what I really wanted to do was
verify or more likely falsify his claim he had thousands of appreciative
readers out there, and that's why he posts on all these groups.

OK... I'll answer your inquiries... however, here are the
rules:

1. Only one question per post.

2. Only 30 words max per question.

3. The question must concern a
scientific point or issue.

"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns966EF063A9C7AZRHGRGGNVWLDRAVKW@213.123.26.234...

"m.kandal" <m.kandal@agmunich.edu> wrote :

G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity.

Well, as I said, I'm not an academic. But I DO know that most of the
time
when people use the word 'virtual' means questions need asking.
"Virtually
finished" means "not finished", for example. "Virtual reality" means
"not
real".

Here, if this curvature is 'virtual' that means there's something it's
NOT
- which is an ACTUAL 'gravitational curvature'. So that begs the
question
of what it actually IS - if anything.

Physicists refer to "virtual particles" as filling the vacuum, and
indeed
they produce real effects such as the Casimer Force on parallel plates
which can be easily measured.
They are not actually particles but are field terms which act like
particles.
Hammond posits that Penrose's quantum brain gravity theory is correct,
and that it in fact produces a real curvature in perception which is
identical
to a real gravitational curvature, therefore Penrose's quantum brain
gravity
can be said to cause a virtual classical gravitational field. Actually he
shows
that the curvature is directly caused by the brain growth deficit...
therefore
he deduces that brain growth must be mediated by quantum gravity...
a rather obvious extrapolation of Penrose's theory which I'm sure even he
wouldn't quibble with.
By the way, originally Hammond thought God=g_uv (the metric) but when
I suggested (on an Skeptic email forum) that it was probably G_uv (the
Curvature) and not not g_uv (the metric) that he was looking for, he
immediately commandeered my idea and claimed it as his own discovery.
I don't think he knows very much about Relativity, but his intuition about
the SPOG may very well be correct.

"Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote in
message news:ypqpe.566$D83.6165@eagle.america.net...

"m.kandal" <m.kandal@agmunich.edu> wrote in message
news:S4ppe.844$pa3.839@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Aren't you deliberately misrepresenting his theory? He has stated
in a number of posts that the SPOG is not related to terrestrial
gravity, cosmological gravity, nor is it related to genetic Evolution.
G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity.


Am I misrepresenting George's theory? Perhaps.

Deliberately? Not consciously.

[Hammond]
Given the fact that you haven't even READ the theory, it sounds
pretty "deliberate" to me.
BTW, I WILL post to other people's threads if they are
talking ABOUT ME or MY THEORY... which this thread is!
As for "respecting your wishes"........ fuck no.... after your
comments on my thread I feel free to shit all over you....
there's "no excuse for you" as the poor people say when some
insulting jerkoff like you says "excuse me" to them.




There is George, his theory, myself and my personal knowledge, which
shapes my personal understanding, all interacting. To date, I have not
read the Roger Penrose text he has and sights, so I tend to discount his
leaps to quantum gravity.

[Hammond]
The SPOG proves that the perceptual curvature known as
"God" is physically and mathematically identical to a
"classical Einsteinian gravitational Curvature".

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:O1tpe.937$VK4.270@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote in
message news:ypqpe.566$D83.6165@eagle.america.net...

"m.kandal" <m.kandal@agmunich.edu> wrote in message
news:S4ppe.844$pa3.839@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Aren't you deliberately misrepresenting his theory? He has stated
in a number of posts that the SPOG is not related to terrestrial
gravity, cosmological gravity, nor is it related to genetic
Evolution.
G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity.


Am I misrepresenting George's theory? Perhaps.

Deliberately? Not consciously.

[Hammond]
Given the fact that you haven't even READ the theory, it sounds
pretty "deliberate" to me.
BTW, I WILL post to other people's threads if they are
talking ABOUT ME or MY THEORY... which this thread is!
As for "respecting your wishes"........ fuck no.... after your
comments on my thread I feel free to shit all over you....
there's "no excuse for you" as the poor people say when some
insulting jerkoff like you says "excuse me" to them.




There is George, his theory, myself and my personal knowledge, which
shapes my personal understanding, all interacting. To date, I have not
read the Roger Penrose text he has and sights, so I tend to discount
his
leaps to quantum gravity.

[Hammond]
The SPOG proves that the perceptual curvature known as
"God" is physically and mathematically identical to a
"classical Einsteinian gravitational Curvature".

Spog proves SHIT; nothing more.
Which would make you the asshole!

"Earle Bent" <e.bent@altnet.org> wrote :

Check out that website!

Even after the first page I have a dozen questions for him...

[Hammond]
Cheer up. Read my new post:
PHYSICS IGNORANCE OF GOD
and try to comprehend the seriousness of this subject...

and say something polite, and erudite about it.

George Hammond wrote:
"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:Sf-dnQ2ygckJazXfRVn-oA@comcast.com...



George Hammond:

Note... Midjis is an amateur with NO SCIENTIFIC
TRAINING WHATSOEVER... is not even familiar
with basic scientific terminolgy.... merely likes to hear himself
talk....

So very true.

Now George, you know it's not very honest to edit someone's post and
change the meaning.

Careful now, or you'll be in big time violation of those "Usenet rules"
you keep ranting about. Then Usenet's owner will kick your ass.

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote :


"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:Sf-dnQ2ygckJazXfRVn-oA@comcast.com...



George Hammond:

Note... Midjis is an amateur with NO SCIENTIFIC
TRAINING WHATSOEVER... is not even familiar
with basic scientific terminolgy.... merely likes to hear himself
talk....

So very true.


Showed you the value of precision, though, didn't it, George? And I
believe your second quotation here misrepresents TMG, having
retrospectively amended the statement he was responding to.

Is this the quality of your scientific honesty as well, I wonder?