| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
19 May 2006 05:58:07 PM |
| Object: |
EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
==============NOTICE============
THE AUTHOR WILL NOT RESPOND UNLESS
you are a competent professional posting
under your real name and have a public website
containing your photograph, email address and
academic CV with enough auxiliary information to
verify who you are (for example my website, see
signature file below).
This is not an amateur discussion and anonymous
posters, hecklers and amateurs will be automatically
killfiled.
===============================
EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS
I-- The 13 gods of Egypt
The Egyptian religion told people what the gods actually
were! Egyptians were taught that the "gods" were
simply HUMAN PERSONALITY TYPES!
The method used to teach this was simple. The Egyptian
"gods" were presented as ordinary men but with the
heads of various animals... the particular animal used
denoting the "personality type" of that particular "god".
This technique is still used today. For instance:
Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
Bugs Bunny
Porky Pig
would immediately be recognized in ancient Egypt as four
different "gods", and representing four very common and
recognizable personality types in modern society.
In ancient Egypt, the wall paintings, the religious
texts (such as the book of the Dead) the sculpture and so
forth, show 15 to 20 of these "gods", as ordinary
Egyptian men and women except for the heads of 15 or 20
different well known animals, such as:
Animal-headed gods
..
Animal:: god:
Falcon Horus
Ram Khnum
Jackal Anubis
Ibis Thoth
Frog Heket
Crocodile Sobek
Lion Tefnut
Cow Het
Cat Bubastis
Beetle Khepri
Snake Kauket
Baboon Thoth
Hippopotamus Taweret
[actual pictures of these gods may be seen here]:
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/anubis.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/heket.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/horus.html
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khnum.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/sekhmet.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sobeka.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/taweret.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/thoth.htm
http://members.aol.com/egyptart/khepri.html
http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruH.html
http://touregypt.net/featurestories/kek.htm
The point is that once the laity is told that the "gods" are
simply different "HUMAN PERSONALITY TYPES".... then
you don't findconfused people wandering around asking:
What are the "gods"?
Why are the gods invisible?
Where do the gods live?
What do the gods eat?
Do the gods sleep?
How do the gods rule over people?
No.... all of those questions were immediately OBVIOUS
to the average disciple of the Egyptian religion. For
instance the gods are "invisible" because personality is
psychological, and psychology is invisible! The gods
obviously live inside people (in their brain) , since
personality is caused by the brain! Obviously the gods
eat at the same time the people eat, and the gods are
involved in all the activities Man is involved in. Finally
it is OBVIOUS that the gods "guide and rule" people
because "personality" is a mental function, and it is
mental function that controls human behavior!
How simple and elegant, indeed obvious this scientific
explanation of the gods is! No wonder it took 3,000
years for the Egyptians to discover and perfect such a
brilliant religion... and it is not incredible that modern
science has finally proved them correct!
II-- The 13 Olympian Gods
Now believe it or not, despite the fact that this kind of
elementary religious knowledge was widespread and
fundamental in Egyptian times..... by the time the Greek
and the Roman cultures arrived....the Egyptian culture
had disappeared and was practically forgotten. The entire
Egyptian religion had been lost after 3,000 years of existence.
Hence a basic knowledge of what the gods were was
UNKNOWN to the Greeks and the Romans. Evidence of
this can be found in Cicero's famous book DE NATURA
DEORUM (On the Nature of the Gods) written in 41 B.C.
In this book Cicero gives a summary of Greek and Roman
opinions about what the gods were (including the Epicureans,
Plato, the Stoics, the Roman state religion, etc.) We find the
discussants in the book arguing over whether the gods actually
"EXISTED" or not! Obviously the Egyptians knew the gods
existed, since human personality types obviously
exist. Cicero also argues over whether the gods have a human
form or not (which they obviously must have if they are
simply human personality types), and we find Cicero reporting
many other bizarre misunderstandings about the gods
commonly believed by the Greeks and Romans.... ideas which
had been disposed of by the Egyptians thousands of years
earlier!
How could this happen! Well, you have to recall that when
Herodotus "re-discovered" the Pyramids and temples of ancient
Egypt sticking out of the sand in 500 B.C. in the middle of
the desert.... nobody in the whole of Egypt could be found
who even knew what they were or who built them, and no
one could read the funny writing on them (hieroglyphics)....
indeed..... 3,000 years of one of the most advanced religions on
Earth had simply VANISHED by the time Greece and Rome
arrived ! It is no wonder the Greeks and the Romans didn't
have a clue as to what the "Nature of the Gods" actually was!
At any rate, we now fast forward to the 21st century where
modern Psychometry (computerized Factor Analysis of
personality tests) has now PROVED that the gods exist, that they
appear as a dozen stable and reproducible eigenvectors in
the correlation matrix of any personality test and they are
measured to two decimal point accuracy experimentally,
today.
And that's not all. An amazing theoretical development has
also been discovered. INCREDIBLE AS IT SOUNDS, it turns
out that these 13 eigenvectors which are discovered in all
Personality test data, whether written, or experimental, or from
whatever source..... turn out to be CUBICALLY INTERCORRELATED!
Yes, that's a fact.... when the arccosine of the intercorrelations
of these 13 universal eigenvectors are converted to geometric
angles, the 13 vectors turn out to be the 13 AXES OF A CUBE !
The 13 gods of the ancient Pagan religions form a CUBE !
(Note: Recall that a cube has 13 symmetry axes...
3 normals
4 body diagonals
6 face diagonals
------
13 total symmetry axes
And as Hammond has proven, this CUBE comes from the fact
that the human brain is CUBICALLY CLEAVED.... i.e. comes
directly from the 8-cell cubic stage of binary cartesian
cell division.... and this is WHY there are 13 personalities..
hence "13 Olympian Gods"!
III-- The God of Christianity
Now, we haven't even gotten to the amazing part yet.... we haven't
even gotten to the EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS... which turns out
to be the GOD OF CHRISTIANITY..... THE GOD OF MONOTHEISM.
What we've described so far is the 13 eigenvectors that exist
in any Personality test. It turns out there are 13 of them, that they
form a CUBE, and that they are identified as the 13 "gods" (or
personality types) of the Egyptian-Greco-Roman pantheon (the 13
Olympic gods basically).
But then we come to CHRISTIANITY.
Christianity announced that there is a "SUPREME GOD" that overules
all other gods..... and guess what...... 20th century Factor Analysis
explains this and confirms it.
It turns out, that if you RE-FACTOR the 13 AXIS CUBE of the "gods"
that what you get is 4 "higher order" eigenvectors (basically the cube
simply collapses onto its 3-normals, and IQ (intelligence) is the 4th
higher order eigenvector.
And, when you Factor this 4x4 symmetric matrix just described, you
get the LAST EIGENVECTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY..... a single higher
order eigenvector, and:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS SINGLE FINAL EIGENVECTOR
WHICH IS AN EIGENVECTOR OF THE 13X13 MATRIX OF
THE PAGAN GODS........ TURNS OUT TO BE THE GOD
OF CHRISTIANITY.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "higher order factor of the gods" then, turns
out to be the God of monotheism.
GOD is the "eigenvector of the gods".
Hence, we have discovered the world's rigorous, hard scientific
proof of God.
Now, if you have any Physics training, or have any general forensic
ability in Science, and can say anything knowledgeable, intelligent,
or original about this (peer published) discovery..... the world will
be HIGHLY INTERESTED in anything you have to say.
--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
20 May 2006 05:22:30 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:d2is629sjbbih75ni9ho3g3j3ke6l3k5fj@4ax.com...
==============NOTICE============
THE AUTHOR WILL NOT RESPOND
Awww....
UNLESS
you are a competent professional posting
under your real name
Well I post under my real name and work on cosmic ray shower detection.
Where do you work?
and have a public website
containing your photograph, email address and
academic CV
Any idiot can put up a web site
with enough auxiliary information to
verify who you are (for example my website, see
signature file below).
I know who I am, and unlike some do not need a website to remind me
This is not an amateur discussion
Well what is it then?
and anonymous
posters, hecklers and amateurs will be automatically
killfiled.
Automatic? You mean you killfile everyone?
===============================
EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS
I-- The 13 gods of Egypt
The Egyptian religion told people what the gods actually
were! Egyptians were taught that the "gods" were
simply HUMAN PERSONALITY TYPES!
The method used to teach this was simple. The Egyptian
"gods" were presented as ordinary men but with the
heads of various animals... the particular animal used
denoting the "personality type" of that particular "god".
This technique is still used today. For instance:
Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
Bugs Bunny
Porky Pig
Georgy Porgie Hammond
would immediately be recognized in ancient Egypt as four
different "gods", and representing four very common and
recognizable personality types in modern society.
Yes, they represent Mice, Ducks, Rabbits, Pigs and Idiots
In ancient Egypt, the wall paintings, the religious
texts (such as the book of the Dead) the sculpture and so
forth, show 15 to 20 of these "gods", as ordinary
Egyptian men and women except for the heads of 15 or 20
different well known animals, such as:
Animal-headed gods
.
Animal:: god:
Falcon Horus
Ram Khnum
Jackal Anubis
Ibis Thoth
Frog Heket
Crocodile Sobek
Lion Tefnut
Cow Het
Cat Bubastis
Beetle Khepri
Snake Kauket
Baboon Thoth
Hippopotamus Taweret
Can't see any mention of the mouse or the pig, or even the idiot
[actual pictures of these gods may be seen here]:
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/anubis.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/heket.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/horus.html
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khnum.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/sekhmet.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sobeka.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/taweret.htm
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/thoth.htm
http://members.aol.com/egyptart/khepri.html
http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruH.html
http://touregypt.net/featurestories/kek.htm
So wheres your picture?
The point is that once the laity is told that the "gods" are
simply different "HUMAN PERSONALITY TYPES".... then
you don't findconfused people wandering around asking:
What are the "gods"?
Why are the gods invisible?
Where do the gods live?
What do the gods eat?
Do the gods sleep?
How do the gods rule over people?
How does Hammond manage to eat a sandwich?
No.... all of those questions were immediately OBVIOUS
to the average disciple of the Egyptian religion.
Really? You were there were you?
For
instance the gods are "invisible" because personality is
psychological, and psychology is invisible!
Invisible? Not if you meet an axe-wielding psychopath
The gods
obviously live inside people (in their brain) ,
A bit like "The numbskulls" in the Beezer comic?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............................
Steve Ralph Ph.D , B.Sc (real name and qualifications)
since
personality is caused by the brain!
Obviously the gods
eat at the same time the people eat, and the gods are
involved in all the activities Man is involved in. Finally
it is OBVIOUS that the gods "guide and rule" people
because "personality" is a mental function, and it is
mental function that controls human behavior!
How simple and elegant, indeed obvious this scientific
explanation of the gods is! No wonder it took 3,000
years for the Egyptians to discover and perfect such a
brilliant religion... and it is not incredible that modern
science has finally proved them correct!
II-- The 13 Olympian Gods
Now believe it or not, despite the fact that this kind of
elementary religious knowledge was widespread and
fundamental in Egyptian times..... by the time the Greek
and the Roman cultures arrived....the Egyptian culture
had disappeared and was practically forgotten. The entire
Egyptian religion had been lost after 3,000 years of existence.
Hence a basic knowledge of what the gods were was
UNKNOWN to the Greeks and the Romans. Evidence of
this can be found in Cicero's famous book DE NATURA
DEORUM (On the Nature of the Gods) written in 41 B.C.
In this book Cicero gives a summary of Greek and Roman
opinions about what the gods were (including the Epicureans,
Plato, the Stoics, the Roman state religion, etc.) We find the
discussants in the book arguing over whether the gods actually
"EXISTED" or not! Obviously the Egyptians knew the gods
existed, since human personality types obviously
exist. Cicero also argues over whether the gods have a human
form or not (which they obviously must have if they are
simply human personality types), and we find Cicero reporting
many other bizarre misunderstandings about the gods
commonly believed by the Greeks and Romans.... ideas which
had been disposed of by the Egyptians thousands of years
earlier!
How could this happen! Well, you have to recall that when
Herodotus "re-discovered" the Pyramids and temples of ancient
Egypt sticking out of the sand in 500 B.C. in the middle of
the desert.... nobody in the whole of Egypt could be found
who even knew what they were or who built them, and no
one could read the funny writing on them (hieroglyphics)....
indeed..... 3,000 years of one of the most advanced religions on
Earth had simply VANISHED by the time Greece and Rome
arrived ! It is no wonder the Greeks and the Romans didn't
have a clue as to what the "Nature of the Gods" actually was!
At any rate, we now fast forward to the 21st century where
modern Psychometry (computerized Factor Analysis of
personality tests) has now PROVED that the gods exist, that they
appear as a dozen stable and reproducible eigenvectors in
the correlation matrix of any personality test and they are
measured to two decimal point accuracy experimentally,
today.
And that's not all. An amazing theoretical development has
also been discovered. INCREDIBLE AS IT SOUNDS, it turns
out that these 13 eigenvectors which are discovered in all
Personality test data, whether written, or experimental, or from
whatever source..... turn out to be CUBICALLY INTERCORRELATED!
Yes, that's a fact.... when the arccosine of the intercorrelations
of these 13 universal eigenvectors are converted to geometric
angles, the 13 vectors turn out to be the 13 AXES OF A CUBE !
The 13 gods of the ancient Pagan religions form a CUBE !
(Note: Recall that a cube has 13 symmetry axes...
3 normals
4 body diagonals
6 face diagonals
------
13 total symmetry axes
And as Hammond has proven, this CUBE comes from the fact
that the human brain is CUBICALLY CLEAVED.... i.e. comes
directly from the 8-cell cubic stage of binary cartesian
cell division.... and this is WHY there are 13 personalities..
hence "13 Olympian Gods"!
III-- The God of Christianity
Now, we haven't even gotten to the amazing part yet.... we haven't
even gotten to the EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS... which turns out
to be the GOD OF CHRISTIANITY..... THE GOD OF MONOTHEISM.
What we've described so far is the 13 eigenvectors that exist
in any Personality test. It turns out there are 13 of them, that they
form a CUBE, and that they are identified as the 13 "gods" (or
personality types) of the Egyptian-Greco-Roman pantheon (the 13
Olympic gods basically).
But then we come to CHRISTIANITY.
Christianity announced that there is a "SUPREME GOD" that overules
all other gods..... and guess what...... 20th century Factor Analysis
explains this and confirms it.
It turns out, that if you RE-FACTOR the 13 AXIS CUBE of the "gods"
that what you get is 4 "higher order" eigenvectors (basically the cube
simply collapses onto its 3-normals, and IQ (intelligence) is the 4th
higher order eigenvector.
And, when you Factor this 4x4 symmetric matrix just described, you
get the LAST EIGENVECTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY..... a single higher
order eigenvector, and:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS SINGLE FINAL EIGENVECTOR
WHICH IS AN EIGENVECTOR OF THE 13X13 MATRIX OF
THE PAGAN GODS........ TURNS OUT TO BE THE GOD
OF CHRISTIANITY.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "higher order factor of the gods" then, turns
out to be the God of monotheism.
GOD is the "eigenvector of the gods".
Hence, we have discovered the world's rigorous, hard scientific
proof of God.
Now, if you have any Physics training, or have any general forensic
ability in Science, and can say anything knowledgeable, intelligent,
or original about this (peer published) discovery..... the world will
be HIGHLY INTERESTED in anything you have to say.
--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
22 May 2006 04:06:43 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:d2is629sjbbih75ni9ho3g3j3ke6l3k5fj@4ax.com...
==============NOTICE============
THE AUTHOR WILL NOT RESPOND UNLESS
You are equally insane and spend all your time sucking up to the "AUTHOR"
without ever mentioning what a (lying) nutcase he is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
20 May 2006 10:55:57 PM |
|
|
"would immediately be recognized in ancient Egypt as four
different "gods", and representing four very common and
recognizable personality types in modern society."
Hey Georgey, how would ANCIENT Egyptians know about MODERN society ?
Bwahahahahahaha !
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sven Hesse" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
20 May 2006 07:24:44 AM |
|
|
// .---
// Superseeded, since I noticed why the parent didn't appear in
// alt.philosophy: Hammond forgot and answered himself with exactly the
// same thing, adding alt.philosophy to the newsgroups list.
// (let's see whether superseeding + editing the newsgroups list works)
// '---
George Hammond <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
==============NOTICE============
THE AUTHOR WILL NOT RESPOND UNLESS
you are a competent professional posting
under your real name and have a public website
containing your photograph, email address and
academic CV with enough auxiliary information to
verify who you are (for example my website, see
signature file below).
This is not an amateur discussion and anonymous
posters, hecklers and amateurs will be automatically
killfiled.
===============================
Wow, you're getting more and more ridiculous...
competent professional
Define "competent professional". I bet you mean "whorshipping the
almighty HAMMOND".
your real name
Sven Hesse's my real name all right.
have a public website
containing your photograph, email address and
academic CV with enough auxiliary information to
verify who you are.
So you've got the job as a marketing-datamining-guy after all?
But yes, I have a "public website" containing my photograph, email
address and academic CV (2nd semester Computer Science student).
This is not an amateur discussion
Seeing that
1. you are George Hammond
2. this is the Usenet and no scientific publication
3. you can't backup any claims you've made what-so-ever
4. this subject is "eigenvector of the gods" (puuuleaze, next I'll start
a topic named "The limes superior / upper limit of ghosts"... Really,
not understanding math doesn't give you the right to fling mathematical
terms around without any sense).
this /is/ an amateur discussion
Also: Thinking that you're infallible gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling
(in your pants), right?
At any rate, we now fast forward to the 21st century where
modern Psychometry (computerized Factor Analysis of
personality tests) has now PROVED that the gods exist, that they
appear as a dozen stable and reproducible eigenvectors in
the correlation matrix of any personality test and they are
measured to two decimal point accuracy experimentally,
today.
And its eigenvalues measure the gods' madness factors?
And that's not all. An amazing theoretical development has
also been discovered. INCREDIBLE AS IT SOUNDS, it turns
out that these 13 eigenvectors which are discovered in all
Personality test data, whether written, or experimental, or from
whatever source..... turn out to be CUBICALLY INTERCORRELATED!
Yes, that's a fact.... when the arccosine of the intercorrelations
of these 13 universal eigenvectors are converted to geometric
angles, the 13 vectors turn out to be the 13 AXES OF A CUBE !
The 13 gods of the ancient Pagan religions form a CUBE !
Seems like you haven't understood eigenvectors in the slightest. My
linear algebra professor would cringe.
And as Hammond has proven, this CUBE comes from the fact
that the human brain is CUBICALLY CLEAVED...
And as Hesse has proved (or hasn't he?!? self-referring is fun!),
this is utter garbage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS SINGLE FINAL EIGENVECTOR
WHICH IS AN EIGENVECTOR OF THE 13X13 MATRIX OF
THE PAGAN GODS........ TURNS OUT TO BE THE GOD
OF CHRISTIANITY.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "higher order factor of the gods" then, turns
out to be the God of monotheism.
GOD is the "eigenvector of the gods".
One eigenvector to rule them all...
Hence, we have discovered the world's rigorous, hard scientific
proof of God.
Hence, we have discovered that Hammond should put down the crack pipe.
Now, if you have any Physics training, or have any general forensic
ability in Science, and can say anything knowledgeable, intelligent,
or original about this (peer published) discovery..... the world will
be HIGHLY INTERESTED in anything you have to say.
I have "any Phsysics training", "any Mathematics training" as well and I
can say that you don't know crap about math and physics.
Besides, what you're searching is not discussion in any form, you're
searching blind followers, worshippers, so you'd be better off posting
somewhere in the alt.religion-hierarchy.
--
If you hit a man over the head with a fish, he'll have a headache for a
day.
But if you teach a man to hit himself over the head with a fish, he'll
have headaches for the rest of his life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 11:18:21 AM |
|
|
(Note: Recall that a cube has 13 symmetry axes...
3 normals
4 body diagonals
6 face diagonals
------
13 total symmetry axes
Complete and utter *****. The cube belongs to the point group Oh
(octahedral group). The octahedral group has 48 symmetry operations,
NOT 13. You aren't even close. You can learn this in any course in
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (3rd of 4th year of undegraduate education
in chemistry), or in a mathemical course in groups ("Moden Algebra").
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 03:19:12 PM |
|
|
"The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148919501.839842.175130@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(Note: Recall that a cube has 13 symmetry axes...
3 normals
4 body diagonals
6 face diagonals
------
13 total symmetry axes
Complete and utter *****. The cube belongs to the point group Oh
(octahedral group). The octahedral group has 48 symmetry operations,
NOT 13. You aren't even close. You can learn this in any course in
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (3rd of 4th year of undegraduate education
in chemistry), or in a mathemical course in groups ("Moden Algebra").
[Hammond]
WE KNOW ALL THAT.......!
There are translation, inversion (mirror) symmetries etc..... but
"symmetry operations" are not necessarily effective in
Factor Analysis, while symmetry AXES are! In fact
the effective symmetry axes are the ROTATIONAL AXES
....... the "13-GODS" are the rotational symmetry axes which
show up as eigenvectors of the correlation matrix.
And I don't need organic chemistry to inform me about it... I'm
an M.S. in physics (1967) and have known all about it from
X-Ray Crystallography for 40 years for chrissakes.... go back
to the chem lab and leave the scientific proof of God to
theoretical physics and psychology.
The physicists are the only ones psychologically NORMAL enough
to tell us what God is (scientifically speaking).... and guess what...
I'm the physicist who is going to tell you all about it (and in the
peer reviewed literature no less)!
--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 03:28:52 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:4HIeg.2$F2.0@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148919501.839842.175130@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(Note: Recall that a cube has 13 symmetry axes...
3 normals
4 body diagonals
6 face diagonals
------
13 total symmetry axes
Complete and utter *****. The cube belongs to the point group Oh
(octahedral group). The octahedral group has 48 symmetry operations,
NOT 13. You aren't even close. You can learn this in any course in
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (3rd of 4th year of undegraduate education
in chemistry), or in a mathemical course in groups ("Moden Algebra").
[Hammond]
WE KNOW ALL THAT.......!
We all know you are an idiot.
And I don't need organic chemistry to inform me about it... I'm
an M.S. in physics (1967)
That in itself amazes me. Why didn't you carry on to get a PhD?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 03:32:46 PM |
|
|
How DARE you call me an organic chemist... the horror :-))
I am an inorganic / physical chemist (M.A. 1998, Ph.D. 2000)
There aren't any translations in point groups, but I get your point...
crystallographers are into space groups. By the way.. what about
icosahdral group or tetrahedral groups? Why is the cube special?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 03:37:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1148934766.645989.270270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
How DARE you call me an organic chemist... the horror :-))
I am an inorganic / physical chemist (M.A. 1998, Ph.D. 2000)
Then you must know the saying "organic chemists never die, they only
smell this way"
There aren't any translations in point groups, but I get your point...
crystallographers are into space groups. By the way.. what about
icosahdral group or tetrahedral groups?
Oh, they exists.
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
31 May 2006 05:38:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1148934766.645989.270270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
How DARE you call me an organic chemist... the horror :-))
I am an inorganic / physical chemist (M.A. 1998, Ph.D. 2000)
Then you must know the saying "organic chemists never die, they only
smell this way"
There aren't any translations in point groups, but I get your point...
crystallographers are into space groups. By the way.. what about
icosahdral group or tetrahedral groups?
Oh, they exists.
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
"simple" is a rather ambiguous. Group Oh is one of the more complicated
point groups, and in chemistry, represents molecules with a very high
degree of symmetry.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
But then again so do the other 4 Platonic solids. Which all reminds me
of Kepler's attempts to correlate the planetary orbits with the radii
of spheres which circumscribed the five Platonic solids. Kepler's
attempt did not work, either....
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
31 May 2006 12:49:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1149071918.030350.163490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1148934766.645989.270270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
How DARE you call me an organic chemist... the horror :-))
I am an inorganic / physical chemist (M.A. 1998, Ph.D. 2000)
Then you must know the saying "organic chemists never die, they only
smell this way"
There aren't any translations in point groups, but I get your point...
crystallographers are into space groups. By the way.. what about
icosahdral group or tetrahedral groups?
Oh, they exists.
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
"simple" is a rather ambiguous. Group Oh is one of the more complicated
point groups, and in chemistry, represents molecules with a very high
degree of symmetry.
Crystals with high degree of symmetry, rather. And crystals with high
degree of symmetry have simple sets of Bragg reflections. It was
crystallography that was the driver here.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
But then again so do the other 4 Platonic solids.
Not for crystalline structures. Look at it not from point of view of
platonic solids, but of cells which can be used to fill space.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
02 Jun 2006 03:54:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1149071918.030350.163490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
wrote:
In article <1148934766.645989.270270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
How DARE you call me an organic chemist... the horror :-))
I am an inorganic / physical chemist (M.A. 1998, Ph.D. 2000)
Then you must know the saying "organic chemists never die, they only
smell this way"
There aren't any translations in point groups, but I get your point...
crystallographers are into space groups. By the way.. what about
icosahdral group or tetrahedral groups?
Oh, they exists.
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
"simple" is a rather ambiguous. Group Oh is one of the more complicated
point groups, and in chemistry, represents molecules with a very high
degree of symmetry.
Crystals with high degree of symmetry, rather. And crystals with high
degree of symmetry have simple sets of Bragg reflections. It was
crystallography that was the driver here.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
But then again so do the other 4 Platonic solids.
Not for crystalline structures. Look at it not from point of view of
platonic solids, but of cells which can be used to fill space.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
OK. But (simple) cubic cells are relatively rare - only Polonium of the
elements crystallizes as simple cubic. Does the this theory hold up
using fcc, bcc, or hcp cells, which are far more common?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
02 Jun 2006 11:01:35 AM |
|
|
In article <1149238460.163147.264510@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1149071918.030350.163490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1148934766.645989.270270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "The_Man" <me_so_horneeeee@yahoo.com> writes:
How DARE you call me an organic chemist... the horror :-))
I am an inorganic / physical chemist (M.A. 1998, Ph.D. 2000)
Then you must know the saying "organic chemists never die, they only
smell this way"
There aren't any translations in point groups, but I get your point...
crystallographers are into space groups. By the way.. what about
icosahdral group or tetrahedral groups?
Oh, they exists.
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
"simple" is a rather ambiguous. Group Oh is one of the more complicated
point groups, and in chemistry, represents molecules with a very high
degree of symmetry.
Crystals with high degree of symmetry, rather. And crystals with high
degree of symmetry have simple sets of Bragg reflections. It was
crystallography that was the driver here.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
But then again so do the other 4 Platonic solids.
Not for crystalline structures. Look at it not from point of view of
platonic solids, but of cells which can be used to fill space.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
OK. But (simple) cubic cells are relatively rare - only Polonium of the
elements crystallizes as simple cubic. Does the this theory hold up
using fcc, bcc, or hcp cells, which are far more common?
Yes, it does, fortunately.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 04:04:50 PM |
|
|
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
[Hammond]
Correct, brilliant...... it's guys like you who are going to eventually
realize Hammond HAS discovered the world's first
true scientific proof of God.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS |
29 May 2006 05:00:45 PM |
|
|
<georgehammond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148936690.079357.196920@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Why is the cube special?
because:
1) It is simple.
2) It actually represents lots of real cases.
[Hammond]
Correct, brilliant...... it's guys like you who are going to eventually
realize Hammond HAS discovered the world's first
true scientific proof of God.
I doubt it.
Nice new identity by the way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Scientific proofs do not exist |
05 Jun 2006 04:18:03 PM |
|
|
Correct, brilliant...... it's guys like you who are going to eventually
realize Hammond HAS discovered the world's first
true scientific proof of God.
Honestly you haven't. Scientific proofs do not exist. There is
something you should be aware of called the scientific method. Two
points are key to it.
1) For a propositions to be a "scientific theory" it must be
*falsifiable*. That is you must be able to conceive some observation or
test that would lead the proposition to fall short of a tautology.
There is no possible observation or test that would show that god
doesn't exist. So the proposition the "god exists" is not a
"scientific theory". The same is true for intelligent design.
2) Even if the proposition "god exists" was a scientific theory it
could not be proven. As *NO scientific theory can be proven.* (logical
and mathematical theories can but there a different ball game). All
that is possible its to conduct test and observations to support the
theory. This "evidence" doesn't proof the theory. It just doesn't
disprove it. It is worth noting that a single reliable test or
observation that goes against the theory would disprove it.
I am not saying god does or doesn't exist. It is just IMPOSSIBLE to
prove it scientifically or otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
05 Jun 2006 07:14:21 PM |
|
|
<njs220@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149542283.678181.235080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Correct, brilliant...... it's guys like you who are going to eventually
realize Hammond HAS discovered the world's first
true scientific proof of God.
Honestly you haven't. Scientific proofs do not exist. There is
something you should be aware of called the scientific method. Two
points are key to it.
1) For a propositions to be a "scientific theory" it must be
*falsifiable*.
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
What do you think this is, AMATEUR NITE...?
If any one of a HUNDRED psychometric results had failed to confirm it,
it would have been falsified. However, history shows that the
SPOG SURVIVED each and ever test that could have EASILY
falsified SPOG......... IF it had been false............. however, it
has proved to be TRUE.
Any SIMPLETON who has actually READ the SPOG
(which you haven't) KNOWS FULL WELL THAT IT IS A
CONVENTIONAL, BY THE BOOK, SCIENTIFIC THEORY,
FALSIFIABILITY AND ALL.....!!!!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 06:13:35 PM |
|
|
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
You are trying to prove the conjecture "god exists".
Please tell me the observation that you can make to disprove this. if
you give me that then the conjecture is falsifiable. and hence a
scientific theory.
NJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 06:46:42 PM |
|
|
<njs220@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149635615.240778.167010@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
You are trying to prove the conjecture "god exists".
Please tell me the observation that you can make to disprove this. if
you give me that then the conjecture is falsifiable. and hence a
scientific theory.
NJ
[Hammond]
If you have to ask an incompetent newbie question
like that it means either you're a "buzzword moron"
(most likely) or you can't read and have not even read
the SPOG (quite likely).... I don't talk to academy trash
and yuppie scum like you, I kill file you the fuckin
minute you walk thru the door.
go find something else to do........ you're worthless.
Justbecause you learned to type the word
"falsifiable"
or the cliche
"correlation isn't causation"
DOES NOT MEAN
that a veteran scientist like me
can't recognize you as a no nothing
amateur wannabee aggravated
half ***** mental case....
*****.
get outta here...
--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
07 Jun 2006 07:24:35 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:Ctohg.2415$lp.845@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<njs220@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149635615.240778.167010@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
You are trying to prove the conjecture "god exists".
Please tell me the observation that you can make to disprove this. if
you give me that then the conjecture is falsifiable. and hence a
scientific theory.
NJ
[Hammond]
If you have to ask an incompetent newbie question
like that it means either you're a "buzzword moron"
(most likely) or you can't read and have not even read
the SPOG (quite likely).... I don't talk to academy trash
and yuppie scum like you, I kill file you the fuckin
minute you walk thru the door.
go find something else to do........ you're worthless.
Justbecause you learned to type the word
"falsifiable"
or the cliche
"correlation isn't causation"
DOES NOT MEAN
that a veteran scientist like me
can't recognize you as a no nothing
amateur wannabee aggravated
half ***** mental case....
*****.
get outta here...
In other words you simply cannot tell me the observation that you can make
to disprove this. Why
not just be honest and admit it?
sr
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
08 Jun 2006 05:53:15 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
<njs220@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149635615.240778.167010@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
You are trying to prove the conjecture "god exists".
Please tell me the observation that you can make to disprove this. if
you give me that then the conjecture is falsifiable. and hence a
scientific theory.
NJ
[Hammond]
If you have to ask an incompetent newbie question
like that it means either you're a "buzzword moron"
(most likely) or you can't read and have not even read
the SPOG (quite likely).... I don't talk to academy trash
and yuppie scum like you, I kill file you the fuckin
minute you walk thru the door.
go find something else to do........ you're worthless.
Justbecause you learned to type the word
"falsifiable"
or the cliche
"correlation isn't causation"
DOES NOT MEAN
that a veteran scientist like me
can't recognize you as a no nothing
amateur wannabee aggravated
half ***** mental case....
*****.
get outta here...
I ask a simple question and all i get is this response. Wouldn't
explaining the observation to me that I asked for be much easier than
calling me every offensive name under the sun. I can only conclude that
you can't and in which case why should I bother reading SPOG when it
is not scientifically rigorous.
NJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 07:38:11 PM |
|
|
In article <Ctohg.2415$lp.845@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, George
Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.com> wrote:
<njs220@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149635615.240778.167010@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
You are trying to prove the conjecture "god exists".
Please tell me the observation that you can make to disprove this. if
you give me that then the conjecture is falsifiable. and hence a
scientific theory.
NJ
[Hammond]
If you have to ask an incompetent newbie question
like that it means either you're a "buzzword moron"
(most likely) or you can't read and have not even read
the SPOG (quite likely).... I don't talk to academy trash
and yuppie scum like you, I kill file you the fuckin
minute you walk thru the door.
go find something else to do........ you're worthless.
Justbecause you learned to type the word
"falsifiable"
or the cliche
"correlation isn't causation"
DOES NOT MEAN
that a veteran scientist like me
can't recognize you as a no nothing
amateur wannabee aggravated
half ***** mental case....
*****.
get outta here...
A simple NO I CANT would have been easier...
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
07 Jun 2006 01:04:04 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:070620060138113288%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
In article <Ctohg.2415$lp.845@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, George
Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.com> wrote:
<njs220@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1149635615.240778.167010@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
You are trying to prove the conjecture "god exists".
Please tell me the observation that you can make to disprove this. if
you give me that then the conjecture is falsifiable. and hence a
scientific theory.
NJ
[Hammond]
If you have to ask an incompetent newbie question
like that it means either you're a "buzzword moron"
(most likely) or you can't read and have not even read
the SPOG (quite likely).... I don't talk to academy trash
and yuppie scum like you, I kill file you the fuckin
minute you walk thru the door.
go find something else to do........ you're worthless.
Justbecause you learned to type the word
"falsifiable"
or the cliche
"correlation isn't causation"
DOES NOT MEAN
that a veteran scientist like me
can't recognize you as a no nothing
amateur wannabee aggravated
half ***** mental case....
*****.
get outta here...
A simple NO I CANT would have been easier...
George doesn't use three words when 185 (including as many offensive swear
words as his damaged brain can remember) will do.
He is like the homeless tramps you see wandering around muttering
_constantly_ :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 07:21:21 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
OF COURSE the SPOG is falsifiable.
What do you think this is, AMATEUR NITE...?
If any one of a HUNDRED psychometric results had failed to confirm it,
it would have been falsified. However, history shows that the
SPOG SURVIVED each and ever test that could have EASILY
falsified SPOG......... IF it had been false............. however, it
has proved to be TRUE.
Any SIMPLETON who has actually READ the SPOG
(which you haven't) KNOWS FULL WELL THAT IT IS A
CONVENTIONAL, BY THE BOOK, SCIENTIFIC THEORY,
FALSIFIABILITY AND ALL.....!!!!
George, you haven't stated a theory yet. All you have said is that 20%
of the world is invisible to us, so God must be in the invisible part.
You haven't shown or even stated why, nor do you have any evidence of
such a conclusion. Tell us your theory and we'll tell you if it is
falsifiable.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "2" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 09:01:14 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5rehg.832$7G2.294@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
George, you haven't stated a theory yet. All you have said is that 20% of
the world is invisible to us, so God must be in the invisible part. You
haven't shown or even stated why, nor do you have any evidence of such a
conclusion.
Sure he has. He claims that human beings' brains are not fully "grown" yet,
therefore the universe looks larger than it really is. He claims that if our
brains were grown enough (to what extent that may be, he does not say), we
would "see" reality as it is.
Of course, George doesn't consider scientific instruments as part of how we
measure the universe. Presumably the instruments are not scaled properly
because of our ungrown brain deficiency.
Now, presuming our ungrown brain produces undeveloped technology, then it
would follow that our tiny brain is also deficient in mathematics, but
nonetheless George uses mathematics and *metaphysics. Wherever he finds that
mathematics or physics is incomplete, he fills it in with God. It is the old
"God in the Gaps" trick.
*metaphysics is what Philosophers invent when they find the outcome of a
philosophical stand simply unbearable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 04:31:09 PM |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "2" <nhoj@droffats.ten>
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5rehg.832$7G2.294@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
George, you haven't stated a theory yet.
[Hammond]
That's a LIE, since its published in the peer reviewed literature:
--------------------------------------------------------
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to resort to lying... why don't you just get the *****
outta here?
All you have said is that 20% of
the world is invisible to us, so God must be in the invisible part. You
haven't shown or even stated why, nor do you have any evidence of such a
conclusion.
Sure he has. He claims that human beings' brains are not fully "grown"
yet, therefore the universe looks larger than it really is. He claims that
if our brains were grown enough (to what extent that may be, he does not
say), we would "see" reality as it is.
[Hammond]
If you don't understand something...... don't presume that
you can attack it and tyhat will force the author to
give you a free spoon fed tutorial.......IT WON'T......
all it will get you is a kick in the ***** and killfiled.
If you don't understand something, ADMIT IT.....
and if you sound like you really want to understand it,
the author will explain it to you..... but you
CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE
AND EAT IT TOO
no one is going to cooperate with a heckler and an
envious adversary... especially not me.
--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
06 Jun 2006 04:41:08 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:xumhg.9899$921.4445@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[Hammond]
That's a LIE, since its published in the peer reviewed literature:
You mis-spelt "Vanity Press" there.
If you're going to resort to lying... why don't you just get the *****
outta here?
Remember when you went through the phase of quoting "USENET RULES" at people
and telling them "this" was your thread etc.?
You were a nutter then and you still are now.
[Hammond]
If you don't understand something...... don't presume that
you can attack it and tyhat will force the author to
give you a free spoon fed tutorial.......IT WON'T......
all it will get you is a kick in the ***** and killfiled.
I bet you actually do neither.
If you don't understand something, ADMIT IT.....
Well, this is a turn up for the books....
and if you sound like you really want to understand it,
the author will explain it to you..... but you
CAN'T HAVE YOUR CRANK
AND BEAT HIM TOO
Now there is a shame.
no one is going to cooperate with a heckler and an
envious adversary... especially not me.
The problem (for you) is that while you crave attention like the loon that
you are, pretty much everyone gets classed as an "envious adversary" or
"heckler" after a post or two. This means, in reality you should be seeing
almost empty newsgroups.
I strongly suspect, your insane desire for attention means you have never
kill filed anyone in your life. You still reply to TMG and he has been
number 1 on your list of hate since it began.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
07 Jun 2006 06:45:06 AM |
|
|
2 wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5rehg.832$7G2.294@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
George, you haven't stated a theory yet. All you have said is that 20% of
the world is invisible to us, so God must be in the invisible part. You
haven't shown or even stated why, nor do you have any evidence of such a
conclusion.
Sure he has. He claims that human beings' brains are not fully "grown" yet,
therefore the universe looks larger than it really is. He claims that if our
brains were grown enough (to what extent that may be, he does not say), we
would "see" reality as it is.
Of course, George doesn't consider scientific instruments as part of how we
measure the universe. Presumably the instruments are not scaled properly
because of our ungrown brain deficiency.
Now, presuming our ungrown brain produces undeveloped technology, then it
would follow that our tiny brain is also deficient in mathematics, but
nonetheless George uses mathematics and *metaphysics. Wherever he finds that
mathematics or physics is incomplete, he fills it in with God. It is the old
"God in the Gaps" trick.
Yes - that is my point. He has given all these sciency sounding reasons
why we should only be seeing 80% of the world (reality), but he does not
state why "God" is in the missing 20%. It is just asserted. We should
stop nitting away at the details and keep asking for his evidence of
that statement. Ask him to even show where it is found in his "paper."
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
07 Jun 2006 02:25:42 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Yes - that is my point. He has given all these sciency sounding reasons
why we should only be seeing 80% of the world (reality), but he does not
state why "God" is in the missing 20%. It is just asserted. We should
stop nitting away at the details and keep asking for his evidence of
that statement. Ask him to even show where it is found in his "paper."
But it is much worse than that. That there is 20% missing is assumed to
be an axiom. Then the 'brain deficit' is claimed to be both a reason
why there is 20% missing _and_ proof that it is missing.
Is there 'brain deficit' ? - yes beacuse there is 20% of reality
missing.
Is there 20% missing ? - yes because there is 'brain deficit'.
Everything else in George's arguments is pissing around with numbers
and words to make it sound sciency.
Any normal person can see the flaw in this 'logic'. George cannot.
Beyond that he then does this leap, as you say, that the 20% is 'god',
but not just any of the 'gods' or all of them, but the one that he
thinks is the real one.
Why isn't the 20% Vogons spouting poetry, or Donald Duck, or mountains
of green cheese ?
The answer is because George starts at the conclusion he wants and just
makes stuff up to attempt to fit it to that conclusion.
The only 'brain deficit' is George's. He is the only one with 20% of
reality that is missing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: EIGENVECTOR OF THE GODS was Scientific proofs do not exist |
07 Jun 2006 09:03:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
But it is much worse than that. That there is 20% missing is assumed to
be an axiom. Then the 'brain deficit' is claimed to be both a reason
why there is 20% missing _and_ proof that it is missing.
Is there 'brain deficit' ? - yes beacuse there is 20% of reality
missing.
Is there 20% missing ? - yes because there is 'brain deficit'.
Everything else in George's arguments is pissing around with numbers
and words to make it sound sciency.
Any normal person can see the flaw in this 'logic'. George cannot.
Beyond that he then does this leap, as you say, that the 20% is 'god',
but not just any of the 'gods' or all of them, but the one that he
thinks is the real one.
Why isn't the 20% Vogons spouting poetry, or Donald Duck, or mountains
of green cheese ?
The answer is because George starts at the conclusion he wants and just
makes stuff up to attempt to fit it to that conclusion.
The only 'brain deficit' is George's. He is the only one with 20% of
reality that is missing.
Good summary. Here is the way I put it in the Eickmeier Anti-SPOG last year:
"His paper is a triumph of assumption, assertion, and circular
reasoning. In Figure 1 he states an assumption that BGD = God. In his
mathematical section which attempts to "prove" his statements, he says that
"However, since time, the 44-element of Einstein's equation correlates
negatively with speed (speed=time-1), we see that F is actually an
increase in the brain growth deficit (1-M) thus identifying F with "God"
as shown in Figure 1. Thus we have formally established that God is
identified with the gravitational potential.
"So he uses his own assumption in part 1 to prove that a quantity is
identified with God. Any idiot can see that as circular reasoning, and
invalid."
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|