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