| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2006 10:55:16 AM |
| Object: |
Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:50:48 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 10:35:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:59:04 GMT, George Hammond
Note:
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
<snip citation>
[Immortalist]
Can you explain precisely how this information confirms scientific
proof and where is the scientific proof of God? It does your case no
good to continually dodge the request for a simple explaination of your
favorite theory.
[Hammond]
Of course I can give a "simple explanation" of
The Scientific Proof of God (the SPOG):
SIMPLE PROOF OF GOD
There is a difference between objective and subjective
reality. Anything that happens to your brain will change
subjective reality. Drugs, alcohol, etc will cause
subjective reality to DIFFER from objective reality. This
is common knowlege and there is no mystery to this!
In fact, the most COMMON departure from having a normal
adult brain is simply being less than fully grown. A 9 year
old for instance is only roughly "half grown" since
9/18=1/2... hence a 9 yr old only has a half grown BRAIN.
Fact is reality to a 9 year old is twice as big and twice
as fast as the reality of an adult. He is only half as big,
and he is only half as intelligent, meaning that his mental
speed is only half as fast. Hence the world is TWICE AS BIG
AND TWICE AS FAST to a 9 year old as it is to an adult
(again, roughtly speaking). OK... again... there is nothing
mysterious to this well known biological fact.
OK... now we come to something that is less well known.
Fact is, the average adult never actually reaches full
growth. In fact, the average adult is only about 80-85%
fully grown. In fact humans are getting larger every
century because of this, and it is known as the SECULAR
TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH.
OK... if the average adult is say 15% less than fully
grown, then this means that SUBJECTIVE REALITY must look 15%
BIGGER AND FASTER than objective reality to the average
human being!
THIS PHENOMENON IS CALLED G-O-D
Amazingly, Hammond has discovered that the magnification of
space and time caused by the Secular Trend in human growth
actually obeys Einstein's Field Equation of General
Relativity. This proves that the phenomenon of "God" is
actually a RELATIVISTIC EFFECT even though it is a curvature
of subjective reality and not a curvature of objective
reality. This tells us immediately that the phenomenon of
"God" is ultimately caused by Gravity.
OK.... there it is.... the "simple explanation" of the
Scientific Proof of God. Now, like I say... it takes a
sophisticated person to understand a simple explanation. If
you can't understand it...then you'll have to wait for the
book I'm writng.
Meanwhile.... you can bet your ***** on one thing for
certain....THE GOD OF THE BIBLE
D-O-E-S E-X-I-S-T
and can be measured to two decimal point accuracy!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
08 Oct 2006 01:33:11 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:19:52 +0200, "pg"
.
You're a numb aggravated heckling *****!
And you're suffering flashbacks to the 60's where you dropped way too
much acid which turned you into a, Internet Fuckhead
Randy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
09 Oct 2006 01:50:51 AM |
|
|
George,
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
FACT IS that the (movie) "Picture Fusion Frequency"
of a child is only 2/3 of the PFF of an adult and as
any QUALIFIED SCIENTIST knows this means that
the FOURIER FREQUENCY SPECTRUM of his ability to
see motion is ONE THIRD LESS than that of an
adult....WHICH MEANS THAT:
1/3 of adult reality is INVISIBLE
to a 7 year old child
or...... to put it into LAY LANGUAGE...
"children cannot perceive the
rapid mtions that adults can"
So seeing motion is the key to knowing how much a person sees of
reality? I feel like I have to do work for you by pointing out the
leaps in your thinking. Adults may be able to see motion better, but
they tend to see ideas instead of objects. They have categorized and
labled their worlds and no longer actually see them. They see 'a tree'
and not the tree that is actually in front of them. You have not made
a good case that adults see more of reality.
drugs do not dimish reality contact, they alter it.
[Hammond]
So does the phenomena of God, and the
connection has been know for milleniums.
I guess you misunderstood what I was disagreeing with.
<SNIP... the usual boring amateur rant>
I am sorry that my rant was not boring on your professional level. You
understood the point no doubt and have no rebuttal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
09 Oct 2006 03:30:23 AM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2006 23:50:51 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George,
George Hammond wrote:
NOTE:
Listen to an mp3 folk song by The Interrobang Cartel
========================================
GOD=G_uv FOLK SONG
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
[Hammond]
FACT IS that the (movie) "Picture Fusion Frequency"
of a child is only 2/3 of the PFF of an adult and as
any QUALIFIED SCIENTIST knows this means that
the FOURIER FREQUENCY SPECTRUM of his ability to
see motion is ONE THIRD LESS than that of an
adult....WHICH MEANS THAT:
1/3 of adult reality is INVISIBLE
to a 7 year old child
or...... to put it into LAY LANGUAGE...
"children cannot perceive the
rapid mtions that adults can"
[Sammybaby]
So seeing motion is the key to knowing how much a person sees of
reality?
[Hammond]
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
However there is a spatial recognition effect also. For
instance there is a parlor game where people are shown
pictures of objects at high magnification and asked to guess
what they are. At very high magnifications an object
becomes unrecognizeable. Lifewise, if it is magnified only
15%... it essentially becomes "15% unrecognizeable".
[Sammybaby]
I feel like I have to do work for you by pointing out the
leaps in your thinking.
[Hammond]
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist just
makes you sound stupid Sammy. And I don't think you're
stupid... not yet anyway.
[Sammybaby]
Adults may be able to see motion better, but
they tend to see ideas instead of objects. They have categorized and
labled their worlds and no longer actually see them. They see 'a tree'
and not the tree that is actually in front of them. You have not made
a good case that adults see more of reality.
[Hammond]
The difference in the PFF between adults and children is
an AIR TIGHT PROOF that adults see more than children. Any
COMPETENT scientist can confirm this.
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
And believe me there is plenty I'm not telling you for
want of attention span and time. For instance, facial
expression and therefore IDENTITY completely changes with
mental speed..... this is what causes PSYCHOTICS (people who
can't be seen and therefore commit crimes), for instance.
That fact ALONE explains 90% of human history and 100% of
the Bible.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
09 Oct 2006 06:12:36 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
And believe me there is plenty I'm not telling you for
want of attention span and time. For instance, facial
expression and therefore IDENTITY completely changes with
mental speed..... this is what causes PSYCHOTICS (people who
can't be seen and therefore commit crimes), for instance.
This just reminds me of the Ring of Gyges.
One God to rule them all ...
[waits for lightning bolt]
That fact ALONE explains 90% of human history and 100% of
the Bible.
It would ALSO explain a lot of scenes in HORROR MOVIES.
By the way, as I recall, Tolkien described his work as mythical, yet
true. It would be interesting to hear what the SPOG has to say about
any of this ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
09 Oct 2006 07:36:29 AM |
|
|
God rules no one, doctrine does!
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Simply As That!
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160392356.404558.123310@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
George Hammond wrote:
And believe me there is plenty I'm not telling you for
want of attention span and time. For instance, facial
expression and therefore IDENTITY completely changes with
mental speed..... this is what causes PSYCHOTICS (people who
can't be seen and therefore commit crimes), for instance.
This just reminds me of the Ring of Gyges.
One God to rule them all ...
[waits for lightning bolt]
That fact ALONE explains 90% of human history and 100% of
the Bible.
It would ALSO explain a lot of scenes in HORROR MOVIES.
By the way, as I recall, Tolkien described his work as mythical, yet
true. It would be interesting to hear what the SPOG has to say about
any of this ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
09 Oct 2006 10:56:38 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
That is another leap. And using an expression like that to back up a
leap is not something I expect a graduate physicist to expect to fill
in leaps.
However there is a spatial recognition effect also. For
instance there is a parlor game where people are shown
pictures of objects at high magnification and asked to guess
what they are. At very high magnifications an object
becomes unrecognizeable. Lifewise, if it is magnified only
15%... it essentially becomes "15% unrecognizeable".
[Sammybaby]
I feel like I have to do work for you by pointing out the
leaps in your thinking.
[Hammond]
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist just
makes you sound stupid Sammy. And I don't think you're
stupid... not yet anyway.
Could you ask some of your peer graduate physicists - by the way I am
not clear exactly what that term means - to post in this thread and
confirm some of your leaps. I am serious here and not simply being
snotty. I don't know how much you are aware of about how you make
intuitive leaps that seem absolutely clear to you, but not to others.
[Sammybaby]
Adults may be able to see motion better, but
they tend to see ideas instead of objects. They have categorized and
labled their worlds and no longer actually see them. They see 'a tree'
and not the tree that is actually in front of them. You have not made
a good case that adults see more of reality.
[Hammond]
The difference in the PFF between adults and children is
an AIR TIGHT PROOF that adults see more than children. Any
COMPETENT scientist can confirm this.
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
This is simply a restatement with more capitals.
It would help if you actually addressd my objections, to show you
understand them, and then showed how saying the same thing again - and
again saying any competent scientist would agree with you - proves you
right. I understand the analogy of dog and human hearing, but here we
are restricted to range of frequencies audible to subjects. Hearing
reality. Dogs also have excellent hearing and unbelievably better
senses of smell. Can I begin to hypothesize that dogs experience more
of reality and are closer to your God than humans. I know, their
visual sense is not as good as ours in many ways, but I will be they
are damn good motion detectors.
Again. My point with children is that they actually see what they see,
not what they can or cannot do in one test of one of the qualities of
seeing. They see this particular leaf with these lines and edges. We
see a leaf. A category, most of the time. We manipulate and see items
in categories. We see reality less than they do. Or, at the very
least, you need to show how our ability to perceive motion is more
important that this ACTUAL SEEING OF THINGS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
10 Oct 2006 02:09:43 AM |
|
|
And just to add to the debate, I'll bet some animals are more sensorily
awake than dogs and humans. Some of the predators and prey on the
African savanah for example. Incredible motion detecting vision
abilities, much better than ours. Great olfaction. Incredible
hearing. And prioreception, forgetaboutit. I mean much better than
the best human acrobats. How do animals like these fit into your
theories? ARe they more immersed in reality,closer to God?
How about the blind? Are they, by definition, further from God?
Why do most mystics avoid teaching people to improve their motion
detecting abilities, often focusing on improving skills such as REALLY
SEEING THINGS? or inward awareness? I don't think the mystics are
aligned with your theory?
High IQs also do not correlate well with belief in God. A run through
of mensa member would probablyhave lower theists than the general
population.
(and please, I actually do believe in God and my IQ is just peachy, but
the trends, to me, don't fit with your theories)
Sammybaby wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
That is another leap. And using an expression like that to back up a
leap is not something I expect a graduate physicist to expect to fill
in leaps.
However there is a spatial recognition effect also. For
instance there is a parlor game where people are shown
pictures of objects at high magnification and asked to guess
what they are. At very high magnifications an object
becomes unrecognizeable. Lifewise, if it is magnified only
15%... it essentially becomes "15% unrecognizeable".
[Sammybaby]
I feel like I have to do work for you by pointing out the
leaps in your thinking.
[Hammond]
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist just
makes you sound stupid Sammy. And I don't think you're
stupid... not yet anyway.
Could you ask some of your peer graduate physicists - by the way I am
not clear exactly what that term means - to post in this thread and
confirm some of your leaps. I am serious here and not simply being
snotty. I don't know how much you are aware of about how you make
intuitive leaps that seem absolutely clear to you, but not to others.
[Sammybaby]
Adults may be able to see motion better, but
they tend to see ideas instead of objects. They have categorized and
labled their worlds and no longer actually see them. They see 'a tree'
and not the tree that is actually in front of them. You have not made
a good case that adults see more of reality.
[Hammond]
The difference in the PFF between adults and children is
an AIR TIGHT PROOF that adults see more than children. Any
COMPETENT scientist can confirm this.
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
This is simply a restatement with more capitals.
It would help if you actually addressd my objections, to show you
understand them, and then showed how saying the same thing again - and
again saying any competent scientist would agree with you - proves you
right. I understand the analogy of dog and human hearing, but here we
are restricted to range of frequencies audible to subjects. Hearing
reality. Dogs also have excellent hearing and unbelievably better
senses of smell. Can I begin to hypothesize that dogs experience more
of reality and are closer to your God than humans. I know, their
visual sense is not as good as ours in many ways, but I will be they
are damn good motion detectors.
Again. My point with children is that they actually see what they see,
not what they can or cannot do in one test of one of the qualities of
seeing. They see this particular leaf with these lines and edges. We
see a leaf. A category, most of the time. We manipulate and see items
in categories. We see reality less than they do. Or, at the very
least, you need to show how our ability to perceive motion is more
important that this ACTUAL SEEING OF THINGS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
10 Oct 2006 07:56:44 AM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2006 20:56:38 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
[Sammybaby]
That is another leap. And using an expression like that to back up a
leap is not something I expect a graduate physicist to expect to fill
in leaps.
[Hammond]
LOL, LOL, there ARE NO "leaps" in the SPOG.
There are only "leaps" in your education!.
Fact is... you're not educated enough to talk theoretical
physics. If you WERE I would point out that theoretically
TIME is more important than SPACE in Relativity since for
instance the ENTIRE BODY OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS depends only
on the TIME COMPONENT (44 component) of GR... which is WHY
Newtonian gravity can be described by a SCALAR potential
instead of a TENSOR potential. YOU'RE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH
TO DISCUSS THAT!
You can't have your cake and eat it to Sammy... if YOU
CAN'T TALK THEORETICAL PHYSICS then we have to use "lay
expressions" to talk to you such as "the quick and the
dead"..... its that simple!
However there is a spatial recognition effect also. For
instance there is a parlor game where people are shown
pictures of objects at high magnification and asked to guess
what they are. At very high magnifications an object
becomes unrecognizeable. Lifewise, if it is magnified only
15%... it essentially becomes "15% unrecognizeable".
[Sammybaby]
I feel like I have to do work for you by pointing out the
leaps in your thinking.
[Hammond]
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist just
makes you sound stupid Sammy. And I don't think you're
stupid... not yet anyway.
[Hammond]
Could you ask some of your peer graduate physicists -
[Hammond]
Wake up! I'm here all day long year after year ASKING THE
PHYSICISTS TO MAKE A COMMENT. They won't because they are
ENVIOUS AND JEALOUS OF ME..... for chrissakes Sammy WAKE UP!
Who the ***** do you think you're talking too!
The treatment of Hammond by academic Physics is ALREADY A
PUBLIC SCANDAL:
Listen to it for chrissakes Sammy:
GEORGE HAMMOND CONSPIRACY
( http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 )
<SNIP>
[Hammond]
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
[Sammybaby]
It would help if you actually addressd my objections,
[Hammond]
You HAVE NO objections.
This is because you have no scientific education and think
making insults is a substitute. Who do you think you're
kidding?
[Sammybaby]
I understand the analogy of dog and human hearing,
[Hammond]
There you go.
[Sammybaby]
Can I begin to hypothesize that dogs experience more
of reality and are closer to your God than humans.
[Hammond]
Don't be stupid and impudent. Of course that's not what
the analogy means. The illustration is PERFECTLY CLEAR and
can be comprehended by any competent high school graduate
and is clearly (re) stated here for the 10th time:
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear
is I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater
than a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
[Hammond]
Now that explanation is ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE AND CLEAR. If
you can't comprehend it, then you should go back to the
skilled trades where you beling and leave intellectual work
to more qualified people.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
14 Oct 2006 06:56:27 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
Fact is... you're not educated enough to talk theoretical
physics. If you WERE I would point out that theoretically
TIME is more important than SPACE in Relativity since for
instance the ENTIRE BODY OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS depends only
on the TIME COMPONENT (44 component) of GR... which is WHY
Newtonian gravity can be described by a SCALAR potential
instead of a TENSOR potential. YOU'RE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH
TO DISCUSS THAT!
Oops. I am educated enough to know that certain animals have vastly
better sensory systems than us and that this causes problems for your
theory.
Oh, and Hammond. You keep coming here on the web, seeking support and
attention. You have limited people skills. A little heads up. People
skills also show
AN ABILITY TO SEE REALITY.
But you cannot perceive others, really. You are a solipsist. Our
value is only in how we see you. You are closed off like you imagine
children are.
Or are other people not part of reality?
(if that was too hard for you, It was not ***** you, it was you are
fairly stupid)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
14 Oct 2006 10:05:38 PM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2006 04:56:27 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
Fact is... you're not educated enough to talk theoretical
physics. If you WERE I would point out that theoretically
TIME is more important than SPACE in Relativity since for
instance the ENTIRE BODY OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS depends only
on the TIME COMPONENT (44 component) of GR... which is WHY
Newtonian gravity can be described by a SCALAR potential
instead of a TENSOR potential. YOU'RE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH
TO DISCUSS THAT!
Oops. I am educated enough to know that certain animals have vastly
better sensory systems than us and that this causes problems for your
theory.
[Hammond]
NO It doesn't cause any problems for the theory... it only
causes problems for a half baked amateur like you who isn't
even qualified to read the theory... nor even stand in the
same room with Geiorge Hammond. Get the ***** outta here and
practise lifting weights until you're strong enouth to be
polite and show some fuckin manners.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
15 Oct 2006 07:53:29 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 04:56:27 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
Fact is... you're not educated enough to talk theoretical
physics. If you WERE I would point out that theoretically
TIME is more important than SPACE in Relativity since for
instance the ENTIRE BODY OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS depends only
on the TIME COMPONENT (44 component) of GR... which is WHY
Newtonian gravity can be described by a SCALAR potential
instead of a TENSOR potential. YOU'RE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH
TO DISCUSS THAT!
Oops. I am educated enough to know that certain animals have vastly
better sensory systems than us and that this causes problems for your
theory.
[Hammond]
NO It doesn't cause any problems for the theory... it only
causes problems for a half baked amateur like you who isn't
even qualified to read the theory... nor even stand in the
same room with Geiorge Hammond. Get the ***** outta here and
practise lifting weights until you're strong enouth to be
polite and show some fuckin manners.
xxein: Ah, yes. Manners. Your manners are defined and practiced as
foolishly as your theory.
The Lord said "Fucketh thou for you don't believeth in Me, but a 15% $
cut for me might get you into heaven". Now that's the truth we would
want to hear from a shill.
"Gee, I have figured God out". That's what we hear from lunatics.
Whatever you think of as a god cannot be if you have figured it out
because that would make you greater than a god.
Thank you Mr. Precedent. Now may we hear the same gibberish from your
press secretary with a large amount of spin?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
15 Oct 2006 06:49:51 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
What you say about children in relation to adults does not fit with
what Jesus said about children and Heaven.
If, as you claim, you have proven the Bible is scientifically correct,
how can this contradiction exist?
Why do none of the mystics and teachers of the various religions teach
seekers methods to increase their ability to perceive motion, but often
suggest exercises that increase awareness of spatial qualities and
senses other than vision?
Are the blind damned automatically?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
14 Oct 2006 06:50:24 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 20:56:38 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
[Sammybaby]
That is another leap. And using an expression like that to back up a
leap is not something I expect a graduate physicist to expect to fill
in leaps.
[Hammond]
LOL, LOL, there ARE NO "leaps" in the SPOG.
There are only "leaps" in your education!.
Fact is... you're not educated enough to talk theoretical
physics. If you WERE I would point out that theoretically
TIME is more important than SPACE in Relativity since for
instance the ENTIRE BODY OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS depends only
on the TIME COMPONENT (44 component) of GR... which is WHY
Newtonian gravity can be described by a SCALAR potential
instead of a TENSOR potential. YOU'RE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH
TO DISCUSS THAT!
You can't have your cake and eat it to Sammy... if YOU
CAN'T TALK THEORETICAL PHYSICS then we have to use "lay
expressions" to talk to you such as "the quick and the
dead"..... its that simple!
Keep the insults coming. It does precisely the opposite of what you
desire. It makes you look weak. >
However there is a spatial recognition effect also. For
instance there is a parlor game where people are shown
pictures of objects at high magnification and asked to guess
what they are. At very high magnifications an object
becomes unrecognizeable. Lifewise, if it is magnified only
15%... it essentially becomes "15% unrecognizeable".
[Sammybaby]
I feel like I have to do work for you by pointing out the
leaps in your thinking.
[Hammond]
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist just
makes you sound stupid Sammy. And I don't think you're
stupid... not yet anyway.
[Hammond]
Could you ask some of your peer graduate physicists -
[Hammond]
Wake up! I'm here all day long year after year ASKING THE
PHYSICISTS TO MAKE A COMMENT. They won't because they are
ENVIOUS AND JEALOUS OF ME..... for chrissakes Sammy WAKE UP!
Who the ***** do you think you're talking too!
The treatment of Hammond by academic Physics is ALREADY A
PUBLIC SCANDAL:
Listen to it for chrissakes Sammy:
GEORGE HAMMOND CONSPIRACY
( http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 )
OK. You are completely victimized. And none of it is your fault.
Educated people like me cannot understand you. And people with enough
physics under their best to understand you are involved in a conspiracy
against you.
A lot of physicists did not accept Einstein. True. But significant
others thought his work had merit and genius and kept it in the
daylight. If not one expert is keeping your work in the daylight, you
have a problem.
<SNIP>
[Hammond]
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
[Sammybaby]
It would help if you actually addressd my objections,
[Hammond]
You HAVE NO objections.
This is because you have no scientific education and think
making insults is a substitute. Who do you think you're
kidding?
[Sammybaby]
I understand the analogy of dog and human hearing,
[Hammond]
There you go.
[Sammybaby]
Can I begin to hypothesize that dogs experience more
of reality and are closer to your God than humans.
[Hammond]
Don't be stupid and impudent. Of course that's not what
the analogy means. The illustration is PERFECTLY CLEAR and
can be comprehended by any competent high school graduate
and is clearly (re) stated here for the 10th time:
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear
is I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater
than a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
[Hammond]
Now that explanation is ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE AND CLEAR. If
you can't comprehend it, then you should go back to the
skilled trades where you beling and leave intellectual work
to more qualified people.
No. There is a leap. Reality seeing is not simply seeing motion. And
if it is then certain animals are seeing more of reality than you, for
example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
14 Oct 2006 09:57:51 PM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2006 04:50:24 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Wake up! I'm here all day long year after year ASKING THE
PHYSICISTS TO MAKE A COMMENT. They won't because they are
ENVIOUS AND JEALOUS OF ME..... for chrissakes Sammy WAKE UP!
Who the ***** do you think you're talking too!
The treatment of Hammond by academic Physics is ALREADY A
PUBLIC SCANDAL:
Listen to it for chrissakes Sammy:
GEORGE HAMMOND CONSPIRACY
( http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 )
OK. You are completely victimized. And none of it is your fault.
[Hammond]
No ***** Sammy.. you can thank a popular Folk Singer for
telling you that much.
Educated people like me cannot understand you.
[Hammond]
You're not educated Sammy... you have no competency in
Mathematical Physics for instance, which means you're only
"half educated" at best.
And people with enough
physics under their belt to understand you are involved in a conspiracy
against you.
[Hammond]
Look people who ONLY know mathematical-physics are ALSO only
"half educated"... but they don't want the rest of the world
to know it.... so they keep away from Hammond like criminals
avoid the police doncha know. They know Hammond HAS
discovered the "world's first scientific proof of God" and
they know it makes them look FOOLISH and IGNORANT and they
studiously ignore Hammond, and even (like Prof. Chris Isham)
get on Usenet and egg on the hecklers and harassesers to
attack Hammond.
A lot of physicists did not accept Einstein. True. But significant
others thought his work had merit and genius and kept it in the
daylight. If not one expert is keeping your work in the daylight, you
have a problem.
[Hammond]
THEY CAN'T STOP IT FROM SEEING DAYLIGHT because of the
Internet... so WHAT THEY DO is egg on their platoons of
lackey heckling goons to heckle Hammond with THOUSANDS of
off-topic ad hominem harassing posts in an attempt to SMEAR
HAMMOND and DROWN HIM OUT and THREATEN anyone who would talk
serious science with Hammond. That is a "conspiracy of
suppression" just like the guy said in the Hammond Folk
Song.
<SNIP>
[Hammond]
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
[Sammybaby]
It would help if you actually addressd my objections,
[Hammond]
You HAVE NO objections.
This is because you have no scientific education and think
making insults is a substitute. Who do you think you're
kidding?
[Sammybaby]
I understand the analogy of dog and human hearing,
[Hammond]
There you go.
[Sammybaby]
Can I begin to hypothesize that dogs experience more
of reality and are closer to your God than humans.
[Hammond]
Don't be stupid and impudent. Of course that's not what
the analogy means. The illustration is PERFECTLY CLEAR and
can be comprehended by any competent high school graduate
and is clearly (re) stated here for the 10th time:
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear
is I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater
than a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
[Hammond]
Now that explanation is ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE AND CLEAR. If
you can't comprehend it, then you should go back to the
skilled trades where you beling and leave intellectual work
to more qualified people.
No. There is a leap. Reality seeing is not simply seeing motion. And
if it is then certain animals are seeing more of reality than you, for
example.
[Hammond]
You don't know what you are taklking about... mainly because
you have no scientific credentials... and are VICIOUSLY
JEALOUS of anyone who has. You'r e just another
"anti-intellectual lackey" who the physicists who are
suppressing Hammond know they can DEPEND ON to heckle and
name call Hammond out of vicious jealousy.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
10 Oct 2006 09:32:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:28:26 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:54:20 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
NOTE:
Listen to an mp3 folk song by The Interrobang Cartel
========================================
GOD=G_uv FOLK SONG
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:01:03 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:56:44 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 20:56:38 -0700, "Sammybaby"
<roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
[Sammybaby]
That is another leap. And using an expression like that to back up a
leap is not something I expect a graduate physicist to expect to fill
in leaps.
[Hammond]
LOL, LOL, there ARE NO "leaps" in the SPOG.
There are only "leaps" in your education!.
[Horta]
One "leaps" when one connects two statements that aren't
logicaly connected. SPOG is plastered together with such
leaps.
[Hammond]
the two statments are logically connected heckler.
[Hammond]
Fact is... you're not educated enough to talk theoretical
physics.
[Horta]
Sadly I am and your arguments are specious.
[Hammond]
I don't think you are. And the arguments have been peer
reviewed by 8 PhD physicists and peer published in the
academic literature... which falsifies your statement.
[Hammond]
If you WERE I would point out that theoretically
TIME is more important than SPACE in Relativity since for
instance the ENTIRE BODY OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS depends only
on the TIME COMPONENT (44 component) of GR... which is WHY
Newtonian gravity can be described by a SCALAR potential
instead of a TENSOR potential. YOU'RE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH
TO DISCUSS THAT!
[Horta]
This is known in the field as the retard defence.
[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.
Horta]
Bring
up a completely disconnected observation
[Hammond]
Its not "disconnected". The fact that only the "time
component" of the Curvature of Objective reality is needed
to explain (classical) Gravity is EXACTLY WHY only the "time
component" of Subjective reality is needed to explain
(classical) God.
[Horta]
and then claim
he doesn't understand enough to comment.
[Hammond]
He doesn', and neither do you..
[Heckler]
Well, likely someone has pointed out the SPOG is GOPS
spelled backwards and is obviously a stupid troll you've
been using to spam usnet with.
[Hammond]
You couldn't hold up your end of a physicis debate of the
SPOG with me for 2 seconds. You'd look like a fool.. which
is what you are. And furthermore, the theory has been
published in TWO (count em; two) peer reviewed international
academic journals. You're just another wannabee Hammond
heckler, and the SPOG is OBVIOUSLY NOT a troll.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
11 Oct 2006 09:33:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:29:53 -0700, "J. Horta"
<bite@me.spam> wrote:
NOTE:
========================================
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
[J. Horta]
Okay, I know QM, GR, QFT, Classical Mechanics, Thermodynamics,
EM at the post graduate level.
[Hammond]
OK... lets dispense with the polemics and get right to the
scientific discussion.
You say you have read my paper at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
and then turn around and say:
there is simply no connection logical or otherwise between GR and your
proposed "proof" of God.
Obviously your conclusion above is INCOMPETENTsince my
paper clearly shows in step by step fashion HOW AND WHY the
Linear Algebra of Factor Analysis in Psychometry is CAUSALLY
IDENTICAL (note I said "causally") to the Linear Algebra of
"Linearized General Relativity". ..... God can now be actually
experimentally measured to TWO SIGNIFICANT FIGURES
[J. Horta]
You've clearly been at this for some time
[Hammond]
Yes... 20 years to discover and publish the world's first
scientific proof of God (Hammond, 2003).
But recall it took Albert Einstein 10 SOLID YEARS of around
the clock non-stop research to find the field equations of
General Relativity, G_uv=kT_uv. So this is not unusual
for a major scientific discovery.
[J. Horta]
One example
from your paper is relating the number of eigenvectors
of a correlation matrix with the number of dimensions of
spacetime. Beyond simply counting them what principles
establishes the connection between the eigenvectors of
your matrix and a dimension of space or time?
[Hammond]
EXCELLLENT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION..
I will be brief (i.e. give you the short rather than the
long answer).
It has been known for 25 years that "Psychometry"
(also called "Psychometrics") boils down to "4-DIMENSIONS"
named ENPg. ENP are known to be "personality dimensions"
while g is Intelligence.
Now let us start with Intelligence. Recent research (the
past few decades) has shown intelligence to be predominantly
"mental speed" which is measured in bits/second of info
processing by the brain. This is very easy and directly
measured btw.
OK.... so Intelligence (mental speed) correlates with TIME
since speed correlates with time. This means that mental
speed is essentially the:
"clock rate of subjective reality"
(i.e. clock rate of subjective spacetime).
Meanwhile, the 3 dimensions ENP have been discovered
(Hammond, 1994) to be caused by the 3-axis orthogonal
CLEAVAGE of the brain. IOW there are 3 orthogonal
neuropsychological dichotomies straddling the 3 orthogonal
cleavages of the brain.... the best known of which is the
L-R "Sperrian" lateralization of the brain. These 3
(massive) neurological dichotomies are the cause of ENP.
But we KNOW that the reason the brain is cleaved in
3-orthogonal directions is because the ENTIRE BODY is
cleaved in 3-orthogonal directions (the body is actually an
axial-quadrature).... and that THIS is due to the fact that
SPACE ITSELF is 3-axis Euclidean (i.e. 3-axis orthogonal)
and any machine designed to mechanically span such a space
must have 3-orthogonal degrees of freedom (axes).
HENCE.... the 3-Personality dimensions ENP are CAUSALLY
ISOMORPHIC to the XYZ dimensions of real space. Meanwhile
we have shown that "psychometric-g" (intelligence) is
CAUSALLY ISOMORPHIC to T, the time dimension of real space.
HENCE:
THE XYZt OF REAL SPACE
PHYSICALLY CAUSES
THE ENPg OF PSYCHOMETRIC SPACE
and since we know that GRAVITY curves XYZt, and the SPOG
demonstrates that GOD is a "curvature of ENPg"....
Then: we have shown that:
GRAVITY IS THE CAUSE OF GOD
as far as classical Physics
is concerned!
and believe me..... you can burn me at the stake before I
will recant that obvious and proven statement!
[Hammond]
Meanwhile.... BELIEVE ME we highly appreciate your stepping
forward and volunteering to be the "Manchurian Candidate"
with a physics education to volunteer to take the
* FIRST SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL LOOK *
At Hammond's discovery that "GOD=G_uv".
(i.e. that "God" is a CURVATURE of subjective spacetime)
I am Looking forward to your next post... and don't knock
yourself out... if indeed you ARE capable of comprehending
this theory scientifically, and are willing to do so....
your efforts will be successful and will not go unnoticed...
and neither will Casey B's effort by the way!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
10 Oct 2006 07:54:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:30:23 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
You should understand the words you use before you use them. "Quick",
in this use, meant "alive". Like quicksilver - silver that moves.
Meanings evolve over time.
But if recognition of motion means anything, cats and frogs know a lot
more about their environments than we do. In fact, frogs pretty much
can't see anything *unless* it's moving.
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist
Appeal to authority? A degree doesn't guarantee understanding - as
your posts and your claims definitely illustrate. See below.
The difference in the PFF between adults and children is
an AIR TIGHT PROOF that adults see more than children.
Actually it's merely proof that publish or perish lives. Someone
comes up with a crackpot idea and the sheep exclaim about how
beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are.
Any COMPETENT scientist can confirm this.
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Adults and children see the same frequencies, so the analogy is
meaningless.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
No, it's physics vs. fantasy. If you don't know the difference
between hearing and vision you don't deserve a High School diploma.
And the entire concept of PFF belongs in the same realm - fantasy.
It's made-up gobbledygook. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has more
reality.
And believe me there is plenty I'm not telling you for
want of attention span and time. For instance, facial
expression and therefore IDENTITY completely changes with
mental speed.
ONE WEEK OLD infants can recognize faces and facial expressions! I'll
grant you that adults see a lot more than fetuses, but this claim of
yours is not only completely irrelevant, it's just plain wrong.
.... this is what causes PSYCHOTICS (people who
can't be seen and therefore commit crimes), for instance.
You can't see psychotics? Something wrong with your eyesight?
Everyone else can see them. (And that's not the definition of
"psychotic".)
That fact ALONE explains 90% of human history and 100% of
the Bible.
And, since it's nonsense, it just proves that your claims are
nonsense. And that you probably don't know what you're talking about
on any subject. Psychotics can't be seen? Psychotics are people who
can't be seen? Where do you get this junk? Some psychiatrist who
knows as little about psychiatry as you know about physics?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
10 Oct 2006 11:48:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:54:13 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <7v5ni2pk9kskogi5p6ja16pj08t7ou1c01@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:30:23 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
The expression "the quick and the dead" should give you
some idea of the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of time in comparison
to space.
You should understand the words you use before you use them. "Quick",
in this use, meant "alive". Like quicksilver - silver that moves.
Meanings evolve over time.
But if recognition of motion means anything, cats and frogs know a lot
more about their environments than we do. In fact, frogs pretty much
can't see anything *unless* it's moving.
Saying something like that to a graduate physicist
Appeal to authority? A degree doesn't guarantee understanding - as
your posts and your claims definitely illustrate. See below.
The difference in the PFF between adults and children is
an AIR TIGHT PROOF that adults see more than children.
Actually it's merely proof that publish or perish lives. Someone
comes up with a crackpot idea and the sheep exclaim about how
beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are.
Any COMPETENT scientist can confirm this.
Look here's a well known analogy. A human can hear
23,000 Hz but a dog can hear 46,000 Hz. To put this in
laymans parlance we say that half of what a dog can hear is
I-N-A-U-D-I-B-L-E to a human.
Adults and children see the same frequencies, so the analogy is
meaningless.
Similarly, since the PFF of an adult is 1/3 greater than
a childs... we say "1/3 of adult reality is
I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E" to a child. ITS THE SAME THING
scientifically speaking!
No, it's physics vs. fantasy. If you don't know the difference
between hearing and vision you don't deserve a High School diploma.
And the entire concept of PFF belongs in the same realm - fantasy.
It's made-up gobbledygook. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has more
reality.
And believe me there is plenty I'm not telling you for
want of attention span and time. For instance, facial
expression and therefore IDENTITY completely changes with
mental speed.
ONE WEEK OLD infants can recognize faces and facial expressions! I'll
grant you that adults see a lot more than fetuses, but this claim of
yours is not only completely irrelevant, it's just plain wrong.
.... this is what causes PSYCHOTICS (people who
can't be seen and therefore commit crimes), for instance.
You can't see psychotics? Something wrong with your eyesight?
Everyone else can see them. (And that's not the definition of
"psychotic".)
That fact ALONE explains 90% of human history and 100% of
the Bible.
And, since it's nonsense, it just proves that your claims are
nonsense. And that you probably don't know what you're talking about
on any subject. Psychotics can't be seen? Psychotics are people who
can't be seen? Where do you get this junk? Some psychiatrist who
knows as little about psychiatry as you know about physics?
Al, about time you showed up again. Welcome back.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
łThe price of freedom is the defense of idiots.˛ - Jimmy ***** Sheaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
10 Oct 2006 06:55:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:48:50 -0500, Harry F. Leopold
<hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
Al, about time you showed up again. Welcome back.
Thanks, Harry.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
22 Oct 2006 11:51:36 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2006 05:53:31 -0700, "Sammybaby" <roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
OThere are portions of the objective world that children can see, hear, experience that adults no
longer do so much - except for example during the slow motion of a car accident. Their contact with
reality is also more constant, less likely to be in contact with the figments of abstract mulling,
worrying and the useless everyday hypothesizing and paranoia of most adults.
drugs do not dimish reality contact, they alter it.
So some of your logic is based on poor phenomenology or memory or a
lack of experience. The matter of fact way you assume certain things
shows a philosophical naivte. In other words you need to explain some
why you consider some of your assertions so obvious, both for dummies
and for non-dummies. Otherwise you come off as a superior dummy
yourself.
Besides, there is a great deal of rather alternative philosophy that
does get published these days. Rather than coming on the internet and
talking down to people, get what you consider so obvious published and
then have the debate in more professional forums. 100 years ago you
could get away with ranting as the undiscovered genius, but these days
there is a plethora of alternative geniuses who get cults, adherents,
fans, and so on.
You don't seem to have any.
I have a PONG, (Proof Of No God)
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
08 Oct 2006 01:35:54 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:50:48 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 10:35:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:59:04 GMT, George Hammond
Note:
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
<snip citation>
[Immortalist]
Can you explain precisely how this information confirms scientific
proof and where is the scientific proof of God? It does your case no
good to continually dodge the request for a simple explaination of your
favorite theory.
[Hammond]
Of course I can give a "simple explanation" of
The Scientific Proof of God (the SPOG):
SIMPLE PROOF OF GOD
There is a difference between objective and subjective
reality. Anything that happens to your brain will change
subjective reality. Drugs, alcohol, etc will cause
subjective reality to DIFFER from objective reality. This
is common knowlege and there is no mystery to this!
The main theory is that the brain's activities produce a
rerepresentation of the world. It doesn't seem odd that the proposed
world and its representation sometimes do not align. If we both look at
a coin lying on a table it has a different shape but when we measure it
with devices it doesn't have different shape.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html
You say there is a difference between realities. Do you mean that this
is a theory or some sort of completely justified fact. You seem vague
when it comes to minor details like what a theory is or what a fact is.
When we use "fact" we usually mean argument to the best theory.
In science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just
like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination of
observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
-------------------------------------
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not
really the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth
that evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law
of evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course
evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity,
right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're
talking about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins
and theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are
somewhat different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally
confirm evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists
Square off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to
Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
In fact, the most COMMON departure from having a normal
adult brain is simply being less than fully grown. A 9 year
old for instance is only roughly "half grown" since
9/18=1/2... hence a 9 yr old only has a half grown BRAIN.
Actually the younger people have more brains. Neuroscientists for
decades have shown that it is more likely that before puberty it is
more like stone being chiped away from a rectangular block that the
adult brain is sculpted from many fewer nerve cells than a child.
Fact is reality to a 9 year old is twice as big and twice
as fast as the reality of an adult. He is only half as big,
and he is only half as intelligent, meaning that his mental
speed is only half as fast.
What are these facts, the way things simply seem to you?
Hence the world is TWICE AS BIG
Hence if things seem subjectively some way to you then they must be
identical to the objective world. This contradicts your own assertions
about the alignment of the subjective and objective.
AND TWICE AS FAST to a 9 year old as it is to an adult
(again, roughtly speaking). OK... again... there is nothing
mysterious to this well known biological fact.
OK... now we come to something that is less well known.
Fact is, the average adult never actually reaches full
growth. In fact, the average adult is only about 80-85%
fully grown. In fact humans are getting larger every
century because of this, and it is known as the SECULAR
TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH.
Accourding to the best theories this is because in times past humans
didn't get the proper nutrition to grow to their normal height.
Evolutionists think that we are chimps that stop developing at puberty
and are children compared to how aged chimps get.
OK... if the average adult is say 15% less than fully
grown, then this means that SUBJECTIVE REALITY must look 15%
BIGGER AND FASTER than objective reality to the average
human being!
If the ground and horizon look flat then the Earth is flat?
THIS PHENOMENON IS CALLED G-O-D
Amazingly, Hammond has discovered that the magnification of
space and time caused by the Secular Trend in human growth
actually obeys Einstein's Field Equation of General
Relativity. This proves that the phenomenon of "God" is
actually a RELATIVISTIC EFFECT even though it is a curvature
of subjective reality and not a curvature of objective
reality. This tells us immediately that the phenomenon of
"God" is ultimately caused by Gravity.
You left something out of this argument. One of your premises is
missing since you jump from the way devolpement looks to you, to this
God. Care to state the connection?
OK.... there it is.... the "simple explanation" of the
Scientific Proof of God. Now, like I say... it takes a
sophisticated person to understand a simple explanation. If
you can't understand it...then you'll have to wait for the
book I'm writng.
I understand that you need some work on your logic. It is a good thing
I am good at this for your simple explaination is riddled with
fallacies and absurd and undefended assumptions.
Meanwhile.... you can bet your ***** on one thing for
certain....THE GOD OF THE BIBLE
D-O-E-S E-X-I-S-T
and can be measured to two decimal point accuracy!
If this is certain you certainly have not shown how it is certain.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=atheism
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING (the scientific method) TO DUMMYS |
08 Oct 2006 01:36:08 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:50:48 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 10:35:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:59:04 GMT, George Hammond
Note:
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
<snip citation>
[Immortalist]
Can you explain precisely how this information confirms scientific
proof and where is the scientific proof of God? It does your case no
good to continually dodge the request for a simple explaination of your
favorite theory.
[Hammond]
Of course I can give a "simple explanation" of
The Scientific Proof of God (the SPOG):
SIMPLE PROOF OF GOD
There is a difference between objective and subjective
reality. Anything that happens to your brain will change
subjective reality. Drugs, alcohol, etc will cause
subjective reality to DIFFER from objective reality. This
is common knowlege and there is no mystery to this!
The main theory is that the brain's activities produce a
rerepresentation of the world. It doesn't seem odd that the proposed
world and its representation sometimes do not align. If we both look at
a coin lying on a table it has a different shape but when we measure it
with devices it doesn't have different shape.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html
You say there is a difference between realities. Do you mean that this
is a theory or some sort of completely justified fact. You seem vague
when it comes to minor details like what a theory is or what a fact is.
When we use "fact" we usually mean argument to the best theory.
In science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just
like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination of
observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
-------------------------------------
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not
really the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth
that evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law
of evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course
evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity,
right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're
talking about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins
and theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are
somewhat different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally
confirm evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists
Square off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to
Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
In fact, the most COMMON departure from having a normal
adult brain is simply being less than fully grown. A 9 year
old for instance is only roughly "half grown" since
9/18=1/2... hence a 9 yr old only has a half grown BRAIN.
Actually the younger people have more brains. Neuroscientists for
decades have shown that it is more likely that before puberty it is
more like stone being chiped away from a rectangular block that the
adult brain is sculpted from many fewer nerve cells than a child.
Fact is reality to a 9 year old is twice as big and twice
as fast as the reality of an adult. He is only half as big,
and he is only half as intelligent, meaning that his mental
speed is only half as fast.
What are these facts, the way things simply seem to you?
Hence the world is TWICE AS BIG
Hence if things seem subjectively some way to you then they must be
identical to the objective world. This contradicts your own assertions
about the alignment of the subjective and objective.
AND TWICE AS FAST to a 9 year old as it is to an adult
(again, roughtly speaking). OK... again... there is nothing
mysterious to this well known biological fact.
OK... now we come to something that is less well known.
Fact is, the average adult never actually reaches full
growth. In fact, the average adult is only about 80-85%
fully grown. In fact humans are getting larger every
century because of this, and it is known as the SECULAR
TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH.
Accourding to the best theories this is because in times past humans
didn't get the proper nutrition to grow to their normal height.
Evolutionists think that we are chimps that stop developing at puberty
and are children compared to how aged chimps get.
OK... if the average adult is say 15% less than fully
grown, then this means that SUBJECTIVE REALITY must look 15%
BIGGER AND FASTER than objective reality to the average
human being!
If the ground and horizon look flat then the Earth is flat?
THIS PHENOMENON IS CALLED G-O-D
Amazingly, Hammond has discovered that the magnification of
space and time caused by the Secular Trend in human growth
actually obeys Einstein's Field Equation of General
Relativity. This proves that the phenomenon of "God" is
actually a RELATIVISTIC EFFECT even though it is a curvature
of subjective reality and not a curvature of objective
reality. This tells us immediately that the phenomenon of
"God" is ultimately caused by Gravity.
You left something out of this argument. One of your premises is
missing since you jump from the way devolpement looks to you, to this
God. Care to state the connection?
OK.... there it is.... the "simple explanation" of the
Scientific Proof of God. Now, like I say... it takes a
sophisticated person to understand a simple explanation. If
you can't understand it...then you'll have to wait for the
book I'm writng.
I understand that you need some work on your logic. It is a good thing
I am good at this for your simple explaination is riddled with
fallacies and absurd and undefended assumptions.
Meanwhile.... you can bet your ***** on one thing for
certain....THE GOD OF THE BIBLE
D-O-E-S E-X-I-S-T
and can be measured to two decimal point accuracy!
If this is certain you certainly have not shown how it is certain.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=atheism
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "darwinist" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
08 Oct 2006 10:21:48 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:50:48 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 10:35:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:59:04 GMT, George Hammond
Note:
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
<snip citation>
[Immortalist]
Can you explain precisely how this information confirms scientific
proof and where is the scientific proof of God? It does your case no
good to continually dodge the request for a simple explaination of your
favorite theory.
[Hammond]
Of course I can give a "simple explanation" of
The Scientific Proof of God (the SPOG):
SIMPLE PROOF OF GOD
There is a difference between objective and subjective
reality. Anything that happens to your brain will change
subjective reality. Drugs, alcohol, etc will cause
subjective reality to DIFFER from objective reality. This
is common knowlege and there is no mystery to this!
In fact, the most COMMON departure from having a normal
adult brain is simply being less than fully grown. A 9 year
old for instance is only roughly "half grown" since
9/18=1/2... hence a 9 yr old only has a half grown BRAIN.
Fact is reality to a 9 year old is twice as big and twice
as fast as the reality of an adult. He is only half as big,
and he is only half as intelligent, meaning that his mental
speed is only half as fast. Hence the world is TWICE AS BIG
AND TWICE AS FAST to a 9 year old as it is to an adult
(again, roughtly speaking). OK... again... there is nothing
mysterious to this well known biological fact.
As a child, I remember a week or a year seemed to take much longer than
it does now. Indeed what you say is counter-intuitive to me. Should I
just take your word for it or do you have evidence?
Also raw brain size may not be directly related to processing speed. Do
you have evidence or should we just take your word for it?
OK... now we come to something that is less well known.
Fact is, the average adult never actually reaches full
growth. In fact, the average adult is only about 80-85%
fully grown. In fact humans are getting larger every
century because of this, and it is known as the SECULAR
TREND IN HUMAN GROWTH.
OK... if the average adult is say 15% less than fully
grown, then this means that SUBJECTIVE REALITY must look 15%
BIGGER AND FASTER than objective reality to the average
human being!
THIS PHENOMENON IS CALLED G-O-D
Just because you call it "GOD" doesn't mean abraham or jesus were
talking about the same thing. They may have been talking about a
supernatural being that existed before humans, and is not a "potential"
but a real thing.
Hammond if you want your idea of god to be "THE" idea of god, you can't
demand it of people, you have to write persuasive fiction or mythology
to seduce their minds and intentions.
You have an answer you are happy with, but no plans that seem to be
working. Answers and plans are very different so don't expect having
the one to provide the other. You can't just tell us "this is god" and
expect us to go along.
When you try to make fiction to illustrate your theory, and try to make
it stand alone as good fiction, then you'll see the difference between
an answer and a strategy.
Amazingly, Hammond has discovered that the magnification of
space and time caused by the Secular Trend in human growth
actually obeys Einstein's Field Equation of General
Relativity. This proves that the phenomenon of "God" is
actually a RELATIVISTIC EFFECT even though it is a curvature
of subjective reality and not a curvature of objective
reality. This tells us immediately that the phenomenon of
"God" is ultimately caused by Gravity.
OK.... there it is.... the "simple explanation" of the
Scientific Proof of God. Now, like I say... it takes a
sophisticated person to understand a simple explanation. If
you can't understand it...then you'll have to wait for the
book I'm writng.
Meanwhile.... you can bet your ***** on one thing for
certain....THE GOD OF THE BIBLE
D-O-E-S E-X-I-S-T
and can be measured to two decimal point accuracy!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPLAINING GOD TO DUMMYS |
08 Oct 2006 11:00:34 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2006 20:21:48 -0700, "darwinist"
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:
NOTE:
Listen to an mp3 folk song by The Interrobang Cartel
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD FOLK SONG
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:50:48 GMT, George Hammond
<nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 10:35:34 -0700, "Immortalist"
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:59:04 GMT, George Hammond
Note:
=SPOG FOLK SONG=
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
<snip citation>
[Immortalist]
Can you explain precisely how this information confirms scientific
proof and where is the scientific proof of God? It does your case no
good to continually dodge the request for a simple explaination of your
favorite theory.
[Hammond]
Of course I can give a "simple explanation" of
The Scientific Proof of God (the SPOG):
SIMPLE PROOF OF GOD
There is a difference between objective and subjective
reality. Anything that happens to your brain will change
subjective reality. Drugs, alcohol, etc will cause
subjective reality to DIFFER from objective reality. This
is common knowlege and there is no mystery to this!
In fact, the most COMMON departure from having a normal
adult brain is simply being less than fully grown. A 9 year
old for instance is only roughly "half grown" since
9/18=1/2... hence a 9 yr old only has a half grown BRAIN.
Fact is reality to a 9 year old is twice as big and twice
as fast as the reality of an adult. He is only half as big,
and he is only half as intelligent, meaning that his mental
speed is only half as fast. Hence the world is TWICE AS BIG
AND TWICE AS FAST to a 9 year old as it is to an adult
(again, roughtly speaking). OK... again... there is nothing
mysterious to this well known biological fact.
As a child, I remember a week or a year seemed to take much longer than
it does now. Indeed what you say is counter-intuitive to me. Should I
just take your word for it or do you have evidence?
[Hammond]
OF COURSE I HAVE EVIDENCE!
I wouldn't sit here and claim anything which isn't
proved!
The (movie) "Picture Fusion Frequency" is KNOWN to
increase linearly with age (up to 18) because of brain
growth. In fact the PFF of a 7 year old is only 2/3's the
PFF of an adult.
As any COMPETENT SCIENTIST knows, the PFF is the Fourier
Spectral Frequency Cutoff of the motion that can be seen by
an observer. Since the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec
and the PFF of an adult is 15 frames/sec we see that 1/3 of
the motion of normal adult reality is INVISIBLE to a 7 year
old child..... due simply to INCOMPLETE GRAINGROWTH.
Also raw brain size may not be directly related to processing speed. Do
you have evidence or should we just take your word for it?
[Hammond]
Do the homework... read my paper.... it is A WELL KNOWN FACT
that "mental speed" increases linearly with age up to age 18
(which is why Intelligence increases linearly with age up to
age 18. this is COMMON KNOWLEGE and has been for 100
years... go look it up in a book.... or read the CITATIONS
clearly listed in my PEER/PUBLISHED PAPER a copy of which is
posted on my website.
OK... now we come to something that is less well known.
Fact is, the average adult never actually reaches full
growth. In fact, the average adult is only about 80-85%
fully grown. In fact humans are gettin | | |
