X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>Danijel Turina wrote:
>
>snip... philosophy psychobabble

OK, this ends our discussion, bye-bye.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: The-Trainers

The-Trainers wrote:
>> >Really? Care to try an experiment: you unarmed, a thug with a baseball
>> >bat?
>
>> Sounds much better than me unarmed, a thug with a 9mm.
>
>In either case, IF the thug WANTS you dead, you are dead.

True, if he wants me dead. But, if he's just pissed off and wants to
hurt someone, and if he has a baseball bat, I might end up with a
broken arm, several broken ribs and concussion. He might strike a
couple of times and vent his anger, and decide that he had enough. I
might not even be seriously hurt, just in pain and temporarily knocked
out. But, if he has a gun and squeezes the trigger a coupla times just
to vent his anger, well, figure it out. Besides, I probably could
dodge a baseball bat but I can't dodge bullets, at least when there's
any kryptonite around. ;)

You might be surprized at how many deaths could have been avoided if
the angry guys were left with just fists to sort it out.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>usenet@mike-warren.com (Mike Warren) wrote in news:JPuT6.110355
>$Ub.1236027@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com:
>
>
>> Luckily, it's pretty hard to kill someone with sticks and rocks and
>> knives when compared to guns and explosives.
>>
>Really? Care to try an experiment: you unarmed, a thug with a baseball
>bat?

Sounds much better than me unarmed, a thug with a 9mm.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> It is no wonder that you were banned from all scientific forums. Look
>> at what you just did: you repeated the disproved arguments, along with
>> the disproved explanation. I analyzed and disproved your statements
>> and you didn't even attempt to point out the possible mistakes. De
>> facto, you admitted defeat.
>
>[Hammond]
>LOL... how in the hell could you disprove a scientific theory
>when you have no competency or credentials in science... doin't
>make me laugh.

My credentials are irrelevant if I am able to disprove it. Doing it
makes me competent of doing it, and I did it.
Only if I tried and failed could you conclude that this is because of
my incompetence.
Besides, one doesn't even need any knowledge of physics in order to
disprove your theory; elementary logic and philosophy are more than
sufficient.

It's very simple. Let's replace "God" with "unicorn", in order to make
an illustration.

Unicorn is defined as a being that looks like a horse with a horn on
its forehead.

There are people who believe that there is a unicorn.

You discovered an animal that has feathers and wings, two legs and a
beak.

You call this animal "unicorn", and you attempt to show these people
that you found proof for their belief. But, since this animal doesn't
fit the existing definition of a unicorn, calling it a unicorn is
semantically and philosophically meaningless. You must find another
name for it.

That's about it. I didn't need any knowledge of physics, only a sharp
mind.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> Well, if you can't convince others, you can at least keep convincing
>> yourself. :)
>
>[Hammond]
>I'm not here to persuade anybody, I'm just here to kick the ass of
>the pseudointellectual bigmouths who are standing in the way of progress.

You'll hardly manage that if you don't persuade anybody that you're
right. I sincerely doubt that any of those experts who killfiled you
and banned you from their lists feels that you kicked his ass. I would
actually guess that it's the other way around.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:

>> :)))) Exactly, I agree 100%, I mean, you said that there is a
>> 4-dimmensional eigenvector and here we are, having 3G people storming
>> the Usenet and demanding the truth, that God is a product of human
>> brain, to be widely known. :))
>
>[Hammond]
>Hey get this ... this one hasen't even heard of the "fourth Dimesion"
>which is TIME.. Hey, nutball, hose 3D people are "time varying",
>which makes them 4-DIMENSIONAL.

I didn't write 3D, I wrote 3G, which means 3 Giga, or 3 billion. I'm
surprized that you, with all your education in physics, didn't figure
that out. ;>

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Gromit

Gromit wrote:
>> >GH: cut the kook one-liners, nobody's impressed
>>
>> You are a moron, and nobody's impressed.
>
>Politeness works far better than using ad hominems imho. It's
>far more convincing as well. I enjoy your usually well reasoned
>postings. And I am hoping that you will focus more on those.

Sorry about that. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>Not only that you're a broad which means you're doubly stupid.

:) Oh, now you really did express the essential argument that proves
your theory. ;))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Tris

"Tris" wrote:
>you're obviously an intelligent guy.

:))) You just _can't_ be serious with that? :))))))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> > (wch in turn is
>> > caused by spacetime geometry).
>>
>> This is an unproved assumption.
>
>[Hammond]
>WRONG, it is proven in my published paper in the peer reviewed
>academic literature (Hammond, 1994). the PHYSICAL CAUSATION
>between Spacetime and Psychometry space, is called the
>CARTESIAN THEORY, and is an airtight, experimentally
>proven, scientific fact, discovered by Hammond (1994).

OK, so what do we have here, now. When I went through your message, I
found no arguments, just assumptions and empty claims that are backed
up by yelling and aggression, instead of evidence. If you look
carefully, even though you are an idiot, and your claims are
ridiculous, I was careful enough to go through your texts, analyse
them, find errors and explain why something is wrong, explain the
context, provide examples etc. AFAIK, this is a good method of
explaining a point. Keywords such as "scientifically proved" and
"absolutely true" carry no weight - as Shankaracarya said in
Vivekacudamani, "without power over a country, and without command of
a huge army, the mere words 'I am a king' do not make one a king".
So, if you did provide the proof - which you did not - you wouldn't
need to boast, because the facts would speak loudly enough. But, since
you have no facts, no line of evidence, actually nothing, your claims
are worthless. Now it only remains for us to make conclusions
regarding a mind that is able to produce such rubbish, and if you keep
ranting, I guess sooner or later someone who is physically close to
your university will go there and make an inquiry, and you will
probably have your diploma revoked, because your ignorance is such,
that you would be a disgrace for every respectable university.

And the fact that your article got published just means that someone
wasn't careful enough, and allowed a piece of trash slip into
publication; I guess they'll be more careful the next time. BTW, what
is your article's citation index?
This is a good criterion, AFAIK, because bad science can sometimes be
published, but since it is never used in other people's studies, very
low citation index means that the article is regarded as
scientifically irrelevant by your peers.
So, what is your citation index?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org