Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150

From: George Hammond, moderator (nowhere_at_noemailspam.net)
Date: 02/21/05 

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:02:49 -0500

"Apocalypso Now" <apocalypso.now@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:26mdnaRxdv22dYXfRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> God help me, I just can't let this go :-)
>
> >> Quit the willy nilly lying. My theory has been published in the peer
> >> reviewed literature and contains complete bibliographies of the
> >> supporting evidence. All the published papers complete with
> >> bibliographies are also posted on my website.
>
> You've got a total of two papers, published in what you keep referring to
as
> the 'peer reviewed literature,' and the first article is so ridden with
> mistakes

[Hammond]
According to who you? Cite your CV please.

> that it comes as no surprise that the publisher's not in any
> recognized list that I can find. (And yes, "that I can find..." I'll give
> you that; you show me the protocol that 'New Ideas In Psychology' adheres
> to -- and even better, name the peers who reviewed the article --

[Hammond]
New Ideas In Psychology is published by PERGAMON PRESS
for chrissakes... one of the WORLD'S LARGEST and one of
the world's PREMIER academic publishers. You can look up
the paper in Psy. Abstracts for chrissakes... or go to the
Widener Library and pull acopy off the shelf. Hey... if your
going to try and sound credible you'll have to stop making
gaffes like that. And by the way we WOULD be interested in
your CV.

 who
> allowed nonsense such as
>
> >> "The Cartesian structure of space causes the common rectangular shape
of
> objects to be the most prevalent structure in science."

[Hammond]
Obviously you have no Science degrees (yawn... ) or you would
know that:

1. Real space is "Cartesian"... i.e. has a "Euclidean Metric".
2. This fact causes there to be only 3 "simple" coordinate
     systems in real space:

                  A. Cartesian
                  B. Polar
                  C. Spherical

3. All "simple shapes" including "simple machines" are DICTATED
     by this metrical fact. For instance:

                 A. Cartesian = Cube (brick, block, etc)
                 B. Polar = Wheel
                 C. spherical = Ball bearing

And........... in fact, the CUBE is the most common structural
shape in Nature... 90% of all crystaline substances are Cubic
or Rectangular crystal systems. The bonding orbitals of
the atoms themselves, the Px,Py,Pz orbitals are 3-axis
orthogonal (Cartesian) hence this alone casts a "cubic
influence" on all materials.

>
> to appear in print under their auspices. That's, what, 2 paragraphs into
> your very first published work? I don't know squat about New Ideas In
> Psychology, but I gotta tell you, their QC's looking a little shaky right
> from the get-go.

[Hammond]
It's a very well known academic journal published for many
years by Pergamon Press, one of the world's largest and
most prestigeous academic publishers... you don't know what
you're talking about.

>
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof -- I assume you'd agree
that
> a scientific theory of God is an extraordinary claim; where's the
> extraordinary proof? (Hell, where's *any* proof?) You don't have a
theory
> so much as a chain of statements, and one very big deduction. Actually,
two
> very big deductions: First, that God exists -- and the Biblical God, at
> that; second, that God was caused by gravity. (I wonder why more people
> don't call you on *that* one, but in the brief time I've been following
this
> stuff, I've concluded that it's a target-rich environment when it comes to
> substantial gaps in the SPOG.)

[Hammond]

1. State yourr CV for the record.
2. This will tell us whether or not you are
     even EDUCATIONALLY QUALIFIED
     to read the theory.
3. Failure to state your CV will be taken,
     as usual, as evidence that you are in
     fact unqualified.

>
> Perhaps you feel that in being so attacked, you somehow obtain the same
> status as Spinoza and Galileo, which only adds to your conviction that you
> must be onto Something Big. But it's not just a bunch of Usenet
posters --
> if your theory really was recognized and verified -- if only by more
> knowledgeable people than the yahoos in this group -- then answer this:
> Where's *any* evidence of followup in the Noetics Journal? If your theory
> were all it's cracked up to be, I'd think the Noetics Journal would be
> fairly blossoming with articles discussing the ramifications of your
theory.
> After all, aren't they your target audience -- I may not understand the
crap
> you try to put together, but surely they would? How can your (more
> educated) readers be so absolutely blase about SPOG? I can only think of
> one very good, very reasonable explanation for why we're not seeing any
more
> SPOG articles in the Noetics Journal, two years after the fact. (And from
> where I stand, their silence is even worse than New Ideas In Psychology --
> that publication might be trying to follow at least *some* kind of QC
> protocol; call me prescient, but I don't see Noetics earning an
endorsement
> from the AAAS anytime soon. So it's not just the mainstream literature
> that's ignoring SPOG -- apparently the fringe isn't too worked up about
it,
> either.)

[Hammond]
THERE IS NO "PRECEDENT" FOR THE DISCOVERY
OF THE WORLD'S FIRST SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD.

Any attempt to "compare it to something else" is a waste of
time. One thing we can be SURE OF.... it is not going to
readily obtain the usual "line professional academic wank
fest" of salutory academic articles.

>
> But let's give you the benefit of the doubt --

[Hammond]
Eventually the world will... BECAUSE... at least a dozen of
the world's most famous scientists, including Newton, DesCartes,
Leibnitz and Pascal have already gone on record as saying that
a scientific proof of God is worth pursuing, scientifically.

>
> >> My theory has been published in the peer review literature...
>
> As was cold fusion, Atlantis, Est, telepathy, Uri Geller, the healing
power
> of crystals and astral projection. You see where I'm going with this?
>
>
> >> OK asskisser... let me remind you of a few things:
> >> 1. You have no academic CV of any relevance,
> >> certainly no degrees in hard science.
>
> Where the hell is *yours*? You got a 38-year-old Master's, and exactly
two
> published articles (not counting a Letter to the Editor); and you're
either
> in ABD limbo or (more likely, since you've never mentioned the subject of
> your dissertation) you got cut from the doctorate program. In either
case,
> credential-wise, you're not what I'd call bulletproof. You give no
> suggestion as to what you've been doing in the past 4 decades that would
put
> an M.S. Physics into any better position to advocate a theory of God than
my
> grandkid; so I reiterate: "Where's yours?"

[Hammond]
My CV is a matter of public record posted 1,000 times over
on Usenet, confirmed by people on this thread, and posted
prominently and permantly on my website, so:

                    WHERE'S YOUR CV A-N ????

--------------------------------------------------------

<SNIP>

====================================
   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
===================================

Loading