| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2005 08:50:21 PM |
| Object: |
God=G_uv GOD IS SUBLIMINALLY INVISIBLE |
God=G_uv GOD IS SUBLIMINALLY INVISIBLE
1. People wonder what Heaven is.
2. People wonder where Heaven is.
3. People wonder what Heaven looks like.
4. People wonder why Heaven is invisible.
5. People wonder how to get there.
6. People wonder if Science will ever explain it.
Well guess what,
The SCIENTIFIC ANSWER to these questions
HAS been found.... and proven..... and published
in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
-------------------------------------------
There IS a Heaven and there IS A God.
-------------------------------------------
Nowadays everybody knows what a "subliminal picture" is.
Many ordinary movies contain "single frame" pictures that
cannot be noticed because they are too short to be seen.
Arguments have been going on for years whether these
"invisble" pictures can influence people subconsciously.
(for instance to sell Coka Cola, or cars, or alcohol or drugs).
These pictures are called "subliminal" because they
are INVISBLE. Ordinary pictures are called "supraliminal"
meaning they are VISIBLE.
NOW HERE IS THE AMAZING NEWS:
The amazing fact is, that 20% of what we call ordinary
"visible reality" is actually subliminally invisible to us....
.....and guess what....
........that is what "HEAVEN" actually is.... the subliminally
invisble part of ordinary reality that no one can see!
Now, people ask me "why would 20% of reality be subliminally
invisble?" .... after all, reality is not a movie?
No.... reality is not a movie.... but it is a "time varying
image" in front of our eyes..... therefore..... some things
move so fast they are "subliminally invisble".... such as
the wings of a Hummingbird. They are simply too fast
for us to see.... hence they are INVISBLE.
BUT... the skeptic counters; we are not SUPPOSED to be
able to see Hummingbird wings.... or speeding bullets... or an
airplane propellor spinning at 5,000 r.p.m. So what?
Well, that is not what I'm talking about.... I'm talking about
motions that you SHOULD be seeing but you CAN'T see because
there is a universal biological problem called the "human growth
deficit" that afflicts all of mankind... and because of this
condition, NONE OF US can see the normal reality we SHOULD
be seeing. And believe it or not... this universal biological
condition causes the phenomenon we call "GOD".
This "growth deficit" is called the SECULAR TREND in human
growth and it was discovered over 100 years ago. Fact is,
the human race has never been fully grown, and is only approaching
that condition over very long historical times. This for instance is
why a modern soldier can't fit into a medieval suit of armor, he is so
much larger than his ancestors. See for instance:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
Ok... it is also known that that CHILDREN have much longer
subliminal duration times than ADULTS. In other words, a picture
flashed for 25 milliseconds is subliminally invisible to an adult, but
a picture flashed for 50 milliseconds (twice as long) is invisble to a
child. The reason for this is that the childs brain is only half
grown, say, and therefore his "mental speed" is only half as great,
thus doubling his "subliminal threshold" timewise.
Ok... from that example of the effect of growth on the "subliminal
threshold", we can immediately conclude that if the average person is
only 80% fully grown (which the Secular Trend tells us), then
likewise..... 20% of the world that we SHOULD see, is gong to be
invisble to all of us. And guess what?.... that is ACTUALLY THE
CASE... and this phenomenon is called "GOD".... and the invisble part
of the world that we can't see because of the Secular Trend growth
deficit... is called "HEAVEN".
Basically, what all of this is telling us is that if we were 100%
grown, we would be "God in the flesh" and we would be seeing (i.e. be
living in) "Paradise". Well, this is all true... but so far, because
of the human condition, there NEVER HAS BEEN a fully grown person in
the history of the world... which is why people say "God is invisible"
and lives in Heaven.
OK.... interestingly, I have been pursuing the notion that if all
this is true (which the data assures us it is), then it should be
possible to actually make a movie wihich is VISIBLE TO ADULTS, but
which is INVISIBLE TO KIDS. Never in the history of the world has
such a thing been done or even suggested! But I say it is possible,
and obviously it would be a CLEAR DEMONSTRATION on the "invisible
world" of Religion.. and of the existence of Heaven itself!
Currently I am working on constructing this movie (video) and will
keep you posted.
Meanwhile, if you have more questions about all this, I suggest you
read my website located at:
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
15 Nov 2005 11:24:25 AM |
|
|
In message <Tv-dnQBkPvTEteveRVnyuQ@pipex.net>, Pyriform
<nobody@nowhere.com> writes
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
"absolute truth of theology"
*******************
So whose theology does one go by? Pick one at random?????
That would be an ecumenical matter.
Dhrink!
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "SBC Yahoo" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
15 Nov 2005 12:38:11 PM |
|
|
Religion and facts don't mix, since one is not contained in the other
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:sxfKqG0JnheDFwwx@baesystems.com...
In message <Tv-dnQBkPvTEteveRVnyuQ@pipex.net>, Pyriform
<nobody@nowhere.com> writes
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
"absolute truth of theology"
*******************
So whose theology does one go by? Pick one at random?????
That would be an ecumenical matter.
Dhrink!
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
16 Nov 2005 03:51:23 AM |
|
|
In message <nWpef.28546$6e1.21575@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, SBC Yahoo
<atilla.the.hun@liberals.suck.net>top-posted
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:sxfKqG0JnheDFwwx@baesystems.com...
In message <Tv-dnQBkPvTEteveRVnyuQ@pipex.net>, Pyriform
<nobody@nowhere.com> writes
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
"absolute truth of theology"
*******************
So whose theology does one go by? Pick one at random?????
That would be an ecumenical matter.
Dhrink!
Religion and facts don't mix, since one is not contained in the other
<whooooooosh>
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
21 Nov 2005 02:32:04 PM |
|
|
Richard Herring wrote:
[total snip]
From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Any causeless: beginnings-to-exist? QM events?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:33:39 +0000
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ZcLYOUgjFbOCFwQm@baesystems.com>
In message <d154s0$ps...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
<notfranz.heym...@btopenworld.com> writes
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:39daqpF5v5v4sU1@individual.net...
Is it the case that, to the best of current knowledge, the following
are events that are not caused?:
radioactive decay
spontaneous particle-antiparticle pair production
some other quantum events [names?]
Are you aware of any additional events that are not-caused?
Let me ask you a question instead:
Are you a creationist, as has been suggested by another poster?
Yes.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
And
please don't waste time over the semantics of the word "creationist".
If you are, have the courage to stand up for your god.
It's gone very quiet...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
22 Nov 2005 03:56:54 AM |
|
|
In message <1132605124.833744.74250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu writes
Richard Herring wrote:
.... *eight months* ago. You are John Gilliver and I claim my £5.
[total snip]
From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Any causeless: beginnings-to-exist? QM events?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:33:39 +0000
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ZcLYOUgjFbOCFwQm@baesystems.com>
In message <d154s0$ps...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
<notfranz.heym...@btopenworld.com> writes
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:39daqpF5v5v4sU1@individual.net...
Is it the case that, to the best of current knowledge, the following
are events that are not caused?:
radioactive decay
spontaneous particle-antiparticle pair production
some other quantum events [names?]
Are you aware of any additional events that are not-caused?
Let me ask you a question instead:
Are you a creationist, as has been suggested by another poster?
Yes.
Too late. Franz, to whom your reply is directed, unfortunately died
before he could read it.
[snip self-referential links]
And
please don't waste time over the semantics of the word "creationist".
If you are, have the courage to stand up for your god.
It's gone very quiet...
The above was (hitherto) my sole contribution to this thread.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
22 Nov 2005 04:28:34 AM |
|
|
In message <1DKs2LBmtugDFwwh@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes
In message <1132605124.833744.74250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu writes
Richard Herring wrote:
... *eight months* ago. You are John Gilliver and I claim my £5.
[total snip]
From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Any causeless: beginnings-to-exist? QM events?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:33:39 +0000
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ZcLYOUgjFbOCFwQm@baesystems.com>
Incidentally, the quoted message bears no relation to the one in the
References: header, so anyone using a threaded newsreader to follow the
thread is likely to be somewhat confused.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
22 Nov 2005 05:01:57 AM |
|
|
Getting murdered in a peaceful suburb is a better way to get into the
newspaper, especially if the victims and perpetrators are all
non-Hispanic caucasions.
Really big numbers. OK. Get back to you on that one.
******************
Just not much murder around here. Feel fairly safe. I guess I'm
living in some sort of peaceful Near-Vanna. Need to visit Iraq and get
my quotient of blood and guts, I guess.
I like Hofstader's Luring Lottery, "Metamagical Themas". In it he
defined a lottery with a prize of $1,000,000.000/N, where N is the
number of entries received. People could enter an arbitrarily large
number of times (they could define an integer on a postcard in any
manner). Some spoilers entered a googlepelx number of times or even
more, (p. 760). He states that people defined integers in such a
complicated manner that one would have a horrible time, if it is even
possible, to determine which is the largest. "I was strongly reminded
of the lunacy and pointlessness of the current arms race, in which two
sides vie against each other to produce arsenals so huge that not even
teams of experts can meaningfully say which one is larger - and
meanwhile, all this monumental effort is to the detriment of everyone"
He said that the prize was so close to zero that even God couldn't tell
the difference. And I thought God is all-knowing! If one believes in
pantheism, then I guess He/She/It is, for the Universe contains all
knowledge, yes?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
22 Nov 2005 08:22:38 PM |
|
|
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1DKs2LBmtugDFwwh@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes
In message <1132605124.833744.74250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu writes
Richard Herring wrote:
... *eight months* ago. You are John Gilliver and I claim my =A35.
[total snip]
From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Any causeless: beginnings-to-exist? QM events?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:33:39 +0000
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ZcLYOUgjFbOCFwQm@baesystems.com>
Incidentally, the quoted message bears no relation to the one in the
References: header, so anyone using a threaded newsreader to follow the
thread is likely to be somewhat confused.
Perhaps initially.
I'm mostly confused.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
16 Nov 2005 07:07:47 AM |
|
|
SBC Yahoo wrote:
Religion and facts don't mix, since one is not contained in the other
Perhaps more to the point, 'religion' requires that assertions be
accepted without question or doubt, as articles of 'faith.'
Science requires that all assertions can at least in principle be
tested empirically, and should be subsequently retested as measurement
technology improves to recheck the validity of those assertions that
have not yet been disproven empirically.
Such a recurring challenge to beliefs in the religious community would
require periodic reexaminations of the prime deity (at the demand of
the investigator, of course) for persistence of those qualities which
differentiate the deity from the investigator - qualities such as
omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc.
I personally doubt that there is a deity who would be willing to stand
up to every test of immortality humanity (or, for that matter,
inhumanity) can devise - forever.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
16 Nov 2005 12:45:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1132146467.872258.110630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tadchem <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote:
SBC Yahoo wrote:
Religion and facts don't mix, since one is not contained in the other
Perhaps more to the point, 'religion' requires that assertions be
accepted without question or doubt, as articles of 'faith.'
Science requires that all assertions can at least in principle be
tested empirically, and should be subsequently retested as measurement
technology improves to recheck the validity of those assertions that
have not yet been disproven empirically.
Such a recurring challenge to beliefs in the religious community would
require periodic reexaminations of the prime deity (at the demand of
the investigator, of course) for persistence of those qualities which
differentiate the deity from the investigator - qualities such as
omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc.
I personally doubt that there is a deity who would be willing to stand
up to every test of immortality humanity (or, for that matter,
inhumanity) can devise - forever.
That's a problem for the creationists, fundamentalists, and literalists.
Not for "religion" in general. The Vatican itself has declared that the
Bible is not a natural history. It has many literary forms that include
the allegory, an instructional tale that teaches a moral but isn't to be
taken as literally true.
Science tells us how the world works, philosophy tells us what we should
do with science. The Vatican said, basically, that religion tells us what
we should do with science, but that's philosophy influenced by religion
and still doesn't intersect natural history. Sociology tells us how
people behave towards each other, ethics and political philosophy
tell us how they *should* behave toward each other. How can you
scientifically prove how people *should* behave? Given an assumed goal of
the behavior you might show whether certain behaviors do or do not meet
that goal. But what is that goal? Maximize reproduction? Maximize the
production of material goods? Minimize environmental impact? Maximize
the happiness of the majority even if it's brutal to a minority? Minimize
the suffering of all groups even at a cost to the majority? Maximize the
happiness of Greg Hansen at any cost? Many options, and the selection is
not scientific.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Science Don't mix. |
16 Nov 2005 09:49:37 AM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
SBC Yahoo wrote:
Religion and facts don't mix, since one is not contained in the other
Perhaps more to the point, 'religion' requires that assertions be
accepted without question or doubt, as articles of 'faith.'
Science requires that all assertions can at least in principle be
tested empirically, and should be subsequently retested as measurement
technology improves to recheck the validity of those assertions that
have not yet been disproven empirically.
Not quite right. Science requires that all *scientific* assertions can
at least be tested empirically.
Note that science is quite mute on other sorts of assertions, such as
some historical assertions (which are based on corroborating
testimony), judicial assertions (which are based on once-collected
evidence and corroborating testimony), mathematical assertions (which
are logical development of axioms and definitions), and psychological
and ethical assertions (which are at least in part based on situational
concensus).
It is an erroneous assumption that *all* assertions must (or do) suffer
scrutiny according to scientific principles. Some people might like it
better if they were, but that's a matter of taste and not of truth.
Such a recurring challenge to beliefs in the religious community would
require periodic reexaminations of the prime deity (at the demand of
the investigator, of course) for persistence of those qualities which
differentiate the deity from the investigator - qualities such as
omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc.
I personally doubt that there is a deity who would be willing to stand
up to every test of immortality humanity (or, for that matter,
inhumanity) can devise - forever.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "reply to Jens Tingleff" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv GOD IS SUBLIMINALLY INVISIBLE |
19 Oct 2005 12:05:05 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2005 05:47:17 -0700, Jens Tingleff <jensting@tingleff.org>
wrote:
In article <nshlk1luip2iprlkeri5fcl7h2cv47umel@4ax.com>, George Hammond says...
[....]
The INVISIBILITY comes in when you flash a SINGLE frame at a
person which is SHORTER than 1/15 of a second.... WITHOUT
following it up with another, and another, and another of the
same frames..... so there IS NO "bunch of frames" that his
brain can CLUMP TOGETHER to make a 1/15 of a second picture.
Nice use of the word "flash."
[Hammond]
Thanks for your (rare) "on topic" post Jen. As you can see any thread
with the word "God" in it attracts every kook on the Internet like
a magnet.
BTW, are you stating that no-one can see (sommething illuminated by) a flash
from a regular electronic flash for photography? These have flashes which last
for 1/1000 of a second or less.
[Hammond]
A lightening bolt lasts less than a MICROSECOND and yet is clearly
visible to anyone.
It turns out that "subliminality" depends on BOTH "duration"
and "intensity". Most of what you see in a lightening bolt is
an "afterimage" due to the extreme intensity of the flash.
Same with a flashbulb. This is a property of the EYE
(overload of the retina)... and has very little to do with the brain.
As an easy experiment, one could find somewhere dark (a room with no windows and
light switched off, something like that) and fire a test flash from a regular
flash and observe whether or not anything was visible (which was not visible
before/after the flash due to the lighting conditions).
Take, as a random example,
http://opd.usa.canon.com/html/cameras_speedlite/550exspec.html which states
"Flash duration: 1.2 ms or less. For quick flash: 2.3 ms or shorter." for the
(ahemm) blindingly obvious.
Best Regards
Jen
[Hammond]
Look... this entire subject of "flashed photographs" has been widely
studied under "low contrast", "medium contrast" and "strong contrast"
conditions and for the full spectrum of durations, ranging from 0ms,
1ms, 5ms, 10ms,20ms, 30ms,.......160 milliseconds. A good study which
happens to be online is presented here:
http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusMcLean.pdf
As you can see this paper concludes that the "minimum recognition
time" for a flashed photograph is around 20 milliseconds (for an
adult). OK... that means that one frme of NTSC video (ordinary U.S.
television video), which is 33 ms long, should be clearly visible to
the average adult.
HOWEVER my suspicion is that it WON'T be visible to a 5 or 6 year
old kid, since the mental speed of a 5 year old is only 1/2 the mental
speed of an adult.. hence a photograph flashed for 40 ms
should be only barely visible to a kid...... so:
adult subliminal time = 20 ms
NTSC video frame = 33 ms
child subliminal time = 40 ms
and you can clearly see that a single frame of t.v. video lies MIDWAY
BETWEEN the "subliminal time" of an adult and a child.
Based on that.... it is clear to me that a "movie" can be made which
will be INVISBLE to an child, but VISIBLE to an adult.... simply by
making the movie out of "single video frames" separated by 3 or 4
"blank" frames. Only the blank frames will be seen by the kid, while
the single real vidoframes of the MOVIE will be visible to the adult:
|01|...|...|...|05|...|...|...|09|...|...|...|13|...|...|...|17|...|...|...|21|...|...|...|25|...|...|...|29|...|...|...-----------------etc----------------->
where:
|01|, |17|, |25|. .. etc = real frames of the movie
|...| = blank frames inserted in the movie
A friend of mine is now constructing such a movie in a video
laboratory, and we will know pretty soon how it works.
Of course, we are just guessing that we can get lucky, and that a
single frame of NTSC video actually does fall between an adult and a
child..... if not, then we would have to use non-standard video (such
as 75 fps video) to make the thing work..... (there are actually
"variable camcorders" which will run and playback at any given
rate).....we are waiting now to find out now if standard NTSC video
will work?
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
