On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [GEH MS Physics] wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SOMEONE on SPR must have noticed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that "Hammond's GOD METRIC": –
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |a² o o o. |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |o a² o o. | = (HAMMOND) GOD METRIC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |o o a² o. |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |ooo-1/a²|
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is IDENTICAL to the FLRW METRIC if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FLRW is written with "CONFORMAL TIME"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
..
[GE Hammond MS Physics]
Listen Jeffrey – you may play "hobby-horse" over on
ALT. Philosophy. Debate, but we don't play"hobby-horse" over
here on SPR
..
SO TELL ME WHY – If the World's First Scientific Proof of God
(SPOG) has been discovered – WHY we shouldn't RESTART the
Justinian – Gregorian calendar at YEAR–1 in commemoration
of this HISTORIC SCIENTIFICO-RELIGIOUS MILESTONE ?
..
THE AGE OF JESUS has scientifically ENDED
...
George

George Hammond wrote:

>> >> |a² o o o. |
>> >> |o a² o o. | = (H̶A̶M̶M̶O̶N̶D̶) G̶O̶D̶ M̶E̶T̶R̶I̶C̶ |o o a² o. |
>> >> |ooo-1/a² |
> .
>> [Alexander Basso wrote:]
>> nonsense. You are treating tensors like matrices, which reveals you
>> don't undrestand tensors at all.
>
> IF SO – you should be WELL AWARE that a 2nd rank tensor CAN and USUALLY
> IS written as a MATRIX . In particular, In Relativity the 4 x 4 METRIC
> TENSOR is universally written as a 4 x 4 MATRIX . Come back please,

error number two. Tensors actually extends left, right, north and south.
For instance for a piezoelectric material, it extends right and south.
Thus it's NOT a matrix. Go learn tensors. Alot of slef-established
mathematicians around here are not undrestanding tensors.

On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> a 2nd rank tensor CAN and USUALLY IS written as a MATRIX

This is not true. It is the COMPONENTS of the rank-2 tensor, relative to
a specified basis, that can be written as a matrix; the basis is
usually, but not always, a local set of coordinate axes.

The tensor itself is a bi-linear function of two vectors onto the reals.
Unlike its components, the tensor itself is completely independent of
coordinates. In GR, most "tensors" are really tensor fields (but the
second word is usually omitted)....

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:43:00 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> > a 2nd rank tensor CAN and USUALLY IS written as a MATRIX
>
> [Tom Roberts] wrote:
> This is not true. It is the COMPONENTS of the rank-2 tensor, relative to
> a specified basis, that can be written as a matrix; the basis is
> usually, but not always, a local set of coordinate axes.
>
[George E Hammond MS Physics]
You conveniently failed to quote the 2nd sentence following
the one you quoted above – in which I say: –
..
> "In particular, In Relativity the 4 x 4 METRIC
> TENSOR is universally written as a 4 x 4 MATRIX"
..
So CLEARLY – I am talking SPECIFICALLY about the COMPONENTS
of the 4 x 4 metric tensor...
..
And by your own statement above that can be written as a
MATRIX.
..
FURTHERMORE this entire thread is a discussion of this
4 x 4 COMPONENT metric/matrix expressed in Cartesian
coordinates: –
..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |a² o o o. |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |o a² o o. | = (HAMMOND) GOD METRIC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |o o a² o. |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |ooo-1/a²|
..
Where the number of carets indicates how many times
this metric which is the CONTEXT of this thread has been
quoted – and is the "CONTEXT" within which my statement
was made.
..
George

On 2/3/23 1:24 AM, George Hammond wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:43:00 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts
> wrote:
>> On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
>>> a 2nd rank tensor CAN and USUALLY IS written as a MATRIX
>> [Tom Roberts] wrote: This is not true. It is the COMPONENTS of the
>> rank-2 tensor, relative to a specified basis, that can be written
>> as a matrix; the basis is usually, but not always, a local set of
>> coordinate axes.
> [George E Hammond MS Physics] You conveniently failed to quote the
> 2nd sentence following the one you quoted above – in which I say: –
> .
>> "In particular, In Relativity the 4 x 4 METRIC TENSOR is
>> universally written as a 4 x 4 MATRIX"
> . So CLEARLY – I am talking SPECIFICALLY about the COMPONENTS of the
> 4 x 4 metric tensor...

Yes -- all too many authors, including yourself, discuss tensor
components while calling them "the tensor". My point was that the
distinction is important: the tensor is independent of basis and
coordinates, but its components explicitly depend on the basis
(coordinates).

[That basis/coordinate independence is one of the primary
reasons for using tensors in physical theories.]

> FURTHERMORE this entire thread is a discussion of this 4 x 4
> COMPONENT metric/matrix expressed in Cartesian coordinates

That's your problem -- you are discussing a matrix that is EXPLICITLY
coordinate dependent. Note that coordinates are arbitrary human
constructs, and nature never uses them, so no coordinate-dependent
quantity can accurately model any phenomenon of nature. But here that's
OK, as "GOD" is not any phenomenon of nature -- both "GOD" and those
metric components are figments of your imagination.

[Of course the whole thing is useless to anyone who does
not share your imaginary figments, which is why I am
normally absent from this thread).

Tom Roberts

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/3/23 1:24 AM, George Hammond wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:43:00 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts
> > wrote:
> >> On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> >>> a 2nd rank tensor CAN and USUALLY IS written as a MATRIX
> >> [Tom Roberts] wrote: This is not true. It is the COMPONENTS of the
> >> rank-2 tensor, relative to a specified basis, that can be written
> >> as a matrix; the basis is usually, but not always, a local set of
> >> coordinate axes.
> > [George E Hammond MS Physics] You conveniently failed to quote the
> > 2nd sentence following the one you quoted above – in which I say: –
> > .
> >> "In particular, In Relativity the 4 x 4 METRIC TENSOR is
> >> universally written as a 4 x 4 MATRIX"
> > . So CLEARLY – I am talking SPECIFICALLY about the COMPONENTS of the
> > 4 x 4 metric tensor...
> Yes -- all too many authors, including yourself, discuss tensor
> components while calling them "the tensor". My point was that the
> distinction is important: the tensor is independent of basis and
> coordinates, but its components explicitly depend on the basis
> (coordinates).
>
> [That basis/coordinate independence is one of the primary
> reasons for using tensors in physical theories.]
> > FURTHERMORE this entire thread is a discussion of this 4 x 4
> > COMPONENT metric/matrix expressed in Cartesian coordinates
> That's your problem -- you are discussing a matrix that is EXPLICITLY
> coordinate dependent. Note that coordinates are arbitrary human
> constructs, and nature never uses them, so no coordinate-dependent
> quantity can accurately model any phenomenon of nature. But here that's
> OK, as "GOD" is not any phenomenon of nature -- both "GOD" and those
> metric components are figments of your imagination.
>
> [Of course the whole thing is useless to anyone who does
> not share your imaginary figments, which is why I am
> normally absent from this thread).
>
> Tom Roberts
..
[George E Hammond MS Physics]
..... Look Tom –
The Einstein Metric of objective space-time
The Friedmann Metric Of Astrophysics
The Hammond God Metric of Subjective Space-Time
..
Are by definition
ALL COORDINATE INDEPENDENT: –
..
| 1 o o o. |
| o 1 o o. | = EINSTEIN METRIC
| o o 1 o. |
| o o o -1.|
..
|a² o o o. |
|o a² o o. | = FRIEDMANN (FLRW) METRIC
|o o a² o. |
|o o o..-1.|
..
|a² o o o. |
|o a² o o. | = HAMMOND METRIC OF GOD
|o o a² o. |
|ooo-1/a²|
..
You can write them in Cartesian coordinates,
spherical coordinates, or any coordinate system
you choose – because they are tensor equations.
..
===================================So you are WRONG when you say that the
"God Metric" is "Coordinate Dependent"
it is just as "coordinate INDEPENDENT"
as the FL RW metric of Astrophysics is !!
===================================..
The problem is that you do not understand the
difference between:
OBJECTIVE space-time
and
SUBJECTIVE space-time
..
You don't even NEED to understand the
DIFFERENCE – just consider them 2 separate
and independent space times with different
METRICS .
..
But for the more Scientifically Inquisitive
reader let me explain that OBJECTIVE
space-time is measured with clocks and rulers,
while SUBJECTIVE space-time is the reality
that you actually SEE – – for instance a
6 month old kid SEES a world that is
4 TIMES LARGER AND 4 TIMES FASTER
THEN AN ADULT
..
And this is WHY a "Friedman type Scale Factor"
a{t} appears in the GOD METRIC !
...
NOW OBVIOUSLY "subjective" space-time is
what is commonly called "Psychological Reality.
Whereas "objective" space-time is psychologically
independent "objective (scientifically measurable)
reality".
..
THIS IS WHY it is called the "GOD METRIC".
..
Now I don't expect you to understand or even CARE
about all that – but let me remind you that there are
billions of people in the world who DO !.
..
And the reason is this is – for 2023 years we have had
to suffer the disgusting experience of sitting in a
Christian church facing a dead body hanging from a
Cross in the front of the Church – because that was
the only way they could "explain what God is".
..
Well guess what Tom – your SPR buddy George has
discovered A SCIENTIFIC Proof of God – that does not
require a dead body hanging from a Cross to scientifically
proof that there is a "REAL GOD".
..
You may not think that's important or significant,
but I think it's so important that we should RESTART
THE JULIAN CALENDAR at year 01 starting in 2024 !
I'm here to tell you that the "Age of Jesus" is over !
We now have a scientific Proof of God !
..
Please don't go away mad– if you have any further
comments about the "God Metric" I would certainly like
to hear about them!
..
George
..

George Hammond wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 2/3/23 1:24 AM, George Hammond wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:43:00 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> > >>> a 2nd rank tensor CAN and USUALLY IS written as a MATRIX
> > >> [Tom Roberts] wrote: This is not true. It is the COMPONENTS of the
> > >> rank-2 tensor, relative to a specified basis, that can be written
> > >> as a matrix; the basis is usually, but not always, a local set of
> > >> coordinate axes.
> > > [George E Hammond MS Physics] You conveniently failed to quote the
> > > 2nd sentence following the one you quoted above – in which I say: –
> > > .
> > >> "In particular, In Relativity the 4 x 4 METRIC TENSOR is
> > >> universally written as a 4 x 4 MATRIX"
> > > . So CLEARLY – I am talking SPECIFICALLY about the COMPONENTS of the
> > > 4 x 4 metric tensor...
> > Yes -- all too many authors, including yourself, discuss tensor
> > components while calling them "the tensor". My point was that the
> > distinction is important: the tensor is independent of basis and
> > coordinates, but its components explicitly depend on the basis
> > (coordinates).
> >
> > [That basis/coordinate independence is one of the primary
> > reasons for using tensors in physical theories.]
> > > FURTHERMORE this entire thread is a discussion of this 4 x 4
> > > COMPONENT metric/matrix expressed in Cartesian coordinates
> > That's your problem -- you are discussing a matrix that is EXPLICITLY
> > coordinate dependent. Note that coordinates are arbitrary human
> > constructs, and nature never uses them, so no coordinate-dependent
> > quantity can accurately model any phenomenon of nature. But here that's
> > OK, as "GOD" is not any phenomenon of nature -- both "GOD" and those
> > metric components are figments of your imagination.
> >
> > [Of course the whole thing is useless to anyone who does
> > not share your imaginary figments, which is why I am
> > normally absent from this thread).
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> .
> [George E Hammond MS Physics]
> .... Look Tom –
> The Einstein Metric of objective space-time
> The Friedmann Metric Of Astrophysics
> The Hammond God Metric of Subjective Space-Time
> .
> Are by definition
> ALL COORDINATE INDEPENDENT: –
> .
> | 1 o o o. |
> | o 1 o o. | = EINSTEIN METRIC
> | o o 1 o. |
> | o o o -1.|
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = FRIEDMANN (FLRW) METRIC
> |o o a² o. |
> |o o o..-1.|
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = HAMMOND METRIC OF GOD
> |o o a² o. |
> |ooo-1/a²|
> .
> You can write them in Cartesian coordinates,
> spherical coordinates, or any coordinate system
> you choose – because they are tensor equations.
> .
> ====================================
> So you are WRONG when you say that the
> "God Metric" is "Coordinate Dependent"
> it is just as "coordinate INDEPENDENT"
> as the FL RW metric of Astrophysics is !!
> ====================================
> .
> The problem is that you do not understand the
> difference between:
> OBJECTIVE space-time
> and
> SUBJECTIVE space-time
> .
> You don't even NEED to understand the
> DIFFERENCE – just consider them 2 separate
> and independent space times with different
> METRICS .
> .
> But for the more Scientifically Inquisitive
> reader let me explain that OBJECTIVE
> space-time is measured with clocks and rulers,
> while SUBJECTIVE space-time is the reality
> that you actually SEE – – for instance a
> 6 month old kid SEES a world that is
> 4 TIMES LARGER AND 4 TIMES FASTER
> THEN AN ADULT
> .
> And this is WHY a "Friedman type Scale Factor"
> a{t} appears in the GOD METRIC !
> ..
> NOW OBVIOUSLY "subjective" space-time is
> what is commonly called "Psychological Reality.
> Whereas "objective" space-time is psychologically
> independent "objective (scientifically measurable)
> reality".
> .
> THIS IS WHY it is called the "GOD METRIC".
> .
> Now I don't expect you to understand or even CARE
> about all that – but let me remind you that there are
> billions of people in the world who DO !.
> .
> And the reason is this is – for 2023 years we have had
> to suffer the disgusting experience of sitting in a
> Christian church facing a dead body hanging from a
> Cross in the front of the Church – because that was
> the only way they could "explain what God is".
> .
> Well guess what Tom – your SPR buddy George has
> discovered A SCIENTIFIC Proof of God – that does not
> require a dead body hanging from a Cross to scientifically
> proof that there is a "REAL GOD".
> .
> You may not think that's important or significant,
> but I think it's so important that we should RESTART
> THE JULIAN CALENDAR at year 01 starting in 2024 !
> I'm here to tell you that the "Age of Jesus" is over !
> We now have a scientific Proof of God !
> .
> Please don't go away mad– if you have any further
> comments about the "God Metric" I would certainly like
> to hear about them!
> .
> George
> .

There is no reality in SUBJECTIVE space-time.

and have Never been proven to be a reality.

go back to the drawing board....

call tech support..
error, error, error.

There is no reality in SUBJECTIVE space-time.

and have Never been proven to be a reality.

go back to the drawing board....

call tech support..
error, error, error.
error, error, error.
error, error, error.
error, error, error.
error, error, error.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzerror, error, error.
error, error, error.
call tech support..
in India.

you got a billion people who will take your call.

or any 7/11 store can help you.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 2/3/23 9:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> The Einstein Metric of objective space-time
> The Friedmann Metric Of Astrophysics
> The Hammond God Metric of Subjective Space-Time
> .
> Are by definition
> ALL COORDINATE INDEPENDENT: –

This is just plain not true. All your equations below implicitly use a
specific coordinate system.

> | 1 o o o. |
> | o 1 o o. | = EINSTEIN METRIC
> | o o 1 o. |
> | o o o -1.|
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = FRIEDMANN (FLRW) METRIC
> |o o a² o. |
> |o o o..-1.|
> .
> |a² o o o. |
> |o a² o o. | = HAMMOND METRIC OF GOD
> |o o a² o. |
> |ooo-1/a²|
> .
> You can write them in Cartesian coordinates,
> spherical coordinates, or any coordinate system
> you choose – because they are tensor equations.

This is just plain not true. Those are TENSOR COMPONENTS relative to a
specific coordinate system, NOT the tensors themselves. See example
below.

A metric tensor (field) is a bi-linear function of two vectors onto the
reals, evaluated at each point of the manifold [#]. One obtains the
above sets of components by evaluating the tensor on the 4x4 matrix of
basis vectors (at each point), which in these cases are the local
coordinate axes. This is TRIVIALLY OBVIOUS, because you display a 4x4
array of REAL NUMBERS, not any bi-linear function of two vectors onto
the reals.

[#] This is the actual definition, and shows why the
metric tensor defines the dot product between vectors.
The vectors implicitly belong to the tangent space at
each point of the manifold.

> [... further nonsense omitted]

YOU clearly do not understand this.

As a simple example, consider your "EINSTEIN METRIC", which is actually
the COMPONENTS of the Minkowski metric of Special Relativity, expressed
in Minkowski coordinates (x,y,z,t) using units with c=1. When expressed
in terms of spherical coordinates (r,theta,phi,t), the matrix of
COMPONENTS is transformed:
| 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 r^2 0 0 |
| 0 0 r^2 sin^2(theta) 0 |
| 0 0 0 -1 |
The COMPONENTS are clearly dependent on the coordinates used.

You really should learn something about the subject before attempting to
write about it. And my earlier remark still applies:
>> [Of course the whole thing is useless to anyone who does
>> not share your imaginary figments, which is why I am
>> normally absent from this thread).

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:09:58 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> You really should learn something about the subject before attempting to
> write about it. And my earlier remark still applies:
> >> [Of course the whole thing is useless to anyone who does
> >> not share your imaginary figments, which is why I am
> >> normally absent from this thread).
>
> Tom Roberts
.....
.....
[George E Hammond MS Physics]
February 5, 2023
..
Hi Tom:
.... Dick Feynman famously coined the phrase
"Tickling the Tail of the Dragon" while working on the
atomic bomb at Los Alamos during World War II.
..
You, Tom Roberts, are the only competent relativity Physicist
who has EVER taken a serious look at this Scientific Proof of
God (SPOG) discovery. And I dare say you are now engaged in
another case of "TICKLING THE TAIL OF THE DRAGON".
.... IMHO the discovery of the SPOG is roughly equivalent to the
discovery of the world's first Atomic Bomb in that regard!
..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
With that introduction, I will now proceed to reply to your
previous post here on SPR.
..
.... I have posted the following 3 well-known space-time metrics
expressed as 4 x 4 matrices in Cartesian Coordinates.
..
Eqns 1 and 2 have appeared in thousands of textbooks
for decades. They are commonplace and it is well understood
what they mean!
Eqn 3 originates with me and is something new!
..
| 1 o o o. |
| o 1 o o. | = Eqn 1 – EINSTEIN METRIC
| o o 1 o. |
| o o o -1.|
..
|a² o o o. |
|o a² o o. | = Eqn 2 – FRIEDMANN (FLRW) METRIC
|o o a² o. |
|o o o..-1.|
..
|a² o o o. |
|o a² o o. | = Eqn 3 – HAMMOND METRIC OF GOD
|o o a² o. |
|ooo-1/a²|
..
You can write these Eqns in Cartesian coordinates,
spherical coordinates, or any coordinate system
you choose –
..
When I said "they are coordinate independent" I
simply meant that if you change the coordinates it
does not change the underlying "physical reality"
of the problem – that remains the same irregardless
of the coordinates used.
..
Okay, so you pointed out that "coordinate independent"
actually (to be technically correct) actually means
something else. I must demur to your opinion and
apologize for my sloppy language. Since I'm 80
years old I've probably forgotten more Physics than
I can remember !
..
..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
MEANWHILE this discussion is not about
"nomenclature arguments". It is ALL ABOUT the
"PHYSICS OF THE PROBLEM". It is all about
the PHYSICS underlying eqn # 3 !
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
..
Now I am simply saying that it is a proven fact that
eqn 2 is scientifically correct – – the FLRW is one
of the most studied metrics in modern Science.
And furthermore I am saying that you can
UNDERSTAND eqn 3 by comparing it to eqn 2 !
..
Because a=a(t) in eqn 2 is a monotonically
increasing quantity, eqn 2 describes an
"expansion of space" in the 4 dimensional
spacetime of (x,y,z,t). And it has been proven
experimentally that this expansion actually exists
in the real universe, and that eqn 2 accurately
mathematically describes it!
..
KNOWING THAT a=a(t) in eqn 2 is a monotonically
increasing function of "t", it is immediately
mathematically apparent that if "a(t)" in eqn 3 is a
monotonically DECREASING function of time – –
that eqn 3 represents a "contraction" of space and
at the same time an "increasing speed of motion"
in the said spacetime.
..
We immediately notice that FUNDAMENTALLY eqn 3
is merely an EXTENSION of eqn 2, to include the
4th dimension (time) ! And also it has a DECREASING
"scale factor" rather than an INCREASING
scale factor.

IOW there is absolutely no question as to the
mathematical meaning of either eqn 2 or eqn 3.
..
OF COURSE – eqn 3 CANNOT possibly apply to
"real spacetime", it applies to some other
independent spacetime – and this independent
spacetime is referred to here as
HUMAN SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME .
..
OBJECTIVE SPACETIME Is what Astrophysics
measures with clocks and rulers.
SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME is what people actually SEE.
There is a difference between what various people see,
dramatically so with respect to age. A 6-month-old
child actually SEES a world that is nearly
4 TIMES LARGER AND 4 TIMES FASTER
than the world seen by an adult !
..
Therefore a "magnification factor" a=a(t)) must be
used to describe Subjective Spacetime and a(t)
begins at about 3.5 at birth and drops to about 1.18
at adulthood. It does not drop to 1.0, because
according to WHO and UNESCO data, the average
adult in the world is only about 85% fully grown
and 1/.85= 1.18.
..
Meanwhile, using this "human scale factor – a(t)"
we can compose Eqn 3 using the following rationale –
eqn 3 is formulated using the standard Einstein
formula for the "distance" between 2 events in
this new "subjective space-time: ––
..
ds² = a²(dx²+dy²+dz²) - dt²/a²
..
Where a = a(t) is the above defined "magnification
factor" (scale factor). IOW the above formula
requires a greater number of "feet" of childhood
enlarged objects, hence multiplication by "a" ,
whereas the increased speed of childhood
observed objects, requires a fewer number of
seconds, hence division by "a" (greater speed).
..
And this in turn gives us directly the origin of Eq 3
a.k.a. the Hammond God Metric
..
Now why is it called the "God metric" and the
answer to that is this: – we notice that no one
actually ever achieves "full growth". In fact WHO,
UNESCO and other world health organizations
estimate that the average person in the world is
only 85% fully grown – some more some less –
in 3rd World countries 30 to 40% growth stunting is
not uncommon due simply to starvation, hardship
and disease.
..
As a result of this on a world average adults wind
up only about 85% fully grown and since 1/.85= 1.18,
the average person winds up being 18% short of
full growth – and as explained above this means
that the average adult in the world is walking around
SEEING a world that appears
18% LARGER AND FASTER THAN IT ACTUALLY IS !!
..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This phenomenon strikes fear into the hearts of
every human being on Earth, and has been called
historically, for thousands of years, the phenomenon
of "GOD". IOW "God" is identified as a 100% fully
grown human specimen,usually assumed to be a
male, and for the record we realize that no such
person has ever been seen, and indubitably has
never actually physically existed on Earth ! And this
is why it is assumed that God is an INVISIBLE man
who only exists in "Heaven".
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
..
Now admittedly – the above description does
not PROVE that this "childhood growth
phenomenon" is actually "God" but it proves
that the phenomenon itself definitely EXISTS.
..
However – there is ANOTHER gigantic chunk of
the theory that I have not mentioned in this post
– that DOES PROVE beyond all doubt, that this
"less than full growth phenomenon" is in fact
"the God of the Bible".
..
It turns out that evidence comes from a 50 year,
$100 million study conducted by thousands of
Psychometricians worldwide in 20 languages and
published in a peer-reviewed literature large
enough to fill a library.
.... I do not present this evidence here because this is
a "Relativity" newsgroup, and not a "Psychology"
newsgroup.
.... However, should anyone be interested, I have
made a entertaining 10 minute YouTube video
which explains all this – and is certainly easy for
anyone with a physics degree to understand: –
..
WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
.......https://youtu.be/GXRA_vrZMYk
.................(YouTube 12-min)
..
..
Okay, Tom, with that I will end this post here, and
congratulate you personally on being the first
Physicist in the world, to actually take a competent
Physics Level look at Hammond's SPOG !
.... I'll be sure to share the Nobel Prize with you!
..
George
website located at:
https://independent.academia.edu/GeorgeHammond.

On 2/5/23 2:43 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> [...]

What you wrote is not scientific, proves nothing, and has no
relationship whatsoever to what other people mean by "God".

There's no point in continuing. Goodbye.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
> What you wrote is not scientific,
>
[George Hammond, MS Physics]
PROVE IT – SO FAR YOU HAVE PROVED
NOTHING OF THE KIND –
THAT'S JUST AN UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
My CV is posted here –
https://independent.academia.edu/GeorgeHammond/CurriculumVitae
mind posting your CV, Mr. Roberts?
>
> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
> proves nothing, and has no relationship whatsoever
> to what other people mean by "God".
>
[George Hammond, MS Physics]
THAT'S AN UNSUPPORTED NON–SCIENTIFIC OPINION
and has no place in this discussion thread !
>
> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
> There's no point in continuing. Goodbye.
> Tom Roberts
>
[George Hammond, MS Physics]
Goodbye – and don't let the door
hit you in the ass on the way out !
..
I mistook you for a serious Relativity scientist –
turns out you're just another argumentative
Internet crank !
..
George

George Hammond wrote:

> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
>> What you wrote is not scientific,
>>
> [George Hammond, MS Physics]
> PROVE IT – SO FAR YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING OF THE KIND –
> THAT'S JUST AN UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION My CV is posted here –
> h̶t̶t̶p̶s̶://i̶n̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶t̶.a̶c̶a̶d̶e̶m̶i̶a̶.e̶d̶u̶/G̶e̶o̶r̶g̶e̶H̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶d̶/C̶u̶r̶r̶i̶c̶u̶l̶u̶m̶V̶i̶t̶a̶e̶ mind
> posting your CV, Mr. Roberts?

you look like gay. Those links says _download_free_, then asking for
username and password. You fucking morons don't know *_free_* stands for
in Physics. Let alone tensors.

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:20:38 PM UTC-5, Estaban Alduino wrote:
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
> >> What you wrote is not scientific,
> >>
> > [George Hammond, MS Physics]
> > PROVE IT – SO FAR YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING OF THE KIND –
> > THAT'S JUST AN UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION My CV is posted here –
> > h̶t̶t̶p̶s̶://i̶n̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶t̶.a̶c̶a̶d̶e̶m̶i̶a̶.e̶d̶u̶/G̶e̶o̶r̶g̶e̶H̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶d̶/C̶u̶r̶r̶i̶c̶u̶l̶u̶m̶V̶i̶t̶a̶e̶ mind
> > posting your CV, Mr. Roberts?
> you look like gay. Those links says _download_free_, then asking for
> username and password. You fucking morons don't know *_free_* stands for
> in Physics. Let alone tensors.
..
..[George E Hammond MS Physics]
LIAR – there's something wrong with your computer.
..
I'll post my CV – HERE – – you won't have to "click on any URLs "!
..
CURRICULUM VITAE
GEORGE E. 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 later Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU
..
Peer reviewed publications:
..
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In Psychology,
Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd..
Online copy ofpublished paper is posted at:Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994
..
https://tinyurl.com/2wnrjht3
also a full length free research only copy is located here:
https://tinyurl.com/28tyke6w
..
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July2003, pp231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is postedat:
https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God
..
[George E Hammond, MS Physics]
And it still remains highly mysterious about
what Tom Roberts' CV actually is !
..
George

George Hammond wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:20:38 PM UTC-5, Estaban Alduino wrote:
> > George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
> > >> What you wrote is not scientific,
> > >>
> > > [George Hammond, MS Physics]
> > > PROVE IT – SO FAR YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING OF THE KIND –
> > > THAT'S JUST AN UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION My CV is posted here –
> > > h̶t̶t̶p̶s̶://i̶n̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶t̶.a̶c̶a̶d̶e̶m̶i̶a̶.e̶d̶u̶/G̶e̶o̶r̶g̶e̶H̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶d̶/C̶u̶r̶r̶i̶c̶u̶l̶u̶m̶V̶i̶t̶a̶e̶ mind
> > > posting your CV, Mr. Roberts?
> > you look like gay. Those links says _download_free_, then asking for
> > username and password. You fucking morons don't know *_free_* stands for
> > in Physics. Let alone tensors.
> .
> .[George E Hammond MS Physics]
> LIAR – there's something wrong with your computer.
> .
> I'll post my CV – HERE – – you won't have to "click on any URLs "!
> .
> CURRICULUM VITAE
> GEORGE E. 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 later Distinguished
> Professor of Physics at TAMU
> .
> Peer reviewed publications:
> .
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In Psychology,
> Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd..
> Online copy ofpublished paper is posted at:Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994
> .
> https://tinyurl.com/2wnrjht3
> also a full length free research only copy is located here:
> https://tinyurl.com/28tyke6w
> .
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July2003, pp231-244(Noetic Press)
> Online copy of peer/published paper is postedat:
> https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God
> .
> [George E Hammond, MS Physics]
> And it still remains highly mysterious about
> what Tom Roberts' CV actually is !
> .
> George

What I don't truly understand is this thing called...
The God Metric.

There is no God Matric, and there cannot be possiby a God Metric
since...

there is no God.

So, how can someone come up with a matric to something that don't exist?

I don't get it.

Where is this thing you call...God?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 2/7/2023 3:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:20:38 PM UTC-5, Estaban Alduino wrote:
>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [Tom Roberts wrote:]
>>>>> What you wrote is not scientific,
>>>>>
>>>> [George Hammond, MS Physics]
>>>> PROVE IT – SO FAR YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING OF THE KIND –
>>>> THAT'S JUST AN UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION My CV is posted here –
>>>> h̶t̶t̶p̶s̶://i̶n̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶t̶.a̶c̶a̶d̶e̶m̶i̶a̶.e̶d̶u̶/G̶e̶o̶r̶g̶e̶H̶a̶m̶m̶o̶n̶d̶/C̶u̶r̶r̶i̶c̶u̶l̶u̶m̶V̶i̶t̶a̶e̶ mind
>>>> posting your CV, Mr. Roberts?
>>> you look like gay. Those links says _download_free_, then asking for
>>> username and password. You fucking morons don't know *_free_* stands for
>>> in Physics. Let alone tensors.
>> .
>> .[George E Hammond MS Physics]
>> LIAR – there's something wrong with your computer.
>> .
>> I'll post my CV – HERE – – you won't have to "click on any URLs "!
>> .
>> CURRICULUM VITAE
>> GEORGE E. 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 later Distinguished
>> Professor of Physics at TAMU
>> .
>> Peer reviewed publications:
>> .
>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In Psychology,
>> Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd..
>> Online copy ofpublished paper is posted at:Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994
>> .
>> https://tinyurl.com/2wnrjht3
>> also a full length free research only copy is located here:
>> https://tinyurl.com/28tyke6w
>> .
>> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
>> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July2003, pp231-244(Noetic Press)
>> Online copy of peer/published paper is postedat:
>> https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God
>> .
>> [George E Hammond, MS Physics]
>> And it still remains highly mysterious about
>> what Tom Roberts' CV actually is !
>> .
>> George
>
>
> What I don't truly understand is this thing called...
> The God Metric.
>
>
> There is no God Matric, and there cannot be possiby a God Metric
> since...
>
>
> there is no God.
>
> So, how can someone come up with a matric to something that don't exist?
>
> I don't get it.
>
>
> Where is this thing you call...God?

God is, if nothing else, a cultural icon. Nobody can actually prove he
exists, or doesn't exist. God is the essence of "good and evil" that
makes the system work as well as it does. And it is OK if you fail to
appreciate the contribution to society that makes so long as some
suitably minimum percentage of the world population believes it or at
least fears it could be true.

By your own standards you are nothing. Revel in that for a while.

I fall into the "uncertain but unconcerned" category. There is
actually no safe space when considering God, good, and evil.

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 11:43:09 UTC+1, whodat wrote:

> God is, if nothing else, a cultural icon. Nobody can actually prove he
> exists, or doesn't exist.

Of course one can, and both. A matter of axioms assumed,
just like other proofs.

George Hammond wrote:

> CURRICULUM VITAE GEORGE E. HAMMOND .
> B̶.S̶. P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USA
> M̶.S̶.
> P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USA P̶h̶.D̶. C̶a̶n̶d̶i̶d̶a̶t̶e̶
> a̶n̶d̶ T̶e̶a̶c̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ F̶e̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ i̶n̶ P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ.Boston MA ..
> Note: S̶t̶u̶d̶i̶e̶d̶ R̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ P̶r̶o̶f̶. R̶i̶c̶h̶a̶r̶d̶ A̶r̶n̶o̶w̶i̶t̶t̶ a̶t̶ N̶.U̶. and later
> D̶i̶s̶t̶i̶n̶g̶u̶i̶s̶h̶e̶d̶ P̶r̶o̶f̶e̶s̶s̶o̶r̶ o̶f̶ P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ a̶t̶ T̶A̶M̶U̶ .
> Peer reviewed publications:

it looks like you changed your name, arrived in america. What is your real
name?

On 2/7/2023 3:10 PM, Rusbel Confortola wrote:
> George Hammond wrote:
>
>> CURRICULUM VITAE GEORGE E. HAMMOND .
>> B̶.S̶. P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USA
>> M̶.S̶.
>> P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USA P̶h̶.D̶. C̶a̶n̶d̶i̶d̶a̶t̶e̶
>> a̶n̶d̶ T̶e̶a̶c̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ F̶e̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ i̶n̶ P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ.Boston MA ..
>> Note: S̶t̶u̶d̶i̶e̶d̶ R̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ P̶r̶o̶f̶. R̶i̶c̶h̶a̶r̶d̶ A̶r̶n̶o̶w̶i̶t̶t̶ a̶t̶ N̶.U̶. and later
>> D̶i̶s̶t̶i̶n̶g̶u̶i̶s̶h̶e̶d̶ P̶r̶o̶f̶e̶s̶s̶o̶r̶ o̶f̶ P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ a̶t̶ T̶A̶M̶U̶ .
>> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> it looks like you changed your name, arrived in america. What is your real
> name?

If he has a real(tm) name that would be the only real(tm) thing about
him.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:39:15 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> What I don't truly understand is this thing called...
> The God Metric.
>
..
[George E Hammond MS Physics, Hyannis MA USA]
..
Good news STARMAKER: –
.... Hammond's SPOG (Scientific Proof of God)
has passed the test – it's proven to be CORRECT:
see SPR post: –
..
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/EsKCSUHMmow/m/VU1ZwYJ5EAAJ
..
His nibs Tom Roberts – could not refute this post –
and he's a qualified relativity expert ! He turned tail
and took a powder when I challenged him to !
..
It's simple – the SPOG is nothing but an extension of the
PROVEN FLRW metric to the 4th dimension – time
and applied to "Human Subjective Spacetime" !!
..
A High School student can understand it for chrissakes !
..
Hammond's SPOG is in fact: –
THE WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
..
The "AGE OF JESUS" has scientifically ENDED !
..
The "SCIENTIFIC AGE OF GOD" has BEGUN !
..
And I suggest, in view of that, that we RESTART
the JULIAN CALENDAR on January 1, 2024: –
and I mean start it at "01 PD" (Probatur Deus)
which means "01 Proven God" in English !
The age of A.D. (Anno Domini) HAS OFFICIALLY ENDED.
..
Okay STARMAKER that's the good goddamned news
– the're gonna have to take that crucified body down
off the cross in the front of all the Christian churches,
from now on in – we will be worshiping God himself,
and not the "son of God" from here on in !
..
Thanks for all the support buddy – I appreciate it !
And if you got any Jewish friends – be sure to tell
them the good news !
..
George
..

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:06:46 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 11:43:09 UTC+1,
> whodat wrote:
>
> > [WHODAT wrote:]
> > God is, if nothing else, a cultural icon.
> > Nobody can actually prove he
> > exists, or doesn't exist
>
> [MALUW wrote:]
> Of course one can, and both.
> A matter of axioms assumed,
> just like other proofs.
>
[GEORGE E HAMMOND MS PHYSICS]
.... Both of you are a couple of aging Jr. College
ignoramuses – AND BOTH OF YOU ARE WRONG
..
Hammond has just succeeded in proving there
IS A REAL GOD right here on SPR –
see: –
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/EsKCSUHMmow/m/VU1ZwYJ5EAAJ
..
And you know what – time is running out for
ignoramuses like you two and Richard Dawkins !
..
George

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:39:15 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> There is no God METRIC, and there
> cannot be possiby a God METRIC
> since... there is no God.
> I don't get it.
> Where is this thing you call...God?
>
[George Hammond MS Physics]
I'll tell you where God is –
he's right in front of your eyes
..
God causes the average person
to SEE the world appearing 20%
LARGER AND FASTER than it
actually is (by actual measurement).
..
This not only changes the SIZE AND SPEED
of the world – it DRAMATICALLY changes
the FACIAL EXPRESSION of everyone you
meet.
..
PSYCHOTIC CRIMINALS are acutely aware
of this – while the average person is not !
..
This allows them to run rampant through
society committing crimes, atrocities, rapine
and murder with ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY !
..
Wake up you idiot – we now have a scientific
explanation and measurement of the
phenomenon !
..
There sure in hell is
A REAL GOD ! And if you're
not aware of it – you're a
SITTING DUCK !!!
..
George

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 11:51:22 PM UTC-5, George Hammond wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:39:15 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > There is no God METRIC, and there
> > cannot be possiby a God METRIC
> > since... there is no God.
> > I don't get it.
> > Where is this thing you call...God?
> >
..[George Hammond MS Physics]
Try and understand the explanation given below: –
..
> [George Hammond MS Physics]
> I'll tell you where God is –
> he's right in front of your eyes
> .
> God causes the average person
> to SEE the world appearing 20%
> LARGER AND FASTER than it
> actually is (by actual measurement).
> .
..
[George Hammond MS Physics]
Look STARMAKER – the "God Metric" is given
below, –
..
| 1 o o o. |
| o 1 o o. | = EINSTEIN METRIC
| o o 1 o. |
| o o o -1.|
..
|a² o o o. |
|o a² o o. | = FRIEDMANN (FLRW) METRIC
|o o a² o. |
|o o o..-1.|
..
|a² o o o. |
|o a² o o. | = HAMMOND METRIC OF GOD
|o o a² o. |
|ooo-1/a²|
..
"a=a(t)" only drops to 1.18 at adulthood for
the average adult in the world – this means we
are saddled with almost a 20% MAGNIFICATION
of the apparent SIZE AND SPEED of "REALITY"
for the rest of our lives! – (This is caused by the
fact that no one ever reaches full growth – the
world average is only around 85%) And this phenomenon has been referred to as "GOD" for thousands of years!
..
..... This also changes the APPEARANCE of every
single person's PERSONALITY – and "psychotics"
are ignorant people who don't realize that this is
"the effect of God" – and they believe it is simply
a "mental trick" to be taken advantage of !
..
> This not only changes the SIZE AND SPEED
> of the world – it DRAMATICALLY changes
> the FACIAL EXPRESSION of everyone you
> meet.
> .
> PSYCHOTIC CRIMINALS are acutely aware
> of this – while the average person is not !
> .
> This allows them to run rampant through
> society committing crimes, atrocities, rapine
> and murder with ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY !
> .
> Wake up you idiot – we now have a scientific
> explanation and measurement of the
> phenomenon !
> .
> There sure in hell is
> A REAL GOD ! And if you're
> not aware of it – you're a
> SITTING DUCK !!!
> .
> George
..
George

George Hammond wrote:

> [George Hammond M̶S̶ P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶]
> SSdsbCB0ZWxsIHlvdSB3aGVyZSBHb2QgaXM= –
> aGUncyByaWdodCBpbiBmcm9udCBvZiB5b3VyIGV5ZXM= .
> G̶o̶d̶ c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ a̶v̶e̶r̶a̶g̶e̶ p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶ t̶o̶ S̶E̶E̶ t̶h̶e̶ w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ 20% L̶A̶R̶G̶E̶R̶ A̶N̶D̶
> RkFTVEVSIHRoYW4gaXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgaXM= (by actual measurement).

not sure. But Michael can say "I'm not even gay. I just fuck the president
of the united states, Obama, in his ass, in white house". Who wouldn't do
that.

George Hammond wrote:

> |à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽² ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕. |
> |o a² o o. | = H̶A̶M̶M̶O̶N̶D̶ M̶E̶T̶R̶I̶C̶ O̶F̶ G̶O̶D̶
> |ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽² ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕. |
> |ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕-1/à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽²|
> .
> ImE9YSh0KSIgb25seSBkcm9wcyB0byAxLjE4IGF0IGFkdWx0aG9vZCBmb3I=
> the average adult in the world – dGhpcyBtZWFucyB3ZQ==
> are saddled with almost YSAyMCUgTUFHTklGSUNBVElPTg==
> of the apparent SIZE QU5EIFNQRUVEIG9mICJSRUFMSVRZIg==

here's some reality.

Hersh, an investigative journalist and Pulitzer Prize laureate, published
a report titled *_“How_America_Took_Out_The_Nord_Stream_Pipeline”_* on
Wednesday. He cited a “source with direct knowledge of the operational
planning” of the attack on the Russia-Germany pipelines. He claims a bomb
was *_planted_by_the_US_* during *_the_BALTOPS_22_NATO_exercises_*, and
the explosive *_was_then_detonated_by_Norway_* dropping a *_sonar_buoy_*
from a military plane.

George Hammond wrote:
> SGlzIG5pYnM= Tom Roberts – Y291bGQgbm90IHJlZnV0ZSB0aGlzIHBvcw==t –
> dHVybmVkIHRhaWw= a qualified relativity expert ! He dHVybmVkIHRhaWw= and took a
> powder when SSBjaGFsbGVuZ2VkIGhpbSB0bw== !
> .
> It's simple – dGhlIFNQT0c= is nothing but YW4gZXh0ZW5zaW9u of the PROVEN FLRW
> dHVybmVkIHRhaWw= – time and applied to "SHVtYW4gU3ViamVjdGl2ZQo+IFNwYWNldGltZSIgISE=

remember, these khazars mazafaka wanted you dead with "vaccines".

Reporter From ‘Impartial’ BBC Hugs Ukrainian President Zelensky During Press Conference
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/reporter-from-impartial-bbc-hugs-ukrainian-president-zelensky-during-press-conference/

CDC Warn Multiple COVID Jabs ‘Lowers Lifespan by 24 Years’
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/cdc-warn-multiple-covid-jabs-lowers-lifespan-by-24-years/

watch the *_face_construction_* of this mazafaka.
Either he is on strong drugs, or have *_loads_of_shit_* in his pants.

Pfizer CEO, *_khazar_Albert_Bourla_*, Relies On Aggressive Security Tactics To Escape Questioning By Veritas
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/XlG3EL3CqMk