GOD AND STOOGES OF PHYSICS
George Hammond
of the all time greatest stooges in Physics himself being
totally ignorant of God until past the age of 50 so I would
ask physicists not to take any great personal offence at the
title of this post.
The purpose of this post then is to upgrade the social
awareness of the Physics dept. so that they might become
more at ease in the erudite company of other non-scientific
authorities, such as the ecclesiastical authorities. It
pains me to the core to see our great physicists, such as
Stepehen Hawking looking stupid while visiting the Pope!
It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
of "GOD"
PHYSICS is totally IGNORANT of this!
GENERAL RELATIVITY has almost NO IMPACT on
modern technology or everyday life. Quantum
Mechanics itself could even CARE LESS about GR.
Science writers continually marvel that the world's
most "exotic theory", the world's most "sophisticated
discovery" seems to have NO VISIBLE IMPACT on
science, technology or the world!
HOW CAN THIS BE
THEY KEEP ASKING
This while BILLIONS OF PEOPLE are in a state of
utter turmoil about something called "G-O-D".
How long will it be before the
socially challenged physics
dept. puts 2 and 2 together?
How long will it be before physicists
realize that the central physical
manifestation of General Relativity
is in fact the phenomenon of "G-O-D"?
How long will the discovery
of a scientific proof of God
be suppressed by the religious
ignorance of Physics?
THE DISCOVERY IS SIMPLE
It is so simple a high school graduate
can understand it!
There is both "objective" and "subjective"
spacetime.
Objective spacetime is measured with
rulers and clocks. Subjective spacetime
is measured by your body size and mental speed.
Amazingly it has been discovered that subjective
spacetime is ALSO CURVED just like objective
spacetime is. The curvature of objective
spacetime causes Gravity (Einstein 1915).
It turns out he curvature of subjective spacetime
causes God (Hammond, 2003).
The curvature of subjective spacetime is much
LARGER than the curvature of objective spacetime,
hence GOD is a much larger visible effect than
Gravity!
At any rate, the discovery that subjective
spacetime is CURVED constitutes the world's first
scientific proof of God, and it's high time that the
physics department knew about it.
The discovery has been published by me in the
peer reviewed literature and you can read all about
it including my published papers at my website at:
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Helmut Wabnig
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>How long will the discovery
>of a scientific proof of God
>be suppressed by the religious
>ignorance of Physics?
>
Where is that "proof"?
Never seen one.
w.
--
Thanks God that I am an Atheist.
Gottseidank bin ich Atheist.
(Who cares?)
Dono
> NOTE: The author is an MS Physics ('67) and a confirmed:
Jeckyl
news:clrmn3l5jb8slnolv...@4ax.com...
> NOTE: The author is an MS Physics ('67)
Which has nothing to this supposed proof
> and perhaps one
> of the all time greatest stooges in Physics
Yes .. you are a stooge
> himself being
> totally ignorant of God until past the age of 50
When you lost your marbles
[snip a load of religious crap]
> It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
> of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
> of "GOD"
Utter crap .. it is no such thing, and you certainly have NOT ever produced
a proof that it was. I've read what you claim as a proof .. so have many
others .. all agree it is crap.
> PHYSICS is totally IGNORANT of this!
And rightly so
> GENERAL RELATIVITY has almost NO IMPACT on
> modern technology or everyday life.
Irrelevant
> Quantum
> Mechanics itself could even CARE LESS about GR.
Irrelevant
> Science writers continually marvel that the world's
> most "exotic theory", the world's most "sophisticated
> discovery" seems to have NO VISIBLE IMPACT on
> science, technology or the world!
Incorrect.
> HOW CAN THIS BE
> THEY KEEP ASKING
No .. they don't
> This while BILLIONS OF PEOPLE are in a state of
> utter turmoil about something called "G-O-D".
Now you're getting irrelevant again.
> How long will it be before the
> socially challenged physics
> dept. puts 2 and 2 together?
How long will you keep posting shit?
> How long will it be before physicists
> realize that the central physical
> manifestation of General Relativity
> is in fact the phenomenon of "G-O-D"?
Infinitely long, hopefully, as it is a load of crap.
> How long will the discovery
> of a scientific proof of God
> be suppressed by the religious
> ignorance of Physics?
Until there is such a proof .. you have not presented one
> THE DISCOVERY IS SIMPLE
You are simple
> It is so simple a high school graduate
> can understand it!
That doesn't make it correct .. just simplistic.
[snip crap]
Tani Jantsang©
> of the all time greatest stooges in Physics himself being
> totally ignorant of God until past the age of 50 so I would
> ask physicists not to take any great personal offence at the
> title of this post.
> The purpose of this post then is to upgrade the social
> awareness of the Physics dept. so that they might become
> more at ease in the erudite company of other non-scientific
> authorities, such as the ecclesiastical authorities. It
> pains me to the core to see our great physicists, such as
> Stepehen Hawking looking stupid while visiting the Pope!
> It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
> of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
> of "GOD"
Mehh, why do you keep posting this crap on here? None of this explains me,
or my people, or our cultural philosophy that has NO centralized conception
of any god-being at all. None. Are so many of us immune to the curvature
of space? This doesn't explain billions of Chinese who are not known for
being a people steeped in superstitious idiocy.
People INVENT gods in their OWN IMAGES - but I must say that not ALL people
tend to do this kind of thing at all. My people NEVER did it - not at any
time.
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:clrmn3l5jb8slnolv...@4ax.com...
>> NOTE: The author is an MS Physics ('67) and perhaps one
>> of the all time greatest stooges in Physics himself being
>> totally ignorant of God until past the age of 50 so I would
>> ask physicists not to take any great personal offence at the
>> title of this post.
>> The purpose of this post then is to upgrade the social
>> awareness of the Physics dept. so that they might become
>> more at ease in the erudite company of other non-scientific
>> authorities, such as the ecclesiastical authorities. It
>> pains me to the core to see our great physicists, such as
>> Stepehen Hawking looking stupid while visiting the Pope!
>> It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
>> of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
>> of "GOD"
>
>Mehh, why do you keep posting this crap on here?
[Hammond]
1. Because "God" is applied Relativity theory.
2. Because I'm a graduate physicist (MS).
3. Because there are supposed to be
other competent physicists here.
> None of this explains me,
>or my people, or our cultural philosophy that has NO centralized conception
>of any god-being at all. None. Are so many of us immune to the curvature
>of space? This doesn't explain billions of Chinese who are not known for
>being a people steeped in superstitious idiocy.
>
[Hammond]
"Your people" didn't discovere automobiles, atomic
energy, or Democracy either. The discovery of "God" is a
very sophisticated achievement and requires a high
civilization..... which is why the existence of "God" was
first discovered by the Egyptian Empire 4,000 years ago and
why that historic achievement remains inscribed on the walls
of the Pyramids to this day.
>People INVENT gods in their OWN IMAGES -
[Hammond]
"God" was discovered to ber an "invisible man" and have
the form of a man thousands of years ago. Thus, every man
IS a walking "image of God".
> but I must say that not ALL people
>tend to do this kind of thing at all. My people NEVER did it - not at any
>time.
>
[Hammond]
The Third World, even China with 2 billion PAGAN citizens
is destined to jump right from a state with "no religion" to
a state with a "scientific religion"- virtually overnight!
This is because, above all else China and the 3rd World
have infinite faith in Science, so when they find out that a
scientific proof of God has been discovered, they'll realize
the truth of it immediately and sieze upon it for their own
protection..... protection against the elite white Christian
West mainly. The Chinese don't think much of a middle
eastern minority guy being nailed to a cross and held up in
the air by a bunch of white Christians, ya know!
This is why it's important for the Christians to
recognize this discovery of a scientific proof of God and
overhaul Christianity ASAP and base it on science rather
than the archaic cultural monstrosity of Antisemitism.
George Hammond
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
>> of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
>> of "GOD"
>>
>
>Before we prance off and consider spacetime, please define this GOD.
>What is you definition of it, since the term means many things to many
>people. Only then could we see if it is a consequence of GR.
>
[Hammond]
My discovery addresses the WELL KNOWN popular, historical
(and Biblical) definition of "God"... namely that he is:
"An invisible man who lives in an
invislbe world called Heaven, and
that he miraculously rules the
world and human destiny from there."
The discovery that this "God" and all his attributes and
entire historical development can be fully described as a
"Curvature of subjective spacetime" is confirmed in that the
discovery fully scientifically explains the following 13
comprehensive and well known claims about this "God":
1. Why there physically exists an "invisible world"
known as "Heaven" which is similar to Earth but
is a paradise.
2. Why God is an "invisible man" who lives there
and is all powerful and rules the actual (visible)
world from there.
3. Why this God can effect miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
4. Why Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
5. Why historically Religion has evolved from
Polytheism to Monotheism.
6. Why Christianity says the world is transforming
itself into Heaven and will actually complete this
at a date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the
"end of the world".
7. Why there is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
8. Why it is believed that Jesus was the physical
"incarnation of God"
9. Why the Cross for some reason is the central
symbol of (Western) Religion.
10. Why for some reason our main canonical text is
written in 4 identical versions known as the
"4-Gospel Canon".
11. How God "created the world" only a matter of
"thousands" of years ago (Genesis) not "billions"
of years ago (Big Bang) as Science believes.
12. Why God created man "in his own image".
13. Why there is a "Trinity of God" and what it is,
scientifically.
That a single simple scientific principle (God=G_uv, wch
has been experimentally measured btw... i.e. the curvature
of subjective spacetime can be and has been measured) could
comprehensively explain the entire content and history of
religion and God is, even to a casual scientific observer,
PRIMA FACIE the discovery of the world's first "scientific
proof of God"..... without question!
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:46:58 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:clrmn3l5jb8slnolv...@4ax.com...
>>> NOTE: The author is an MS Physics ('67) and perhaps one
>>> of the all time greatest stooges in Physics himself being
>>> totally ignorant of God until past the age of 50 so I would
>>> ask physicists not to take any great personal offence at the
>>> title of this post.
>>> The purpose of this post then is to upgrade the social
>>> awareness of the Physics dept. so that they might become
>>> more at ease in the erudite company of other non-scientific
>>> authorities, such as the ecclesiastical authorities. It
>>> pains me to the core to see our great physicists, such as
>>> Stepehen Hawking looking stupid while visiting the Pope!
>>> It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
>>> of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
>>> of "GOD"
>>
>>Mehh, why do you keep posting this crap on here?
>
> [Hammond]
> 1. Because "God" is applied Relativity theory.
Crap
> 2. Because I'm a graduate physicist (MS).
Irrelevant
> 3. Because there are supposed to be
> other competent physicists here.
There are .. and they know better .. your theory on god has nothing to to
with relativity.
[snip religious claptrap]
George Hammond
<jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>George Hammond wrote:
>> "Subjective spacetime" is what people call "subjective
>> reality". when a cop gives you a sobriety test he is seeing
>> if your "subjective reality" matches up to "objective
>> reality". If he doesn't think so because of alcohol
>> ingestion he will arrest you.
>
>He is not measuring the subject's "subjective reality," he's measuring
>the subject's level of physical impairment caused by a high blood
>alcohol level.
[Hammond]
Lets not quibble over roadside sobriety tests...I'll just
prove that your CONCLUSION, cited next, is FALSE!
> Reality isn't subjective.
[Hammond]
You got to be kiddin... you think all people see the same
reality... clearly that's false.
Actual measurement shows that the PFF (movie picture
fusion frequency) of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec and
increases linearly with age to 16 frames/sec for a 15 year
old. Technically, this means the "Fourier Cutoff Frequency"
of visible motion, as any graduate physicist or engineer
will tell you, is 33% lower for the young kid. This means
1/3 of all motion that is visible to the 15 year old is
INVISIBLE to the 7 year old.... this is the visual analog of
the "dog whistle effect"...people can't hear a dog whistle
but dogs can....likewise, the 15 year old can see 1/3 more
of moving reality than the 7 year old can. Put in common
parlance "1/3 of reality is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old". Thus
SUBJECTIVE REALITY IS DIFFERENT for the two people, as any
parent will tell you.
What does this have to do with "God"? It's simple. The
discovery of the Secular Trend in human growth 100 years
ago shows that nobody is "full grown". Actual measurement
of the Secular Trend shows that the average man is about 20%
short of full theoretical growth (this is commonly phrased
as: "he never reached his full height and weight").... this
means 20% of objective reality ..is actually INVISIBLE to
the AVERAGE MAN..... and this causes an "invisble world"
which Religion calls "Heaven".
Try to get up to speed buddy before you start arguing
trivia with me about roadside sobriety tests for
chrissakes... this ISN'T an amateur discussion.
Dono
> 2. Because I'm a graduate physicist (MS).
More like a :
THE_ONE
I always knew that there was a " GOD WEBSITE ", and now you give us "
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE ", we all thank you.
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>There are .. and they know better .. your theory on god has nothing to to
>with relativity.
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:2bvpn3diul43qtsud...@4ax.com...
>>>[Jeckyl]
>>> Reality isn't subjective.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> You got to be kiddin... you think all people see the same
>> reality...
>
>[Jeckyl]
>Yes .. they do .. it is only their subjective interpratation of it that is
>different. and the subjective interpretation is not realilty.
>
[Hammond]
You know just enough physics to be easily proven wrong
Stooge.
Every visually moving object is a time varying function,
therefore it has a corresponding (Fourier-Laplace)
"frequency spectrum".
THE PROVEN FACT IS (Riedel 1966, and many others since)
that the "cutoff frequency" of this spectrum is 10 Hz for a
7 year old and 16 Hz for an adult. This is easily measured
by the PFF (movie picture fusion frequency) using a simple
variable speed movie projector. This was discovered by
Thomas Edison himself.
Obviously then 1/3 of the motion seen by an adult is
INVISIBLE to a 7 year old. The motion is simply an
INVISIBLE BLUR to the 7 yr old while it is CLEARLY VISIBLE
to the adult.
This has NOTHING to do with "INTERPRETATION"!
PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT
OVERALL GROWTH DO N-O-T
SEE THE SAME REALITY
QED, ALL PEOPLE DO N-O-T SEE THE SAME REALITY
and you are EXPERIMENTALLY REFUTED... just plain WRONG!
Moreover.... this simple effect underlies the ENTIRE
PHENOMENA OF "G-O-D".... but you're to much of a "Physics
Stooge" to understand that apparently!
I suggest you go back to arguing the Sagnac Effect with
morons instead of STALKING me around and posting STOOGE
HARRASSMENT to my discussion threads.... and leave original
scientific discovery to the big boys like HAMMOND.
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:tfqrn35ksmjutu2q2...@4ax.com...
>
>BTW: Studies show a negative correlation with age of fusion frequency .. the
>frequency decreases with age. Your claim of a linear increase is totally
>contrary to experimental evidence
>
[Hammond]
That's FLICKER fusion frequency dumbass, NOT PICTURE
fusion frequency!
FFF = Flicker Fusion Frequency (75 Hz)
PFF = Picture Fusion Frequency (16 Hz)
A movie camera works because of PFF, not FFF,.... stooopid.
PFF correlates DIRECTLY WITH AGE until age 18.....stooopid
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
YOU'RE INCOMPETENT
<SNIP.........STOOOPID AMATEUR>
GET OFF THIS THREAD
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:59:39 +1100, "Jeckyl"
><no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:tfqrn35ksmjutu2q2...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>BTW: Studies show a negative correlation with age of fusion frequency .. the
>>frequency decreases with age. Your claim of a linear increase is totally
>>contrary to experimental evidence
>>
>
>[Hammond]
> That's FLICKER fusion frequency dumbass, NOT PICTURE
>fusion frequency!
>
>FFF = Flicker Fusion Frequency (75 Hz)
>
>PFF = Picture Fusion Frequency (16 Hz)
>
>
>A movie camera works because of PFF, not FFF,.... stooopid.
>
>PFF correlate DIRECTLY WITH AGE until age 18.....stooopid
>
>YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
>YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
>YOU'RE INCOMPETENT
>
><SNIP.........STOOOPID AMATEUR>
>
>GET OFF THIS THREAD
>
[Hammond]
PS:
Lehrl states (1990):
It is remarkable that flicker fusion (30-50 Hz) has
nothing to do with picture fusion (mean = 15-16 Hz).
Picture fusion is related to intelligence, whereas,
according to Jensen (1983), flicker fusion has virtually no
correlation with intelligence.
NOTE (Hammond): Intelligence increases linearly up to
age 18, which is WHY PFF increasely linearly with age up to
18 also.
THE_WON
[Hammond]
Go read it and don't forget it.... someday it'll save
your life. And then you'll know why.
Tani Jantsang©
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:46:58 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>
>> None of this explains me,
>>or my people, or our cultural philosophy that has NO centralized
>>conception
>>of any god-being at all. None. Are so many of us immune to the curvature
>>of space? This doesn't explain billions of Chinese who are not known for
>>being a people steeped in superstitious idiocy.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> "Your people" didn't discovere automobiles, atomic
> energy, or Democracy either. The discovery of "God" is a
> very sophisticated achievement and requires a high
> civilization..... which is why the existence of "God" was
> first discovered by the Egyptian Empire 4,000 years ago and
> why that historic achievement remains inscribed on the walls
> of the Pyramids to this day.
Uh, my people ran the silk/spice route for about 1500 years when Europeans -
who had "god" big time, were a 3rd world. China doesn't have GOD, either -
they never did. Their civilization predates all.
Your info about China is wrong.
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:7i7pn3dt9a55o5r6p...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:46:58 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> None of this explains me,
>>>or my people, or our cultural philosophy that has NO centralized
>>>conception
>>>of any god-being at all. None. Are so many of us immune to the curvature
>>>of space? This doesn't explain billions of Chinese who are not known for
>>>being a people steeped in superstitious idiocy.
>>>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> "Your people" didn't discovere automobiles, atomic
>> energy, or Democracy either. The discovery of "God" is a
>> very sophisticated achievement and requires a high
>> civilization..... which is why the existence of "God" was
>> first discovered by the Egyptian Empire 4,000 years ago and
>> why that historic achievement remains inscribed on the walls
>> of the Pyramids to this day.
>
>Uh, my people ran the silk/spice route for about 1500 years when Europeans -
>who had "god" big time, were a 3rd world. China doesn't have GOD, either -
>they never did. Their civilization predates all.
>
>Your info about China is wrong.
>
[Hammond]
China is and has always been stigmatized as the world's
largest pagan nation.
China is also the world's fastest growing technologically
based economy.
One result of this is that when the discovery of the
world's first SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD becomes known, the
Chinese intelligentsia will swiftly seize upon the
discovery for a number of reasons:
1. Chinese culture is above all else highly "practical"
and when it comes to a belief system nothing
is more practical than scientific truth.
2. Scientific religion is totally in line with China's
aspirations that science and technology
hold the key to China's economic future.
3. The adoption of scientific religion would erase the
historic view that China is a "closed society" by
elevating China to international religious parity
and even morally leapfrog China over the
Christian nations whose religious history is
blighted by anti-Semitism and racism.
4. A scientifically based religion would not create a
moral problem for China's national policy of birth
control unlike some historical religions.
5. Communism does not deny scientific truth,
therefore "scientific religion" should not
precipitate a political crisis.
At any rate, I predict China will be one of the first to
embrace the discovery of a scientific proof of God.
Tani Jantsang©
By morons that never understood that China is not pagan at all. It's
confucist. The "local pagan idols" are just folk heros made big - and they
know this.
> China is also the world's fastest growing technologically
> based economy.
Right now, yes, it is.
> One result of this is that when the discovery of the
> world's first SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD becomes known, the
> Chinese intelligentsia will swiftly seize upon the
> discovery for a number of reasons:
Heh - you are dreaming. But that wouldn't be new for a theist.
>
> 1. Chinese culture is above all else highly "practical"
> and when it comes to a belief system nothing
> is more practical than scientific truth.
Scientific truths are not just beliefs.
>
> 2. Scientific religion is totally in line with China's
> aspirations that science and technology
> hold the key to China's economic future.
Religion is not needed.
>
> 3. The adoption of scientific religion would erase the
> historic view that China is a "closed society" by
China has been closed and open - depending on what happened. You obviously
don't know much about the history of China from the inside.
> elevating China to international religious parity
> and even morally leapfrog China over the
> Christian nations whose religious history is
> blighted by anti-Semitism and racism.
Ah, Godwin for sure. all of that was resource competition. You think the
Chinese are NOT racist? Boy, you really don't know much about them.
>
> 4. A scientifically based religion would not create a
> moral problem for China's national policy of birth
> control unlike some historical religions.
They put negative and positive eugenics into law. Good for them, imo.
>
> 5. Communism does not deny scientific truth,
> therefore "scientific religion" should not
> precipitate a political crisis.
They are Confucist. Not really communist at all. Communism did indeed deny
a LOT of scientific truth. We inherited all the pc garbage from Marxists.
PC garbage so bad that science of some types is taboo here.
>
> At any rate, I predict China will be one of the first to
> embrace the discovery of a scientific proof of God.
I think you are a very poor prophet.
Stop arguing with me. I dismiss you as a Theist fool.
Jeckyl
> One result of this is that when the discovery of the
> world's first SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD becomes known,
If such a proof ever happens .. so far, no proof has ever been presented ..
just a load of unrelated nonsense from you
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion posted by a vicious and highly
aggravated "physics stooge".
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
[Hammond]
Confucianism is philosophy. So was Aristotle. The
Greeks were pagans, and so are the Chinese.
>> China is also the world's fastest growing technologically
>> based economy.
>
>Right now, yes, it is.
>
>> One result of this is that when the discovery of the
>> world's first SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD becomes known, the
>> Chinese intelligentsia will swiftly seize upon the
>> discovery for a number of reasons:
>
>Heh - you are dreaming. But that wouldn't be new for a theist.
>
[Hammond]
I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist" since Physics
has now proved that "God exists". "Theists" are people who
believe God exists without any proof. Therefore I'm not a
theist, I'm a physicist.
You on the other hand are clearly a "Godless pagan".
>>
>> 1. Chinese culture is above all else highly "practical"
>> and when it comes to a belief system nothing
>> is more practical than scientific truth.
>
>Scientific truths are not just beliefs.
>
[Hammond]
Glad to see you know that much, and of course I do since
two accredited universities certify that I'm an M.S. in
physics.... but many ignorant people (including people
reading this) don't know the difference which accounts for
my (deliberately) improper language... I expect that anyone
educated and competent would know that.
>>
>> 2. Scientific religion is totally in line with China's
>> aspirations that science and technology
>> hold the key to China's economic future.
>
>Religion is not needed.
>
[Hammond]
That's your opinion.... fact is you're ignorant of the
fact that the world's first scientific proof of God has been
discovered. You don't even know there is a God , and
neither do a billion of your countrymen! But not to worry,
neither do a billion Christians either.
>>
>> 3. The adoption of scientific religion would erase the
>> historic view that China is a "closed society" by
>
>China has been closed and open - depending on what happened. You obviously
>don't know much about the history of China from the inside.
>
[Hammond]
I know more about China than you do. I can read it in
their faces.... you can't..... you have to read it in
books.... you're also a bit of a wise guy.
>
>> elevating China to international religious parity
>> and even morally leapfrog China over the
>> Christian nations whose religious history is
>> blighted by anti-Semitism and racism.
>
>Ah, Godwin for sure. all of that was resource competition. You think the
>Chinese are NOT racist? Boy, you really don't know much about them.
>>
[Hammond]
You think anti-Semitism is caused by "resource
competition".... boy... you're a real Pollyanna.
Any fool knows anti-Semitism (including the biggest
genocide in history, the Holocaust) was caused by ignorance
of the phenomena of "GOD". Orientals are fortunate in that
they are not infected by anti-Semitism.... which is why it's
such a pleasure for Christians like me to talk to Orientals.
>> 4. A scientifically based religion would not create a
>> moral problem for China's national policy of birth
>> control unlike some historical religions.
>
>They put negative and positive eugenics into law. Good for them, imo.
>>
>> 5. Communism does not deny scientific truth,
>> therefore "scientific religion" should not
>> precipitate a political crisis.
>
>They are Confucist. Not really communist at all. Communism did indeed deny
>a LOT of scientific truth. We inherited all the pc garbage from Marxists.
>PC garbage so bad that science of some types is taboo here.
>>
[Hammond]
Well you can see how many scientific nuts there are on
these physics newsgroups..... thousands of them still trying
to prove "Einstein was wrong" for instance. I've got
hundreds of them stalking me around and trying to prove
there is no such thing as a scientific proof of God when any
competent scientist in his right mind could understand the
proof.
>> At any rate, I predict China will be one of the first to
>> embrace the discovery of a scientific proof of God.
>
>I think you are a very poor prophet.
>
[Hammond]
I don't gamble. Not only will the Chinese accept it, the
Japanese will too. In fact so will India when they find it
confirms the truth of Hinduism with such stellar facts as
the fact that the 4-Varnas are actually a (corrupted)
version of the Bicameral/2-Party System. That alone will
free India from thousands of years of bondage under the
Caste System.
Wake up.... the Eastern World is not only on the rise
economically, it is about to be liberated spiritually by the
discovery of the world's first true scientific proof of
God.... a religious miracle that will give the Orient
SPIRITUAL PARITY with the elite Christian West.
>Stop arguing with me. I dismiss you as a Theist fool.
>
[Hammond]
I don't argue with disinterested amateurs like you.
You're a traitor to your own people... having the
advantage of a Western education (you speak perfect English)
you engage in frivolous and excessive commentary on subjects
of vital interest to millions of suffering people in your
own country. I dismiss you as an over privileged, callous
and inhumane nincompoop.
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:1pfsn3d1q6hshh22f...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:59:39 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:tfqrn35ksmjutu2q2...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>>BTW: Studies show a negative correlation with age of fusion frequency ..
>>>the
>>>frequency decreases with age. Your claim of a linear increase is totally
>>>contrary to experimental evidence
>>>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> That's FLICKER fusion frequency dumbass, NOT PICTURE
>> fusion frequency!
>>
>> FFF = Flicker Fusion Frequency (75 Hz)
>
>Where did you invent that figure? That is a reasonable upper limit for most
>people, but ceratinly not absolute .. it depends on a number of factors
>
>> PFF = Picture Fusion Frequency (16 Hz)
>
>That is a term you made up. Again, it depends on a number of factors.
>
[Hammond]
SHEER IGNORANCE on your part.
PFF (picture fusion frequency) is the speed at which
successively flashed still pictures begin to "move"... thus
the phenomenon of "moving pictures).
All silent films were shot at 16 frames/sec (for decades)
because that is the minimum "PFF" (picture fusion frequency)
of an adult human being and they were trying to save film.
When "talkies" came in they had to bump it up to 20
frames/sec to keep the sound track from warbling. When t.v.
came in they bumped it up to 30 frames/sec (interlaced) to
60 "half" frames/sec because they could sync it with the 60
cycle line frequency. You don't know what you're talking
about.
The 16 frames/sec figure is one of the most well
established measurements in all of visual technology
history.
FFF (flicker fusion frequency) is a property of the EYE
and is about 30-50 Hz. It has nominally NO CORRELATION with
either age or "intelligence".
PFF (picture fusion frequency" (16 Hz mean) is HIGHLY
CORRELATED WITH INTELLIGENCE because it requires brain
activity (mental speed/intelligence) to "recognize a
picture".
PFF and FFF are UNRELATED PHENOMENA.
You can read about the whole thing including cited
experimental data here:
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
If you knew any basic physics you would KNOW that the PFF is
the:
PFF = Fourier cutoff frequency of the human
cognitive/visual system
(in fact the PFF turns out to be a DIRECT MEASURE of
"mental speed itself" and in fact they can directly measure
your IQ (e.g. mental speed) using a variable speed motion
picture projector (a graph of PFF vs. IQ is shown in the
above paper).
Still pictures flashed above the Fourier cutoff frequency
look like they are "moving" and flashing them any faster
renders the additional frames INVISIBLE...... at least a
total amateur and vicious dimwitted physics stooge like you
should be able to figure out that this is the "dog whistle
effect" where a dog whistle is ABOVE the "cutoff frequency"
of the human ear, but not above the cutoff frequency of a
dog's ear.
The PFF is directly related to the phenomena of GOD
because it turns out it is directly related to BRAIN GROWTH
same as Intelligence is. (this is why intelligence is
divided by age to produce a constant called "IQ" stooge)
The lower your PFF is, the less you see of REALITY and
in fact since no one is "fully grown" it proves that NO ONE
sees all of "normal human reality"........ hence there is an
INVISIBLE WORLD......... and this is the scientific basis of
GOD AND RELIGION.
STOP POSTING AMATUER STOOGE HARRASSMENT
TO THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT!
Michael Hell
> It turns out that the most IMPORTANT consequence
> of General Relativity is that it is a scientific explanation
> of "GOD"
Isn't that also true for quantum mechanics?
There are many many paths that lead you to intimations of the ultimate
reality.
> How long will it be before the
> socially challenged physics
> dept. puts 2 and 2 together?
That's like asking: How long until people like you and I can establish
a credible school of thought?
Tani Jantsang©
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>By morons that never understood that China is not pagan at all. It's
>>confucist. The "local pagan idols" are just folk heros made big - and
>>they
>>know this.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Confucianism is philosophy. So was Aristotle. The
> Greeks were pagans, and so are the Chinese.
The Chinese are not pagans. They are generally a pretty agnostic group of
people - some are/were Taoists, some were Buddhists.
>
>>> China is also the world's fastest growing technologically
>>> based economy.
>>
>>Right now, yes, it is.
>>
>>> One result of this is that when the discovery of the
>>> world's first SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD becomes known, the
>>> Chinese intelligentsia will swiftly seize upon the
>>> discovery for a number of reasons:
>>
>>Heh - you are dreaming. But that wouldn't be new for a theist.
>>
> [Hammond]
> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist" since Physics
> has now proved that "God exists". "Theists" are people who
> believe God exists without any proof. Therefore I'm not a
> theist, I'm a physicist.
> You on the other hand are clearly a "Godless pagan".
Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say? Actually,
I'm Lamaist - and our conception of what might pass for a deity is
"Thatness" (under various descriptive titles, not names) - which would be a
kind of boundless absolutely unknown ?? that PRE-existed the big bang - out
of which all things, including the Big Bang emanated. We have an emanation
doctrine. If anything, I can at least VIA PHYSICS show the "footprints" of
what passes for a deity among us, i.e., what it DOES in the cosmos - I can
actually show that - but no way you can see the actual Thatness itself.
When doing Kundalini yoga - one might become One with Thatness - it's seems
to the senses like a boundless "darkness" - wherein an embryo of a kind of
"light" is. That "light" "flashed out" - big bang. That's our religion.
It's been our religion for a very long time, too. I put "darkness" and
"light" in quotes because it's not the same meaning as what we normally use
those words for. They are just descriptive of the experience.
>
>>> 1. Chinese culture is above all else highly "practical"
>>> and when it comes to a belief system nothing
>>> is more practical than scientific truth.
>>
>>Scientific truths are not just beliefs.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Glad to see you know that much, and of course I do since
> two accredited universities certify that I'm an M.S. in
> physics.... but many ignorant people (including people
> reading this) don't know the difference which accounts for
> my (deliberately) improper language... I expect that anyone
> educated and competent would know that.
>
>>>
>>> 2. Scientific religion is totally in line with China's
>>> aspirations that science and technology
>>> hold the key to China's economic future.
>>
>>Religion is not needed.
>>
> [Hammond]
> That's your opinion.... fact is you're ignorant of the
> fact that the world's first scientific proof of God has been
> discovered. You don't even know there is a God , and
> neither do a billion of your countrymen! But not to worry,
> neither do a billion Christians either.
Uh, see above. I'm not Chinese, btw.
>
>
>>>
>>> 3. The adoption of scientific religion would erase the
>>> historic view that China is a "closed society" by
>>
>>China has been closed and open - depending on what happened. You
>>obviously
>>don't know much about the history of China from the inside.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> I know more about China than you do. I can read it in
> their faces.... you can't..... you have to read it in
> books.... you're also a bit of a wise guy.
>
>>
>>> elevating China to international religious parity
>>> and even morally leapfrog China over the
>>> Christian nations whose religious history is
>>> blighted by anti-Semitism and racism.
>>
>>Ah, Godwin for sure. all of that was resource competition. You think the
>>Chinese are NOT racist? Boy, you really don't know much about them.
>>>
> [Hammond]
> You think anti-Semitism is caused by "resource
> competition".... boy... you're a real Pollyanna.
> Any fool knows anti-Semitism (including the biggest
> genocide in history, the Holocaust) was caused by ignorance
> of the phenomena of "GOD". Orientals are fortunate in that
> they are not infected by anti-Semitism.... which is why it's
> such a pleasure for Christians like me to talk to Orientals.
I knew you were a Christian, not hard to figure out. Yeah, resource
competition - among a few other things. Heh, right, Chinese just do things
like genocide in Tibet - like what Pol Pot did. Sure thing. Boy, are you
an idiot.
>
>>> 4. A scientifically based religion would not create a
>>> moral problem for China's national policy of birth
>>> control unlike some historical religions.
>>
>>They put negative and positive eugenics into law. Good for them, imo.
>>>
>>> 5. Communism does not deny scientific truth,
>>> therefore "scientific religion" should not
>>> precipitate a political crisis.
>>
>>They are Confucist. Not really communist at all. Communism did indeed
>>deny
>>a LOT of scientific truth. We inherited all the pc garbage from Marxists.
>>PC garbage so bad that science of some types is taboo here.
>>>
> [Hammond]
> Well you can see how many scientific nuts there are on
> these physics newsgroups..... thousands of them still trying
> to prove "Einstein was wrong" for instance. I've got
> hundreds of them stalking me around and trying to prove
> there is no such thing as a scientific proof of God when any
> competent scientist in his right mind could understand the
> proof.
The little curious thing is this - you have a website. OK. You keep coming
here, again and again, like a troll, and spamming this group. I notice that
and I've not been here long and am not a regular here at all. I asked one
simple question about Copenhagen school, the way they explain something in a
muddled way - that's all. Got into a chat with a sci fi writer. But I
notice a LOT of you and your "message" to the world. I find that very odd.
I find it to be theist Christian behavior, no matter what else you say it
is. You have a MISSION - and you are ZEALOUS about it. And so - you bother
people! It's not enough to just have the website. Also, you are on usenet.
You are not currently IN China speaking at their universities. I suggest
you hurry up, get plane ticket, and go there. Hurry!
>
>>> At any rate, I predict China will be one of the first to
>>> embrace the discovery of a scientific proof of God.
>>
>>I think you are a very poor prophet.
>>
> [Hammond]
> I don't gamble. Not only will the Chinese accept it, the
> Japanese will too. In fact so will India when they find it
> confirms the truth of Hinduism with such stellar facts as
> the fact that the 4-Varnas are actually a (corrupted)
> version of the Bicameral/2-Party System. That alone will
> free India from thousands of years of bondage under the
> Caste System.
That might not change, the caste system. OK, then what are you waiting for?
Why are you wasting time on usenet? GO to these countries and speak at
their universities. Hurry up!
> Wake up.... the Eastern World is not only on the rise
> economically,
I knew it was awhile ago.
it is about to be liberated spiritually by the
> discovery of the world's first true scientific proof of
> God.... a religious miracle that will give the Orient
> SPIRITUAL PARITY with the elite Christian West.
Sure. Go for it. Good luck. I happen to think that the east has always
been more spiritually advanced than the west - see above our own conception
of what might be called a deity. Vedanta and Taoism are far superior to the
silly fairy tales of the west. Imo, it was western hubris that thought
otherwise.
>
>>Stop arguing with me. I dismiss you as a Theist fool.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> I don't argue with disinterested amateurs like you.
> You're a traitor to your own people... having the
> advantage of a Western education (you speak perfect English)
> you engage in frivolous and excessive commentary on subjects
> of vital interest to millions of suffering people in your
> own country. I dismiss you as an over privileged, callous
> and inhumane nincompoop.
Over privileged - heh, you know nothing of the stuggles I endured, or my
parents, you little white boy LMAO - I'm not Chinese. I'm Tatar. I have
relatives in China, tho. Go over there and preach your theory - go ahead.
Be careful, you might get yourself shot - but no no, HAVE FAITH you won't
get shot, go ahead, give it a try. If anything, all of it might put an end
to religious wars. Heh - then people will openly and honestly fight over
what they really were fighting about all along: resources, including land.
Shahryar
> The Chinese are not pagans. They are generally a pretty agnostic group of
> people - some are/were Taoists, some were Buddhists.
Some chinese are catholics. Some japanese are nuts. Some koreans are Moonies.
Some talk show hosts wear black pin stripe suits and white shirts but with no tie!
Some people are right-handed. Some people are schick, really schick.
Some Americans have several television sets but no heat exchangers.
Jeckyl
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:40:29 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:4vntn35b33ptggfss...@4ax.com...
>>> One result of this is that when the discovery of the
>>> world's first SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD becomes known,
>>
>>If such a proof ever happens .. so far, no proof has ever been presented
>>..
>>just a load of unrelated nonsense from you
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Unsupported assertion
No .. it is completely supported by the crap that you claim is a proof
> posted by a vicious and highly
> aggravated "physics stooge".
Ohh .. am I viscious and aggravated? It seems you ar ethe one suffering
from those failings.
Jeckyl
Apart from being a complete fool, you are one of the nastiest people I've
had the misfortune to come across. If god exists, I'm sure your punishment
from him for you dishonesty and cruelty to others will be just. I just hope
I get to see it.
marc
> PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT
> OVERALL GROWTH DO N-O-T
> SEE THE SAME REALITY
People who are severely confused and pathologically deluded do not see the
same reality. They do however provide a warning as to what can happen when
concoctions of ego-driven private fantasy displace empirical evidence of the
external world.
Marc
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>> Physics has proven God exists.
>
>[Jantsang]
>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>
>
[Hammond]
I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with it.
Are you a scientist?
Are you a physicist?
Do you have any scientific training at all?
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION
>[Jantsang]
> I notice that
>and I've not been here long and am not a regular here at all.
[Hammond]
These are PHYSICS newsgroups.
I am a graduate PHYSICIST.
I have a right to be here.
What are YOU doing here?
Are you a scientist?
Are you a physicist?
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION
Jeckyl
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:33:56 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>>> Physics has proven God exists.
>>
>>[Jantsang]
>>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
You haven't discovered anything at all .. your paper is a load of crap.
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:tsg1o3dk4148ug27k...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:33:56 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>>>> Physics has proven God exists.
>>>
>>>[Jantsang]
>>>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
>
>You haven't discovered anything at all .. your paper is a load of crap.
>
[Hammond]
Stalkerazzi name calling. No physics. Get off this
thread punk.
Tani Jantsang©
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13o1jru...@corp.supernews.com...
their universities. Obviously, this is what he wants to do. Instead, I
strangely see him on here, posting the same things over and over. This is
usenet. This is not a Chinese or Indian university.
I don't understand his behavior. His behavior is abnormal. He needs to GO
TO CHINA - it can't be that expensive, a pal of mine went on vacation there
for a few months. Instead of answering my simple non-scientific questions
about going to China, to a university to lecture - he demands answers from
me that have nothing to do with my questions.
My questions were logical. "Why not go to China, to a university, and
lecture?" Logical question. Got no answer.
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:13o1jru...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>> news:tsg1o3dk4148ug27k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:33:56 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>>>>> Physics has proven God exists.
>>>>
>>>>[Jantsang]
>>>>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
>>
>> You haven't discovered anything at all .. your paper is a load of crap.
>>
>He should calmly do what I suggested. Go to China and India .
>
[Hammond]
Hey Kubla Kahn, go pedal some more trinkets to the Silk
Route flea markets and get off the Physics newsgroups....
this isn't a chat room, it's a forum for scientists
(especially physicists like me) to discuss physics news
including an applied physics discovery such as a the world's
first bona fide scientific proof of God.. You're not a
scientist. I am.
>
>My questions were logical. "Why not go to China, to a university, and
>lecture?" Logical question. Got no answer.
>
[Hammond]
My great uncle who was chief of police in Newbury MA told
me everything south or west of Massachusetts is
uncivilized... that includes China . I haven't set foot off
Cape Cod for 20 years and don't plan to.
If you want to talk about the discovery of a scientific
proof of God fine.... but ad hominem baloney is off topic as
far as I'm concerned.
Jeckyl
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:54:19 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:tsg1o3dk4148ug27k...@4ax.com...
>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>>>>> Physics has proven God exists.
>>>>
>>>>[Jantsang]
>>>>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
>>
>>You haven't discovered anything at all .. your paper is a load of crap.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Stalkerazzi name calling. No physics. Get off this
> thread punk.
You stop posting off-topic in the relativity forum ,and I won't reply.
You keep posting your crap .. and I'll keep denouncing it as such.
Jeckyl
news:13o2cj1...@corp.supernews.com...
> My questions were logical. "Why not go to China, to a university, and
> lecture?" Logical question. Got no answer.
That the question was logical is WHY you got no answer .. Hammond has lost
his mind .. he thinks sticking a bunch of unrelated and irrelevant facts
together means he can leap to a wild conclusion about there being a god.
That is not the behaviour of a rational or intelligent scientist (which I
assume he must have been at some time before he lost the plot).
Have you read his paper? .. its hysterically funny. If it wasn't that he
seems to take himself so seriously, I'd think it was a very clever parody.
Jeckyl
> [Hammond]
> Hey Kubla Kahn, go pedal some more trinkets to the Silk
> Route flea markets and get off the Physics newsgroups....
> this isn't a chat room, it's a forum for scientists
Then go away .. you are not talking science .. you're talking religious
mumbo-jumbo. Claiming that it is 'science' is a great insult to those who do
study and practice it.
> (especially physicists like me) to discuss physics news
> including an applied physics discovery such as a the world's
> first bona fide scientific proof of God.. You're not a
> scientist. I am.
Don't make me laugh
>>My questions were logical. "Why not go to China, to a university, and
>>lecture?" Logical question. Got no answer.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> My great uncle who was chief of police in Newbury MA told
> me everything south or west of Massachusetts is
> uncivilized... that includes China .
Oh .. well , he must be right if he was a police chief. Just like I suppose
all the crap you come out with must be right because once (before you lost
your marbles) you managed to get a degree.
Life doesn't work like that.
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:ull1o3ldngl50s1ds...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:54:19 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:tsg1o3dk4148ug27k...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:33:56 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>>>>>> Physics has proven God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>[Jantsang]
>>>>>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
>>>
>>>You haven't discovered anything at all .. your paper is a load of crap.
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Stalkerazzi name calling. No physics. Get off this
>> thread punk.
>
>You stop posting off-topic in the relativity forum ,and I won't reply.
>
>You keep posting your crap .. and I'll keep denouncing it as such.
>
[Hammond]
Watch your language psycho.... that last post
was a meltdown. BTW, I've been posting here for
10 years... I'm not about to leave because of
filth like you. You'll be in a mental hospital taking
a vaction soon enough. I've seen it happen to half a dozen
other psychotic creeps like you. Meanwhile.... you're
reduced to raving at this point so I'll no longer
read your posts... sayanara psycho. You're
worthless.
Tani Jantsang©
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:33:09 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Hey Kubla Kahn, go pedal some more trinkets to the Silk
> Route flea markets and get off the Physics newsgroups....
> this isn't a chat room, it's a forum for scientists
> (especially physicists like me) to discuss physics news
> including an applied physics discovery such as a the world's
> first bona fide scientific proof of God.. You're not a
> scientist. I am.
Wow, you are a racist! You don't know anything about me. I asked you
logical questions. You want to impart something to all of India and China.
You said this, remember. Well, you are not going to that that via the
internet on usenet.
>
> [Hammond]
> My great uncle who was chief of police in Newbury MA told
> me everything south or west of Massachusetts is
> uncivilized... that includes China . I haven't set foot off
> Cape Cod for 20 years and don't plan to.
> If you want to talk about the discovery of a scientific
> proof of God fine.... but ad hominem baloney is off topic as
> far as I'm concerned.
Oh dear. OH DEAR. You are insane. Or - this is your attempt at royally
funny humor! No. You're insane.
GREAT Uncle. South or West of Massachusettes. WOW.
Sir, you need help. You are SPAMMING a newsgroup where nobody is reading
your stuff. You are NOT getting this information out to the world. You
are languishing, like an agorophobic. Get help.
Tani Jantsang©
I got up to the part about curviture of space and had no time for
the rest of it. Does he actually have any degree at all? And stuck up
there, like an agoraphobic, thinking anything S or E of MASSACHUSETTES??? is
not civilized? Cuz his GRAND uncle the cop said so? This man is sick. It
would be sad if he hurt himself.
Heh, I never did get a coherant answer to my Copenhagen question - I could
barely understand what that one person said - his English was awful.
Perhaps I'll download his paper, print it out. I know basics, but my
husband (not online) would understand it.
Eh...it's LONG, too much to print out and no way I'll read something that
long on the computer, eye problems.
Maybe - I'll see. Decisions decisions!
marc
> Perhaps I'll download his paper, print it out. I know basics, but my
> husband (not online) would understand it.
I suggest you wait for Hammond's next paper which will be even more
revolutionary and exciting: The Scientific Proof Of The Tooth Fairy. Its
arrival is eagerly awaited in kindergarten classes up and down the land.
Marc
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:13o2t8e...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
>> news:13o2cj1...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> My questions were logical. "Why not go to China, to a university, and
>>> lecture?" Logical question. Got no answer.
>>
[Hammond]
Oh Christ.... I didn't realize you were a woman... I
should have guessed it when you appeared to be unusually
polite and civilized!
Look.... I don't speak Chinese and we have enough
problems with the Germans never mind China, when it comes to
a scientific proof of God.... do you realize there is a
Gerrman website entitled: "Anti scientific proof of God
website" entirely devoted to attacking my discovery!:
. http://schornak.de/aspog/
Anyway, one of your great ancestors was a Mongolian named
Ghengis Kahn (father of the Tatar nation). It turns out
that scientifically speaking the Mongol personality is a
mirror image of my personality and opposites attract
personalitywise. Therefore it is extremely easy for me to
talk to Mongols or Chinese. We are spititual allies as it
were.
On the other hand, the atheistic Anglophile physicists of
Christendom are very irritated at me (because I'm one of
them but disagree with them). People like Richard Dawkins
(_The God Delusion_ 2007) or even Charles Darwin himself
(_Survival of the Fittest_) intensly dislike a scientist
such as me.
A good example of this is the stalker "Jeckyl" whose
comments follow. This is a guy who actually knows enough
physics to understand the proof of God but is so intensly
atheistic and anti-religious that all he can do is rant and
rave at me and post constant ad hominem harrassement. Beware
of such people... they are highly IRRATIONAL and lie
constantly!!
>> [Jekyl]
>> That the question was logical is WHY you got no answer .. Hammond has lost
>> his mind .. he thinks sticking a bunch of unrelated and irrelevant facts
>> together means he can leap to a wild conclusion about there being a god.
>> That is not the behaviour of a rational or intelligent scientist (which I
>> assume he must have been at some time before he lost the plot).
>>
>> Have you read his paper? .. its hysterically funny. If it wasn't that he
>> seems to take himself so seriously, I'd think it was a very clever parody.
>>
>
>[Jantsang]
>I got up to the part about curviture of space and had no time for
>the rest of it. Does he actually have any degree at all?
[Hammond]
Of course I have degrees:
CURRICULUM VITAE
GEORGE HAMMOND
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
[Hammond]
If your husband is Oriental or Tatar all he NEEDS TO KNOW
is that physics has discovered a "Scientific Proof of God"
and that this promises to be a miracle for the non-Christian
Orient, especially China. A word to the wise is sufficient
as they say!
>
>Perhaps I'll download his paper, print it out. I know basics, but my
>husband (not online) would understand it.
>
>Eh...it's LONG, too much to print out and no way I'll read something that
>long on the computer, eye problems.
>
>Maybe - I'll see. Decisions decisions!
>
>
[Hammond]
Just pass the word around (with my website address) in
the non-Christian scientific community... they'll get to the
bottom of it fast enough... especially in places like MIT
and Harvard.
In the meantime.... don't believe anything you hear about
Hammond from the atheistic western physics community!
Jeckyl
You're the psycho .. how many times have you been put away int the loony bin
now?
> .. that last post was a meltdown.
Do you think .. obviously your skills at psychoanalysis is as poor as your
other science skills
> BTW, I've been posting here for
> 10 years
Ten years of crap .. and noone believes you crackpot non-proof. You've
still not taken the hint. Are you REALLY that stupid?
> ... I'm not about to leave because of
> filth like you.
Oh .. that sounds like a meltdown to me. You're beginning to get a tad
obsessed with me. HAHAHA
> You'll be in a mental hospital taking
> a vaction soon enough.
No . that would be you.
> I've seen it happen to half a dozen
> other psychotic creeps like you.
You mean .. when it happened to you?
> Meanwhile.... you're
> reduced to raving
Really .. that seems to be what you're doing. Are you sure you're not
looking at your OWN posts and thinking they are from a lunatic crackpot ..
that's what everyone else thinksg when they see yours
> at this point so I'll no longer
> read your posts
So you keep saying .. you still keep replying . .can't help yourself.
> ... sayanara psycho. You're worthless.
The only worthless thing here is your so-called proof .. Utter crap and
nonsense .. you've been peddling it and lying about it for years .. noone
believes it. When are you come to your senses .. or do you need a few more
stints in hospital ???
Jeckyl
> A good example of this is the stalker "Jeckyl" whose
> comments follow. This is a guy who actually knows enough
> physics to understand the proof of God but is so intensly
> atheistic and anti-religious that all he can do is rant and
> rave at me and post constant ad hominem harrassement. Beware
> of such people... they are highly IRRATIONAL and lie
> constantly!!
No .. the illogical and irrational one is you .. as your so-called proof
clearly shows
> B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> Boston MA, USA
> Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
> at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
> Professor of Physics at TAMU
40 years ago he was (somewhat more) sane and knew physics. Now, although he
still does seem to know some physics .. he can spout of appropriate facts
and formulas .. so at least it shows he can read and copy/paste. However,
since that time, his sanity has left him .. and he appears to seriously
believe that his paper is actually scientific and is even a proof. The only
excuse I can find for this, is that he must believe that, if you mention a
few scientific facts and theories, then you add your own illogical
conclusions to them, that makes the whole thing scientific. Its about as
valid as saying "1+1=2, so God exists".
Dilaudid
Hey, that looks exactly like a theoretical construct I just posted. Now how
about that and I thought Hammond already went to see God years
ago...Hmmm...only the good die young...this does not bode well for Hammond
however I thought posting the proof would send him and other crackpots down
that miserable 1+1=2 road illustrating that simple or complex the name of
the game is still insane.
Next Androcles will assert that if the proof is to be considered at all both
ones will necessarily be bullets pow, pow!
>
>
Dag Yo
Makes me want to ask how it did when it came to peer-review time.
MobyDikc
As long as your focus is finding people to disagree with and argue
with, nothing will happen for you.
So to answer your question, probably never.
But if you find people you agree with (like me) and cooperate with,
thing might emerge from the bits of harmony that develop through
intelligent, rational, and patient efforts.
TMG
> [Hammond]
> Just pass the word around (with my website address) in
> the non-Christian scientific community... they'll get to the
> bottom of it fast enough... especially in places like MIT
> and Harvard.
Don't worry about MIT, we've already gotten to "the bottom of it".
Harvard (and more interestingly Dartmouth) are probably ripe for the SPOG.
I think Dartmouth might be open to your theories. Especially the physics
department.
Let me know if you need any introductions.
<waves to friends at Dartmouth (Barrett) - tag, you're it>
Tani Jantsang©
"marc" <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jymgj.116969$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Tani JantsangŠ" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
I'll get it, my hubby wants to read it. Heh. I read something that was a
mock out of the AAT - and it started out really serious - you know, super
high brow, australopithicenes blah blah and - really serious, interesting .
Then it started to get odd. Just a little bit odd. But I read on. Shit,
I'm laughing NOW at "I read on" - I remember - I can almost picture it. I
was IN PAIN laughing by the time I was 3/4 thru - and the more I read - OH
MAN- and I can't freaking FIND the damned thing. It had australopithecines
throwing cats at enemies. HILARIOUS. I want that essay. It was BEAUTIFUL.
>
> Marc
>
Tani Jantsang©
> You can read about the whole thing including cited
> experimental data here:
>
> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>
Oh, I can relate to this article here. Indeed!
There is only one flaw that I can see: injury to the eyes - decreased
eyesight, macular/retinal problems. That considerably slows down reading
speed, and can make it possible to only read in bright light, outdoors.
I would assume that the test subjects had perfect vision. I used to. Then,
accident. I read in bright light - and while I can read on the internet if
I make the print BIG - I'd rather read hard copy. Macular/retinal problems
can also make words look like other words - there are "spots" and so forth.
Btw, different subject - in order to take a clear picture from a TV screen,
you must do it in a totally dark room with only the TV being the light
source - and set the shutter to 1/15th of a second (and hold the camera very
still, because 1/15 is slow for a shutter speed). That's due the 30 frames.
When I see 16 frams per second, I can see them as if they are "jumping" or
flickering.
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>> You can read about the whole thing including cited
>> experimental data here:
>>
>> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>>
>
>Oh, I can relate to this article here. Indeed!
>
>There is only one flaw that I can see: injury to the eyes - decreased
>eyesight, macular/retinal problems. That considerably slows down reading
>speed, and can make it possible to only read in bright light, outdoors.
>
[Hammond]
The "letter reading test" is only used because it is very
cheap.
A much more accurate test is to use a movie projector
with a knob on it that varies the motor speed. You turn the
knob up and down until the pictures just begin to look like
they're a "moving picture" instead of just a series of still
pictures.
I find it amazing that both speeds are the same.. bits/sec
of letter reading... or frames/sec of a moving picture...
namely about 16 Hz for an adult.
Of course the AMAZING thing is that this PFF speed
increases linearly with age up until 18..... just like
intelligence does. This of course is due to brain growth of
the child obviously.
I've got a number of handwritten letters from Sigmund
Lehrl in my desk drawer... he's German...(Universitat
Erlangen Nurnberg Germany).
Riedel was also a German and he was the one who
discovered that PFF increases with age in children (thus
linking PFF to brain growth)
The PFF (picture fusion frequency) is central to the
phenomena of G-O-D because it is a direct demonstration of
WHY there is an "invisible world" and that it can be easily
measured. The higher your picture fusion frequency, the
more visible the world is, and thus the closer to God you
are, all other things being equal.
I suspect you've got a nose for news Jantsang©
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Jeckyl
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:28:35 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You can read about the whole thing including cited
>>> experimental data here:
>>>
>>> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>>>
>>
>>Oh, I can relate to this article here. Indeed!
>>
>>There is only one flaw that I can see: injury to the eyes - decreased
>>eyesight, macular/retinal problems. That considerably slows down reading
>>speed, and can make it possible to only read in bright light, outdoors.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> The "letter reading test" is only used because it is very
> cheap.
> A much more accurate test is to use a movie projector
> with a knob on it that varies the motor speed. You turn the
> knob up and down until the pictures just begin to look like
> they're a "moving picture" instead of just a series of still
> pictures.
> I find it amazing that both speeds are the same.. bits/sec
> of letter reading... or frames/sec of a moving picture...
> namely about 16 Hz for an adult.
> Of course the AMAZING thing is that this PFF speed
> increases linearly with age up until 18..... just like
> intelligence does.
All pretty much right
> This of course is due to brain growth of
> the child obviously.
That is one interpretation .. does seem reaonsable
[snip irrelevance]
> I've got a number of handwritten letters from Sigmund
> Lehrl in my desk drawer... he's German...(Universitat
> Erlangen Nurnberg Germany).
> Riedel was also a German and he was the one who
> discovered that PFF increases with age in children (thus
> linking PFF to brain growth)
Now we get to the nonsense
> The PFF (picture fusion frequency) is central to the
> phenomena of G-O-D because it is a direct demonstration of
> WHY there is an "invisible world"
PFF doesn't say anything about an invisible world . You really are a loony.
> and that it can be easily
> measured. The higher your picture fusion frequency, the
> more visible the world is,
It has nothing to do with the visibility of the world. It has to do with
how the brain perceives (or reconstructs) an illusion of movement from
individual images. Its not at all the case that some motion is invisible ..
in PFF there is no real motion .. just a bunch of static images. What we no
longer perceive is the individual static images .. it is the LACK of motion
that we don't see at a higher frame rate.
Its so much fun poking holes in your theory .. almost as much fun as reading
your paper .. its hysterical. Have you ever thought of taking up
script-writing for TV sitcoms?
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:sda6o3plotnv8iffc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:28:35 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You can read about the whole thing including cited
>>>> experimental data here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>[Jantsang]
>>>Oh, I can relate to this article here. Indeed!
>>>
>>>There is only one flaw that I can see: injury to the eyes - decreased
>>>eyesight, macular/retinal problems. That considerably slows down reading
>>>speed, and can make it possible to only read in bright light, outdoors.
>>>
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> The "letter reading test" is only used because it is very
>> cheap.
>> A much more accurate test is to use a movie projector
>> with a knob on it that varies the motor speed. You turn the
>> knob up and down until the pictures just begin to look like
>> they're a "moving picture" instead of just a series of still
>> pictures.
>> I find it amazing that both speeds are the same.. bits/sec
>> of letter reading... or frames/sec of a moving picture...
>> namely about 16 Hz for an adult.
>> Of course the AMAZING thing is that this PFF speed
>> increases linearly with age up until 18..... just like
>> intelligence does.
>
>[Jecky]
>All pretty much right
>
>> This of course is due to brain growth of
>> the child obviously.
>
>[Jecky]
>That is one interpretation .. does seem reaonsable
>
[Hammond]
No question about it.... its the same reason we have to
divide raw intelligence by age to get a CONSTANT known as
IQ..... because mental speed=inteliigence=PFF
ALL INCREASE DIRECTLY WITH BRAIN GROWTH!
the PFF cvan actually be used to measure your IQ for
chrissakes (see Lehrl Ibid.)
>[snip irrelevance]
>
>> I've got a number of handwritten letters from Sigmund
>> Lehrl in my desk drawer... he's German...(Universitat
>> Erlangen Nurnberg Germany).
>> Riedel was also a German and he was the one who
>> discovered that PFF increases with age in children (thus
>> linking PFF to brain growth)
>
>[Jecky
>Now we get to the nonsense
>
[Hammond]
Dimwit unsupported assertion.
>
>> The PFF (picture fusion frequency) is central to the
>> phenomena of G-O-D because it is a direct demonstration of
>> WHY there is an "invisible world"
>
>[Jecky]
>PFF doesn't say anything about an invisible world . You really are a loony.
>
[Hammond]
No... you're a loudmouth aggravated psyco academy dork.
You're INCOMPETENT even in something as elementary as the
"frequency spectrum" of a moving object.
Do you know what a Fourier frequency spectrum is?
Look... let me dumb it down for you:
A human can't hear a "dog whistle". A "dog whistle" is
SONICALLY I-N-V-I-S-I-B-L-E to a human because our hearing
"cutoff frequency" is below the dog whistle's frequency.
There is a "Fourier frequency spectrum" corresponding to
ALL VISIBLE OBJECT MOTION, since ANY time varying function
has a Fourier frequency spectrum. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
movie films for chrissakes.... a moving CANNON BALLl has a
"motion fourier frequency spectrum". The PFF is simply a
direct EXPERIMENTAL MEASURE of a person's VISIBLE MOTION
CUTOFF FREQUENCY.
Therefore, 1/3 of the visible motion spectrum of reality
that is visible to an ADULT is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old due
to the simple braingrowth difference between the kid and the
adult (same goes for the Intelligence difference also....
same exact difference!).
If you can't understand that, which ANY PHYSICIST OR
ENGINEER ALREADY KNOWS FROM ROTE UNDERGRADUATE MEMORY....
then you're INCOMPETENT!
>> and that it can be easily
>> measured. The higher your picture fusion frequency, the
>> more visible the world is,
>
>[Jecky]
>It has nothing to do with the visibility of the world.
>
[Hammond]
DEAD WRONG...... as fully explained in ELEMENTARY
UNDERGRADUATE TERMS above.
>[Jecky]
> It has to do with
>how the brain perceives (or reconstructs) an illusion of movement from
>individual images.
[Hammond]
FALSE... you're making a LUDICROUS elementary physics
blunder!
>[Jecky]
> Its not at all the case that some motion is invisible ..
>in PFF there is no real motion .. just a bunch of static images. What we no
>longer perceive is the individual static images .. it is the LACK of motion
>that we don't see at a higher frame rate.
>
[Hammond]
Whataru mentally retarded or something?
The Fourier spectrum cutoff frequency of the human visual
system has nothing to do with MOVE FILMS PER SE... anymore
than the sonic cutoff frequency of the human ear has
anything to do with DOGS PER SE for chrissakeas..... you
sound like a DUNCE!
>
>[Jecky]
>Its so much fun poking holes in your theory .. almost as much fun as reading
>your paper .. its hysterical. Have you ever thought of taking up
>script-writing for TV sitcoms?
>
[Hammond]
Look.... you're an aggravated psycho stalker who is
aggravated about "God" because of course the theory of God
is the number one weapon against psychopaths!
Tough shit.... but I'm not going to sit here and listen
to PHYSICS INCOMPETENCE stalking me around because of
anti-religious psycho rage.
YOU CAN''T REFUTE THIS DISCOVERY BY RESORTING TO
HARRASSMENT! Hitler already tried it and lost!
Bob Cain
> [Hammond]
> My great uncle who was chief of police in Newbury MA told
> me everything south or west of Massachusetts is
> uncivilized... that includes China . I haven't set foot off
> Cape Cod for 20 years and don't plan to.
This is scientific proof that George is really an entertainer. Mission
accomplished, George. You definitely do provide me with some very original
entertainment. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Peter Bowditch
>The PFF (picture fusion frequency) is central to the
>phenomena of G-O-D because it is a direct demonstration of
>WHY there is an "invisible world" and that it can be easily
>measured. The higher your picture fusion frequency, the
>more visible the world is, and thus the closer to God you
>are, all other things being equal.
Just when you think that George can't get any nuttier, he exceeds
expectations again.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Bob Cain
> Have you read his paper? .. its hysterically funny. If it wasn't that he
> seems to take himself so seriously, I'd think it was a very clever parody.
"seems" is the operative word here. :-)
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:00:18 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:sda6o3plotnv8iffc...@4ax.com...
There is no such thing as a single figure for raw intelligence .. there is
mor ethan one type of intelligence.
> to get a CONSTANT known as
> IQ..... because mental speed=inteliigence=PFF
> ALL INCREASE DIRECTLY WITH BRAIN GROWTH!
Most likely, yes .. it is related to some increase in cognitive
ability/capacity .. so a general increase in that ability with age will
result in an increase in the frame rate required for the illusions of motion
to be reconstructed from a series of static images.
> the PFF cvan actually be used to measure your IQ for
> chrissakes (see Lehrl Ibid.)
It can give some indication of cognitive ability/capacity, yes.
There is no surprise that as a child grows and matures, that 9along with
everything else in the body) the brain/mind grow and matures as well. of
course, after that, many things degrade with age as well.
And that is all totally irrelevant to the conclusions you try to draw from
it.
>>[snip irrelevance]
>>
>>> I've got a number of handwritten letters from Sigmund
>>> Lehrl in my desk drawer... he's German...(Universitat
>>> Erlangen Nurnberg Germany).
>>> Riedel was also a German and he was the one who
>>> discovered that PFF increases with age in children (thus
>>> linking PFF to brain growth)
>>
>>[Jecky
>>Now we get to the nonsense
>>
> [Hammond]
> Dimwit unsupported assertion.
Yes .. that's what you are making. We all can see that.
>>> The PFF (picture fusion frequency) is central to the
>>> phenomena of G-O-D because it is a direct demonstration of
>>> WHY there is an "invisible world"
>>
>>[Jecky]
>>PFF doesn't say anything about an invisible world . You really are a
>>loony.
>>
> [Hammond]
> No... you're a loudmouth aggravated psyco academy dork.
Ah .. now there's an intelligent response .. NOT!
> You're INCOMPETENT even in something as elementary as the
> "frequency spectrum" of a moving object.
[snip unnsecessary explainations of fourier analysis]
> Therefore, 1/3 of the visible motion spectrum of reality
> that is visible to an ADULT is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old
No .. PFF is about the mind seeing an illusion of motion from still images
.. you seem to think it is about the ability to recognise motion.
The eye works on continuous visual input .. we don't have a little shutter
opening and closing at a particular frame rate so we only see individual
images.
[snip more crap]
>>[Jecky]
>>It has nothing to do with the visibility of the world.
>>
> [Hammond]
> DEAD WRONG...... as fully explained in ELEMENTARY
> UNDERGRADUATE TERMS above.
Yes .. you are dead wrong
>>[Jecky]
>> It has to do with
>>how the brain perceives (or reconstructs) an illusion of movement from
>>individual images.
>
> [Hammond]
> FALSE... you're making a LUDICROUS elementary physics
> blunder!
You don't even know what picture fusion (as you call it) is .. do you.
So sad .. and yet so funny.
I just described for you exactly what picture fustion is, and you say its
false. HAHAHAH
>>[Jecky]
>> Its not at all the case that some motion is invisible ..
>>in PFF there is no real motion .. just a bunch of static images. What we
>>no
>>longer perceive is the individual static images .. it is the LACK of
>>motion
>>that we don't see at a higher frame rate.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Whataru mentally retarded or something?
No .. I'm not the one with phsychiatric problems here.
> The Fourier spectrum cutoff frequency
And where is a study on that .. you have only talked about results on PFF ..
which is about the frame rate at which the mind (re)sonstructs the illusion
of movement from a series of static images.
Then you launch into unsupported claims about fourier anlysis of movement.
In that case, it would be more accurate to look at the studies that show
that ability of the eye to detect motion (as opposed to the irrelevant PFF
you quote). That shows a decrease in the ability with age in adults, and
also gender difference.
> of the human visual
> system has nothing to do with MOVE FILMS PER SE
Exactly .. yet you keep talking about it. HAHAHA
> ... anymore
> than the sonic cutoff frequency of the human ear has
> anything to do with DOGS PER SE for chrissakeas..... you
> sound like a DUNCE!
No .. I'm 'listening' to a dunce .. you. And it is SOOOOO funny.
>>[Jecky]
>>Its so much fun poking holes in your theory .. almost as much fun as
>>reading
>>your paper .. its hysterical. Have you ever thought of taking up
>>script-writing for TV sitcoms?
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> Look.... you're an aggravated psycho stalker
You're a lunatic.
> who is
> aggravated about "God" because of course the theory of God
> is the number one weapon against psychopaths!
You'd better be careful then
> Tough shit.... but I'm not going to sit here and listen
Yes .. you are .. and you have.
> to PHYSICS INCOMPETENCE stalking me around because of
> anti-religious psycho rage.
Oh .. do you think I am exhibitting rage? .. no .. I'm just laughing at you,
and your nonsenseical claims of proof .. its the funniest thing I've read
for a long time.
> YOU CAN''T REFUTE THIS DISCOVERY BY RESORTING TO
> HARRASSMENT! Hitler already tried it and lost!
Oh .. you ARE getting upset aren't you? .. good. It's fun watching you
squirm..
Tani Jantsang©
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You can read about the whole thing including cited
>>> experimental data here:
>>>
>>> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>>>
>>
>>Oh, I can relate to this article here. Indeed!
>>
>>There is only one flaw that I can see: injury to the eyes - decreased
>>eyesight, macular/retinal problems. That considerably slows down reading
>>speed, and can make it possible to only read in bright light, outdoors.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> The "letter reading test" is only used because it is very
> cheap.
Eye problems I mentioned extend to everything - moving pictures, TV, etc.
They'd have to test people with perfect eyesight, at least 20/20 I guess.
Mine used to be a bit better than that, plus night vision was pretty good.
Used to be.
> A much more accurate test is to use a movie projector
> with a knob on it that varies the motor speed. You turn the
> knob up and down until the pictures just begin to look like
> they're a "moving picture" instead of just a series of still
> pictures.
Yes. I've seen some old talkies that looked like frames instead of smooth
picture. It was irrating as hell to watch it. Since some people didn't
seem to see that - I thought it was, at the time, due to me having better
eyesight. I never thought it had to do with intelligence.
> I find it amazing that both speeds are the same.. bits/sec
> of letter reading... or frames/sec of a moving picture...
> namely about 16 Hz for an adult.
> Of course the AMAZING thing is that this PFF speed
> increases linearly with age up until 18..... just like
> intelligence does. This of course is due to brain growth of
> the child obviously.
Well, some people's brain sutures close up very early on - it's related to
the development of the jaw. And yes, they also have pretty low IQs. This
used to be widely known and open - it's still known, but taboo talk these
days. There are also alleles found recently that have directly to do with
intelligence. IQ and the kind of intelligence I think this measures has to
do with 2nd and 3rd ordered conceptualizations, ability to think that way,
abstract thinking, spacial intelligence, etc. Imo. That kind of
intelligence would not be selected in favor of in environments where it's
not needed. That's the "environmental" angle on it, imo.
Here is an eg. It's been so long since I ever studied any of the maths -
and I've never had to use math like that for anything I ever did - so....
however - say my husband pours a "cup" (8 oz measured) of liquid for cooking
and he's not too exact. He finds it uncanny that I can look at what's in
the cup and say it's 1 tablespoon short, or 1-1/2 tablespoons short, or 1/8
cup, etc. And I'm always right, exactly right. I'm obviously not doing
math. I'm seeing it, just looking at it. Asked a couple of math questions
by a young friend in college (who I think was trying to get me to do his
homework maybe?) - I got the answer without doing the math. Obviously, I
must have done it in my head - FAST - so I tried to figure out how the hell
I did it, since he had to use algebra and well, I didn't use that at all.
I told this to a math professor acquaintence - and I thought the problem was
really easy. I'm not going to trust my young friend who thought it was
"hard." The professor said it was NOT easy at all and he thought about it
and came up with what he thinks I might have done, intuitively and fast. I
did geometry. The thing is, when I gave him the answer, I don't remember
thinking geometry. It was more like just seeing the situation, giving him
the right answer. The Prof said I must have done it geometrically - but
obviously not with the part of my brain that's normally used to "figure out
a geometry problem."
My husband is the math wiz in the family - had a full scholarship to
university at 16 - and he says I'm "doing something else to get answers that
fast." Anyway...
My personal (and cultural, too) conception of Deity is not something that
looks like a person at all, and it's not a creator. anyway...
George Hammond
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:8307o39ige5r4m6nt...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:00:18 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>[Jeckyl]
>There is no such thing as a single figure for raw intelligence .. there is
>more than one type of intelligence.
>
[Hammond]
Sheer uneducated ignorance. Intelligence today is
measured as "mental speed". It is now known that mental
speed (in bits/sec) is the predominant biological correlate
of Intelligence.
This is be measured directly in milliseconds using a
variety of "decision time" testing apparatii descriptions of
which fill the literature and which you've never even heard
of. The PFF is only ONE of the more interesting and graphic
procedures for measuring intelligence. Your knowlege of the
subject is 50 years out of date just like the rest of your
scientific knowlege gleaned from 50 year old undergraduate
textbooks.
But moreover your psychotic arrogance and sham
argumentation renders you useless as a serious scientific
mind. You're only capable of being a Usenet heckler on the
Internet.
So, in the end its not even your heckling but simply
you're scientific inadaquacy that forces me to discontinue
reading your posts.... they're worthless and you're useless
scientifically speaking.
A few years ago I would have been months arguing with
someone like you, but I have since discovered that your
personality type extremly common... dime a dozen actually...
there are cranks like you all over Usenet.... I've since
encountered dozens of them.... you're worthless and slated
at best to spend your life in the backwaters of science
heckling and stalking real scientists when you get the
opportunity.
I'm not wasting any more time with you and will simply
killfile you.... in the end it is because you have NOTHING
SCIENTIFICALLY USEFUL TO SAY! So long crank.
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:56:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:8307o39ige5r4m6nt...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:00:18 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>[Jeckyl]
>>There is no such thing as a single figure for raw intelligence .. there is
>>more than one type of intelligence.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Sheer uneducated ignorance.
Yes .. I know that is what you display .. no need to advertise it urther
[snip a lot of waffle of Hammond trying to sound knowledgeable .. it doesn't
work]
> I'm not wasting any more time with you and will simply
> killfile you
So you said you would od before .. but you're obsessed with me.
>.... in the end it is because you have NOTHING
> SCIENTIFICALLY USEFUL TO SAY! So long crank.
Funny .. that's exactly what everyone else thinks of you.
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:56:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>news:8307o39ige5r4m6nt...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:00:18 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>[Jeckyl]
>>There is no such thing as a single figure for raw intelligence .. there is
>>more than one type of intelligence.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Sheer uneducated ignorance. Intelligence today is
> measured as "mental speed". It is now known that mental
> speed (in bits/sec) is the predominant biological correlate
> of Intelligence.
Funny.. you were talking about IQ .. not mental speed and not general
intelligence (g). You wer eone moment talking about PFF, and the next the
ability to preceive speed and motion.
Make up your mind what you are talking about. You just sound plain
confused.
And regardless .. that picture fusion frequency is correlated t omental
capacity and speed is not at all surprising (as I've already said) .. it is
frame rate at which the the mind recontructs the illusion of motion from a
series of static images, rather than processing and percieiving them as
individual image.
Just like height in childhood thru to adulthood is correlated to age, as are
many other fators .. that , of course, is completely unrelated to any
so-called proof of their being a god.
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:sda6o3plotnv8iffc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:28:35 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You can read about the whole thing including cited
>>>> experimental data here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, I can relate to this article here. Indeed!
>>>There is only one flaw that I can see: injury to the eyes -
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> The "letter reading test" is only used because it is very
>> cheap.
>
>
>> A much more accurate test is to use a movie projector
>> with a knob on it that varies the motor speed. You turn the
>> knob up and down until the pictures just begin to look like
>> they're a "moving picture" instead of just a series of still
>> pictures.
>> I find it amazing that both speeds are the same.. bits/sec
>> of letter reading... or frames/sec of a moving picture...
>> namely about 16 Hz for an adult.
>> Of course the AMAZING thing is that this PFF speed
>> increases linearly with age up until 18..... just like
>> intelligence does. This of course is due to brain growth of
>> the child obviously.
>
> [Tani Jantsang©]
>Yes. I've seen some old talkies that looked like frames instead of smooth
>picture. It was irrating as hell to watch it. Since some people didn't
>seem to see that - I thought it was, at the time, due to me having better
>eyesight. I never thought it had to do with intelligence.
>
>
[Hammond]
Yes, that's the amazing thing... your PFF (picture fusion
frequency in frames/sec) is actually a measure of your
intelligence in "bits/sec" of mental processing speed...
same as the letter reading test. In fact they can measure
it directly using push button millisecond timers and a CRT
display. They flash 2 figures of different sizes on the
right and left of the screen and ask you to push the right
or left button under your thumbs to signal the answer. The
speed with which you push the button is a measure of your
"decision time".... and you guessed it... it comes out to be
1/16 of a second for the average person....=(1/PFF) ! This
decision involves 1 bit of info, hence a processing speed
of 16 bits/sec = 100 IQ which is the average IQ.
The reason it requires only 1 BIT of info processing to
cause PFF is that it is a simple Yes-No 1-bit decision
whether a given movie frame is identical or changed from the
last frame.... and since human mental speed is 16
bits/sec... the pictures start "moving" at 16 frames/sec.
Now, this varies with the individual... some people of
very high intelligence can see 20 frames/sec before they
start to look like they are "moving". This corresponds to
an IQ of 125.... Einstein who had an IQ of 160 say probably
wouldn't see the people in the film "start moving" until you
got to 30 frames/sec.... such people are extremely rare of
course. 16 frames/sec corresponds to the an IQ of 100 which
probably represents the average movie goer.
Amazingly, I have discovered that this phenomenon
precisely explains the existence of the "invisible world" of
Religion. Obviously if Einstein can see 30 frames/sec and
we can only see 16 frames/sec, then since 16/30 = 53% this
means we can only see 1-.53 = 47% of the reality that
Einstein could see... which explains why he was a world
class historic visionary and we are not!
Now, this also explains the phenomena of "God" because it
explains why it is said by religious people that there is an
"invisible world". Well obviously there is and someone like
Einstein could see a whole lot more of it than we can!
>
>My personal (and cultural, too) conception of Deity is not something that
>looks like a person at all, and it's not a creator. anyway...
>
[Hammond]
Well don't feel bad just because science has proved you
wrong.... Einstein didn't believe there was an
anthropomorphic God either.... neither did he believe that
an "invisible man" created the universe.... turns out he was
wrong on both counts, just like you are wrong too. The Dali
Lama by the way would disagree with you also IMHO.
You are a very polite and conscientious person, a real
rarity on Usenet and just like Barak Obama is in politics. I
think your time has come... I think people like you are the
wave of the future and that the atheistic, nay saying,
argumentative physics stooges have had their turn.
Accordingly, I think you deserve to know the (scientific)
truth about God... a true weapon with which to defend
yourself.
It is known that intelligence increases directly with
brain growth (which must be the world's original "no
brainer" scientific result by the way... since it has been
known forever that intelligence increases directly with age
in children because of growth). AND, we now know that
people of higher intelligence see MORE of reality than
people of lower intelligence (the PFF demonstrates this
dramatically). On top of that we know that NO ADULT ever
reaches full growth... in fact the average person is about
20% short of full (genotypic) growth (the discovery of the
Secular Trend in human growth 100 years ago proves that).
Consequently, 20% of reality is INVISBLE to the average
person, and this "invisible world" is called HEAVEN by the
theologians.
So, we now have a scientific explanation and proof of
"Heaven" and that it exists and what it is.
NEXT, we realize that a 100% fully grown man would be
able to "see Heaven", and such a (mythical) Man is called
"G-O-D" by the theologians.
Now the human species is only about 200,000 years old.
And if God is a "perfect man" then God himself only came
into existence (i.e. created himself) 200,000 ago. This
means all of "human reality" only came into existence
200,000 years ago... not 14 Billion years ago as the
scientists believe. the bible incidentally says Creation
happened "6,000" years ago, but modern anthropology shows
that they are a little off... it was 200,000 years ago...
but certainly not 14 Billion like the scientists believe.
the entire "reality" of the big Bang and 14 billion years of
history was "created" 200,000 years ago.
the scientists can easily understand this now that it has
been proved (by Hammond)... but they DENY IT because they
don't want anyone knowing what the scientific explanation of
God is, because they are getting rich and powerful by
keeping them ignorant!
Now, if you are able to come to grips with that... it
will prove to be a powerful weapon to defined yourself
against both the atheists, the scientists, and the racist
Christians who gave us the Holocaust.... I think you have a
spiritually correct attitude... and I think you may be able
to comprehend a discovery such as this... and realize why it
is a religious miracle for the Orient among others, a
powerful cleanser for Christianity, and a scientific vehicle
for world spiritual unification.
God bless you and the Tatar people... God bless all
sincere people!
P.S. vote for Obama!
Jeckyl
You think that an image on a screen requires only one bit of information to
process. HAHAHAA
You are full of shit .. really
[snip]
> Amazingly, I have discovered that this phenomenon
> precisely explains the existence of the "invisible world" of
> Religion.
No .. it does not
> Obviously if Einstein can see 30 frames/sec and
> we can only see 16 frames/sec, then since 16/30 = 53% this
> means we can only see 1-.53 = 47% of the reality that
> Einstein could see
utter nonsense .. it does NOT say the some proportion of reality isn't seen
at all .. PFF is only an indication of the frame rate rquired for the mind
to reconstuct the illusion of movment from a series of static images. you
don't understand what you bablle on about.
> ... which explains why he was a world
> class historic visionary and we are not!
You ceratinly aren't.
That we cannot see flicking if it happens above a ceratin rate .. or cannot
see movemnt if it is too slow or too fast .. or distinugish levels of
brightness if the contrast is too low .. or hear sounds above or below
certain frequenies does NOt mean there is a heaven wher an inivisble man
lives. Such an assertion is completely unjustified
> It is known that intelligence increases directly with
> brain growth
pretty much .. in 'normal' people. Assume no brain damage etc.
> (which must be the world's original "no
> brainer" scientific result by the way... since it has been
> known forever that intelligence increases directly with age
> in children because of growth). AND, we now know that
> people of higher intelligence see MORE of reality than
> people of lower intelligence
No .. we do not
> (the PFF demonstrates this
> dramatically).
NO .. it shows that they are able to process individual static images
faster, before they become so fast the the mind no longer recognises it as
separate images .. they 'fuse' into the illusion of motion.
You have no idea
> On top of that we know that NO ADULT ever
> reaches full growth
More irrelevance.
> ... in fact the average person is about
> 20% short of full (genotypic) growth (the discovery of the
> Secular Trend in human growth 100 years ago proves that).
> Consequently, 20% of reality is INVISBLE to the average
> person, and this "invisible world" is called HEAVEN by the
> theologians.
More nonsense
> So, we now have a scientific explanation and proof of
> "Heaven" and that it exists and what it is.
No .. you have nothing .. even IF (notice the BIG IF) what you said above
made sense (about 20% of reality being 'invisible' .. although that figure
has no basis)
That does NOT mean that the so-called 'invisible' bit is heaven.
> NEXT, we realize that a 100% fully grown man would be
> able to "see Heaven", and such a (mythical) Man is called
> "G-O-D" by the theologians.
Even wilder leaps into stupidity by Hammond
[snip the rest before I die laughing]
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13o9gvq...@corp.supernews.com...
> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
...
http://swg.warcry.com/content/columns/wisdom_of_the_jedi/live_and_let_trolls_die
... rules 1 thru 3 apply.
David A. Smith
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Get off this thread atheist physics stooge and take your
buttboy Jeckyl with you!
Bob Cain
> My personal (and cultural, too) conception of Deity is not something that
> looks like a person at all, and it's not a creator. anyway...
I know it's not physics (I'm receiving this at sci.physics) but I'd like to
hear, to the extent it is communicable, just what your conception is.
Jeckyl
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:09:22 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Dear Jeckyl:
>>
>>"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:13o9gvq...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>...
>>
>>http://swg.warcry.com/content/columns/wisdom_of_the_jedi/live_and_let_trolls_die
>>... rules 1 thru 3 apply.
>>
>>David A. Smith
>>
> [Hammond]
> Get off this thread atheist physics stooge and take your
> buttboy Jeckyl with you!
Ooooh .. you are getting upset, aren't you? Its so easy to get someone with
mental problems worked up. It's fun watching you squirm.
Tani Jantsang©
One thing before I say anything - on your website, you have "1st 4 pages"
and suggest reading that first. Well, if I try to print that out, it's too
big for the paper and the words are cut off. I can't seem to "select all"
and "copy" it at all. It won't select or copy. What I got was, instead,
what seems to be the middle of a conversation you had, where you made a
figure of a person using DOS style - and one other thing also in asgii type
text. And then I got the actual long paper.
My husband read it - he wants to read it again to see something. There is
some kind of big divide between precise mathematical stuff you refer to and
really loose correlations, like enpg (3 personalities and intelligence) with
xyzt. (3D space, 1 time).
I think I understand basically what you are saying. I'll give this a try -
just hear me out before you interrupt, OK?:
God = defecit in human growth.
Growth = development and increase in size, brain works better, more
intelligence.
Gravity (Penrose's thing?) forms the brain, i.e., curved space (gravity).
One might say that the 3 spacial dimensions plus time form everything in the
world, including us.
Stuff that's unknown to us, due to undeveloped potential in brain, I'd say
more likely equals the CONCEPT of God as an invisible man, the CONCEPT of an
invisible realm. That is, IDEAS OF God, heaven, etc, come from the
unconscious mind, or part of the mind since it has not yet reached full
potential. I'd go further with that, see below. I'll mark it with "This is
see below." This seems to me, to be what you are saying.
The thing is, neurology has discovered a lot about the brain (check for
starters, "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio - that was the first book on
this and it's easy to read). Freud and Jung are in the trash - their
concepts of the "mind" were really wrong. Neurology, or more precisely
neurophysiology, is a much more precise view, with PET scans and so forth.
They also now know a lot more about brain chemistry.
Also, how does someone come up with "3 personality types" and come up with
extrovert, neurotic and psychotic? Introverted people are neither of
these - and some people are a combination of introvert and extrovert,
depending on the situation. EG, I'm very extroverted normally - friendly,
gregarious, but sometimes I really don't give a shit about someone else's
dramas - they might be boring. I might wish to read a book and not be
bothered by anyone or anything. So it depends. I'd have to know what
someone's definition of "introvert, extrovert" is. I know a few extroverted
people who are neurotic as hell - and one who's psychotic, really stupid,
and quite dangerous. I don't associate with these people. I'm more what
one might call friendly, but inner directed. I.e., I don't care what other
people think or do, or think about me and what I do, so long as they don't
bother me that's fine - and I'm not aware of things like "the latest
style" - or aware of pop culture stuff. I find it painfully boring. I
never was interested in that. I like my sci fi on TV, but I have no idea
who the actors are and could care less about the real actors and/or their
lives. In other words, Spock is Spock in the world of Trek. I could care
less about Mr. Nimoy. He's not Spock.
Neurotics are people that have problems, like PTSD, that can be fixed with
recognition and remembering - the problems arise due to real experiences.
They aren't born with these problems, it's not genetic. Of course, this
"mood" can also change brain chemistry and can be dealt with that way, with
medicine (that's not a cure, tho), but the cause of something like PTSD is
real, not imagined. Sometimes neurosis is caused by some deficiency in the
diet. And so forth. People with hypoglycemia can have literal
hallucinations, like see flashing neon signs on busses giving them personal
messages (HA!). They aren't crazy, they are just hypoglycemic. Diet can
fix that. (You can fake that, btw - really fake it so that the long 6 hour
test comes out hypoglycemic - to get out of work for a few months with a
doctor's note :)
Psychotics, however, are not just "bigger neurotics," or "more neurotic."
They are people with inborn chemical imbalances - measurable ones, or
something really wrong with their brains. These are also heritable. They
are more like people who have visible disabilities, like a missing arm - so
they can't function like a 2 armed person. Psychotics have something like
that but it's in their brain and/or brain chemistry - people can't see their
disability, but these days, it can be chemically measured and/or seen with
PET scans.
Anyway, this seems to be what you are saying. The thing is, our conception,
and mine personally, of what might PASS FOR a "deity" (technically, our
views are seen as sort of atheistic) - are very very different. They do not
involve realms or beings - and definitely not anthropomorphic beings. Our
pictograms, if we make them, to represent these "manifestations" look
humanoid, sure - but we also know these are symbolic drawings and nothing
more. For instance, one of the main ones: Sri Kala Chakra - fearsom
looking being depicted as devouring the cosmos (wheel) and spinning it as it
devours. It represents Time. The title means "Lord Time Devourer." Or
"Mahakala," another main idea, which is a title meaning Boundless Darkness
or - "great black." Our concepts are more aimed at "voidness" or "Thatness"
which pre-exists the cosmos - and is unknown and unknowable. Its affect is
still here, in everything - and it can be measured (really measured using
physics, a formula can show it). Basically, the affects of this "Great
Darkness" is more entropy due to its pushing things forward toward constant
change and more complexity, space getting bigger, time going one way. That
is our conception of what MIGHT pass for a "deity" if I had to say I had a
deity. The thing is, some people feel this, are aware of it - I always
did - like a kind of "force" in nature. I put "force" in quotes because
it's not one of the 4 fources of physics or anything like that. The word
"force" is used as in common English usage: SOMETHING - that PUSHES things
forward, or pulls things in a direction that, to us, is forward, future.
HOWEVER - in our philosophy, there is this strong strong idea called
samsara. That is, "Thatness" is the only real Thing - everything else,
including the cosmos, is illusory, temporary. Thatness is not illusory -
and it's always what it is, like Pure Being. Not "a being." Just "Being."
That's our concept. It's very different from western concepts. It's more
akin to Taoism or Vedanta. Our concept of "emanation doctrine" sounds more
like modern cosmology science. It's nothing like creationism at all.
Also, there are more "incarnations of God" in the philosophies of other
people - basically, a person viewed as much above the general run of people,
one who in some way seems perfect to those that view him as an incarnation
of, say, one of the five wisdoms. You mentioned Jesus - and that doesn't
really jibe with me at all, I can't relate to that person - neither can
Jews. I can relate to the Dalai Lama - who is also said to be an
incarnation of Amithaba - Amithaba is one of the five wisdoms - and those
five are manifestations of the One (Thatness). To westerners, it seems as
if we have a "lot of gods" - but no, in fact we don't. There is only
Thatness. The rest is samsaric.
Please do not tell me what the Dalai Lama thinks - or that I'm wrong. I
know the Dalai Lama - and my own grandfather IS a Choje Lama. What I just
told you, especially about samsara (which is one of the main concepts) is
right. Ask any Lama that would openly tell you "what is that HORRENDOUS
image there, oh, it's horrific" and they'll tell you that it represents one
of the manifestations of your illusory ego. Or ask "what is that beautiful
image, looks like 5 Buddhas over the five wisdoms." That is a concept of
the illusory ego.
You mentioned the concept of a creator making things and people 40 thousand
years ago. Again, we do not have such conceptions and never did - still do
not. We have concepts of the world ages - with the planet being VERY old
and in oral history, we have civilizations having been here before the ones
in your recorded history. And that too, other than what I just said, our
"anthropogenesis" sounds a lot like evolution. It's considered all part of
the esoteric school, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that western people
really don't have a clue what any of it is really about. Today, however,
with all the university books - it's no longer so esoteric. People outside
the culture do find it hard to understand, when it's said in academese.
If you want to pull IQ up in this conversation - regarding the vast
differences in conceptions of a possible deity, cosmos, earth history -
well, we DO have higher IQs than European people. That the East tended to
shy away from certain forms of technology that are big in the West - that
was due to a more farsighted view of this technology - and whether or not it
is REALLY better than keeping what was already there and working in a
balance manner (balanced with the environment and the people). Political
pressures forced the East to change and compete. At this point, we have no
idea if all of this industry/technology is good for humans or not - it
hasn't been around long enough to really say.
You mentioned Einstein not having the invisible man concept. I don't know
what his IQ was - but mine is 164. It's high. My husband's is a tad higher
and he did take courses enough to understand the physics, I mentioned that
already. Perhaps we don't have the "invisible man" conception because we
are smarter? That is a strong possibility. Einstein believed in a Deity,
and so do I - if you can call it a Deity. Some theologians refuse to call
our idea a Deity. Of course, high IQ means nothing if you don't educate
yourself say, in engineering, you aren't going to be an engineer because the
IQ is high. You might not even know how to change a spark plug! One fellow
we knew awhile back with IQ higher than both ours - didn't know how to
change a tire when it went flat! We changed it for him.
"This is see below" -
ok. there is more to the fact - and it IS a fact - that people have concepts
and ideas about invisible worlds and beings - though now I'm referring to
terrors and monsters, bogeymen and such things that cause some people real
fear, real terror. I remember some kids that I thought were just dumb kids.
They were terrified, eg, to go into the cellar. Now, ok - I knew that rats
were often down there, or could be down there - and there might be a robber
or murderer down there - that kind of thing could happen, everyone knew
this. But these dumb kids were NOT scared of that (heh, that was dumb right
there!). They were terrified beyond "normal caution about real things."
They also never could quite SAY what they were scared of, as if they didn't
have language for it. I'd ask: rats? And they'd say no. I'd say, a
robber or murderer? They'd say no. Basically, they were afraid of "a
monster." ! I used to think the were stupid kids. They were also the same
kids that believed in Santa. Now I knew kids, myself included, that knew
that Santa was a guy in the store in a costume. Nobody told me this. When
I first heard of Santa, I aksed what it was and one of the dumb kids told me
about the chimney, flying reindeer and all of that. I think I frowned and
thought "phooey." Then I saw the guy in the store later on - a guy in a
costume. Some kids are smarter than others - a LOT smarter. The only
explanation I can come up with that makes any sense, about why some kids are
like that - is perhapd genetic memory of really dangerous animals prowling
in the dark - where people can't see in the dark! Nothing else makes any
sense. And then, how come some kids and I never had fears like that? I
know for a fact we were smarter kids. But your theory might explain that
too. I don't know.
Also, the Hellenes were smarter by far and a bit bigger than Europeans in
the middle ages. Chinese got taller in the northerly parts due to admixture
with Altaic people (my people) who are strictly meat and milk product eaters
(tends to make us very tall and not lankey either - but if we don't get that
as kids and are hungry, we don't get too tall at all - in one generation
too - but we are NOT less or more intelligent based on this size). Asian
populations have gotten bigger and smaller during various times due to diet.
Ashkenazi Jews come in all sizes and shapes, and they are, along with the
Chinese, the people with the highest IQs. These Jews, functioning in
Western European societies, rise to the top in just about everything they
do. They're smarter than the Europeans - that's probably why. They are
about equal to the Chinese. Not all Asians are smart, either. NE Asians
are smart. I don't know if you call people in India Asians - (they aren't
Asian) but they are also smart - or the ones we get to know and hear about
are.
One thing neither of us quite got - the first thing, with the DOS stick
figure you made. Humans have bilateral symmetry. That's all. Are you
talking about the zygote before there is cell differentiation?
Anyway - I think that you should perhaps add, when you say "god," you should
say "CONCEPT of god." In other words, the concepts are real, the ideas
people have a real. They are real concepts and ideas. People really have
these concepts and ideas. I think that's what you are actually saying.
Then again, if you believe this Invisible Man is really "out there
somewhere" and that it isn't just a concept people have - you are a Theist
with your own particular view of God - as you said, a Christian idea. Jews
used to have that idea a long time ago, but as they got smarter, they
developed a very different and more cosmic and impersonal idea. And I do
note - it's the smarter Jews that have this, not the more primitive
Palestinian Jews that are still Orhodox and test with much lower IQ. Their
scholars intend to rewrite the Torah to conform to real facts that they have
unearthed about their people in history.
Let us say that humans reach full 100% potential. No more concepts of
invisible worlds or beings. Do WE become God? You could put it that way.
More likely, we realise that we made this invisible realm in images we
idealized - either of ourselves (God) or of paradise (where we'd like to
live). Let us say we just proceed to MAKE a very nice world (heaven) - and
hope the screaming monkeys running for office don't blow it up first. .
And yeah, I am polite to people that are polite to me. OH, I can flame
people, for sure. But I have to be provoked, slandered, libeled, trashed
and - that's happened to me and for NO REASON! Oh, wait - yeah, I disagreed
with someone. That was the reason!
You brought up usenet and flames - but that's what I said. WHY post this on
usenet? People don't go looking for serious anything on usenet. They go to
websites sometimes, or blogs sometimes, but not usenet. And anything can
make a flame war start. That's usenet. If you really want to get your
theory "out there" you can't do it by just being online. Most people still
don't have computers - of most who do, most in the professions go to
specific sites and that's it. I'm on usenet because I have time to kill -
24/7! Heh - but I found out fast that it's a dangerous jungle on usenet.
The world is not all primitive and uncivilized outside of Massachusettes -
not anymore.
T.
±
please block me again.
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:13:17 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>> news:1pfsn3d1q6hshh22f...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:59:39 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:tfqrn35ksmjutu2q2...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Studies show a negative correlation with age of fusion frequency ..
>>>> the
>>>> frequency decreases with age. Your claim of a linear increase is totally
>>>> contrary to experimental evidence
>>>>
>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> That's FLICKER fusion frequency dumbass, NOT PICTURE
>>> fusion frequency!
>>>
>>> FFF = Flicker Fusion Frequency (75 Hz)
>>
>> Where did you invent that figure? That is a reasonable upper limit for most
>> people, but ceratinly not absolute .. it depends on a number of factors
>>
>>> PFF = Picture Fusion Frequency (16 Hz)
>>
>> That is a term you made up. Again, it depends on a number of factors.
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> SHEER IGNORANCE on your part.
> PFF (picture fusion frequency) is the speed at which
> successively flashed still pictures begin to "move"... thus
> the phenomenon of "moving pictures).
> All silent films were shot at 16 frames/sec (for decades)
> because that is the minimum "PFF" (picture fusion frequency)
> of an adult human being and they were trying to save film.
> When "talkies" came in they had to bump it up to 20
> frames/sec to keep the sound track from warbling. When t.v.
> came in they bumped it up to 30 frames/sec (interlaced) to
> 60 "half" frames/sec because they could sync it with the 60
> cycle line frequency. You don't know what you're talking
> about.
> The 16 frames/sec figure is one of the most well
> established measurements in all of visual technology
> history.
>
> FFF (flicker fusion frequency) is a property of the EYE
> and is about 30-50 Hz. It has nominally NO CORRELATION with
> either age or "intelligence".
>
> PFF (picture fusion frequency" (16 Hz mean) is HIGHLY
> CORRELATED WITH INTELLIGENCE because it requires brain
> activity (mental speed/intelligence) to "recognize a
> picture".
>
> PFF and FFF are UNRELATED PHENOMENA.
>
> You can read about the whole thing including cited
> experimental data here:
>
> http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>
>
> If you knew any basic physics you would KNOW that the PFF is
> the:
>
> PFF = Fourier cutoff frequency of the human
> cognitive/visual system
>
> (in fact the PFF turns out to be a DIRECT MEASURE of
> "mental speed itself" and in fact they can directly measure
> your IQ (e.g. mental speed) using a variable speed motion
> picture projector (a graph of PFF vs. IQ is shown in the
> above paper).
> Still pictures flashed above the Fourier cutoff frequency
> look like they are "moving" and flashing them any faster
> renders the additional frames INVISIBLE...... at least a
> total amateur and vicious dimwitted physics stooge like you
> should be able to figure out that this is the "dog whistle
> effect" where a dog whistle is ABOVE the "cutoff frequency"
> of the human ear, but not above the cutoff frequency of a
> dog's ear.
>
> The PFF is directly related to the phenomena of GOD
> because it turns out it is directly related to BRAIN GROWTH
> same as Intelligence is. (this is why intelligence is
> divided by age to produce a constant called "IQ" stooge)
> The lower your PFF is, the less you see of REALITY and
> in fact since no one is "fully grown" it proves that NO ONE
> sees all of "normal human reality"........ hence there is an
> INVISIBLE WORLD......... and this is the scientific basis of
> GOD AND RELIGION.
>
> STOP POSTING AMATUER STOOGE HARRASSMENT
> TO THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
> TALKING ABOUT!
Tani Jantsang©
whatever - he asked me a question and I'm gonna answer it. Thanks very
much!
See inside.
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:7b-dnXYCQfzM3hja...@giganews.com...
> Tani JantsangŠ wrote:
>
>> My personal (and cultural, too) conception of Deity is not something that
>> looks like a person at all, and it's not a creator. anyway...
>
> I know it's not physics (I'm receiving this at sci.physics) but I'd like
> to hear, to the extent it is communicable, just what your conception is.
Sure, I'll just paste part of what I just told George (it was long) - that
has to do with what you asked - and I'll type qualifiers and more
explanation. I'm on alt.sci.physics too. This is cross posted all over
the place. :(
Actually, I hope you read this one because I clarified things that had to be
clarified if you are directly asking about this. I did not do that in my
post to George since what I said about it was more of an aside.
Our conception, and mine personally, of what might PASS FOR a "deity" (I say
"pass for" because technically, our views are seen as sort of atheistic) do
not involve invisible people, men or women, do not involve realms or
beings - and definitely not anthropomorphic beings. This is highly
confusing to anyone that might visit and see pictograms depicting humanoid
images,
some very pretty, and some horrifying in the extreme. All of these are
known to be manifestations of the illusory ego. ALL. They represent states
of being (in a person). EG, rage. joy. compassion. Etc. Somewhere along
the line, I'm not sure when, but in some parts of the east, like India, it
has become common to say "the goddess of compassion" or whatever - or in our
thing "the Buddha of compassion" - but we all understand that Buddha does
NOT equate with the word God at all. THE Buddha never claimed to be a god -
and is not considered one by anyone (except perhaps the 100% ignorant!).
There
was more than one Bhudda in our oral tradition. Our "race's" Buddha was
Marmedzad - also known as Dipamkara. We say that was before this age.
That's not Guatama. Anyway...
Our pictograms, if we make them, to represent these "manifestations" look
humanoid, sure - but we also know these are symbolic drawings and nothing
more. For instance, one of the main ones: Sri Kala Chakra - fearsome
looking being depicted as devouring the cosmos (wheel) and spinning it as it
devours. It represents Time. The title means "Lord Time Devourer." So,
that it represents time is a kind of a no-brainer :) Or "Mahakala," another
main idea, which is a title meaning Boundless Darkness or - "great black."
Also "Dark/Black Lord of Transcendent Awareness." That moreso refers to
yogas and what one might perceive. Ok, now, Sri Kala Chakra, Mahakala -
they are the Same Thing. Two perceived aspects, that's all. Like - inside
a cup, outside the cup - one cup.
Our concepts are more aimed at "voidness" or "Thatness" which pre-exists the
cosmos - and is unknown and unknowable. That would be the same as above,
but WITHOUT the perceived aspects at all. One can not give it attributes -
to do so is illusory, wrong, mistaken. Its affect is still here, in
everything - and it can be measured (really measured using physics, a
formula can show it - more on that later, I'll say "LATER" and say it). To
put it poetically, you can measure its footprints, but you can never ever
see or know what made them. So, in that sense, this "deity" is INSIDE of
here/now - everywhere in everything - and that's were perceptions come
from - and it's also outside - BEFORE everything here - unknowable.
But consider our perceptions. NOT invisible men. TIME DEVOURERS.
100% IMPERSONAL, too. And nope, nothing to fear.
Basically, the affects of this "Great Darkness" is more entropy due to its
pushing things forward toward constant change and more complexity, space
getting bigger, time going one way. It's not chaos. It's not exactly order
either. It's both. One within the other - and then within the other -
again and again. Chaos in order . Order in more Chaos. Chaos in more
order. etc.
That is our conception of what MIGHT pass for a "deity" if I had to say I
had a deity. The thing is, some people feel this, are aware of it - I
always did - like a kind of "force" in nature. I put "force" in quotes
because it's not one of the 4 fources of physics or anything like that (and
I don't want to have to wear asbestos vest getting FLAMED for saying it's a
force on a physics group HA!!).
The word "force" is used as in common English usage: SOMETHING - that
PUSHES things forward, or pulls things in a direction that, to us, is
forward, future. I know this is sounding like Newtonian force - but nope. I
don't mean that either.
There is nothing that can oppose this - there can be no "anti Thatness" or
"evil being" that opposes it, as in dualist religions (monotheism of Islam
??
and Christianity are both dualistic. Judaism is not). The problem is, there
is NO word in the English language to say this correctly. Force is the best
I can come up with. "Hidden force that permeates and motivates nature to
constant change - which is also outside all nature/cosmos - pre-existing it
all."
HOWEVER - in our philosophy, there is this strong strong idea called
samsara. That is, "Thatness" is the only real Thing - everything else,
including the cosmos, including the effect of Thatness on the cosmos,
including the change, time, space, ALL of it, is illusory, temporary. We
are part of that illusion, stuck here on the Wheel of Life (cosmos, stuck IN
it). Thatness is not illusory - and it's always what it is, like Pure
Being. Not "a being." Just "Being." Being-ness. That's our concept.
Sounds like a Deity to me - right?
It's very different from western concepts. It's more akin to Taoism or
Vedanta. Our concept of "emanation doctrine" sounds more like modern
cosmology science. It's nothing like creationism at all. No need to spell
that out, then. OH, one thing - the point singularity fits in - "embryo of
light forms in the Boundless Thatness." That happens due to the "Law of
Necessity." That embryo is bright, it moves, it flashes out - BOOOOOM. Big
Bang. Same idea. UH - except we had the idea based on "seeing it" via
certain yogas - and the idea predates science in the west by - thousands of
years! Otherwise, it's the same thing.
Also, there are also the "incarnations" (which is why Dalai Lama saying it's
Atheism is VERY misleading to western ears) - and I'll spell that out (I
did not spell it out to George, it would have made the post WAY too long).
An Incarnation say, of one of the Five Dharmas is very basically, a person
viewed as much above the general run of people, one who in some way seems
perfect to those that view him as an incarnation of, say, one of the five
wisdoms. It can also be an incarnation of eg, Tara - these are people by
the way, recognized very young. In English? "Mozart was an incarnation of
the Muse." It has the same meaning. But our "take" on it is just a little
different. How we'd VIEW a person with that ability, is different,
culturally different. Sure, it would be easy to recognize. George
mentioned Jesus - and that doesn't really jibe with me at all, I can't
relate to that person who doesn't seem like such a nice person at all
anyway - neither can Jews. I can relate to the Dalai Lama - who is also
said to be an incarnation of Amithaba. What I personally think/know about
that is best left unsaid HEH - but uh, maybe they picked the wrong kid due
to expediency of the times. Dalai Lamas have always been chosen as
incarnations of Amithaba, which is one of the five wisdoms - and those five
are manifestations of the One (Thatness). To westerners, it seems as if we
have a "lot of gods" - but no, in fact we don't. There is only Thatness.
The rest is samsaric. Thatness is also sometimes referred to as "the void."
Some say "Adi Buddha" but that's misleading.
"LATER" part. In the 1970s, at a Med School where I worked - one of the
engineers was trying to understand just WHAT this is, since he wanted to
study Lamaism or Esoteric Buddhism (it's nothing like Theravada or Indian
style). We were at lunch. I was explaining this to him in really concrete
English. A nuclear physicist came into the room, heard part of the convo
and picked up when the engineer seemed to just NOT get something. I was
surprised. I had no idea that Dr. B was same religion as me. Heh - he
wasn't. But he explained on and then the explanation started to sound more
like science that was over my head. To cut it short, I asked him, he
thought I was explaining the science, I thought he was explaining religion
and HUH - he told me and and explained it and that was a WOW that lasted a
week for me.
ok, here is this - I can't paste images of formula in here - it won't send.
This following information on this "dark force" or entropy in this sense, is
in general/physical chemistry textbooks and is part of quantum organic
chemistry: NOT physics, NOT thermodynamics. This sense of entropy relates
this phenomenon to the internal chemical properties of matter, which relates
to "enthalpy."
Basically, life is a collection of chemical reactions, thus the point is
looking at the "force" that drives these chemical reactions and tilts the
balance to promote entropy indrease so that the reactions go in one
direction. They go in the direction of creating more chaotic molecular
movements.
This "force" is NOT any of the four forces in physics nor do the 4 forces in
physics have anything to do with this "force" that drives chemical
reactions, nor do the 4 forces tilt the balance to promote entropy increase,
nor do the 4 forces make anything go in one direction, including the 4
forces themselves! But how is this then the Dark Force or a manifestation of
it in Nature?
Entropy itself is not the dark force, Gibbs energy itself is not the Dark
force, however a CHANGE OF GIBBS ENERGY REQUIRES A FORCE: Delta G, not G.
I.e., G is Gibbs energy; DELTA G is a CHANGE IN Gibbs energy. A change
REQUIRES a force, a change IS CAUSED BY the force. Delta G - Delta H - T
Delta S. That change has a DIRECTION.
Any chemical action will proceed only if Delta G is a negative number.
Enthalpy is fixed for any selected compound. Temperature and pressure does
not really change a lot so you come to the conclusion that it is Delta S
(entropy) that defines the vectoring of Delta G (Gibbs energy). Vectoring
equals DIRECTIONALITY.
Which means, entropy defines the general direction in which ALL chemical
reactions go. G1 - G2 = Delta G. Not Gibbs energy, but the CHANGE in Gibbs
energy, which always goes toward negative numbers because Delta S always
goes up: THIRD AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.
So, because of these Laws, because of Delta S being prone to increase more
and more as time passes, more and more chaotic, complex or sophisticated
molecules will appear and life itself will appear and get more
sophisticated: evolve.
S up --> Chaos up --> Sophistication level up -->Second and Third Laws push
life forward relentlessly.
:)
:
Dilaudid
is the matter with you anyways? You could be a little more subtle and set
the example for Christ's sakes!news:1hs9o3tjjdl9qf7d7...@4ax.com...
marc
news:13ob181...@corp.supernews.com...
Tks for a most interesting post!
Re the comment about Einstein's belief in a deity:
> Einstein believed in a Deity, and so do I - if you can call it a Deity.
The following Einstein quotation clarifies (for all and sundry) that his use
of the term deity/god was metaphorical and hence wholly unrelated to and
wholly incompatible with the mythical god of abrahamic based religions.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Marc
Tani Jantsang©
> "Tani JantsangŠ" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
> news:13ob181...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Tks for a most interesting post!
>
> Re the comment about Einstein's belief in a deity:
>
>> Einstein believed in a Deity, and so do I - if you can call it a Deity.
>
> The following Einstein quotation clarifies (for all and sundry) that his
> use
> of the term deity/god was metaphorical and hence wholly unrelated to and
> wholly incompatible with the mythical god of abrahamic based religions.
He was too smart to believe in something like that, as are a lot of Jews.
If you found my "religion" interesting, I spelled it out more clearly to Bob
Cain on this thread, since he asked me about it.
>
> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
> lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
> God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If
> something
> is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
> for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
> -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by
> Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
I'm aware of that, but I don't think he believed there was nothing, like
hard-line Atheists do. "God does not play dice with the universe." He
surely had convictions there, strong ones. Odd thing is, if what we have
could be called a Deity, it does kinda play dice with the universe - but
there are levels of order in chaos - and vice versa. You know, I can see
why people find it really hard to understand our philosophy/religion when
they study it in colleges - I guess it's NOT easy to understand!
Anyway..... oftentimes, if I have to explain it I'm thrilled that the
person asking me knows SOME physics and cosmology, because I HAVE to use
science as a metaphor to explain it! Otherwise, it can't be explained -
hence it's called the esoteric school. It's not esoteric as in "secret,
don't tell anyone." It's esoteric in that I could shout it from rooftops
for all to hear - and FEW would HEAR - i.e., few would "get it."
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:fso8o35124l3aptrv...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:21:12 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>
<snip>
[Hammond]
Dear Tani, I've snipped your post to save space but I have
studied it carefully.
It moved me to investigate you more carefully... I
checked your Google posting history and spent an hour
reading your (volumous) Usenet postings!
The first item is this physical description of you from
sci.anthropology:
[Tani Jantsang© excerpt]
"I'm 3/4 Tatar (Uzbeki and Oirat) and 1/4 Russian Slav.
I'm a red head. I have that "look" too - like a cat
face. People DO like that look. Sharp features, like
pointy features, very sharp, straight high nose, almond
eyes, bow lips. And yeah, no weight problems. Not
ever. I look YOUNG for my age, too, always did."
[Hammond]
I am obviously talking to a career professional (probably
in Anthropology) who has enjoyed a lifetime of popularity,
influence and success. In short I am talking to someone who
has enjoyed being a natural born "authority" all of her
life. You’re impossible to ignore! Your commanding presence
is aptly illustrated from another of your posts from
sci.anthropology on a thread entitled "The female orgasm":
[Tani Jantsang© excerpt]
"I'm not sure about the size of the German, Scandinavian,
or Slavic "sausage", I've never studied it . (I would wonder
how to write that grant proposal). Of course, individual
sausage size varies amongst members of the same 'form',
(taxonomy term), or 'race'. I admit to being jealous of
Tommy Lee. Not for banging Pam Lee, (who looked
incredibly boring in bed, from my aesthetic judgment), Of
course, this could just be an effect of the far end of the
Gaussian curve, so we'd need to get lots of sausage, compare
height by weight by penis size and regress the data to find
out the mean by race. Now that's a project for the annals
of science. I'm sure it could at least win the Ig Nobel
Prize."
[Hammond]
Apparently Miss Campus Popularity being a sort of Lucille
Ball of the Anthropology Department has accidentally come
face to face with a geek version of Robert Wagner named
Hammond (btw my picture is at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/dcp00105.JPG
on the Physics newsgroups being hammered by his irate
colleagues for claiming to have discovered the world's first
scientific proof of God.
In short, I find it ironic that I am to be finally to be
recognized not by a Nobel Prize winning scientist, but by
the best looking woman on campus who happens to be a
religiously pissed off non-Christian Tartar Anthropology
professor!
At any rate, despite the fact that you are not a
physicist, your influential Usenet presence makes it
impossible for me to ignore you.
But rather than answer your post directly, I have found a
more summary post written by you which better serves as an
introduction to your theistic position; from alt.atheism:
[Tani Jantsang© excerpt]
You keep trying to equate the eastern concept of
Thatness with your creator-god or man-god. CAN NOT BE DONE.
There is NO God in these eastern systems. NO GOD. NO
CREATOR.
Calling something that can not be known "Thatness" is no
different from me saying that "SOMETHING pre-existed the Big
Bang." That's it. We call that Something Thatness - and
theorize that it IS spirit, it IS Beingness - it is the ALL
as One. The ONE IN All. Nothing more. We do NOT presume
to give it attributes other than what I just said.
Giving something attributes like that only comes to the
stupid fucking simpletons that have to have man-gods - and
so they CREATE them. PEOPLE created Gods. NOT the other
way around.
Go jerk off on some other newsgroup. This is a 6 month
long orgasm for you, you freaking pervert.
[Hammond]
You’re not a scientist and I remind you we are playing a
Sci-Rel game of Chess where the players include the Pope,
the Dali Lama, and BILLIONS of Eastern Oriental and Western
Christian pawns. I am only a lowly Knight, but you’re a
Queen, the most powerful piece on the board. Your posts are
scintillating world class writing in perfect grammar without
a single typo... you must be typing 70 wpm! You’re style is
blazing and electric..... that post about the "German
sausage" will doubtlessly be a Usenet legend in its own
time!
But don’t forget this, this Knight is holding a
scientific Royal Straight Flush in Spades and CANNOT BE
CALLED....not by the Pope, the President, or the Queen.
Scientific proof trumps ALL in today’s world, East or West!
So if the Queen is to prevail and not become another Joan of
Arc, she must have command of the number one "SUPER WEAPON"
in this war of unification.... and that is the discovery of
the Scientific Proof of God (aka "SPOG").
Simple logic tells us that if the world's first SPOG
has actually been found, then it must explain and unify ALL
of the "major" religions. Therefore we must conclude that
there IS a correspondence between the "deity" of the
Oriental religions, referred to as "Thatness",
"Nothingness", "Beingness" or the "Void", and the deity of
the Christian West referred to as "God". Supposedly the
SPOG will tell us EXACTLY what this correspondence is-- AND
IT DOES!
The Pope and the Dali Lama are talking about exactly the
SAME HUMAN TRANSENDENTAL PHENOMENA. And the SPOG has now
scientifically explained what that phenomena is, and can
measure it to 2 decimal places. The SPOG in fact clearly
shows that the "transcendental phenomena" of the Oriental
religions is IDENTICAL to the transcendental phenomena of
the Western religions.
LET ME EXPLAIN HOW THE "SPOG" SCIENTIFICALLY
UNITES THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CONCEPTS OF
"DEITY".
No adult human being is actually fully grown. This has
been known scientifically for 100 years ever since Auxology
discovered the Secular Trend in human growth. Some people
are more fully grown than others. On average, the world
adult population is about 20% short of full growth. This
means the human brain is 20% shy of full growth. Actually
psychologists noticed this before Auxologists! The great
Sigmund Freud was one of the first and he called the effect
of this ungrown state of the brain, the Unconscious Mind.
However, Freud was not the first to notice the phenomena.
It turns out Religion noticed the phenomena thousands of
years ago.... and they named it "God" (in the Western
world)... and "Thatness", "Nothingness", "Beingness" or "The
Void" in the Eastern world.
Now HOW can this phenomena be called a "Man" in one
religion and be called a "physical effect" in another
religion. Well, remember that by calling the Unconscious
Mind an anthropomorphic-God, this God necessarily becomes an
"INVISIBLE" man, since the ungrown part of the brain causes
an "unconscious" world. So this invisible man necessarily
lives in an invisible world... and in the East.... it is
this invisible world or "Void"... or place of "Nothingness"
that is referred to as the transcendental phenomena of
deity. While in the West, it is the "invisible man" rather
than the "invisible world" that is called the Deity...
namely "God".
So..... there is absolutely no difference between East
and West when it comes to the underlying phenomena of
religion.... it is simply a difference in convention.
Religiously speaking there is NO DIFFERENCE between a
Christian and a Buddhist or a Moslem! No essential
difference whatsoever. A Buddhist believes the same thing
as a Christian... and both of them are studying the SAME,
UNIVERSAL SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENA... the "same God" as it is
sometimes put.
Now meanwhile, modern science has progressed way beyond
Sigmund Freud. Today the "unconscious mind" appears as an
"eigenvector" extracted from a 200x200 matrix by a
mainframe computer. "God" is now an EIGENVECTOR extracted
by a computer ! And that’s only the tip of the scientific
iceberg... now Hammond has proven that not only is this
eigenvector caused by the "ungrown brain", it is in fact a
"curvature of subjective spacetime", hence: GOD IS A
CURVATURE OF SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME.
Well, I realize I’m getting over your head
scientifically. But the point that is important to you is
that the "THATNESS’ of the Eastern religions, has now been
shown to be IDENTICAL to what Christianity calls the
BEAUTIFIC VISION. For instance the Dali Lama is (nominally)
the person closest to actually be in POSSESION OF THE
BEAUTIGFIC VISION...... and the "Beatific Vision" also
called "Thatness" in the East..... is simply the vision that
the 100% fully grown man would see....IOW, the Beatific
Vision is the apprehension of "100% absolute reality".....
that is what "Thatness" means scientifically speaking. It
is also called "seeing God" by the way.... whereas what it
really means is "what God would see". So there is
essentially NO THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE between Christianity
and EASTERN Lamaism.
Well this post is long enough, I hope that you will
see what a powerful discovery has been made scientifically,
and what enormous hope it holds for the unification of the
world’s religions, and what a great step forward for
civilization it is.......since as we know, the first role of
religion is to combat evil.
±
admittedly) an old troll here.
> "George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
> news:rt23o35ht45b6f9do...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:37:33 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:ull1o3ldngl50s1ds...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:54:19 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:tsg1o3dk4148ug27k...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:33:56 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:2civn39tp83kqab8p...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:08:45 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>>>>>>>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>>>> I'm a physicist (M.S.) and not a "theist"
>>>>>>>> Physics has proven God exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[Jantsang]
>>>>>>>Um, you say physics has proven it. What does Neils Bohr say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>> I've discovered a CLASSICAL (Relativity) proof of God.
>>>>>
>>>>>You haven't discovered anything at all .. your paper is a load of crap.
>>>>>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> Stalkerazzi name calling. No physics. Get off this
>>>> thread punk.
>>>
>>>You stop posting off-topic in the relativity forum ,and I won't reply.
>>>
>>>You keep posting your crap .. and I'll keep denouncing it as such.
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Watch your language psycho
>
> You're the psycho .. how many times have you been put away int the loony bin
> now?
>
>> .. that last post was a meltdown.
>
> Do you think .. obviously your skills at psychoanalysis is as poor as your
> other science skills
>
>> BTW, I've been posting here for
>> 10 years
>
> Ten years of crap .. and noone believes you crackpot non-proof. You've still
> not taken the hint. Are you REALLY that stupid?
>
>> ... I'm not about to leave because of
>> filth like you.
>
> Oh .. that sounds like a meltdown to me. You're beginning to get a tad
> obsessed with me. HAHAHA
>
>> You'll be in a mental hospital taking
>> a vaction soon enough.
>
> No . that would be you.
>
>> I've seen it happen to half a dozen
>> other psychotic creeps like you.
>
> You mean .. when it happened to you?
>
>> Meanwhile.... you're
>> reduced to raving
>
> Really .. that seems to be what you're doing. Are you sure you're not
> looking at your OWN posts and thinking they are from a lunatic crackpot ..
> that's what everyone else thinksg when they see yours
>
>> at this point so I'll no longer
>> read your posts
>
> So you keep saying .. you still keep replying . .can't help yourself.
>
>> ... sayanara psycho. You're worthless.
>
> The only worthless thing here is your so-called proof .. Utter crap and
> nonsense .. you've been peddling it and lying about it for years .. noone
> believes it. When are you come to your senses .. or do you need a few more
> stints in hospital ???
Jeckyl
You must be a comedian .. noone sane could take themselves and the nonsense
they post that seriously.
Bob Cain
> (btw my picture is at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/dcp00105.JPG
Is that tin foil on your helmet?
Tani Jantsang©
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:31:19 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Dear Tani, I've snipped your post to save space but I have
> studied it carefully.
> It moved me to investigate you more carefully... I
> checked your Google posting history and spent an hour
> reading your (volumous) Usenet postings!
That could be a serious problem since a LOT of people have faked my name.
That's why I have the copyright sign on there - thinking it might help if I
complained to their ISP about faking my name. Heh, it didn't help :(
> The first item is this physical description of you from
> sci.anthropology:
>
> [Tani Jantsang© excerpt]
> "I'm 3/4 Tatar (Uzbeki and Oirat) and 1/4 Russian Slav.
> I'm a red head. I have that "look" too - like a cat
> face. People DO like that look. Sharp features, like
> pointy features, very sharp, straight high nose, almond
> eyes, bow lips. And yeah, no weight problems. Not
> ever. I look YOUNG for my age, too, always did."
I wrote that. That's mine. It must have been a personal chat - like the
time another person chatting to me ended up putting his medical history on
usenet. Then I remembered - OH,... the world can see us talking about
this. But I wrote that and it's obviously chit chatty personal stuff.
>
> [Hammond]
> I am obviously talking to a career professional (probably
> in Anthropology)
No, wrong field. I'm retired right now.
who has enjoyed a lifetime of popularity,
> influence and success.
I'm not an ambitious person. One might say I'm successful, but I'm a bit of
a loner, too. I never had a problem with having friends, so I guess that's
popular; moreso when I was younger and got out more.
In short I am talking to someone who
> has enjoyed being a natural born "authority" all of her
> life.
No, I'd wouldn't say that. I seem "authoritative" to a lot of people who
come off to me as shy people. But I'm up front, blunt.
You're impossible to ignore! Your commanding presence
> is aptly illustrated from another of your posts from
> sci.anthropology on a thread entitled "The female orgasm":
> [Tani Jantsang© excerpt]
> "I'm not sure about the size of the German, Scandinavian,
> or Slavic "sausage", I've never studied it . (I would wonder
> how to write that grant proposal). Of course, individual
> sausage size varies amongst members of the same 'form',
> (taxonomy term), or 'race'. I admit to being jealous of
> Tommy Lee. Not for banging Pam Lee, (who looked
> incredibly boring in bed, from my aesthetic judgment), Of
> course, this could just be an effect of the far end of the
> Gaussian curve, so we'd need to get lots of sausage, compare
> height by weight by penis size and regress the data to find
> out the mean by race. Now that's a project for the annals
> of science. I'm sure it could at least win the Ig Nobel
> Prize."
I did not write that post. Despite putting a copyright sign on my name to
try to prevent people faking it (as well they do that to others) - I
did not write that one. It's fake. Big Clue - I have no idea who Tom or
Pam Lee is. Whoever wrote that faking my name was a GUY - it's obvious from
the context - what he says about the Lees. A guy wrote that.
>
> [Hammond]
> Apparently Miss Campus Popularity being a sort of Lucille
> Ball of the Anthropology Department
OH, no no, far from it. I don't even remember the posts you dug up, but I
do recognize my paragraph. And I know that the other one is not something I
wrote.
has accidentally come
> face to face with a geek version of Robert Wagner named
> Hammond (btw my picture is at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/dcp00105.JPG
Nice looking man.
> on the Physics newsgroups being hammered by his irate
> colleagues for claiming to have discovered the world's first
> scientific proof of God.
> In short, I find it ironic that I am to be finally to be
> recognized not by a Nobel Prize winning scientist, but by
> the best looking woman on campus who happens to be a
> religiously pissed off non-Christian Tartar Anthropology
> professor!
I'm not an anthropology professor. OH, I'm not religiously pissed off. I
don't get into conversations about religion off line in real life.
Politics - OH yes. Speaking of which, I got into flame war with a troll,
trolling the atheist groups and bugging the shit out of me. I should
killfile him. Nobody has killfiled him, thus far, tho.
> At any rate, despite the fact that you are not a
> physicist, your influential Usenet presence makes it
> impossible for me to ignore you.
I really don't think I have an influential presense on the internet,
certainly not on usenet. I get flamed a lot, tho.
> But rather than answer your post directly, I have found a
> more summary post written by you which better serves as an
> introduction to your theistic position; from alt.atheism:
I'm not a theist. OR an atheist.
>
> [Tani Jantsang© excerpt]
> You keep trying to equate the eastern concept of
> Thatness with your creator-god or man-god. CAN NOT BE DONE.
> There is NO God in these eastern systems. NO GOD. NO
> CREATOR.
> Calling something that can not be known "Thatness" is no
> different from me saying that "SOMETHING pre-existed the Big
> Bang." That's it. We call that Something Thatness - and
> theorize that it IS spirit, it IS Beingness - it is the ALL
> as One. The ONE IN All. Nothing more. We do NOT presume
> to give it attributes other than what I just said.
> Giving something attributes like that only comes to the
> stupid fucking simpletons that have to have man-gods - and
> so they CREATE them. PEOPLE created Gods. NOT the other
> way around.
> Go jerk off on some other newsgroup. This is a 6 month
> long orgasm for you, you freaking pervert.
OH, HAAAAAAA! That was me flaming that troll that's trolling the atheists
and bugging the shit out of me for over 6 months. PHEW that was a flame.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're not a scientist and I remind you we are playing a
> Sci-Rel game of Chess where the players include the Pope,
> the Dali Lama, and BILLIONS of Eastern Oriental and Western
> Christian pawns. I am only a lowly Knight, but you're a
> Queen, the most powerful piece on the board. Your posts are
> scintillating world class writing in perfect grammar without
> a single typo... you must be typing 70 wpm! You're style is
> blazing and electric..... that post about the "German
> sausage" will doubtlessly be a Usenet legend in its own
> time!
I did not make that post, as I said. I admit to posts and flames that I
made. Not to ones that are faked. I make plenty of typos.
> But don't forget this, this Knight is holding a
> scientific Royal Straight Flush in Spades and CANNOT BE
snip to keep short
> So..... there is absolutely no difference between East
> and West when it comes to the underlying phenomena of
> religion.... it is simply a difference in convention.
OK. I can see that, even if it's a big difference in convention. There are
big differences in a lot of things.
> Religiously speaking there is NO DIFFERENCE between a
snip to keep short.
> Well this post is long enough, I hope that you will
> see what a powerful discovery has been made scientifically,
> and what enormous hope it holds for the unification of the
> world's religions, and what a great step forward for
> civilization it is.......since as we know, the first role of
> religion is to combat evil.
I think I follow what you are saying. I think what I wrote down that I
thought YOU were basically saying - then, you are agreeing. The CONCEPT of
God might be vastly different - but people do have the concept, the Idea.
If we were smarter, we'd know exactly what that is. No more mystery.
Take a look at the world. Nobody can unite the religions out there, no
matter what proofs they have. If Deity were to come to earth for all to see,
it wouldn't unite humans, imo. If there was no religion, humans would find
some other organized Whatever to band together in - and go to war over
resources just the same. That's my opinion. To get an idea of why I think
this, don't read the Quran. Listen to what the Jihadis are saying. I
listened. They mean to kill us - and if they saw you in person trying to
quantify God, they'd kill you.
Pischtoff
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:37:33 +1100, "Jeckyl"
><no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
George, this guy is a genuine hopeless case.
Judging by the amount of time he spends writing his crap, he must be unemployed
and certainly wouldn't be interested in women....the name 'Jeckyl' features
prominantly on alt.binaries.littleboys, too.
marc
news:13ockr1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "marc" <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Apmhj.165159$cJ3.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> news:13ob181...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Tks for a most interesting post!
>>
>> Re the comment about Einstein's belief in a deity:
>>
>>> Einstein believed in a Deity, and so do I - if you can call it a Deity.
>>
>> The following Einstein quotation clarifies (for all and sundry) that his
>> use
>> of the term deity/god was metaphorical and hence wholly unrelated to and
>> wholly incompatible with the mythical god of abrahamic based religions.
>
> He was too smart to believe in something like that, as are a lot of Jews.
> If you found my "religion" interesting, I spelled it out more clearly to
> Bob Cain on this thread, since he asked me about it.
I'll have a look at it.
>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
>> lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
>> personal
>> God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If
>> something
>> is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
>> admiration
>> for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
>> -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by
>> Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
>
> I'm aware of that, but I don't think he believed there was nothing, like
> hard-line Atheists do. "God does not play dice with the universe." He
> surely had convictions there, strong ones.
It seems clear (to me!) that the dice comment is a just metaphor asserting
his belief that the universe fundamentally behaves in a consistent and hence
knowable way rather than being at heart random which was why he could not
accept the tenets of quantum physics. I agree his conviction about the
behavior of the universe was strong but not that it entails or equates to
positing the existence of a reified human abstraction parcelled up as a
supernatural entity labeled as deity. People naively assume that 'reality'
can be explained in human-friendly terms and it makes us feel comfortable to
do so but the evidence suggests that 'reality' isn't human-friendly or
intuitively comprehensible at all (as demonstrated by the counter-intuitive
findings of special relativity at the macro and quantum behavior at the
micro level). People assume that 'reality' can be adequatedly described
through the ordering of abstractions invented by the human mind in certain
ways but since language is just a human invention, it offers no guarantee
that is use can accurately describe the universe in any meangingful way. The
only way (to date) of accurately describing the universe is through
mathematics (which might be deemed a human invention) but unlike language is
wholly devoid of any human-friendly or meaningful connotations.
Odd thing is, if what we have
> could be called a Deity, it does kinda play dice with the universe - but
> there are levels of order in chaos - and vice versa.
If we do have a deity indeed....
We have to be careful here because levels of order and chaos are human
interpretations (derived from empirical observations [mathematically
supported or otherwise] or derived from arbitrary abstractions of the human
mind) and such perceived (or imagined) levels may be integral to the
universe or may be nothing more than inventions of the human mind.
You know, I can see
> why people find it really hard to understand our philosophy/religion when
> they study it in colleges - I guess it's NOT easy to understand!
> Anyway..... oftentimes, if I have to explain it I'm thrilled that the
> person asking me knows SOME physics and cosmology, because I HAVE to use
> science as a metaphor to explain it! Otherwise, it can't be explained -
> hence it's called the esoteric school. It's not esoteric as in "secret,
> don't tell anyone." It's esoteric in that I could shout it from rooftops
> for all to hear - and FEW would HEAR - i.e., few would "get it."
To me it is a fundamental but open question whether the universe can be
meaningfully explained in human terms at all. There are various and numerous
belief systems that attempt to do so but I suspect those that prove to be
most impervious to intellectual dissection are likely to be the most
satisfying since they offer the most security of being the least able to be
undermined.
In the end, I think most people who think about such matters arrive at a
belief system that they are comfortable with - intellectually for some,
psychologically for most - be it atheism, agnosticism, personal and
knowable deity, impersonal and unknowable deity, (insert whatever
combination of possibilities you can think of here) and live life
accordingly whether deity belief plays an essential role or none at all. And
I suspect, never the twain...
Marc
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Yeah.... too bad about Jeckyl.... because he actually
knows some college level mathmatical-physics....and you know
everything else is just postage stamp collecting as Wigner
once said.
Problem is Jeckyl has a pessimism complex and gets
vindictive... the only thing he's really interested in is
posting vindictive posts to harrass other more optimistic
and constructive scientists.
The saddest thing is that he has apparently recognized
that quite likely "God" is a scientific (Relativistic)
phenomenon which is more than most physicists can recognize.
Ah well.... it's a big world.... all you can do is "read
em and weep" as one poker player said.
Tani Jantsang©
"marc" <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lKHhj.169837$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
> news:13ockr1...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "marc" <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Apmhj.165159$cJ3.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13ob181...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> Tks for a most interesting post!
>>>
>>> Re the comment about Einstein's belief in a deity:
>>>
>>>> Einstein believed in a Deity, and so do I - if you can call it a
>>>> Deity.
>>>
>>> The following Einstein quotation clarifies (for all and sundry) that his
>>> use
>>> of the term deity/god was metaphorical and hence wholly unrelated to
>>> and
>>> wholly incompatible with the mythical god of abrahamic based religions.
>>
>> He was too smart to believe in something like that, as are a lot of Jews.
>> If you found my "religion" interesting, I spelled it out more clearly to
>> Bob Cain on this thread, since he asked me about it.
>
> I'll have a look at it.
Well, I hope Bob Cain looks at it, since I took the time to type it and say
it in as clear a way as possible. Offline real life I never go into such
detail, usually preferring to say very little.
>
>>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
>>> a
>>> lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
>>> personal
>>> God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If
>>> something
>>> is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
>>> admiration
>>> for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
>>> -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited
>>> by
>>> Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
>>
>> I'm aware of that, but I don't think he believed there was nothing, like
>> hard-line Atheists do. "God does not play dice with the universe." He
>> surely had convictions there, strong ones.
>
> It seems clear (to me!) that the dice comment is a just metaphor asserting
> his belief that the universe fundamentally behaves in a consistent and
> hence knowable way rather than being at heart random which was why he
> could not accept the tenets of quantum physics. I agree his conviction
> about the behavior of the universe was strong but not that it entails or
> equates to positing the existence of a reified human abstraction parcelled
> up as a supernatural entity labeled as deity.
Well, we can never really know what he thought, really thought. I know he
was Jewish. If he self-identified as a Jew - well? Lots of Jews do this, as
if Jewish is a race or ethnicity - and if they feel that way about
themselves, that right there IS religion.
People naively assume that 'reality'
> can be explained in human-friendly terms and it makes us feel comfortable
> to do so but the evidence suggests that 'reality' isn't human-friendly or
> intuitively comprehensible at all (as demonstrated by the
> counter-intuitive findings of special relativity at the macro and quantum
> behavior at the micro level).
Ah! I know that western people do that. We don't - if anything, our
conceptions of the "wheel of life" are not nice, huggy or friendly at all.
Our law is adapt or perish, because that IS the law, as we see it. That,
imo, is the MAIN unbridgeable gulf that exists between west and east. Via
certain yogas, some of us know that the reality we think is there is not
reality at all. There is no way to describe such to anyone that has never
done it, seen it - but I can offer ONE person as an example to prove that we
CAN do this: Ramanajuan. He didn't sit down and calculate math. He "saw"
the answers -and he was pretty clear about how he saw these answers. The
answers to the math were right, as confirmed by mathematicians that did math
the normal way. Via such yogas, you might SEE that the walls are not solid
at all, they are mostly empty spaces. Coming out of the yoga, you'd have to
realize that in this reality, or samsara, you best not try to walk thru the
wall - because you can't. But you would be a person that KNEW at least that
one facet of what's "really there." The concept of samsara goes a lot
further than just that, too. Leave it to say, it's not a huggy, comfortable
place and we are the equivalent of dust motes in the midst of the boundless
mostly darkness. Nonetheless, we tend to have a cheerful mindset if "our
lives" are pleasant.
People assume that 'reality' can be adequatedly described
> through the ordering of abstractions invented by the human mind in certain
> ways but since language is just a human invention, it offers no guarantee
> that is use can accurately describe the universe in any meangingful way.
Well, people order reality in the way they see it, apply laws so they can
have harmonious societies, and so forth. We are not evolved to Know Truth.
We are evolved to survive. I tend to agree with the Copenhagen view - but I
take issue with the way they go about describing some things - which I
mentioned in my very first post on alt.sci.physics. I agree with it,
however, not because I'm a physicist (I'm not) I agree with it because what
they are saying is what I've SEEN (refer above to yogas).
The
> only way (to date) of accurately describing the universe is through
> mathematics (which might be deemed a human invention) but unlike language
> is wholly devoid of any human-friendly or meaningful connotations.
Agree.
>
> Odd thing is, if what we have
>> could be called a Deity, it does kinda play dice with the universe - but
>> there are levels of order in chaos - and vice versa.
>
> If we do have a deity indeed....
> We have to be careful here because levels of order and chaos are human
> interpretations (derived from empirical observations [mathematically
> supported or otherwise] or derived from arbitrary abstractions of the
> human mind) and such perceived (or imagined) levels may be integral to the
> universe or may be nothing more than inventions of the human mind.
You just described samsara! "manifestations of the illusory ego." Start
from where you said "derived from arbitrary abstractions." That's a
definition of samsara. When I say "what we have" I refer to my culture, our
philosophy, not humans in general. We are technically viewed as sort of
atheistic by theologians. It IS interesting that most humans, no matter
where they are or who they are, have a conception of a Deity of some kind.
In the olden days, people running into other people would recognize these
gods and say something like "oh, well that there god Aphrodite, that's like
our Venus. And Zeus, that's our Jupiter." They didn't squabble over which
one was real or more correct. That came later, with monotheism.
Perhaps what George Hammond has done is prove that the *conceptions* are
real - and showed why people have them. That's how I read it.
>
> You know, I can see
>> why people find it really hard to understand our philosophy/religion when
>> they study it in colleges - I guess it's NOT easy to understand!
>> Anyway..... oftentimes, if I have to explain it I'm thrilled that the
>> person asking me knows SOME physics and cosmology, because I HAVE to use
>> science as a metaphor to explain it! Otherwise, it can't be explained -
>> hence it's called the esoteric school. It's not esoteric as in "secret,
>> don't tell anyone." It's esoteric in that I could shout it from rooftops
>> for all to hear - and FEW would HEAR - i.e., few would "get it."
>
> To me it is a fundamental but open question whether the universe can be
> meaningfully explained in human terms at all.
It can't. All you can give are metaphors - and the problem with metaphors
is that they relate to things that are common - and not all people relate to
these common things in the same way. But it's all we have - metaphor. I'd
just guess that a straight math formula would be best.
There are various and numerous
> belief systems that attempt to do so but I suspect those that prove to be
> most impervious to intellectual dissection are likely to be the most
> satisfying since they offer the most security of being the least able to
> be undermined.
I'm not sure what you mean. Eastern philosophies of our type are not
simple - and it was not us, but the physicists that looked at these and said
"hey, I understand that - they are defining quantum objects." I can use
science as a metaphor to explain our belief system - but 150 years ago that
would have been impossible. The science didn't exist. There was NO way to
explain it. No metaphor. Also understand that personal beliefs or solitary
enlightenments are not quite the same thing as organized religious beliefs.
Organized religion is a SOCIAL structure intended to make things nice,
comfortable, communal for people, social animals - or at least these days
it's that (didn't used to be). Loner yogas intented to bring enlightenment
about "what's really there" are almost the opposite - and they ARE
dangerous, physically dangerous I mean.
>
> In the end, I think most people who think about such matters arrive at a
> belief system that they are comfortable with - intellectually for some,
> psychologically for most - be it atheism, agnosticism, personal and
> knowable deity, impersonal and unknowable deity, (insert whatever
> combination of possibilities you can think of here) and live life
> accordingly whether deity belief plays an essential role or none at all.
> And I suspect, never the twain...
Agree.
>
> Marc
>
George Hammond
<tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:fso8o35124l3aptrv...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:21:12 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
>> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>>
>
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>One thing before I say anything - on your website, you have "1st 4 pages"
>and suggest reading that first. Well, if I try to print that out, it's too
>big for the paper and the words are cut off. I can't seem to "select all"
>and "copy" it at all. It won't select or copy.
[Hammond]
You're making an elementary computer error. I just went
to my website and clicked the [>>] tab in the upper right
hand corner to open the page up full screen, then hit
"file, print" on the menu bar and the website prints out
PERFECTLY.... text, illustrations, everything, complete!
>
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>My husband read it - he wants to read it again to see something. There is
>some kind of big divide between precise mathematical stuff you refer to and
>really loose correlations, like enpg (3 personalities and intelligence) with
>xyzt. (3D space, 1 time).
>
[Hammond]
There's nothing "loose" in the entire proof. There may
be some lacunae in your husband's physics education.
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>I think I understand basically what you are saying. I'll give this a try -
>just hear me out before you interrupt, OK?:
>
>God = defecit in human growth.
>Growth = development and increase in size, brain works better, more
>intelligence.
>
>Gravity (Penrose's thing?) forms the brain, i.e., curved space (gravity).
>One might say that the 3 spacial dimensions plus time form everything in the
>world, including us.
>
[Hammond]
Close enough for a physics novice... congratulations.
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>Stuff that's unknown to us, due to undeveloped potential in brain, I'd say
>more likely equals the CONCEPT of God as an invisible man, the CONCEPT of an
>invisible realm.
[Hammond]
WRONG.... that is totally incorrect Tani...
You severely underestimate the phenomena of "God".
God is not an "idea"....NO WAY....
God is a REAL, VISIBLE, PHYSICAL PHENOMENA...!!!
<snip to save space>
>
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>Also, how does someone come up with "3 personality types" and come up with
>extrovert, neurotic and psychotic?
[Hammond]
Excellent question.... and it has an excellent answer!
Today Psychology is entirely scientific. What they do is go
out and give a 400 question test to say 50,000 people. Then
they "correlate" the answers using the Pearson correlation
coefficient. his yields a 400x400 correlation MATRIX of two
decimal point numbers.
Using gigantic computers they "diagonalize" and
"factorize" this matrix and extract the "eigenvectors".
Turns out there are always 3 of them.... they have named
these eigenvectors "E,N and P". they can "identify" them by
looking up which of the 400 questions load on them, and they
have obtained the names you listed.
Point is, they never knew WHERE they came from, until
HAMMOND discovered they come from the 3-axis cleavage of the
brain itself.
So ENP are not "hand waving psychoanalytical terms", they
are RIGOROUS, HARD SCIENTIFIC precisely measurable
quantities.
<snip.... psychoanalysis and philosophy>
>
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>One thing neither of us quite got - the first thing, with the DOS stick
>figure you made. Humans have bilateral symmetry. That's all.
[Hammond]
WRONG AGAIN.... humans ( and all vertebrates) actually have
DORSO-VENTRAL symmetry too, besides BILATERAL symmetry.
That's why the brain is 4-way symmetric, not just 2-way
symmetric.
If you don't believe this, just stop by the fish counter
in the supermarket and take a close look at a Swordfish
steak! Notice it is 4-way symmetric, not just 2-way
symmetric and looks like this:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU1.jpg
(see fig. "g")
that's a "crossection" of the fish's body you're looking at,
and all vertebrates are similar see:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Fig2an3.jpg
and notice CLEAR "dorso-ventral" as well as "bilateral"
symmetry of the vertebrate body.
This 4-way cleavage of the BRAIN causes the "Structural
Model of Personality" so called a discovery made and
published by me incidentally (Hammond, 1994).
>[Tani Jantsang©]
> Are you
>talking about the zygote before there is cell differentiation?
>
[Hammond]
the zygote itself is cleaved 4-way symmetric (4 cell
stage), this is where the 4-waqy symmetry of the human body
COMES FROM as discovered by Wilhelm Roux in 1888.
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>Anyway - I think that you should perhaps add, when you say "god," you should
>say "CONCEPT of god."
[Hammond]
WRONG... DEAD WRONG TANI..!
"God" is NOT a "concept" or an "idea"... whaddau think 3
billion adults are stupid?
"God" is a REAL, VISIBLE, PHYSICALLY REAL PHENOMENON,
which is why untold billions of people have been talking
about it for untold thousands of years.
<snip>
>
>[Tani Jantsang©]
>Let us say that humans reach full 100% potential. No more concepts of
>invisible worlds or beings. Do WE become God?
[Hammond]
YES..... the answer is YES!
The human race is becoming better grown every generation
and this is known as the "Secular Trend" in Auxology. At
some undetermined future date we will ALL be "fully grown"
and we will all be "God in the flesh" and be living in a
perfect world (which we constructed). The DATE of this
event is called "Kingdom Come" (cf. the Lord's Prayer) in
religion. Scientifically it is the final plateau of the
Secular Trend curve.. when the curve reaches 100% growth.
this is at least 10,000 years in the future by my estimate.
>
>And yeah, I am polite to people that are polite to me.
>
[Hammond]
You're more polite than most Usenet people... which is part
of your charm.... most scientists would view you as the
"Anne Frank of the Gobi Desert"...which is who every man is
looking for if she existed.... especially to your admirers
at a distance on the Physics and Science newsgroups.
I've read every thing Anne Frank ever wrote...she wrote more
than just her "diary" you know...even though she was only
15.
This is why so many guys are plagiarizing you name, they're
going to catapult you into world fame whether you like it or
not.
>
>You brought up Usenet and flames - but that's what I said. WHY post this on
>Usenet? People don't go looking for serious anything on Usenet.
[Hammond]
The Internet (Usenet especially) is the ONLY free,
direct, immediate publishing medium that is UNCONTROLLED by
the "establishment".... that is the only reason I'm here.
It is a godsend to the oppressed intellectual especially
those researchers who have made original discoveries that
the establishment want suppressed.
Bob Cain
> Well, I hope Bob Cain looks at it, since I took the time to type it and say
> it in as clear a way as possible. Offline real life I never go into such
> detail, usually preferring to say very little.
In fact, I have put off reading it until I have adequate contiguous time to give
it the attention I figured it would deserve. I had a feeling you would put the
kind of effort into it that you indicate here and that a cursory or fragmented
reading probably wouldn't do it justice.
I'm not sure it is possible for someone indoctrinated in the deistic views that
I was to really grasp the views indoctrinated by your culture but sincere
efforts to explicate it are always welcome. I think our ability to even
conceive matters in this realm when we are older is determined largely by the
indoctrination we receive as youngsters. So while I might not even be equipped
to understand it I enjoy the attempt. :-)
I fear that the west's inability to conceive the inner state of a very large
percentage of Muslims could prove fatal to it because that demise is, in large
part, the intent as conceived by its founder. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/review/Manji-t.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin
or
Later,
±
At least he said goodbye.
[ some kerfuffle snipped ]
>> I'm not wasting any more time with you and will simply
>> killfile you
>>.... in the end it is because you have NOTHING
Tani Jantsang©
me about it.
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:SKidnY727tPESxra...@giganews.com...
Tani Jantsang©
Bob, oh yes, you are right about Islam and the west's inability to really
grasp the threat. No matter if they speak as if they do, their actions
prove they have no clue (heh, that rhymes!). - But this is not a topic for
here - EMAIL? I'll try later, see if this is correct email.
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:SKidnY727tPESxra...@giganews.com...
George Hammond
> Bob, oh yes, you are right about Islam
[Hammond]
Tani.... please do not change the headers on my discussion
threads. Start you own thread if you want a different title.
Secondly, a post entitled "Islam" should not be posted to 5
PHYSICS NEWSGROUPS !
What the hell do you think you're doing?
If you're not going to talk science, please get off the Physics
newsgroups.
Hammond, M.S. Physics
Tani Jantsang©
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:om8fo3hbfcklf63ri...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:31:19 -0500, "Tani Jantsang©"
> <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:
>
>>[Tani Jantsang©]
>>One thing before I say anything - on your website, you have "1st 4 pages"
>>and suggest reading that first. Well, if I try to print that out, it's
>>too
>>big for the paper and the words are cut off. I can't seem to "select all"
>>and "copy" it at all. It won't select or copy.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're making an elementary computer error. I just went
> to my website and clicked the [>>] tab in the upper right
> hand corner to open the page up full screen, then hit
> "file, print" on the menu bar and the website prints out
> PERFECTLY.... text, illustrations, everything, complete!
Not for me. It gets cut off. It's not wrapping. I tried to "save as" and
I ended up with source code. Hmm, I can try again after making the "text
size" smaller.
>
>
>>[Tani Jantsang©]
>>Stuff that's unknown to us, due to undeveloped potential in brain, I'd say
>>more likely equals the CONCEPT of God as an invisible man, the CONCEPT of
>>an
>>invisible realm.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG.... that is totally incorrect Tani...
> You severely underestimate the phenomena of "God".
> God is not an "idea"....NO WAY....
> God is a REAL, VISIBLE, PHYSICAL PHENOMENA...!!!
But you agree that if we had FULL growth/potential, WE would be God. That
would suggest that humans have a concept of God, not that there is an
external being somewhere up there or out there that exists. OH, one more
thing - Australia's aborigines were there about 50 to 60 thou years ago.
Either humans originally had an idea of God before they spread out, or they
developed this independently of each other.
>
> <snip to save space>
Same here, snip.
>
>>
>>[Tani Jantsang©]
>>Also, how does someone come up with "3 personality types" and come up with
>>extrovert, neurotic and psychotic?
>
> [Hammond]
> Excellent question.... and it has an excellent answer!
> Today Psychology is entirely scientific. What they do is go
> out and give a 400 question test to say 50,000 people. Then
> they "correlate" the answers using the Pearson correlation
> coefficient.
> <snip.... psychoanalysis and philosophy>
Not my point. Neurology explains this better.
>>
>>[Tani Jantsang©]
>>One thing neither of us quite got - the first thing, with the DOS stick
>>figure you made. Humans have bilateral symmetry. That's all.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG AGAIN.... humans ( and all vertebrates) actually have
> DORSO-VENTRAL symmetry too, besides BILATERAL symmetry.
> That's why the brain is 4-way symmetric, not just 2-way
> symmetric.
> If you don't believe this, just stop by the fish counter
> in the supermarket and take a close look at a Swordfish
> steak! Notice it is 4-way symmetric, not just 2-way
> symmetric and looks like this:
>
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU1.jpg
> (see fig. "g")
That's the brain, not the body. We don't have eyes or a whole face in the
back of our heads or feet growing out of our heads. Neither of us can see
how this is even important to the theory.
>>
>>[Tani Jantsang©]
>>Let us say that humans reach full 100% potential. No more concepts of
>>invisible worlds or beings. Do WE become God?
>
> [Hammond]
> YES..... the answer is YES!
>>And yeah, I am polite to people that are polite to me.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're more polite than most Usenet people... which is part
> of your charm....
Oh, I can flame and curse like a trooper - and the problem with usenet is
that I sometimes get caught up in the rubbish instead of just killfiling
someone that's obviously being a provoking troll - like that guy trolling
the atheist groups and me with libelous rubbish, too. That's the thing.
Usenet - ACH - one just gets caught up (and I do have the time, for sure)
and so much of it is rubbish. In person, people do not get into exchanges
like that - not ever - hell, a physical fight breaks out long before it gets
anywhere as bad as it does on usenet.
My husband wants to look at your paper again, but on first reading, what I
wrote is what we both got out of it. I might not be able to understand the
"language" or formula of physics, but I do know the basics - he can explain
the technicalities, or moreso, translate it! It's like another language.
At least we both got the POINT of it.
Imo, there is clearly something you are seeing, or intuiting - but so far,
it still sounds like you found a proof os why humans have ideas of God. And
do I think billions of humans are stupid? Yes, I do - and yes they are!
It's only due to a FEW humans that we are where we are totay, industry,
technology - and then again, we have no idea if any of that is good for us -
it's not been around long enough to see. Proof of God would entail proving
that there is an EXTERNAL Being out there, some where - a Being that is NOT
one of us. Since WE can develop and grow to full potential and BECOME that
God - that would imply that God is not a non-human external being.
I'm sorry people flame you - and I find some of your flames back to them
funny as hell! Really. It all can seem funny so long as I'm not the one
being flamed and flaming back. Then it's not funny. It's angry. But truth
to tell, is the Moslem clerics got a hold of you and your paper, they'd kill
you and destroy your paper. Do I think they are stupid? You bet! And
dangerous.
Tani Jantsang©
making the text small. I managed to get it by copying sections of text and
printing out the rest so that the diagrams showed. I just put the text in
MS Word and printed it from there after fixing the margins. It's almost as
if you put text boxes in there, I had to adjust them to get it to print
properly. I know how to do html, btw. The text is not wrapping when I go
to print it. You didn't use straight clean code on there, html. I made no
error, trust me on that one.
You should fix that IF you want people to print this out - not all printers
are the same and not all puter programs wrap text if it's not wrapped.
Yours doesn't wrap to page size.
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:om8fo3hbfcklf63ri...@4ax.com...
marc
inline dialogue may eventually defeat even the power of whatever alleged
deity one cares to posit :)
"Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
news:13of47p...@corp.supernews.com...
Quite so that we can never know what he really thought. All we can do is
take his words about what he meant about god (there are a number of quotes,
not just the one above) and these words make it clear he was using god as a
metaphor for the knowable coherence that manifests itself through our
understanding about how the universe 'works' and has nothing to do with any
kind of a personal god. The fact that Einstein was a jew is not
justification per se for assigning certain beliefs to him by assuming he
must conform to a stereotyping of what other jews are thought to believe or
feel.
Law is a human concept and does not necessarily have any fundamental
correlates in the universe at large (notwithstanding that the universe
clearly appears to function according to various 'laws' that we are able to
mathematically formulate and empirically verify). I view the 'wheel of life'
as just a(nother) human abstraction metaphor of psychological comfort
providing the framework of an existential anchor for considering the human
condition. I agree that we must either adapt or perish but that is a
consequence of the dynamics of the physical world we inhabit, one that makes
no special considerations, exceptions or concessions for humans, so
adaptation is necessary.
I do not accept the validity of any arbitrary position that claims to know
reality without supporting evidence as this simply leads to any number of
competing versions of realities although no doubt psychological comfort can
be gained by believing that one has some special access to and knows
'reality'. This is the stuff of delusion. In essence belief about a deep
insight into reality is no different from religious belief that purports to
represent some deep insight of reality (the version of the insight varies
depending on what particular myth one chooses to believe is real). Holding
either of these kinds of belief that realty can be classified as knowable
through god or knowable through 'mystic' experience or trances is just a way
of trying to satisfy the psychological need to achieve (some measure of)
understanding.
I have no problem with the concept that we are unable to grasp the
fundamental nature of reality, certainly as things stand now. It is an open
question that may or may not be resolved one
day/decade/century/millennium.... I also have no problem that yogas (or
other people who practice certain disciplines) can achieve brain states that
they interpret as experiencing direct contact with or vision of some sort of
ineffable ultimate reality. However, I am not at all convinced this equates
to actually achieving direct contact or vision with some sort of ineffable
reality rather than just a particular neurologically-based psychological
experience. By the same token, I am not convinced (in fact am quite certain)
that people who think they have been communicated with (or touched by) some
personal god are expressing anything other than the effect of some brain
state that produced some experience that has been personally interpreted
under the influence cultural environment and upbringing, possibly
facilitated by some physiological predisposition.
> People assume that 'reality' can be adequatedly described
>> through the ordering of abstractions invented by the human mind in
>> certain ways but since language is just a human invention, it offers no
>> guarantee that is use can accurately describe the universe in any
>> meangingful way.
>
> Well, people order reality in the way they see it, apply laws so they can
> have harmonious societies, and so forth. We are not evolved to Know
> Truth. We are evolved to survive. I tend to agree with the Copenhagen
> view - but I take issue with the way they go about describing some
> things - which I mentioned in my very first post on alt.sci.physics. I
> agree with it, however, not because I'm a physicist (I'm not) I agree
> with it because what they are saying is what I've SEEN (refer above to
> yogas).
We have evolved as a result of natural processes that demand survival as the
primary driver. However the advent of the ability of abstraction has also
brought with it psychological drivers such as the need for understanding.
The concept of truth is just a human concept, a label that we arbitrarily
assign to that which we feel correlates with understanding. Our
investigation of 'reality' may eventually lead us to conclude we have
discovered truth or may eventually lead us to believe truth is nothing more
than a human concept of convenience and comfort and has no fundamental
external correlate outside of the human mind. Whether or not truth is
anything more than a human concept is an open question but many people think
they have discovered truth through religious, philosophical or mystical
routes because it is deeply psychologically satisfying to do so. Hence
people are quite prepared to abandon or pervert intellectual integrity to
maintain such belief. We cannot say we have evolved either for this purpose
or not for that purpose since evolution as above is driven by survival
through adaptation. Overlaying (or denying ) a specific purpose on evolution
is just a comfort-giving human abstraction that makes us feel we understand
reality (and our place in it) at some profound level.
I cannot comment on what you have seen, or what you think you have seen, or
your interpretation of either. However, it is a common occurrence for people
to believe they have witnessed something so extraordinary that it can only
be explained by some 'science can't possibly explain this' personal
interpretation of their choice, a choice usually shaped by the influence of
cultural heritage. Whether such explanations are actually outside scientific
explanation (unlikely but not impossible) and if so, whether permanently or
temporarily are open questions. There are various 'savants' in the western
world (and no doubt elsewhere) who can perform all manner of astounding
mental feats (frequently mathematical) without going into any kind of brain
state altering trances etc. It just shows that the human brain has extremely
powerful potential. It is easy and tempting to ascribe esoteric explanation
to uncommon manifestations of this potential that pander to one's own
worldview and thereby provide the psychological gratification of seducing
oneself into believing they have a deep insight into the nature of reality.
Any definition depends on some arbitrary abstraction(s). The problem arises
when people do not realise (or will not accept) this and delude themselves
into thinking that their definition (of whatever) describes the truth. It is
trivially easy to see how religious beliefs arose in primitive and
superstition dominated cultures as the reified projections of human
abstraction arising from fear and hope. Such beliefs may have been of some
benefit at earlier stages of cultural evolution but I see no excuse for
persisting with the patent nonsense of these beliefs in the current era, at
least for those who are prepared to think rather than seek refuge in
psychologically comforting myths. I agree about the 'illusory ego' in that
our sense of self is a neurologically based phenomenon arising from coherent
persistence of brain states.
> Perhaps what George Hammond has done is prove that the *conceptions* are
> real - and showed why people have them. That's how I read it.
Hammond has proved how severely confused and deluded a human mind can
become.
>> You know, I can see
>>> why people find it really hard to understand our philosophy/religion
>>> when they study it in colleges - I guess it's NOT easy to understand!
>>> Anyway..... oftentimes, if I have to explain it I'm thrilled that the
>>> person asking me knows SOME physics and cosmology, because I HAVE to use
>>> science as a metaphor to explain it! Otherwise, it can't be explained -
>>> hence it's called the esoteric school. It's not esoteric as in "secret,
>>> don't tell anyone." It's esoteric in that I could shout it from
>>> rooftops for all to hear - and FEW would HEAR - i.e., few would "get
>>> it."
>>
>> To me it is a fundamental but open question whether the universe can be
>> meaningfully explained in human terms at all.
>
> It can't. All you can give are metaphors - and the problem with metaphors
> is that they relate to things that are common - and not all people relate
> to these common things in the same way. But it's all we have - metaphor.
> I'd just guess that a straight math formula would be best.
As I said above, it is an open question whether the universe can
(eventually) be meaningfully explained in human terms at all (nb: human
terms = terms used by humans, not terms that give humans some privileged
place). There is no justification (other than psychological gratification)
for arbitrarily declaring that the universe can't be meaningfully explained
in human terms since that presupposes the human mind can meaningfully
explain the universe in human terms to justify the claim the universe can't
be meaningfully explained in human terms! We have no idea how the human mind
will develop over time and how well we may one day be able to explain the
universe. It is certainly the case that metaphor does (and probably must)
play a large role in our understanding and description of the universe in
language at present. Whether that will always be the case is an open
question. Whether mathematics is just a convenient human invention or
represents some fundamental aspect of reality is an open question.
> There are various and numerous
>> belief systems that attempt to do so but I suspect those that prove to be
>> most impervious to intellectual dissection are likely to be the most
>> satisfying since they offer the most security of being the least able to
>> be undermined.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Eastern philosophies of our type are not
> simple - and it was not us, but the physicists that looked at these and
> said "hey, I understand that - they are defining quantum objects." I can
> use science as a metaphor to explain our belief system - but 150 years ago
> that would have been impossible. The science didn't exist. There was NO
> way to explain it. No metaphor. Also understand that personal beliefs or
> solitary enlightenments are not quite the same thing as organized
> religious beliefs. Organized religion is a SOCIAL structure intended to
> make things nice, comfortable, communal for people, social animals - or at
> least these days it's that (didn't used to be). Loner yogas intented to
> bring enlightenment about "what's really there" are almost the opposite -
> and they ARE dangerous, physically dangerous I mean.
I am not clear what you saying, or maybe implying. Are you claiming eastern
philosophies had described reality in a way that has been subsequently
verified by quantum physics? What exactly is the it of eastern philosophies
that you is think is similar or equates to a quantum object. I would be most
interested in this. What I have read of such purported congruence of
fundamentals of eastern philosophies and fundamentals of quantum physics is
nonsense based on nothing more than the banality of superficial semantics. I
have no problem accepting that yogas (or whoever) can induce brain states
that defy articulation in language but I see no justification (other than
psychological gratification) for assuming such brain states indicate contact
with some fundamental reality (any more than an lsd experience verifies
contact with some fundamental reality other than just an altered brain
state).
>> In the end, I think most people who think about such matters arrive at a
>> belief system that they are comfortable with - intellectually for some,
>> psychologically for most - be it atheism, agnosticism, personal and
>> knowable deity, impersonal and unknowable deity, (insert whatever
>> combination of possibilities you can think of here) and live life
>> accordingly whether deity belief plays an essential role or none at all.
>> And I suspect, never the twain...
>
> Agree.
I think the main difference between our positions is this:
- I have bought into a scientific approach and believe there are a number of
open questions about the fundamental nature of reality that may or may not
be able to be answered over time and therefore accept all knowledge about
reality as provisional
- you have bought into a particular philosophy that makes certain statements
about the fundamental nature of reality based on nothing more than
interpretation of personal experience that you accept as absolute knowledge
about reality
So there would appear to be an unbridgeable gap between seeking to
understand reality by looking outward with objective examination of the
external world or looking inward with interpretation of personal experience.
The former gives no special prominence to the human mind in the greater
scheme of things whereas the later does give the human mind special
prominence by claiming it can make contact with a higher or more absolute
reality which, as I said above, has lot a common religion, although nowhere
near as absurd.
Marc
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
news:919555fd-5ba4-4d9d...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
...
> If you're not going to talk science, please get
> off the Physics newsgroups.
Pot calling the kettle black.
David A. Smith
George Hammond
<bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[Hammond]
Look imbecilic typing savant... your post doesn't contain
ONE IOTA OF PHYSICS and is posted to 5 Physics Newsgroups.
If you're not going to talk physics, get off this thread and
stay off it.... go post it on one of the high school
graduate religious Newsgroups. You're in violation of
Usenet rules.
Hammond, M.S. Physics
George Hammond
[Hammond]
I didn't realize you were a crackpot until you started
heckling this thread and thus confirming it.
Hammond's scientific proof of God is an (Einsteinian)
Curvature of 4D subjective spacetime which is experimentally
measureable to 3 significant figures and therefore CLEARLY
belongs on the Physics Newsgroups as an "Applied
Relativity" discovery.
Go back to your graduate school physics marvels and stay
off this thread.
Don Stockbauer
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:01:51 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
>
> \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >news:919555fd-5ba4-4d9d...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >...
> >> If you're not going to talk science, please get
> >> off the Physics newsgroups.
>
> >Pot calling the kettle black.
>
> >David A. Smith
>
> [Hammond]
> I didn't realize you were a crackpot until you started
> heckling this thread and thus confirming it.
> Hammond's scientific proof of God is an (Einsteinian)
> Curvature of 4D subjective spacetime which is experimentally
> measureable to 3 significant figures and therefore CLEARLY
> belongs on the Physics Newsgroups as an "Applied
> Relativity" discovery.
> Go back to your graduate school physics marvels and stay
> off this thread.
> =====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =====================================
No need to prove God. God and the Universe are identical. Unless you
want to doubt the Universe.
At least all this chatter helps to form the Global Brain, which is
formed via communication.
- Tex
Tani Jantsang©
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ig7ij.43522$1C4....@newsfe10.phx...
> "George Hammond" <george...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:919555fd-5ba4-4d9d...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>> If you're not going to talk science, please get
>> off the Physics newsgroups.
>
Um, what is it you didn't understand about this paragraph:
Tani Jantsang©
> I've commented inline, although following an accumulation of interspersed
> inline dialogue may eventually defeat even the power of whatever alleged
> deity one cares to posit :)
I'm not sure who posted what to who here - but I'll comment. Look someone
asked me a question - yeah, it's off topic for here. I recently posted and
suggested email instead, since it's off topic.
>
>
> I do not accept the validity of any arbitrary position that claims to know
> reality without supporting evidence as this simply leads to any number of
> competing versions of realities although no doubt psychological comfort
> can
> be gained by believing that one has some special access to and knows
> 'reality'.
I agree. I make a wide difference between things like that, eg, from
yogas - and empirical science. As such, I see neurology as empirical hard
sci. Psychology is bunk. But keep in mind, someone asked me a question
that WAS off topic.
>
> I have no problem with the concept that we are unable to grasp the
> fundamental nature of reality, certainly as things stand now. It is an
> open
> question that may or may not be resolved one
> day/decade/century/millennium.... I also have no problem that yogas (or
> other people who practice certain disciplines) can achieve brain states
> that
> they interpret as experiencing direct contact with or vision of some sort
> of
> ineffable ultimate reality.
We say that it is all a manifestation of the illusory ego. We DO say that.
However, I am not at all convinced this equates
> to actually achieving direct contact or vision with some sort of ineffable
> reality rather than just a particular neurologically-based psychological
> experience.
Ditto above. However, Ramajuan did get math answers his way. Imo, it's
just another way the brain can function to DO math. Obviously, that has to
be the case, since he got answers and was open about HOW he got them.
By the same token, I am not convinced (in fact am quite certain)
> that people who think they have been communicated with (or touched by)
> some
> personal god are expressing anything other than the effect of some brain
> state that produced some experience that has been personally interpreted
> under the influence cultural environment and upbringing, possibly
> facilitated by some physiological predisposition.
Manifestation of illusory ego - something that is experienced - and the
brain interprets it. That's what is said - officially, too.
>>
>> Well, people order reality in the way they see it, apply laws so they can
>> have harmonious societies, and so forth. We are not evolved to Know
>> Truth. We are evolved to survive. I tend to agree with the Copenhagen
>> view - but I take issue with the way they go about describing some
>> things - which I mentioned in my very first post on alt.sci.physics. I
>> agree with it, however, not because I'm a physicist (I'm not) I agree
>> with it because what they are saying is what I've SEEN (refer above to
>> yogas).
> We have evolved as a result of natural processes that demand survival as
> the
> primary driver. However the advent of the ability of abstraction has also
> brought with it psychological drivers such as the need for understanding.
> The concept of truth is just a human concept, a label that we arbitrarily
> assign to that which we feel correlates with understanding. Our
> investigation of 'reality' may eventually lead us to conclude we have
> discovered truth or may eventually lead us to believe truth is nothing
> more
> than a human concept of convenience and comfort and has no fundamental
> external correlate outside of the human mind. Overlaying (or denying ) a
> specific purpose on evolution
> is just a comfort-giving human abstraction that makes us feel we
> understand
> reality (and our place in it) at some profound level.
snip stuff that just doesn't apply
>
> I cannot comment on what you have seen, or what you think you have seen,
> or
> your interpretation of either.
Heh, neither could I, save to describe it. Hey, for me this is no big deal.
However, it is a common occurrence for people
> to believe they have witnessed something so extraordinary that it can only
> be explained by some 'science can't possibly explain this'
What did surprise me was that science DID explain it :) It just surprised
me. Nothing more - and keep in mind someone ASKED me about this.
personal
> interpretation of their choice, a choice usually shaped by the influence
> of
> cultural heritage. Whether such explanations are actually outside
> scientific
> explanation (unlikely but not impossible) and if so, whether permanently
> or
> temporarily are open questions. There are various 'savants' in the western
> world (and no doubt elsewhere) who can perform all manner of astounding
> mental feats (frequently mathematical) without going into any kind of
> brain
> state altering trances etc.
Some of them are autistic - and that right there IS an altered brain state.
snip more that doesn't apply .
For us, the only "truth" is the voidness. The rest is illusory. That's the
doctrine I mean. Not personal. Hell, for ME the truth is a great sunny day
on the beach, water warm, no rain. HA.
It is
> trivially easy to see how religious beliefs arose in primitive and
> superstition dominated cultures as the reified projections of human
> abstraction arising from fear and hope. Such beliefs may have been of some
> benefit at earlier stages of cultural evolution but I see no excuse for
> persisting with the patent nonsense of these beliefs in the current era,
> at
> least for those who are prepared to think rather than seek refuge in
> psychologically comforting myths.
Dawkins agrees as do many others. Religion seems to be something humans
just DO - no matter what they might KNOW that contradicts their beliefs (big
eg, soviet union).
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. Eastern philosophies of our type are not
>> simple - and it was not us, but the physicists that looked at these and
>> said "hey, I understand that - they are defining quantum objects." I can
>> use science as a metaphor to explain our belief system - but 150 years
>> ago
>> that would have been impossible. The science didn't exist. There was NO
>> way to explain it. No metaphor. Also understand that personal beliefs
>> or
>> solitary enlightenments are not quite the same thing as organized
>> religious beliefs. Organized religion is a SOCIAL structure intended to
>> make things nice, comfortable, communal for people, social animals - or
>> at
>> least these days it's that (didn't used to be). Loner yogas intented to
>> bring enlightenment about "what's really there" are almost the opposite -
>> and they ARE dangerous, physically dangerous I mean.
>
> I am not clear what you saying, or maybe implying. Are you claiming
> eastern
> philosophies had described reality in a way that has been subsequently
> verified by quantum physics?
Yes - a few of them wrote books or articles on this. Truth to tell, it was
over my head. They may have said it was similar, but fuzzy - some
philosophers noted it. At least one of them, Kabra's book, he had Taoism
wrong - I'm not sure about his science. He missed the 4 forces in Taoism:
strong, weak, heavy and light. eg, Strong is strongest force of all, light
moves like light thru the ether, heavy - what makes things heavy etc.
>
> - I have bought into a scientific approach and believe there are a number
> of
> open questions about the fundamental nature of reality that may or may not
> be able to be answered over time and therefore accept all knowledge about
> reality as provisional
I agree with that.
>
> - you have bought into a particular philosophy that makes certain
> statements
> about the fundamental nature of reality based on nothing more than
> interpretation of personal experience that you accept as absolute
> knowledge about reality
You are mistaken. I have a cultural tradition, sure - and someone ASKED ME
ABOUT IT!!! HELLO? I tend to restrict my reality to very practical matters.
I'm interested in science, yes. But it doesn't pay my bills.
>
> So there would appear to be an unbridgeable gap between seeking to
> understand reality by looking outward with objective examination of the
> external world or looking inward with interpretation of personal
> experience.
Einstein said that his "thinking" on physics was done by some kind of
muscular dynamic feelings in his body. That's where looking inward,
combined with the technical knowledge, comes out - heh, Einstein.
> The former gives no special prominence to the human mind in the greater
> scheme of things whereas the later does give the human mind special
> prominence by claiming it can make contact with a higher or more absolute
> reality which, as I said above, has lot a common religion, although
> nowhere
> near as absurd.
Ever entertain the idea that what's known today was once known before - and
that thru the ages, it got degraded, the knowledge lost? Hellenic people
talked about atoms. That all went by the wayside - until much later when
others talked about atoms.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
TMG
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:00:39 GMT, "marc"
> <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Usenet rules.
Usenet rules? What usenet rules? This is as stupid as your ranting about
"YOUR" threads, and telling people not to change headers in "YOUR" threads.
George, you really misunderstand Usenet. There is no "Your", "Mine",
"Ours", or "Theirs". It's all bits and bytes - not yours or mine. It's
not yours to control, even if you could.
Jeckyl
news:ubdeo31v6bpqtped7...@4ax.com...
Really .. is that a newsgroup you frequent?
Jeckyl
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:01:51 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <george...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:919555fd-5ba4-4d9d...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>...
>>> If you're not going to talk science, please get
>>> off the Physics newsgroups.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black.
>>
>>David A. Smith
>>
>
> [Hammond]
> I didn't realize you were a crackpot until you started
> heckling this thread and thus confirming it.
> Hammond's scientific proof of God is an (Einsteinian)
> Curvature of 4D subjective spacetime which is experimentally
> measureable to 3 significant figures and therefore CLEARLY
> belongs on the Physics Newsgroups as an "Applied
> Relativity" discovery.
Utter crap and nonsense .. it is not scientific at all. There is no
experimental scientific measurement of God
Jeckyl
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:00:39 GMT, "marc"
> <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Look imbecilic typing savant... your post doesn't contain
> ONE IOTA OF PHYSICS and is posted to 5 Physics Newsgroups.
> If you're not going to talk physics, get off this thread and
> stay off it
Take your own advise .. none of you SPOG is physics .. let alone science.
You are so hilariously funny . .do you REALLY take yourself serious when you
post these things?
> .... go post it on one of the high school
> graduate religious Newsgroups. You're in violation of
> Usenet rules.
Nonsense. The one spamming science newsgroups is you.