| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2005 05:53:36 AM |
| Object: |
Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:50:03 +0545, Mahatana *****
<nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[Hammond]
So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
kid............
[*****
A prediction.
[Hammond]
and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
which less fully GROWN peo;le CAN'T SEE.
[*****]
A claim to proof based on >A prediction.
[Hammond]
It is a TESTABLE prediciton.
thousands of people have asked me to post a
TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
Proof of God)
Well, here it is, I predict that:
IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
WHICH IS VISIBLE TO AN ADULT, BUT
WILL BE INVISBLE TO A KID.
that is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
such a thing has NEVER been done before!
[Hammond]
.... here's how the video is to be made:
In fact, it is known (Riedel 1966) that a
1/15 of a second flash CAN be seen by and adult, but
not by the kid..... in fact you have to increase the
lenght of the flash to 1/10 of a second before the kid can
see it.
This is why the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of adults
is known to be 15 frames/sec, but for a 7 year old it
is known to be 10 frames/second (Riedel 1966).
OK... this tells you that if you make a "movie" out of
a series of brief flashes (1 or 2 video frames) which
are too short to be Seen by a kid, but long enough to be
seen by an adult.... voila...you have made a (crude)
movie that is VISBLE to an adult, but is INVISIBLE
to a child.
For instance, using ordinary 30 frames/second video,
I predict that the following video clip will be a movie
that will be VISIBLE to an adult, and INVISIBE to a
kid of 5 years old:
01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------repeat10times------>
(NOTE: this is 1-second of a standard video, to make
the movie clip simply repeat it ten times to make a 10
second vido clip)
NOTE:
----->|...|<------ = 1/30 of a second (one frame)
----->|19|20|<----- = 1/15 of a second (2 frames)
----->|...|...|...|...|<------ = 1/7.5 of a second (4 frames)
The numbered frames are frames from an actual REAL MOVIE video, while
the |...| frames are BLANK (light gray) frames.
Remember, 2 frames is 2(1/30) = 1/15 of a second, so the ADULT
should see the numbered frames. The 4 repeated |...| frames take
1/7.5 seconds, so the kid can see those, but he cannot see the double
numbered frames.
So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
kid............ and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
which less fully GROWN people CAN'T SEE.
[Hammond]
SO.... I have just made a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG... and
anyone is free to get out his video editor on his desktop computer
and TEST IT. Until then,
PUT Up OR SHUT UP!
========================================
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: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
10 Oct 2005 11:55:44 PM |
|
|
George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net>, the mangy, pupal horse, and
postal service worker, threw up:
[Hammond]
No. The reason is no one ever needed to
prove there was a God.
False. Provably false.
Like dirty Harry said, make my day.
Kurt Gödel did it. And he did it properly, without flaw, years before you
dreamed up your *****, you insane tit. Here is Kurt Gödel's Ontological
Proof, choke on it, netnutter:
Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by -- i.e., strictly implied by -- a
positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying projectiles or
dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions may apply. If
something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on. All conditions
apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been changed to protect the
guilty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
11 Oct 2005 01:46:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:40:44 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net>, the mangy, pupal horse, and
postal service worker, threw up:
[Hammond]
No. The reason is no one ever needed to
prove there was a God.
False. Provably false.
Like dirty Harry said, make my day.
Kurt Gödel did it. And he did it properly, without flaw, years before you
dreamed up your *****, you insane tit. Here is Kurt Gödel's Ontological
Proof, choke on it, netnutter:
[Hammond]
Sorry Crapshot, an "ontological" proof is NOT a "scientific" proof.
This is a scientific discussion, not a philawsephy discussion.
"Ontology" is a philosophica subject, not a scientific subject.
Sorry.
Thomas Aquinas published half a dozen ontological "proofs" of
God 700 years ago.... none of them are "sufficient" proofs of God,
scientifically speaking.
On the other hand, Hammond's scientific proo of God IS SUFFICIENT
proof of the EXISTENCE OF GOD.... to two decimal places.
It has been proven experimentally, and published in the peer revfiewed
scientific literature.
See my website for a full explanation.
And quit crossposting to alt.usenet.kooks
========================================
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 HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
11 Oct 2005 12:07:35 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vsmmk11ngchv0voric7257hqdu2808ka8o@4ax.com...
[Hammond]
Sorry Crapshot, an "ontological" proof is NOT a "scientific" proof.
This is a scientific discussion, not a philawsephy discussion.
You wouldnt recognise science if it smashed you in the face.
On the other hand, Hammond's scientific proo of God IS SUFFICIENT
proof of the EXISTENCE OF GOD.... to two decimal places.
Only two decimal places. Very poor showing. Interesting terminology, it has
been a while since I saw some one claim a scientific proof to x decimal
places. Infact, you are the main person who has done it.
Often I have seen the term "two significant figures" used but not two
decimal places. Are you still in school George?
It has been proven experimentally, and published in the peer revfiewed
scientific literature.
Vanity press.
See my website for a full explanation.
Ha.
And quit crossposting to alt.usenet.kooks
Is that only something you are allowed to do? Crackpot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
11 Oct 2005 01:56:33 AM |
|
|
George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net>, the illogical, spouting bugbear,
and toller of bells, susurrated:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:40:44 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net>, the mangy, pupal horse,
and postal service worker, threw up:
[Hammond]
No. The reason is no one ever needed to
prove there was a God.
False. Provably false.
Like dirty Harry said, make my day.
Kurt Gödel did it. And he did it properly, without flaw, years
before you dreamed up your *****, you insane tit. Here is Kurt
Gödel's Ontological Proof, choke on it, netnutter:
[Hammond]
Sorry Crapshot, an "ontological" proof is NOT a "scientific" proof.
It's a better proof than the fucking crap you sprout. Your apology is
accepted, btw.
This is a scientific discussion, not a philawsephy discussion.
"Ontology" is a philosophica subject, not a scientific subject.
Whereas movies that don't exist are scientific proof of God, yes?
Sorry.
Your apology is accepted.
Thomas Aquinas published half a dozen ontological "proofs" of
God 700 years ago.... none of them are "sufficient" proofs of God,
scientifically speaking.
Whereas movies that don't exist are sufficient scientific proof of God, yes?
On the other hand, Hammond's scientific proo of God IS SUFFICIENT
proof of the EXISTENCE OF GOD.... to two decimal places.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! "I can prove that God exists to an accuracy of two
decimal places!" [George Hammond, NetNutter]
It has been proven experimentally,
Proof, please.
Of course, the problem you have is this...
[gh] Not so fast....... I said a MOVIE CAN BE MADE that an adult
can see that a kid can't see. THEY DON'T EXIST AS WE SPEAK.
I INVENTED SAID MOVIES!
Do the movies that do not exist do their not existing to an accuracy of two
decimal places also?
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying projectiles or
dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions may apply. If
something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on. All conditions
apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been changed to protect the
guilty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
11 Oct 2005 06:46:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:41:33 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
killfile: "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
11 Oct 2005 06:52:18 AM |
|
|
He's better off, religious nut.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
10 Oct 2005 03:27:06 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
A human scrifice is not a SCIENTIFIC PROOF of anything.
Here is a TESTABLE PREDICITON which constitutes a scientific proof.
all you fat ***** rich kids are sitting there with 2-gig computers and
video editing programs and nothing to do... why don't you prove it:
Because your "theory" is wrong. It's flawed at its most basic
foundations. You don't understand the most basic things you're spewing
about, and belittle anyone that tries to correct you. You "claim" to be
a scientist, but you blanch at the most basic of application of
scientific method.
BY MAKING A VIDEO MOVIE THAT IS VISIBLE TO
AN ADULT AND INVISIBLE TO A KID... PROVES
THE EXISTENCE OF THE INVIBLE WORLD, AND
THUS PROVES THE EXIISTTENCE OF GOD.
Can't be done. Your "theory" is debunked.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE IN THE
HISTORY OF THE WORLD
And can't be done. Your theory is wrong, and it's TESTABLE PREDICTION
fails. You're wrong. Science prevails.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mahatana Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE |
10 Oct 2005 04:36:49 PM |
|
|
George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:47:57 +0545, Mahatana *****
<nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote:
Double-posted reply in reply to a double-posted reply.
"George Hammond" <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mnfkk1phqq4fepivlioh86q1t02ssfn5vf@4ax.com
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:50:03 +0545, Mahatana *****
<nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[Hammond]
So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE
MOVIE to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5
year old kid............
[*****
A prediction.
[Hammond]
and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
which less fully GROWN peo;le CAN'T SEE.
[*****]
A claim to proof based on >A prediction.
[Hammond]
It is a TESTABLE prediciton.
One that remains completely untested nevertheless constitutes proof
to you, yes?
Note: No response.
thousands of people have asked me to post a
TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
Proof of God)
Well, here it is
A testable, scientifically logical proof of God was created years
before you thought of it, and by someone who was far superior to
yourself. So, tell me, do you believe that the more you repeat your
delusion, the greater the probability that someone else might
believe it?
[Hammond]
A human scrifice is not a SCIENTIFIC PROOF of anything.
I assume that word is sacrifice; what does sacrifice have to do with what
you were asked?
Here is a TESTABLE PREDICITON which constitutes a scientific proof.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
