| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2005 01:46:06 AM |
| Object: |
GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
The belief that Man "lives after death" predates Christianity
by THOUSANDS of years. The Egyptians believed there was an afterlife
for 2000 years before Christianity and that Man lived there in a spiritual
world.
They also believed in a "final judgement" at death (the weighing of the
heart
before Osirus) and believed there was both a punishment and a heaven.
The Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, etc.) believed in the
"immortality
of the Soul" 500 years before Christianity. The Pagan religions, and the
Roman religion believed the soul was immortal. Even Judiasm prior to the
time of Jesus believed in the "resurrection" of the body, the Parisees
(the Rabbinical class) vehemently defending the belief, even though the
Sadducees (the aristocracy) opposed it.
In short, Christianity did not invent Life After Death.... in fact
Christianity
INHERITED the idea which was already several thousand years old, and
already a central article of faith in the world's religious landscape.
However, with the advent of Christianity, the theory of Life After Death
became fixed as an official canon of the world's most powerful religion.
Jesus avowed life after death, when he said:
"I am the resurrection, and the life:
he that believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live."
(John 11:25 KJV)
St. Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament except for the 4 Gospels,
clearly believed in immortality and even detailed the specific physical
mechanism
by which this was possible:
I Cor 15:
35 "How are the dead raised up? and with
what body do they come?"
44 "There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body."
50 ".. flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God...... Behold I shew
51 you a mystery; we shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an
eye, at the last trump.... the dead shall
be raised incorruptible, and we shall
be changed."
(St. Paul, I Cor:15)
St. Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement, Ambrose, Jerome ....
in fact
all of the Church Fathers believed in Life After Death, and it was affirmed
by every
major Church council including Nicea (325 ad) where it was embodied in the
Nicene Creed.
Finally, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the definitive description of the
Christian
belief in the Afterlife in the _Summa Theologica_ in 1270 ad, and which
remains
the Roman Catholic Church's official position on the subject to this day.
Aquinas writes:
[Aquinas, Summa theologica, Suplimentum Tertia Partis:
The Resurrection]
I answer that, The necessity of holding the resurrection arises from
this--that man may obtain the last end for which he was made; for
this cannot be accomplished in this life, ....... it is necessary for the
selfsame man to rise again; and this is effected by the selfsame soul
being united to the selfsame body. For otherwise there would be no
resurrection properly speaking, if the same man were not reformed.
Hence to maintain that he who rises again is not the selfsame man is
heretical, since it is contrary to the truth of Scripture which proclaims
the resurrection.
The point is, the theory of Life After Death is not a 2000 year old theory,
it is a 4000 year old theory, at the very least. That makes it the world's
oldest theory... even older than the theory of God itself. It is in fact,
the
world's oldest scientific conjecture.
At any rate, it is now 2005 AD, fully 700 years after Aquinas penned the
last
words of the Summa Theologica and sealed forever the official formulation of
the Christian Afterlife.
In the meantime, modern Science has arrived and along with it the discovery
of the world's first experimentally proven, axiomatic physics scientific
proof
of God (Hammond 2003).
For those of you who have not heard about this, it may come as a surprise
to find out that the existence of God has actually been scientifically
proven.
However, that is the case. God it turns out is a Relativistic Curvature of
subjective reality as compared to objective reality. This fact was
discovered
(by Hammond) when it was accidentally noticed that the Linear Algebra of
Psychometry was identical to that of Linearized General Relativity (Gravity)
and the cause was traced to the fact that the 4 major dimensions of
Psychometry (ENPg... the dimensions of subjective space) are caused by
the 4 dimensions of spacetime (objective space XYZt) via the Cartesian
Structure of the vertibrate body plan, including the Cartesian Cleavage of
the
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world" then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically as
"God".
A simple explanatin of this discovery can be seen in the first 4 large print
pages of my website located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
The discovery has also been published in the peer reviewed literature:
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
and has been the subject of much controversy on the Internet and in
scientific circles generally.
At any rate, the existence of God is now a foregone conclusion
scientifically
speaking, and it will not be long before the scientific community and the
world
at large become aware of this discovery.
In the meantime..... the theory of "Life After Death" still remains a
scientific
mystery.
The scientific proof of God outlined above (known as the SPOG) does not
prove that Life After Death exists, it only proves that God exists.
Interestingly
it does explain what Eternal Life is. Eternal Life is simply the subjective
state
of reality as seen by Man when he finally succeeds in becoming fully grown.
According to the data of the Secular Trend, this will not occur for many
thousands of years in the future.
(this is the reason that Aquinas asserts that "the end of Man cannot be
accomplished in this life.)
The Secular Trend is a sigmoindal curve
that has been climbing for millenia, ever since the species first appeared
100,000 years ago. It has been climbing very dramaticaly since the
Renaissance,
and particularly steeply since the Industrial Revolution.
At any rate, the fact that we will not obtain full growth before we die,
means that
we do not obtain a condition of "eternal life" (we never see real time), and
hence
this has lead to the speculation that there may be such a thing as "life
after death"..
a spiritual or "dreamlike" existence after death, in which we get to see
reality in
"real time"...
(Aquinas asserts that this is the necessity of the resurrection to
life after death, above.)
this is called the "beatifici vision" in religion, and it's existence was
discovered psychologically thousands of years before Science had any
explanation
for the phenomena.
Now, interestingly, the SPOG has added one new twist to this ancient theory.
It has always been an objection to the theory that "dead men can't dream"...
i.e.
in modern parlance... that a "dead brain can't dream"... and therefore how
could
there be such a thing as a "dream state after death"?
The SPOG proves that "God" is a relativistic phenomena, this immediately
opens
up the possibility that this "dreamlike afterlife" is something that is read
out of
the human brain only a short time before death (at the last trump, as St.
Paul put
it), and then that this "log" if you will, that has been prepared during
life, is then
"read" in a liesurly pace which might take months or years, in a "time
dilated"
(relativistic) state. Thus life after death would turn out to be actually
life before
death, which only APPEARS to take place after death. As any scientist can
see,
this possibility is immediately attractive on scientific grounds! Life
after death is
a "twins paradox" type of phenomena involving simple relativistic
non-simultanetey!
This possibiliby, now supported by the discovery of the SPOG, then turns the
theory of Life After Death into a credible scientific theory!
Now, obviously, one would have to justify the assumption that the brain is
capable of reading out this "death dream" in a split second before death,
and
that it would have to contain enough information to fill a year or more's of
human
experience when time dilated to terrestrial speeds. Well, to make a long
story
short, modern science had discovered that the brain has trillions and
trillions of
times more computing capacity then previously thought. The microtubules in
the
brain contain solid state (atomic) computing capacity (Penrose/Hameroff)
which
have added a factor of 10^15 to the computing capacity of the brain. Not
only
that, these computations do not proceed at neuronal speeds (1000 kc) but
proceed
at light frequncies, many billions of times higher (10^15 hz). In fact the
entire
brain is "optically" connected by solid state MAPS which interconnect the
microtubule system, so that in fact the entire brain memory can "read out"
as
optical speeds.
At any rate... YES... the theory of a time dilated "Life After Death" dream
state (spiritual body) is possible. The real question is....... is it
credible?
when I say... "is it credible" I am raising once again the age old question
of
whether Life After Death is a credible hypothesis in the first place.
Well... it was credible to St. Paul, and it was credible to Aquinas... they
are clearly
on record as saying so.
But is the theory still credible in 2005 AD... especially in view of modern
history,
science and society?
I mean... I can tell you right now, there is frankly, nothing more
embarresing or
awkward than to listen to ANYBODY try to give a literal description of what
"Life After Death" would be like. I mean, to listen to them try and explain
where
we would be, what we would do, and why in the world wouldn't it be
tediously pointless to "living life all over again"... it simply sounds
ridiculous....
who on Earth would want to live life all over again... it would be as boring
as
watching the World Series on t.v. twice in a row... it simply doesn't make
any
sense!
The only answer to this, would of necessity have to be.... that Life After
Death
is NOT the same as the life you have already lived. Oh sure... the props
are the
same, we would have to have landscapes, houses, roads, people... wind
blowing
through our hair, sunshine and rain... but the point is, none of these
things would
look the same as they did before. The ENTIRE POINT of Life After Death has
to be to show us the aspect of life that we MISSED because we didn't have
full
vision while we were alive. In particular people, events and circumstances
would
be completely ALTERED by the fact that we are now given higher growth.. in
fact full growth, so that we no longer see the "curved world" that we saw
here
on Earth... we now see the world in "flat space". Apparently (if the theory
of Life
After Death is true)... this so drastically changes the appearance of
people, places
and things... that it is entirely a NEW REALITY.... and in fact becomes
(with
increasing growth... e.g. increasing vision) so overwhelming that it is
called the
"beatific vision" of reality. Since "seeing is believing" this vision is
said to be so
overwhelming, so awesome, that it overwhelms everything that we have ever
seen
or known during life.... one look at it and all that has ever mystefied,
disappointed,
or even defeated you, now passes away into insignificance. Death, tradegy,
pain, suffering, torture, .... nothing has any significance in comparison to
the
beatific vision of reality. You finally get to see what you've always been
looking for.
In fact, thus obtaining what you've always been looking for, it doesn't
matter when
where or how life finally ends. This is known as "eternal life". It
doesn't last
"forever"... it only lasts for days, months or years, maybe even shorter
than that...
and then it ends... but because you've seen what you were always looking
for...
eternal life.... there is no such thing as death.
Now... that's it for me.... that's my description of Life After Death... and
it still
seems somewhat forced and awkward... and I'm not sure I believe it. But
I'll
tell you what.... it is convincing enough to me to still consider the
canonical theory
of Life After Death to be a credible scientific hypothesis.
========================================
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: "James Toupin" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
07 Aug 2005 08:03:01 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:O6iJe.1990$RZ2.1302@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The belief that Man "lives after death" predates Christianity
by THOUSANDS of years. The Egyptians believed there was an afterlife
for 2000 years before Christianity and that Man lived there in a spiritual
world.
They also believed in a "final judgement" at death (the weighing of the
heart
before Osirus) and believed there was both a punishment and a heaven.
The Egyptian after live was reserved for the Pharaohs and their closest
servants only. And that was because they believed that the Pharaoh became a
"God" himself. Poor mere mortals were condemned to vanish with their
physical bodies.
The Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, etc.) believed in the
"immortality
of the Soul" 500 years before Christianity. The Pagan religions, and the
Roman religion believed the soul was immortal.
Most polytheistic and Pagan religions believed in only a brief after life.
They would join there fellows in the feasting halls, or on the fields of
Elysium, have a great last party together and then cease to exist. These
religions, including Egyptian religion, focused on serving their "Gods"
without an otherworldly pay-off. If there was a reward, it was expected in
this life-time: i.e. an abundant harvest, a child for an infertile couple, a
successful hunt, etc.
And beliefs such as the Pagans held far predate Egypt, or the earlier
kingdoms of Mesopotamia, as witness by sacrifices and offering to the "Gods"
found dating back millennia in the archaeological records.
Even Judiasm prior to the
time of Jesus believed in the "resurrection" of the body, the Parisees
(the Rabbinical class) vehemently defending the belief, even though the
Sadducees (the aristocracy) opposed it.
Actually, Judaism did not recognise the belief in an after life until after
the Third Jewish Rebellion when, with the Temple destroyed and Jews being
scattered across many lands, Rabbinical Judaism was born when the Talmud was
written. Before that time Judaism was unique in it's monotheism and a "God"
that commanded his followers to be good without the promise of an eternal
reward.
In short, Christianity did not invent Life After Death.... in fact
Christianity
INHERITED
<Snip a load of philosophical and theological crap>
The point is, the theory of Life After Death is not a 2000 year old
theory,
it is a 4000 year old theory, at the very least. That makes it the
world's
oldest theory... even older than the theory of God itself. It is in fact,
the
world's oldest scientific conjecture.
Actually the point should be that belief in life-after-death is not a
theory, it is a matter of faith. Is there any experimental way to prove or
disprove the belief? I'm not talking about your twisted little mathematical
flights of whimsy, I mean a repeatable experiment which could be conducted
by independent researchers that would prove or disprove immortality of the
human soul (Or it's existence for that matter). Without that ability to
empirically prove this belief through experimentation it can not be
considered a theory, only a philosophical proposition.
<Snip a whole lot of pseudo-scientific bullsh*t>
Don't get me wrong, [Hammond], I am a spiritual man and I lean towards the
existence of the soul and some form of immortality, however I have to admit
that it is a belief, it is faith, and in no way a scientific theory or
proposition.
By trying to claim "Scientific Proof of God", you are actually demeaning the
faith and beliefs of others who need no such assurances to accept their own
belief in "God"
Sincerely;
James
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
07 Aug 2005 08:22:35 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:O6iJe.1990$RZ2.1302@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The belief that Man "lives after death" predates Christianity
by THOUSANDS of years. The Egyptians believed there was an afterlife
for 2000 years before Christianity and that Man lived there in a spiritual
world.
They also believed in a "final judgement" at death (the weighing of the
heart
before Osirus) and believed there was both a punishment and a heaven.
The Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, etc.) believed in the
"immortality
of the Soul" 500 years before Christianity. The Pagan religions, and the
Roman religion believed the soul was immortal. Even Judiasm prior to the
time of Jesus believed in the "resurrection" of the body, the Parisees
(the Rabbinical class) vehemently defending the belief, even though the
Sadducees (the aristocracy) opposed it.
In short, Christianity did not invent Life After Death.... in fact
Christianity
INHERITED the idea which was already several thousand years old, and
already a central article of faith in the world's religious landscape.
However, with the advent of Christianity, the theory of Life After Death
became fixed as an official canon of the world's most powerful religion.
World's most powerful religion?
Your ignorance is showing again!
Jesus avowed life after death, when he said:
"I am the resurrection, and the life:
he that believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live."
(John 11:25 KJV)
St. Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament except for the 4 Gospels,
clearly believed in immortality and even detailed the specific physical
mechanism
by which this was possible:
I Cor 15:
35 "How are the dead raised up? and with
what body do they come?"
44 "There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body."
50 ".. flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God...... Behold I shew
51 you a mystery; we shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an
eye, at the last trump.... the dead shall
be raised incorruptible, and we shall
be changed."
(St. Paul, I Cor:15)
St. Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement, Ambrose, Jerome ....
in fact
all of the Church Fathers believed in Life After Death, and it was
affirmed
by every
major Church council including Nicea (325 ad) where it was embodied in the
Nicene Creed.
Finally, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the definitive description of the
Christian
belief in the Afterlife in the _Summa Theologica_ in 1270 ad, and which
remains
the Roman Catholic Church's official position on the subject to this day.
Aquinas writes:
[Aquinas, Summa theologica, Suplimentum Tertia Partis:
The Resurrection]
I answer that, The necessity of holding the resurrection arises from
this--that man may obtain the last end for which he was made; for
this cannot be accomplished in this life, ....... it is necessary for the
selfsame man to rise again; and this is effected by the selfsame soul
being united to the selfsame body. For otherwise there would be no
resurrection properly speaking, if the same man were not reformed.
Hence to maintain that he who rises again is not the selfsame man is
heretical, since it is contrary to the truth of Scripture which proclaims
the resurrection.
The point is, the theory of Life After Death is not a 2000 year old
theory,
it is a 4000 year old theory, at the very least. That makes it the
world's
oldest theory... even older than the theory of God itself. It is in fact,
the
world's oldest scientific conjecture.
It's not a theory; and it's far from being the "oldest"!!
You really don't know anything .......... do you!?!?!?!?
At any rate, it is now 2005 AD, fully 700 years after Aquinas penned the
last
words of the Summa Theologica and sealed forever the official formulation
of
the Christian Afterlife.
In the meantime, modern Science has arrived and along with it the
discovery
of the world's first experimentally proven, axiomatic physics scientific
proof
of God (Hammond 2003).
There you go bellowing crap again!
Science didn't discover anytthing ;......... it is only an insane psychotic
who keeps bellowing crap!
(snip remaining crap repeat of S.O.S.!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
07 Aug 2005 08:44:48 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:11fc2oss30bjd90@corp.supernews.com...
<SNIP HAMMOND GIBBERISH>
In the meantime, modern Science has arrived and along with it the
discovery
of the world's first experimentally proven, axiomatic physics scientific
proof
of God (Hammond 2003).
There you go bellowing crap again!
Science didn't discover anytthing ;......... it is only an insane
psychotic who keeps bellowing crap!
(snip remaining crap repeat of S.O.S.!)
I like his line there - "the world's first experimentally proven, axiomatic
physics scientific proof of God" Its like he thinks the more words he puts
in the better it sounds, despite the mangled grammar he has tried to use.
Makes you wonder what experiments have been done to prove life after death
doesn't it.....
The (Hammond 2003) is also a nice touch. Don't you just love the way he self
references everything.......
Hammond is a grade A nutball. He even had to post this three times because
he thought he wasn't getting any attention. This post is proof he knows less
about religion than he does about the scientific method....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Word Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
14 Aug 2005 09:56:04 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world" then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically as
"God".
In essense, what you are doing is providing a "wake up call" for the
sleeping billions. Possibly a very dangerous undertaking George. Let
the sleeping masses sleep, there is no need to shake the very
foundations of reality itself.
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".
If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word
intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined but
it still is a property of the universe. That is to say, it is some
universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is
of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in
this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the
"law of intelligence".
The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to
be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George E. Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
14 Aug 2005 10:49:42 PM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2005 19:56:04 -0700, "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world" then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically as
"God".
In essense, what you are doing is providing a "wake up call" for the
sleeping billions. Possibly a very dangerous undertaking George. Let
the sleeping masses sleep, there is no need to shake the very
foundations of reality itself.
[Hammond]
I appreciate your concern. However, your concerns are
opposite my concerns.
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
In fact the mental speed (in bits/sec) of any individual can
be easily measured. From that we can calculate IQ by:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
(see http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html pg 25 of 26, paragraph 2)
For instance the average mental speed in the adult population is
around 15 bits/sec, plugging that into the formula above gives
IQ=100, which is the average IQ.
A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".
[Hammond]
Bits per second is a lot simpler and more concrete, and is preciesly
measureable.
If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word
intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined
[Hammond]
Bits/second is PRECISELY DEFINED!
but
it still is a property of the universe.
[Hammond]
As far as I know the universe doesn't have any "intelligence".
That is to say, it is some
universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is
of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in
this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the
"law of intelligence".
[Hammond]
"Law of intelligence".... sounds pretty woo woo Sci-Fi to me?
The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to
be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.
[Hammond]
Maybe you should be writing poetry instead of writing science?
Personally I prefer Alfred Noyes....:
The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusting trees,
The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas,
The road was a ribbon of moonlight above the purple moor.....
========================================
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: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
15 Aug 2005 08:39:24 AM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h220g15tgtn7epv8bif7o6eftvogbp8acv@4ax.com...
On 14 Aug 2005 19:56:04 -0700, "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective
spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime
caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus
making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world"
then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives
there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the
well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically
as
"God".
In essense, what you are doing is providing a "wake up call" for the
sleeping billions. Possibly a very dangerous undertaking George. Let
the sleeping masses sleep, there is no need to shake the very
foundations of reality itself.
Posting as a different user, and patting yourself on the back again -
George?
[Hammond]
I appreciate your concern. However, your concerns are
opposite my concerns.
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
First of all,. that's nothingmore than your bull *****.....
second - it is not even a definition of intelligence.
Your lack of reading comprehention skills (not to mention your deranged
pshychosis) are apparent.
In fact the mental speed (in bits/sec) of any individual can
be easily measured. From that we can calculate IQ by:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
(see http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html pg 25 of 26, paragraph 2)
For instance the average mental speed in the adult population is
around 15 bits/sec, plugging that into the formula above gives
IQ=100, which is the average IQ.
A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".
[Hammond]
Bits per second is a lot simpler and more concrete, and is preciesly
measureable.
You forgot to mention that it is ionly YOUR insane invention - and has
nothingn to do with REAL science, real psychology - or, as a matter of fact,
ANYTHING in reality.
(snip remainder of Hammondcrap)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
15 Aug 2005 12:33:43 AM |
|
|
George E. Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
In fact the mental speed (in bits/sec) of any individual can
be easily measured. From that we can calculate IQ by:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
No - ONE other crank, in ONE paper (dismissed by everyone else) thought
that for a while.
(see http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html pg 25 of 26, paragraph 2)
Yep - that would be the ONE crank's ONE dismissed paper.
For instance the average mental speed in the adult population is
around 15 bits/sec, plugging that into the formula above gives
IQ=100, which is the average IQ.
That just doesn't make sense. What is your bit/sec watching a movie or
TV? Even just reading text on a page, it's a multiple of 15 bps. What
your typing (at more than 15 bps) refutes this.
A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".
[Hammond]
Bits per second is a lot simpler and more concrete, and is preciesly
measureable.
and it's not 15 bps.
If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word
intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined
[Hammond]
Bits/second is PRECISELY DEFINED!
Yes - and so is nose/red. Why is "PRECISELY DEFINED" correct? Any sort
of gibberish can be "PRECISELY DEFINED"! With CAPS!
but
it still is a property of the universe.
[Hammond]
As far as I know the universe doesn't have any "intelligence".
The greatest proof AGAINST the SPOG you've ever typed.
That is to say, it is some
universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is
of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in
this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the
"law of intelligence".
[Hammond]
"Law of intelligence".... sounds pretty woo woo Sci-Fi to me?
Better to claim that there is an inviable "god", with inviable forces,
taking universal actions, using infinite energy, at infinite speed,
across all times. That makes a lot more sense.
The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to
be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.
[Hammond]
Maybe you should be writing poetry instead of writing science?
Personally I prefer Alfred Noyes....:
Yes...
Search for the foe in thine own soul,
The sloth, the intellectual pride;
The trivial jest that veils the goal
For which our father lived and died;
The lawless dreams, the cynic Art,
That rend thy nobler self apart.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Word Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
14 Aug 2005 11:05:26 PM |
|
|
George E. Hammond wrote:
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George E. Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
15 Aug 2005 02:01:21 AM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
George E. Hammond wrote:
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.
[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.
In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.
Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:
IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129
Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.
And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.
Yawn....
========================================
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: "Tom Capizzi" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
17 Aug 2005 01:12:02 PM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39d0g1dfe4cq8q3jq9989uoovioto2so59@4ax.com...
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
George E. Hammond wrote:
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.
[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.
In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.
Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:
IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129
Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.
And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.
Yawn....
===========================
What an idiot. Just like you shouldn't let the inmates run the asylum,
we should never accept the premises of [Hammond]. With his tortured
logic you can "prove" anything. In the first place he perverts the sense
of a "bit". It is the smallest increment of data (like a monochrome pixel).
It is irrelevant that 20 characters can be represented in 5 bits. To
recognize a character involves orders of magnitude more information
than a few bits. If it were that simple, computers would easily recognize
text.
In the second place, it is also irrelevant that a list of 20 characters are
involved. It is the number of symbols in the universe, not in the
artificially
restricted set, which determines the amount of processing involved to
identify a character. If humans processed information at the bit rate
[Hammond] claims, the we would be slower than the most primitive amoeba.
Third, his claim totally ignores the fact that there is a substantial amount
of
parallel processing going on at the same time as the character recognition.
Fourth, he ignores the the fact that visual recognition is an unreliable
indicator. People with various degrees of dyslexia would have poor
performance in his little pop quiz, but that doesn't make them any less
intelligent than people with normal vision.
This claim is just another [Hammond] fabrication in support of his
specious SPOG, which is neither scientific nor proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George E. Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
17 Aug 2005 09:06:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:02 GMT, "Tom Capizzi"
<> wrote:
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39d0g1dfe4cq8q3jq9989uoovioto2so59@4ax.com...
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
George E. Hammond wrote:
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.
[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.
In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.
Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:
IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129
Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.
And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.
Yawn....
===========================
What an idiot. Just like you shouldn't let the inmates run the asylum,
we should never accept the premises of [Hammond]. With his tortured
logic you can "prove" anything. In the first place he perverts the sense
of a "bit". It is the smallest increment of data (like a monochrome pixel).
It is irrelevant that 20 characters can be represented in 5 bits. To
recognize a character involves orders of magnitude more information
than a few bits. If it were that simple, computers would easily recognize
text.
In the second place, it is also irrelevant that a list of 20 characters are
involved. It is the number of symbols in the universe, not in the
artificially
restricted set, which determines the amount of processing involved to
identify a character. If humans processed information at the bit rate
[Hammond] claims, the we would be slower than the most primitive amoeba.
Third, his claim totally ignores the fact that there is a substantial amount
of
parallel processing going on at the same time as the character recognition.
[Hammond]
This line of irrelevant spute shows how worthless bigmouth amateurs
like you actually are.
Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a *****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ***** itches. Higher level cognitive
functions operate independently of such myriads of sensory input..
such as what typeface the IQ test is written in, or what color ink...
or the fact that the test appears to be printed on 30# bond
watermarked paper.
Did you ever stop to figure out *****, why the FUSION fRAME
RATE of a movie film is equal to the maximum bits/sec of the
observer.... what an *****... the fact
that thousands of bits of information are contained in the film
has NO EFFECT on the PFF..... for the same reason the thousands
of visual bits on an IQ test has nothing to do with the speed with
which you can identify which one of the 26 letters appears in the
parenthesis (Z)... namely Z. Fact is, it takes 5 bits of information
processing.... and decades of research by thousands of
researchers have CONFIRMED as a practical fact, that that
decision time can be easily isolated, and measured.... despite
the fact that 1,000 bits of sensory itching information is coming in
telling you that the broad you slept with last weekend probably gave
you the crabs. Fact is, the Picture Fusion Frequency, is one of
the world's most DRAMATIC PROOFS of that fact... even though
the film may be of a P-51 Mustang firing 1,000 rounds per
minute at 300 mph flying over thousands of trees... the fact is
that the PFF is only 15 frames/sec for the average person,
can be easily measured, and is a reliable predictor of the
person's IQ !
That happens to be an experimental fact confirmed by 100 years
of testing.
Fourth, he ignores the the fact that visual recognition is an unreliable
indicator. People with various degrees of dyslexia would have poor
performance in his little pop quiz, but that doesn't make them any less
intelligent than people with normal vision.
[Hammmond]
Also.. you're such an arrogant ***** you presume the PhD's and MD's
conducting these tests wouldn't be aware of such obvious things, and
you are also unaware that they spend half their lives testing dyslexic
and mentally impared people......... simply because you are a boring
loudmouth *****.
Finally, I'm tired of seeing your spute on my threads, so I'm adding
your name to my killfile list:
killfile, news/mail: "Tom Capizzi"
I've already killfiled Wake, TMG, and ZenIsWhen... more will follow
as they show up and post boring, ignormant, worthless, *****.
========================================
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: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
18 Aug 2005 04:20:16 AM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4so7g1lqc3p7nh083qskqrc4s0kleack44@4ax.com...
Finally, I'm tired of seeing your spute on my threads, so I'm adding
your name to my killfile list:
killfile, news/mail: "Tom Capizzi"
I've already killfiled Wake, TMG, and ZenIsWhen... more will follow
as they show up and post boring, ignormant, worthless, *****.
I can only hope that you have learned to use a kill file. Eventually the
entire human race will be in your file and you will be able to live in
blissful ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
18 Aug 2005 11:43:22 AM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4so7g1lqc3p7nh083qskqrc4s0kleack44@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:02 GMT, "Tom Capizzi"
<etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote:
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39d0g1dfe4cq8q3jq9989uoovioto2so59@4ax.com...
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
George E. Hammond wrote:
Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?
[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.
Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.
[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.
In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.
Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:
IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25
Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:
IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129
Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.
And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.
Yawn....
===========================
What an idiot. Just like you shouldn't let the inmates run the asylum,
we should never accept the premises of [Hammond]. With his tortured
logic you can "prove" anything. In the first place he perverts the sense
of a "bit". It is the smallest increment of data (like a monochrome
pixel).
It is irrelevant that 20 characters can be represented in 5 bits. To
recognize a character involves orders of magnitude more information
than a few bits. If it were that simple, computers would easily recognize
text.
In the second place, it is also irrelevant that a list of 20 characters
are
involved. It is the number of symbols in the universe, not in the
artificially
restricted set, which determines the amount of processing involved to
identify a character. If humans processed information at the bit rate
[Hammond] claims, the we would be slower than the most primitive amoeba.
Third, his claim totally ignores the fact that there is a substantial
amount
of
parallel processing going on at the same time as the character
recognition.
[Hammond]
This line of irrelevant spute shows how worthless bigmouth amateurs
like you actually are.
Another comment directed at you, and then stolen BY you?
Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Then his assesment of your claim is true?
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
No one here is aware of it just because YOU bellow it - ***** for brains!
A REAL scientist would provide references and citations to suppor claims!
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a *****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ***** itches.
So you agree with his RATIONAL assesment of your crap claim?
(Snip more insane Hammondcrap!)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
18 Aug 2005 03:28:22 AM |
|
|
George E. Hammond wrote:
Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a *****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ***** itches. Higher level cognitive
functions operate independently of such myriads of sensory input..
such as what typeface the IQ test is written in, or what color ink...
or the fact that the test appears to be printed on 30# bond
watermarked paper.
Did you ever stop to figure out *****, why the FUSION fRAME
RATE of a movie film is equal to the maximum bits/sec of the
observer.... what an *****... the fact
that thousands of bits of information are contained in the film
has NO EFFECT on the PFF..... for the same reason the thousands
of visual bits on an IQ test has nothing to do with the speed with
which you can identify which one of the 26 letters appears in the
parenthesis (Z)... namely Z. Fact is, it takes 5 bits of information
processing.... and decades of research by thousands of
researchers have CONFIRMED as a practical fact, that that
decision time can be easily isolated, and measured.... despite
the fact that 1,000 bits of sensory itching information is coming in
telling you that the broad you slept with last weekend probably gave
you the crabs. Fact is, the Picture Fusion Frequency, is one of
the world's most DRAMATIC PROOFS of that fact... even though
the film may be of a P-51 Mustang firing 1,000 rounds per
minute at 300 mph flying over thousands of trees... the fact is
that the PFF is only 15 frames/sec for the average person,
can be easily measured, and is a reliable predictor of the
person's IQ !
That happens to be an experimental fact confirmed by 100 years
of testing.
Hey, George - I love your phantasy! If we have a look at what you posted
in <http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100b.htm> and have a look at your
_only_ source of information <http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html>, it
is astonishing how many theories you developed out of that tiny piece of
text.
BTW - you still ignore that I have falsified your theory experimentally.
Please read <http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100.htm> once again, PFF
is discussed there on a basic level. Even _you_ should be able to follow
the thoughts and get the insight that "PFF" is something invented by the
incredible [Hammond].
What about the peer-review of my Anti-SPoG? There's 800 MB free webspace
waiting for your rebuttal...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "George E. Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
18 Aug 2005 09:05:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:28:22 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
George E. Hammond wrote:
Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a *****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ***** itches. Higher level cognitive
functions operate independently of such myriads of sensory input..
such as what typeface the IQ test is written in, or what color ink...
or the fact that the test appears to be printed on 30# bond
watermarked paper.
Did you ever stop to figure out *****, why the FUSION fRAME
RATE of a movie film is equal to the maximum bits/sec of the
observer.... what an *****... the fact
that thousands of bits of information are contained in the film
has NO EFFECT on the PFF..... for the same reason the thousands
of visual bits on an IQ test has nothing to do with the speed with
which you can identify which one of the 26 letters appears in the
parenthesis (Z)... namely Z. Fact is, it takes 5 bits of information
processing.... and decades of research by thousands of
researchers have CONFIRMED as a practical fact, that that
decision time can be easily isolated, and measured.... despite
the fact that 1,000 bits of sensory itching information is coming in
telling you that the broad you slept with last weekend probably gave
you the crabs. Fact is, the Picture Fusion Frequency, is one of
the world's most DRAMATIC PROOFS of that fact... even though
the film may be of a P-51 Mustang firing 1,000 rounds per
minute at 300 mph flying over thousands of trees... the fact is
that the PFF is only 15 frames/sec for the average person,
can be easily measured, and is a reliable predictor of the
person's IQ !
That happens to be an experimental fact confirmed by 100 years
of testing.
Hey, George - I love your phantasy! If we have a look at what you posted
in <http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100b.htm> and have a look at your
_only_ source of information <http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html>, it
is astonishing how many theories you developed out of that tiny piece of
text.
[Hammond]
The data on the PFF is as enormous as the movie industry itself and
has been studied and observed by thousands of persons ever since
Edison invented movie films. Weidenhammer and Fisher's classic
1985 ppaer being an example of what is known about it.
However it is remarkable that the Czar of Flicker Fusion research
Arthur Jensen who is famous for discovering that Flicker Fusion is
not related to intelligence seems to be TOTALLY UNAWARE that
Picture Fusion Frequency correlates 6.-.7 with intelligence and is
one of the highest and most significant correlations in the entire
field of the biological correlates of intelligence and mental speed!
BTW - you still ignore that I have falsified your theory experimentally.
[Hammond]
You're so fulla ***** its ridiculous. Saying you can see 40 frames/sec
defies known science. How could that be if billions of people are
watching movies shot at 24 frames/sec and can't see a single frame.
You're not only incompetent.. you're ignorant.
Please read <http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100.htm> once again, PFF
is discussed there on a basic level. Even _you_ should be able to follow
the thoughts and get the insight that "PFF" is something invented by the
incredible [Hammond].
[Hammond]
I'll accept Riedel's (1966), Weidenhammer & Fischer's (1985) and Lehrl
& Fischer's (1990) PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH and simply ignore your
fanciful arguments based on your incompetent gif-animation kookery.
You couldn't publish a research paper in a competent peer reviewed
journal in a million years.... never have and never will.
What about the peer-review of my Anti-SPoG? There's 800 MB free webspace
waiting for your rebuttal...
[Hammond]
You're not my peer... you don't even have a single college degree in
basic Science and aren't even qualified to READ Physics much less
dispute it. I suggest you stay with your truck driving business and
stop trying to heckle scholars with real degrees and real publications
in the peer reviewed literature, like me.
You website doesn't contain one whit of competent science. Lets
face it Bernie... your entire effort is flawed by the fact that you
are an ill motivated wannabee pseudointellectual heckler. I should
have killfiled you a year ago.... but now I'm adding you to the
list...I'm tired of listening to your asinine boring backtalk. Jerks
like you are a dime a dozen, especially on the Internet... to bad
you're not brave enough to be honest... then you might be
interesting.
killfile, news/email : bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from Uncle Sam, Hyannis MA.
========================================
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: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
18 Aug 2005 09:46:55 AM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:et39g11g7t65t0jrpcsa5auruetrg5ciga@4ax.com...
[Hammond]
You're not my peer... you don't even have a single college degree in
basic Science and aren't even qualified to READ Physics much less
dispute it. I suggest you stay with your truck driving business and
stop trying to heckle scholars with real degrees and real publications
in the peer reviewed literature, like me.
You website doesn't contain one whit of competent science. Lets
face it Bernie... your entire effort is flawed by the fact that you
are an ill motivated wannabee pseudointellectual heckler. I should
have killfiled you a year ago.... but now I'm adding you to the
list...I'm tired of listening to your asinine boring backtalk. Jerks
like you are a dime a dozen, especially on the Internet... to bad
you're not brave enough to be honest... then you might be
interesting.
Sadly, Bernie was one of the last people who were being nice and polite to
you. Finding out how to use a kill file will be something you regret for
quite some time.
killfile, news/email : bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
Boring George. Just do it and dont tell everyone.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from Uncle Sam, Hyannis MA.
I never realised "Uncle Sam" was a place.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
18 Aug 2005 11:52:38 AM |
|
|
"George E. Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:et39g11g7t65t0jrpcsa5auruetrg5ciga@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:28:22 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
George E. Hammond wrote:
Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a *****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ***** itches. Higher level cognitive
functions operate independently of such myriads of sensory input..
such as what typeface the IQ test is written in, or what color ink...
or the fact that the test appears to be printed on 30# bond
watermarked paper.
Did you ever stop to figure out *****, why the FUSION fRAME
RATE of a movie film is equal to the maximum bits/sec of the
observer.... what an *****... the fact
that thousands of bits of information are contained in the film
has NO EFFECT on the PFF..... for the same reason the thousands
of visual bits on an IQ test has nothing to do with the speed with
which you can identify which one of the 26 letters appears in the
parenthesis (Z)... namely Z. Fact is, it takes 5 bits of information
processing.... and decades of research by thousands of
researchers have CONFIRMED as a practical fact, that that
decision time can be easily isolated, and measured.... despite
the fact that 1,000 bits of sensory itching information is coming in
telling you that the broad you slept with last weekend probably gave
you the crabs. Fact is, the Picture Fusion Frequency, is one of
the world's most DRAMATIC PROOFS of that fact... even though
the film may be of a P-51 Mustang firing 1,000 rounds per
minute at 300 mph flying over thousands of trees... the fact is
that the PFF is only 15 frames/sec for the average person,
can be easily measured, and is a reliable predictor of the
person's IQ !
That happens to be an experimental fact confirmed by 100 years
of testing.
Hey, George - I love your phantasy! If we have a look at what you posted
in <http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100b.htm> and have a look at your
_only_ source of information <http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html>, it
is astonishing how many theories you developed out of that tiny piece of
text.
[Hammond]
The data on the PFF is as enormous as the movie industry itself and
has been studied and observed by thousands of persons ever since
Edison invented movie films. Weidenhammer and Fisher's classic
1985 ppaer being an example of what is known about it.
However it is remarkable that the Czar of Flicker Fusion research
Arthur Jensen who is famous for discovering that Flicker Fusion is
not related to intelligence seems to be TOTALLY UNAWARE that
Picture Fusion Frequency correlates 6.-.7 with intelligence and is
one of the highest and most significant correlations in the entire
field of the biological correlates of intelligence and mental speed!
BTW - you still ignore that I have falsified your theory experimentally.
[Hammond]
You're so fulla ***** its ridiculous. Saying you can see 40 frames/sec
defies known science. How could that be if billions of people are
watching movies shot at 24 frames/sec and can't see a single frame.
You're not only incompetent.. you're ignorant.
Please read <http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100.htm> once again, PFF
is discussed there on a basic level. Even _you_ should be able to follow
the thoughts and get the insight that "PFF" is something invented by the
incredible [Hammond].
[Hammond]
I'll accept Riedel's (1966), Weidenhammer & Fischer's (1985) and Lehrl
& Fischer's (1990) PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH and simply ignore your
fanciful arguments based on your incompetent gif-animation kookery.
You couldn't publish a research paper in a competent peer reviewed
journal in a million years.... never have and never will.
Only a fraud would provide cites with only dates - and no paper, periodical
references.
You haven't published a peer reviewed paper yet; no matter what insanity you
claim!
What about the peer-review of my Anti-SPoG? There's 800 MB free webspace
waiting for your rebuttal...
[Hammond]
You're not my peer...
People who are your peers are usually institutionalized!
Sorry - my toilet's backed up................ it can't take any more
Hammondcrap!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
19 Aug 2005 03:30:43 AM |
|
|
Give it up, George!
Anti-SPoG waits for real arguments, not for some more unproven
claims from your one-man-"think tank"...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
19 Aug 2005 09:29:26 AM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:de41je$1iv$04$1@news.t-online.com...
Give it up, George!
Anti-SPoG waits for real arguments, not for some more unproven
claims from your one-man-"think tank"...
????????????/
You give him too much credit!
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
19 Aug 2005 03:22:42 PM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Give it up, George!
Anti-SPoG waits for real arguments, not for some more unproven
claims from your one-man-"think tank"...
????????????/
You give him too much credit!
I'm a true [Hammond] fan! :)
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
--
<http://schornak.de/aspog/index.htm>
Official Bulletin for George E. [Hammond] fans!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Skunk" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
19 Aug 2005 06:26:33 PM |
|
|
*shock* This thread is still going?
How many years now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv LIFE AFTER DEATH |
20 Aug 2005 04:10:45 AM |
|
|
Dan Skunk wrote:
*shock* This thread is still going?
How many years now?
0.035.
It's like waiting for Santa Claus, isn't it?
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KILLFILE REMINDER" |
|
| Title: GOD=G_uv KILLFILE NOTICE |
18 Aug 2005 06:02:42 PM |
|
|
KILLFILE NOTICE
THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED PERIODICALLY AS REQUIRED,
AND AS THE LIST INCREASES:
The following posters are killfiled on this computer and their
posts do not appear:
TMG
Wake
ZenIsWhen
Schornak
Stew Dean
Capizzi
Toupin
Eickmeier
Isham
It has been determined that the sole object of these posters is
harassment, and/or that they are chronic Usenet abusers, and that
they have nothing of value, interest or relevance to say about the
discovery of the world's first scientific proof of God.
========================================
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: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv KILLFILE NOTICE |
19 Aug 2005 12:17:19 AM |
|
|
"KILLFILE REMINDER" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t63ag1tb6v70kbso0cl1s1rng84bbgulvc@4ax.com...
KILLFILE NOTICE
***** notice - it's only Hammond being an ***** again!
THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED PERIODICALLY AS REQUIRED,
AND AS THE LIST INCREASES:
to include any and all people who are not as deranged and psychotic as
Hammond!
The following posters are killfiled on this computer and their
posts do not appear:
TMG
Wake
ZenIsWhen
I think "I" should be first!!!!
Schornak
Stew Dean
Capizzi
Toupin
Eickmeier
Isham
It has been determined that the sole object of these posters is
harassment, and/or that they are chronic Usenet abusers, and that
they have nothing of value, interest or relevance to say about the
discovery of the world's first scientific proof of God.
It has been determined that George Hammond is a fraud, psychotic, a liar, as
ignorant as all hell, an egomaniac, and totally deranged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv KILLFILE NOTICE |
20 Aug 2005 01:41:20 AM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"KILLFILE REMINDER" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t63ag1tb6v70kbso0cl1s1rng84bbgulvc@4ax.com...
KILLFILE NOTICE
***** notice - it's only Hammond being an ***** again!
THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED PERIODICALLY AS REQUIRED,
AND AS THE LIST INCREASES:
to include any and all people who are not as deranged and psychotic as
Hammond!
The following posters are killfiled on this computer and their
posts do not appear:
TMG
Wake
ZenIsWhen
I think "I" should be first!!!!
Well, you're not, so there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv KILLFILE NOTICE |
20 Aug 2005 05:09:15 AM |
|
|
"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:JcqdnRX8HZuMUpveRVn-tw@comcast.com...
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"KILLFILE REMINDER" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t63ag1tb6v70kbso0cl1s1rng84bbgulvc@4ax.com...
The following posters are killfiled on this computer and their
posts do not appear:
TMG
Wake
ZenIsWhen
I think "I" should be first!!!!
Well, you're not, so there.
You are just showing off now :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Toupin" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv KILLFILE NOTICE |
18 Aug 2005 06:35:03 PM |
|
|
Holy *****! I can't believe that I made the list after only a few post! Wow!
I feel privileged!
James Toupin
"KILLFILE REMINDER" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t63ag1tb6v70kbso0cl1s1rng84bbgulvc@4ax.com...
KILLFILE NOTICE
THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED PERIODICALLY AS REQUIRED,
AND AS THE LIST INCREASES:
The following posters are killfiled on this computer and their
posts do not appear:
TMG
Wake
ZenIsWhen
Schornak
Stew Dean
Capizzi
Toupin
Eickmeier
Isham
It has been determined that the sole object of these posters is
harassment, and/or that they are chronic Usenet abusers, and that
they have nothing of value, interest or relevance to say about the
discovery of the world's first scientific proof of God.
========================================
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: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv KILLFILE NOTICE |
18 Aug 2005 06:38:03 PM |
|
|
"James Toupin" <jtoupin@telus.net> wrote in message
news:HW8Ne.206975$tt5.109555@edtnps90...
| Holy *****! I can't believe that I made the list after only a few post!
Wow!
| I feel privileged!
|
| James Toupin
Wow, I'm not on it!
(Maybe because George Hammond is on mine, along with all the other
phuckwits)
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
