| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Void" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2003 02:23:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
Does this even mean anything?
Can anyone out there explain what psychometry really is,
and whether Hammond's theology makes any sense?
The most important question I would like to see answered
is whether there really is such a thing as psychometry space
(specifically, for Hammond's ideas to make any sense at all,
it would need to be a kind of space where distances and
angles were meaningful).
Hammond has been bombarding the physics newsgroups with
this for a long time, when it really has nothing to do
with physics; it looks like mainly psychology and theology,
with a some of the fancy geometry physicists often use
thrown in.
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<54zmb.25465$Fm2.12195@attbi_s04>...
The new "God of Physics":
For thousands of years people have discussed God. The average
man does not understand it and most people doubt that there is
a God. Less known is that many of our Kings, Presidents,
Popes and Generals actually know what God is. There have
always been many people in high places who knew
what God is, while billions of common people were unable to
understand it. The reason is that there is no way to prove
it, in fact no way to explain but by parables and metaphors.
Today that has changed, because Science has discovered an
explanation of God.
First, let us explain how great people in high places
discovered there was a God, even though they couldn't prove
it or explain it. The first thing they noticed is that not
everybody can see reality as good as everyone else.
Children cannot see reality like adults. They are slower
and smaller than adults. They are less intelligent than
adults because their brains are not fully grown. Mental Age
is the term used to describe this.
The next thing they noticed is that not every adult reached
his full height and weight. People are like plants in a
garden, some of them get real lucky and
grow up to full size, others less fortunate might
only reach 70 or 80% of full size due to lack of food, sun
or water. In people this means that some adults, in fact
even the average adult, may be as much as 15% short of full
size. The discovery of the Secular Trend in human growth
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/seculartrend.jpg
has confirmed this. What this means is that the average
adult, all of us, can only see about 85% of reality...
just like children who are not fully grown, the world
appears to us to be larger and faster than it really is.
This is what the Kings, Presidents, Popes and Generals
throughout history have known... it is this kind of
knowledge that caused them to get elected to positions
of leadership. They could judge people just by looking
at them as to how close to reality they were, and because
of that they were able to lead people. Naturally these
high authorities and leaders were themselves specimens of
above average growth.
All of this was discovered in the early stages of
Civilization as a practical matter. Subsequently, this
phenomena of growth and its effect on the ability to see
reality became a matter of theoretical study, and thus
Religion was born. The fully grown man (who is invisible)
obtained the name "God", or more precisely, the perceptual
effect of the missing portion of our brains was referred
to as God. As you can see, trying to explain this to
someone who doesn't know anything about it is practically
impossible. In fact, only social leaders who met hundreds
of thousands of people were able to figure it out in the
past, and they were never able to prove it.
Early on some of these leading authorities who
discovered what God was, happened to become scientists...
people like Aristotle, Descartes, Newton etc. They got
the idea that there might be some way to scientifically
prove it. However, trying to prove something that is
invisible seemed impossible. Not only that, what one
is talking about is basically a "time and space warp"
caused by incomplete brain growth, and this was long
before Science discovered the Secular Trend or Albert
Einstein discovered there actually was such a thing as
time and space dilations.
Amazingly, in 1997 modern Psychology finally met up
with modern Relativity, and a scientific proof of the
phenomena of God was finally discovered... discovered
by yours truly, George Hammond.
Interestingly, Hammond was not the first to uncover
the connection between God and Relativity. In 1940 the
famous Russian-American physicist, George Gamow
accidentally stumbled across it. Gamow was casting
around for a simple way to explain Special Relativity
to amateurs. It occurred to him that people might
understand it if they could see it. He had the bright
idea that if you reduced the speed of light to 10 mph
then bodily motions would be near the speed of light
and you would actually see relativistic effects. He
wrote a story and even drew a picture of what the world
would look like to a man riding a bicycle.
http://vanadium.rollins.edu/~dario/phys230/Gamow/wonderland.html
The story became immensely popular and has been through
25 printings, the most recent edition in 1999.
Apparently what got to people were those pictures of
people getting thin and acting strangely. Somehow it
rang a bell with the public.
It turns out the effect, as the public suspected, is
real, but it is caused by General Relativity (gravity)
not by Special Relativity (speed). Unknown to Gamow in
1940 is that brain growth is controlled by quantum
gravity (Penrose 1994) and that this gravity causes a
time and space dilation in perceptual reality which is
very similar to the effect he described in his science
fiction story.
Anyway, this website is all about a description of
this recent discovery of how brain gravity modulates
brain growth and how brain growth explains God.
Briefly it is based on the following (classical) fact;
there are two kinds of reality:
1. There is absolute physical reality
2. There is human perceptual reality
Man has always assumed that our brain and sensory system
create a 1:1 image of Absolute Reality. This image is
called Perceptual Reality, and we have always assumed:
Perceptual Reality = Absolute Reality
However, modern science has discovered that no one is
actually fully grown, therefore no one's brain is fully
grown, and therefore in actual fact:
Perceptual Reality = .85 Absolute Reality
The Secular Trend proves this. The ratio is not 1:1 as
we supposed- on average it is more like .85:1
This previously unknown 15% "reality deficit" is what
causes "God". Nearly 15% of the World is invisible to us!
This invisible part of the world is called Heaven, and
the invisible (fully grown) man who lives there is
named "God".
The proof of this is a fascinating scientific exercise.
Basically it is discovered that Perceptual Reality is
Relativistically "curved", by brain gravity. That it
is curved, and that this causes the size and speed of
the World to be larger and faster than it actually is,
is experimentally proven by Psychometry. It is shown
that the 4 dimensions of Psychometry are caused by the
4 dimensions of Spacetime, and therefore the curvature
of spacetime causes a curvature of Psychometry. This
curvature in Psychometry is God, hence, Gravity causes
God. Thus it is now a proven fact that no one sees the
true size and speed of the World, and this explains God,
miracles, Heaven and Religion. THERE REALLY IS A GOD!
The source of gravity that is causing this proven
phenomena, is apparently Penrose's quantum brain
gravity (Penrose 1989, 1994, Hameroff & Penrose 1997).
This is presumed because there is no other source of
gravity known in the brain, and we do know that it is
a gravitational curvature.
For those of you who are scientifically qualified
and wish to read the details, the proof is contained
in the documents on my website (with many, many
illustrations), and a summary presentation is given
in my upcoming Noetic Journal paper. What you will
read will soon be front page news and will alter the
course of history. Incidentally, by no means do I
claim credit for this discovery... obviously the credit
belongs to Newton and Einstein who discovered the
theory of gravity, and to many hundreds of other
scientists in Psychometry, Biology, and Physics.
In fact, you might as well say that Modern Science
produced this result... I'm simply the lieutenant
sent out to look over the next hill, and was the
first one to see it. In fact I wasn't even the
first, I found a cuff link on the ground with the
initials GG on it. George Gamow saw it 60 years
ago but apparently wasn't sure what it was.
George Hammond, Hyannis
October 2003
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================================
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
01 Nov 2003 05:02:26 AM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2003 12:23:14 -0800, (The
Void) wrote:
Does this even mean anything?
Can anyone out there explain what psychometry really is,
and whether Hammond's theology makes any sense?
Psycometry is a method of using standard tests to gauge peoples
personality type by comparing test results with other persons who have
also taken the tests.
For example, everyone that joins the armed forces takes them - so they
have hundreds of thousands or millions of test results - they then see
how people who make good leaders (for example) tend to answer the
questions - and so use the tests to *predict* who will be good
leaders.
The most important question I would like to see answered
is whether there really is such a thing as psychometry space
(specifically, for Hammond's ideas to make any sense at all,
it would need to be a kind of space where distances and
angles were meaningful).
The mathematical idea of "space" is a very general one, so sure you
can talk about a "psycometry" space.
You could have a hair colour hieght and weight "space" - all you do is
collect data - persons hair colour, height and weight and then
everyone would fall into some point on "hair colour height weight
space" (a 3 dimensional space).
Similarly every cat would be a point in "tail length, bad-breath
index" space (a 2 dimensional space).
Whether constructing such a space tells you anything interesting or
important is of course another matter.
Mathematically you can measure distance and angle in any such space
but again whether the "distances" relate to anything meaningful or
useful or informative about the nature of reality is a seperate issue
from the purely mechanical, mindless, process of constructing the
"space".
Hammond has been bombarding the physics newsgroups with
this for a long time, when it really has nothing to do
with physics; it looks like mainly psychology and theology,
with a some of the fancy geometry physicists often use
thrown in.
Yep.
He is a full blown gold plated Kook.
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<54zmb.25465$Fm2.12195@attbi_s04>...
The new "God of Physics":
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
01 Nov 2003 09:11:41 AM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:br37qv86kg7e3b680udf3fb8vf357an73j@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2003 12:23:14 -0800, (The
Void) wrote:
Does this even mean anything?
Can anyone out there explain what psychometry really is,
and whether Hammond's theology makes any sense?
The most important question I would like to see answered
is whether there really is such a thing as psychometry space
(specifically, for Hammond's ideas to make any sense at all,
it would need to be a kind of space where distances and
angles were meaningful).
[Hammond]
Sure... here's a simple example (which is well known and has been done
a million times since the 1930's) by research psychologists.
An unabridged dictionaly has about 4,000 adjectives that describe
personality,
in fact a core list of about 200 substantially describes it (Allport and
Odbert
1936). These are words like:
raffish, effete, hidebound, polite, witty, suspicious,
jovial, taciturn, shy, facetious, optimistic, flamboyant, gullible, naive,
prudish, smug, pompous, gregarious...... etc. etc. etc.
By writing a 200 adjective checklist and giving it as a test to 5,000
people to
score each word from -5 to +5 as to how well it describes themselves,
you can then compute a 200x200 correlation matrix between the
descriptive adjectives.
"Psychometry space" is a descriptive space defined by this
matrix. Every matrix has what are called "eigenvectors"... the
eigenvectors are the coordinate axes of this space. A modern
computer can easily extract these eigenvectors from this matrix.
Would you believe that the end result, after 70 years of doing
this is that there are always 3- EIGENVECTORS!!!!!!!!!!!
These 3 eigenvectors have been named ENP, which
stands for Extroversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism.
Hammond (1994) discovered that ENP come from the
3-axis SPATIAL cleavage of the brain.
Beyond Personality, there is also Intelligence (IQ)
which is called "psychometric-g" by professionals.
Intelligence is "mental speed" and is therefore time based.
The 4-dimensional "psychometry space" consisting of
ENPg is therefore caused by the 4-dimensional
Real space of Physics, XYZt.
The curvature of ENPg space (which is a PERCEPTUAL
space) is called GOD, while the curvature of real
space, XYZt is called GRAVITY. Therefore,
we say that "Gravity causes God".
All of this is explained in much greater detail
and fully illustrated in 4-PAGES at:
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
The mathematical idea of "space" is a very general one, so sure you
can talk about a "psycometry" space.
You could have a hair colour hieght and weight "space" - all you do is
collect data - persons hair colour, height and weight and then
everyone would fall into some point on "hair colour height weight
space" (a 3 dimensional space).
Similarly every cat would be a point in "tail length, bad-breath
index" space (a 2 dimensional space).
[Hammond]
Listen to this physicist now. There are TWO KINDS OF REALITY:
1. Physcial reality
2. Perceptual reality
Classically it is taken ofr granted that our brain and sensory
system form a 1:1 image of Physical reality... this image is
called Perceptual reality.
HOWEVER, it turns out that because of the Secular Trend
in human growth, this ratio is actually more like .85:1.
15% of Physical reality is INVISIBLE because of this.
This is the scientific explanation of GOD, and is fully
explained at:
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
Whether constructing such a space tells you anything interesting or
important is of course another matter.
Mathematically you can measure distance and angle in any such space
but again whether the "distances" relate to anything meaningful or
useful or informative about the nature of reality is a seperate issue
from the purely mechanical, mindless, process of constructing the
"space".
[Hammond]
The "angle" and "distance" in psychometry space are the arguments
of "personality clash" so called. The larger the proper distance
seperating two people in psychometry space, the more personality
clash there is. The "angle" relative to the coordinate bases tells
you whether it is more "spacelike" (i.e. Republican vs. Democrat)
or "timelike" (upper vs lower class). This is known the world
over, as the "Bicameral/2-Party System".
Again, see my website at:
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
Hammond has been bombarding the physics newsgroups with
this for a long time, when it really has nothing to do
with physics
[Hammond]
Oh come come now. I am a physicist (M.S. Physicis 1967),
and the entire theory is mathematically founded on the
theory of General Relativity, see:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/indpage4.html
; it looks like mainly psychology and theology,
with a some of the fancy geometry physicists often use
thrown in.
[Hammond]
That's what they told Isaac Newton about the 4-million words
he wrote on god and Religion. Surely you don't think
Isaac Newton was a fool?
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Void" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
01 Nov 2003 10:41:54 PM |
|
|
Thank you for that incredible response. It really cered
everything up. But I have a frivolous question, which I
hope someone as ingenuous as yourself won't mind taking
some of your unvaluable time to answer. How is it that
being larger makes 15% of reality invisible? I expected
it would be the other way around; after all, as I got
taller, I could see on top of shelves and other high
things I couldn't before. By the way, I'm still not
convinced this material is on topic in a physics
newsgroup; while the mathematics of your theory might be
appalling to those who have studied general relativity,
it's still more about your mind than about matter. It
can't be conveyed correctly as a theory or physics; it
transgresses the boundaries into psychology and maybe
even theology too much. Perhaps the people on the
psychology newsgroups will understand you better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
02 Nov 2003 09:46:54 AM |
|
|
"The Void" <thevoidofnothingness@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:d661004a.0311012041.6f24a203@posting.google.com...
Thank you for that incredible response. It really cered
everything up. But I have a frivolous question, which I
hope someone as ingenuous as yourself won't mind taking
some of your unvaluable time to answer. How is it that
being larger makes 15% of reality invisible?
[Hammond]
I think you've got your signals crossed. A 15% growth
deficit means you're 15% smaller than you're supposed to
be. That makes the World appear 15% larger than it actually
is.
Consider children. They are much smaller than they will
be when fully grown (age 18)... this includes their
brain and sensory system... hence the world looks
much BIGGER and FASTER than it actually is.
I expected
it would be the other way around; after all, as I got
taller, I could see on top of shelves and other high
things I couldn't before.
[Hammond]
True, and you can also see a fast ball coming
over the plate, whereas a 10 year old can't.
By the way, I'm still not
convinced this material is on topic in a physics
newsgroup;
[Hammond]
I'm a physicist, this is a physics discovery.
while the mathematics of your theory might be
appalling to those who have studied general relativity,
[Hammond]
with all due respect, how would you know?
it's still more about your mind than about matter. It
can't be conveyed correctly as a theory or physics; it
transgresses the boundaries into psychology and maybe
even theology too much.
[Hammond]
A "scientific proof of God" has been considered
a "science theory" for centuries. Descartes
considered it as such and so did Newton.
Perhaps the people on the
psychology newsgroups will understand you better.
[Hammond]
Cripes, what would they know about the Einstein
Curvature Tensor G_uv?
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
02 Nov 2003 10:36:09 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF9pb.85006$HS4.690966@attbi_s01...
"The Void" <thevoidofnothingness@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:d661004a.0311012041.6f24a203@posting.google.com...
Thank you for that incredible response. It really cered
everything up. But I have a frivolous question, which I
hope someone as ingenuous as yourself won't mind taking
some of your unvaluable time to answer. How is it that
being larger makes 15% of reality invisible?
[Hammond]
I think you've got your signals crossed. A 15% growth
deficit means you're 15% smaller than you're supposed to
be. That makes the World appear 15% larger than it actually
is.
Consider children. They are much smaller than they will
be when fully grown (age 18)... this includes their
brain and sensory system... hence the world looks
much BIGGER and FASTER than it actually is.
??????????????????????
Faster?
There is no sanity behind that claim.
I expected
it would be the other way around; after all, as I got
taller, I could see on top of shelves and other high
things I couldn't before.
[Hammond]
True, and you can also see a fast ball coming
over the plate, whereas a 10 year old can't.
Again - irrational.
By the way, I'm still not
convinced this material is on topic in a physics
newsgroup;
[Hammond]
I'm a physicist, this is a physics discovery.
No - it's a bunch of crap you have insanely been pushing, as science, for
years!
while the mathematics of your theory might be
appalling to those who have studied general relativity,
[Hammond]
with all due respect, how would you know?
Well .....for one thing.....to claim that age and size have anything to do
with speed in TOTALLY moronic!
it's still more about your mind than about matter. It
can't be conveyed correctly as a theory or physics; it
transgresses the boundaries into psychology and maybe
even theology too much.
[Hammond]
A "scientific proof of God" has been considered
a "science theory" for centuries. Descartes
considered it as such and so did Newton.
Scientific proofs of god have been invented, and bellowed about, by insane
fantics for centuries.
Though SOME religious believers WERE, in older times, also scientists - and
tried to bolster their religous ideas WITH scientific claims ... NONE of it
has ever withstood rational scientific inquiry!
Today - with a better understanding of the realtionshipand differences
between religon and science - NO sane person would claim an answer to that
problem!
Perhaps the people on the
psychology newsgroups will understand you better.
[Hammond]
Cripes, what would they know about the Einstein
Curvature Tensor G_uv?
They don't need to know science to spot a moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
02 Nov 2003 12:02:06 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vqacjmsucd298a@corp.supernews.com...
[Hammond]
I think you've got your signals crossed. A 15% growth
deficit means you're 15% smaller than you're supposed to
be. That makes the World appear 15% larger than it actually
is.
Consider children. They are much smaller than they will
be when fully grown (age 18)... this includes their
brain and sensory system... hence the world looks
much BIGGER and FASTER than it actually is.
??????????????????????
Faster?
There is no sanity behind that claim.
If you perceive speed as compared to your own, then it is related to your
stride, which is related to your size. My daughters both think I run like
the wind. I'm actually pretty slow, and my eight year old leaves the rest
of her soccer team in the dust. From her point of view, everything seems
to move faster than it does to me, be cause she moves slower.
Got it?
Enkidu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP6VGnYTItnFPNmchEQIsJgCggEcNTunVSBiFNbROqN+5l08uFDkAoLIP
nZSGWqITBJzRP4y7ZUNebdGP
=OcZZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
02 Nov 2003 03:53:04 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:aEbpb.53246$gi2.50560@fed1read01...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vqacjmsucd298a@corp.supernews.com...
[Hammond]
I think you've got your signals crossed. A 15% growth
deficit means you're 15% smaller than you're supposed to
be. That makes the World appear 15% larger than it actually
is.
Consider children. They are much smaller than they will
be when fully grown (age 18)... this includes their
brain and sensory system... hence the world looks
much BIGGER and FASTER than it actually is.
??????????????????????
Faster?
There is no sanity behind that claim.
If you perceive speed as compared to your own, then it is related to your
stride, which is related to your size. My daughters both think I run like
the wind. I'm actually pretty slow, and my eight year old leaves the rest
of her soccer team in the dust. From her point of view, everything seems
to move faster than it does to me, be cause she moves slower.
Got it?
Enkidu
[Hammond]
Ok, ok, .... I don't know wether you're arguing for me or
against me, but this is a basic point that should be cleared up,
and it doesn't take higher mathematics to get to the bottom
of it.
For crying out louds, ask yourself why mentally retarded
people have been called "slow" for thousands of years.
Or why it has been said that "they have the mind of an
8 year old". This is what we're talking about here.
According to the Secular Trend, EVERYBODY in
the world has a slight degree of "mental retardation"
due to incomplete brain growth.
Now lets not start arguing over "mental retardation",
we can easily leave the subject COMPLETELY
out of the argument. We don't have to go any
further than the known scientific measurements
on CHILDREN.
It is absolutely known beyond any doubt that
"Intelligence" increases from zero at conception
to a maximum at age 18 (maturity) and that
the major cause for this (obviously) is the growth
of the brain from 0 to 3 pounds. Anybody who
would argue with that is a screwball.... it's
a proven fact.
Furthermore, it is now a proven fact that
the main component of "Intelligence" is
mental speed. If you're mental speed is
lower, then the speed of the world looks
faster.... how could anybody argue with
that.
I don't see how anyone can find fault
with these commonplace well known
facts of scientific measurement that have
been known and proved for years?
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
02 Nov 2003 05:21:06 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fpb.64830$mZ5.384094@attbi_s54...
It is absolutely known beyond any doubt that
"Intelligence" increases from zero at conception
to a maximum at age 18 (maturity) and that
the major cause for this (obviously) is the growth
of the brain from 0 to 3 pounds. Anybody who
would argue with that is a screwball.... it's
a proven fact.
Intelligence is at a maximum at age 18? This is proven? I doubt it.
Furthermore, it is now a proven fact that
the main component of "Intelligence" is
mental speed. If you're mental speed is
lower, then the speed of the world looks
faster.... how could anybody argue with
that.
Define "mental speed" first. Maybe we do agree.
I don't see how anyone can find fault
with these commonplace well known
facts of scientific measurement that have
been known and proved for years?
When has it (mental speed) been measured? Where? How? If it's so
commonplace, it should be easy to cite.
Enkidu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP6WRYITItnFPNmchEQKyeQCeLWnjMv8VWPV8nyVkaBZLQvK5grYAn0Y4
TBkeh/3llo/kJmb6QzOUNGNt
=Z2R7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
03 Nov 2003 12:27:24 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:djgpb.53406$gi2.48129@fed1read01...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fpb.64830$mZ5.384094@attbi_s54...
It is absolutely known beyond any doubt that
"Intelligence" increases from zero at conception
to a maximum at age 18 (maturity) and that
the major cause for this (obviously) is the growth
of the brain from 0 to 3 pounds. Anybody who
would argue with that is a screwball.... it's
a proven fact.
Intelligence is at a maximum at age 18? This is proven? I doubt it.
Even claiming zero at birth is moronic.............but that's Hammond for
you!
Furthermore, it is now a proven fact that
the main component of "Intelligence" is
mental speed. If you're mental speed is
lower, then the speed of the world looks
faster.... how could anybody argue with
that.
Easily - using a brain that's not, like yours, Swiss Cheeze.
Define "mental speed" first. Maybe we do agree.
I don't see how anyone can find fault
with these commonplace well known
facts of scientific measurement that have
been known and proved for years?
When has it (mental speed) been measured? Where? How? If it's so
commonplace, it should be easy to cite.
You really expect this insane moron to provide REAL scientific answers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
03 Nov 2003 08:55:35 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vqbtafr9nprpbb@corp.supernews.com...
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:djgpb.53406$gi2.48129@fed1read01...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fpb.64830$mZ5.384094@attbi_s54...
It is absolutely known beyond any doubt that
"Intelligence" increases from zero at conception
to a maximum at age 18 (maturity) and that
the major cause for this (obviously) is the growth
of the brain from 0 to 3 pounds. Anybody who
would argue with that is a screwball.... it's
a proven fact.
Intelligence is at a maximum at age 18? This is proven? I doubt it.
[Hammond]
Known fact.... your IQ doesn't ever go up after you
reach maturity (age 18, 20 or whatever... varies for
different folks).
Even claiming zero at birth is moronic.............but that's Hammond for
you!
[Hammond]
I said zero at "conception", watch your quotations.
A one celled person does not have a brain....
no brain no intelligence.... you oughta be able
to understand that.
Furthermore, it is now a proven fact that
the main component of "Intelligence" is
mental speed. If you're mental speed is
lower, then the speed of the world looks
faster.... how could anybody argue with
that.
Easily - using a brain that's not, like yours, Swiss Cheeze.
[Hammond]
there you go.... bye, bye...
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
03 Nov 2003 02:08:48 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:H%tpb.69352$mZ5.432220@attbi_s54...
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vqbtafr9nprpbb@corp.supernews.com...
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:djgpb.53406$gi2.48129@fed1read01...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fpb.64830$mZ5.384094@attbi_s54...
It is absolutely known beyond any doubt that
"Intelligence" increases from zero at conception
to a maximum at age 18 (maturity) and that
the major cause for this (obviously) is the growth
of the brain from 0 to 3 pounds. Anybody who
would argue with that is a screwball.... it's
a proven fact.
Intelligence is at a maximum at age 18? This is proven? I doubt it.
[Hammond]
Known fact.... your IQ doesn't ever go up after you
reach maturity (age 18, 20 or whatever... varies for
different folks).
Despite your claims to an education, you obviously know nothing about
intelligence.
The "intelligence" YOU are talking about is a mankind invented scale of
relating one's ability to a reference to those of the same, and other, ages.
It is considered UNRELIABLE for use over the age of 18 because emotions and
personality are thought to confuse the real issue of intelligence more than
they would at earlier ages.
Although you keep bellowing it, your "known facts" are nothing more than
garbage claims.
I.Q. is a relative measure of ability - so can increase, decrease or stay
the same for all of one's life.
It is, as psychiatrists are finding out, NOT just possible to corrupt with
emotions and personality AFTER the age of 18! Even a 10 year old genius,
with emotional/home problems, COULD show up to be an idiot on an I.Q. test!
To assume that anyone under the age of 18 cannot have I.Q. influencing
emotional, personality, problems is plain ludicrous!
It is even irrational to assume that any standardized, limited, test could
possibly gauge a human being's intelligence.
My own "I.Q." number increased over time partly because I became familiar
with the questions.
Even claiming zero at birth is moronic.............but that's Hammond
for
you!
[Hammond]
I said zero at "conception", watch your quotations.
A one celled person does not have a brain....
no brain no intelligence.... you oughta be able
to understand that.
OK .. I'll accept that, even though you erased your own statement.
You are, then, inferring there is a "straight line" increace of intelligence
between conception and the age of 18..and then it stops, cold, there?
That is insane!
Although difficult to measure - people are the MOST intelligent during their
early formative years.
There is NOTHING, in the rest of life, that can compare with the ability to
learn to walk, talk, think, observe, and the thousands of other things
babies LEARN at an early age.
Furthermore, it is now a proven fact that
the main component of "Intelligence" is
mental speed. If you're mental speed is
lower, then the speed of the world looks
faster.... how could anybody argue with
that.
Easily - using a brain that's not, like yours, Swiss Cheeze.
[Hammond]
there you go.... bye, bye...
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
04 Nov 2003 01:14:41 PM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vqddeioucb9u60@corp.supernews.com...
Intelligence is at a maximum at age 18? This is proven? I doubt
it.
[Hammond]
Known fact.... your IQ doesn't ever go up after you
reach maturity (age 18, 20 or whatever... varies for
different folks).
Despite your claims to an education, you obviously know nothing about
intelligence.
[Hammond]
I'm smart enough to find the world's first scientific proof of God,
how smart is that?
The "intelligence" YOU are talking about is a mankind invented scale of
relating one's ability to a reference to those of the same, and other,
ages.
It is considered UNRELIABLE for use over the age of 18 because emotions
and
personality are thought to confuse the real issue of intelligence more
than
they would at earlier ages.
Although you keep bellowing it, your "known facts" are nothing more than
garbage claims.
[Hammond]
Dear Mr. Bellower, please recalibrate your presumptions.
Modern research (past 20 years) has shown that "mental speed"
is the main component of Intelligence. Mental speed can be
measured physics-wise without any reference to "other people"
or to anything that depends on education. It correlates
directly with any and all other measures of intelligence.
Fact is, practically speaking, you "intelligence" (mental
speed) can be measured with a computer and a
millisecond electronic timer... you don't need an
"IQ test".
I.Q. is a relative measure of ability - so can increase, decrease or stay
the same for all of one's life.
[Hammond]
Baloney... intelligence is a measure of biological construct, like
height, blood pressure, eye color or anything else.... it is in
fact "mental spee, that is brain processing speed in bits/second".
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
04 Nov 2003 01:33:55 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vqddeioucb9u60@corp.supernews.com...
Intelligence is at a maximum at age 18? This is proven? I doubt
it.
[Hammond]
Known fact.... your IQ doesn't ever go up after you
reach maturity (age 18, 20 or whatever... varies for
different folks).
Despite your claims to an education, you obviously know nothing about
intelligence.
[Hammond]
I'm smart enough to find the world's first scientific proof of God,
how smart is that?
The "intelligence" YOU are talking about is a mankind invented scale of
relating one's ability to a reference to those of the same, and other,
ages.
It is considered UNRELIABLE for use over the age of 18 because emotions
and
personality are thought to confuse the real issue of intelligence more
than
they would at earlier ages.
Although you keep bellowing it, your "known facts" are nothing more than
garbage claims.
[Hammond]
Dear Mr. Bellower, please recalibrate your presumptions.
Modern research (past 20 years) has shown that "mental speed"
is the main component of Intelligence. Mental speed can be
measured physics-wise without any reference to "other people"
or to anything that depends on education. It correlates
directly with any and all other measures of intelligence.
Fact is, practically speaking, you "intelligence" (mental
speed) can be measured with a computer and a
millisecond electronic timer... you don't need an
"IQ test".
This is somewhat unclear. Is mental speed correlated with intelligence
(and therefore not a synonym for it) or is it the main component, or
is it a synonym [your "intelligence (mental speed) remark.]
I.Q. is a relative measure of ability - so can increase, decrease or stay
the same for all of one's life.
[Hammond]
Baloney... intelligence is a measure of biological construct, like
height, blood pressure, eye color or anything else.... it is in
fact "mental spee, that is brain processing speed in bits/second".
According to:
http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory112120029.htm
mental speed as that term is used in that research study (and others)
is variable within a person depending on, in that cited study, smoking
and drinking.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
I wonder how many theists would consider the "God" of that proof to be
God.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
05 Nov 2003 09:49:45 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jrufqvom40mnv21s0151bs1ln2pn0qd9sa@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
[Hammond]
Dear Mr. Bellower, please recalibrate your presumptions.
Modern research (past 20 years) has shown that "mental speed"
is the main component of Intelligence. Mental speed can be
measured physics-wise without any reference to "other people"
or to anything that depends on education. It correlates
directly with any and all other measures of intelligence.
Fact is, practically speaking, you "intelligence" (mental
speed) can be measured with a computer and a
millisecond electronic timer... you don't need an
"IQ test".
This is somewhat unclear. Is mental speed correlated with intelligence
(and therefore not a synonym for it) or is it the main component, or
is it a synonym [your "intelligence (mental speed) remark.]
[Hammond]
All experts are agreed that "mental speed in bits/second is the
main biological component of intelligence". In other words,
mental speed is the dominant, predominant, main, central
physical phenomena causing "intelligence".
I.Q. is a relative measure of ability - so can increase, decrease or
stay
the same for all of one's life.
[Hammond]
Baloney... intelligence is a measure of biological construct, like
height, blood pressure, eye color or anything else.... it is in
fact "mental spee, that is brain processing speed in bits/second".
According to:
http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory112120029.htm
mental speed as that term is used in that research study (and others)
is variable within a person depending on, in that cited study, smoking
and drinking.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
I wonder how many theists would consider the "God" of that proof to be
God.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
05 Nov 2003 11:37:56 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jrufqvom40mnv21s0151bs1ln2pn0qd9sa@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
[Hammond]
Dear Mr. Bellower, please recalibrate your presumptions.
Modern research (past 20 years) has shown that "mental speed"
is the main component of Intelligence. Mental speed can be
measured physics-wise without any reference to "other people"
or to anything that depends on education. It correlates
directly with any and all other measures of intelligence.
Fact is, practically speaking, you "intelligence" (mental
speed) can be measured with a computer and a
millisecond electronic timer... you don't need an
"IQ test".
This is somewhat unclear. Is mental speed correlated with intelligence
(and therefore not a synonym for it) or is it the main component, or
is it a synonym [your "intelligence (mental speed) remark.]
[Hammond]
All experts are agreed that "mental speed in bits/second is the
main biological component of intelligence". In other words,
mental speed is the dominant, predominant, main, central
physical phenomena causing "intelligence".
I am trained as a scientist, but not as an expert on this subject.
However, as a scientist, I still can comment as follows: regardless of
the area of scientific inquiry, X being the main component of Y is not
the same as X causing Y. What "causes" intelligence is a different
question than what it consists of or what its main components are.
That's not much of an objection, on its surface, but it may hint at
some conceptual difficulties in this analysis of intelligence, and
after all, the concept is central to the issue, isn't it?
I note you did not reply to my further comments below. I will have to
assume that you have no adequate response to the questions of (1)
whether intelligence is variable within an individual (you say it's
not) but studies say mental speed is) and (2) in what sense the "God"
that you posit is at all like the "God" of all or most conventional
theists. Is it personal, intelligent, omniscient, benevolent, etc.?
And where is the math of that?
I.Q. is a relative measure of ability - so can increase, decrease or
stay
the same for all of one's life.
[Hammond]
Baloney... intelligence is a measure of biological construct, like
height, blood pressure, eye color or anything else.... it is in
fact "mental spee, that is brain processing speed in bits/second".
According to:
http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory112120029.htm
mental speed as that term is used in that research study (and others)
is variable within a person depending on, in that cited study, smoking
and drinking.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
I wonder how many theists would consider the "God" of that proof to be
God.
Jim07D3
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
05 Nov 2003 06:52:35 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:flciqv4fi22ie86483i6qndh37rq0n55m1@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
This is somewhat unclear. Is mental speed correlated with intelligence
(and therefore not a synonym for it) or is it the main component, or
is it a synonym [your "intelligence (mental speed) remark.]
[Hammond]
All experts are agreed that "mental speed in bits/second is the
main biological component of intelligence". In other words,
mental speed is the dominant, predominant, main, central
physical phenomena causing "intelligence".
I am trained as a scientist, but not as an expert on this subject.
However, as a scientist, I still can comment as follows: regardless of
the area of scientific inquiry, X being the main component of Y is not
the same as X causing Y. What "causes" intelligence is a different
question than what it consists of or what its main components are.
[Hammond]
In this case it is known that X causes Y, i.e. that mental speed
is the cause of intelligence.
That's not much of an objection, on its surface, but it may hint at
some conceptual difficulties in this analysis of intelligence, and
after all, the concept is central to the issue, isn't it?
[Hammond]
Well, with all due respect, your question is somewhart analogous
to me saying to President Bush: "Just because X correlates with
Y does not mean X causes Y so therefore just because every terrorist
we catch happens to be a middle Eastern muslim does not mean
terrorism is being caused by middle Eastern Muslims, at which
point he would say to me.... why don't you run for president.
I note you did not reply to my further comments below. I will have to
assume that you have no adequate response to the questions of (1)
[Hammond]
don't make any assumptions
whether intelligence is variable within an individual (you say it's
not) but studies say mental speed is) and
[Hammond]
What studies say mental speed is variable within
an individual.... it's no more variable than
human height.... it's a constant.
(2) in what sense the "God"
that you posit is at all like the "God" of all or most conventional
theists.
[Hammond]
demonstrated to be one and the same.
Is it personal, intelligent, omniscient, benevolent, etc.?
[Hammond]
Since it is proven to be one and the same
as (i.e. identically is) the God of the Bible,
you can answer your own questions by referring
to a Bible... as for the rest of us, we already
know the answer but will be patient while
you look it up.
And where is the math of that?
[Hammond]
Who said it needs math?
[Hammond]
In conclusion, let me inform you that blazing scintillating
native "logic" is not sufficient to evaluate this theory, it also
requires academic credentials in a number of fields
such as Relativity, Psychometry, Biology, Comparative
anatomy, embryology, Psychology, Theology,
History, etc. etc.
In short, an amateur is hardly in a position to
"refute" the theory, or even evaluate it for that
matter.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
06 Nov 2003 10:42:16 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:flciqv4fi22ie86483i6qndh37rq0n55m1@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
This is somewhat unclear. Is mental speed correlated with intelligence
(and therefore not a synonym for it) or is it the main component, or
is it a synonym [your "intelligence (mental speed) remark.]
[Hammond]
All experts are agreed that "mental speed in bits/second is the
main biological component of intelligence". In other words,
mental speed is the dominant, predominant, main, central
physical phenomena causing "intelligence".
I am trained as a scientist, but not as an expert on this subject.
However, as a scientist, I still can comment as follows: regardless of
the area of scientific inquiry, X being the main component of Y is not
the same as X causing Y. What "causes" intelligence is a different
question than what it consists of or what its main components are.
[Hammond]
In this case it is known that X causes Y, i.e. that mental speed
is the cause of intelligence.
OK, the premise (which you say is known to be true) is that something
called mental speed is not only correlated with something called
intelligence, it causes intelligence.
So far in my limited reading on this, I have only seen reports of a
correlation between two measures -- mental speed (measured by physical
means)and intelligence (measured by behavioral means, usually in
"test" environments). But now I at least have a grasp of what you are
saying.
That's not much of an objection, on its surface, but it may hint at
some conceptual difficulties in this analysis of intelligence, and
after all, the concept is central to the issue, isn't it?
[Hammond]
Well, with all due respect, your question is somewhart analogous
to me saying to President Bush: "Just because X correlates with
Y does not mean X causes Y so therefore just because every terrorist
we catch happens to be a middle Eastern muslim does not mean
terrorism is being caused by middle Eastern Muslims, at which
point he would say to me.... why don't you run for president.
Analogies can be picked to suit any interpretation we want and any
argument we want to make. THey only illustrate a point of view, they
do not establish its soundness.
I note you did not reply to my further comments below. I will have to
assume that you have no adequate response to the questions of (1)
[Hammond]
don't make any assumptions
whether intelligence is variable within an individual (you say it's
not) but studies say mental speed is) and
[Hammond]
What studies say mental speed is variable within
an individual.... it's no more variable than
human height.... it's a constant.
I see references to smoking and drinking affecting mental speed. If we
are born not smoking and drinking, then when we start either, (the
studies are of middle-aged people) our mental speed changes. Whether
this is reversible, I can't tell from the cites. Here's one.
http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory112120029.htm
THere might be some constant speed such as diffusion chemistry in the
fluids involved in neurotransmitters, but there may be some effect on
the membranes through which the neurochemicals must migrate.
(Speculation, as a chemist.)
(2) in what sense the "God"
that you posit is at all like the "God" of all or most conventional
theists.
[Hammond]
demonstrated to be one and the same.
I looked at your site, and don't accept this.
Is it personal, intelligent, omniscient, benevolent, etc.?
[Hammond]
Since it is proven to be one and the same
as (i.e. identically is) the God of the Bible,
you can answer your own questions by referring
to a Bible... as for the rest of us, we already
know the answer but will be patient while
you look it up.
And where is the math of that?
[Hammond]
Who said it needs math?
Sorry, I mistook some of your work for math.
[Hammond]
In conclusion, let me inform you that blazing scintillating
native "logic" is not sufficient to evaluate this theory, it also
requires academic credentials in a number of fields
such as Relativity, Psychometry, Biology, Comparative
anatomy, embryology, Psychology, Theology,
History, etc. etc.
In short, an amateur is hardly in a position to
"refute" the theory, or even evaluate it for that
matter.
OK, but I won't accept it on faith or on the basis of your supposed
authority. Fair enough?
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
08 Nov 2003 09:37:24 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6uskqvgpd11jr7f9jq0vh3g2nnse9nq6f9@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
whether intelligence is variable within an individual (you say it's
not) but studies say mental speed is) and
[Hammond]
What studies say mental speed is variable within
an individual.... it's no more variable than
human height.... it's a constant.
I see references to smoking and drinking affecting mental speed. If we
are born not smoking and drinking, then when we start either, (the
studies are of middle-aged people) our mental speed changes. Whether
this is reversible, I can't tell from the cites. Here's one.
http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory112120029.htm
THere might be some constant speed such as diffusion chemistry in the
fluids involved in neurotransmitters, but there may be some effect on
the membranes through which the neurochemicals must migrate.
(Speculation, as a chemist.)
[Hammond]
Their researching the problem of that you can be sure....
axon transmission speed is bing investigated etc. But
in the end, surely, just the sheer number of neurons
(neuron density), is going to have an enormous effect
on speed (parallel computing). Fact is.... it's "everything"
that increases and improves with "higher growth", and
this all adds up to higher speed. Doesn't take
rocket science to figure that one out.
(2) in what sense the "God"
that you posit is at all like the "God" of all or most conventional
theists.
[Hammond]
demonstrated to be one and the same.
I looked at your site, and don't accept this.
[Hammond]
That's more a measure of your expertise, degrees, and
experience than anything else, I would suggest.
Is it personal, intelligent, omniscient, benevolent, etc.?
[Hammond]
Since it is proven to be one and the same
as (i.e. identically is) the God of the Bible,
you can answer your own questions by referring
to a Bible... as for the rest of us, we already
know the answer but will be patient while
you look it up.
And where is the math of that?
[Hammond]
Who said it needs math?
Sorry, I mistook some of your work for math.
[Hammond]
A correct mistake. It is math. Your problem is you
presume that an amateur is in a position to pass
judgement on something that is outside his expertise
by using simple "blazing and scintillating native
genius and mastry of logic". Such a presumption is
known to be foolhardy.
[Hammond]
In conclusion, let me inform you that blazing scintillating
native "logic" is not sufficient to evaluate this theory, it also
requires academic credentials in a number of fields
such as Relativity, Psychometry, Biology, Comparative
anatomy, embryology, Psychology, Theology,
History, etc. etc.
In short, an amateur is hardly in a position to
"refute" the theory, or even evaluate it for that
matter.
OK, but I won't accept it on faith or on the basis of your supposed
authority. Fair enough?
[Hammond]
Goes without saying. On the other hand you have seen enough to
be suspicious that there MAY BE something there that is
being ignored by the people who DO have the expertise to
evaluate it, for any one of a number of ill conceived reasons
are deliberately ignoring it (espcially for political reasons),
and you SHOULD by now have seen enough not to allow
you NOT to become a pawn and a piece of cannon fodder
by jumping to the conclusion that Hammond is a crank..
which is what, traditionally, the establishment tries to do
to anyone who makes a historic discovery that is going to make
them look stupid.... and they jolly well WILL take
advantage of any presumptious suckers who buy their
line and let them walk right over the cliff.... a word to
the wise should be sufficient.
Jim07D3
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
08 Nov 2003 01:46:46 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
....
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
PS: May I suggest that you list links to what you consider to be the
most sincere and thoughtful critiques of these ideas?
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
12 Nov 2003 06:30:45 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5mhqqvsl6soj8t8d02sgh6htc4acbavpfk@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
...
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
PS: May I suggest that you list links to what you consider to be the
most sincere and thoughtful critiques of these ideas?
Jim07D3
[Hammond]
At this point YOU ARE the most sincere and thoughtful
opinion of these ideas, simply because the big shots
are ignoring them... it is only recently that Chris Isham
noticed them, and he has not said anything definative
(yet).
I have a funny feeling there is going to have to be
a generalized riot over this thing before it gets the
attention of the authorities, Prof. Chris Isham notwithstanding.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
12 Nov 2003 08:52:15 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VgAsb.136597
[Hammond]
At this point YOU ARE the most sincere and thoughtful
opinion of these ideas, simply because the big shots
are ignoring them... it is only recently that Chris Isham
noticed them, and he has not said anything definative
(yet).
I have a funny feeling there is going to have to be
a generalized riot over this thing before it gets the
attention of the authorities, Prof. Chris Isham notwithstanding.
Perhaps the reason everyone is ignoring you is that you have nothing
interesting or even coherent to say. I looked at your web site, and I bet
it's the latter.
Enkidu
--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
13 Nov 2003 05:35:56 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:qlCsb.160$Ue4.60@fed1read01...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VgAsb.136597
[Hammond]
At this point YOU ARE the most sincere and thoughtful
opinion of these ideas, simply because the big shots
are ignoring them... it is only recently that Chris Isham
noticed them, and he has not said anything definative
(yet).
I have a funny feeling there is going to have to be
a generalized riot over this thing before it gets the
attention of the authorities, Prof. Chris Isham notwithstanding.
Perhaps the reason everyone is ignoring you is that you have nothing
interesting or even coherent to say. I looked at your web site, and I bet
it's the latter.
Enkidu
--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason"
Paine knew Hammond?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
13 Nov 2003 10:50:01 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:qlCsb.160$Ue4.60@fed1read01...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VgAsb.136597
[Hammond]
At this point YOU ARE the most sincere and thoughtful
opinion of these ideas, simply because the big shots
are ignoring them... it is only recently that Chris Isham
noticed them, and he has not said anything definative
(yet).
I have a funny feeling there is going to have to be
a generalized riot over this thing before it gets the
attention of the authorities, Prof. Chris Isham notwithstanding.
Perhaps the reason everyone is ignoring you is that you have nothing
interesting or even coherent to say. I looked at your web site, and I bet
it's the latter.
Enkidu
[Hammond]
the problem is that you have no interesting or coherent education
(degrees) with which to understand it... shouldn't you be back in
the kitchen tending to your fryolator and pumping out some
more of those McDonald french fries?
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
13 Nov 2003 02:30:54 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZCOsb.142020$ao4.453011@attbi_s51...
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:qlCsb.160$Ue4.60@fed1read01...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VgAsb.136597
[Hammond]
At this point YOU ARE the most sincere and thoughtful
opinion of these ideas, simply because the big shots
are ignoring them... it is only recently that Chris Isham
noticed them, and he has not said anything definative
(yet).
I have a funny feeling there is going to have to be
a generalized riot over this thing before it gets the
attention of the authorities, Prof. Chris Isham notwithstanding.
Perhaps the reason everyone is ignoring you is that you have nothing
interesting or even coherent to say. I looked at your web site, and I
bet
it's the latter.
Enkidu
[Hammond]
the problem is that you have no interesting or coherent education
(degrees) with which to understand it... shouldn't you be back in
the kitchen tending to your fryolator and pumping out some
more of those McDonald french fries?
Oh? You know this particular person's educational backround?
Only an arroganat moron would use the excuse that oithers (he doesn;t even
know) lack the qualifications to understand his crap!
BTW ... one does NOT need a college degree to know crap when he smells it,
*****!
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
13 Nov 2003 02:54:05 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZCOsb.142020$ao4.453011@attbi_s51...
" In 1994 an American physicist named George Hammond published a discovery
of the long sought for STRUCTURAL MODEL of Psychology. Three years later,
as a result of that discovery, he accidentally discovered the World's first
scientific proof of God."
Only an idiot would introduce the piece like that - indicating it was posted
by someone other than George Hammond himself!
Who was seeking this "structural model of psychology"?
What IS a structural model of psychology?
What the hell would a physicist know about psychology anyway?
In what scientific journals is your discovery printed?
" Soon to appear in the physics journal literature"
Have you been trying to have it printed, with nothing but laughter as a
response, since 1994
"WHY INCOMPLETE HUMAN GROWTH
CAUSES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD "
Who says human growth is incomplete? Not any valid scientist I've ever heard
of.
Perhaps you could provide a reference?
"Fig. 1 describes the SECULAR TREND in human growth. Man is growing larger
over the centuries. This effect is not genetic, it is due to increased
nutrition. "
Man HAS grown larger over the centuries. There is NO guarantee that this
will continue.
There is no such thing as "increased nutrition"; there is only better
nutrition.
Where is the scientific evidence that shows "better" nutrition leads to
changes in height?
Are you saying that eating a fatburger with fries is better than the all
natural meats and vegetables ancient man ate?
The TIME article says ENVIRONMENT - NOT just nutrition!
"This mean that Man has never been fully grown, and will only reach full
growth in the distant future. "
No; It doesn't.
Many is fully grown at adulthood, no matter what his height. Being taller
has nothing to do with being "fully grown".
" This means that the human brain is not fully grown. There is a "brain
growth deficit". "
Same crap, same answer!
So many stupid, ignorant mistakes that even an amateur laughs at them ...
and that was only the first half of the first web page.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
13 Nov 2003 05:35:19 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VgAsb.136597$ao4.430628@attbi_s51...
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5mhqqvsl6soj8t8d02sgh6htc4acbavpfk@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
...
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
======================================================
PS: May I suggest that you list links to what you consider to be the
most sincere and thoughtful critiques of these ideas?
Jim07D3
[Hammond]
At this point YOU ARE the most sincere and thoughtful
opinion of these ideas, simply because the big shots
are ignoring them... it is only recently that Chris Isham
noticed them, and he has not said anything definative
(yet).
I have a funny feeling there is going to have to be
a generalized riot over this thing before it gets the
attention of the authorities, Prof. Chris Isham notwithstanding.
You've been bellowing that same crap justification for years.
NO honest scientist is going to do ANYTHING with your ignorant garbage other
than throw it in the trash!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: "God of Physics" (God=G_uv) |
08 Nov 2003 01:43:57 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6uskqvgpd11jr7f9jq0vh3g2nnse9nq6f9@4ax.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> said:
whether intelligence is variable within an individual (you say it's
not) but studies say mental speed is) and
[Hammond]
What studies say mental speed is variable within
an individual.... it's no more variable than
human height.... it's a constant.
I see references to smoking and drinking affecting mental speed. If we
are born not smoking and drinking, then when we start either, (the
studies are of middle-aged people) our mental speed changes. Whether
this is reversible, I can't tell from the cites. Here's one.
http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory112120029.htm
THere might be some constant speed such as diffusion chemistry in the
fluids involved in neurotransmitters, but there may be some effect on
the membranes through which the neurochemicals must migrate.
(Speculation, as a chemist.)
[Hammond]
Their researching the problem of that you can be sure....
axon transmission speed is bing investigated etc. But
in the end, surely, just the sheer number of neurons
(neuron density), is going to have an enormous effect
on speed (parallel computing). Fact is.... it's "everything"
that increases and improves with "higher growth", and
this all adds up to higher speed. Doesn't take
rocket science to figure that one out.
Nonetheless, the assertion that mental speed is a constant for any
particular human, throughout his life, seems to be at the least,
contradicted by research, and more likely, part of a faith-based
approach to the subject.
(2) in what sense the "God"
that you posit is at all like the "God" of all or most conventional
theists.
[Hammond]
demonstrated to be one and the same.
I looked at your site, and don't accept this.
[Hammond]
That's more a measure of your expertise, degrees, and
experience than anything else, I would suggest.
I'd agree. ;-)
Is it personal, intelligent, omniscient, benevolent, etc.?
[Hammond]
Since it is proven to be one and the same
as (i.e. identically is) the God of the Bible,
you can answer your own questions by referring
to a Bible... as for the rest of us, we already
know the answer but will be patient while
you look it up.
And where is the math of that?
[Hammond]
Who said it needs math?
Sorry, I mistook some of your work for math.
[Hammond]
A correct mistake. It is math. Your problem is you
presume that an amateur is in a position to pass
judgement on something that is outside his expertise
by using simple "blazing and scintillating native
genius and mastry of logic". Such a presumption is
known to be foolhardy.
I couldn't agree more. Know any experts in this field?
[Hammond]
In conclusion, let me inform you that blazing scintillating
native "logic" is not sufficient to evaluate this theory, it also
requires academic credentials in a number of fields
such as Relativity, Psychometry, Biology, Comparative
anatomy, embryology, Psychology, Theology,
History, etc. etc.
In short, an amateur is hardly in a position to
"refute" the theory, or even evaluate it for that
matter.
OK, but I won't accept it on faith or on the basis of your supposed
authority. Fair enough?
[Hammond]
Goes without saying. On the other hand you have seen enough to
be suspicious that there MAY BE something there that is
being ignored by the people who DO have the expertise to
evaluate it, for any one of a number of ill conceived reasons
are deliberately ignoring it (espcially for political reasons),
and you SHOULD by now have seen enough not to allow
you NOT to become a pawn and a piece of cannon fodder
by jumping to the conclusion that Hammond is a crank..
I do not have enough information to | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |