On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:31:39 +0200, Bernhard Schornak
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondIs the Pope a Catholic?
Nope - he's a pope (belonging to a rope...).
[Hammond]
What's that supposed to be a non sequitur?
Just my humble opinion. I hate to live in Bavaria as
long as this unholy virus is not put into a jail. It
might not be known in the USA (where most christians
are not catholic), but every educated European knows
about his historical background as Great Inquisitor.
He also was involved in corporal punishment of a lot
of children being held in catholic "residential" and
"approved" schools in the borders of his diocese.
Not to speak of his "deeds" as pope, kicking the de-
velopments of the last two centuries back to deepest
Middle Ages. Not to speak of his reactonary books or
public statements.
Sorry, but I only have links to German sites. I just
http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm
Google for "ratzinger+inquisition" and the likes...
[Hammond]
I am a Protestant and my family has been Protestant for
ten generations as far as I know. My stepsister called me
up in the middle of the night a couple of months ago and
told me that she was converting to Catholicism. I haven't
heard anything about it recently but at the time I wrote it
off to the fact that she is a redhead. That's all I know
about the Catholic Church other than what I've read in a
book.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George Hammond<Snip>
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George Hammond[Hammond]
Allen, like Gardiner is not a scientist (e.g. physicist)
nor is he a psychologist or a theologian. You can't expect
a line professional linguist or literature expert or an
"Egyoptologist" to tell you anything new or scientific about
the Egyotian religion.
Actually, I doubt that physicists are interested in
ancient Egypt mythology at all. Metaphysics, as the
name suggests, are outside the scope of physicists.
[Hammond]
that's simply more "Shornak misinformation" something
you're famous for. The fact is the great physicist Thomas
Young was one of the first to decipher the Egyptian
alphabet. Beyond that, Isaac Newton history's most famous
physicist left 5 million written words on the subject of God
and religion. So once again it is clear that you don't know
what you're talking about.
Which was not part of their work as physicists. If
it had been, no one did care about them today, be-
cause they had been ignored by real physicists for
mismatching disciplines held _separately_ for good
reasons. If you read the wiki with care, you might
recognise that Newton clearly denied the "trinity"
and had much trouble with the order of the jesuits
because of his denial.
[Hammond]
Yes it is a fact that Newton vehemently denied the
Trinity. As a matter of fact I consider this to be a prime
piece of evidence that Isaac Newton was not quite as savvy
as people think he was. first of all I'm surprised that a
person of his intellectual ability would take it upon
himself to defy the established religion of the entire
Western world. My conclusion is that Newton had a small
screw loose somewhere in his head, and in addition to that
is the fact that he never got married nor did he seem to be
very interested in women. All in all this points to the
fact, in my humble opinion, that Isaac Newton had a rather
substantial underlying psychological problem. This is
perhaps evidenced by the fact that he had a documented
mental breakdown in his later years.
At any rate, his denial of the Trinity turns out to be a
major scientific debacle in light of the fact that I have
clearly identified the Trinity as the trinary feedback loop
of fundamental cybernetics. Cybernetics of course was
unknown in his day, but for Christ sakes Bernie merely the
existence of the "three branches of government" should be
enough to clue any intelligent scientist into the fact that
there is such a thing as the Trinity!
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondMost "Egyptologists" of the past century have been museum
curators for chrissakes... including Budge. Fact is, a
PHYSICIST (Thomas Young of two slit fame) made the first
breakthrouh in decipering Heiroglyphics. Champollian built
on Young's work.
Akerblad deciphered parts of the Rosetta Stone *12*
years before Young. Young improved Akerblad's work,
but Champollion was the one who came up with a com-
plete translation.
[Hammond]
That's an accurate statement, but is also a statement
that appears in every textbook on the subject and is well
known to everyone. Posting common knowledge for the sake
of hearing yourself talk is an annoying habit if not
deliberate harassment.
Or you just "forgot" to mention that Young neither
began nor finished the work, but just participated
with decipering a few parts of the entire stone?
[Hammond]
yeah but keep in mind the fact that Thomas Young is
responsible for one of the most spectacular scientific
discoveries in the history of physics... namely the famous
"Two Slit Experiment" which is practically a foundation
stone of modern quantum mechanics and is still hotly debated
and actively investigated by modern researchers.
For such a theoretical physics powerhouse to identify the
problem of deciphering Heiroglyphics, immediately tells you
that there must be some connection between ancient Egyptian
knowledge and modern physics. And indeed Young was correct,
the ancient Egyptian religion turns out to be the fountain
from which all knowledge about the basic scientific
structure of religion actually originates.... the Sun God,
the animal headed pantheon, the Ankh, and the Djed being the
prime items of interest scientifically.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondIn fact here is a picture of a modern Djed pillar from an
http://www.lonebiker.dk/Ausbilleder/6.jpg
The highest level shown is 27 meters.
If this isn't a modern day Djed-pillar I'll eat my hat!
Do you read an entire story out of this JPG image?
As it is a JPG, none of the characters is readable
if you enlarge it to a size where they should. How
did you get that story? Who gives proof that those
markers determine flood heights or anything else?
[Hammond]
Bernie, your argumentative diversion about stupid and
inconsequential stuff is bores the shit out of every one.
The full story on this Australian "nileometer" is given at:
http://tinyurl.com/25t74qy
Just scroll down about a page and a half and you'll see the
picture and story. I can't believe that you're actually
going to take the time to check something stupid and obvious
like that out... OBVIOUSLY, someone with my professional
credentials is not to lie about something as stupid as
simple as that. Your incessant argumentative, aggravated
and ignorant naysaying is something too tedious for any
intelligent person to even listen to.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard Schornakhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilometer
Does not look like a Djed pillar...
[Hammond]
yeah, well here is a Nileometer that actually is a stone
pillar:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nilometerroda.htm
It doesn't have cross bars on it, but it does have cross
marks chiseled into the stone.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George Hammond[Hammond]
Another blatant misstatement of fact. Many Djed pillars
made in stone and fired clay were FLAT and looked
EXACTLY like this picture. Quit lying!
You mismatch amulets with the real thing. It isn't
comfortable to wear a sharp egded square object on
your chest. Hence, amulets were flat and had round
edges.
[Hammond]
Bernie, we have more important things to discuss than the
Djed pillar. The fact is the Djed pillar is obviously an
ICONIC SYMBOL and in its final form probably does not
represent ANY specific object, but rather an entire CLASS of
objects which fall into the "Venetian blind" category, and
all of which have the same fundamental and now iconic we
abstracted psychological effect on the human mind. And net
effect is EXACTLY to conjure up a notion of the existence of
"transcendental vision" which is otherwise generally
ascribed to the TRINITY in modern religion.
Whew.... how many times and in how many different ways do
I have to say it?
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by George HammondThe kings were an
incarnation of their gods, no one had a right
to question them or measure them against any-
thing.
[Hammond]
You got it backwards... everybody else was measured
relative to the king...not only every lenght was meqasured
relative to the kings foot... everbodies MENTAL
ENLIGHTENMENT was measured relative to his which is WHY he
was responsible for "raising the pillar".
See above. No one was measured against the king, as
no one was measured against the gods and godesses -
you cannot measure mortals against over-beings. The
kings were incarnations of the gods...
[Hammond]
Your statement is not only blatantly stupid, wrong and
impudent, it obviously defies common opinion.
Everyone is always measured against the best in any field.
If the best is given a score of 100, everyone else gets a
score between one and 100.
Absolute perfection, is the perfect score, and we are all
rated on that scale.
Your habit of arguing for arguments sake is rude, ugly
and universally recognized as a common form of harassment,
in the end you're just a heckler.
What you call herassment is called scientific work
in the real world. I pick up arguments and compare
them against scientifically proven facts. If there
is a difference between proven facts and arguments
claiming to replace those proven facts, it is just
a matter of reason to refute that claim if it does
not match with the known facts nor is a reasonable
addition to them.
[Hammond]
Bernie, we are discussing an object the size of the
Titanic... we simply don't have time to argue over every
nut, bolt, screw and rivet in the entire structure. life is
not long enough for that kind of thing. You are violating a
fundamental law of professional etiquette by failing to
recognize the fact that I have 2 degrees in theoretical
physics and therefore I have a right of passage in
professional debate when it comes to elementary nuts and
bolts introductory physics items. You may not like that,
but that's your problem not mine. Those are the excepted
rules.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by George HammondBTW: There also were Djed pillars with five
http://www.aegyptologie.com/forum/attachments/DjedCnv0439.jpg
[Hammond]
Yes, obviously... and thanks for that picture. The
actual nileometers probably were telephone pole sized with
10 or more crossbars, since the Nile rose as much as 25 feet
some years. the Djed Symbol is only a stylized iconic
representation of the real thing... it caputres the
"visuo-psychological impact" of the thing.
Only in the Southernmost parts of Egypt. In Memphis
(Mn-nfr, Hwt-k3-pth) it was just 2 meters. I think,
your are a little bit besides the real thing.
[Hammond]
Look, that picture of SETI the first raising the Djed
pillar in the temple at Abdyos shows the Djed pillar to be
just exactly about 2 m tall.
The dimensions of the ritual pillar had to be that
size. The larger the pillar, the more weight. Your
math skills are impressing, so you surely can cal-
culate the maximum weight a single man (in average
condition) will pull with a rope led over a single
roll.
[Hammond]
is the Pope Catholic... the descriptions that I have read
of the raising of the Djed pillar by the Pharaoh suggested
that the ropes blocks and tackle were used and that he had
physical assistance. Just because the picture in the temple
and Abdyos shows him lifting it with his bare hands doesn't
mean that was what actually happened.
But again Bernie, you're arguing trivia simply for the
purpose of being argumentative. You get nothing
constructive to say... you're all about jealous and envious
aggravated heckling.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondIn the early days there
must've been one of these things in every field, every
canal, and every reservoir allowing an instant
assessment of the current water level at a single glance
telling them whether to open the sluice gates and let
more water into the field or not.
Your opinion contradicts Egyptian writings. If the
Nile flood didn't reach the minimum tax level, the
dikes were not broken, at all, leaving the farmers
without water (see carvings in the White Chapel of
Senusret I.).
Only three Nilometers were used: Elephantine, Per-
Hapi and Sema-Behdet (Tell-el-Balamun), where Per-
Hapi was used to define the annual tax.
[Hammond]
maybe only three Nileometers were used for tax purposes,
but we can be sure, absolutely sure, that every farmer and
every landowner along the entire 3000 mile stretch of the
Nile must of had half a dozen of them posted in his fields,
in his canals, and along the riverbank. Look at the Bay of
Fundy for instance or anyplace else where there is an
unusually high tide.... tied markers, Plimsoll lines and
"Nileometers" such as the one that I showed you from
Australia are all over the place.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakThere was no real need for nilometers between 3,000
and 100 BCE, because the level of the mediterranean
sea did not change in that time. After 100 BCE, the
level constantly increased, causing some minor pro-
blems with tidal floodings of lower regions.
[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about.
Blame those who wrote that document.
Post by George HammondIt was of
critical importance during all eras to know how fast and how
high or how low the Nile was rising. The Nile roses much as
25 feet in some places.
The highest level was measured in Elephantine, de-
creasing to about 1/3rd in Men-Nefer (Memphis).
{Hammond]
yeah, we know all at, your posting common knowledge again
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by George HammondPost by George Hammond[Schornak]
The cross was just an instrument to kill people with
maximum pain.
[Hammond]
Na... its design is supposed to inflict "psychological
pain" not merely physical pain.
Your assumption.
[Hammond]
Na.... now that the Structural Mosdel of Personality has
been PROVEN to be crusiform, it is no longer an
"assumption"... sorry, you lose.
Post by George HammondCrucifixion came up with the
phoenicians about 1,000 BCE, and made its way
through the next 1,400 years. Main purpose is
to extend the time to die, there's no need to
do "psychological pain". The physical process
itself surely is nothing you ever want to ex-
perience on your own.
[Hammond]
hey... cut the war stories.... I'm 68 years old and come
from a military family. We're here to discuss the
scientific proof of God not the history of terrorism.
Just for the record: Your sentence implies that Je-
sus was a terrorist.
[Hammond]
Oh cut the amateur bull shit, this isn't a Sunday
school discussion. Pedal the street rap somewhere else.
At least you got the point we are talking science,
not goobledigook.
[Hammond]
you're not qualified to read Einstein's theory, that
doesn't mean that Einstein's theory is "gobbledygook"... all
it means is that you're not qualified to read it.
Post by Bernhard SchornakI see that you have no arguments
to offer, so you try to get around with attacks on
the person. Take it easy - I'm used to that... ;)
[Hammond]
I've pointed out that you have no scientific credentials,
and you call that a personal attack..... that's a bunch of
bullshit and everyone knows it.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by George HammondProbably you forget that the christian symbol
was the<fish>
[Hammond]
Fish, snakes and birds are ephemeral symbols of
psychological syndromes. The snake and the bird being
perhaps foremost. This is why the Phaorh wore a Snake and a
Bird on his forehead 16 hours a day.... half the population
was as scared as sparrows of bullys and the other half had
some form of god awful contageous disease and felt like
untouchables... therefore the Pharoah wore a snake and a
bird on his forehead to let you KNOW that he KNEW what you
were afraid of and that HE understood it and therefore that
it was safe to talk to him.
Where is the connection between the christian fish-
symbol (which meant something like free as a fish!)
and the Jaret Snake or the Nechbet Veil?
[Hammond]
For Christ sakes Bernie, how old are you?
I was born in December 1956...
[Hammond]
Huh... I'm 14 years older than you are Bernie, and that
entire 14 years has been spent in 16 hour a day constant
study of physics, psychology and religion. I think you're
failing to take that fact into account especially since my
intellectual capacity was publicly and officially certified
by two universities before I was 27 years old.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George Hammond"fish",
that is the smell of a fish, is the world's oldest reference
the penalty attendant on female lack of chastity. What
the hell do you think a "mermaid" is supposed to represent?
You don't know nothing of Bernie, you know nothing about
life! You do realize that the entire Bible is one
long sermon on chastity.... don't you? The fish is the
symbol of female unchastity, and the snake is the symbol of
male unchastity. You're so stupid it's embarrassing , dummy
up for Christ sakes!
I didn't know that mermaids were a symbol of early
christians.
[Hammond]
never said they were.
Post by Bernhard SchornakBesides that, you probably are the 1st
and last human on Earth who ever believed what you
wrote.
[Hammond]
No Bernie just the opposite. the entire world is
speaking double entendre over your head and the main thing
they're talking about is human psychology, personality types
and what they are apt to do and of particular interest is
how they might react to "fish" "bird" or "snake" all of
which are references to communicable social diseases. as
Freud tells us even during his time half of the neurotic
mental cases in Europe were caused by men catching venereal
disease from their mistresses and then transmitting it to
their wives all of which causes neurotic illness among
everyone concerned. Unbeknownst to you of course, this is a
major topic of conversation scuttlebutt and gossip at all
times in all places in all ages... it is never discussed in
explicit terms, it is only discussed in metaphorical and
symbolic double entendre using such codewords as "fish",
"snakes", "toast", "bacon", "ketchup", "asparagus",
"mayonnaise" etc. etc. but for Christ sakes burning anyone
living in the Western world would have to ask why the fish
was a symbol of early Christianity is a moronetc. etc. etc.
why for Christ sakes Bernie, anyone living in the Western
world who would have to ask why the fish was a symbol of
early Christianity, is a moron!
Post by Bernhard Schornakhttp://www.seiyaku.com/customs/fish/fish.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm
http://www.eureka4you.com/fish/fishsymbol.htm
http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/origin_fish_symbol.htm
Post by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George Hammond[Hammond]
Na... you are still under the sway of traditional
academic teaching which holds that all religion is
"arbitrary convention" and not founded on immutable
axiomatic physicial laws.
I'm reading books about ancient egypt history since
about 42 years now,
[Hammond]
I've spent devades studying ancient Egypt, especially the
religion of ancient Egypt. Physics has a long tradition
of this as I have mentioned, going back to Newton
and Young. As a physicist I am following
in their footsteps.
Neither Newton nor Young ever accounted themselves
as Egyptologists, nor did they really work in this
field.
{Hammond]
geniuses don't need professional titles
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakActually, I'm no
believer of weird theories - I just rely on facts.
If you can provide (yet) unknown facts, just let me
know.
[Hammond]
I'm a physicist with credentials to prove it, you are
not. I've published a scientific proof of God in the
peer-reviewed literature.
I was the only one who ever peer-revied it, or are
there any other docoments on the web who ever dis-
cussed your "theory" in detail?
[Hammond]
what are you deaf dumb and blind.... or just ignorant?
the theory was published in a highly respected peer-reviewed
academic journal. That means that three PhD reviewer's of
professorial rank had to read this thing and write a
written review of it and formally recommended for
publication before it was published by the world's premier
scientific publisher Elsevier Science Ltd.
all of this is documented fact and has been posted 1
million times in which you are simply too lazy to check.
Well if you're too lazy to check... then you're not
qualified to post claims that it isn't
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondYou're not qualified to read it
because you don't even know what an eigenvector is.
Your speculation...
[Hammond]
the fact that you have no scientific degrees is a FACT
not a speculation.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondSo once again, you're sitting there telling a physicist
that you "only believe in facts" and that I haven't stated
any, is not only a blatant lie, it is obviously nothing but
deliberate heckling by an unqualified and aggravated
pseudo-intellectual wannabee.
Where are youre facts and who ever approved them?
[Hammond]
the papers have been published in the peer-reviewed
literature, they were approved by professional reviewers,
that is all a matter of documented history which you asked
simply too lazy to check and just sit there ignorantly
claiming otherwise.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondThis ignorant belief is of course
false, and academics are as outdated as buggy whips.
Facts require no beliefs - they *are*.
[Hammond]
There are two accredited universities in Massachusetts
who have publicly certified that I know what a scientific
fact is.
Any links to prove that?
[Hammond]
my CV has been posted 1 million times:
CURRICULUM VITAE
GEORGE HAMMOND
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU
If you're going to sit there and say that this is a
fraudulent CV then I suggest you better pick up the
telephone and called the records office at the two
universities cited and prove it, otherwise YOU'RE A
SLANDERER, LIBELER AND A LIAR.
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondOn the other hand, there is absolutely no certified
corroboration that you do.
That should be good for what? Scientific work does
not require (meaningless) titles,
[Hammond]
the only people who say that a college degree is a
meaningless title are people who don't have one.. such as
you. That is a well-known fact.
Post by Bernhard Schornakbut knowledge of
its principles - not more, not less.
Post by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondRichard
Dawkins is a typical example... he doesn't even believe
there is a God... and here I am having actually published
the scientific proof there is in the peer reviewed
literature.... what a joke!
Who is Richard Dawkins? Where is the connection be-
tween Dawkins, SPOG and scientific historical stud-
ies (in this case Egyptology)?
[Hammond]
Did you say "who is Richard Dawkins". For Christ's sake
Bernie, he is the world's most famous living biologist. He's
a full professor at Oxford, has written half a dozen
best-selling books which have been translated into
half a dozen foreign languages. In fact, he happens to be
at the present moment the world's most famous atheist.
As you know, I'm a programmer, Biology is a little
bit out of my scope. No human can know everything.
[Hammond]
that's not all that is out of your scope. The entire
scientific proof of God that I have published is entirely
out of your scope!
Post by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by Bernhard SchornakPost by George HammondPost by George HammondPost by George Hammond[Schornak]
Djed pillars have four capitals, so it is quite hard
to mismatch them with a "T" or "t" shaped cross.
[Hammond]
Look, you are failing to distinguish between the Cross
and the Trinity. The Cross is the STRUCTURAL symbol of
Psychology based on the orthogonal cleavage of the brain
while the Trinity represents the DYNAMIC structure of
psychology because it is the trinary feedback loop commonly
known as the "father son and holy spirit" which controls the
mind. The CROSS and the TRINITY in the Egyptian religion
were known as the ANKH and the DJED.
No trinity comparable to the christian belief
system existed in Egyptian mythology.
[Hammond]
You have absolutely a ludicrous lack of any qualification
whatsoever to make such a statement and that fact has been
more than adequately documented.
Do you have any diploma in Egyptology? If not, the
same applies to you. If you want to discuss -your-
"theories" in a newsgroup, you should provide your
facts and improve it at places where it shows some
weaknesses.
[Hammond]
I think the fact that a physicist named Thomas Young made
a world famous breakthrough in the decipherment of
hieroglyphics is enough evidence that a graduate physicist
is capable of making fundamental discoveries in Egyptology.
<snip rest of boring argumentation>
[Hammond]
Bernie, I've posted another couple of messages to you. It
appears that either you're Internet connectionn, or
newsgroup service is not very good.... so I so hope you see
the other two short messages concerning the Trinity and Life
After Death.
If you have any general standalone statements about these
two other posts I'd be glad to see them.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
