God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS
George Hammond
Hundreds of amateurs have discussed
Hammond's work "philosophically"
They have discussed "God", "Creation",
Genesis", "Reality"... blah, blah, blah.
FACT IS Hammond's discovery is NOT a "philosophy"
discovery. It is a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST
is to remind people WHAT this
"scientific discovery" is.
Hopefully, someone with some scientific
credentials will respond to it.
WHAT HAMMOND HAS DISCOVERED
(SCIENTIFICALLY)
1.
Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra
of modern computerized Psychometry is IDENTICAL
to the Linear Algebra of "Linearized Gravity" in
General Relativity.
2.
Hammond has discovered that the CAUSAL REASON
for this is that the metrical structure (geometry)
of real space causes the cleavage geometry of the
brain which in turn causes the metrical structure
of Psychometry space.
3.
Hammond has discovered that there is a "curvature"
in Psychometry space described by a "G_uv" and that
phenomenologically, this curvature yield's a
comprehensive explanation of the entire historical
phenomena that we call "God".
4.
Hammond has discovered that since real space
CAUSES Psychometry space, that G_uv in Psychometry
space is caused by a G_uv in real space... hence
"God is caused by Gravity", or "God=G_uv".
5.
All of the above is based on 100 years of published,
(mainly computerized) Psychometry data, and is proven
to two decimal places experimentally.
6. Hence, the world's first true scientific proof of God
has been discovered.
OK, .... that is the SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
that Hammond has made.
If there is anyone who is competent in Linear
Algebra and General Relativity who would like to
comment on this, please post a reply.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
George Hammond
Uncle Al
>
> God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS
[snip]
Pure christ-besotted crap. Why don't you become a Mexican and be
amidst your own kind? Psychotic ineducable trolling idiot.
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Bill
which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
--
Bill
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9B3Xc.66536$mD.45191@attbi_s02...
George Hammond
"Uncle Al" wrote:
<snip... crap... probably from the only
physicist on the NG who has the scruples
to feel obliged to respond>
[Hammond]
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:mw1Xc.1353$ZD4.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...> news:8KPWc.308858$%_6.12467@attbi_s01...
> >
> > "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:jKJWc.31436$Nk4.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...> > > news:ecFWc.306638$%_6.44085@attbi_s01...
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > TIME TO MOVE ON.... to a discussion of GOD=G_uv
>
> [Hammon in another thread wrote]
> > .... and yet between the 30 of us no one can
> > make any penetration into the SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY..
>
> [McDermid]
> > > Let's look carefully at GOD = G_uv
> > > First is appears to be a mathematical equation but what
> > > does it mean in terms of a calculation?
> > > With the equation force = mass * Acceleration you can
> > > plug in values for any two terms and determine the value
> > > for the third term. If George's equation IS an equation then
> > > we should be able to calculate the value for GOD. But what
> > > would that value for GOD possibly mean?
> > > George also says that GOD is a brain growth deficit.
> > > In order to avoid misinterpreting George's words let's
> > > go back to his published paper.
> > > From the footnotes of his paper we find
> > > Note that the word "God" used throughout this paper refers
> > > to the percentage of the brain which is ungrown.
> > > And so, it seems reasonable that GOD is actually the BGD
> > > and is expressed as a percentage. Therefore
> > >
> > > GOD = BGD (%) = G_uv
> > >
> > > I will admit that I really do not know what the gravitational
> > > tensor G_uv is, but I'm reasonably sure that it is not a percentage.
> > > But if BGD is related to G_uv in some way then there must be a
> > > mathematical function to convert between the two. Therefore
> > > BGD (%) = f (G_uv) where f is a function.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Balls of a lion!! McDermid, you have floored me again with your
> > sheer energy and confidence, and scintillating forensic instinct!
> >
> > Ok... this point you have brought up is completely explained in
> > "note 3" at the end of my paper located at:
> > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
> >
> > But briefly, the equation GOD=G_uv is the "Psychometry analog"
> > of Einstein's spacetime equation:
> >
> > Eqn 1. Gravity=G_uv = T_uv
> >
> > to make a long story short, T_uv is simply the "mass density" at
> > any point in space that you want to find out what G_uv is. OK,
> > mass density ranges from 0 to infinity. It is zero in outer space
> > (vacuum) and is infinite in the center of a Black Hole, therefore
> > G_uv is zero in outer space and infinite in the center of a Black Hole.
> >
> > In "Psychometry space" we find that it is the BGD (brain gowth deficit)
> > which causing the curvature. The "function" you are looking for
> > is actually:
> >
> > Eqn. 2
> > BGD
> > G_uv = ------------------- (see "note 3" at the end of my paper)
> > 1 - BGD
> >
> > (note for small BGD this is approximately: G_uv = BGD
> > which is the familiar equation I normally post.
> > Most of (adult) Psychometry is covered by this simpler
> > equation, because the BGD is only really large in children;
> > then we would have to use the more accurate version, Eqn. 2
> >
> > OK, the BGD is a percentage (a decimal actually between
> > 0 and 1... e.g. 0.1=10%, 0.3=30% etc.)
> >
> > Note however that Eqn 2, (the actual full equation) ranges from
> > "0 to infinity" (just like mass density does) when you put in
> > a BGD that ranges from "0 to 1"
> > Thus the "Psychometry field equation" GOD=G_uv=BGD is
> > fully equivalent and identical to "Einstein's gravitational
> > field equation" GRAVITY=G_uv=MassDensity.
>
>
> [McDermid]
> > > Now, once again I say that I really don't know what G_uv is,
> > > but I know that it has something to do with gravity. It seems
> > > reasonable that G_uv is some sort of measure of gravity.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Exactly correct.
> >
> > > It
> > > also seems reasonable that G_uv would be pretty much constant
> > > all over the surface of the earth. Therefore if BGD = f(G_uv)
> > > then everyone should have the same brain growth deficit (within
> > > experimental error)
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > OK...now we've hit paydirt. First of all:
> >
> > 1. "God" is NOT caused by ordinary terrestrial gravity.
> > 2. "God" is not caused by "cosmological" gravity either.
> > (gravity anywhere in outer space)
> > 3. "God" is caused by "Quantum gravity in the brain"
> > which controls (mediates) "brain growth".
> > (Note: this is a 'deduction' not a 'premise')
> > And, it turns out that Sir Roger Penrose (the world's
> > 2nd most famous living physicist) is the one who proposed
> > the existence of "quantum brain gravity" in 1989 and 1994
> > in his two well known books:
> > _The Emperor's New Mind_ (1989)
> > _Shadows of the Mind_ (1994)
> > and in many journal papers and in much ongoing research.
>
> Well, I don't know "quantum gravity". I spent
> some time looking it up with Google. I have found
> websites that Penrose really did propose quantum
> gravity as a source of brain functioning. The usual
> model of the brain is that functions are performed by
> neurons and their interconnections. However one
> of the websites I found said that paramecia (single-
> celled creatures with NO neurons) were capable of
> learning. So, although this doesn't prove quantum
> gravity specifically, it doesn't indicate that there is
> something going on inside paramecium other than neural
> activity.
> But, even with research on quantum gravity
> I doubt I could penetrate too far into quantum
> gravity, and so I doubt I could penetrate too
> much farther into Hammond Theory.
> But, I can still ask some questions, and there
> is still a question of the logic.
[Hammond]
DON'T FUSS WITH "quantum gravity".
You don't have to know ANYTHING about quantum gravity.
This is because this is a "semiclassical" proof of God.
It is proved using only "classical gravity" (Einsteinian gravity)
but it "identifies Penrose's quantum brain gravity" as
the ORIGIN of this classical gravity.
>
> > 4. So the actual situation is this:
> >
> > A. Quantum gravity in the brain ultimately controls
> > brain growth, and thereby controls the BGD.
>
> This seems somewhat circular. Here you say that
> quantum gravity controls brain growth. And in other
> places you say that brain growth controls quantum brain
> gravity. Can you clear up the circularity?
[Hammond]
No I never said anything like that.
the situation, which is certainly not circular,
is this:
1. Penrose's quantum brain gravity actually mediates braingrowth.
2. Believe it or not (it is discovered) that this brain growth
manifests a "classical Einsteinian curvature" in Psychometry space
3. This "curvature" explains "God", perceptually.
4. Therefore, we say there is a "virtual classical gravitational field
which causes God"... and has the same curvature as Psychometry
space. (since we know it IS caused by Gravity).
> > B. It does this by producing a "virtual gravitational
> > curvature" in Psychometry space which is precisely
> > described by Einstein's Field Equation, only with
> > "mass density" replaced with the BGD.
>
> (question) You seem to be saying that gravity (attraction
> between masses) is an analog to 'quantum brain gravity'.
> If I understand the general relativity picture of gravity the
> presense of mass 'stretches' the fabric of space to create
> curves. So... in quantum brain gravity, what is the analog
> to "mass" that stretches the fabric of psychometric space?
[Hammond]
The brain growth deficit (BGD) actually "streches"
Psychometry space (and hence perceptual space) and
causes a "curvature in it. Therefore the BGD is
the analog of "mass density" in gravity theory.
> And what exactly is a 'curve of psychometric space'? Let
> me hazard a guess. In 'real space' large masses pull
> smaller masses towards their center. In a 2 dimensional
> model, think of a heavy bowling ball on a trampoline. The
> mass of the bowling ball stretches the fabric of the trampoline.
> When you add a marble, it rolls around and will naturally
> 'gravitate' into the well created by the bowling ball.
> Now... in terms of psychometric space ... is the "mass"
> (bowling ball) a personality archetype?
[Hammond]
NO.... the "mass" is the BGD..... and since the BGD
is the cause of "the invisible God in Heaven"....
we can actually say:
the "mass" in Psychometry
(perceptual) space is "GOD"
GOD is what curves our
perceptual reality
GOD is like MASS in that it
"curves perceptual space"
while mass "curves real space"
And this is how God "rules the world"
> For those unfamilar
> with archetypes let me give you an example with which you
> will probably have personal experience. Think back to
> junior high school. Your school probably had "the jock-types",
> "the brain-types", "the tough-types", "the rich-snob-types" etc...
> Those are examples of 'archetypes'. 'Archetypes' seems
> to be 'easy/natural patterns of behaviour to adopt' and they
> seem to be universal. Now George... are you saying that
> these archetypes are the "masses in psychometric space" that
> stretch the fabric, and people's personality naturally 'gravitate'
> towards those 'wells'
[Hammond]
It is "GOD" who curves our perceptual reality.
GOD of course is the most familiar "archetype"
known to man... he is painted on the Sistine
Chapel ceiling..... THAT IS THE GUY who
is "curving our perceptual reality" and therefore
jerking us all around on individual chains, as
it were.
If you think putting a gun to someone's head,
or bankrupting them is a powerful means of controlling
them.... wait til you figure out what God uses.... he
"curves your reality" which is the most POWERFUL
method of controlling people ever devised! There
is no appeal from it... the ability to determine your
REALITY.... cripes... talk about all powerful!
> (especially in junior high)?
> Seems a natural interpretation of the Cattell's first order
> eigenvectors (That is, if the eigenvectors mean anything at all.)
[Hammond]
God is Cattell's SINGLE, 4th order factor.
>
> I have a few more questions but I'll leave them to my
> next post.
[Hammond]
Jesus Christ...! You're scaring me already.
BTW... I'm going to repost this message under a new
thread I've started called "God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
as well as posting it here. As you have probably noticed
I cross post but all crossposts have sci.physics.relativity
in common... and that is where I post from. The FULL
THREAD can only be seen in sci.physicis.relativity.
Man... the Philosophy department is sure putting the Physics
department to shame here... when a guy with a computer science
degree and a minor in Philosophy has to tackle the entire theory
of Einsteinian Gravity single handedly to get at the truth!
George Hammond
"Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of God,
prove
> which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
[Hammond]
It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true, and all
worship the same God.... namely the God described by
God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
Scott Burley
> is to remind people WHAT this
> "scientific discovery" is.
>
> Hopefully, someone with some scientific
> credentials will respond to it.
For someone who claims to be so smart, how can you honestly hope to get a
serious repsonse when you've been generally ignored and abused in thes NGs
for the last several years?
--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|
Scot McDermid
>
> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of God,
> prove
> > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
>
> [Hammond]
> It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true, and all
> worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
It is your paper that you are pushing. It is your theory.
So to be complete you really need to establish the link from
G_uv to God. This, of course, brings us away from the
PURE PHYSICS back to the philosophy.
1 -You have said that God is an invisible man that rules
the universe. (But Brahman, for example is not a man
at all. Brahman is attributeless.)
2 -You have said that God brought the universe 40,000
into existence years ago when man first came on the scene.
(But most of us seem to think that the universe came into
existence 15 billion years ago with the Big Bang). This
particular debate comes down to a difference in
definition of the word 'existence'.
So, from those two points it seems that the God
*you* describe is not the God I know of.
But... I'm willing to offer up *my* concept of
what God is so you can tell me if your G_uv explains
that. If others can see *their* concept of God within
*my* concept of God AND your G_uv explains it
then clearly you might have something.
My concept of God is very similar to the God of
Spinoza. The pantheist God. It bears resemblance
to the Tao. It bears resemblance to Brahman. If you
look under the anthropomorphic cloak that the Christian
God wears you can see Him there too.
The concept:
God is the whole of the universe conceptualized as "one"
and/or "oneness".
God is the sum total of all the interworkings, happenings,
synchronicities and 'meaningful coincidences' in the
universe. Everytime something meaningful happens to
you 'out of the blue' that is God working by His mysterious
(although completely natural) means.
God is the physical laws which govern the universe as well
as the physical universe itself. God creates every snowflake
that falls by his own hand (using mostly hydrogen bonds and
random numbers). God created all the species of animals
we currently see (using the process of evolution).
The universe itself started with the Big Bang merely because
the conditions were right. And those conditions are part of
God as well. So, in this way God created the universe but
yet IS the universe because all is one.
end of concept.
So. As I said above, that concept is very similar to the
God of Spinoza. It bears resemblance to the Tao.
It bears resemblance to Brahman. Spinoza's God
is the Christian God if you remove the anthropomorphic
cloak that He wears. So, if Hammond Theory
adequately explains THAT God then you just might
have something.
Rick Cvejic
> > > > to the percentage of the brain which is ungrown.
> > > > And so, it seems reasonable that GOD is actually the BGD
> > > > and is expressed as a percentage. Therefore
> > > >
> > > > GOD = BGD (%) = G_uv
> > > >
> > > > I will admit that I really do not know what the gravitational
> > > > tensor G_uv is, but I'm reasonably sure that it is not a percentage.
> > > > But if BGD is related to G_uv in some way then there must be a
> > > > mathematical function to convert between the two. Therefore
> > > > BGD (%) = f (G_uv) where f is a function.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > In "Psychometry space" we find that it is the BGD (brain gowth deficit)
> > > which causing the curvature. The "function" you are looking for
> > > is actually:
> > >
> > > Eqn. 2
> > > BGD
> > > G_uv = ------------------- (see "note 3" at the end of my paper)
> > > 1 - BGD
> > >
> > > (note for small BGD this is approximately: G_uv = BGD
> > > which is the familiar equation I normally post.
> > > Most of (adult) Psychometry is covered by this simpler
> > > equation, because the BGD is only really large in children;
> > > then we would have to use the more accurate version, Eqn. 2
Interesting formula you have there Georgie. Let me have a think about
that one.
God = G_uv = BGD / (1 - BGD)
You assert that BGD changes (decreases) as we grow to adulthood, and
that it has been trending downward for generations. Profound. So God
was more real in the Middle Ages than now, and is more real when
you're young, and less real as you age. Wow! I suppose that explains
the 'ole 'childhood wonderment', not to mention the superstitous
nature of historical peoples.
"Ye Gods! What was that!"
"Lightning."
"What caused that?"
"Hmmmm... maybe God is pissed at us!"
"Well, it couldnt have anything to do with charged air particles...
thats just silly."
"Yeah. Lets go kill a mammoth"
"w00t!"
So God is not a universal constant, or even a personal constant. He
(it) varies from person to person, and disappears over time.
Interesting....
Okay, so, the bigger your BGD, the more necessary, or the more "real"
God is to you. So, congrats all you atheists and agnostics! Hammond
has proven that you are leagues ahead of the God-fearing plebians!
Interesting that one of the most religious countries in the world is
the USA. What does that tell us? Of course, it also explains suicide
bombers - noone intelligent could possibly blow themselves up, but
someone with a massive BGD would barely notice they were dead!
Tell me, Hammond... is it possible for BGD to INcrease? Because it
seems that you were once a highly intelligent being. What does it take
to turn a lightbulb into a fruitloop?
Of course, thats all assuming Hammond is right. I am still looking
forward a coherent explaination of how a deficiency in human brain
growth could create life, or spawn a universe. You know... considering
human brains didnt exist when that happened.
George Hammond
"Rick Cvejic" <hybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ef5b8f1.04082...@posting.google.com...
[Hammond]
Astute observation. Every statement you have made is exactly
true. I would guess, judging from Secular Trend data, that the
"size of Heaven", or "God in Heaven", was probably twice as
large during the Dark Ages as it is now. This doublessly explains
such phenomena as the Notre Dame or Reims cathedrals, and
the Crusades .. not to mention the Inquisition etc. How large
Heaven was during the Apostolic Age we can only guess... but
judging from the New Testament, it must have been even larger
still. Probably an all time high water mark for high levels of
(cf. Roman) civilization.
The most dramatic increase in the Secular Trend (shrinking
of Heaven) has been since the Industrial Revolution... but the problem
in the Third World still remains at critical levels... even in Moslem
countries.
> "Ye Gods! What was that!"
> "Lightning."
> "What caused that?"
> "Hmmmm... maybe God is pissed at us!"
> "Well, it couldnt have anything to do with charged air particles...
> thats just silly."
> "Yeah. Lets go kill a mammoth"
> "w00t!"
>
> So God is not a universal constant, or even a personal constant. He
> (it) varies from person to person, and disappears over time.
> Interesting....
[Hammond]
Yes... again.... precisely correct.... and this fact is what you need
to know, first and foremost.... to comprehend all of human history,
and the structure and phenomena of the contemporary world.
People who don't know it are literally in the dark... I hope you
can appreciate what kind of a problem this can cause in the world.
> Okay, so, the bigger your BGD, the more necessary, or the more "real"
> God is to you. So, congrats all you atheists and agnostics! Hammond
> has proven that you are leagues ahead of the God-fearing plebians!
> Interesting that one of the most religious countries in the world is
> the USA. What does that tell us?
[Hammond]
It tells us that "we" are the ones who have to worry about
the large BGD in the rest of the world, and the fact that
those billions of blinded people can stampede like terrified
cattle at any moment.
> Of course, it also explains suicide
> bombers - noone intelligent could possibly blow themselves up, but
> someone with a massive BGD would barely notice they were dead!
[Hammond]
Yes... all of the sucicide bombers and hijackers show unmistakable
signs of severe develoopmntal problems, possible retardation even.
Given that the rational scientific explanation of "God" is unknown
in these cultures... they can become persuaded of very bizzare
pictures of reality. and not knowing what it is... errant religious
beliefs can be used to scare them into dong almost anything.
> Tell me, Hammond... is it possible for BGD to INcrease?
[Hammond]
Of course nothing can "ungrow" once it iis grown... however,
there IS a well known effect that actually mimics an increase
in the BGD and this is known as "depression"... or even "repression",
and can be large and dramatic. It is known to be principally
caused by "social abuse" (child abuse, cultural abuse, stress,
competion, psychological warfare, etc.). This is one of the
major problems that caused the formation of organized
Religion in the first place. Fact is, all of us to some extent
have a significant degree of "repression".... caused by
"mental blocks" (so called).... and Religion is constantly
seeking ways to undo these blocks and set people free.
It's not an esy task... because the underlying (social) causes
are real.
> Because it
> seems that you were once a highly intelligent being. What does it take
> to turn a lightbulb into a fruitloop?
[Hammond]
Reverse psychology.... backwards cultures.... social abuse.
> Of course, thats all assuming Hammond is right. I am still looking
> forward a coherent explaination of how a deficiency in human brain
> growth could create life, or spawn a universe. You know... considering
> human brains didnt exist when that happened.
[Hammond]
that is all explained by the fact that the "human brain" as we know it,
"suddenly appeared" 40,000 years ago.... and this is the explanation
of the so called "Biblical Creation" which actually occured at that
time because of that.
[Hammond]
Finally... I must say I am a bit nervous that a person like you...
without a security clearance..... should suddenly be one of only
a handful of men on the planet should be walking around with
this kind of information.... but, I suppopse, since you were the
one who obtained it by your own efforts while all the others,
save a few have simple ignored it. This tells me that you
apparently are somehow qualified to have it. Congratulations.
wbarwell
> God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS
>
>
> Hundreds of amateurs have discussed
> Hammond's work "philosophically"
> They have discussed "God", "Creation",
> Genesis", "Reality"... blah, blah, blah.
>
> FACT IS Hammond's discovery is NOT a "philosophy"
> discovery. It is a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
Fact is, its wobbly-eye net crankery.
Kook noises and nothing more.
The net draws kooks like a fresh dog turd
draws flies. Hammond is just one more kook.
YMMV
Cheerful Charlie
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sh7Xc.68440$mD.43941@attbi_s02...
> >
> > "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of God,
> > prove
> > > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> > Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true, and all
> > worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> > God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> > of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
>
> It is your paper that you are pushing. It is your theory.
> So to be complete you really need to establish the link from
> G_uv to God. This, of course, brings us away from the
> PURE PHYSICS back to the philosophy.
>
> 1 -You have said that God is an invisible man that rules
> the universe. (But Brahman, for example is not a man
> at all. Brahman is attributeless.)
[Hammond]
I take Brahman to be the analog of the "Holy Ghost" in
Christianity. He is in fact part of the Trinity that may be
identified in Hinduism. He is "personified" in fact by the
"Brahmins" (the priestly caste). He is in fact one member
of the "Trimurti" or Trinity in Hinduism.
the Hindu Trimurti however is a slight corruption of the
christian Trinity (which is scientifically correct) in that
the Trimurti ignores the "Son" and includes the "Devil".
the "Son of God" in Hinduism is Krishna, and the Devil
is Shiva. Thus the Trimurti is "Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva"
while the true Trinity of Hinduism is actually "Vishnu,
Krishna and Brahma"... the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".
This is all based on my observation that the "Trinity of
God" is the dynamical description of God's action in
society which is a feedback loop (input, output, feedback)
and theologically this was discovered in Apostolic times and
named "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"... I believe even
Jesus in the New Testament makes the statment that
people should be Baptized in the name of the "Father,
the Son and the Holy Ghost", so it was certainly recognized
2,000 years ago.
> 2 -You have said that God brought the universe 40,000
> into existence years ago when man first came on the scene.
> (But most of us seem to think that the universe came into
> existence 15 billion years ago with the Big Bang). This
> particular debate comes down to a difference in
> definition of the word 'existence'.
> So, from those two points it seems that the God
> *you* describe is not the God I know of.
[Hammond]
Wrong. Clearly the term "Big Bang creation" is known to
you, AND the term "Biblical Creation" is known to you.
Both of them are given considerable credence in the
Western world.
Fact is, my discovery proves that BOTH "creations"
are true. To wit:
1. 40,000 years ago the human brain and therefore
"perceptual reality" came into existence... this
explains the Biblical Creation. Without perceptual
reality there is no physical reality, because human
perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which
we detect physical reality.
2. Because of 1, we see that when the Biblical Creation
occurred, it "Created" the "existence" of physical
reality including time itself. Part of this Creation
of time was the creation of the "15-billion year
history" of the universe, including the Big Bang.
3. So, therefore, "within Biblical Creation" there
is a "physical creation" known as the Big Bang.
I don't see how this should be considered "incredible",
or "unbelieveable" or "irrational".... it seems as simple
as 1, 2, 3 to me.
Problem is.... most people would say "so what... what is the
PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE of such a theory"?
And up until NOW there was no proven scientific significance
of this "philosophical argument".
But NOW, Hammond has discovered that there is a
significant, fundamental and systematic DEPARTURE
of "perceptual reality" from "absolute physical reality".
that this difference can be measured to two decimal points,
is at a minimun at least 15%, and it CAUSES the phenomena
that we call "God" as well as all of Psychology... and in
fact accounts for the existence of Religion.
And of course..... it finally ENDS the philosophical
dispute that has been going on for 1700 years as to whether
"reality" is "perceptual" or "absolute". Turns out it is
BOTH.... and the DIFFERENCE between the two explains
the existence of the "God of the Bible".
> But... I'm willing to offer up *my* concept of
> what God is so you can tell me if your G_uv explains
> that. If others can see *their* concept of God within
> *my* concept of God AND your G_uv explains it
> then clearly you might have something.
[Hammond]
Let me remind you that all of my critics advance the
argument that "if you can't convince me you can't convince
anyone"..... naturally I reject any such posturing...
even from the entire establishment, much less from you.
[Hammond]
I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
you agree with it or not.
But anyway.... you have mentioned the "anthropormorphic
cloak" of the Christian God. That "cloak" as you put it
is also worn by the Mosaic God, the Moslem God, and
in fact by the Hindu God since they utilize "anthropomorphic
personifications" of God and demigods in their religion.
Fact is, the most universal conception of "God" in history
and the world today, is that "God is an invisible man who
rules the world". The Catholic Church commissioned
Michealangelo to paint His picture on the Sistine Chapel
ceiling 500 years ago where it can be seen today and remains
one of the most famous images in the world.
Spinoza as you know was of Marano Jewish descent
and was excommunicated from his Synagog in Holland at
an early age as an "atheistic heretic". Frankly his work would
probably never had obtained such modern attention had it
not been for the fact that Einstein when asked about his religious
beliefs always cited Spinoza. Einstein in fact said he did
not believe in a "personal God" (anthropomorphic God)
and believed in a "cosmical God". Basically this is the
what Spinoza advocated.... Spinoza said "God is Nature".
Well, the fact is my discovery indicates that BOTH views
i.e. the "person-God" and the "cosmic God" are correct.
However, we must point out that said discovery clearly shows
that both Spinoza and Einstein were INCORRECT when they
said that the "person-God"... that is the "invisible man God"
did not exist. He does exist! And moreover, it is the
"person-God" that has been, and still is, the workhorse of
religion for 3,500 years. And no doubt will remain so!
OK, the reason my discovery confirms that BOTH views
of God are correct is that my discovery shows that "God is
caused by Gravity". The invisible person-God is caused
by Classical Gravity, which indicates immediately that when
the theory of Quantum Gravity is ever discovered, we are
going to get a "cosmological" description of God. And,
people are already working on this despite the fact that the theory
of Quantum Gravity hasn't even been discovered. The whole
field of "Consciousness Research" is in fact a search for this
"cosmological God". However, the "cosmological God" theory
is very old... and Spinoza is a well known example of it.
However... to start a speculative digression into quantum
gravity and the nature of the cosmological God at this point,
when what we have on the table before us is an ACTUAL PROOF
of the "classical God".... that is the invisible man God... I
consider nothing but an attempt to change the subject or
an attempt to obfuscate the dramatic proven discovery that
we have before us now.
So.. to answer your query.... YES the "God of Spinoza"
is a correct theory.... and this theory does make it's appearance
in many of our "unsophisticated Third World religions".
Why? Because when all is said and done.... the "cosmological
God" is actually a LESS SOPHISTICATED idea than the
PERSON-GOD of classical religion. After all.... saying things
like "God is energy" which any office secretary is apt to say...
is a far less sophisticated rumination than discovering that
God is "an invisible man" which is what classical religion
discovered thousands of years ago, and is the MAINSTAY
of world religion today.
Fianlly, however... don't think I am pooh poohing the
importance of the "cosmological God"... or what we might
call the "quantum God". After all, comparing the "person God"
to the "quantum God" is sort of like comparing the
"political theory of Man" to the "medical theory of Man".
While it is true that Politics is more important than Medicine
in terms of direct impact on Civilization.... we all appreciate
that Medicine is vital to human survival. Likewise, it turns
out that the "classical theory" of God cannot answer the question
of "Life After Death"... and it is highly likely that we won't
get an answer to that until the "quantum God" (quantum gravity)
is discovered.
Meanwhile, I am truly impressed by your contribution to this
research... and by the way there appear to be others, like
Rick Cvejic for instance who I thing also has begun to recognize
that "Hammond HAS found something, we just need to
figure out what it is". Well.... Hammond has found a stunning
proof of the existence of the "person-God" of classical
Religion... that's what he's found. And it IS a miracle for
the world, even if I do say so myself.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:tJbXc.3154$ZD4.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> news:Sh7Xc.68440$mD.43941@attbi_s02...
> >
> > "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of God,
> > prove
> > > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> > Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true, and all
> > worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> > God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> > of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
>
> It is your paper that you are pushing. It is your theory.
> So to be complete you really need to establish the link from
> G_uv to God. This, of course, brings us away from the
> PURE PHYSICS back to the philosophy.
>
> 1 -You have said that God is an invisible man that rules
> the universe. (But Brahman, for example is not a man
> at all. Brahman is attributeless.)
[Hammond]
I take Brahman to be the analog of the "Holy Ghost" in
Christianity. He is in fact part of the Trinity that may be
identified in Hinduism. He is "personified" in fact by the
"Brahmins" (the priestly caste). He is in fact one member
of the "Trimurti" or Trinity in Hinduism.
the Hindu Trimurti however is a slight corruption of the
christian Trinity (which is scientifically correct) in that
the Trimurti ignores the "Son" and includes the "Devil".
the "Son of God" in Hinduism is Krishna, and the Devil
is Shiva. Thus the Trimurti is "Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva"
while the true Trinity of Hinduism is actually "Vishnu,
Krishna and Brahma"... the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".
This is all based on my observation that the "Trinity of
God" is the dynamical description of God's action in
society which is a feedback loop (input, output, feedback)
and theologically this was discovered in Apostolic times and
named "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"... I believe even
Jesus in the New Testament makes the statment that
people should be Baptized in the name of the "Father,
the Son and the Holy Ghost", so it was certainly recognized
2,000 years ago.
> 2 -You have said that God brought the universe 40,000
> into existence years ago when man first came on the scene.
> (But most of us seem to think that the universe came into
> existence 15 billion years ago with the Big Bang). This
> particular debate comes down to a difference in
> definition of the word 'existence'.
> So, from those two points it seems that the God
> *you* describe is not the God I know of.
[Hammond]
> But... I'm willing to offer up *my* concept of
> what God is so you can tell me if your G_uv explains
> that. If others can see *their* concept of God within
> *my* concept of God AND your G_uv explains it
> then clearly you might have something.
[Hammond]
Let me remind you that all of my critics advance the
argument that "if you can't convince me you can't convince
anyone"..... naturally I reject any such posturing...
even from the entire establishment, much less from you.
[Hammond]
Jim Black
> WHAT HAMMOND HAS DISCOVERED
> (SCIENTIFICALLY)
>
> 1.
> Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra
> of modern computerized Psychometry is IDENTICAL
> to the Linear Algebra of "Linearized Gravity" in
> General Relativity.
From a previous Hammond post:
-> There's more. You can take the 30 x 30 extracted matrix
-> and "rotate" the axes to "simple structure"... it turns out
-> the data pattern has clear "streaks" in it, and the axes
-> (eigenvectors) are rotated to these "physical" positions.
-> Then you can factor the matrix all over again and it
-> is found that the RANK is 13. Amazingly, it is found
-> that these 13-AXES FORM A PERFECT CUBE when
-> rotated to simple structure...!! See:
->
-> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU4.jpg
Hey, Hammond, why don't you explain what you meant by "rotating to
simple structure"? Not having seen what your actual calculations
were, it appears to me that this means "I altered data until it said
what I wanted it to say." Could you post the data or provide a link
to the data on your website?
Scot McDermid
> [Hammond]
> I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> you agree with it or not.
Well... mark me down as disagreeing.
And, with respect to your 'discovery' being
*historic*. Time will tell whether your discovery
is remembered or simply passes away into
oblivion.
Mark Fergerson
> "Rick Cvejic" <hybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6ef5b8f1.04082...@posting.google.com...
<snippage here and there>
>>You assert that BGD changes (decreases) as we grow to adulthood, and
>>that it has been trending downward for generations. Profound. So God
>>was more real in the Middle Ages than now, and is more real when
>>you're young, and less real as you age. Wow! I suppose that explains
>>the 'ole 'childhood wonderment', not to mention the superstitous
>>nature of historical peoples.
> [Hammond]
> Astute observation. Every statement you have made is exactly
> true. I would guess, judging from Secular Trend data, that the
> "size of Heaven", or "God in Heaven", was probably twice as
> large during the Dark Ages as it is now. This doublessly explains
> such phenomena as the Notre Dame or Reims cathedrals, and
> the Crusades .. not to mention the Inquisition etc. How large
> Heaven was during the Apostolic Age we can only guess... but
> judging from the New Testament, it must have been even larger
> still. Probably an all time high water mark for high levels of
> (cf. Roman) civilization.
Yet the "human condition" has steadily improved, on average, since
then. I'll point out that all these historical cultures relied on
slavery (taking advantage of, and reinforcing, the BGD of certain
segments of the general population; e. g. "white man's burden").
In one sense slavery has become less acceptable since it's become
more generally recognized that the more competent individuals are (the
less their BGD), the more so the aggregate. In another sense it's simply
become more subtle; slogans and small-group loyalties have replaced
whips and chains.
Slavery therefore can be called "BGD manipulation", and the modern
sort is a difference in _kind_, not degree, which I am incompetent to
express succinctly even though I perceive it. A mathematician could do
so _and_ show how to repair and prevent it more economically than the
traditional way, through messy, incomplete revolutions.
> The most dramatic increase in the Secular Trend (shrinking
> of Heaven) has been since the Industrial Revolution... but the problem
> in the Third World still remains at critical levels... even in Moslem
> countries.
Because they refuse to be dragged into the present. To be more
accurate, they're _unable_ to do so due to their BGD, which prevents
them from doing a rational risk-benefit analysis of abandoning their
traditions.
>>So God is not a universal constant, or even a personal constant. He
>>(it) varies from person to person, and disappears over time.
>>Interesting....
> [Hammond]
> Yes... again.... precisely correct.... and this fact is what you need
> to know, first and foremost.... to comprehend all of human history,
> and the structure and phenomena of the contemporary world.
> People who don't know it are literally in the dark... I hope you
> can appreciate what kind of a problem this can cause in the world.
Has caused, is causing, will cause, unless things change drastically,
and soon. This is why I'm reminding you that I exist. It is _imperative_
that the repressed be freed of their scales ASAP since WMD have replaced
swords. Since "world leaders" have the most to lose and the least to
gain (in their constricted worldview) from this, you'll have to either
"cure" them first, or work from the bottom up.
>>Okay, so, the bigger your BGD, the more necessary, or the more "real"
>>God is to you. So, congrats all you atheists and agnostics! Hammond
>>has proven that you are leagues ahead of the God-fearing plebians!
>>Interesting that one of the most religious countries in the world is
>>the USA. What does that tell us?
> [Hammond]
> It tells us that "we" are the ones who have to worry about
> the large BGD in the rest of the world, and the fact that
> those billions of blinded people can stampede like terrified
> cattle at any moment.
Because they are _unable_ to think rationally.
>>Of course, it also explains suicide
>>bombers - noone intelligent could possibly blow themselves up, but
>>someone with a massive BGD would barely notice they were dead!
> [Hammond]
> Yes... all of the sucicide bombers and hijackers show unmistakable
> signs of severe develoopmntal problems, possible retardation even.
> Given that the rational scientific explanation of "God" is unknown
> in these cultures... they can become persuaded of very bizzare
> pictures of reality. and not knowing what it is... errant religious
> beliefs can be used to scare them into dong almost anything.
An excellent reason to "cure" them, before they do any more damage.
> [Hammond]
> Finally... I must say I am a bit nervous that a person like you...
> without a security clearance..... should suddenly be one of only
> a handful of men on the planet should be walking around with
> this kind of information.... but, I suppopse, since you were the
> one who obtained it by your own efforts while all the others,
> save a few have simple ignored it. This tells me that you
> apparently are somehow qualified to have it. Congratulations.
EVERYONE is "qualified" to have this kind of knowledge simply by dint
of being human, but suppressing it is to the benefit of "leaders".
Applying it is what permits us to be "better than" animals, or the
so-called "animalistic" nutcases that try to retard the growth of
civilization in general due to their own neurotic need to be "better
than the masses".
Application is the key, George, and that won't happen with your ideas
until you do as I suggested and expand them into the kind of
step-by-step procedures that will be blatantly obvious to anyone, within
the limits of their individual BGD. Following those steps will be a
self-reinforcing and in fact accelerating process; as one removes part
of their scales, the rest become more obvious and more easily removed.
I'll say it again; you don't need the help of religious, political,
or any other kind of "leaders" since your ideas aren't (by current
definitions) strictly religious or political, and in fact that kind of
leader has the most to lose. You need help from people whose motives
aren't compromised by their personal power agendas; theoretical
mathematicians. Nobody else can possibly be qualified to expand your
too-compact equation into the kind of accessible, even irresistible,
arithmetic necessary to work its way into minds artificially corrupted
through millenia of suppression.
Have you not noticed that you've had more useful correspondence from
those with a mathematical bent?
Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eCkXc.237366$eM2.54006@attbi_s51...
> > [Hammond]
> > I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> > you agree with it or not.
>
> Well... mark me down as disagreeing.
[Hammond]
Based on what?
>
> And, with respect to your 'discovery' being
> *historic*. Time will tell whether your discovery
> is remembered or simply passes away into
> oblivion.
[Hammond]
Let me worry about that.
I'm not going anywhere.
I can assure you that
the equation:
GOD=G_uv
is already known to hundreds of
thousands of people, some of
them VIP's of Science. That's
not going to go away... fact I've
even seen it on bumper stickers.
The "truth will out" and sooner
of later Science will recognize it.
I think you have a greater chance
of "passing into oblivion" than I do,
my friend.
George Hammond
"Jim Black" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cb623e6.04082...@posting.google.com...
[Hammond]
Very good question J.B.
The "lore 'n legend" of Factor Analysis in Psychometry is one of
the most fascinating episodes in modern Science. Mainly because
it is:
1. "Simple" mathematically speaking
2. Elegant conceptually
3. Can be entirely computerized so that
everything is done "automatically"
once the data is collected.
4. Produces fantastic results where no
other method can be used to analyze
such complicated data.
BTW, "Factor Analysis" has spread far beyond Psychology
(where it is a mainstay) and into hundreds of other Natural
Science fields..... Anthropology, Paleontology, Political
Science, etc. etc.
Today you don't even have to know how it works... there
are commercial "Statistical Packages" (computer programs)
such as SPXX etc. that can be purchased by any researcher
and run on any high speed DESKTOP (or mainframe)
computer. It not only does the Factorization, it does the
Rotation also... completely automatically.
Consequently this is a big favorite activity
among penniless academic researchers... all they have to do
is write a psychology test say, round up 100 subjects to take
it (often times their students) and then run the test through
a Factor Analytic computer program on their dektop PC
and voila... they siaxocver some new Factor (eigenvector)
and have a "publishable" publishable research paper!
The advent of the PC and the SPXX for instance nearly
single hadedly TRANSFORMED Psychology into a
science in the '70's and '80's as it were.
Anyway.... "Rotation to Simple Structure" was first discovered
by Louis L. Thurstone back in the 1930's. See:
Thurstone L.L. (1947) Multiple Factor Analysis, U. Chiago Pr.
However, it involves a lot of calculations... what they do is take
every data point in the space and then use "least squares"
minimization to move (rotate) a hyperplane until it is "closest"
to the center of density of the points. Obviously, since a
mathematical formula is used, there is no "subjective judgement"
involved whatsoever.
A guy named KAISER finally devised an algorythm and computer
program for this in the '50's and 60's... they were actually running
it on the ENIAC computer back in the 1950's. This program
was called VARIMAX and is still in use today. Advances
called PROMAX were developed later when solid state computers
came out in the '60's.... and today it is a highly polished technical art
to the point where commercial packages such as SPXX contain
several different methods of rotation, can diagonalize a 200x200
matrix... and does the whole thing in minutes and prints the
results out numerically and graphically.
I ran into a guy who actually workked at Raymond B. Cattell's
Psychometry Laboratory back in the '60's when computers
weren't really that faxt (IBM 1620-'s for instance) and they used
to take the output and connect it up to an oscilliscope and then
"manually rotate" the hyperplane and then "recalculate" the
"hyperplane count" to see if it was an improved position. The
guy says they used to sit there for DAYS fiddling with the dials
on the thing until they got the hyperplane copunt to an absolute
maximum.
Today of course a computer mathematically computes the position
of the maximum position automatically using billions and billions
of iterated computations of the hyperplane count. It can do this
in seconds, where it took Cattell weeks to do it.
Today the average PhD researcher in Psychometry probably doesn't
even know how it works... and simply pushes the "rotation button"
and the solution pops out of the printer just like that.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
George Hammond
Jim Black:
The CUBE you cited at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU4.jpg
was actually constructed using the "computer output data"
from research by Raymond B. Cattell's two well known
collaborators in a massive Factor Analytic confirmation
of the Cattell Personality Tests by Krug & John's in
1986... involving the testing of 23,000 people!
They simply published the "Factor correlation coefficients",
a 7x7 matrix. They DIDN'T KNOW it was a CUBE!
I had discovered theoretically that it was probably a cube,
so I took their correlation coefficients "the r's" and
transformed them into "angles" since it is known that
a correlation coefficient is simply the cosine of an angle
between the two eigenvectors (Factors) in Psychometry space:
angle = arcosine(r)
then, using these angles I graphically constructed the
resulting geometric figure, WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE A CUBE!
This graphical construction and the 7x7 matrix it is constructed
from can be seen at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/5X7C0192.jpg
This is a cut and fold model, and I have one sitting on
my desk as a matter of fact. I discoverd this in March of
1994 and the model has colllected a considerable amout of dust
since then.
George
George Hammond
Jim Black:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU4.jpg
angle = arcosine(r)
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/5X7C0192.jpg
George
====================================
Fatman
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:iBpXc.5716$ZD4.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:eCkXc.237366$eM2.54006@attbi_s51...
>
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> > > you agree with it or not.
> >
> > Well... mark me down as disagreeing.
>
> [Hammond]
> Based on what?
>
>
> >
> > And, with respect to your 'discovery' being
> > historic. Time will tell whether your discovery
> > is remembered or simply passes away into
> > oblivion.
>
> [Hammond]
> Let me worry about that.
> I'm not going anywhere.
> I can assure you that
> the equation:
>
> GOD=G_uv
>
> is already known to hundreds of
> thousands of people,
So, that leaves about 6 billion people who don't give a rat's ass about
you or your asinine formula. There are more people who agree with
GOD=0. In fact, GOD=0 has never been disproven to be true.
> some of
> them VIP's of Science.
I bet they are......
> That's
> not going to go away... fact I've
> even seen it on bumper stickers.
Damn. It must be true. After all, if it is on a bumper sticker....
> The "truth will out" and sooner
> of later Science will recognize it.
>
> I think you have a greater chance
> of "passing into oblivion" than I do,
> my friend.
Somebody has delusions of granduer. (Hint, he uses brackets around his
name to tag his comments, and sometimes refers to himself in the formal
third-person.)
Fatman
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:ecqXc.9$bT1.6@fed1read07...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "Rick Cvejic" <hybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6ef5b8f1.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snippage here and there>
>
> >>You assert that BGD changes (decreases) as we grow to adulthood, and
> >>that it has been trending downward for generations. Profound. So God
> >>was more real in the Middle Ages than now, and is more real when
> >>you're young, and less real as you age. Wow! I suppose that explains
> >>the 'ole 'childhood wonderment', not to mention the superstitous
> >>nature of historical peoples.
>
> > [Hammond]
> > Astute observation. Every statement you have made is exactly
> > true. I would guess, judging from Secular Trend data, that the
> > "size of Heaven", or "God in Heaven", was probably twice as
> > large during the Dark Ages as it is now. This doublessly explains
> > such phenomena as the Notre Dame or Reims cathedrals, and
> > the Crusades .. not to mention the Inquisition etc. How large
> > Heaven was during the Apostolic Age we can only guess... but
> > judging from the New Testament, it must have been even larger
> > still. Probably an all time high water mark for high levels of
> > (cf. Roman) civilization.
>
> Yet the "human condition" has steadily improved, on average, since
> then.
[Hammond]
Of course it has .... that's what an "increasing
Secular Trend MEANS theologically speaking, which is
apparently what you are doing... this means that "God is
descending from Heaven to Earth".... God is more
"in the flesh" percentagewise today than he was
thousands of years ago when he was still
"largly in Heaven".
> I'll point out that all these historical cultures relied on
> slavery (taking advantage of, and reinforcing, the BGD of certain
> segments of the general population; e. g. "white man's burden").
>
> In one sense slavery has become less acceptable since it's become
> more generally recognized that the more competent individuals are (the
> less their BGD), the more so the aggregate. In another sense it's simply
> become more subtle; slogans and small-group loyalties have replaced
> whips and chains.
>
> Slavery therefore can be called "BGD manipulation", and the modern
> sort is a difference in _kind_, not degree, which I am incompetent to
> express succinctly even though I perceive it. A mathematician could do
> so _and_ show how to repair and prevent it more economically than the
> traditional way, through messy, incomplete revolutions.
[Hammond]
Oh yes.... there's plenty of "slavery" around today. All you have to do
is go to a place like Alar I think it's called in India where they break
up ships on the beach. 6,000 barefoot and ragged Indians treck out
on the mud flats every morning and tear apart the ships for scrap
metal to turn into re-bars in an inferno they euphemistically call a
"factory" nearby. The wages are so low the men can barely get enough
to eat to keep working. The entire Third World is like this.
>
> > The most dramatic increase in the Secular Trend (shrinking
> > of Heaven) has been since the Industrial Revolution... but the problem
> > in the Third World still remains at critical levels... even in Moslem
> > countries.
>
> Because they refuse to be dragged into the present. To be more
> accurate, they're _unable_ to do so due to their BGD, which prevents
> them from doing a rational risk-benefit analysis of abandoning their
> traditions.
[Hammond]
Hey... its political gridlock and feudal warfare which is causing the
situation... and everybody knows it. It is up to us to stop it
before it becomes a problem which will kill us all either with
disease (like AIDS) or revolution like the terrorists are
probably a harbinger of. But what can we do... we are locked
in a gridlock of nuclear confrontation.
That's why I say that this "miracle" of the discovery of a
scientific proof of God WILL have some global impact on
the problem... just like the discovery of Christianity had a
global impact on the known world 2,000 years ago.
>
> >>So God is not a universal constant, or even a personal constant. He
> >>(it) varies from person to person, and disappears over time.
> >>Interesting....
>
> > [Hammond]
> > Yes... again.... precisely correct.... and this fact is what you need
> > to know, first and foremost.... to comprehend all of human history,
> > and the structure and phenomena of the contemporary world.
> > People who don't know it are literally in the dark... I hope you
> > can appreciate what kind of a problem this can cause in the world.
>
> Has caused, is causing, will cause, unless things change drastically,
> and soon. This is why I'm reminding you that I exist. It is _imperative_
> that the repressed be freed of their scales ASAP since WMD have replaced
> swords. Since "world leaders" have the most to lose and the least to
> gain (in their constricted worldview) from this, you'll have to either
> "cure" them first, or work from the bottom up.
[Hammond]
I don't think Bush and Putyn need any kind of a "cure"... I think
they need a "miraculous new tool" to help unify and pacify
the global population. I think a "scientific proof of God" and
the de facto unification of the world's religions which will
result can do nothing but HELP THEM do the job!
>
> >>Okay, so, the bigger your BGD, the more necessary, or the more "real"
> >>God is to you. So, congrats all you atheists and agnostics! Hammond
> >>has proven that you are leagues ahead of the God-fearing plebians!
> >>Interesting that one of the most religious countries in the world is
> >>the USA. What does that tell us?
>
> > [Hammond]
> > It tells us that "we" are the ones who have to worry about
> > the large BGD in the rest of the world, and the fact that
> > those billions of blinded people can stampede like terrified
> > cattle at any moment.
>
> Because they are _unable_ to think rationally.
>
> >>Of course, it also explains suicide
> >>bombers - noone intelligent could possibly blow themselves up, but
> >>someone with a massive BGD would barely notice they were dead!
>
> > [Hammond]
> > Yes... all of the suicide bombers and hijackers show unmistakable
> > signs of severe develoopmntal problems, possible retardation even.
> > Given that the rational scientific explanation of "God" is unknown
> > in these cultures... they can become persuaded of very bizzare
> > pictures of reality. and not knowing what it is... errant religious
> > beliefs can be used to scare them into dong almost anything.
>
> An excellent reason to "cure" them, before they do any more damage.
[Hammond]
Cripes I'm working on it full time 7 days a week for 22 years.
How about finding some scientific help to get this thing
confirmed?
>
> > [Hammond]
> > Finally... I must say I am a bit nervous that a person like you...
> > without a security clearance..... should suddenly be one of only
> > a handful of men on the planet should be walking around with
> > this kind of information.... but, I suppopse, since you were the
> > one who obtained it by your own efforts while all the others,
> > save a few have simple ignored it. This tells me that you
> > apparently are somehow qualified to have it. Congratulations.
>
> EVERYONE is "qualified" to have this kind of knowledge simply by dint
> of being human, but suppressing it is to the benefit of "leaders".
> Applying it is what permits us to be "better than" animals, or the
> so-called "animalistic" nutcases that try to retard the growth of
> civilization in general due to their own neurotic need to be "better
> than the masses".
[Hammond]
Ummm.. yes there are people who would like to suppress
it.... the bad guys so called... but I don't think this includes
our top world elected leaders.... they need all the help they
can get.
On the other hand, I think it's time to inform the Iatollah
that he is NOT the world's leading authority on God... that in fact
modern Western Science has discovered a scientific proof
of God... and is therefore in the drivers seat.... not him.
>
> Application is the key, George, and that won't happen with your ideas
> until you do as I suggested and expand them into the kind of
> step-by-step procedures that will be blatantly obvious to anyone, within
> the limits of their individual BGD. Following those steps will be a
> self-reinforcing and in fact accelerating process; as one removes part
> of their scales, the rest become more obvious and more easily removed.
[Hammond]
No.... like most scientific discoveries this one is waiting
for a "white knight"... either a very talented individual
or a VIP or even a leading journal editor who decides it's
time to give it some press.
that's what this internet blitz is all about... searching for
the White Knight.
> I'll say it again; you don't need the help of religious, political,
> or any other kind of "leaders" since your ideas aren't (by current
> definitions) strictly religious or political, and in fact that kind of
> leader has the most to lose. You need help from people whose motives
> aren't compromised by their personal power agendas; theoretical
> mathematicians. Nobody else can possibly be qualified to expand your
> too-compact equation into the kind of accessible, even irresistible,
> arithmetic necessary to work its way into minds artificially corrupted
> through millenia of suppression.
[Hammond]
I still have hopes that the White Knight will surface
somehwere in or on the fringes of academia... doesn't
matter how much he knows... what matters is conviction
and motivation. It only takes ONE MAN to "second
a motion".... and I'm still looking for a second.
> Have you not noticed that you've had more useful correspondence from
> those with a mathematical bent?
[Hammond]
The most useful responses have come from "diamond in the
rough" amateurs... yes some of them math majors. But the
common denominator seems to be the guy who has a lot
more ability than people recognize... and it's bothering him
and there isn't much he can do about it..... somewhere,
somehow... that guy is going to come across this "theory"
and suddenly recognize a vehicle that will solve his problem.
Remember the other thing by the way... besides saving the
world Spiritually... this discovery is the first scientific theory of
Psychology (perceptual reality).... I see immediately the day
when "virtual reality technology" will become the main
toool of psychotherapy.... even popular psychology and
entertainment. Fortunes will be made when this theory is translated
into virtual technology applications... and whoever makes a name for
himself in this early research is going to ride the wave for
a lifetime career and probably clean up financially as a
consultant or as the founder of a new industry.
> Mark L. Fergerson
PS....
Jim Black:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU4.jpg
angle = arcosine(r)
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/5X7C0192.jpg
George
====================================
cat
>
> 4.
> Hammond has discovered that since real space
> CAUSES Psychometry space, that G_uv in Psychometry
> space is caused by a G_uv in real space... hence
> "God is caused by Gravity", or "God=G_uv".
>
I have an honours degree in complex systems analysis and evolutionary
theory.
it is correct to state real space causes psychometric space.
however it does not necessarily follow that G_uv in Psychometry space is
caused by a G_uv in real space.
just because real space causes psychometric space does not mean the 2
spaces follow parallel causality for their own properties.
i.e. if a=>b !=> x(a)=>x(b)
however a sound logical argument can be put forward for the existence of
an entity with properties that exceeds logical explanation, and
hence could be considered God.
If we start with roughly the same area as russel's paradox.
all things exist within the context of 'not thing', i.e. to recognise
anything there must be something else which is not that thing to
contrast it with.
therefore, the primary act of creating any 'thing' is division, take the
whole and divide it into 'one thing', 'another thing' etc.
russel's paradox concerns 'the set of all sets' i.e. the thing that is
everything.
The problem (paradox) comes with the logically counterintuitive fact
that (for a thing to exist there must be a counter thing) but
'everything' does not have anything that is outside of it, therefore
'everything' is not a thing.
Now this may not seem of much interest, it does however mean
'Everything' cannot be stated or derived in any logical procedure,
therefore 'Everything' exceeds logical explanation.
In this sense, since we cannot logically explain 'Everything' it is
possible to sensibly label the entity 'everything' as god.
this is in-line with zen buddhist thinking, although devived through
rational western philosophy.
faith is good for you, but don't take any sh*t
zz_james
Student
you think you have discovered.! :-)))
To say you have discovered the "scientific proof of god" is the most insane
thing I have ever heard, but I respect your right to that claim.
The only thing you have discovered is how creative your own brain can be,
and then how angry you can get when no-one else acknowledges you as the
discoverer of God, bummer eh?
:-)
You know a lot about "things" [Hammond] but you do not know what a single
thing actually is, nor did Einstein, or any of your VIP's of science. You
can say lots of things about Energy or Gravity, but can you say what either
of them IS, actually IS?
Let alone say who made them, or why or when or how?
Science really should acknowledge some sort of God thing, because I am
pretty sure something inexplicably amazing is happening right NOW!
:-))
Relax, take a big breath and walk away from the computer, and go for a walk
in the park, see if the birds or trees care about your theories and desire
for recognition - nup, keep walking, hopefully you will start to forget
yourself and feel the mystery of your own existence.
Student
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%qrXc.187703$8_6.115068@attbi_s04...
George Hammond
"Student" <grey...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip>
[Hammond]
Dear Stud:
Get your boring ad hominem crap out of here.
George Hammond
"cat" <t...@REMOVE.safetycat.org> wrote in message
news:cglm70$o1t$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> > 4.
> > Hammond has discovered that since real space
> > CAUSES Psychometry space, that G_uv in Psychometry
> > space is caused by a G_uv in real space... hence
> > "God is caused by Gravity", or "God=G_uv".
> >
>
> I have an honours degree in complex systems analysis and evolutionary
> theory.
[Hammond]
Psychology is a complex system.
>
> it is correct to state real space causes psychometric space.
[Hammond]
I'd give you an honary PhD in Physics for that statement!
> however it does not necessarily follow that G_uv in Psychometry space is
> caused by a G_uv in real space.
[Hammond]
Scientific discoveries are a matter of practical common
sense and brute force experience.... bear in mind it can't
actually be PROVED that "F=ma".
However, the entire scientific establishment agrees that
it is.
<snip... the usual math trivia and novelty rap>
> zz_james
========original Hammond target post====
God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS
Hundreds of amateurs have discussed
Hammond's work "philosophically"
They have discussed "God", "Creation",
Genesis", "Reality"... blah, blah, blah.
FACT IS Hammond's discovery is NOT a "philosophy"
discovery. It is a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST
is to remind people WHAT this
"scientific discovery" is.
Hopefully, someone with some scientific
credentials will respond to it.
WHAT HAMMOND HAS DISCOVERED
(SCIENTIFICALLY)
1.
Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra
of modern computerized Psychometry is IDENTICAL
to the Linear Algebra of "Linearized Gravity" in
General Relativity.
2.
Hammond has discovered that the CAUSAL REASON
for this is that the metrical structure (geometry)
of real space causes the cleavage geometry of the
brain which in turn causes the metrical structure
of Psychometry space.
3.
Hammond has discovered that there is a "curvature"
in Psychometry space described by a "G_uv" and that
phenomenologically, this curvature yield's a
comprehensive explanation of the entire historical
phenomena that we call "God".
4.
Hammond has discovered that since real space
CAUSES Psychometry space, that G_uv in Psychometry
space is caused by a G_uv in real space... hence
"God is caused by Gravity", or "God=G_uv".
5.
All of the above is based on 100 years of published,
(mainly computerized) Psychometry data, and is proven
to two decimal places experimentally.
6. Hence, the world's first true scientific proof of God
has been discovered.
OK, .... that is the SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
that Hammond has made.
If there is anyone who is competent in Linear
Algebra and General Relativity who would like to
comment on this, please post a reply.
====================================
TomGee
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:tJbXc.3154$ZD4.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Sh7Xc.68440$mD.43941@attbi_s02...
> > >
> > > "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of God,
> prove
> > > > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> > > Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true,
>
defense mechanisms against the whims of nature does not mean any of
those mechanisms are reality. Billions of people have often believed
wrongly about various concerns, but their belief - or prayers, if you
will - cannot make their false beliefs true. To believe that
something which has always been will always be is fallacious thinking,
and the same goes for something which has been believed to be true by
many people for a long time.
>
> > > and all
> > > worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> > > God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> > > of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
> >
planet believes something is true, it can still turn out that they are
wrong. Reality does not depend on majority votes any more than the
sun requires observers so that it may rise in the East. What accounts
for any overwhelming religious majority has more to do with the power
accrued by particular religions against any other ruler. Look at the
religious TV shows today: They prey on the old and infirm, the
ignorant and the conservative. They clearly have a continuing agenda
to run time back to the Dark Ages, but with them on top this time.
They won't do it in my lifetime, but the corruption that comes with
absolute power insures that they will surely rise again to impose
horror upon the inhabitants of this planet.
that all humans seem to characteristically require similar fantasy
outlets for the anxiety created by the uncertainty of reality, no?
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong. Clearly the term "Big Bang creation" is known to
> you, AND the term "Biblical Creation" is known to you.
> Both of them are given considerable credence in the
> Western world.
>
>
> Fact is, my discovery proves that BOTH "creations"
> are true. To wit:
>
> 1. 40,000 years ago the human brain and therefore
> "perceptual reality" came into existence... this
> explains the Biblical Creation. Without perceptual
> reality there is no physical reality, because human
> perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which
> we detect physical reality.
>
has nothing to do with reality. It has to do only with what we detect
and what we do not detect.
>
> 2. Because of 1, we see that when the Biblical Creation
> occurred, it "Created" the "existence" of physical
> reality including time itself.
>
cannot shorten that statement as you have done and remain within the
real world. Reality and time both existed long before humans came
along.
>
> Part of this Creation
> of time was the creation of the "15-billion year
> history" of the universe, including the Big Bang.
>
they are not involved, although we can think and believe that we did.
>
> 3. So, therefore, "within Biblical Creation" there
> is a "physical creation" known as the Big Bang.
>
as one view of history?
>
> I don't see how this should be considered "incredible",
> or "unbelieveable" or "irrational".... it seems as simple
> as 1, 2, 3 to me.
>
pure fantasy stemming from human defense mechanisms.
>
> Problem is.... most people would say "so what... what is the
> PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE of such a theory"?
> And up until NOW there was no proven scientific significance
> of this "philosophical argument".
> But NOW, Hammond has discovered that there is a
> significant, fundamental and systematic DEPARTURE
> of "perceptual reality" from "absolute physical reality".
> that this difference can be measured to two decimal points,
> is at a minimun at least 15%, and it CAUSES the phenomena
> that we call "God" as well as all of Psychology... and in
> fact accounts for the existence of Religion.
>
no mystery to anyone who has taken psychology 101. Man has survived
to become master of the planet due to his fundamental drive for
self-preservation. This drive motivates us to survive death in almost
any way we can. Once we learned about mortality and the fact that we
are mortal, our psyche developed ways to cope with such high anxiety
and the belief of immortality in the hereafter caught on really well
after the religious found that preaching was not bad work.
>
> And of course..... it finally ENDS the philosophical
> dispute that has been going on for 1700 years as to whether
> "reality" is "perceptual" or "absolute". Turns out it is
> BOTH.... and the DIFFERENCE between the two explains
> the existence of the "God of the Bible".
>
unless we egomaniacally believe the universe revolves around our
planet.
>
> [Hammond]
> I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> you agree with it or not.
>
your door.
>
> Einstein in fact said he did
> not believe in a "personal God" (anthropomorphic God)
> and believed in a "cosmical God". Basically this is the
> what Spinoza advocated.... Spinoza said "God is Nature".
> Well, the fact is my discovery indicates that BOTH views
> i.e. the "person-God" and the "cosmic God" are correct.
> However, we must point out that said discovery clearly shows
> that both Spinoza and Einstein were INCORRECT when they
> said that the "person-God"... that is the "invisible man God"
> did not exist. He does exist!
>
>
> And moreover, it is the
> "person-God" that has been, and still is, the workhorse of
> religion for 3,500 years. And no doubt will remain so!
>
>
> OK, the reason my discovery confirms that BOTH views
> of God are correct is that my discovery shows that "God is
> caused by Gravity". The invisible person-God is caused
> by Classical Gravity, which indicates immediately that when
> the theory of Quantum Gravity is ever discovered, we are
> going to get a "cosmological" description of God. And,
> people are already working on this despite the fact that the theory
> of Quantum Gravity hasn't even been discovered.
>
proposed.
>
> The whole
> field of "Consciousness Research" is in fact a search for this
> "cosmological God".
>
>
> However, the "cosmological God" theory
> is very old... and Spinoza is a well known example of it.
> However... to start a speculative digression into quantum
> gravity and the nature of the cosmological God at this point,
> when what we have on the table before us is an ACTUAL PROOF
> of the "classical God"
>
>
.... that is the invisible man God... I
> consider nothing but an attempt to change the subject or
> an attempt to obfuscate the dramatic proven discovery that
> we have before us now.
>
Yours is simply an opinion.
>
> So.. to answer your query.... YES the "God of Spinoza"
> is a correct theory.... and this theory does make it's appearance
> in many of our "unsophisticated Third World religions".
> Why? Because when all is said and done.... the "cosmological
> God" is actually a LESS SOPHISTICATED idea than the
> PERSON-GOD of classical religion.
>
>
> After all.... saying things
> like "God is energy" which any office secretary is apt to say...
> is a far less sophisticated rumination than discovering that
> God is "an invisible man" which is what classical religion
> discovered thousands of years ago, and is the MAINSTAY
> of world religion today.
> Fianlly, however... don't think I am pooh poohing the
> importance of the "cosmological God"... or what we might
> call the "quantum God". After all, comparing the "person God"
> to the "quantum God" is sort of like comparing the
> "political theory of Man" to the "medical theory of Man".
> While it is true that Politics is more important than Medicine
> in terms of direct impact on Civilization.... we all appreciate
> that Medicine is vital to human survival. Likewise, it turns
> out that the "classical theory" of God cannot answer the question
> of "Life After Death"... and it is highly likely that we won't
> get an answer to that until the "quantum God" (quantum gravity)
> is discovered.
>
we can only wish there is. It becomes a matter of personal opinion,
one side being as correct or incorrect as the other.
Albert
<snip>
> THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST
> is to remind people WHAT this
> "scientific discovery" is.
>
> Hopefully, someone with some scientific
> credentials will respond to it.
I've been watching. Lots of people with scientific credentials
have responded and as a group have labeled you a fraud.
<snip>
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
George Hammond
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<_DkXc.94499$TI1.11579@attbi_s52>...
> > "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:tJbXc.3154$ZD4.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Sh7Xc.68440$mD.43941@attbi_s02...
> > > >
> > > > "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of
God,
> > prove
> > > > > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> > > > Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true,
> >
[Hammond]
Yes it does to.
> >
> > > > and all
> > > > worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> > > > God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> > > > of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
> > >
<snip trite common knowlege>
<snip... more common knowege tripe>
> > [Hammond]
> > Wrong. Clearly the term "Big Bang creation" is known to
> > you, AND the term "Biblical Creation" is known to you.
> > Both of them are given considerable credence in the
> > Western world.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Fact is, my discovery proves that BOTH "creations"
> > are true. To wit:
> >
> > 1. 40,000 years ago the human brain and therefore
> > "perceptual reality" came into existence... this
> > explains the Biblical Creation. Without perceptual
> > reality there is no physical reality, because human
> > perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which
> > we detect physical reality.
> >
<snip.. more oxymorons>
> >
> > 2. Because of 1, we see that when the Biblical Creation
> > occurred, it "Created" the "existence" of physical
> > reality including time itself.
> >
<snip... more unscientific crap of no interesst>
> >
> > Part of this Creation
> > of time was the creation of the "15-billion year
> > history" of the universe, including the Big Bang.
> >
<snip more pantywaist academy fat lip tripe>
> >
> > 3. So, therefore, "within Biblical Creation" there
> > is a "physical creation" known as the Big Bang.
> >
<snip.... yawn...>
> >
> > I don't see how this should be considered "incredible",
> > or "unbelieveable" or "irrational".... it seems as simple
> > as 1, 2, 3 to me.
> >
<snip more one liner academy crap>
> >
> > Problem is.... most people would say "so what... what is the
> > PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE of such a theory"?
> > And up until NOW there was no proven scientific significance
> > of this "philosophical argument".
> > But NOW, Hammond has discovered that there is a
> > significant, fundamental and systematic DEPARTURE
> > of "perceptual reality" from "absolute physical reality".
> > that this difference can be measured to two decimal points,
> > is at a minimun at least 15%, and it CAUSES the phenomena
> > that we call "God" as well as all of Psychology... and in
> > fact accounts for the existence of Religion.
> >
<snip... more Reader's Digest crapola>
> >
> > And of course..... it finally ENDS the philosophical
> > dispute that has been going on for 1700 years as to whether
> > "reality" is "perceptual" or "absolute". Turns out it is
> > BOTH.... and the DIFFERENCE between the two explains
> > the existence of the "God of the Bible".
> >
<snip... more low grade moron typing>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> > you agree with it or not.
> >
<snip... more Reader's Digest cliches>
.
> >
> > Einstein in fact said he did
> > not believe in a "personal God" (anthropomorphic God)
> > and believed in a "cosmical God". Basically this is the
> > what Spinoza advocated.... Spinoza said "God is Nature".
> > Well, the fact is my discovery indicates that BOTH views
> > i.e. the "person-God" and the "cosmic God" are correct.
> > However, we must point out that said discovery clearly shows
> > that both Spinoza and Einstein were INCORRECT when they
> > said that the "person-God"... that is the "invisible man God"
> > did not exist. He does exist!
> >
> No, he doesn't.
yes he does
> >
> > And moreover, it is the
> > "person-God" that has been, and still is, the workhorse of
> > religion for 3,500 years. And no doubt will remain so!
> >
> No doubt.
already said that.... stop repeating me.
> >
> > OK, the reason my discovery confirms that BOTH views
> > of God are correct is that my discovery shows that "God is
> > caused by Gravity". The invisible person-God is caused
> > by Classical Gravity, which indicates immediately that when
> > the theory of Quantum Gravity is ever discovered, we are
> > going to get a "cosmological" description of God. And,
> > people are already working on this despite the fact that the theory
> > of Quantum Gravity hasn't even been discovered.
> >
<snip... more boring trivia cliches>
> >
> > The whole
> > field of "Consciousness Research" is in fact a search for this
> > "cosmological God".
> >
> No, that is not a fact at all.
Tis so.
> >
> > However, the "cosmological God" theory
> > is very old... and Spinoza is a well known example of it.
> > However... to start a speculative digression into quantum
> > gravity and the nature of the cosmological God at this point,
> > when what we have on the table before us is an ACTUAL PROOF
> > of the "classical God"
> >
> No it isn't. That's just wishful thinking on your part.
T'aint.
> >
> .... that is the invisible man God... I
> > consider nothing but an attempt to change the subject or
> > an attempt to obfuscate the dramatic proven discovery that
> > we have before us now.
> >
> Yours is neither a discovery, dramatic, and nor is it proven.
Nope, yup.
> >
> > So.. to answer your query.... YES the "God of Spinoza"
> > is a correct theory.... and this theory does make it's appearance
> > in many of our "unsophisticated Third World religions".
> > Why? Because when all is said and done.... the "cosmological
> > God" is actually a LESS SOPHISTICATED idea than the
> > PERSON-GOD of classical religion.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > After all.... saying things
> > like "God is energy" which any office secretary is apt to say...
> > is a far less sophisticated rumination than discovering that
> > God is "an invisible man" which is what classical religion
> > discovered thousands of years ago, and is the MAINSTAY
> > of world religion today.
> > Fianlly, however... don't think I am pooh poohing the
> > importance of the "cosmological God"... or what we might
> > call the "quantum God". After all, comparing the "person God"
> > to the "quantum God" is sort of like comparing the
> > "political theory of Man" to the "medical theory of Man".
> > While it is true that Politics is more important than Medicine
> > in terms of direct impact on Civilization.... we all appreciate
> > that Medicine is vital to human survival. Likewise, it turns
> > out that the "classical theory" of God cannot answer the question
> > of "Life After Death"... and it is highly likely that we won't
> > get an answer to that until the "quantum God" (quantum gravity)
> > is discovered.
> >
> The question is moot
Tis not.
Hey dude... where'd you get that frontal lobotomy,
or is that just a head injury from a car accident?
George Hammond
"Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
news:10isuvi...@corp.supernews.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> <snip>
> > THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST
> > is to remind people WHAT this
> > "scientific discovery" is.
> >
> > Hopefully, someone with some scientific
> > credentials will respond to it.
>
> I've been watching. Lots of people with scientific credentials
> have responded
LOL
and as a group have labeled you a fraud.
LOL
Go pedal you're pantywaist academy tripe somewhere else,
I'm tired of listening to impudent Computer Science majors.
Rick Cvejic
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<TKhXc.313282$a24.230473@attbi_s03>...
My point with these was that God is disappearing. I was under the
impression that you were trying to scientifically explain that an
all-powerful Creator exists. Your responses here seem to indicate that
you are now purporting to explain the phenomena of God; that is, to
explain why people think God exists.
On reflection, your theory does seem to serve well enough as a case
for the latter. So if your theory ("proof") is in fact trying to
explain WHY people believe in God, perhaps you should be a bit more
eloquent.
As a case for the former, Im afraid you are grasping at straws.
Are you trying to tell the world that faith in God is a side-effect of
brain structure (God as a creator may or may not exist), or that God
does exist (and he lives in our brain)?
Perhaps "Belief in God is caused by G_uv" would be a better name for
your theory...
> > So God is not a universal constant, or even a personal constant. He
> > (it) varies from person to person, and disappears over time.
> > Interesting....
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes... again.... precisely correct.... and this fact is what you need
> to know, first and foremost.... to comprehend all of human history,
> and the structure and phenomena of the contemporary world.
> People who don't know it are literally in the dark... I hope you
> can appreciate what kind of a problem this can cause in the world.
> > Okay, so, the bigger your BGD, the more necessary, or the more "real"
> > God is to you. So, congrats all you atheists and agnostics! Hammond
> > has proven that you are leagues ahead of the God-fearing plebians!
> > Interesting that one of the most religious countries in the world is
> > the USA. What does that tell us?
>
> [Hammond]
> It tells us that "we" are the ones who have to worry about
> the large BGD in the rest of the world, and the fact that
> those billions of blinded people can stampede like terrified
> cattle at any moment.
Assuming that you are explaining WHY people believe in God, not that
God does in fact exist....
I suppose it could be a good thing to educate the religious that
faith, whilst a good thing when used for the good of humanity, is
simply a reaction to the way the brain works. Not really a stunning
observation - us atheists and agnostics have long been stating that
faith is an explanation for the unexplainable. But its nice to think
that there might be proof that we are right.
However, I think you might find (as we have) that the religious
higher-ups are very reluctant to let go of their beliefs, unlike the
atheists and agnostics, who always welcome another excuse to point and
laugh at their less-aware cousins.
> [Hammond]
> Of course nothing can "ungrow" once it iis grown... however,
> there IS a well known effect that actually mimics an increase
> in the BGD and this is known as "depression"... or even "repression",
> and can be large and dramatic. It is known to be principally
> caused by "social abuse" (child abuse, cultural abuse, stress,
> competion, psychological warfare, etc.). This is one of the
> major problems that caused the formation of organized
> Religion in the first place. Fact is, all of us to some extent
> have a significant degree of "repression".... caused by
> "mental blocks" (so called).... and Religion is constantly
> seeking ways to undo these blocks and set people free.
> It's not an esy task... because the underlying (social) causes
> are real.
Okay, now youre making my assumption sound wrong. By my new
understanding of your ideas, religion is (to use The Matrix
terminology) yet another layer of control. Religion seeks to take
advantage of a low BGD, and encourage BGD stagnation, thus cementing a
continued power base. Religion are The Machines, whereas the atheists,
agnostics, and my interpretation of your theory are Zion, trying to
free people of the shackles of low BGD, and encourage brain growth.
Funny how the traditional interpretation of The Matrix philosophy can
be turned on its head...
> > Of course, thats all assuming Hammond is right. I am still looking
> > forward a coherent explaination of how a deficiency in human brain
> > growth could create life, or spawn a universe. You know... considering
> > human brains didnt exist when that happened.
>
> [Hammond]
> that is all explained by the fact that the "human brain" as we know it,
> "suddenly appeared" 40,000 years ago.... and this is the explanation
> of the so called "Biblical Creation" which actually occured at that
> time because of that.
Again, my new interpretation of your theory seems to gel with this...
kind of. God didnt create the universe, but the emergence of an
intelligent brain (albeit one with a high BGD) required an
explanation of what was already there. Thus the primitive people used
Creation as an explanation.
Your theory does not explain how the Big Bang happened, and does not
judge that a supernatural creator does or does not exist. It simply
tries to scientifically explain WHY people think that there is a God.
Whether a creator exists remains unprovable.
Perhaps some measure of an apology is due on both sides of this
argument (if I am correct).
TMG
> LOL
>
> Go pedal you're pantywaist academy tripe somewhere else,
> I'm tired of listening to impudent Computer Science majors.
Unless you need someone's help with that computer thingie. Not that I
was a CS major, but here we have grad students napping on couches that
are better than you at this whole InterWeb thing. Not the
students,...the couches.
BTW, where's my "Thank you" on the Cyrillic problem that had you baffled
- you ungrateful, self absorbed, arrogant putz?
I'm beginning to understand the old saying "Build a man a fire, and he's
warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his
life".
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:Gr2dnbfPyom...@comcast.com...
[Hammond]
Oh for christ sakes... all I had to do is push a button
next to KO18 under the format-encoding drop down
menu.... I certainly didn't have to do a google search
to find that out. Stumbled across it myself... something
someone could have told me in 2 seconds.
Имейте стекло водочки.
Gwar
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
> Without perceptual reality there is no physical reality,
That should be the other way around.
> ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
> physical reality.
It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on human
perception. Are you nuts? (BTW, if at this point you're foaming at the
mouth in rage, you just answered the question. (Just a little tip.))
HTH
TMG
Suuuuure ya could have.
The whole point is you don't know how to figure anything out on your
own. You're clueless. You don't understand how anything works, and
you're too arrogant to admit it. You SAY "I certainly didn't have to do
a google search to find that out.", but kept whimpering (curled up in a
corner like a beaten child <push button here>) "can someone
pleeeeeaaaase help me fix my computer thingie....pllllleeeease!". It
never remotely occurred to Google it up, or even to plug it into the
search engine at microsoft. You don't have the horsepower to play out
here with the big kids <push button here>, and you fly into a rage when
you get your lunch money taken.
Now try and follow what the rest of us see: You didn't know how, you
didn't know how to find out, you don't understand the basic framework,
and you're too arrogant to admit it. You will always be a joke. There
are NO bumper stickers. Your brother was always the smart one <push
button here>, and was worthy of getting married <jab button multiple
times here>.
My button pressin' finger is tired. I'll let you simmer and foment your
next rant. BTW, I can hear your teeth clenching, and your little feet
stamping from here.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Hey... let me repaet the message:
God is not "disappearing" he is "transforming" himslef
from the 'invisible God of Heaven" into the "visible
Man of Earth".
> I was under the
> impression that you were trying to scientifically explain that an
> all-powerful Creator exists.
[Hammond]
I am, I have, I did.
>
Your responses here seem to indicate that
> you are now purporting to explain the phenomena of God; that is, to
> explain why people think God exists.
[Hammond]
That too..... the reson people think God exists.... is because
he ACTUALLY DOES EXIST... and they have noticed it.
>
> On reflection, your theory does seem to serve well enough as a case
> for the latter. So if your theory ("proof") is in fact trying to
> explain WHY people believe in God, perhaps you should be a bit more
> eloquent.
[Hammond]
I'm afraid I'm missing your point Rick?
>
> As a case for the former, Im afraid you are grasping at straws.
[Hammond]
Huh...?
>
> Are you trying to tell the world that faith in God is a side-effect of
> brain structure (God as a creator may or may not exist), or that God
> does exist (and he lives in our brain)?
[Hammond]
for cripes sake... you mean you're coming on her to talk to me
without even bothering to read my website?
1. God does exist
2. God is caused by the (Secular Trend) incomplete
growth of the brain.
3. Brain growth is actually mediated by "quantum brain gravity"
therefore we say "God is caused by Gravity".
4. Since God is real... God's existence has been detected by
Man and this is the cause of Religion.
>
> Perhaps "Belief in God is caused by G_uv" would be a better name for
> your theory...
[Hammond]
I think you better read the papers and find out what you are
talking about before you start suggesting
executive decisions... sorry.
>
>
> > > So God is not a universal constant, or even a personal constant. He
> > > (it) varies from person to person, and disappears over time.
> > > Interesting....
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Yes... again.... precisely correct.... and this fact is what you need
> > to know, first and foremost.... to comprehend all of human history,
> > and the structure and phenomena of the contemporary world.
> > People who don't know it are literally in the dark... I hope you
> > can appreciate what kind of a problem this can cause in the world.
>
> > > Okay, so, the bigger your BGD, the more necessary, or the more "real"
> > > God is to you. So, congrats all you atheists and agnostics! Hammond
> > > has proven that you are leagues ahead of the God-fearing plebians!
> > > Interesting that one of the most religious countries in the world is
> > > the USA. What does that tell us?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > It tells us that "we" are the ones who have to worry about
> > the large BGD in the rest of the world, and the fact that
> > those billions of blinded people can stampede like terrified
> > cattle at any moment.
>
> Assuming that you are explaining WHY people believe in God, not that
> God does in fact exist....
[Hammond]
I've already pointed out that you are merely
confused about this.
>
> I suppose it could be a good thing to educate the religious that
> faith, whilst a good thing when used for the good of humanity, is
> simply a reaction to the way the brain works. Not really a stunning
> observation - us atheists and agnostics have long been stating that
> faith is an explanation for the unexplainable. But its nice to think
> that there might be proof that we are right.
[Hammond]
Your understanding of the theory is com;letely
out in left field and totally incorrect and
irrelevant.
God is a modification of "realty" caused by the
brain,... not an "idea" caused by the brain,
for chrissakes.
<snip>
>
> > [Hammond]
> > Of course nothing can "ungrow" once it iis grown... however,
> > there IS a well known effect that actually mimics an increase
> > in the BGD and this is known as "depression"... or even "repression",
> > and can be large and dramatic. It is known to be principally
> > caused by "social abuse" (child abuse, cultural abuse, stress,
> > competion, psychological warfare, etc.). This is one of the
> > major problems that caused the formation of organized
> > Religion in the first place. Fact is, all of us to some extent
> > have a significant degree of "repression".... caused by
> > "mental blocks" (so called).... and Religion is constantly
> > seeking ways to undo these blocks and set people free.
> > It's not an esy task... because the underlying (social) causes
> > are real.
>
> Okay, now youre making my assumption sound wrong. By my new
> understanding of your ideas, religion is (to use The Matrix
> terminology) yet another layer of control. Religion seeks to take
> advantage of a low BGD, and encourage BGD stagnation, thus cementing a
> continued power base. Religion are The Machines, whereas the atheists,
> agnostics, and my interpretation of your theory are Zion, trying to
> free people of the shackles of low BGD, and encourage brain growth.
[Hammond]
No... you're simply making up imaginative stories based on your
total lack of comprehension of the theory.
"religion" is simply a codification of the "facts" of the existence
of God that have been observed by Man for the past 4,000
years. My discovery PROVES that religion is correct, and
scientifically explains these (observed) facts.
>
> Funny how the traditional interpretation of The Matrix philosophy can
> be turned on its head...
[Hammond]
Hey... as far as I'm concerned "The Matrix" is a pseudointellectual
B-Movie made for low grade science fiction morons and has
nothing to do with science or reality..... please... don't bore the
shit out of me with movies.
>
>
> > > Of course, thats all assuming Hammond is right. I am still looking
> > > forward a coherent explaination of how a deficiency in human brain
> > > growth could create life, or spawn a universe. You know... considering
> > > human brains didnt exist when that happened.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > that is all explained by the fact that the "human brain" as we know it,
> > "suddenly appeared" 40,000 years ago.... and this is the explanation
> > of the so called "Biblical Creation" which actually occured at that
> > time because of that.
>
> Again, my new interpretation of your theory <snip>
[Hammond]
No one is interested in "your interpretation" of my
discovery, since it is obvious that you can't even understand it.
>
> Your theory does not explain how the Big Bang happened, and does not
> judge that a supernatural creator does or does not exist. It simply
> tries to scientifically explain WHY people think that there is a God.
[Hammond]
there you go.... you're just another flat out
aggrevated liar.
> Whether a creator exists remains unprovable.
[Hammond]
Wrong .... that's exactly what the discovery proves.
> Perhaps some measure of an apology is due on both sides of this
> argument (if I am correct).
[Hammond]
Nothing you've said is "correct".,
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > news:Gr2dnbfPyom...@comcast.com...
> >
> >>George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>LOL
> >>>
> >>>Go pedal you're pantywaist academy tripe somewhere else,
> >>>I'm tired of listening to impudent Computer Science majors.
> >>
> >>Unless you need someone's help with that computer thingie. Not that I
> >>was a CS major, but here we have grad students napping on couches that
> >>are better than you at this whole InterWeb thing. Not the
> >>students,...the couches.
> >>
> >>BTW, where's my "Thank you" on the Cyrillic problem that had you baffled
> >>- you ungrateful, self absorbed, arrogant putz?
> >>
> >>I'm beginning to understand the old saying "Build a man a fire, and he's
> >>warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his
> >>life"
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Oh for christ sakes... all I had to do is push a button
> > next to KO18 under the format-encoding drop down
> > menu.... I certainly didn't have to do a google search
> > to find that out. Stumbled across it myself... something
> > someone could have told me in 2 seconds.
>
> Suuuuure ya could have.
>
> The whole point is
[Hammond]
the whole point is...
It's taken me awhile to realize just how fuckin stupid
you actually are.... you really are a moron.... everything
I say goes right over your fuckin head. I feel like I'm
talking to a tape recorder that's stuck running an endless
loop and just says the same thing over and over again.
http://www.barnstablepolice.com/
Вы будете отверстием ишака fuckin
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
news:2004082619...@synergy.transbay.net...
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>
> > Without perceptual reality there is no physical reality,
>
> That should be the other way around.
>
> > ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
> > physical reality.
>
> It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on human
> perception.
[Hammond]
You gotta be shittin me!
TMG
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:g56dnafTcqR...@comcast.com...
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>Suuuuure ya could have.
>>
>>The whole point is
HUGE Hammond <snip> of everything he disputes, and makes him admit he's
a frightened child:
>
> [Hammond]
> the whole point is...
> It's taken me awhile to realize just how fuckin stupid
> you actually are.... you really are a moron.... everything
> I say goes right over your fuckin head. I feel like I'm
> talking to a tape recorder that's stuck running an endless
> loop and just says the same thing over and over again.
Yet you snipped all the good stuff,...and still don't have that "Dr." in
front of your name.
George, what your particular kink fails to see, is that we all really DO
understand. Each and every bit. EACH factor, point, and analysis. And
your betters (socially, industrially, acidmedically, religiously,
humanically, and way smartisher) have ALL told you you're a crank.
Every appeal to authority has turned out savage against you. Individual
scientists (oh, such a long list) and churches and insitutions. At what
point does a self-proclaimed "scientist" admit he's wrong. Can it be
that you are wrong? You bluster "NO, NO, NO!!!!!" with you fingers in
your ears, but is that science?
[Hammond]
I AM the TRUTH. What I say is TRUE by DEFINITION.
I AM GOD! enough said - I AM all of your arguments.
What I say is true, because I say it.
ummm - ok
You piss and moan that nobody (except your smarter brother) could ever
put it all together - except for you. Of course - the Great and Powerful
Hammond - is the only one who could put it all together. But you're
wrong. WE have the credentials you lack, we have the peer reviewed
papers that your vanity press can never do, and time and time over - we
clearly tell you science pisses on you and you SPOG. You just won't get
any further. We've mocked and laughed at you for 2+ years - what makes
you think your not going to be mocked for all time?
Frankly, Shut The Fuck Up. Stop wasting the time of those you dismiss.
Just shut up. If you're ranting to those that you define as unable to
understand - *you* have the fricking problem. It's like seeng Hammond at
Speakers Corner in London - sport being out watching the loon(s).
You clearly can't play in the professional world (failed for 40 years),
can't play in the social world (an admitted inability to meet or marry),
detached personality, locked-up, self-confessed escape attempts from the
mental bin(s). Self labeled "INSANE". You flat out told all of USENET
that you're insane - admitted it, and went into a long explanation.
Like a tense case of Scrabble - "Do you CHALLENGE?"
Remember - it's all out there for reposting - do you REALLY challenge?
How about if I make your spew about your insanity MY COOKIE-CUTTER. You
posted it on USENET - why can't I post it over and over and over? You
certainly do. Let's get all of USENET together and ALL change our
signature files to be your admission to being INSANE,...by the way, we
all talk about you, where you can't see us.
Just shut up. It's a fine balance between the time it takes to humiliate
you (the world over), and clipping my toenails. The more stupidishish
things you post, the longer my toenails get,....get smarter or I'll have
to buy new shoes.
Earle Jones
[...]
> [Hammond]
>
> I AM the TRUTH. What I say is TRUE by DEFINITION.
>
> I AM GOD! enough said - I AM all of your arguments.
>
> What I say is true, because I say it.
*
Hammond -- your secret is now out!
You are GOD!
Hey! Good for you -- always keep me in mind if there's a need for
an ambassador to wherever.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
TMG
>>George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>[Hammond]
>>
>>I AM the TRUTH. What I say is TRUE by DEFINITION.
>>
>>I AM GOD! enough said - I AM all of your arguments.
>>
>>What I say is true, because I say it.
>
>
> *
> Hammond -- your secret is now out!
>
> You are GOD!
>
> Hey! Good for you -- always keep me in mind if there's a need for
> an ambassador to wherever.
>
> earle
> *
Be sure to check closely first - you don't want to be assigned to a post
that's part of the 15% part of the universe that's missing. How would
you put in for mileage?
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > news:g56dnafTcqR...@comcast.com...
> >
> >>George Hammond wrote:
> >>Suuuuure ya could have.
> >>
> >>The whole point is
>
> HUGE Hammond <snip> of everything he disputes, and makes him admit he's
> a frightened child:
>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > the whole point is...
> > It's taken me awhile to realize just how fuckin stupid
> > you actually are.... you really are a moron.... everything
> > I say goes right over your fuckin head. I feel like I'm
> > talking to a tape recorder that's stuck running an endless
> > loop and just says the same thing over and over again.
>
>
> understand. Each and every bit. EACH factor, point, and analysis.
[Hammond]
You're a scientific incompetent and a mentally unstable crank
and I can PROVE it.
You've just stated that you "DO understand. Each and every bit.
EACH factor, point, and analysis."
I say you're bluffing.
I'd like to see you PROVE it by answering the following 10 questions.
No bullshit or off topic stalls... I'd like you to PROVE your statement
by answering the 10 questions. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN!!
The following questions can be answered in 5 SENTENCES OR LESS
(each):
1. If G_uv=0 does this mean there is no gravitational field?
If so, why? If not, why not?
2. In "linearized gravity" what is the main effect of a "Lorentz gauge
transformation" on the solution?
3. In Psychometry, what is the (geometric) difference between a
Principal Axis solution and a Factor solution of a correlation matrix?
4. What is the mathematical and physical relation between "Factors" and
"higher order Factors"?
5. If you discovered a spacetime with a static mass density distribution
whose
G_uv began at infinity and proceeded to zero with time at every point,
what is the most likely physical explanation of that?
6. Why does a horse have 4 legs?
7. What is the physical reason why the overwhelming majority of mathmatical
physics problems are most commonly solved in Cartesian Coordinates?
8. Is it prima facie more "probable" or "improbable" that the discovery of
a "curvature" of 4D Psychometry space has a profound physical
meaning and scientific significance?
9. The metric g_uv can be "diagonalized" at any point in spacetime by a
coordinate
transformation. Yes or no?
10. If a submarine exploration vehicle discovered an ancient city 3 miles
down in the middle of the Atlantic with 100 miles of stone paved roads,
5 story buildings and a stele in the middle of town saying "Remember
us, our land is sinking, the strong have built ships and left, the old
must perish in the Sea". Could you confidently conclude that you
had discovered Atlantis, or would further proof be required?
George Hammond
Gwar
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>>> Without perceptual reality there is no physical reality,
>> That should be the other way around.
>>> ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
>>> physical reality.
>> It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on human
>> perception.
> [Hammond]
> You gotta be shittin me!
& the reason for your incredulity is what, George? You're not being very
articulate here.
Scot McDermid
> [Hammond]
> God is a modification of "realty" caused by the
> brain,... not an "idea" caused by the brain,
> for chrissakes.
So if God is a modification caused by the brain
then God does not exist in His own right.
But you have also said that reality itself doesn't
exist except for the human perception of it.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
[Hammond]
Look, McDermid... you're wasting everybodies time
by continuing to assert that the question of "God" can
be solved by "word meaning games" and "philosophical
statements". It can't and 2,000 years of "philosophy
debate" has proved nothing but that.
The ONLY way the question of God can be solved is by
NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
Words and word meanings are sufficiently ambiguous
that they cannot be used as a forensic tool to discover
new scientific fact.... only the "methods of Science" can
do that.
AFTER Science discovers the truth, THEN
"word statments" can be formulated that express
that truth.
The statement:
> > God is a modification of "realty" caused by the
> > brain,... not an "idea" caused by the brain,
is one such statements.
YOU CAN'T counter that statement by playing "word games".
You can only counter it by challenging the scientific fact
that proves it.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
The point is, "scientific discovery ends philosophy
debates" NOT VICE VERSA.
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
[Hammond]
I have made the statement:
"God is a modification of "reality" caused by
the brain, not an "idea" caused by the brain".
Now.... this statement is formulated in "lingua franca" it is
not designed to be a "pedant proof statement".... it is
designed to "convey real information to real people using
common ideomatic street laguage the average person
is known to understand".
Now to go attacking "the common idiom" as being
parochial and inaccurate is simply begging the question..
a pedant exercise.
Fact is, history has PROVED that "perceptual reality" is
the "defacto actual reality" that determines human behaviour.
Simply because we all agree that it is "400 miles from New
York to Boston" does not mean that some people don't think
"its a long trip" while others think "it's only a short drive".
PERCEPTUAL REALITY is "real reality" as far as
every individual is concerned.
The statement "it is 400 miles" is "Physics reality" or
what we have come to call "absolute physical reality".
But "absolute physical reality" is something that is
"deduced" using the "actual perceptual reality" of
human observers.... fact is no one can actually
"see" this "absolute physical reality". We merely
"deduce" that it exists, that it is a constant, that it
is stable and goverened by the Laws of Physics.
We can "test it', we can 'measure it", we can "confirm it",
but we CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT! The primary
reason for this is the different states of "growth of the
brain" in different people. For instance a 9 year old
thinks a merry-go-round is twice as big and going
twice as fast as an 18 year old, because his brain is
only "half grown". Even though they AGREE
that according to a tape measure the wheel is
30 ft in diameter, and according to the clock on the wall
it is rotating at 10 r.p.m. They AGREE on "absolute
physical reality".... but the "actual reality" that
each one SEES is VERY DIFFERENT.
THE POINT IS that your life and your behaviour
is goverened by the "reality you see".... not by
your knowlege of the "absolute physical reality"
which you CAN'T SEE.
This effect is called "God"... i.e. the mediator of
"seen reality" is called "God" and obviously this phenomena
is "caused by braingrowth" and therefore we say
that "God is caused by the growth of the brain".
For more advanced students of the subject, it is
discovered scientifically that braingrowth is mediated by
gravity and this is confimed by discovering that this
"size and speed" modulation is described by:
God = G_uv = BGD (braingrowth deficit)
which experimentally CONFIRMS that ultimately
"God is caused by gravity".
Earle Jones
TMG <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote:
*
Holy shit! I never thought of that! Maybe I could be ambassador to
Hell. The atmosphere is not so good, but the company is better.
Earle Jones
Gwar <xe...@xor.qua> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> >>> Without perceptual reality there is no physical reality,
>
> >> That should be the other way around.
>
> >>> ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
> >>> physical reality.
>
> >> It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on human
> >> perception.
*
I claim that my dog detects physical reality.
Student
How'd you know I was a Stud! Thanks pal!
Still didn't answer my question, what is anything?
What is Energy?
What is IT???
All you know is crap about IT, because of the possibility, of infinite
possibilities within the perceptual and conceptual possibilities of your own
brain.
In terms of infinITy, what relevance does time and space have?
I bet you won't answer that one either.
God would never stoop so low, eh?
You are God aren't you, I mean you have to be since you discovered yourself?
And I bet you think you have the biggest brain too, LOLOLOL!!
I didn't realise God got so pissed off, so easily.
Student
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N8tXc.188068$8_6.213@attbi_s04...
cat
>
> [Hammond]
> Scientific discoveries are a matter of practical common
> sense and brute force experience.... bear in mind it can't
> actually be PROVED that "F=ma".
> However, the entire scientific establishment agrees that
> it is.
In that case I would say your discovery will remain unscientific since
(a) F=ma has been a useful discovery for many engineering applications,
making it common sense, however, proof that god exists has no
application and serves no purpose, therefore it is not practical common
sense to attempt to prove it in the first place.
(b) in brute force of your words against the many people who think you
are a crank (in terms of psychometric moments for and against) you
loose, (I doubt if this situation will change)
philosophy still beats science because it has control over
interpretation, find a philosophical proof of god and you may be in
business.
James
Earle Jones
cat <t...@REMOVE.safetycat.org> wrote:
*
More precisely, force = the time derivative of momentum (= mv).
Therefore f = v dm/dt + m dv/dt. For constant mass dm/dt = zero and
the equation becomes f = m dv/dt or f = ma.
George Hammond
"cat" <t...@REMOVE.safetycat.org> wrote in message
news:cgoe42$dfp$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Scientific discoveries are a matter of practical common
> > sense and brute force experience.... bear in mind it can't
> > actually be PROVED that "F=ma".
> > However, the entire scientific establishment agrees that
> > it is.
>
> In that case I would say your discovery will remain unscientific since
>
> (a) F=ma has been a useful discovery for many engineering applications,
> making it common sense, however, proof that god exists has no
> application and serves no purpose, therefore it is not practical common
> sense to attempt to prove it in the first place.
[Hammond]
The search for a scientific proof has been going on for centuries,
since the time of Aristofle, Newton, DesCartes, Leibnitz....
who are you kidding... Aquinas published 5 of thiem in the
Summa theologiaca... none of them sufficient.
It's value has been recognized for 2,000 years.
> (b) in brute force of your words against the many people who think you
> are a crank
[Hammond]
Man "internet kooks" you mean
> philosophy still beats science because it has control over
> interpretation, find a philosophical proof of god and you may be in
> business.
[Hammond]
Go pedal it somewhere else.
> James
George Hammond
"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-3889...@netnews.comcast.net...
[Hammond]
Yeah, that's not a proof.... that's a definition.
Gwar
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>>>>> ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
>>>>> physical reality.
>>>> It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on human
>>>> perception.
>>> [Hammond]
>>> You gotta be shittin me!
>> & the reason for your incredulity is what, George? You're not being very
>> articulate here.
> [Hammond]
> I have made the statement:
> "God is a modification of "reality" caused by
> the brain, not an "idea" caused by the brain".
> Now.... this statement is formulated in "lingua franca" it is
> not designed to be a "pedant proof statement".... it is
> designed to "convey real information to real people using
> common ideomatic street laguage the average person
> is known to understand".
Whatever. In plain language, it's still nonsense. The brain doesn't modify
the universe. If anything, it's the other way around.
> Fact is, history has PROVED that "perceptual reality" is
> the "defacto actual reality" that determines human behaviour.
Whatever subjectivism people are caught up in, it's still dependent on
something that is totally independent of that subjectivism.
> Simply because we all agree that it is "400 miles from New York to
> Boston" does not mean that some people don't think "its a long trip"
> while others think "it's only a short drive".
Using a unit of measure, it's the same for everybody in regards to how
many units between A & B. Whether that distance is considered short or
long is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
> For more advanced students of the subject ...
Adherents is a more accurate term: adherents of & in bad faith.
Liberator Veritatis
wrote:
>
>>
>> 4.
>> Hammond has discovered that since real space
>> CAUSES Psychometry space, that G_uv in Psychometry
>> space is caused by a G_uv in real space... hence
>> "God is caused by Gravity", or "God=G_uv".
>>
>
>I have an honours degree in complex systems analysis and evolutionary
>theory.
>
>it is correct to state real space causes psychometric space.
>
>however it does not necessarily follow that G_uv in Psychometry space is
>caused by a G_uv in real space.
>
>just because real space causes psychometric space does not mean the 2
>spaces follow parallel causality for their own properties.
>
>i.e. if a=>b !=> x(a)=>x(b)
>
>however a sound logical argument can be put forward for the existence of
> an entity with properties that exceeds logical explanation, and
>hence could be considered God.
>
>If we start with roughly the same area as russel's paradox.
>
>all things exist within the context of 'not thing', i.e. to recognise
>anything there must be something else which is not that thing to
>contrast it with.
>
>therefore, the primary act of creating any 'thing' is division, take the
> whole and divide it into 'one thing', 'another thing' etc.
>
>russel's paradox concerns 'the set of all sets' i.e. the thing that is
>everything.
>
>The problem (paradox) comes with the logically counterintuitive fact
>that (for a thing to exist there must be a counter thing) but
>'everything' does not have anything that is outside of it, therefore
>'everything' is not a thing.
>
>Now this may not seem of much interest, it does however mean
>'Everything' cannot be stated or derived in any logical procedure,
>therefore 'Everything' exceeds logical explanation.
>
>In this sense, since we cannot logically explain 'Everything' it is
>possible to sensibly label the entity 'everything' as god.
>
>this is in-line with zen buddhist thinking, although devived through
>rational western philosophy.
>
>faith is good for you, but don't take any sh*t
>
>zz_james
For starters, all Russell's Paradox shows is that it is paradoxical to
try to *formally* derive results about overly broad things such as
"the set of all sets...." That doesn't show that one cannot consider
*informally* (or even formally depending on what the definition is)
something like "everything". And, in any case, even if Russell's
Paradox applied to the informal discussion of "everything", it would
just show that such an idea is incoherent for the same reason he
brought up his paradox in the first place, namely to show that one
cannot handle sets so naively and in particular to disqualify such
things as "the set of all sets...." So, on your approach, that would
just rank "god" as one more incoherent idea.
But, even if you got through all of that, you still would only have
some figurative assignment of "god" as being "everything". Such a
thing certainly is not even a being let alone a supernatural being
that could be *literally* called a "god". If you are willing to call
such things "god" then why not call a rutabaga "god" and make the
proof of "god's" existence easy?
In other words, it really doesn't mean anything to show that
"everything" (i.e. all of that which exists) exists.
--
Liberator Veritatis
Liberator Veritatis
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim Black" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:cb623e6.04082...@posting.google.com...
>> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<%u3Xc.308161$a24.21296@attbi_s03>...
>> > WHAT HAMMOND HAS DISCOVERED
>> > (SCIENTIFICALLY)
>> >
>> > 1.
>> > Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra
>> > of modern computerized Psychometry is IDENTICAL
>> > to the Linear Algebra of "Linearized Gravity" in
>> > General Relativity.
>>
>> From a previous Hammond post:
>> -> There's more. You can take the 30 x 30 extracted matrix
>> -> and "rotate" the axes to "simple structure"... it turns out
>> -> the data pattern has clear "streaks" in it, and the axes
>> -> (eigenvectors) are rotated to these "physical" positions.
>> -> Then you can factor the matrix all over again and it
>> -> is found that the RANK is 13. Amazingly, it is found
>> -> that these 13-AXES FORM A PERFECT CUBE when
>> -> rotated to simple structure...!! See:
>> ->
>> -> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ILLU4.jpg
>>
>> Hey, Hammond, why don't you explain what you meant by "rotating to
>> simple structure"? Not having seen what your actual calculations
>> were, it appears to me that this means "I altered data until it said
>> what I wanted it to say." Could you post the data or provide a link
>> to the data on your website?
>
>[Hammond]
>Very good question J.B.
>The "lore 'n legend" of Factor Analysis in Psychometry is one of
>the most fascinating episodes in modern Science. Mainly because
>it is:
>
>1. "Simple" mathematically speaking
>2. Elegant conceptually
>3. Can be entirely computerized so that
> everything is done "automatically"
> once the data is collected.
>4. Produces fantastic results where no
> other method can be used to analyze
> such complicated data.
>
>BTW, "Factor Analysis" has spread far beyond Psychology
>(where it is a mainstay) and into hundreds of other Natural
>Science fields..... Anthropology, Paleontology, Political
>Science, etc. etc.
>
Those aren't natural sciences -- they're social sciences and
humanities.
>Today you don't even have to know how it works... there
>are commercial "Statistical Packages" (computer programs)
>such as SPXX etc. that can be purchased by any researcher
>and run on any high speed DESKTOP (or mainframe)
>computer. It not only does the Factorization, it does the
>Rotation also... completely automatically.
>Consequently this is a big favorite activity
>among penniless academic researchers... all they have to do
>is write a psychology test say, round up 100 subjects to take
>it (often times their students) and then run the test through
>a Factor Analytic computer program on their dektop PC
>and voila... they siaxocver some new Factor (eigenvector)
>and have a "publishable" publishable research paper!
> The advent of the PC and the SPXX for instance nearly
>single hadedly TRANSFORMED Psychology into a
>science in the '70's and '80's as it were.
>
That certainly doesn't make it any more of a science than it always
was. Statistical veracity, especially as it is often practiced by
social scientists, is not at all of the caliber that a truly
controlled physical experiment normally is.
At any rate, adding a bunch of statistical analysis to it doesn't
suddenly make it "scientific".
> Anyway.... "Rotation to Simple Structure" was first discovered
>by Louis L. Thurstone back in the 1930's. See:
>
>Thurstone L.L. (1947) Multiple Factor Analysis, U. Chiago Pr.
>
>However, it involves a lot of calculations... what they do is take
>every data point in the space and then use "least squares"
>minimization to move (rotate) a hyperplane until it is "closest"
>to the center of density of the points. Obviously, since a
>mathematical formula is used, there is no "subjective judgement"
>involved whatsoever.
Just universally using least squares regression on everything is
hardly some sort of robust nonsubjective scientific approach. In
fact, there are plenty of other ways of approaching any given problem
statistically. Depending on the particulars of a problem, blindly
using a least squares regression could be ridiculous.
>
>A guy named KAISER finally devised an algorythm and computer
>program for this in the '50's and 60's... they were actually running
>it on the ENIAC computer back in the 1950's. This program
>was called VARIMAX and is still in use today. Advances
>called PROMAX were developed later when solid state computers
>came out in the '60's.... and today it is a highly polished technical art
>to the point where commercial packages such as SPXX contain
>several different methods of rotation, can diagonalize a 200x200
>matrix... and does the whole thing in minutes and prints the
>results out numerically and graphically.
> I ran into a guy who actually workked at Raymond B. Cattell's
>Psychometry Laboratory back in the '60's when computers
>weren't really that faxt (IBM 1620-'s for instance) and they used
>
>to take the output and connect it up to an oscilliscope and then
>"manually rotate" the hyperplane and then "recalculate" the
>"hyperplane count" to see if it was an improved position. The
>guy says they used to sit there for DAYS fiddling with the dials
>on the thing until they got the hyperplane copunt to an absolute
>maximum.
> Today of course a computer mathematically computes the position
>of the maximum position automatically using billions and billions
>of iterated computations of the hyperplane count. It can do this
>in seconds, where it took Cattell weeks to do it.
> Today the average PhD researcher in Psychometry probably doesn't
>even know how it works... and simply pushes the "rotation button"
>and the solution pops out of the printer just like that.
>====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site:
>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site:
>http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> new site (under construction):
>http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
>====================================
>
--
Liberator Veritatis
wbarwell
>
> "Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
> news:2004082702...@synergy.transbay.net...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>> Without perceptual reality there is no physical reality,
>>
>> >> That should be the other way around.
>>
>> >>> ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
>> >>> physical reality.
>>
>> >> It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on
>> >> human perception.
>>
>> > [Hammond]
>> > You gotta be shittin me!
>>
>> & the reason for your incredulity is what, George? You're not being very
>> articulate here.
>
> [Hammond]
> I have made the statement:
>
> "God is a modification of "reality" caused by
> the brain, not an "idea" caused by the brain".
No, no. no, no! This is UTTERLY wrong!
A modification of reality caused by a brain is "Easter Bunny",
Not god. You are using the wrong label here.
God is "All that is stupid and ignorant". If you are going to take
abstract ideas, "modification of reality by a brain", and put an
emotionally laden label on it, you have to use the correct emotionally
laden label.
Otherwise it isn't science, its whackjob net kook craziness.
God is the emotionally laden label you use for superstition,
intellectual dishonesty, bronze age tall tales and ancient billy goat
herder priest lies.
Of course others insist that we must use their emotionally
loaded terminology for such things as mind modifying the Universe,
Kibo, or J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, or whatever neo-Pagan god is flavor of the
day, or The Invisible Pink Unicorn or Hello Kitty.
And of course we never even ask the question "Is the idea
of a brain modifying reality" meaningful in any grand and
overarching manner anyway?
I mean, is a low IQ moron picking his or her snout and feeble modifying the
Universe by dully noticing it exists really meaningful? Does it like,
modify the sun or the farthest stars in nay meaningful manner, or change
the laws of phsyics or do anything at all good to anybody except for
shitting on stuff we have to then walk around holding our noses?
This is the usual bad game of kooks and loonies.
We spin out all sorts of meaningless yet high sounding concepts,
"Brain modifying reality", "ground of all being", "ultimate reality"
or whatever, and apply fancy labels to it, "God", the "Ineffable",
the Ulimate Reality" amd pretend its something other than a
meaningless game. We hold pograms, heresy hunts, religous wars,
and aut-de-fes because of such games.
Its like websites that assigns you your Subgenius net name,
"Poopy Pants Drunken Priest" at random for our entertainment
So you have two parts;
1. The phenomen - 2. The emotionally laden label.
To get over this, everybody reading this nonsense should be their own
Hammond.
Make up or list five grand and wonderful and awesome phenomenon.
Or not so wonderful, maybe.
Now make up five emotionally laden labels.
List them below:
Phenomenon - Labels.
Then mix and match at random!
Voila! You are now a famous net kook also!
Start your own cult! Write a best selling Newage (rhymes
with sewage) book!
Make sure you post it all to all physics newsgroups
ad nauseum.
My list..
Purported Phenomenon
1. Ultimate reality.
2. Necessary essential existance
3. Holographic reality.
4. Foundation of all Real Potential Realities
(RPRs)
5. Actualized existance
Emotionally laden Labels
1. Actualized godhead
2. Ineffable true reality
3. Physico-Observer effect Universe
4. Total God
5. The Easter Bunny
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
Liberator Veritatis
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS
>
>
>Hundreds of amateurs have discussed
>Hammond's work "philosophically"
>They have discussed "God", "Creation",
>Genesis", "Reality"... blah, blah, blah.
>
>FACT IS Hammond's discovery is NOT a "philosophy"
>discovery. It is a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
>
>THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST
>is to remind people WHAT this
>"scientific discovery" is.
>
>Hopefully, someone with some scientific
>credentials will respond to it.
>
>
> WHAT HAMMOND HAS DISCOVERED
> (SCIENTIFICALLY)
>
>1.
>Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra
>of modern computerized Psychometry is IDENTICAL
>to the Linear Algebra of "Linearized Gravity" in
>General Relativity.
>
>2.
>Hammond has discovered that the CAUSAL REASON
>for this is that the metrical structure (geometry)
>of real space causes the cleavage geometry of the
>brain which in turn causes the metrical structure
>of Psychometry space.
>
>3.
>Hammond has discovered that there is a "curvature"
>in Psychometry space described by a "G_uv" and that
>phenomenologically, this curvature yield's a
>comprehensive explanation of the entire historical
>phenomena that we call "God".
>
>4.
>Hammond has discovered that since real space
>CAUSES Psychometry space, that G_uv in Psychometry
>space is caused by a G_uv in real space... hence
>"God is caused by Gravity", or "God=G_uv".
>
>5.
>All of the above is based on 100 years of published,
>(mainly computerized) Psychometry data, and is proven
>to two decimal places experimentally.
>
>6. Hence, the world's first true scientific proof of God
> has been discovered.
>
Well, let us just suppose everything you say is true. It proves that
god does not exist. It shows that our beliefs about god are entirely
the result of the fact that we live inside a gravitational field. If
there was no (or very little) curvature to space (i.e. no gravity) or
perhaps a completely different curvature, then it follows from what
you say that we would have no notions of god or have completely
different notions than the ones we have had about a god.
At any rate, showing our ideas about god are entirely dependent on
some physical phenomenon is damning to the notion that we had those
ideas simply because they are true. It suggests, instead, that we
only even had them at all because of some external physical phenomenon
that directly caused those ideas to appear in our minds.
>
>
>OK, .... that is the SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
>that Hammond has made.
> If there is anyone who is competent in Linear
>Algebra and General Relativity who would like to
>comment on this, please post a reply.
This is discovery of yours is really neither based on linear algebra
nor general relativity. The appropriate expert here would be either a
psychologist or a statistician. No one was doing any general
relativity, but rather just took a result from it. Linear algebra is
just a mathematical topic that all sorts of people use. In
particular, for a linear regression, one can formulate the problem in
terms of matrices and use linear algebra to solve the problem. All of
the rest of what you are talking about with regard to linear algebra
has to do with computer science and/or math and it is about how to
solve a system of linear equations numerically with a computer
efficiently which would apply to big linear regression problems with
lots of variables and lots of data.
What really counts here is the psychology which outside of the
statistics isn't exactly a "scientific discovery". It is more like a
study that suggests some results. And the real problem I personally
have with it is a common problem among the social sciences -- they
just blindly apply very simple unsophisticated statistical approaches
like linear regression to problems without knowing anything about the
statistics behind what they are doing. So, the interpretation and
veracity of their results often ends up being meaningfully debunked
later on by other findings because they do a poor job of connecting
the statistical analysis to their field.
TMG
OK - but let's admit you will only accept any information (word used in
the technical sense) that conforms to your "particular" flavor of
reality. So several (most?) of these boil down to "What would George say".
> 1. If G_uv=0 does this mean there is no gravitational field?
> If so, why? If not, why not?
Ill defined question, but I assume you mean from outside the source,
where it's always G_uv=0 (and same for T, and therefore G but we
digress). Since (in a coherent wave theory) T (matter - follow the
stress tensor - not your "gravitional field" (spacetime curvature))
drops to 0 outside the source, I'll go with no, there is no field
outside the source. T=0 *and* G=0.
Now if you want to discuss the undefined math at both ends (let's start
in a black hole for example), that's a different party.
> 2. In "linearized gravity" what is the main effect of a "Lorentz gauge
> transformation" on the solution?
Well, I'm sure you have an answer in mind, but it gives (most of us) an
additional degree of freedom that allows one to extend Einstein (GR, not
SR) in a local sense. You probably want to want to utilize it to project
your crazy thoughts into n-dimensional space.
> 3. In Psychometry, what is the (geometric) difference between a
> Principal Axis solution and a Factor solution of a correlation matrix?
Another ill defined test question - which you have a pat answer.
IF (and it's a big if) a set of variables correlate with each other to a
certain degree, it is (maybe) possible to linearly transform this set of
variables so the inter-correlations of variables in the new set are
equal to almost any arbitrary value. It's often set to 0.
And your thoughts on Pearson correlation?? (in addition to anything you
currently do) - if you're hanging you hat on a covariance matrix to
analyze a correlation matrix (and a quick scan of some rather
indeterminate data on your confusing web site makes me *think* you are)
you are going to have problems downstream.
> 4. What is the mathematical and physical relation between "Factors" and
> "higher order Factors"?
>
Again - you probably have a pat answer scoped out, but in general,
successive orders of factors trade accuracy for generality (and lower
accuracy). The intrinsic problem (as I see it) with "higher order
Factors" as you want to use them is that they are kinda "wiggly". You
can really interpret the data any wild ass way you want - where do you
start? (correlation matrix??) You (usually) have four models to start
from. I *suspect* you pick anything that fits your theory.
> 5. If you discovered a spacetime with a static mass density distribution
> whose
> G_uv began at infinity and proceeded to zero with time at every point,
> what is the most likely physical explanation of that?
You probably have a pat answer that you'll accept, but you seem to want
to go back to gravitional wave theory. Your initial conditions can be
found (as undefined - not zero) in a dense neutron star or black hole.
As pointed out above, G_uv=0 everywhere outside the source, so your
conditions are met by moving from a massive (and probably closed
gravitionally) system to *anywhere* else outside the source. I'm not
sure how clear that description is - but I have a clear picture in my
mind - if you're clearer in your question, I'll refine my answer.
> 6. Why does a horse have 4 legs?
You think it's because of the "cartesian coordinate system" but we've
argued this before. You say it's CLEARLY PROVED by a "cartesian
coordinate system", and I say it's because horses have parent horses
that descend from animals that are now fitted to their environment, and
four legs convey a selected advantage. We then (typically) argue about
animals having radial body forms, whereby you snort that at some early
cell division all animal cells go through a bilateral stage - and
therefore all animals are bilateral in form. I typically ridicule this,
and mock you by asking how proto stages are relevant, and point out that
you once had gill slits, but aren't an amphibian. Remember?
>
> 7. What is the physical reason why the overwhelming majority of mathmatical
> physics problems are most commonly solved in Cartesian Coordinates?
Because humans see most problems in a familiar cartesian framework. Of
course the problems can be solved in other coordinate systems, but it
*usually* doesn't convey a computational advantage. The same reason that
*most* simple math is base 10 - since most of us are familiar with that
base. However, when it's easier to use a different base or coordinate
system, it's used (think hex or octal).
> 8. Is it prima facie more "probable" or "improbable" that the discovery of
> a "curvature" of 4D Psychometry space has a profound physical
> meaning and scientific significance?
Again - I'm sure you have an acceptable answer mapped out - but I don't
accept your mapping a derived "curvature" of Psychometry space to the
geodesic curvature of spacetime. I doubt "Psychometry" as science, but
that wasn't your point. Simply because you make up a warping in
"Psychometry space", and claim it *LOOKS* like spacetime, doesn't make
it so. I understand what you claim, but I don't agree it's valid.
> 9. The metric g_uv can be "diagonalized" at any point in spacetime by a
> coordinate
> transformation. Yes or no?
Yes - within the standard model of non-commutative space time, subsets
of coupling matrices can be. Think Yukawa coupling and biunitary
transformations.
>
> 10. If a submarine exploration vehicle discovered an ancient city 3 miles
> down in the middle of the Atlantic with 100 miles of stone paved roads,
> 5 story buildings and a stele in the middle of town saying "Remember
> us, our land is sinking, the strong have built ships and left, the old
> must perish in the Sea". Could you confidently conclude that you
> had discovered Atlantis, or would further proof be required?
Yes - additional proof is required to label this "Atlantis". Why isn't
this some other city-state that slid into the sea? Why the mythic
Atlantis rather than "someplace" else.
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
> > [Hammond]
> > I have made the statement:
>
> > "God is a modification of "reality" caused by
> > the brain, not an "idea" caused by the brain".
>
> > Now.... this statement is formulated in "lingua franca" it is
> > not designed to be a "pedant proof statement".... it is
> > designed to "convey real information to real people using
> > common ideomatic street laguage the average person
> > is known to understand".
>
> Whatever. In plain language, it's still nonsense. The brain doesn't modify
> the universe. If anything, it's the other way around.
>
[Hammond]
OK Gwar, all seems to be quiet on the Eastern Front for awhile,
so I can address you on the Western Front for a moment.
(I get it from both sides)
What I call the "Eastern Front" is the "academic pedants"...
that is, people who are not interested in "truth".. but only
in "pedantic debate". Their object in life is to make
a career out of "pedantic excellence" as an end in itself. McDermid
whom I have talked to a lot lately seems rather enamored of
that spirit... though far from completely. The Philosophy department
is full of it, as you know. Debating how many angels can sit
on the head of a pin is one of their favorites.
On the other hand, I consider you to be (perhaps) more on the
"Western Front". The Western Front (Science for instance)
is only interested in "pragmatic truth", and has little use for
"pedantic diversion".
OK... so what I want to try here is to actually resolve this
ongoing argument by using "sincere, honest, plain, no-nonsense
discussion" and avoiding all use of cliches or "pedantic one liners"
The issue at hand is your statement:
The brain doesn't modify the universe.
If anything, it's the other way around.
(Gwar)
Now, obviously:
1. Conventional Science supports your statement.
2. Religion (I say) refutes your statement.
OK.... what I want to do is RESOLVE this dispute, using honest
and plain language, and show how "everybody is right" and that
there is NO ACTUAL DISAGREEMENT here.... but in fact,
that a new scientific fact has been discovered that EXPLAINS
the Religious view.... and resolves the issue to the satisfaction
of BOTH Science and Religion.
BEAR IN MIND that there are
people (the pedants) who do
NOT want this issue resolved,
and will use every pedantic trick
in the book to obfuscate such a
solution, simply because it will END
the 2,000 year "pedantic industry"
that has capitolized on this endless
debate!
Alright.... the ground has been cleared.... and here is the explanation
of why BOTH the Scientific and Religious positions are correct:
.... that is.... why BOTH You and I are correct:
1. Both Medicine and Physics agree that our senses..
our eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongue are "sensors"
and they are used to "sense physical reality"... and
that these signals are sent to our brain where an
"image" of this physical reality is created.
2. It is also known, because of this, that if something
goes wrong with the brain (e.g. a crazy person)
that his "image" of reality may depart radically
from "true reality". He may even hallucinate things
that are not there. And because this "perceived
reality" is the only reality we actually see... such
people can be highly dangerous.
3. Because of this fact alone, we know that there are
in fact "2 realities".... "perceived reality" and
"true reality".
4. OK.... it turns out "mental illness" is NOT the most
significant cause of a "difference" between
"perceptual reality" and "true reality". Even though
mental illness is quite dramatic... it is not that common.
Far more common is a fundamental biological
phenomena noticed by Religion many thousands of
years ago.... the phenomena of "braingrowth".
Children, it can be noticed, do not see "true reality"
until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).
5. In fact, modern science has now discovered that even
Adults, never in fact reach full growth. The discovery
of the Secular Trend in human growth indicates that
the average human may be as much as 15% short
of full growth... including his brain.
6. This means then, that the average human being
CANNOT SEE "true reality". He only sees 85%
of it. Just like a child... the other 15% is "invisible".
7. Now, this doesn't mean "everybody is a little bit crazy",
but it DOES mean that no one is completely reliable
in his judgement... and dangerous things CAN and
do happen because of this. Severe personal
disagreements over "reality" can occur for instance...
even wars can happen over it.
8. Ok... this is what Religion discovered long ago... but
they could never prove it.... now Hammond has discovered
a scientific proof of it.
9. So... the scientific resolution of the problem that we started
with is absolutely clear now.
1. There is an ablsoute reality, but no one can see it.
We can only "infer" what it actually looks like by
measuring it and devising "Laws of Physics" which
describe it (accurately). But we can't actually
SEE it.
2. What we actually see is "perceived reality", and the
DIFFERENCE between perceived reality and true
reality is simply and clearly scientifically explained
at this point.
10. So OK, the difference between Science and Religion is
simply the fact that Science calls absolute reality "reality"
and Religion calls perceptual reality "reality". And religion
calls the DIFFERENCE "God". Clearly, we see that "God"
is a real thing.
11. OK, now we come to the problem of the "language of Religion".
And here we get into a lot of "pedantism". In religion, "God"
simply refers to a "100% grown Man". And as Science has now
shown, there is no such thing. Therefore, "God" is referrred to
as an "invisible man". Actually he's only "15% invisible" since
we can see 85% of him walking around on the streets.
12. Since, as we grow up, this "invisible man" turns into a "real man",
and our ability to see "reality" increases from zero upwards to
85%.... we say that "God creates reality". But this is of course
just a "one liner" for what I have described above... and
immediately
starts all kinds of arguments.. because people who don't know
the full story interpret it in all kinds of ways. But, I've given
you
the actual true interpretation above.
13. Because of the "God creates reality" phenomena described in 12,
we see why Religion makes the further statement that "God created
the world" when Man first came into existence 40,000 years ago.
The explanation is exactly the same.... since that is when
"perceptual
reality" as we know it, first appeared. There is really no mystery
to
it, once you have the scientific explanation.
14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physics of all this.
The discovery that has actually been made shows that this
"difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically
described
by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space. Our
view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of
Relativity.
Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
"God is caused by Gravity".
15. Now the statement "God is caused by Gravity" gives more ammunition
to the pedants. Using typical pedant argument they immediately
start
in with "if God created Gravity, how can gravity cause God". Well,
knowing the full story we immediately see that they are simply
playing
word games. In the sense of "existence" God creates everything.
However physics exists within "existence" and "within Physics" we
can say "Gravity causes God". It is by mixing viewpoints and using
the word "cause" in two different contexts that you can ENDLESSLY
produce "pedant one liners" and debate endlessly and meaninglessly.
In the end you simply have to refer to the "actual scientific
facts"
to end all this meaningless debate.
OK, Gwar.... there it is..... the "gospel truth" about the scientific proof
of God
in honest John language.
If you can't understand it, or take issue with it, I'm going to be mighty
suspicious that you have merely decided to join the "Eastern Front" like the
rest of the pedants.
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
news:2004082718...@synergy.transbay.net...
>
>
>
> >>>>> ... because human perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which we detect
> >>>>> physical reality.
>
> >>>> It doesn't follow from this that physical reality is dependent on
human
> >>>> perception.
>
> >>> [Hammond]
> >>> You gotta be shittin me!
>
> >> & the reason for your incredulity is what, George? You're not being
very
> >> articulate here.
>
> > I have made the statement:
>
> > "God is a modification of "reality" caused by
> > the brain, not an "idea" caused by the brain".
>
> > Now.... this statement is formulated in "lingua franca" it is
> > not designed to be a "pedant proof statement".... it is
> > designed to "convey real information to real people using
> > common ideomatic street laguage the average person
> > is known to understand".
>
> Whatever. In plain language, it's still nonsense. The brain doesn't modify
> the universe. If anything, it's the other way around.
>
[Hammond]
OK Gwar, all seems to be quiet on the Eastern Front for awhile,
so I can address you on the Western Front for a moment.
(I am of course getting it from both sides)
What I call the "Eastern Front" is the "academic pedants"...
that is, people who are not interested in "truth".. but only
in "pedantic debate". Their object in life is to make
a career out of "pedantic excellence" as an end in itself. McDermid
whom I have talked to a lot lately seems rather enamored of
that spirit... though not completely. The Philosophy department
is full of it, as you know. Debating how many angels can sit
on the head of a pin is the only thing that really interests them.
On the other hand, I consider you to be (perhaps) more on the
"Western Front". The Western Front (Science for instance)
is only interested in "pragmatic truth", and has little use for
"pedantic obfuscation".
Now, obviously:
people can even be highly dangerous.
3. Because of this fact alone, we know that there are
in fact "2 realities".... "perceived reality" and
"true reality".
4. OK.... it turns out "mental illness" is NOT the most
significant cause of a "difference" between
"perceptual reality" and "true reality". Even though
mental illness is quite dramatic... it is not that common.
Far more common is a fundamental biological
phenomena noticed by Religion many thousands of
years ago.... the phenomena of "braingrowth".
Children, it can be noticed, do not see "true reality"
until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).
5. In fact, moderns science has now discovered that
Adults, never in fact reach full growth. The discovery
of the Secular Trend in human growth indicates that
the average human may be as much as 15% short
of full growth... including his brain.
6. This means then, that the average human being
CANNOT SEE "true reality". He only sees 85%
of it. Just like a child... the other 15% is "invisible".
7. Now, this doesn't mean "everybody is a little crazy",
13. Because of the "god creates reality" phenomena described in 12,
we see why Religion makes the further statement that "God created
the world" when Man first came into existence 40,000 years ago.
The explanation is exactly the same.... since that is when
"perceptual
reality" as we know it, first appeared. There is really no mystery
to
it, once youhave the scientific esplanation.
14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physicis of all this.
the discovery that has actually been made shows that this
"difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically
described
by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space. Our
view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of
Relativity.
Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
"God is caused by Gravity".
15. Now the statement "god is caused by Gravity" gives more ammunition
to the pedants. Using typical pedant argument they immediately
start
in with "if god created Gravity, how can gravity cause God". Well,
knowing the full story we immediately see that they are simply
playing
word games. In the sense of "existence" god creates everything.
However physics exists within "existence" and "within Physics" we
can say "Gravity causes God". It is by mixing viewpoints and using
the world "cause" in two different contexts that you can ENDLESSLY
wbarwell
>
> "Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
> news:2004082718...@synergy.transbay.net...
>
> discussion" and avoiding all use of cliches or "pedantic one liners"
>
> The issue at hand is your statement:
>
> The brain doesn't modify the universe.
> If anything, it's the other way around.
> (Gwar)
>
I am cold. I must build a fire.
How do I build a fire?
I know!
(Builds a fire).
Now I am warm!
Yes, the brain allows us to modify the Universe, this is trivial.
But that fact is not god. Its just physics and chemistry.
Anything else is net kookery.
--
Puck Greenman
Mmm. Good point. What is 15% of infinity?
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
Puck Greenman
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> George, what your particular kink fails to see, is that we all really DO
>> understand. Each and every bit. EACH factor, point, and analysis.
>
>[Hammond]
>You're a scientific incompetent and a mentally unstable crank
>and I can PROVE it.
>
>You've just stated that you "DO understand. Each and every bit.
>EACH factor, point, and analysis."
>
>I say you're bluffing.
>
>I'd like to see you PROVE it by answering the following 10 questions.
>No bullshit or off topic stalls... I'd like you to PROVE your statement
>by answering the 10 questions. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN!!
>The following questions can be answered in 5 SENTENCES OR LESS
>(each):
Are you now telling us that you have deliberately posted tripe here,
which you knew no one would understand, yet you demand that we accept
it as evidence of the truth of your assertions?
Phÿltêr
news:evp0j0pu970ujvjf7...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:43:44 -0400, TMG <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote:
>
>>Earle Jones wrote:
>>
>>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>
>>>>I AM the TRUTH. What I say is TRUE by DEFINITION.
>>>>
>>>>I AM GOD! enough said - I AM all of your arguments.
>>>>
>>>>What I say is true, because I say it.
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>> Hammond -- your secret is now out!
>>>
>>> You are GOD!
>>>
>>> Hey! Good for you -- always keep me in mind if there's a need for
>>> an ambassador to wherever.
>>>
>>> earle
>>> *
>>
>>Be sure to check closely first - you don't want to be assigned to a post
>>that's part of the 15% part of the universe that's missing. How would
>>you put in for mileage?
>
>
> Mmm. Good point. What is 15% of infinity?
> --
> Puck Greenman
Easy, 15%
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
[Hammond]
Wrong. G_uv can be zero and a very large gravitational field can
be present. G_uv is zero at the surface of the Earth, yet there is
certainly a non-zero gravitational field. Fact is, as is well known
to any student of Relativity, only when the Riemann Tensor R_ijkm
goes to zero, is the space actually "flat" (no gravitational field).
G_uv =0 does not means the space is"flat".
The fact that you are not familiar with this popular question shows
that you are NOT conversant in General Relativity. This is because of
course, you are not a physicist.
> Now if you want to discuss the undefined math at both ends (let's start
> in a black hole for example), that's a different party.
>
> > 2. In "linearized gravity" what is the main effect of a "Lorentz gauge
> > transformation" on the solution?
>
> Well, I'm sure you have an answer in mind, but it gives (most of us) an
> additional degree of freedom that allows one to extend Einstein (GR, not
> SR) in a local sense. You probably want to want to utilize it to project
> your crazy thoughts into n-dimensional space.
[Hammond]
Wrong. Appparently you are not even familar with the underlying reason
that a gauge transformation uses the name "gauge" in the first place.
The first effect of a gauge transformation is to "rescale the coordinates".
In the case of the Lorentz Gauge, it rescales them so that the "dilations"
are all equal on each of the x,y,z axes, thus simplifying the solution.
If for instance the gravitational field is radial there would be not
dilation
in the transverse (non-radial) directions thus making the solution
clumbsy mathematically... so imposing a "gauge condition" on the
solution imposes an artifical "coordinate transformation" (basically
an angular accleration in this case, to make all the dilations equal. I
think it's clearly established that you would have no idea what a
"gauge transformation" in Linearized Gravity is, or what it physically
represents. Again, testimony to the fact that your understanding of
General Relativity is only at a very superficial level, and no where near
sufficient to evaluate Hammond's SPOG.
>
> > 3. In Psychometry, what is the (geometric) difference between a
> > Principal Axis solution and a Factor solution of a correlation
matrix?
>
>
> Another ill defined test question - which you have a pat answer.
>
> IF (and it's a big if) a set of variables correlate with each other to a
> certain degree, it is (maybe) possible to linearly transform this set of
> variables so the inter-correlations of variables in the new set are
> equal to almost any arbitrary value. It's often set to 0.
>
> And your thoughts on Pearson correlation?? (in addition to anything you
> currently do) - if you're hanging you hat on a covariance matrix to
> analyze a correlation matrix (and a quick scan of some rather
> indeterminate data on your confusing web site makes me *think* you are)
> you are going to have problems downstream.
[Hammond]
Neither one of these statements is either correct, relevant, or an answer to
the question asked. Fact is, if x correlates with y to the extent of
Pearson
r=k, then a "linear transformation" of x to ax+b will NOT change that
correlation
k, one iota! That's one of the stupidest remarks I've ever heard.
Correlation
is only a measure of "how linear the relation is" to begin with... obviously
a "linear transformation" will not affect that "linearity". I.e.,
"correlation"
is INDEPENDENT of "scale factors or units".
The fact that you don't know what a "Principle Axis solution" to a matrix
is demonstrates that you are almost clueless in Linear Algebra. Every
n-dimensionsl (real symmetric) matrix represents an "n-dimensional
ellipsoid" spatially. The Principal Axes of this elllipsoid are known as
the "eigenvectors" of the matrix, and their lengths are known as the
"eigenvalues" of the matrix. Naturally these vectors are orthogonal.
A Factor Solution, on the other hand "rotates" these eigenvectors to
other points on the ellipsoid, depending on the "density pattern" of
points in the ellipsoid. This is based on criteria outside of Linear
Algebra which shows WHY these "high density" directions are
physically meaningful.
> > 4. What is the mathematical and physical relation between "Factors" and
> > "higher order Factors"?
> >
>
> Again - you probably have a pat answer scoped out, but in general,
> successive orders of factors trade accuracy for generality (and lower
> accuracy). The intrinsic problem (as I see it) with "higher order
> Factors" as you want to use them is that they are kinda "wiggly". You
> can really interpret the data any wild ass way you want - where do you
> start? (correlation matrix??) You (usually) have four models to start
> from. I *suspect* you pick anything that fits your theory.
[Hammond]
Well, o.k., you seem to have some vague notion of what a higher order
Factor is... but I doubt that you specifically are aware of the fact that
a "higher order Factor" is simply the result of the
"refactorization" of a correlation matrix after the Factors have
been "rotated ot simple Structure" (the maximum density postions
listed above).
I would have to say that you actual knowledge of the mathematical
basis of Factor Analysis is "rudimentary".... certainly NOT sufficient
to make any kind of a "reliable evaluation" of Hammond's SPOG.
>
> > 5. If you discovered a spacetime with a static mass density
distribution
> > whose
> > G_uv began at infinity and proceeded to zero with time at every
point,
> > what is the most likely physical explanation of that?
>
> You probably have a pat answer that you'll accept, but you seem to want
> to go back to gravitional wave theory. Your initial conditions can be
> found (as undefined - not zero) in a dense neutron star or black hole.
> As pointed out above, G_uv=0 everywhere outside the source, so your
> conditions are met by moving from a massive (and probably closed
> gravitionally) system to *anywhere* else outside the source. I'm not
> sure how clear that description is - but I have a clear picture in my
> mind - if you're clearer in your question, I'll refine my answer.
[Hammond]
Again... your reference to "gravitational WAVES" is totally irrelevant,
since the SPOG has no reference to any "wave phenomena"
WHATSOEVER! Again this points to the fact that most of your
"opinions" are based on "fantasmical presumptions" about what is actually
being discussed.... about which you have very little clue.
The answer to the question, as any Relativity Buff would immediately
perceive... is that this phenomenal situation describes a "Big Bang
Expansion"
of the space.
>
> > 6. Why does a horse have 4 legs?
>
> You think it's because of the "cartesian coordinate system" but we've
> argued this before. You say it's CLEARLY PROVED by a "cartesian
> coordinate system", and I say it's because horses have parent horses
> that descend from animals that are now fitted to their environment, and
> four legs convey a selected advantage. We then (typically) argue about
> animals having radial body forms, whereby you snort that at some early
> cell division all animal cells go through a bilateral stage - and
> therefore all animals are bilateral in form. I typically ridicule this,
> and mock you by asking how proto stages are relevant, and point out that
> you once had gill slits, but aren't an amphibian. Remember?
[Hammond]
First of all the "Cartesian Coordinate System" is not a "physical thing"
and therefore could not be the "physical cause" of anything.
Fact is, real space has a QUADRATIC METRIC and therefore
has 3 orthogonal dimensions of real physical structure. THIS is
what causes the Human Body (all animal bodies, even plants) to have
a "3-axis Cartesian body plan".
Again, the fact that you are NOT a physicist again glaringly shows up
here.
> > 7. What is the physical reason why the overwhelming majority of
mathmatical
> > physics problems are most commonly solved in Cartesian Coordinates?
>
>
> Because humans see most problems in a familiar cartesian framework. Of
> course the problems can be solved in other coordinate systems, but it
> *usually* doesn't convey a computational advantage. The same reason that
> *most* simple math is base 10 - since most of us are familiar with that
> base. However, when it's easier to use a different base or coordinate
> system, it's used (think hex or octal).
[Hammond]
The reason "humans see most problems in familiar Cartesian coordinates"
is the fact that the QUADRATIC METRIC of real space causes "cubic,
or "orthogonal" geometric structure to be the most common physical
symmetry in nature". 90% of all solids are cubic or rectangular crystal
structures for instance (Bridgeman). Most mechanics problems involve
Cartesian Coordinates because the simplest systems (machines or
natural mechanical processes) contain simple orthogonal Cartesian geometry,
PHYSICALLY.
This is totally UNLIKE "base 10" as a number system which DOES NOT
relate to any "geometrical symmetry". Base 10 is no "simpler" than
choosing any other integer as the "base", say base 2. "Orders of magnitude"
are still written:
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
etc.
just as in base 10 or any other base.
The actual reason "base 10" is popular is because it is
"more accurate" than "base 2", say. 1 digit position in a base
10 number system represents a "10% accuracy" while one
digit in a base 2 system represents "50% accuracy".
Fact is when dealing with the most common problems..
dollars, weight, length, time, speed, etc. "10% accuracy"
is the common slap dash accuracy observed by most busy people.
If you're going 55 in a 50 mph zone, a cop will not pull you
over. This is the origin of the significance of an "order of magnitude"
for instance. Clearly, using base 2 would upset this apple
cart considerably since the next digit now represents 50%.
going 75 in a 50 mph (50% over) will get you a ticket. At any rate..
it is based on considerations of "pragmatic everyday accuracy"
in human affairs historically, and has absolutely NOTHING
to do with any underlying "physical geometry" of nature.
> > 8. Is it prima facie more "probable" or "improbable" that the discovery
of
> > a "curvature" of 4D Psychometry space has a profound physical
> > meaning and scientific significance?
>
> Again - I'm sure you have an acceptable answer mapped out - but I don't
> accept your mapping a derived "curvature" of Psychometry space to the
> geodesic curvature of spacetime. I doubt "Psychometry" as science, but
> that wasn't your point. Simply because you make up a warping in
> "Psychometry space", and claim it *LOOKS* like spacetime, doesn't make
> it so. I understand what you claim, but I don't agree it's valid.
[Hammond]
First of all, your actual understanding of Psychometry has been
demonstrated to be entirly superficial and presumptious.
Secondly, it is a historical fact that "Einstein" is the most
famous name in Science simply because he "discovered the ssignificance
of Curvature in real space". the most famous discovery in the
history of Science!
Prima facie then, if one discovers (as I did) that there is an unsuspected
"Curvature" in Psychology space... it would be sstupid and reckless to
presume that "it didn't mean anything". You gotta be kidding.
As for you not believing that there is a "causal connection" between
Psychometry space and real space (spacetime)... I think the verdict is in
that you simply are not qualified to make such an evaluation. Clearly
you are not a qualified Physicist for instance.
>
> > 9. The metric g_uv can be "diagonalized" at any point in spacetime by a
> > coordinate
> > transformation. Yes or no?
>
>
> Yes - within the standard model of non-commutative space time, subsets
> of coupling matrices can be. Think Yukawa coupling and biunitary
> transformations.
[Hammond]
Yes this is true, as is well known to Relativity experts.
> >
> > 10. If a submarine exploration vehicle discovered an ancient city 3
miles
> > down in the middle of the Atlantic with 100 miles of stone paved
roads,
> > 5 story buildings and a stele in the middle of town saying
"Remember
> > us, our land is sinking, the strong have built ships and left, the
old
> > must perish in the Sea". Could you confidently conclude that you
> > had discovered Atlantis, or would further proof be required?
>
> Yes - additional proof is required to label this "Atlantis". Why isn't
> this some other city-state that slid into the sea? Why the mythic
> Atlantis rather than "someplace" else.
[Hammond]
Wrong again. And this is the wrong answer that troubles me the most.
It demonstrates you to be a counter productive chronic naysayer.
Clearly is such a discovery were made and appeared on the front
pages of the world's newspaper, which surely it would.... a city
"3 miles down in the center of the Atlantic from the correct time
period"... certainly there would be no doubt in the public mind that the
fabled "Lost city of Atlantis" had been found. Anyone who would say no
after reading the inscription on the stele in the center of town would be
considered simply an argumentative bufoon.
So... the upshot here is just exactly what I have known from the
beginning.... you are not qualified to take the critical positions you
have taken on the SPOG. It is my understanding that you are actually
a math major and not a physicist... certainly this explains it. What
explains your particularly vitriolic ad hominem attacts... I dunno...
jealousy perhaps... then again they say "familiarity breeds contempt"..
and since you claim to be from my old home town.. and "have
seen me"....that explains that.
While it's true that "any attention is better than no attention" and
generally I have appreciated your posts... i must say they are even on
that scale of marginal utility... such has been the incessant drone of
your ad hominem and off topic commentary. It's really neither funny,
entertaining nor productive anymore.
Puck Greenman
But is that 15% US, or 15% Sterling?
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
[Hammond]
Wrong. G_uv can be zero and a very large gravitational field can
be present. G_uv is zero at the surface of the Earth, yet there is
certainly a non-zero gravitational field. Fact is, as is well known
to any student of Relativity, only when the Riemann Tensor R_ijkm
goes to zero, is the space actually "flat" (no gravitational field).
G_uv =0 does not means the space is"flat".
The fact that you are not familiar with this popular question shows
that you are NOT conversant in General Relativity. This is because of
course, you are not a physicist.
> Now if you want to discuss the undefined math at both ends (let's start
> in a black hole for example), that's a different party.
>
> > 2. In "linearized gravity" what is the main effect of a "Lorentz gauge
> > transformation" on the solution?
>
> Well, I'm sure you have an answer in mind, but it gives (most of us) an
> additional degree of freedom that allows one to extend Einstein (GR, not
> SR) in a local sense. You probably want to want to utilize it to project
> your crazy thoughts into n-dimensional space.
[Hammond]
Wrong. Appparently you are not even familar with the underlying reason
that a gauge transformation uses the name "gauge" in the first place.
The first effect of a gauge transformation is to "rescale the coordinates".
In the case of the Lorentz Gauge, it rescales them so that the "dilations"
are all equal on each of the x,y,z axes, thus simplifying the solution.
If for instance the gravitational field is radial there would be not
dilation
in the transverse (non-radial) directions thus making the solution
clumbsy mathematically... so imposing a "gauge condition" on the
solution imposes an artifical "coordinate transformation" (basically
an angular accleration in this case, to make all the dilations equal. I
think it's clearly established that you would have no idea what a
"gauge transformation" in Linearized Gravity is, or what it physically
represents. Again, testimony to the fact that your understanding of
General Relativity is only at a very superficial level, and no where near
sufficient to evaluate Hammond's SPOG.
>
> > 3. In Psychometry, what is the (geometric) difference between a
> > Principal Axis solution and a Factor solution of a correlation
matrix?
>
>
> Another ill defined test question - which you have a pat answer.
>
> IF (and it's a big if) a set of variables correlate with each other to a
> certain degree, it is (maybe) possible to linearly transform this set of
> variables so the inter-correlations of variables in the new set are
> equal to almost any arbitrary value. It's often set to 0.
>
> And your thoughts on Pearson correlation?? (in addition to anything you
> currently do) - if you're hanging you hat on a covariance matrix to
> analyze a correlation matrix (and a quick scan of some rather
> indeterminate data on your confusing web site makes me *think* you are)
> you are going to have problems downstream.
[Hammond]
Neither one of these statements is either correct, relevant, or an answer to
the question asked. Fact is, if x correlates with y to the extent of
Pearson
r=k, then a "linear transformation" of x to ax+b will NOT change that
correlation
k, one iota! That's one of the stupidest remarks I've ever heard.
Correlation
is only a measure of "how linear the relation is" to begin with... obviously
a "linear transformation" will not affect that "linearity". I.e.,
"correlation"
is INDEPENDENT of "scale factors or units".
The fact that you don't know what a "Principle Axis solution" to a matrix
is demonstrates that you are almost clueless in Linear Algebra. Every
n-dimensionsl (real symmetric) matrix represents an "n-dimensional
ellipsoid" spatially. The Principal Axes of this elllipsoid are known as
the "eigenvectors" of the matrix, and their lengths are known as the
"eigenvalues" of the matrix. Naturally these vectors are orthogonal.
A Factor Solution, on the other hand "rotates" these eigenvectors to
other points on the ellipsoid, depending on the "density pattern" of
points in the ellipsoid. This is based on criteria outside of Linear
Algebra which shows WHY these "high density" directions are
physically meaningful.
> > 4. What is the mathematical and physical relation between "Factors" and
> > "higher order Factors"?
> >
>
> Again - you probably have a pat answer scoped out, but in general,
> successive orders of factors trade accuracy for generality (and lower
> accuracy). The intrinsic problem (as I see it) with "higher order
> Factors" as you want to use them is that they are kinda "wiggly". You
> can really interpret the data any wild ass way you want - where do you
> start? (correlation matrix??) You (usually) have four models to start
> from. I *suspect* you pick anything that fits your theory.
[Hammond]
Well, o.k., you seem to have some vague notion of what a higher order
Factor is... but I doubt that you specifically are aware of the fact that
a "higher order Factor" is simply the result of the
"refactorization" of a correlation matrix after the Factors have
been "rotated ot simple Structure" (the maximum density postions
listed above).
I would have to say that you actual knowledge of the mathematical
basis of Factor Analysis is "rudimentary".... certainly NOT sufficient
to make any kind of a "reliable evaluation" of Hammond's SPOG.
>
> > 5. If you discovered a spacetime with a static mass density
distribution
> > whose
> > G_uv began at infinity and proceeded to zero with time at every
point,
> > what is the most likely physical explanation of that?
>
> You probably have a pat answer that you'll accept, but you seem to want
> to go back to gravitional wave theory. Your initial conditions can be
> found (as undefined - not zero) in a dense neutron star or black hole.
> As pointed out above, G_uv=0 everywhere outside the source, so your
> conditions are met by moving from a massive (and probably closed
> gravitionally) system to *anywhere* else outside the source. I'm not
> sure how clear that description is - but I have a clear picture in my
> mind - if you're clearer in your question, I'll refine my answer.
[Hammond]
Again... your reference to "gravitational WAVES" is totally irrelevant,
since the SPOG has no reference to any "wave phenomena"
WHATSOEVER! Again this points to the fact that most of your
"opinions" are based on "fantasmical presumptions" about what is actually
being discussed.... about which you have very little clue.
The answer to the question, as any Relativity Buff would immediately
perceive... is that this phenomenal situation describes a "Big Bang
Expansion"
of the space.
>
> > 6. Why does a horse have 4 legs?
>
> You think it's because of the "cartesian coordinate system" but we've
> argued this before. You say it's CLEARLY PROVED by a "cartesian
> coordinate system", and I say it's because horses have parent horses
> that descend from animals that are now fitted to their environment, and
> four legs convey a selected advantage. We then (typically) argue about
> animals having radial body forms, whereby you snort that at some early
> cell division all animal cells go through a bilateral stage - and
> therefore all animals are bilateral in form. I typically ridicule this,
> and mock you by asking how proto stages are relevant, and point out that
> you once had gill slits, but aren't an amphibian. Remember?
[Hammond]
First of all the "Cartesian Coordinate System" is not a "physical thing"
and therefore could not be the "physical cause" of anything.
Fact is, real space has a QUADRATIC METRIC and therefore
has 3 orthogonal dimensions of real physical structure. THIS is
what causes the Human Body (all animal bodies, even plants) to have
a "3-axis Cartesian body plan".
Again, the fact that you are NOT a physicist again glaringly shows up
here.
> > 7. What is the physical reason why the overwhelming majority of
mathmatical
> > physics problems are most commonly solved in Cartesian Coordinates?
>
>
> Because humans see most problems in a familiar cartesian framework. Of
> course the problems can be solved in other coordinate systems, but it
> *usually* doesn't convey a computational advantage. The same reason that
> *most* simple math is base 10 - since most of us are familiar with that
> base. However, when it's easier to use a different base or coordinate
> system, it's used (think hex or octal).
[Hammond]
> > 8. Is it prima facie more "probable" or "improbable" that the discovery
of
> > a "curvature" of 4D Psychometry space has a profound physical
> > meaning and scientific significance?
>
> Again - I'm sure you have an acceptable answer mapped out - but I don't
> accept your mapping a derived "curvature" of Psychometry space to the
> geodesic curvature of spacetime. I doubt "Psychometry" as science, but
> that wasn't your point. Simply because you make up a warping in
> "Psychometry space", and claim it *LOOKS* like spacetime, doesn't make
> it so. I understand what you claim, but I don't agree it's valid.
[Hammond]
First of all, your actual understanding of Psychometry has been
demonstrated to be entirly superficial and presumptious.
Secondly, it is a historical fact that "Einstein" is the most
famous name in Science simply because he "discovered the ssignificance
of Curvature in real space". the most famous discovery in the
history of Science!
Prima facie then, if one discovers (as I did) that there is an unsuspected
"Curvature" in Psychology space... it would be sstupid and reckless to
presume that "it didn't mean anything". You gotta be kidding.
As for you not believing that there is a "causal connection" between
Psychometry space and real space (spacetime)... I think the verdict is in
that you simply are not qualified to make such an evaluation. Clearly
you are not a qualified Physicist for instance.
>
> > 9. The metric g_uv can be "diagonalized" at any point in spacetime by a
> > coordinate
> > transformation. Yes or no?
>
>
> Yes - within the standard model of non-commutative space time, subsets
> of coupling matrices can be. Think Yukawa coupling and biunitary
> transformations.
[Hammond]
Yes this is true, as is well known to Relativity experts.
> >
> > 10. If a submarine exploration vehicle discovered an ancient city 3
miles
> > down in the middle of the Atlantic with 100 miles of stone paved
roads,
> > 5 story buildings and a stele in the middle of town saying
"Remember
> > us, our land is sinking, the strong have built ships and left, the
old
> > must perish in the Sea". Could you confidently conclude that you
> > had discovered Atlantis, or would further proof be required?
>
> Yes - additional proof is required to label this "Atlantis". Why isn't
> this some other city-state that slid into the sea? Why the mythic
> Atlantis rather than "someplace" else.
[Hammond]
George Hammond
"Liberator Veritatis" <Liberator...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0mqvi05q1ehek99qg...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:53 GMT, "George Hammond"
> <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Well, let us just suppose everything you say is true. It proves that
> god does not exist. It shows that our beliefs about god are entirely
> the result of the fact that we live inside a gravitational field. If
> there was no (or very little) curvature to space (i.e. no gravity) or
> perhaps a completely different curvature, then it follows from what
> you say that we would have no notions of god or have completely
> different notions than the ones we have had about a god.
[Hammond]
There is no doubt that if "Heaven descended to Earth" we would
no longer have to worry about God. So your statement is true.
However, it is prefaced with the word *IF* and the "if" happens
not to be true... so your statment while interesting and in fact
"relevant" to some extent (it explains what 'kingdom come is')
it is in fact IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand because
in fact.... God is still living in Heaven, not Earth.
> At any rate, showing our ideas about god are entirely dependent on
> some physical phenomenon is damning to the notion that we had those
> ideas simply because they are true. It suggests, instead, that we
> only even had them at all because of some external physical phenomenon
> that directly caused those ideas to appear in our minds.
[Hammond]
You're apparently playing catch up ball vis a vis the SPOG (scientific
proof of God).
I suggest you read the following post which is a rare example of
simplified complete candor on the subject:
[Hammond]
OK Gwar, all seems to be quiet on the Eastern Front for awhile,
so I can address you on the Western Front for a moment.
(I am of course getting it from both sides)
What I call the "Eastern Front" is the "academic pedants"...
that is, people who are not interested in "truth".. but only
in "pedantic debate". Their object in life is to make
a career out of "pedantic excellence" as an end in itself. McDermid
whom I have talked to a lot lately seems rather enamored of
that spirit... though not completely. The Philosophy department
is full of it, as you know. Debating how many angels can sit
on the head of a pin is the only thing that really interests them.
On the other hand, I consider you to be (perhaps) more on the
"Western Front". The Western Front (Science for instance)
is only interested in "pragmatic truth", and has little use for
"pedantic obfuscation".
OK... so what I want to try here is to actually resolve this
ongoing argument by using "sincere, honest, plain, no-nonsense
discussion" and avoiding all use of cliches or "pedantic one liners"
The issue at hand is your statement:
The brain doesn't modify the universe.
If anything, it's the other way around.
(Gwar)
Now, obviously:
people can even be highly dangerous.
3. Because of this fact alone, we know that there are
in fact "2 realities".... "perceived reality" and
"true reality".
4. OK.... it turns out "mental illness" is NOT the most
significant cause of a "difference" between
"perceptual reality" and "true reality". Even though
mental illness is quite dramatic... it is not that common.
Far more common is a fundamental biological
phenomena noticed by Religion many thousands of
years ago.... the phenomena of "braingrowth".
Children, it can be noticed, do not see "true reality"
until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).
5. In fact, moderns science has now discovered that
Adults, never in fact reach full growth. The discovery
of the Secular Trend in human growth indicates that
the average human may be as much as 15% short
of full growth... including his brain.
6. This means then, that the average human being
CANNOT SEE "true reality". He only sees 85%
of it. Just like a child... the other 15% is "invisible".
7. Now, this doesn't mean "everybody is a little crazy",
13. Because of the "god creates reality" phenomena described in 12,
we see why Religion makes the further statement that "God created
the world" when Man first came into existence 40,000 years ago.
The explanation is exactly the same.... since that is when
"perceptual
reality" as we know it, first appeared. There is really no mystery
to it, once you have the scientific explanation.
14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physicis of all this.
the discovery that has actually been made shows that this
"difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically
described
by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space. Our
view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of
Relativity.
Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
"God is caused by Gravity".
15. Now the statement "god is caused by Gravity" gives more ammunition
to the pedants. Using typical pedant argument they immediately
start
in with "if god created Gravity, how can gravity cause God". Well,
knowing the full story we immediately see that they are simply
playing
word games. In the sense of "existence" god creates everything.
However physics exists within "existence" and "within Physics" we
can say "Gravity causes God". It is by mixing viewpoints and using
the world "cause" in two different contexts that you can ENDLESSLY
produce "pedant one liners" and debate endlessly and meaninglessly.
In the end you simply have to refer to the "actual scientific
facts"
to end all this meaningless debate.
OK, Gwar.... there it is..... the "gospel truth" about the scientific proof
of God in honest John language.
If you can't understand it, or take issue with it, I'm going to be mighty
suspicious that you have merely decided to join the "Eastern Front" like the
rest of the pedants.
====================================
b432
> 10. So OK, the difference between Science and Religion is
> simply the fact that Science calls absolute reality "reality"
> and Religion calls perceptual reality "reality". And religion
> calls the DIFFERENCE "God". Clearly, we see that "God"
> is a real thing.
>
> 11. OK, now we come to the problem of the "language of Religion".
> And here we get into a lot of "pedantism". In religion, "God"
> simply refers to a "100% grown Man". And as Science has now
> shown, there is no such thing. Therefore, "God" is referrred to
> as an "invisible man". Actually he's only "15% invisible" since
> we can see 85% of him walking around on the streets.
>
> 14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physicis of all this.
> the discovery that has actually been made shows that this
> "difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
> by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically
> described
> by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space. Our
> view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
> And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of
> Relativity.
> Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
> actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
> then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
> "God is caused by Gravity".
Are you saying that Gravity warps reality causing perceptual reality?
Then why wouldn't God be actual reality instead of that which warps
it? There seems to be two different ideas of God there. One saying the
realization of reality or 100% actualization of man is God. The other
saying that the 15% distortion of man caused by gravity is God.
TMG
Like I stated at the onset George, you won't accept anything that you
remotely dislike or doesn't fit your notion of reality. Your counter
points are misleading, misdirected, or wrong. We can address them one at
a time, but you won't accept the counter-counter points. I'm surprised
you were forced into the corners you were, and had to admit any response
was "correct".
I also agree trying to map common reality to yours and converse with you
about anything is unproductive. You communicate in "Write Only" mode -
you don't read or accept anything except your own voices.
Since you don't accept communication that isn't a mirror of your twisted
notions, it's pointless to try and talk to you on any level beyond
jabbing with pointy sticks. You've reduced what could be an *exchange*
of ideas to watching your rants - which is fun only if we get to throw
rocks.
You invite abuse. To refuse it would be impolite.
It's a nice day out. I'm going to go for a bike ride and not think about
Hammond, SPOG, or teaching pigs to sing.
George Hammond
"b432" <b4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2ad0048.04082...@posting.google.com...
[Messr. b432]
> Are you saying that Gravity warps reality causing perceptual reality?
[Hammond]
YES ----- !! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
YES ----- !! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
[Messr. b432]
> Then why wouldn't God be actual reality instead of that which warps
> it? There seems to be two different ideas of God there. One saying the
> realization of reality or 100% actualization of man is God. The other
> saying that the 15% distortion of man caused by gravity is God.
[Hammond]
EXCELLENT POINT!
And you have already answered your own question!
Obviously 100% realized Man is "God". But frankly, if
Man was 100% realized we wouldn't need to have two
different names for Man.
It is only because 15% of Man is invisible that we
even have a name for this actual "100%-man".
So, Religion, and even the common man, simply shortens
the whole long story (told above) by referring to the
"invisible 15%-man" as "God in Heaven" (or simply GOD)
and the (yet to appear) 100%-man as "God in the flesh"...
or "God Incarnate".
Yikes .... I sure am pleased that my latest explanation appears
to be "understandable".... at least to you.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
[Hammond]
There is no doubt that your technical ability is much higher than the
majority of posters to my threads, to say nothing of your vision
and confidence.
The thing that irritates me is that you seem to be actually "prejudiced"
against me... maybe because I come from the other side of the
tracks or something... and didn't go to an Ivy league school like MIT
like you did.
I wish I did... maybe I would have learned some real Physics a lot
earlier.
Vannever Bush who lived on Bass River offered to write me a letter
of recommendation when I graduated from High School recommending
I be accepted in Physics at MIT instead of WPI. I never took him up on
it because of a severe inferiority complex made me afraid of all those
big shots at MIT. I would have been a wallflower.
I'm just hoping that you back off the constant litany of stinging ad
hominem
remarks. Meanwhile... have a good one...bike ride that is... I rode
a moped for 7 years! Still get a kick out of bikes.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Oh.... I didn't go to an Ivy league school. They didn't
speak Latin.
>
> >Today you don't even have to know how it works... there
> >are commercial "Statistical Packages" (computer programs)
> >such as SPXX etc. that can be purchased by any researcher
> >and run on any high speed DESKTOP (or mainframe)
> >computer. It not only does the Factorization, it does the
> >Rotation also... completely automatically.
> >Consequently this is a big favorite activity
> >among penniless academic researchers... all they have to do
> >is write a psychology test say, round up 100 subjects to take
> >it (often times their students) and then run the test through
> >a Factor Analytic computer program on their dektop PC
> >and voila... they siaxocver some new Factor (eigenvector)
> >and have a "publishable" publishable research paper!
> > The advent of the PC and the SPXX for instance nearly
> >single hadedly TRANSFORMED Psychology into a
> >science in the '70's and '80's as it were.
> >
>
> That certainly doesn't make it any more of a science than it always
> was. Statistical veracity, especially as it is often practiced by
> social scientists, is not at all of the caliber that a truly
> controlled physical experiment normally is.
[Hammond]
No shit....! But when a SPECTACULAR result is found,
you have to take it in any form you can get it.
After all if some jungle tracker accidentally discovered an
Aztec Shaman in the Brazilian rain forrest who produced
a rare weed that actually cured cancer.... no one would question
the dubious source of such a discovery!
> At any rate, adding a bunch of statistical analysis to it doesn't
> suddenly make it "scientific".
[Hammond]
Well... that's your opinion. But fact is:
"In 1982 the prestigeous International Council of Scientific
Unions (ICSU) admitted the International Union of Psychological
Sciences (UPsyS) to full membership, de facto recognizing
Psychology as a "science"."
This was largly due to the 100 year development of Factor Analysis
(computerized since 1960), and developments in Brain Science.
So, the expert opinion of the majority formally disagrees with you,
and has for more than 20 years.
> > Anyway.... "Rotation to Simple Structure" was first discovered
> >by Louis L. Thurstone back in the 1930's. See:
> >
> >Thurstone L.L. (1947) Multiple Factor Analysis, U. Chiago Pr.
> >
> >However, it involves a lot of calculations... what they do is take
> >every data point in the space and then use "least squares"
> >minimization to move (rotate) a hyperplane until it is "closest"
> >to the center of density of the points. Obviously, since a
> >mathematical formula is used, there is no "subjective judgement"
> >involved whatsoever.
>
> Just universally using least squares regression on everything is
> hardly some sort of robust nonsubjective scientific approach. In
> fact, there are plenty of other ways of approaching any given problem
> statistically. Depending on the particulars of a problem, blindly
> using a least squares regression could be ridiculous.
[Hammond]
The method was developed 50 years ago and has been under constant
development especially since the invention of high speed computers.
Factor analysis using "computerized rotation" is universally recognized
as a fully "scientific" method across all fields of Science including
Physics and Chemistry as well as the, what did you call it.....
"social sciences". By the way, Paleontology uses it quite a bit,
and I don't believe that is considered a "social science".
TMG
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>George Hammond wrote:
<snip>
>
> [Hammond]
> There is no doubt that your technical ability is much higher than the
> majority of posters to my threads, to say nothing of your vision
> and confidence.
> The thing that irritates me is that you seem to be actually "prejudiced"
> against me... maybe because I come from the other side of the
> tracks or something...
No, it's actually your towering arrogance - but it's my fault for
letting it irritate me.
> and didn't go to an Ivy league school like MIT
> like you did.
If I were going to be petty, I'd point out that MIT isn't in the Ivy
League. The mighty MIT Beavers (I kid you not
http://web.mit.edu/varf-ball/www/main.htm ) are (barely) NCAA Division
III - and only recently started the football program up again. But it
gives the Media Lab something to do.
http://vismod.media.mit.edu/vismod/demos/football/
Season starts 9/6 against the Katherine Gibbs Vocational Academy.
> I wish I did... maybe I would have learned some real Physics a lot
> earlier.
> Vannever Bush who lived on Bass River offered to write me a letter
> of recommendation when I graduated from High School recommending
> I be accepted in Physics at MIT instead of WPI. I never took him up on
> it because of a severe inferiority complex made me afraid of all those
> big shots at MIT. I would have been a wallflower.
> I'm just hoping that you back off the constant litany of stinging ad
> hominem
> remarks. Meanwhile... have a good one...bike ride that is... I rode
> a moped for 7 years! Still get a kick out of bikes.
Brutally hot and humid - as I'm sure you know. But a good ride. I'll
work on not letting your personality disorders irritate mine.
madge
Hi George
I'm bored, let's play Internet Jesuits. Let us say that the extraneous
theory that you propound is true.
You know what George I and many other, (according to google), don't give
a shit.
References:-
Flog a dead horse.
--
"Never eat more than you can lift." Miss Piggy.
George Hammond
"madge" <deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4130F9...@yahoo.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi George
>
> I'm bored, let's play Internet Jesuits. Let us say that the extraneous
> theory that you propound is true.
>
> You know what George I and many other, (according to google), don't give
> a shit.
[Hammond]
Like Scipio said to Hannibal.... I don't give a
shit either.
Gwar
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
> ... our eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongue are "sensors" ... they are
> used to "sense physical reality"... these signals are sent to our brain
> where an "image" of this physical reality is created. ... Because of
> this fact alone, we know that there are in fact "2 realities"....
> "perceived reality" and "true reality".
There is only one reality that is perceivable regardless if one's
inferences about reality are sound or not.
> .... the phenomena of "braingrowth". Children, it can be noticed, do not
> see "true reality" until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).
The "true reality" is perceivable regardless of the maturity of the brains
of the perceivers.
> This means then, that the average human being CANNOT SEE "true reality".
Whether one has all or some of one's senses & faculties, the only thing
that is perceivable is objective reality.
> 1. There is an ablsoute reality, but no one can see it. We can only
> "infer" what it actually looks like by measuring it
Nobody can measure something that is intangible, or unknowable.
> What we actually see is "perceived reality"
What we see is reality through the limits of our perception & through
instrumentalities that our perceptions employ. There is only one
perceivable reality. If we claim to see anything outside of our
perceptions then its mere speculation.
> ... the difference between Science and Religion is simply the fact that
> Science calls absolute reality "reality" and Religion calls perceptual
> reality "reality". And religion calls the DIFFERENCE "God". Clearly,
> we see that "God" is a real thing.
Defined as what? The difference between what is the case & what we
think is the case? That's nonsensical.
> In religion, "God" simply refers to a "100% grown Man".
So, one can imagine a superman. One does not perceive this superman.
> ... there is no such thing ... Therefore, "God" is referrred to as an
> "invisible man". Actually he's only "15% invisible" since we can see
> 85% of him walking around on the streets.
This is a contradiction. This alleged 15% is not merely invisible. It
doesn't exist, (i.e., has no actuality). So, God, as you define it,
doesn't exist.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
[Hammond]
You know, speaking of MIT.... I just read in the paper that
Susan Hockfield has just been named president of MIT.
She is 53, has a B.S. in Biology from Rochester and a PhD in
"Anatomy and Neuroscience" from Georgetown School of Medicine.
They hired her because:
"... her strengths would help
bridge the gap between the
Life Sciences and the more
traditional strengths of MIT"
Being a "Brain Science" expert and wishing to "bridge the gap"
between "Brain Science and Physics" I wonder if I could sweet
talk her into getting MIT to do an evaluation of Hammond's
"Brain Science/Physics theory of God"?
Boy, talk about making it big as MIT President... imagine the
first female president of MIT ramrodding the world's first scientific
proof of God into existence!! Is that Time Magazine cover
person of the year or what??
Do you still know anyone at MIT? Unfortunately my Bass River
boating friend Vannever Bush is now buried in the South
Dennis cemetary.
TMG
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
<snip>
> [Hammond]
> You know, speaking of MIT.... I just read in the paper that
> Susan Hockfield has just been named president of MIT.
>
> She is 53, has a B.S. in Biology from Rochester and a PhD in
> "Anatomy and Neuroscience" from Georgetown School of Medicine.
A highly skilled scientist and administrator I suspect.
> They hired her because:
she's a highly skilled scientist and administrator and
> "... her strengths would help
> bridge the gap between the
> Life Sciences and the more
> traditional strengths of MIT"
>
That means computer, engineering, and math wonks (god love them) will
now have requirements in "soft" subjects. It's a sign of the periodic
swings highly technical schools make. I endured an earlier wave in the
mid-80s. Hell, Harvey Mudd (http://www.hmc.edu/) will eventually be (by
default) the purest technical school in the US - of course their
students, grads, and faculty can't go out in the daylight.....
> Being a "Brain Science" expert and wishing to "bridge the gap"
> between "Brain Science and Physics" I wonder if I could sweet
> talk her into getting MIT to do an evaluation of Hammond's
> "Brain Science/Physics theory of God"?
A fine idea - you should start this campaign today.
> Boy, talk about making it big as MIT President... imagine the
> first female president of MIT ramrodding the world's first scientific
> proof of God into existence!! Is that Time Magazine cover
> person of the year or what??
This should be part of your pitch to her.
> Do you still know anyone at MIT?
ummm, I still get to go to the faculty mixers - or whatever they are
called. You seem to forget where the grad students I get to torture come
from (plus affiliated programs). I rarely attend, unless they are held
at Woods Hole as a summer cookout. My MIT "office" is somewhere in a
mailstop and cubbie in what's know as "The Green Building" (I've been
there twice in the last year) meaning - as you already know - I one of
"them" (think Geophysics) http://eapsweb.mit.edu/
> Unfortunately my Bass River
> boating friend Vannever Bush is now buried in the South
> Dennis cemetary.
Well, he's at/in a better place. He slipped quietly into the choir of
the 15% BGD.
Scot McDermid
then read all 15 of his points in post
news:g1UXc.327628$%_6.60513@attbi_s01...
But I want to pick on point number 14.
> 14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physicis of all this.
> the discovery that has actually been made shows that this
> "difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
> by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically described
> by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space. Our
> view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
> And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of Relativity.
> Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
> actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
> then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
> "God is caused by Gravity".
I cannot speak as an authority on Psychometry, but as far as I know,
psychometric space would better be described as "personality space"
and not "perceptual space". So then what would a curve
in "psychometric space" really mean?
And two related questions I have been meaning to ask:
1/ From my reading about psychometry, I found out that (at one
point) Cattell was unsure of the psychometry data was
sufficient to support a 4th order eigenvector. But you appear
certain that that eigenvector is supported and that eigenvector
is God. Did you get more data, or simply use Cattell's data?
2/ It is apparent that 1st order, 2nd order and 3rd order
eigenvectors were determined by Cattell and he must have
thought they represent something meaningful. You say that
those different orders of eigenvectors represent different
orders of gods. But... what did Cattell himself say that
the eigenvectors represent? In terms of personalities ????
Liberator Veritatis
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fabulous! It still isn't a natural science. It is a social science,
and I never claimed otherwise. Pretty much everyone thinks that
psychology is categorically different than physics, for instance.
>> > Anyway.... "Rotation to Simple Structure" was first discovered
>> >by Louis L. Thurstone back in the 1930's. See:
>> >
>> >Thurstone L.L. (1947) Multiple Factor Analysis, U. Chiago Pr.
>> >
>> >However, it involves a lot of calculations... what they do is take
>> >every data point in the space and then use "least squares"
>> >minimization to move (rotate) a hyperplane until it is "closest"
>> >to the center of density of the points. Obviously, since a
>> >mathematical formula is used, there is no "subjective judgement"
>> >involved whatsoever.
>>
>> Just universally using least squares regression on everything is
>> hardly some sort of robust nonsubjective scientific approach. In
>> fact, there are plenty of other ways of approaching any given problem
>> statistically. Depending on the particulars of a problem, blindly
>> using a least squares regression could be ridiculous.
>
>[Hammond]
>The method was developed 50 years ago and has been under constant
>development especially since the invention of high speed computers.
>Factor analysis using "computerized rotation" is universally recognized
>as a fully "scientific" method across all fields of Science including
>Physics and Chemistry as well as the, what did you call it.....
>"social sciences".
It is nothing more than a least squares regression. It is actually
statistical which makes it "scientific" in the broadest sense of the
term. And, I also don't deny the value of such a regression in a
broader statistical analysis of data.
I am not claiming that it is subjective. I'm just disputing your spin
on it as if it yielded results like "we now know...." It does no such
thing.
> By the way, Paleontology uses it quite a bit,
>and I don't believe that is considered a "social science".
>
Well, most professionals are actually geologists. This field is not
exactly a well established academic area.
--
Liberator Veritatis
Liberator Veritatis
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Liberator Veritatis" <Liberator...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:0mqvi05q1ehek99qg...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:53 GMT, "George Hammond"
>> <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>> Well, let us just suppose everything you say is true. It proves that
>> god does not exist. It shows that our beliefs about god are entirely
>> the result of the fact that we live inside a gravitational field. If
>> there was no (or very little) curvature to space (i.e. no gravity) or
>> perhaps a completely different curvature, then it follows from what
>> you say that we would have no notions of god or have completely
>> different notions than the ones we have had about a god.
>
>[Hammond]
>There is no doubt that if "Heaven descended to Earth" we would
>no longer have to worry about God. So your statement is true.
>However, it is prefaced with the word *IF* and the "if" happens
>not to be true... so your statment while interesting and in fact
>"relevant" to some extent (it explains what 'kingdom come is')
>it is in fact IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand because
>in fact.... God is still living in Heaven, not Earth.
>
What?!? What I am saying is that if we were born and raised in outer
space, for instance, with no gravity then no one would ever have
brought up the notion of god according to what you say. Or, if we had
always lived in a much stronger gravitational filed we might have come
up with some other notion completely different from god according to
what YOU say. How is it that this being a fact implies that god
exists? If anything, it suggests otherwise.
>
>
>> At any rate, showing our ideas about god are entirely dependent on
>> some physical phenomenon is damning to the notion that we had those
>> ideas simply because they are true. It suggests, instead, that we
>> only even had them at all because of some external physical phenomenon
>> that directly caused those ideas to appear in our minds.
>
>[Hammond]
>You're apparently playing catch up ball vis a vis the SPOG (scientific
>proof of God).
>
>I suggest you read the following post which is a rare example of
>simplified complete candor on the subject:
>
It seems you must think that the points 14 and 15 address what I am
saying...
-snip-
You must have misinterpreted what I am saying. I am simply saying
that showing that our beliefs in the existence of a thing result from
some unrelated phenomenon does more to discredit the existence of that
thing than establish it. "Gravity created god," isn't even what you
are claiming. You are claiming that gravity created our BELIEF in
god. So, in other words, you are saying that we all believe in god
because we experience this other independent phenomenon of gravity and
this experience physically alters our mind so that we start talking
about this concept of god.
I don't think that is pedantic. If I was caught in some mind altering
field that caused me to hallucinate, we wouldn't go around acting like
my hallucinations were real or the fact that they were caused by this
field proved that they were real. The first sign that they were
caused by the field would cause us to reject them as illusions.
-snip-
--
Liberator Veritatis
Phÿltêr
Neither, metric system....
--
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>
> > ... our eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongue are "sensors" ... they are
> > used to "sense physical reality"... these signals are sent to our brain
> > where an "image" of this physical reality is created. ... Because of
> > this fact alone, we know that there are in fact "2 realities"....
> > "perceived reality" and "true reality".
>
> There is only one reality that is perceivable regardless if one's
> inferences about reality are sound or not.
[Hammond]
Uh.. uh.... not so fast. You said "perceivable". Fact is, the "perceived
reality" of a 9 year old (half grown brain) is MEARURABLY different
from the "perceived reality" of an 18 year old. Therefore, while there
is a "fixed universal absolute reality", "perceived reality" differs from
person
to person. This tells us there are "TWO REALITIES":
1. Perceived reality (which is subjective.. but the only reality actually
seen)
2. Absolute reality (which is objective... but only known 'theoretically')
> > .... the phenomena of "braingrowth". Children, it can be noticed, do not
> > see "true reality" until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).
>
> The "true reality" is perceivable regardless of the maturity of the brains
> of the perceivers.
[Hammond]
Incorrect statement. The mental speed (intelligence) of a human
being can be measured in bits per second. It is known and provable
that a 3 year old cannot see motions that are as fast as the fastest
motions that an 18 year old can see because of this. Hence, part of
the childs "reality" is missing... and he won't be able to see it until
his brain is fully grown.
> > This means then, that the average human being CANNOT SEE "true reality".
>
> Whether one has all or some of one's senses & faculties, the only thing
> that is perceivable is objective reality.
[Hammond]
You mean it is always "partially perceivable".
>
> > 1. There is an ablsoute reality, but no one can see it. We can only
> > "infer" what it actually looks like by measuring it
>
> Nobody can measure something that is intangible, or unknowable.
[Hammond]
Baloney. A 5 year old and an 18 year old will both tell you
that in "absolute reality" it is 400 miles from New York to Boston.
Point is, it looks a lot longer to a 5 year old than it dies to an 18 year
old.
>
> > What we actually see is "perceived reality"
>
> What we see is reality through the limits of our perception & through
> instrumentalities that our perceptions employ. There is only one
> perceivable reality. If we claim to see anything outside of our
> perceptions then its mere speculation.
[Hammond]
Hammond has discovered that "incomplete braingrowth" causes
a chabge in the "size and speed" of the world as seen by the
observer.
There is only one "absolute physical reality".... but the "reality
you actually see" DIFFERS depending on your state of braingrowth.
>
> > ... the difference between Science and Religion is simply the fact that
> > Science calls absolute reality "reality" and Religion calls perceptual
> > reality "reality". And religion calls the DIFFERENCE "God". Clearly,
> > we see that "God" is a real thing.
>
> Defined as what?
[Hammond]
"physically identified" is the term you're looking for, not "defined"...
however, if you wish to use a "physical identification" as a
"definition"....
o.k., I'll play your improper use of English game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"God" is physically identified (Gwar says 'defined') as the
"agency of curvature" that transforms "absolute physical reality"
into the "perceived reality" that we actually see.
No one can see actual true uncurved ("flat") physical reality even
though we can discover the 'Laws of Physics' which describe it.
The reason for this is that no one has a fully grown brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> The difference between what is the case & what we
> think is the case? That's nonsensical.
[Hammond]
I've told you before.... it's not a matter of "thinking",
it's a matter of "seeing":
God is a modification of "visible reality" caused
by the brain, not an "idea" caused by the brain.
I seem to keep repeating this, but you seem to ignore it.
> > In religion, "God" simply refers to a "100% grown Man".
>
> So, one can imagine a superman. One does not perceive this superman.
[Hammond]
He's painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
in the Vatican, in case you haven't noticed.
>
> > ... there is no such thing ... Therefore, "God" is referrred to as an
> > "invisible man". Actually he's only "15% invisible" since we can see
> > 85% of him walking around on the streets.
>
> This is a contradiction. This alleged 15% is not merely invisible. It
> doesn't exist, (i.e., has no actuality). So, God, as you define it,
> doesn't exist.
[Hammond]
More pedantic tautologies. As I've explained many times before
ad nauseum..... the 15% isn't actually "missing" it's simply
only "partially grown".... and this causes it to function below
the threshold of conscious mental function of the normal grown
part of the brain. If this weren't so, we would never be able to
"detect" the phenomena of God in the first place, and there would
be no religion, no Bible, and no 5-billion Religious adherents.
BTW, in modern Psychology, this partial function of the ungrown
portion of the brain is called the "unconscious mind".
Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown... we
can sense it, we can feel it, we notice it in performance and
competiiotn with others.... and it is the CAUSE of religion.
Nothing that is "growth stunted" is actually "missing any parts"... they
are simply undersized all the way down.... organs, tissues, cells,
etc. and the organism "knows" it. That is how it knows there
is a "God"... and how the human race knows.
Of course now we can actually MEASURE the time and space
dilations caused by this lack of growth (the curvature)... so
now the existence of God is EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN.
Tim Serpas
>[Hammond]
>OK Gwar, all seems to be quiet on the Eastern Front for awhile,
>so I can address you on the Western Front for a moment.
>(I am of course getting it from both sides)
Well, that's the GWAR way.
> The issue at hand is your statement:
>
> The brain doesn't modify the universe.
> If anything, it's the other way around.
> (Gwar)
Check www.gwar.net. I don't see that in any of their
lyrics. Unless this is something from the new album.
DUDE! You have a preliminary copy? What's it called?
{blah blah blah}
>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
>OK, Gwar.... there it is..... the "gospel truth" about the scientific proof
>of God in honest John language.
Take it to alt.mucus.gwar, fool!
Wretch
Gwar
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>>> ... our eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongue are "sensors" ... they are
>>> used to "sense physical reality"... these signals are sent to our brain
>>> where an "image" of this physical reality is created. ... Because of
>>> this fact alone, we know that there are in fact "2 realities"....
>>> "perceived reality" and "true reality".
>> There is only one reality that is perceivable regardless if one's
>> inferences about reality are sound or not.
> [Hammond]
> Uh.. uh.... not so fast. You said "perceivable".
"To become aware of through the senses". What one becomes aware of is
something independent of one's mind. So stop confusing the development (or
degeneration) of the mind with what is happening outside of it.
>>> .... the phenomena of "braingrowth". Children, it can be noticed, do not
>>> see "true reality" until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).
>> The "true reality" is perceivable regardless of the maturity of the brains
>> of the perceivers.
> [Hammond]
> Incorrect statement. The mental speed (intelligence) of a human
> being can be measured in bits per second. It is known and provable
> that a 3 year old cannot see motions that are as fast as the fastest
> motions that an 18 year old can see because of this. Hence, part of
> the childs "reality" is missing... and he won't be able to see it until
> his brain is fully grown.
What one may not see nor notice because of the state of one's own
faculties has nothing to do with whether those things exist or not. So
brain growth & mental speed are irrelevant.
>>> This means then, that the average human being CANNOT SEE "true reality".
>> Whether one has all or some of one's senses & faculties, the only thing
>> that is perceivable is objective reality.
> [Hammond]
> You mean it is always "partially perceivable".
There is only one objective reality whether you are paying attention or
not.
>>> What we actually see is "perceived reality"
>> What we see is reality through the limits of our perception & through
>> instrumentalities that our perceptions employ. There is only one
>> perceivable reality. If we claim to see anything outside of our
>> perceptions then its mere speculation.
> [Hammond]
> Hammond has discovered that "incomplete braingrowth" causes
> a chabge in the "size and speed" of the world as seen by the
> observer.
Brain growth doesn't change what objective reality is.
> ... the "reality you actually see" DIFFERS depending on your state of
> braingrowth.
So what.
> [Hammond]
> "God" is physically identified .... as the "agency of curvature" that
> transforms "absolute physical reality" into the "perceived reality" that
> we actually see.
You're defining the brain as god. That is nonsensical. The brain didn't
create the totality of what it fractionally perceives.
>>> In religion, "God" simply refers to a "100% grown Man".
>> So, one can imagine a superman. One does not perceive this superman.
> [Hammond]
> He's painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, in
> case you haven't noticed.
That's not perceiving the superman. That's perceiving a representation of
a superman.
>>> ... there is no such thing ... Therefore, "God" is referrred to as an
>>> "invisible man". Actually he's only "15% invisible" since we can see
>>> 85% of him walking around on the streets.
>> This is a contradiction. This alleged 15% is not merely invisible. It
>> doesn't exist, (i.e., has no actuality). So, God, as you define it,
>> doesn't exist.
> [Hammond]
> .... the 15% isn't actually "missing" it's simply only "partially
> grown"....
If it's not actually missing then you can't claim that human beings are
only at 85%.
bv_schornak
>Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
>that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
>get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
>is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown...
>
Makes me think I have to ask my _still_ unanswered questions again:
[1] Where in the human DNA did you find this information?
[2] How did you decypher that part of the human DNA?
[3] How did you come to the conclusion that this (decyphered) part
of a human's DNA includes information about lower and upper limits
for the height of that human?
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Goran Dhemmeog
I am sure you have a reference where that is said. As I remember
Scipio Africanus and Hannibal never met in person, but in battle.
TMG
> George Hammond wrote:
>
>> Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
>> that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
>> get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
>> is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown...
>>
>
> Makes me think I have to ask my _still_ unanswered questions again:
>
> [1] Where in the human DNA did you find this information?
And, did George pay the royalties for access to this copyrighted
information?
> [2] How did you decypher that part of the human DNA?
>
80% of the encoded "information" seems to be gibberish. It doesn't code
for a modern, current, protein sequence. It's the accumulated noise from
~2 million years of selective genetics.
Of course the question of why God would encode his "chosen" primates and
add an additional 80% (of the whole - let's just pick a base and stick
with it) of gibberish just to fool with us is hugely amusing. If god
existed, *my* god would have this sense of humor. It's a lot like the
thought that god created the universe and man "x" years ago. At that
point, god also put the fossils, coal, historic record, and the big
honking dinosaur bones into the ground.
That's MY kind of deity. God sitting around thinking - "How can I mess
with *these* primates??" Ponders a few moments - and decides "I know! -
Let's put big bones and evidence of prior life in the ground to mess
with them!!"
Opposable thumbs - FEH! Humor - That's the mark of a true deity!
> [3] How did you come to the conclusion that this (decyphered) part
> of a human's DNA includes information about lower and upper limits
> for the height of that human?
GOD or gravity told him it's true.
bruno de baenst
"Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:b9eccd47.04082...@posting.google.com...
They have actually met in person to negociate a peace treaty once, but that
failed.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:Sb9Yc.2261$Es2.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> If you are interested in George Hammond's work
> then read all 15 of his points in post
> news:g1UXc.327628$%_6.60513@attbi_s01...
>
> But I want to pick on point number 14.
>
> > 14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physicis of all
this.
> > the discovery that has actually been made shows that this
> > "difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
> > by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically described
> > by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space. Our
> > view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
> > And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of
Relativity.
> > Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
> > actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
> > then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
> > "God is caused by Gravity".
>
> I cannot speak as an authority on Psychometry, but as far as I know,
> psychometric space would better be described as "personality space"
> in "psychometric space" really mean?
[Hammond]
I must say McDermid, you are the only person so far who has
shown any signs of actually comprehending this theory.
I am amazed that you are the only person who has identified
this point....
Yes, it is true that the "curvature" is in Psychometry space....
that is in Personality-Intelligence space. ENPg space
to be exact. And I claim that this is matched by a "curvature"
in "perceptiual space".... a curvature of the "size and speed"
of the actually visible world.
In the case of "speed" (time) this is directly proven by the fact
that "Intelligence".... so called "psychometric-g" above,
is in fact "mental speed" measured modernly in
actual "bits/second" of mental information processing
speed. This means, quite clearly, if a persons mental speed
is slow, the world will look fast, or vice versa, if the
persons mental speed is fast, the world will look slow.
In other words, the connection of "intelligence variance"
to a "time dilation of reality" is a clear and directly
measureable correspondence simply because the
relation of intelligence to time is a simple and direct one.
The 3-space dimensions are a bit more involved. While
"psychometric-g" is clearly simply and directly related
to time (via mental rate, or speed) the mechanical connection
between "space" and "Personality" is more complex.
We do know from the outset that the 3 space
dimensions XYZ are the physical cause of the 3 Personality
dimension ENP. This is Hammond's "discovery of the Structural
Model of Personality" published in 1994. But, unlike
intelligence, the variance in the 3 Personality dimensions are not
"directly" measurable by a "space contraction" but
rather the connection has to be confirmed "indirectly".
This indirect connection is identical to the connection which
connects "intelligence" to "time".... namely the fact that
we know that "braingrowth" is the reason for an increase
in Intelligence and we know that braingrowth is the reason for
an increase in mental speed.
In the personality dimensions, ENP, we know that "braingrowth"
causes a "dilation" (increase) in ENP, and we also know that
braingrowth causes a "contraction" of the spatial dimensions
XYZ.... i.e., the world gets smaller as you grow larger during
childhood. Therefore, since the original discovery of the
Structural Model demonstrates that IT IS the 3 space dimensions
XYZ that CAUSE ENP ("somehow").... we equate the
"contraction of space" as the brain grows, with the "dilation"
in ENP caused by braingrowth, as we grow.
Finally, this correspondence, again, is arrived at by a "convergence
of evidence" from many directions (all directions, in fact).
The unification of the metric, the relativistic curvature in ENPg
space, etc. etc.
> And two related questions I have been meaning to ask:
> 1/
> From my reading about psychometry, I found out that (at one
> point) Cattell was unsure of the psychometry data was
> sufficient to support a 4th order eigenvector. But you appear
> certain that that eigenvector is supported and that eigenvector
> is God. Did you get more data, or simply use Cattell's data?
[Hammond]
I have used Cattell's data, because while he was unsure; I had
discovered a "theoretical prediction" that the 4th order Factor
existed... so therefore, where he hesitated to go on and compute
the 4th order Factor, I went ahead and did it.... using HIS
3rd order correlation matrix of course.
In fact, in Cattell's famous 1973 paper where he goes all the
way to the 3rd order in experimental Factor Analysis of all
existing data, he concludes the paper with this now historically
ironic statement:
"The correlations among the tertiaries..... are
resonably stable, and are set out for those who,
with reinforcements, may wish to proceed to
the 4th order."
(Raymond B. Cattell, 1973)
Little did he know of course, in 1973, that the only existing
factor at the 4th order was, "GOD".
Seeking "reinforcements" to go to the 4th order, as Cattell put it....
I sent his 4x4 3rd order matrix to Drs. Barrett and Routh in
England. (Barrett was the late and great Hans Eysenck's
laboratory chief). They both factored it on an SPXX mainframe
and got the same result.... the 4th order Factor immediately appeared...
this was the actual FIRST "experimental confirmation of the
existence of God" in history! I still have the computer print outs.
> 2/
> It is apparent that 1st order, 2nd order and 3rd order
> eigenvectors were determined by Cattell and he must have
> thought they represent something meaningful. You say that
> those different orders of eigenvectors represent different
> orders of gods. But... what did Cattell himself say that
> the eigenvectors represent? In terms of personalities ????
[Hammond]
Using the loadings on the new Factor from the next
lower level down is the traditional "Psychometric method"
of discovering what the "appropriate name" of the higher
order Factors actually are. Cattell was one of the most
powerful experimenters in this area and did in fact come up
with names for all of them. They are well known, have
been published and republished and reprinted many
many times.
These are all summarized in his legendary 1975 book:
Cattell R.B. (1973) Personality and Mood by Questionnaire
at the Third order he identifies 5 Factors:
Qalpha Strength of Contact
Qbeta Maladaption
Qgamma Readiness
Qdelta Anti-Social Unconcern
Qepisilon Intelligence
(Note.. I discovered that Qgamma is actually
the "growth component" of Intelligence whereas
Qepisilon is the tradiational "genetic" component of
intelligence. Hence there are actually only 4-factors
at the 3rd order. These turn out to be simply the
"braingrowth variance dilations" of ENPg from the 2nd order)
At the Second order he identifies 13 Factors:
1 (E) Extraversion
2 (N) Anxiety
3. Tough Poise
4. (P) Independence
5 Control
6. socialization
7. Intelligence (General Ability)
+
6 more Factors
At the first order he identifies as many as 23 Factors,
the first 16 of these (bipolar) Factors are:
1. Sizia -- Afectia
2. Lo Ego -- Hi Ego
3. Submissiveness -- Dominance
4. Desurgency -- Surgency
5. Lo -- Hi superego Strength
6. Threctia - Parmia
7. Harria -- Premsia
8. Alaxia -- Protension
9. Praxernia -- Autia
10. Artlessness -- Shrewdness
11. Adequacy -- Guilt Proneness
12. Conservatism -- Radicalism
13. ..............
14 Hi-Lo Ergic Tension
15 ...............
16 ..............
OK... these "names" were fashionable in the 40's and 50's when
Cattell first discovered the eigenvectors Factor Analytically. While
the stability of the eigenvectors has remained.... the fashion in
naming them changes from time to time.
After all, I identify these "eigenvectors" as being identically the
"gods and demigods" of ancient Polytheism.
For instance:
30-1st order factors = 30 demigods of the Hindu and ancient religions
13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the Greco-Roman Pantheon
4-3rd order factors = 4 Gospel Saints of Christianity: Mt, Mk, Lk,
Jn
1-4th order factor = The God of Monotheism: God, Allah,
Yahweh, Brahma, Buddha, etc.
cat
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Go pedal it somewhere else.
>
>
rather than on your personal soapbox?, arragance to the point of
psychopathic narcissism.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> bv_schornak wrote:
>
> > George Hammond wrote:
> >
> >> Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
> >> that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
> >> get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
> >> is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown...
> >>
> >
> > Makes me think I have to ask my _still_ unanswered questions again:
> >
> > [1] Where in the human DNA did you find this information?
[Hammond]
Where in the DNA code it is, no one knows... but the fact that it's
there is an experimentally proven fact.
For instance... there are some plants that are clones... I think
Orchids are one of them. In CA there are hothouses full of
orchids whose DNA is IDENTICAL in each plant. There are even
Trees like this.. that do not seed but thier roots grow for many
yards and then pop up and a new tree grows... so you get a forrest
with every tree an "identical twin".
Anyway... if you grow hundreds of generations of these Orichids
in a hothouse with perfect conditions... they all grow to the
SAME SIZE. Obviously, this must be the 'genotypic size" of
that DNA specification. BECAUSE... it is a known fact that if you
put these same plants out in the wild where rain, sun and food vary
considerably.... none of them will grow to the same size, and
none of them will ever reach the maximum "geonotypic full growth
size" that they reach in a hothouse.
Basically, the same is true for human beings.... and ALL of us
live in the "wild".
<snip>
> > Greetings from Augsburg
> >
> > Bernhard Schornak
> >
====================================
bv_schornak
> bv_schornak wrote:
>
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
>>> that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
>>> get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
>>> is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown...
>>
>>
>> Makes me think I have to ask my _still_ unanswered questions again:
>>
>> [1] Where in the human DNA did you find this information?
>
>
> And, did George pay the royalties for access to this copyrighted
> information?
Surely not. DNA mapping isn't copyrighted, I think.
>> [2] How did you decypher that part of the human DNA?
>>
> 80% of the encoded "information" seems to be gibberish. It doesn't
> code for a modern, current, protein sequence. It's the accumulated
> noise from ~2 million years of selective genetics.
Yes, so called Junk DNA. Maybe it turns out it is needed to
determine our BGD?
> Of course the question of why God would encode his "chosen" primates
> and add an additional 80% (of the whole - let's just pick a base and
> stick with it) of gibberish just to fool with us is hugely amusing. If
> god existed, *my* god would have this sense of humor. It's a lot like
> the thought that god created the universe and man "x" years ago. At
> that point, god also put the fossils, coal, historic record, and the
> big honking dinosaur bones into the ground.
>
> That's MY kind of deity. God sitting around thinking - "How can I mess
> with *these* primates??" Ponders a few moments - and decides "I know!
> - Let's put big bones and evidence of prior life in the ground to mess
> with them!!"
>
> Opposable thumbs - FEH! Humor - That's the mark of a true deity!
You've seen my other postings? The worst thing I ever could
imagine is a God like GH - recreating the world to make his
claims become true. Makes me shiver... ;)
>> [3] How did you come to the conclusion that this (decyphered) part
>> of a human's DNA includes information about lower and upper limits
>> for the height of that human?
>
>
> GOD or gravity told him it's true.
Maybe the high BGD? As I got it until now, larger BGD means
larger distance from reality. Therefore the BGD of Atheists
and non-believers must be very low, some of them might have
a BGD of zero. SPoG proves: Atheists see the world more re-
alistic than believers of any credo, their "invisible man"-
component is much lower.
bv_schornak
>TMG:
>
>>bv_schornak wrote:
>>
>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
>>>>that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
>>>>get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
>>>>is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Makes me think I have to ask my _still_ unanswered questions again:
>>>
>>>[1] Where in the human DNA did you find this information?
>>>
>
>[Hammond]
> Where in the DNA code it is, no one knows... but the fact that it's
>there is an experimentally proven fact.
>
Then your "experiment" is the interpretation of unknown data.
> For instance... there are some plants that are clones... I think
>Orchids are one of them. In CA there are hothouses full of
>orchids whose DNA is IDENTICAL in each plant. There are even
>Trees like this.. that do not seed but thier roots grow for many
>yards and then pop up and a new tree grows... so you get a forrest
>with every tree an "identical twin".
> Anyway... if you grow hundreds of generations of these Orichids
>in a hothouse with perfect conditions... they all grow to the
>SAME SIZE. Obviously, this must be the 'genotypic size" of
>that DNA specification. BECAUSE... it is a known fact that if you
>put these same plants out in the wild where rain, sun and food vary
>considerably.... none of them will grow to the same size, and
>none of them will ever reach the maximum "geonotypic full growth
>size" that they reach in a hothouse.
>
If the DNA of two organisms is identical (cloned) and the en-
vironmental conditions for both organisms are identical, then
they _must_ develop identical properties, e.g. colour, weight
and height. If you have 100 identical seeds and grow one half
under optimum, the other half under worst conditions, the 1st
population will grow larger than the 2nd one - no doubt.
This does not mean that the 1st population is better. Because
the 2nd population is grown under "real world" conditions, it
will be stronger than the 1st one. The next generations would
show the 1st population only can survive in an artificial en-
vironment while the 2nd population can be planted everywhere.
This is called "natural selection". If an organism is able to
survive under a given condition, its species survives. If the
species depends on an optimum condition, only a few organisms
(if any) will survive.
Genotype is something like the "recipe" for each organism, it
includes general information. Phenotype is the "appliance" of
this "recipe" - it depends on the amount of "ingredients" the
organism can gather, how large (or small) the final "product"
will be. There are no upper or lower limits. Just have a look
at Dwarfism and Giantism - both extreme variations of one and
the same species. There is no "growth deficit" nor is there a
"growth surplus", each of them is 100% ("fully") grown. Their
phenotypic plasticity has a higher level, that's all.
> Basically, the same is true for human beings.... and ALL of us
>live in the "wild".
>
It's valid for every organism, humans are no exception.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
BTW - why dont you print that bumpersticker on your own? It's
no problem: <http://www.websticker.com/bestsellers.htm>
TMG
> TMG wrote:
>
>> bv_schornak wrote:
>>
>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fact is, every living organism has a COMPLETE DNA CODE
>>>> that tells it when it is fully grown and how big it's supposed to
>>>> get. That is the fundamental reason we inherently "know" there
>>>> is something wrong with us when we are not fully grown...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Makes me think I have to ask my _still_ unanswered questions again:
>>>
>>> [1] Where in the human DNA did you find this information?
>>
>>
>>
>> And, did George pay the royalties for access to this copyrighted
>> information?
>
> Surely not. DNA mapping isn't copyrighted, I think.
>
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_4_34/ai_89389274