
stress... and in serious and needy circumstances.
> Also, when speaking of light particles(by this I mean all possible zero
> rest mass particles including gravitons),could such particles interact
> between themselves taking the shape of a different type of "mass"?Could it
> be possible for light to possess the informational codes invoved in the
> forming of of the DNA molecule?
[Hammond]
Unless you have ALREADY MASTERED the current
state of knowledge in such areas, such as being able
to understand Quantum Electrodynamics, or Particle
Physicis (particularly Gauge Theory) such statements
are as rediculous as the idea I had when I was 5 years
old of putting a generator on one end of a skateboard
and an electirc motor on the other end so that I would
have a "perpetual motion skateboard".
Really.... to try and concoct heories in such areas
where the best minds are already working is simply
a futile effort to "reinvent the wheel".
Notice for instance... that I am fully QUALIFIED
academically to propose the theory that I have
discovered.. even qualifed experimentally to judge
the data confirming it. THAT IS THE FIRST THING
that any rational person must ascertain when
considering the possible veracity of any newly
proposed idea.
> I will stop here for now and wait for your reply.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Andre
[Hammond]
Andre.... while you may not be qualified to propose any
new Quantum Mechanical Particle Physics theories of
Light.... YOU ARE withing reach of making an informed
judgement, or at least a competent inquiry, into the
scientific proof of God which is here under discussion.
I recognize a sound mind when I hear one... and I
think you could make a contribution here.... especially
if you have any curiousity about the "scientific explanation
of God".
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
- Next message: georgehammond_at_hotmail.com: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Previous message: Daniel Weston: "Re: Why being devens SUCKS"
- In reply to: Mich: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Next in thread: Mich: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Reply: Mich: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
