From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Tue May 8 02:20:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FF617B02 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:20:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9396417B0B for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:20:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7F317B02 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:19:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA21004 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:19:56 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: redbai@mediaone.net (Von Bailey) X-Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,alt.sci.natural.phenomena.unusual,alt.sci.physics,alt.talk.creationism,bionet.biophysics,harvard.course.physics11a.q-a,sci.bio.paleontology,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,talk.atheism Subject: Re: The "Science" of John Boatwright Message-ID: <3af7482f.176618772@nntp.we.mediaone.net> References: <3ae7e476_2@news01.one.net.au> <3AE81A39.DCB403E7@mediaone.net> <3AE84A63.91AF7B61@ozone.ch> <3AE879D7.DE3494E1@mediaone.net> <3ae8b06a.109420557@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AE8B9E2.A73DB51B@mediaone.net> <3aea778a.225949493@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEAE234.25CE74E3@mediaone.net> <3aeaee9f.256439876@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEB1D6A.29553686@mediaone.net> <3aeb6f46.289379532@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEBB489.259646ED@mediaone.net> <3aebc22a.310602617@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEC8259.B4695EC4@mediaone.net> <3af470b5.418626777@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AF4CF86.B60CC5F9@mediaone.net> <3af58e8e.63545428@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AF59F52.FC8E466E@mediaone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 267 Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 01:19:24 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net Organization: Road Runner To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk On Sun, 06 May 2001 18:51:56 GMT, George Hammond wrote: >Von Bailey wrote: >> >> On Sun, 06 May 2001 04:05:28 GMT, George Hammond >> wrote: >> >> >Von Bailey wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:56:34 GMT, George Hammond >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Just for the sake of argument, have you found anyone who actually >> >> agrees that your document provides PROOF of god? I mean besides your >> >> imaginary friends sharing your padded cell. >> > >> >[Hammond] >> >I have found no one who is qualified to agree or disagree. >> >> What would be the qualification besides agreeing with you? > >[Hammond] >The qualifications have been clearly defined by me many times >on the Internet: > >1. Post graduate level mathematical-physics expertise > including an expertise in General Relativity. > >2. Professional (publication level) expertise in Psychometry > and Factor Analysis. Specifically in the areas of > Intelligence measurement and Personality measurement. > >3. At least the equivalent of an ordained Minister's, Rabbi's > or Catholic Priest's comprehension of Divinity. > > >I have conducted worldwide Internet searches for such an >individual (English speaking), and have FOUND NO ONE in the >entire world who has this particular interdisciplinary >expertise. The Jesuit Priest at the Vatican Observatory for >instance qualified in 1 and 3, but was totally ignorant of 2. >I have located Psychologists who are experts in 2 but ignorant >of 1 and 3. Physicist's generally are qualified in 1 and >are intelligent enough to discuss 3, but are totally ignorant >of 2. > In fact, I AM the only person in the world who who can >actually claim to meet these interdisciplinary qualifications. >THEREFORE, you can see why it is that nobody can even intelligently >read my discovery. Then why are you bothering the rest of the world with it? Again, if only you see the proof it's not proof. Please provide anything else that is proved in which only one person in the world has the ability to understand the proof. > Finally, of course, is the question of "who needs it". >Apparently laid back comfortable Westerner's don't particularly >care about it. Therefore, I am now scouring the 3rd world for >perhaps some scientist who might be more concerned with the >Human Condition in the 3rd world, and the impact of the discovery >of a scientific proof of God on that situation. I'm not >particularly optimistic of course, that I will find a scholar >powerful enough, or concerned enough, anywhere on the face >of the Earth. Certainly I haven't run into any yet. > Of course not. You don't see anyone in the mirror but yourself. No one else with any real intelligence is silly enough to accept your word for proof (which is all your document is), just like they aren't silly enough to accept the word of some preacher on the pulpit spouting his proofs in the bible. > > >> >> >That being the case... of course all line professionals >> >and pedants as well as local hicks will naturally "disagree". >> >> But then the only qualification would be to be you. You don't see any >> problem with that? How could anyone but you identify it as proof when >> no one else is you? > >[Hammond] >Einstein had the same problem. Shortly after >the publication of GR in 1915, someone said to >Sir Arthur Eddington "I understand that you're >one of the 3 people in the world who can actually >understand Einstein's theory"? To which he responded: >"Who's the 3rd one"? > Einstein didn't have the same problem. He published theories not proofs. > >> >> >This of course doesn't mean anything.. profound ignorance, to >> >say nothing of jealous rage, exists even at the highest levels... >> >as you know. >> >> But that would only limit the ability to document it in the >> professional journals. You have the internet in which people who are >> not part of said establishment can review your document. And yet no >> one else can comprehend your proof. So why is it any different from >> someone saying they find the same proof int he bible? And if said >> proof is in the bible why do you need to proof it scientifically? > >[Hammond] >My result is in strict accordance with all of the >accepted rules of traditional hard science. >I am a qualified physicist afterall, not a Preacher. >"Proof from the Bible" is known historically >NOT to meet that standard, in the opinion of >science, history, and public opinion. > And the same can be said about your document except history won't bother to comment. >> >> > Think about it, what possible scientific scenario could >> >plausibly yield something as incredible as a "scientific proof of God"? >> >> How about simple observation? God appears and by it's presense you >> are aware of it's reality. It gives a plausable scenario on the >> creation of reality and is able to answer to the acceptabilty of the >> questioner any question that is put forth about it's scenario and >> about itself. Simple and scientific and god should be able to do it. >> No need for any advanced science. > >[Hammond] >You're arguing Theology and Philosophy... neither of >which is considered hard science. I won't engage in >such discussions, as they are absolutely futile and for >amateurs and politicians only. I will discuss only >"hard science" which is what my discovery is entirely >about. > Observation is not a scientific process? Theology and Philosphy are not physical sciences. I am arguing neither, I am arguing observation and review. That's scientific and has nothing to do with Theology or Philosophy. >> >> >Naturally, it is known, that no conventional line of scientific >> >research has any credible probability of producing such a thing, >> >... everybody already knows that. >> >> No, it is not known, it just hasn't been done, therefore no reason to >> believe it's possible. > >[Hammond] >Common scientific opinion holds that this is true. How can this be Common scientific opinion? Only a stupid scientist would say that the concept is something conventional science cannot answer as opposed to it hasn't answered the question. >That's all I'm saying. Take a poll of the scientific >community. BTW, I do not engage in babbling on >about common arguments that do not contain new or >substantive scientific material. > ...and yet here you are putting forth your proof. >snip > >> You're the only one who believes it. There is a difference between >> that and knowing it. > >[Hammond] >Wrong. Any QUALIFIED person is able to judge correct >from incorrect. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the >problem is that I am the only one with the necessary >interdisciplinary qualifications. This is a demonstrably >PROVABLE FACT, not an "argument" or an "opinion". > If it were demonstrably provable then you could prove it. Since you can't it's not demonstrably provable. Where did you get your degree, Bob Jones University? > >> Others have read your proof and have not found >> your certainty, thus it is still a theory. > >[Hammond] >I'll say it again. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE with >qualifications 1, 2 and 3 above, has EVER read >the paper, except of course, me. > Or they have read it and found it wanting and not worth commenting. > >> Proof is something that >> can be verified by more than one source. Your one document isn't >> proof of anything except you can write a theory. > >[Hammond] >I'll say it again. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE with >qualifications 1, 2 and 3 above, has EVER read >the paper, except of course, me. > ...see above. > >> >> > Now, surely you can't expect some line professional wimp >> >receiving a salary check every two weeks to have the independence, >> >power and originality to evaluate or comprehend such a thing. >> >> Why not? > >[Hammond] >Because their responsibility is to work for a paycheck, >not undertake the salvation of the human race, which >is the intent of a scientific proof of God. > Your proof of god also proves that god is the salvation of the human race? I must have missed that. Quote from your document where it proves that also please. >> >> > Why, it would take a sovereign scientific mind like Einstein, >> >Feynman or Newton, or someone at the Nobel Laureate level to even >> >have sufficient independent standing not to be scared to death >> >of the matter. >> >> Why? > >[Hammond] >Because Einstein, Feynman and Newton were clearly motivated by >higher ambitions than simply making a living. And so >am I. And until I run into a competent scientist >who has higher ambitions than tenure track considerations >or career advancement, I'm listening to nothing but >pedestrian scientific tripe. So you are also the judge of people and their pursuits. You're sounding more and more like someone who thinks he is a superior human being, akin to godhood. Maybe your real proof (at least to yourself) is looking at you when you look in the mirror. > All great scientists are victims. Whether it's Einstein >the Jew with the entire 3rd Reich after him, or Newton >the gifted genius who had to work like a slave 16 hours >a day studying and could never even get married >because of it. I don't want to talk to any >tongue in cheek line professionals with a $50,000 a year >income and a private parking place who are naysayers >from the beginning to anybody who has obviously >dedicated his life to bettering the world thru enormous >personal sacrifice. I need to talk to Albert Schweitzer, >Francis Galton, Louis Pasteur, Sir Richard Owen or Dick >Feynman... people who are serious for chrissakes. >Can't people like you do something to help me find them? > Sure. Look to your right and use the imagination you used to write your 'Proof of god'. Try ignoring the padded cell walls as they will only distract you from your goals. von http://people.we.mediaone.net/redbai/home.htm There is no conversation that I can have that threatens my reality and I don't see how anyone can live with such a precarious state of mind. .