PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
Andrea Chen
> [Hammond]
> Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
> the perception of "proper time and space". if there
> is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
> of reality. You really can't argue these points without
> being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
> scientific expertise...
Hi:
I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
for, but please go slow with me because my competent scientific
expertise is a bit lacking. Now if I understand this correctly if you
have a 15% reduction you have a minus 45% reality. So I'm visualizing a
positive and negative reality and wondering do they loop around so that
if you are missing let's say 40 percent of the proper perception of
proper time and space you have something like plus 85% reality or is a
simple scale ranging from -100% to 100%?
In either case could you map more points for me so I can get an idea of
various states (eg. missing 1% 5% ...95%) of proper perception of time
and space and the ratio of reality that then results.
Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
Thanking
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Wrong. Reality is hereby elementally discovered to be
> > the perception of "proper time and space". if there
> > is a 15% reduction in this.. you are missing 145%
> > of reality. You really can't argue these points without
> > being campetent to comprehend the theory from a competent
> > scientific expertise...
>
> Hi:
>
> I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
> for, but please go slow with me because my competent scientific
> expertise is a bit lacking. Now if I understand this correctly if you
> have a 15% reduction you have a minus 45% reality. So I'm visualizing a
> positive and negative reality and wondering do they loop around so that
> if you are missing let's say 40 percent of the proper perception of
> proper time and space you have something like plus 85% reality or is a
> simple scale ranging from -100% to 100%?
[Hammond]
Thank God for the Orientals... apparently they are the
last race of polite people on Earth. Thanks for posting
to this thread amidst so much blatant Occidental crudeness.
Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
yuppie-physics-philosophy theories of God. I mean, it's not
about quantum uncertainty qubit hyperplane Bohm point
intergalactic dark matter ultra complexity fractal geometry
fuzzy logic genetic superposition uncertainty counter factual
wormhole many-worlds Moebius strip Black Hole singularity
poetry.
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
elementary and real. It is a simple discovery that I have made
simply because I am the first physicist in the history of
the world to take a serious look at the eigenvector structure
of the relatively recent field of Psychometry. Psychometry
did not really become established until the invention of the
mainframe computer in the 1960's... therefore the whole thing
is only 40 years old... the main results only really 25 years
old. This is why Physics has never gotten around to looking
at it.... and also the fact that most physicists have an
abhorrence of Psychology to begin with.
Anyway, on another front, Biology only discovered 30 or 40
years ago that there was such a thing as the Secular Trend...
i.e. that the human race is getting TALLER with each passing
century, and Global IQ is going up also (the Flynn Effect).
see:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
when you get the time.
Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
NUTRITION.
OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
in the following diagram:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
you have a less than normal IQ. You are referred to as being
"slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
is highly correlated with IQ.
Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion. If 15%
of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
Not only that... but the brain growth deficit affects SPACE
as well as TIME. If 15% of your brain is missing, the entire
world LOOKS BIGGER to you than it really is.
So... the whole world looks MAGNIFIED and FASTER to you, than
it really is, if you have a large brain growth deficit.
Not only that, you begin to realize that to certain other people
that it apparently DOES NOT look quite so "big and fast" and
that they are not anywhere near as afraid of it as you. From this
experience, people began imagining that there might be a "perfect person"
somewhere who could actually see reality and was not afraid at all..
and they named this fictitious person "God".
Now, they could sense that there was something "mental" about
this difference in SIZE AND SPEED perception between different
people, and pretty soon they realized that there was a "mental
reality" which lies BEYOND anyone's ACTUAL REALITY, and they named
this invisible mental world "Heaven"... because they believed if they
could ever get there (i.e. be able to see it), they would be like
God living in Heaven (Paradise)...... and it turns out that they
WERE ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THATS THEORY; which is called "religion"
by the way.
Now, the only thing I have done, is discover that this theory
can be PROVED using Psychometric eigenvector structure and General
Relativity.. which is a DRAMATIC HISTORICAL EVENT... because it
is the first scientific explanation as well as PROOF of the
existence of GOD. The very fact that it shows that Einstein's
theory of Relativity is the mathematical proof of God is enough
to cause a world sensation.
Of course, finally, a scientific proof of God will immediatly
have a dramatic effect on world ideology, ecumenical unification,
world prosperity and mobilization, world peace, and probably
double the world standard of living in 20 years.
> Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
[Hammond]
Politeness is an unmistakable sign of power and intelligence.
Thank you for your posting, and I will be glad to respond
to any further sober and sincere questions you may have.
>
> Thanking
You're entirely welcome.........HAMMOND
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Chen
ambitious. I still remain baffled by the numbers. I understand that
this ios a complex theory but how do reductions in space and time
perception scale into realities (eg. a 15% reduction leads to a negative
45%) reality.
Also one other question. Does negative reality form a mirror image? I
was thinking if this is the case then a major reduction would lead to a
100% complete model which is however reversed, but which it might be
possible to adjust to.
Joe Manfre
> Andrea Chen wrote:
> > I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse
> > Usenet for, but please go slow with me because my competent
> > scientific expertise is a bit lacking. Now if I understand this
> > correctly if you have a 15% reduction you have a minus 45% reality.
> > So I'm visualizing a positive and negative reality and wondering do
> > they loop around so that if you are missing let's say 40 percent of
> > the proper perception of proper time and space you have something
> > like plus 85% reality or is a simple scale ranging from -100% to
> > 100%?
> [Hammond]
> Thank God for the Orientals... apparently they are the
> last race of polite people on Earth. Thanks for posting
> to this thread amidst so much blatant Occidental crudeness.
Hey George, I agree with you too. The reprehensible behavior of my
own ethnic bretheren toward you can annoy me as well. Andrea is a
really nice guy and I'm glad he's here too.
> Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
> effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
> be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
> NUTRITION.
> OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
> grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
> in the following diagram:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
> The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
> curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
> brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
I have looked at your Web site too and I think your theories have much
to commend them. However, I figure you must have to respond
frequently to people who ask you how you remain so certain that this
evolution is really deterministic. People like to talk about how
evolution throughout history is driven blindly by "natural selection"
and it is only coincidental that it ended up creating more "complex"
creatures over time.
Now, you and I know there must be an answer to this dismal view of
life, and I can't help but wonder how you manage to respond to these
people! I could use a good argument myself.
> Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
> growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
> you have a less than normal IQ. You are referred to as being
> "slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
> of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
> is highly correlated with IQ.
> Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
> MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
> And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
> means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion. If 15%
> of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
> real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
NOW THAT IS INTERESTING! In the late 1960s I remember seeing or
reading something like that too! How, say, two different cultures
could share the same space but culture A wouldn't realize culture B
was there because culture B moved at a much faster speed due to higher
metabolism.
In fact, there was some standard cheeky humor of the era, in which it
was noted that a person from culture A could speed himself up and have
a sexual encounter with a woman from culture B without anyone
noticing, because their speed would let them slip off unnoticed.
Before anyone saw them again, she would be brushing her hair and he'd
be putting his boots back on. You couldn't get away with jokes like
that in this uptight age! With your sense of humor, George, I wonder:
Were you the one who published that idea back in the '60s?
I have to tell you, George, your ideas are the same sort that got me
into trouble after I graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in
theoretical particle physics. I had deterministic ideas like yours,
and you can bet I was drummed out by the same "scientific" priesthood
that troubles you here. I ended up having to use my computer skills
as an embedded systems graphics programmer. And that was even worse,
because I come into contact with the kind of computer "wise men" who
inhabit these newsgroups. People without the least understanding of
science, except for their computer "science", and they think they can
critique a real physics thinker!
JM
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> George thankyou for you response and I must say the theory is
> ambitious. I still remain baffled by the numbers. I understand that
> this ios a complex theory but how do reductions in space and time
> perception scale into realities (eg. a 15% reduction leads to a negative
> 45%) reality.
[Hammond]
Oh... I see what you mean, when I said:
" if there is a 15% reduction in this..
you are missing 145% of reality."
No, sorry ... nothing curious or fascinating here Andrea...
just a typo... my baby finger must have hit 4&5 at
the same time by accident... it should read:
" if there is a 15% reduction in this..
you are missing 15% of reality."
The theory is very straight forward with no "yuppie-fantastic"
stuff involved. Truth is stranger than fiction ya know.
>
> Also one other question. Does negative reality form a mirror image? I
> was thinking if this is the case then a major reduction would lead to a
> 100% complete model which is however reversed, but which it might be
> possible to adjust to.
[Hammond]
Nothing that complicated... there certainly is such a thing
as "reverse psychology" in human conflict, and it IS BASED
on "mirror reflection".
This phenomena of "mirror reality" is roughly explained
as follows. The natural order of things is to have people
of higher development in the positions of authority because
they can "see" better than low development people. However,
through political corruption etc. it sometimes happens that an
unqualified tyrant gets into power and maintains his position
by military force, terrorism etc. In that case the population
has to "pretend" that he is a qualified person. After awhile
(maybe years or even generations) of this abuse, what happens is
that the tyrant gets so powerful that he can dispense with "acting"
and just willy nilly order people about. What actually
happens to this lethargic brute is that his face (and eyes)
become a REFLECTION or mirror image of the oppressed, humbled
and exploited subjects who are obeying him out of fear, but are
actually (growth curve wise) SUPERIOR to him. So, what all
of the subjects see is a MIRROR REFLECTION of their own
superiority in his facial expression and mannerisms... they
end up being terrified of THEMSELVES by looking at the tyrant
who is nothing but a psychological mirror. The power that you
THINK you sense in him, is actually YOUR OWN POWER reflected
in his face and mannerisms, speech etc. Hitler is the most
famous example of this known to history.
Another famous example of this (but less awesome) is the
celebrated portrait in a museum somewhere of a woman who's eyes
"follow you" as you walk around the room. Her eyes of course are
not actually following you.. it's the espression pasted on her face
which is a mirror reflection of the expression of the universal
victim (which is you, me and all of us) that makes you feel that
she is always watching you. This is the classic hallmark, if not
the sine qua non, of the PSYCHOTIC personality. almost everyone you are
personally afraid of ("bad people"), are PSYCHOTIC MIRRORS that
you are unable to see through for lack of worldly experience or
maturity.
.....Like I say, fact is stranger than fiction.
John Burrage
>Andrea Chen wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I *really* like your stuff. It's the kind of science I browse Usenet
[snippage]
>
>[Hammond]
> Thank God for the Orientals... apparently they are the
>last race of polite people on Earth. Thanks for posting
>to this thread amidst so much blatant Occidental crudeness.
> Look Andrea.. this is NOT one of those fancy make-believe
Dear George
I would also like to say I find your theory very interesting, and wish
you all the best in your endevour to get it accepted by the
scientific community. I am Austrian, and I'm sure I speak on behalf
of all my people.
Warm regards
John
--
John Burrage
http://members.iinet.net.au/~burrage/
Crgre Jvyyneq
>In fact, there was some standard cheeky humor of the era, in
>which it was noted that a person from culture A could speed
>himself up and have a sexual encounter with a woman from
>culture B without anyone noticing, because their speed would
>let them slip off unnoticed.
'
[Jvyyneq]
Ah! The Gentle Tassaday! Today it is said that neither the
(luminal) Tassaday A nor the superluminal Tassaday B EVEN
EXIST!!! They call ENTIRE LIVING SOCIETIES "fraud" and "forgery"
and then expect us to just buy their crummy tires and pickles.
WE KNOW BETTER!!!
>Before anyone saw them again, she would be brushing her hair
>and he'd be putting his boots back on. You couldn't get away
>with jokes like that in this uptight age!
Thank G-d for the Union of Barbershop Quartets, conservators of
PHYSICS!
>With your sense of humor, George, I wonder:
>Were you the one who published that idea back in the '60s?
Hammond was still with either Playboy or Playbill, I can't
remember which. Later, of course, the famous Trilogies were
written and the speaking tours at sci-fi "cons" followed.
>I have to tell you, George, your ideas are the same sort that
>got me into trouble after I graduated from Harvard with a
>Ph.D. in theoretical particle physics.
I thought you got a PHD...
>I had deterministic ideas like yours,
>and you can bet I was drummed out by the same "scientific"
>priesthood that troubles you here.
The so-called "sceintific community" is more like a competetive
drum and bugle corps, isn't it? I know the shame of being handed
a flugelhorn and having to call it a trumpet!
>I ended up having to use
>my computer skills as an embedded systems graphics
>programmer.
But you were never bitter.
>And that was even worse, because I come into
>contact with the kind of computer "wise men" who inhabit
>these newsgroups.
The kind of "wise men" who don't wear any pants!
>People without the least understanding of
>science, except for their computer "science", and they think
>they can critique a real physics thinker!
Computer "Scientists" who think that the Base for the Natural
Logarithm can be "set" at 2.6 _and turn around and call it
double precision_!!! Precisely what happens when the schools de-
emphasize rote memorization in favor of "life skills" and bomb-
preparation courses (as necessary as that may be when the
tripods land). Of course, these same teachers are encouraging
the teaching of LISP to awkward college kids, leading to
parenthetic blindness in up to 25% of the population.
These same schools, and their Communist Infiltrator teachers'
unions, teach young people how to prepare "name brand"-style
products at home from scratch and thereby devalue the careers of
tens of thousands of marketing experts who will never know the
satisfaction of a successful ad campaign.
Clearly, the time to act has passed. I suggest long naps in the
early afternoon followed by a vigorous donut break. Keep your
"spare tires", gentlemen, these "people" will soon have all the
real food locked away in their underground facilities!
--
Crgre http://www.drizzle.com/~petew
"Does your imaginary friend make you invisible too? Who
notices?" -- Ric Carter
Andrea Chen
>
> I have to tell you, George, your ideas are the same sort that got me
> into trouble after I graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in
> theoretical particle physics. I had deterministic ideas like yours,
> and you can bet I was drummed out by the same "scientific" priesthood
> that troubles you here.
This is wonderful! I suspect it's the reason Al Gore invented the web!
Before great minds such as you 2 would be isolated, but here you can
reach out to each other and form a movement. I suspect there are many
other great minds lurking in the shadows. Perhaps you could have a
slogan, something like "create, communicate, collaborate." You could
call yourself the triple C and move web science to a whole new level.
Imagine what it would be like if half the people posting in sci.physics
shared your theories. Young students coming to get information wouldn't
be stullified by the "same old, same old" dogma. They would return to
the classroom with ideas that would amaze their professors. Physics
might never be the same after this. I hope you guys continue to discuss
your ideas and develop them together. I've heard there are other people
with new, paradigm shatering theories. For example there is one
gentleman who claims that the plutonium atom mirrors the universe or
vice versa and that if these can be lodged within the brain one is
capable of expositions on all things.
What do you guys think of this. I believe it supports the idea of a
determistic universe because it would imply that the model of all
reality is locally distributed and eveloping in parallel, though I do
wonder what would happen if one model of the universe were speeded up or
slowed down, would parallel realities develop?
Does anyone have any ideas on this?
Mikal 606
"Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A8CBE...@earthlink.net...
Now that you ask, erm, yes.Something about taking superluminal wavelets and
taking them out of the rest and measurement frame of a lab and exotic gases
and putting them into the worldline, and time line.You know, the Relativity
of Frequency.
Ever your fan,
Elvii
Andrea Chen
>
> >I had deterministic ideas like yours,
> >and you can bet I was drummed out by the same "scientific"
> >priesthood that troubles you here.
>
> The so-called "sceintific community" is more like a competetive
> drum and bugle corps, isn't it? I know the shame of being handed
> a flugelhorn and having to call it a trumpet!
>
Way cool! It's like all these visionary thinkers are coming out of the
woodwork. It's like proof of god or post quantum eality or
deterministic evolution.
> >I ended up having to use
> >my computer skills as an embedded systems graphics
> >programmer.
>
> But you were never bitter.
>
> >And that was even worse, because I come into
> >contact with the kind of computer "wise men" who inhabit
> >these newsgroups.
>
> The kind of "wise men" who don't wear any pants!
>
> >People without the least understanding of
> >science, except for their computer "science", and they think
> >they can critique a real physics thinker!
>
> Computer "Scientists" who think that the Base for the Natural
> Logarithm can be "set" at 2.6 _and turn around and call it
> double precision_!!!
It sounds like you know a lot about arithmetic. I understand that's
very important in physics.
Incidently you have an odd name. Is it European? I remember Eisnstein
said there are aliens and they're called Hungarians which is also in
Europe. I'm getting the feeling that there are some very complex
connections going on here.
pete
> Joe Manfre wrote:
> > > Andrea Chen wrote:
Keep it up!
Please try to convince George that his years of hard work
are finally starting pay off and that he is being taken seriously.
--
pete
Joe Manfre
For those of you who missed it because it wasn't posted to ARK,
here is George's followup to me:
http://home.flash.net/~manfre/usenet/hammond.txt
JM
Luke Breinig
says...
> For those of you who missed it because it wasn't posted to ARK,
> here is George's followup to me:
> http://home.flash.net/~manfre/usenet/hammond.txt
Uh Oh! It looks like you made a new friend!
I expect you to start screaming about eigenvectors and calling people
amateurish IMMEDIATELY!
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Luke Breinig - www.lukebreinig.com - LIBARTAREAN D00D |
|Amiga 500/1000/3000 - PII/300 - Mac IIsi- Apple IIgs - C=64|
|"Has this hapened too yuo before? PROBABLY! BECAUSE |
| MANEY OF YUO USE AOL AND MSN AND MICORSOFT SI FOR |
| FAGOTS!" - JeffK |
|(This .sig is more than 4 lines in protest of 4 line .sigs)|
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Mikal 606
"Luke Breinig" <lbre...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.14f718ad3...@news.inetnebr.com...
> In article <Xns904A61059...@209.30.0.14>, man...@flash.net
> says...
>
> > For those of you who missed it because it wasn't posted to ARK,
> > here is George's followup to me:
> > http://home.flash.net/~manfre/usenet/hammond.txt
>
> Uh Oh! It looks like you made a new friend!
>
> I expect you to start screaming about eigenvectors and calling people
> amateurish IMMEDIATELY!
>
///////resposts/////////////
From: "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: break fast anyone?
Date: Monday, August 21, 2000 4:46 PM
I love how Bond pronounced "breakfast".
/\f Vs
___ = ----2 (e' --- 1) * ________
f Vc
1 Vs
/\ (____) = 4e'' * _________
Q Vc
f / x/10 \ 1/2
Q = _____ I 10 ----1 I
\ /
/\f
maximum brak fast absoprtion is w= yeff Hr
yeff is the gyromagnetic ration
Of course this is in MKShadows units 8^)
/////////////////
From: "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Bozo science, part the ulteenth!
Date: Monday, August 21, 2000 11:30 PM
http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/sld001.htm
Okay floaks, first of all, if you know
1)the power you are going to dissipate through your Cesium-filled cavity
2)the unloaded Q of the cavity
3)the volume of the cavity
4)the wave length of the cavity(obviously the wave length of the cesium gas)
5)the free space wave length
6)the free space permeability and the cesium permeability
7)the cavity resonant frequency
You will observe the onset of a signal akin to " non-linearity" by noting
the distortion of the leading edge of a high power pulse sent through said
cavity.
http://airs2.ssec.wisc.edu/~paulv/aeri/aerinsa_nlanalysis/971113b1/971113b1.
html
Thats all people.
Alfred Einstein stands.
Andrea Chen
>
> Keep it up!
> Please try to convince George that his years of hard work
> are finally starting pay off and that he is being taken seriously.
>
I always find this type of thing difficult moral ground to tread and I
don't know why I suddenly get this urge. I know some reasons. I
sincerely love the products of many "kooks," in a minority of cases
truly creative, the kind of stuff zany writers and humorists strive
for. I wish to celebrate it, though sadly this involves laughter which
many are allergic too, but it also involves a defence. I get tired of
people proving their "normality" by ganging up on the misfits. I do
dream of the "sane" and "insane" getting together and creating a
"reality" where madness is indistinguishable from play and the tourist
emerges baffled. One of my favorite episodes of history is San
Francisco's honoring of Emperor Norton, if people like George can take a
bit of respect mixed with laughter, then it's better than these endless
attacks which would drive even a sane person to militancy. I hope *you*
too will at least assure George that if nothing else his work is
courageous.
robert lindsay
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>=========================================================
>
>NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>=========================================================
that way you can stick it to THE MAN at google, who want to make money FAST
offa yer post!
Nope. This Here's GOD we are talking 'bout! You don't get more concrete
than that! GOD don't do no 'dark matter' poetry!
> The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
>elementary and real. It is a simple discovery that I have made
>simply because I am the first physicist in the history of
>the world to take a serious look at the eigenvector structure
>of the relatively recent field of Psychometry. Psychometry
>did not really become established until the invention of the
>mainframe computer in the 1960's... therefore the whole thing
>is only 40 years old... the main results only really 25 years
>old. This is why Physics has never gotten around to looking
>at it.... and also the fact that most physicists have an
>abhorrence of Psychology to begin with.
And their is a reason for that. (Mostly it's the phzzics boys always
got turned down by the psych girls, though)
> Anyway, on another front, Biology only discovered 30 or 40
>years ago that there was such a thing as the Secular Trend...
>i.e. that the human race is getting TALLER with each passing
>century, and Global IQ is going up also (the Flynn Effect).
This is just too easy.
>see:
>http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
>when you get the time.
>
>Concurrently human brain size is ALSO increasing. Now, this
>effect is NOT GENETIC, it is attributed by all experts to
>be due to the rising standard of living worldwide, particularly
>NUTRITION.
> OK.. so what this means is that "Man" has NEVER been fully
>grown at any time in past history. This is graphically shown
>in the following diagram:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
>
>The existence of the Secular Trend PROVES that this growth
>curve deficit really exists.... mainly, about 15% of our
>brains are MISSING (i.e. only partially grown)
This is easier than the above. You got to stop George. Really.
> Now it is a KNOWN FACT that if your brain accidentally stops
>growing you become what is called "mentally retarded"... and
>you have a less than normal IQ. You are referred to as being
>"slow" (mentally slow). This is confirmed by actual measurements
>of Mental Speed. In fact, modern research shows that Mental Speed
>is highly correlated with IQ.
Do you have any pics of a hAWT CHYX in sandals 'flooring it'
with her 'Mental Speed' or no anyone who does?
> Now, according to the Secular Trend, WE ARE ALL SLIGHTLY
>MENTALLY RETARDED, because of the brain growth deficit.
I can't. Really this is like running over skirimisher with your
charging heavy cav units. The WebTV lounger was higher math
compare to this.
> And, if your brain is functioning slower than it should, it
>means that you are UNABLE to see high speed motion. If 15%
>of your brain is missing, you MISS 15% of the action in the
>real world... you "lose 15% of reality".
> Not only that... but the brain growth deficit affects SPACE
>as well as TIME. If 15% of your brain is missing, the entire
>world LOOKS BIGGER to you than it really is.
> So... the whole world looks MAGNIFIED and FASTER to you, than
>it really is, if you have a large brain growth deficit.
> Not only that, you begin to realize that to certain other people
>that it apparently DOES NOT look quite so "big and fast" and
>that they are not anywhere near as afraid of it as you. From this
>experience, people began imagining that there might be a "perfect person"
>somewhere who could actually see reality and was not afraid at all..
>and they named this fictitious person "God".
Except for the dislectics, who named him 'Dog'.
> Now, they could sense that there was something "mental" about
>this difference in SIZE AND SPEED perception between different
>people, and pretty soon they realized that there was a "mental
>reality" which lies BEYOND anyone's ACTUAL REALITY, and they named
>this invisible mental world "Heaven"... because they believed if they
>could ever get there (i.e. be able to see it), they would be like
>God living in Heaven (Paradise)...... and it turns out that they
>WERE ENTIRELY CORRECT ABOUT THATS THEORY; which is called "religion"
>by the way.
> Now, the only thing I have done, is discover that this theory
>can be PROVED using Psychometric eigenvector structure and General
>Relativity.. which is a DRAMATIC HISTORICAL EVENT... because it
>is the first scientific explanation as well as PROOF of the
>existence of GOD. The very fact that it shows that Einstein's
>theory of Relativity is the mathematical proof of God is enough
>to cause a world sensation.
> Of course, finally, a scientific proof of God will immediatly
>have a dramatic effect on world ideology, ecumenical unification,
>world prosperity and mobilization, world peace, and probably
>double the world standard of living in 20 years.
But will it bring back the Amiga?
>> Thankyou in advance for your kindness in this matter.
>
>[Hammond]
>Politeness is an unmistakable sign of power and intelligence.
>Thank you for your posting, and I will be glad to respond
>to any further sober and sincere questions you may have.
You might want to get your sarcasm meter checked there George.
--
Robert Lindsay, NASA - Goddard, Greenbelt MD rlin...@seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov
"I guess a lot of Insane people use the internet to talk to people.
They probably get more insane." -Kurt Stocklmeir, sci.physics, Dec 06, 2000
#include <standard_disclaimer.h> 301-286-9958 ISTJ NON SVM ACERBVS
Joe Manfre
> I hope *you* too will at least assure George that if nothing else
> his work is courageous.
Unfortunately, I think George has started Kookie Cuttering you, at
least in two messages I've just seen in alt.philosophy.debate. It's
not clear though. He did seem upset to be told that you weren't a
woman. (It is an unpleasant tendency of many Usenet guys to get all
squealy and excited when A GIRLIE is talking to them.)
Message-IDs:
<3A8D28BB...@mediaone.net>
<3A8D29FE...@mediaone.net>
JM
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I hope *you* too will at least assure George that if nothing else
> > his work is courageous.
>
> Unfortunately, I think George has started Kookie Cuttering you, at
> least in two messages I've just seen in alt.philosophy.debate. It's
> not clear though. He did seem upset to be told that you weren't a
> woman. (It is an unpleasant tendency of many Usenet guys to get all
> squealy and excited when A GIRLIE is talking to them.)
>
Oh well, it's always one thing or another. All the rumors I started
about myself have a dampening effect, though it goes beyond this. One
of the sad things about the visionaries is they have no sense of play.
I believe if they put their work within such a context, it would have a
better chance, but while demanding open mindedness from others, they
close their minds to others and repeat the forces that drive them into
corners, they call each other kooks with all sincerity. I like them for
the most part and do wish that there could be some sort of acceptance, I
think artistically they create some of the best material and actually
believe that some very interesting speculations could come from
developing their material. But it rarely works to any extent. Years
ago there was a brief, but all too scant creation of an alternative
reality, but my vision isn't anyone elses vision. It's kind of
depressing, I think Archimedes Plutonium and I could have gone far
togwether. I really think there is genuis there (Doctres Neutopia) also
had it. Edited to the best 5% (or even 1%) there material would still
be a vast volume of unintentional satire and wackiness, far superior to
the imitations created by smug, self protecting anti comformists who get
cult status by supposedly celebrating insanity. However they and most
others are disturbed and wish to separate themselves from this stuff.
I've never understood the intensity of the reaction. I feel there are
some really dangerous and wrong ideas and attitudes, passing under
veneers of "normality" and thus persuasive, but they are rarely battled
with similar force and usually only because it becomes personal.
I sometimes wonder if the "mad" are shunned because in the midst of
their delusion and skewed models is something crucial. I believe that
one reason is that they are essentially helpless, they may bluster, but
they don't have an authority to their words. They provide a focus of
social cohesion, the mobs may gather safely. This has always disturbed
me, what disturbs me more is that my attempt to find *some other*
pattern probably has done more harm than good. The darn thing is that
in their own way they are heroic. If one was to batlle societies that
we all agree are bad (eg. Histler's Germany, Mao's China) one would be
ostracized as crazy and easily become so due to social pressures. The
heroic dissidents are by nature and conditioning misfit people. then
the tragedy of having ideas you give your life for and these ideas are
absurd, but in some respects no more absurd than many which gain social
acceptance. For example we still have people who get paid large sums
for claiming that stocks rise on average 14% per year. This is roughly
a million times a century. It would make the Rockefellars and a few
other families trillionares. Yet people plan their lives and society on
such utopian nonsense. Yet it's neutopia which brings out the ire.
Some people used to treat the doctress as though she was a real threat,
really.
pete
> I hope *you*
> too will at least assure George that if nothing else his work is
> courageous.
I can't.
I would if I could, but George already knows me.
> I get tired of
> people proving their "normality" by ganging up on the misfits.
I know what you mean, but the best I've been able to do,
is to ignore George until he's exceeded his previous idiocy
by a full order of magnitude, and then I like to zing a little.
--
pete
Matt McIrvin
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I sometimes wonder if the "mad" are shunned because in the midst of
>their delusion and skewed models is something crucial. I believe that
>one reason is that they are essentially helpless, they may bluster, but
>they don't have an authority to their words. They provide a focus of
>social cohesion, the mobs may gather safely. This has always disturbed
>me, what disturbs me more is that my attempt to find *some other*
>pattern probably has done more harm than good. The darn thing is that
>in their own way they are heroic. If one was to batlle societies that
>we all agree are bad (eg. Histler's Germany, Mao's China) one would be
>ostracized as crazy and easily become so due to social pressures. [...]
I suppose I have an ambivalent feeling about this sort of attitude, mostly
because of the tendency of these people to hang around science
newsgroups. I'm a moderator for sci.physics.research, and a large part of
the work involves keeping these folks' posts out of the group. By the
moral worldview of many reasonable people, what I'm doing is simply evil,
roughly equivalent to torching libraries; I'm censoring a channel of
public communication according to received ideas of what is a sane thing
to talk about. I know that many a.r.k regulars find this kind of activity
ethically repugnant.
But the other side of the coin is that I *know* that otherwise, these
people and the arguing that they provoke would drive out nearly all of
what I consider interesting conversation about physics. I have evidence,
since in fact this is exactly what has happened in most of the unmoderated
physics newsgroups. In sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity, the
posters who do actually know some physics tend to be the sort of gluttons
for punishment who spend all their time arguing with people who have
disproved Einstein in their spare time. I think that I would feel much
more uncomfortable about moderating the group if the unmoderated groups
didn't exist.
On the one hand these folks do things that are often fascinating and
perhaps sometimes artistically brilliant. On the other hand I find it
hard to believe that one of these guys is really going to produce a
Theory of Everything that shakes the world to its foundations. Popular
mythology aside, most of the great advances in science actually haven't
come from people who were originally persecuted as gibbering madmen;
while the *initial* inspiration for a scientific hypothesis can come
from absolutely anywhere, from dreams or acid trips or free association,
at some point you have to make some contact with the physical world and
also see how your explanation relates to other explanations that have
worked in the past, and that's what's usually missing in the posts of
the hermit scientists, as Martin Gardner called them.
--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Beable van Polasm
> I suppose I have an ambivalent feeling about this sort of attitude, mostly
> because of the tendency of these people to hang around science
> newsgroups. I'm a moderator for sci.physics.research,
KEWL! So can you let us post all these crackpot theories in
there? Buddy? Buddy? Pal? Pal? Mate? Mate? MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!
> and a large part of the work involves keeping these folks' posts out
> of the group.
BASTARD!
> By the moral worldview of many reasonable people, what I'm doing is
> simply evil, roughly equivalent to torching libraries; I'm censoring
> a channel of public communication according to received ideas of
> what is a sane thing to talk about. I know that many a.r.k regulars
> find this kind of activity ethically repugnant.
It don't worry me! Feel free to do as much censoring as you like.
Also! Do you wipe your bottom with the Bill Of Rights after you
go to the toilet, you PIG FUKING NAZI??
> But the other side of the coin
Ahhh money. It always comes down to MONEY with your type, doesn't it?
OK HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO PAY YOU FOR YOU TO "APPROVE" THE COLLECTED
WORKS OF LEO SGOUROS BEING POSTED TO S.P.RESEARCH?
> On the one hand these folks do things that are often fascinating and
> perhaps sometimes artistically brilliant. On the other hand I find it
> hard to believe that one of these guys is really going to produce a
> Theory of Everything that shakes the world to its foundations.
That's what they said about Isaac Newton! And he invented gravity,
without which we would all fling off into space, which he also
invented!
cheers
Beable van Polasm
--
/// \\/// \///////// \\/////// \\\\\\\\\///// \\/////// \\///////// \
\/// /// \\/// \\\\\\\/// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/// \\/// \\/// \/// \\\\\\\
\\///// \\\/////// \\\\/////// \\\\\\\\\\/// \\/// \\/// \/////// \\\
\\\/// \\\\/// \\\\\\\\\\\\\/// \\\\\\\\\/// \\/// \\/// \/// \\\\\\\
\\\/// \\\\///////// \\/////// \\\\\\\///// \\\\/////// \\///////// \
Otto Bahn
> I get tired of
> people proving their "normality" by ganging up on the misfits.
Hey! I do it for amusement purposes *only*.
>I do
> dream of the "sane" and "insane" getting together and creating a
> "reality" where madness is indistinguishable from play and the tourist
> emerges baffled.
Or be Jungian where insanity is a sane reaction
to an insane society. We all win! Personally
I think sanity is an insane reaction to an
unsanitory society, but that's just me. I still
cannot get the image out of my head -- working
in a bakery and finding out about the maggots
in the barley soup I had
[bluuuuuhhhhHUUUUUUL]
'Scuse me, it still get me. Ah, there's my napkin.
As I was saying, the gnarly state of humanity is
either a reflection or a cause, but it doesn't
matter which. I've had enough worms for a lifetime,
so I'm going to be cremated when the time comes.
--oTTo--
Matt McIrvin
Polasm <bea...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>That's what they said about Isaac Newton! And he invented gravity,
>without which we would all fling off into space, which he also
>invented!
This is a lovely example: Newton was in fact rather loony, and his
physics theories might have been loonily inspired, but he knew what
conditions they had to satisfy in order to be viable, so they weren't
rejected out of hand except by the evil mastermind Rene Descartes who
was trying to use Vortex Suction and Pressure to build a mighty
Electrothanasia Ray powered by Universal Doubt, only to be defeated by
the awesome intellectual powers of MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE!
Mikal 606
"Matt McIrvin" <mmci...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:mmcirvin-160...@ppp0a139.std.com...
yes, Matt.
Plorkwort
>This is a lovely example: Newton was in fact rather loony, and his
>physics theories might have been loonily inspired, but he knew what
>conditions they had to satisfy in order to be viable, so they weren't
>rejected out of hand except by the evil mastermind Rene Descartes who
>was trying to use Vortex Suction and Pressure to build a mighty
>Electrothanasia Ray powered by Universal Doubt, only to be defeated by
>the awesome intellectual powers of MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE!
>
You are my "History of Science in Western Civilization" professor, and I
claim a pantomime of the making and usage of a Galilean telescope.
Or maybe it counts as hivemindy, since I'm currently reading the Principia
(although, unlike Mr. Bowditch, for whom it was a simple matter of
mathematics, I have not learned Latin in order to do so), and was reading
the Treatise on Light last week, and should be writing a paper on both
this weekend.
Plorkwort
--
Hannah:'It was Frenchified mathematick that brought him to the melancholy
certitude of a world without light or life ... as a wooden stove that must
consume itself until ash and stove are one, and heat is gone from the earth.'
--Tom Stoppard, _Arcadia_
Joseph Michael Bay
mmci...@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) writes:
>rejected out of hand except by the evil mastermind Rene Descartes who
>was trying to use Vortex Suction and Pressure to build a mighty
>Electrothanasia Ray powered by Universal Doubt, only to be defeated by
>the awesome intellectual powers of MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE!
YOU WILL BOW BEFORE MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE.
MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE IS THE SAVIOR OF HUMANITY.
--
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul instructed them to Joe Bay
send ten copies to the Thessalonians and the Stanford University
Ephesians. But the Ephesians broke the chain, Stanford, California
and were punished by the LORD ...
Ranjit Bhatnagar
> That's what they said about Isaac Newton! And he invented gravity,
> without which we would all fling off into space, which he also
> invented!
Good thing he invented gravity first, eh?
Beable van Polasm
Why yes it is, actually. I never thought of it like that before. Imagine
if he invented space first, and then everybody flung off into space and
they were all floating around freezing to death in space, while
simultaneously turning into Crispy Space Bacon from the radiation and
they would be shouting "ISAAC! ISAAAAAAC! HURRY UP AND INVENT GRAVITY!".
And maybe he couldn't hear them if Pascal had already invented Vacuums.
And if "Sound Can't Travel In A Vacuum", how come my vacuum cleaner is
so BLOODY NOISY?
cheers
Beable van Polasm
--
"I hate leonardo dacapprio I thin he is a little bitch and a whiner.
I would pay my life savinge to beable to kick his
ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- Mark Sharpe
http://members.nbci.com/_______/index.html IQC 78189333
Ranjit Bhatnagar
> And if "Sound Can't Travel In A Vacuum", how come my vacuum cleaner is
> so BLOODY NOISY?
'cuz of all the Crispy Space Bacon inside, shouting to Isaac.
Andrea Chen
> I suppose I have an ambivalent feeling about this sort of attitude, mostly
> because of the tendency of these people to hang around science
> newsgroups. I'm a moderator for sci.physics.research, and a large part of
> the work involves keeping these folks' posts out of the group. By the
> moral worldview of many reasonable people, what I'm doing is simply evil,
> roughly equivalent to torching libraries; I'm censoring a channel of
> public communication according to received ideas of what is a
That has never been my view. I've dreamed of groups with *greater*
moderation, posts selected for quality to bring the information to noise
level up to the standards of the printed press. This is a very
different situation than heckling people in alt.alien.visitors or going
in alt.society.neutopia day after day to call Libby a failure.
Edited information isn't censored information as long as there are other
venues and this medium is so designed for people to easily build them.
The function of an editor is to decide what's important. Too much junk,
redundancy even on topic censors. I would object to your position if
it involved getting Archimedes Plutonium's account yanked rather than
automatically filtering out his posts.
Otherwise you are extending your justifiable position to what I consider
mob behavior in groups.
Kenton 'The Great Requiem' Cernea
McIrvin) wrote:
>the awesome intellectual powers of MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE!
FIGHT, MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE! FOR EVERLASTING PEACE!
--Kenton.
Kenton "The Great Requiem" Cernea
President, Tri-State Anime Club
http://www.suteki-enterprises.com
Communicate sunshine days always smile best friend so happy today happiness.
--the text on my DiGi Charat mousepad
Christopher Adams
>
>
> FIGHT, MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE! FOR EVERLASTING PEACE!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
--
Chris "The Tramp" Adams
I am the way of all flesh.
XEAUIK EREF EM-NEMMET
Your Procreative Organ Is Next
Upon The Sacrificial Altar.
David DeLaney
>This is a lovely example: Newton was in fact rather loony, and his
>physics theories might have been loonily inspired, but he knew what
>conditions they had to satisfy in order to be viable, so they weren't
>rejected out of hand except by the evil mastermind Rene Descartes who
>was trying to use Vortex Suction and Pressure to build a mighty
>Electrothanasia Ray powered by Universal Doubt, only to be defeated by
>the awesome intellectual powers of MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE!
You are J. Gregory Keyes, and I claim an angel. (Just one.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Crgre Jvyyneq
00:29:43 GMT]
>In article <m3vgqar...@beable.van.polasm.bigpond.net.au>,
>Beable van Polasm <bea...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>That's what they said about Isaac Newton! And he invented
>>gravity, without which we would all fling off into space,
>>which he also invented!
>
>This is a lovely example: Newton was in fact rather loony,
[Newton}
I'm going to put little dots on top of these ygrecs and then I'm
going to make a special green dragon that will reorbit the moon
so I can win the Longitude Prize!!!
--
Crgre http://www.drizzle.com/~petew
"Does your imaginary friend make you invisible too? Who
notices?" -- Ric Carter
Matt McIrvin
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Edited information isn't censored information as long as there are other
>venues and this medium is so designed for people to easily build them.
>The function of an editor is to decide what's important. Too much junk,
>redundancy even on topic censors. I would object to your position if
>it involved getting Archimedes Plutonium's account yanked rather than
>automatically filtering out his posts.
Well, I've seen ringing manifestoes about the evils of moderated
discussion fora before, so tend to be somewhat wary about confessing
my editorial role...
(There are also people who write really long, elaborate posts *for
the specific purpose* of getting them rejected by the moderators,
so that they can post them elsewhere with the saga of their martrydom.)
Brack!
>>> the awesome intellectual powers of MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE!
>>
>>
>> FIGHT, MICROMEGAVOLTAIRE! FOR EVERLASTING PEACE!
>
>FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB!
WE GET SIGNAL
WHAT!
MAIN SCREEN TURN ON
IT'S YOU!
HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMAN?
>ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION!
WHAT YOU SAY!!
YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME
CATS: HA HA HA!
These people really love spam | QQ_ (()
<root@[127.0.0.1]> | | "o -Squeek! c^^ |
<MAILER-DAEMON@[127.0.0.1]> | (_ |) Squeek!- (| _)
<abuse@[127.0.0.1]> | [__] |__]
pres...@whitehouse.gov | ] | Brack! nn_____ | [
<.@[127.0.0.1]> UNSUBSCRIBE | \ .II,,__,,)~~
Crgre Jvyyneq
17:00:39 GMT]
>In article <Xns904A61059...@209.30.0.14>,
>man...@flash.net says...
>
>> For those of you who missed it because it wasn't posted to
>> ARK, here is George's followup to me:
>> http://home.flash.net/~manfre/usenet/hammond.txt
>
>Uh Oh! It looks like you made a new friend!
>
>I expect you to start screaming about eigenvectors and
>calling people amateurish IMMEDIATELY!
>
AND how Barbara Streisand made a FATAL mistake by not staying
with Chris Christoffelsymbol.
Andrea Chen
>
> Well, I've seen ringing manifestoes about the evils of moderated
> discussion fora before, so tend to be somewhat wary about confessing
> my editorial role...
>
> (There are also people who write really long, elaborate posts *for
> the specific purpose* of getting them rejected by the moderators,
> so that they can post them elsewhere with the saga of their martrydom.)
>
I know. But if my recollection is correct, you go way back. So using
*my* reservations about certain of *our* behavior, I strss ours is a
little insulting. When I ran alt.cyberspace I posted *many* serious
articles on my views about Usenet and how it should develop, a few
newsletters even asked for permission and one of my phrases,
"information doesn't want to be free, it wants to be valuable" even has
continued circulation.
So I would hope that if you put my statements about this issue in the
larger context of *my* previously stated opinions. I certainly edit in
a non moderated context. For example I was being a nuisance in
sci.physics and Harry Connover started posting, so I did my best
(apparently successfully) to get rid of him as a public service. My
position is very contradictory, based on nuances of situation (which
incidently doesn't apply for the most part to kibologists on the issue
of harassing kooks, most of the work here is justifiable artistically
and not hammered over and over with hatred (*), there are questions but
my feelings are less clear.)
I guess I feel frustrated because it seems like certain techniques of
mine act as "buttons" which block the rest. I would say that roughly
half of my posts have always been primarily serious and that even the
playful pieces have had ideas.
A high percentage of quality has always been the goal. Finding ways to
build it were really the key to neu neutopia. That's why we went from
group to group to find authors and cluste them. That's why we made
slogans such as "good posts tend to drive out good," an observation
justified by this group where much of the work is of better quality than
easily found in mainstream humor.
So when you (as you did in a previous post) put *my* remark in the
context of idiots who have never thought about this medium or how it
works, it is frustrating. I am talking about issues of morality and
dealing with the weakest among us, in many cases not the persistent
Hammonds, but the more fragile who expose themselves and are more
routinely hurt.
It has *nothing* to do with mantaining standards in certain niches.
-ac-
(*) One case where an alleged kibologist (I say alleged because tghe
individuals membershipo in the movement was disputed by Lisa Pea and
others) *apparently* became hatefully obsessed was James Parry and
Archimedes Plutonium. Hopefully these posts have been archived because
many are insanely funny. Bill Cleere described it as a comic situation
in which you have this poor guy trying to watch TV or sleep and the guy
upstairs is thumping real loud and shouting equations, so the guy
downstairs goes and does about 20 things to him which is like Itchy and
Scratchy. He goes down stairs and with a sigh of relief sits back and
then upstairs the hands come out of the sink, the tongue rises from the
floor... the guy upstairs reconstitutes himself and shouts (really loud"
"AND NOW I HAVE A NEW THEORY!"
It was brilliant, but James Parry must admit that Archimedes inspired
him to lengths nothing else has, he was an inspiration and a muse and
the Plutonium work interspersed with Parry's stands well alone. Yet we
*neglect* to thank this genuis for what he's done. Yet who hear has not
had many, many belly laughs, the sort that professional comedians strive
for from the inspiration of the great Mr. Plutonium. And who here has
had the decency to advise Herr Doktor Uncle Al that repeatedly accusing
Archimedes of the Dartmouth murders borders on libel. You know we've
just about reached the point that if the police come knocking on
Archimede's door and terrify him with questions (this is a painfully
unstable person) we'd find it funny. Think about it.
Matt McIrvin
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So when you (as you did in a previous post) put *my* remark in the
>context of idiots who have never thought about this medium or how it
>works, it is frustrating. I am talking about issues of morality and
>dealing with the weakest among us, in many cases not the persistent
>Hammonds, but the more fragile who expose themselves and are more
>routinely hurt.
Sorry about that, it was a misunderstanding left over from the
flamewar over Usenet II a few years back, which I don't think
involved you.
>And who here has
>had the decency to advise Herr Doktor Uncle Al that repeatedly accusing
>Archimedes of the Dartmouth murders borders on libel.
Wow, I didn't know Uncle Al was doing that now. I mostly just read the
stuff he posts to sci.physics.research, which these days consists largely
of stumping for an unusual variant of the Eotvos experiment testing
general relativity (it's a novel idea and I think it would be kind of cool
if somebody did it, though I don't quite buy his theoretical arguments
about why it is vitally important for the future of physics). He does
have a tendency to explode at perceived kooks, newbies, and Democrats.
archie bumker
mmci...@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
Just to stay on topic, I've got a question for Herr Doxtor Mcirvin.
Say the univere looks like it has a negative curvature from red shift
data. O.K.
Now, It's also supposto be finite (for some reasons I forget).
Also, I think it's supposto be unbounded ( since bounderies are not
allowed )
My brane cannot find a picture -suitabeable for framing- ideas.
Any help please?
spot the robot
I like those flourescent jobs on black velvet.
David DeLaney
>Just to stay on topic, I've got a question for Herr Doxtor Mcirvin.
>
>Say the univere looks like it has a negative curvature from red shift
>data. O.K.
>
>Now, It's also supposto be finite (for some reasons I forget).
>
>Also, I think it's supposto be unbounded ( since bounderies are not allowed )
>
>My brane cannot find a picture -suitabeable for framing- ideas.
>Any help please?
Well, positive/finite/unbounded is easy: it's an apple! I mean a sphere!
So negative/finite/unbounded, logically, would be the opposite, except it's
not - you can get one that's a sphere but everything gets _reeeeeeeal_ small
near each edge but I think that's finite. But you could work from there...
archie bumker
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> archie bumker <mare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Just to stay on topic, I've got a question for Herr Doxtor Mcirvin.
> >
> >Say the univere looks like it has a negative curvature from red shift
> >data. O.K.
> >
> >Now, It's also supposto be finite (for some reasons I forget).
> >
> >Also, I think it's supposto be unbounded ( since bounderies are not
> >allowed )
> >
> >My brane cannot find a picture -suitabeable for framing- ideas.
> >Any help please?
>
> Well, positive/finite/unbounded is easy: it's an apple! I mean a sphere!
> So negative/finite/unbounded, logically, would be the opposite, except
> it's
> not - you can get one that's a sphere but everything gets _reeeeeeeal_
> small
> near each edge but I think that's finite. But you could work from
> there...
>
> Dave
where is each edge of a sphere?? I'm so confused...
So are you saying it looks like a pear, but when you get all
comfortable near the top, the bottom falls off and yer pants explodiate?
Can't you just draw me a nice ascii picture of what it looks like?
HUH? HUH? HUH?
Matt McIrvin
>archie bumker <mare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Just to stay on topic, I've got a question for Herr Doxtor Mcirvin.
>>
>>Say the univere looks like it has a negative curvature from red shift
>>data. O.K.
>>
>>Now, It's also supposto be finite (for some reasons I forget).
>>
>>Also, I think it's supposto be unbounded ( since bounderies are not allowed )
>>
>>My brane cannot find a picture -suitabeable for framing- ideas.
>>Any help please?
>
>Well, positive/finite/unbounded is easy: it's an apple! I mean a sphere!
>So negative/finite/unbounded, logically, would be the opposite, except it's
>not - you can get one that's a sphere but everything gets _reeeeeeeal_ small
>near each edge but I think that's finite. But you could work from there...
There are actually negatively curved, finite and unbounded manifolds;
one of them made the cover of Scientific American many years ago... it
looked like what you get if you take this sort of floppy pointy
dodecahedron and identify opposite faces with a twist.
But, anyway, the people saying the universe is negatively curved
typically don't insist that it's finite. The *observable* universe
is finite, but that's just because it's finitely old so we can only
see out so far.
Also, anything could be happening further away than the part we
can see.
Joe Manfre
> But, anyway, the people saying the universe is negatively curved
> typically don't insist that it's finite. The *observable* universe
> is finite, but that's just because it's finitely old so we can only
> see out so far.
True, but you forgot the part about how the observable universe is the
5f6 electron shell of a plutonium atom. All this time as a code
grinder has apparently stolen some of your vaunted physics knowledge!
> Also, anything could be happening further away than the part we
> can see.
You can say that again! I hear that over on that other electron shell
across the street, their version of the Internet has Usenet as the
really popular hyper-commercialized part, while the Web is an outpost
for geeks and weirdos and a gaggle of inane UsenetTV users who all the
COOL PEOPLE make fun of.
JM
--
Joe Manfre, Hyattsville, Maryland. http://www.manfre-land.com
``If you talk about a weak format like the Match Game, you've gotta do
something to jazz it up or make it fun or light or something, so
that's what I did.'' -- Gene Rayburn
Crgre Jvyyneq
22:54:14 GMT]
>
>But, anyway, the people saying the universe is negatively
>curved typically don't insist that it's finite.
Last time I tuned-in, spacetime was flat flat FLAT -- what
happened to make it go negative?
>The
>*observable* universe is finite, but that's just because it's
>finitely old so we can only see out so far.
>Also, anything could be happening further away than the part
>we can see.
But is it big enough to contain a copy of itself? OK, sure it
is, but isn't that all we can see -- the copy? So again, I am
forced to ask -- WHERE IS THE UNIVERSE???!!!
Dag Right-square-bracket-gren
> In article <slrn996o7...@gatekeeper.vic.com>, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com
> (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>Well, positive/finite/unbounded is easy: it's an apple! I mean a sphere!
>>So negative/finite/unbounded, logically, would be the opposite, except it's
>>not - you can get one that's a sphere but everything gets _reeeeeeeal_ small
>>near each edge but I think that's finite. But you could work from there...
> There are actually negatively curved, finite and unbounded manifolds;
> one of them made the cover of Scientific American many years ago... it
> looked like what you get if you take this sort of floppy pointy
> dodecahedron and identify opposite faces with a twist.
Oh dear. Now I'll have to implement one of those in Swear. But I'll bet
you can describe implicitly, and I'd have implement explicit surfaces, and
I don't wanna do that!
Happen to have any of the maths for it around?
--
Dag Agren <> d...@c3.cx <> http://www.abo.fi/~dagren/ <> Legalize oregano
"Napster is such a Hippie idea -- an electronic commune.
Cellphones and portable MP3 players are the bongs and
lovebeads of the new millenium." - E Teflon Piano
Joseph Michael Bay
mmci...@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) writes:
>But, anyway, the people saying the universe is negatively curved
>typically don't insist that it's finite. The *observable* universe
>is finite, but that's just because it's finitely old so we can only
>see out so far.
>Also, anything could be happening further away than the part we
>can see.
ATOM
--
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul instructed them to Joe Bay
send ten copies to the Thessalonians and the Stanford University
Ephesians. But the Ephesians broke the chain, Stanford, California
and were punished by the LORD All your base are belong to us
archie bumker
mmci...@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
> In article <slrn996o7...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com
> (David DeLaney) wrote:
> >Well, positive/finite/unbounded is easy: it's an apple! I mean a sphere!
> >So negative/finite/unbounded, logically, would be the opposite, except
> >it's
> >not - you can get one that's a sphere but everything gets _reeeeeeeal_
> >small
> >near each edge but I think that's finite. But you could work from
> >there...
>
> There are actually negatively curved, finite and unbounded manifolds;
> one of them made the cover of Scientific American many years ago... it
> looked like what you get if you take this sort of floppy pointy
> dodecahedron and identify opposite faces with a twist.
That sounds kinda kinky
> But, anyway, the people saying the universe is negatively curved
> typically don't insist that it's finite. The *observable* universe
> is finite, but that's just because it's finitely old so we can only
> see out so far.
>
> Also, anything could be happening further away than the part we
> can see.
I thought the big band bang made the space thats expanding even faster
than my big fat tummy.
How did it get to be infinite if it wasn't around before the start of
the number?
(plus Oble><ers paradox thingamabob, though that probably doesn't change
things too much)
Maybe it does look like a pear, just like in THGTTG. Plus big. I mean
really big. You may bla bla bla bla bla bla more plagerism bla bla bla.
I have to submit these posts as my PH.D thesis for the Joe Manfre
Institut Von Kookanpirschenphysik, so please show all your work.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=====================================================
Joe Manfre wrote:
>
> Matt McIrvin <mmci...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> > But, anyway, the people saying the universe is negatively curved
> > typically don't insist that it's finite. The *observable* universe
> > is finite, but that's just because it's finitely old so we can only
> > see out so far.
>
> True, but you forgot the part about how the observable universe is the
> 5f6 electron shell of a plutonium atom. All this time as a code
> grinder has apparently stolen some of your vaunted physics knowledge!
[Hammond]
Hey.... Manfre.. this doesn't sound much like a PhD physicist
and former instructor at MIT talking. What the hell are you doing
living in Hyattsville?
>
> > Also, anything could be happening further away than the part we
> > can see.
>
> You can say that again! I hear that over on that other electron shell
> across the street, their version of the Internet has Usenet as the
> really popular hyper-commercialized part, while the Web is an outpost
> for geeks and weirdos and a gaggle of inane UsenetTV users who all the
> COOL PEOPLE make fun of.
>
> JM
[Hammond]
Joe... I'm trying to contact you because you evidently know
Physics and something about Psychology (latter self tought).
I find your humor rather dry... meaning you're probably a
more able physicist than me. I need to talk to another
Physicist who has seen the real world... there aren't a lot
of them around. Please email me for a few words privately.
PS: I understand Matt McIrvin is one of your pseudonyms...
you're not sitting here talking to yourself are you?
If you can afford to waste time talking to yourself surely
you can afford a few minutes to talk to me. I even lived
in Hyattsville at one time tho I hale from Cape Cod. We
can discuss Hyattsville.
>
> --
> Joe Manfre, Hyattsville, Maryland. http://www.manfre-land.com
> ``If you talk about a weak format like the Match Game, you've gotta do
> something to jazz it up or make it fun or light or something, so
> that's what I did.'' -- Gene Rayburn
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fantod
>[Hammond]
>Hey.... Manfre.. this doesn't sound much like a PhD physicist
>and former instructor at MIT talking.
What hath God wrought?
--
Patrick Phelan
w____\\W//___w Te Hupenui
Sam Antics
http://copeland.choicelogic.com/~phelan/
Matt McIrvin
Right-square-bracket-gren <d...@c3.cx> wrote:
>Matt McIrvin <mmci...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>> There are actually negatively curved, finite and unbounded manifolds;
>> one of them made the cover of Scientific American many years ago... it
>> looked like what you get if you take this sort of floppy pointy
>> dodecahedron and identify opposite faces with a twist.
>
>Oh dear. Now I'll have to implement one of those in Swear. But I'll bet
>you can describe implicitly, and I'd have implement explicit surfaces, and
>I don't wanna do that!
>
>Happen to have any of the maths for it around?
Nope. Also what I just described was a three-dimensional closed
manifold; it doesn't have any 2d surface. And I don't think you can
even embed it in 4d Euclidean space.
George Hammond
>
> [George Hammond]:
>
> >[Hammond]
> >Hey.... Manfre.. this doesn't sound much like a PhD physicist
> >and former instructor at MIT talking.
>
> What hath God wrought?
>
> --
> Patrick Phelan
> w____\\W//___w Te Hupenui
> Sam Antics
> http://copeland.choicelogic.com/~phelan/
--
Fantod
>Puke
I think you mean "Steaming glass of puke". Hope this helps.
And isn't that a high school cafeteria one liner?
PS: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!
--
Patrick Phelan
w____\\W//___w Te Hupenui
Now let's forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice cream!
http://copeland.choicelogic.com/~phelan/
Xcott Craver
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Fantod wrote:
> >>
> >> What hath God wrought?
> >>
>
>Puke
Keep this blasphemous juvenile crap out of the alt.religion
hierarchy.
Obviously you don't *really* believe you've proven the existence
of God, if you're willing to declare that God Hath Wrought Puke.
Isn't he watching right now? Like Santa Claus?
-S
Dag Agren
mmci...@world.std.com says...
I've been considering making a 4d version of Swear for some time now, but
it'd still have to use 2d surfaces, because otherwise it would be too
weird for anyone to play. But I'm having some trouble visualizing it all.
--
Dag Agren <> d...@c3.cx <> http://www.abo.fi/~dagren/ <> Legalize Oregano
"It's the Liberal Media who have brainwashed everyone with that
``Ellen'' show. Even Clinton got so fed up with that, he sent
her back to Cuba!" - Peter Willard