GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO MAX
George Hammond
reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
I think it is of interest to German physicists.
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
<snip>
[Hammond]
> >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
[Schornak]
> Ok, let's try it.
[Schornak]
> >>There's only one reality: The Universe (or Nature). Your
> >>"absolute physical" and "human perceptual" reality isn't
> >>reality _itself_, it's an interpretation of reality.
[Hammond]
OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
talking.
Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
explanation of God!
Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
who's significance has not been realized". This fact is:
Founding Fact of Hammond's
Scientific Proof of God
No person, past or present, in the history of the
world has EVER reached full growth. People are
getting more fully grown with each passing generation
and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
growth, and is a well known scientific fact. Modern
soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
of armor since we are so much bigger than our ancestors.
This is commonly described as the difference between our
"phenotype" and our "genotype". By studying Third World
growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
"theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
only 85% grown also.
OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
to above. What I've simply done is to point out the
SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God".
OK, so the NEW SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact
is that it can "explain God". How does it do that?
Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact. Once
this significance is realized... the entire history of
God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
we have an "invisible man" which is "God". Any "variability"
in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
hence the explanation of miracles. The Secular Trend
itself explains the "kingdom come" of theology... it is
simply the end of the Secular Trend sometime in the future.
Eternal Life is simply a condition of "zero growth deficit"
which will be reached at the end of the Secular Trend...
and on, and on, and on ad infinitem.... EVERY major fact
of religion and theology is SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED
by the "NEW SIGNIFICANCE" of the Secular Trend in human
growth.
OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
Psychometry Space, and in fact:
GOD = G_uv
The reason for this is that:
4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
explained on my website:
> Greetings from Augsburg
> Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from Hyannis
George Hammond
===========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================
George Hammond
George Hammond
ZenIsWhen
"George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:24HSc.110369$8_6.31536@attbi_s04...
> NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
> reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
> I think it is of interest to German physicists.
Get Real! Moron!
Your crap is of no more interest to German physicists than it is to American
physicists!
>
>
> "bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
> message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> > George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> [Hammond]
> > >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> > >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> > >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
There IS NO basic "logic" to your crap bellowing; that's why it's CRAP!
George Hammond
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10hmsnn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:24HSc.110369$8_6.31536@attbi_s04...
> > NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
> > reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
> > I think it is of interest to German physicists.
>
> Get Real! Moron!
> Your crap is of no more interest to German physicists than it is to
American
> physicists!
[Hammond]
The Holocaust happened in Germany not America, remember?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
> > message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >
> > > George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > > >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> > > >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> > > >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
>
> There IS NO basic "logic" to your crap bellowing; that's why it's CRAP!
[Hammond]
No Bellowing Cluck.. you don't have any academic credentials remember?
Rick Cvejic
> This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
> The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
> based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
> by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
> ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
> explanation of God!
Correction:
Einstein pointed out the greater significance of something which had
been PROVEN centuries before. Not "well known". Proven.
You are pointing out a new interpretation of something which has not
and cannot be proven; although the concept is well known, it may be
(probably is) just as mythological as Jason and the Argonauts.
> "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
> our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
> only 85% grown also.
<snip>
> Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
> the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
> This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
> or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact.
This is a good theory, but you have no experimental proof of this.
> Once
> this significance is realized... the entire history of
> God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
Invalid assertion. No evidence. Blah blah blah.
> Any "variability"
> in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
> repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
> come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
> hence the explanation of miracles.
You could just as easily "prove" psychics, ESP, ghosts and maybe even
hypnosis in the same way.
> OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
> it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
> to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
> some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
> is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
> Psychometry Space, and in fact:
>
> GOD = G_uv
>
> The reason for this is that:
>
> 4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
>
> Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
> Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
> scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
> explained on my website:
The curvature of psychometric space might be something, but it isnt
God. Even if we assume it is, it seems like all you've done here is
prove that God is in our minds. If God is in our minds, how did he
create the world?
Maybe you should read Terry Pratchetts' "Small Gods". He gave a
similar story in a much more interesting fantasy setting.
John Prester
> Greetings from Hyannis
> George Hammond
Greetings from Hyannis, indeed. Visitors to Hyannis, Massachusetts can
see "Professor" Hammond hanging out in front of 77 Winter St., a/k/a
the homeless shelter, cadging smokes and loose change from passers-by.
Then, one can follow him to the Public Library (behind the JFK Museum)
and watch him post his drivel to newsgroups via one of the public access
Internet terminals. Watch as the legitimate patrons of the library
recoil from his pungent odor!
Of course, trying to convince the hoi polloi of Usenet to believe his
crackpot notion of a "Scientific Proof of Dog" is tiring work, so the
next stop is Country Liquors for a 40 oz. of malt liquor, followed by
a trip to the Cascade Motel to score some crack.
Yes, it's work, work, work for our "Professor" Hammond. Even when he's
dozing off on the sidewalk in front of the bus station, you can be sure
that his noggin is filled with dreams of cubic brains and that missing
15% of the rock of crack he just scored.
--
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
George Hammond
"Rick Cvejic" <hybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ef5b8f1.04081...@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<3VGSc.245727$IQ4.111140@attbi_s02>...
> > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
> > The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
> > based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
> > by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
> > ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
> > explanation of God!
>
> Correction:
>
> Einstein pointed out the greater significance of something which had
> been PROVEN centuries before. Not "well known". Proven.
[Hammond]
Same difference. The "SECULAR TREND" has been "proven"
for more than 50 years!
>
> You are pointing out a new interpretation of something which has not
> and cannot be proven;
[Hammond]
IDIOTIC STAEMENT!! The "Secular Trend" was discovered over
75 years ago, has been and continues to be studied by the WHO,
RED CROSS, UNICEF and a bazillion academic researchers
and can be found in full page articles in a 20 year Encyclopedia
Britannica. It has even made the front pages of TIME MAGAZINE:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time1.htm
A Google search will turn up 10,000 published papers on it.
You don't know what the fcuk you're talking about.
> although the concept is well known, it may be
> (probably is) just as mythological as Jason and the Argonauts.
[Hammond]
You're full of it too.
>
>
> > "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
> > our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
> > only 85% grown also.
> <snip>
> > Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
> > the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
> > This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
> > or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact.
>
> This is a good theory, but you have no experimental proof of this.
[Hammond]
Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average IQ)
Half the world is "invisible" to a 9 year old because of this.
(his "mental speed" is only 50% of an 18 year old).
An 18 year old can see a baseball moving TWICE AS FAST
as the fastest one that can be seen by a 9 year old... to give
you a reallly stupid example you can comprehend.
Likewise... about 15% of the world is "invisible" to the
average man..... (because of the Secular Trend lack of full growth)
and this is the explanation of the "invisible God" we worship.
This has been known and PROVEN since the 1930's when
they invented the IQ test. You're just too STUPID to understand
anything OBVIOUS AND PROVEN.
>
> > Once
> > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
>
> Invalid assertion. No evidence. Blah blah blah.
[Hammond]
Why don't you shove your fingers in your ears, close your
eyes and say "na, na, na, na ,na, na ,na" like a 5 year old does?
>
> > Any "variability"
> > in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
> > repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
> > come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
> > hence the explanation of miracles.
>
> You could just as easily "prove" psychics, ESP, ghosts and maybe even
> hypnosis in the same way.
[Hammond]
No shit Seherlock.... If it explains "God" it certainly
explains all those phenomena (a fact which I discovered years
ago). I'll assign that boring exercise as a homework exercise.
>
>
> > OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
> > it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
> > to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
> > some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
> > is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
> > Psychometry Space, and in fact:
> >
> > GOD = G_uv
> >
> > The reason for this is that:
> >
> > 4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
> >
> > Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
> > Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
> > scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
> > explained on my website:
>
> The curvature of psychometric space might be something,
[Hammond]
That's the first intelligent thing you've ever said!!
As a matter of fact, more intelligent and learned
than what any other scientist has said about this... including
his nibs professor CHRIS ISHAM.
What's your name again?
However, it is not as intelligent as Dr. STEVE UNWIN'S
comments on the matter.
> but it isnt
> God.
[Hammond]
You have one more intelligent realization to make: It is God.
After you figure that out you and I can have a whiff of Smirnoff
and celebrate belonging to the most exclusive club in the world;
the "Men who know what God is Club"!
> Even if we assume it is, it seems like all you've done here is
> prove that God is in our minds. If God is in our minds, how did he
> create the world?
[Hammond]
God is not "COGNITIVE" (i.e. is not an IDEA)
God is PERCEPTUAL, and percepion is REALITY.
Therefore, GOD IS REAL.
God is caused by the brain... but the brain creates more than just
"thoughts".
The brain is responsible for allowing you to SEE REALITY.
God is not an IDEA. God is SEEN REALITY.
What you don't realize is that variability in braingrowth
CHANGES REALITY.
>
> Maybe you should read Terry Pratchetts' "Small Gods". He gave a
> similar story in a much more interesting fantasy setting.
[Hammond]
I don't need to read anybody. You need to read Hammond.
The last guy to say anything of interest to me was Stephen
Unwin (Phd Quantum Gravity) and celebrated author.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
new home site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
George Hammond
news:<3VGSc.245727$IQ4.111140@attbi_s02>...
> > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
> > The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
> > based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
> > by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
> > ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
> > explanation of God!
>
> Correction:
>
> Einstein pointed out the greater significance of something which had
> been PROVEN centuries before. Not "well known". Proven.
[Hammond]
Same difference. The "SECULAR TREND" has been "proven"
for more than 50 years!
>
> You are pointing out a new interpretation of something which has not
> and cannot be proven;
[Hammond]
IDIOTIC STAEMENT!! The "Secular Trend" was discovered over
75 years ago, has been and continues to be studied by the WHO,
RED CROSS, UNICEF and a bazillion academic researchers
and can be found in full page articles in a 20 year Encyclopedia
Britannica. It has even made the front pages of TIME MAGAZINE:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time1.htm
A Google search will turn up 10,000 published papers on it.
You don't know what the fcuk you're talking about.
> although the concept is well known, it may be
> (probably is) just as mythological as Jason and the Argonauts.
[Hammond]
You're full of it too.
>
>
> > "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
> > our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
> > only 85% grown also.
> <snip>
> > Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
> > the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
> > This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
> > or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact.
>
> This is a good theory, but you have no experimental proof of this.
[Hammond]
Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average IQ)
Half the world is "invisible" to a 9 year old because of this.
(his "mental speed" is only 50% of an 18 year old).
An 18 year old can see a baseball moving TWICE AS FAST
as the fastest one that can be seen by a 9 year old... to give
you a reallly stupid example you can comprehend.
Likewise... about 15% of the world is "invisible" to the
average man..... (because of the Secular Trend lack of full growth)
and this is the explanation of the "invisible God" we worship.
This has been known and PROVEN since the 1930's when
they invented the IQ test. You're just too STUPID to understand
anything OBVIOUS AND PROVEN.
>
> > Once
> > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
>
> Invalid assertion. No evidence. Blah blah blah.
[Hammond]
Why don't you shove your fingers in your ears, close your
eyes and say "na, na, na, na ,na, na ,na" like a 5 year old does?
>
> > Any "variability"
> > in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
> > repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
> > come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
> > hence the explanation of miracles.
>
> You could just as easily "prove" psychics, ESP, ghosts and maybe even
> hypnosis in the same way.
[Hammond]
No shit Seherlock.... If it explains "God" it certainly
explains all those phenomena (a fact which I discovered years
ago). I'll assign that boring exercise as a homework exercise.
>
>
> > OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
> > it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
> > to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
> > some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
> > is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
> > Psychometry Space, and in fact:
> >
> > GOD = G_uv
> >
> > The reason for this is that:
> >
> > 4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
> >
> > Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
> > Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
> > scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
> > explained on my website:
>
> The curvature of psychometric space might be something,
[Hammond]
That's the first intelligent thing you've ever said!!
As a matter of fact, more intelligent and learned
than what any other scientist has said about this... including
his nibs professor CHRIS ISHAM.
What's your name again?
However, it is not as intelligent as Dr. STEVE UNWIN'S
comments on the matter.
> but it isnt
> God.
[Hammond]
You have one more intelligent realization to make: It is God.
After you figure that out you and I can have a whiff of Smirnoff
and celebrate belonging to the most exclusive club in the world;
the "Men who know what God is Club"!
> Even if we assume it is, it seems like all you've done here is
> prove that God is in our minds. If God is in our minds, how did he
> create the world?
[Hammond]
God is not "COGNITIVE" (i.e. is not an IDEA)
God is PERCEPTUAL, and percepion is REALITY.
Therefore, GOD IS REAL.
God is caused by the brain... but the brain creates more than just
"thoughts".
The brain is responsible for allowing you to SEE REALITY.
God is not an IDEA. God is SEEN REALITY.
What you don't realize is that variability in braingrowth
CHANGES REALITY.
>
> Maybe you should read Terry Pratchetts' "Small Gods". He gave a
> similar story in a much more interesting fantasy setting.
[Hammond]
I don't need to read anybody. You need to read Hammond.
The last guy to say anything of interest to me was Stephen
Unwin (Phd Quantum Gravity) and celebrated author.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Androcles
"John Prester" <john_p...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9543ED478...@216.40.28.70...
| "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in
| news:3VGSc.245727$IQ4.111140@attbi_s02:
|
| > Greetings from Hyannis
| > George Hammond
|
| Greetings from Hyannis, indeed. Visitors to Hyannis, Massachusetts can
| see "Professor" Hammond hanging out in front of 77 Winter St., a/k/a
| the homeless shelter, cadging smokes and loose change from passers-by.
| Then, one can follow him to the Public Library (behind the JFK Museum)
| and watch him post his drivel to newsgroups via one of the public access
| Internet terminals. Watch as the legitimate patrons of the library
| recoil from his pungent odor!
|
| Of course, trying to convince the hoi polloi of Usenet to believe his
| crackpot notion of a "Scientific Proof of Dog" is tiring work, so the
| next stop is Country Liquors for a 40 oz. of malt liquor, followed by
| a trip to the Cascade Motel to score some crack.
|
| Yes, it's work, work, work for our "Professor" Hammond. Even when he's
| dozing off on the sidewalk in front of the bus station, you can be sure
| that his noggin is filled with dreams of cubic brains and that missing
| 15% of the rock of crack he just scored.
|
truth, because I can imagine an ambulance chaser seizing an opportunity to
make a little cash from a libel suit. I can certainly foresee the Cascade
Motel (if there is one) having a case against you, since your words are
clearly damaging to their business reputation.
I'm no friend of Hammond and would certainly not endorse any of his views,
clearly he is genuinely insane and it would not surprise me if indeed your
words were provable. I would, however, support Hammond's right to say
whatever he wants, unless libellous or likely to cause a public disturbance.
I think you are skating upon very thin ice.
Androcles
Bryce Utting
> "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
>> the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
>> This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
>> or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact.
>
> This is a good theory, but you have no experimental proof of this.
does too! to further the pursuit of science, [HAMMOND] had 15% of his
brain removed YEARS ago. I thought everyone knew that?
(and then a couple of months later, he had the other 85% removed, just
in case)
>> Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
SUBCRVBIE!!!!
butting
George Hammond
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9tYSc.4360$dN4.47...@news-text.cableinet.net...<snip>
Libelous fabrications and stalking violations from Mr. Prester
> I sincerely hope for your sake that what you have said above is the
absolute
> truth, because I can imagine an ambulance chaser seizing an opportunity to
> make a little cash from a libel suit.
[Hammoond]
No there is no truth to it.
> I can certainly foresee the Cascade
> Motel (if there is one) having a case against you, since your words are
> clearly damaging to their business reputation.
[Hammond]
There is one, and they could sue for libel
> I'm no friend of Hammond and would certainly not endorse any of his views,
> clearly he is genuinely insane and it would not surprise me if indeed your
> words were provable.
[Hammond]
They certainly are not.
> I would, however, support Hammond's right to say
> whatever he wants, unless libellous or likely to cause a public
disturbance.
> I think you are skating upon very thin ice.
> Androcles
[Hammond]
Thanks for the courage Androcles, even if it is a bit late.
What has been done to a serious graduate physicist and
peer reviewed published scholar on the Physics Newsgroups in the past 4
years is an absolute disgrace to the physics community. How they could
totally abandon one of their own collegues to the heckling, threatening,
stalking and menacing wolves of the internet is more a reflection on YOU
than it is on them.
Not since the Nazis pillaged Albert Einstein's home in Belgium has there
been
a greater disgrace to the Physics community than the treatment afforded
George Hammond by professional physicists on the Physics newsgroups.
It is a scandal that I'm sure my future biographers will unfortunately for
Physics,
document for all posterity.
====================================
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
====================================
Goran Dhemmeog
> Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average IQ)
0 to 1800 on what scale? kg? m? Let us call that unit X. Then the
dimension of IQ, you say, is [X/year]. I did not know that IQ is time
dependent. I recall that you want IQ to be bits/s, but do you
calculate the speed of your computer from the Moore's law: last year I
had computer with 16bits and now I added chips to make it a 32bit
machine therefore the speed of my computer 16 bits/year.
> Half the world is "invisible" to a 9 year old because of this.
> (his "mental speed" is only 50% of an 18 year old).
> An 18 year old can see a baseball moving TWICE AS FAST
> as the fastest one that can be seen by a 9 year old... to give
> you a reallly stupid example you can comprehend.
> Likewise... about 15% of the world is "invisible" to the
> average man..... (because of the Secular Trend lack of full growth)
> and this is the explanation of the "invisible God" we worship.
> This has been known and PROVEN since the 1930's when
> they invented the IQ test. You're just too STUPID to understand
> anything OBVIOUS AND PROVEN.
That I never quite caught with SPOG: if I have 85$ in my wallet, which
is capable of holding as much as 100$, why is the missing 15$ of any
importance? Likewise if my salary is increasing such that there is a
trend that my wallet after a long time will have full 100$, why is
that of any significance? I would usually be only concerned with the
amount of $ there now.
Scot McDermid
> > > Once
> > > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> > > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> > > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> > > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
How is the invisible part of man the same thing as the
God that is painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
If you are trying to speak literally then that 15% is an
"invisible part of a man* and not a literally existing
entity independent of man, space, time and the universe.
If you are trying to speak figuratively then, of course,
you could mean anything. Your figurative assertion is
too non-specific to be meaningful.
ZenIsWhen
ZenIsWhen
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:10hmsnn...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:24HSc.110369$8_6.31536@attbi_s04...
> > > NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
> > > reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
> > > I think it is of interest to German physicists.
> >
> > Get Real! Moron!
> > Your crap is of no more interest to German physicists than it is to
> American
> > physicists!
>
> [Hammond]
> The Holocaust happened in Germany not America, remember?
Which has WHAT to do with your insane garbage?
> > >
> > >
> > > "bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
> > > message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > >
> > > > George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > > >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> > > > >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> > > > >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
> >
> > There IS NO basic "logic" to your crap bellowing; that's why it's CRAP!
>
> [Hammond]
> No Bellowing Cluck.. you don't have any academic credentials remember?
1: YOu have NO idea what my credentials are!
2: YOU beelow about things (psychiatry and such) and have NO dcredentials IN
those fields!
3: When you try to "sell" garbage equally as irratinoal as "2 + 2 = 37" ...
NO DEGREE IS NECESSARY to know that it is STUPID!
>
>
> [Hammond]
> OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
> talking.
> Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
> something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
> that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
> that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
What? and you CLAIM to be a physicist?
Gravity is NOT "identical to acceleration" - in NO way shape or form!
I DARE you to show where Einstein said ANYHING like this!!!
There IS no "theory of acceleration"!!!
Acceleration is a mathematical concept of the measurment of the change of
speed. There is NOTHING "theoretic" about it!!!!!
> This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
There CAN be "acceleration" BY gravity ... where does physics, or Einstein
say ANYTHING about the accelration OF gravity?
> The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
> based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
> by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
> ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
> explanation of God!
Bwahahahaaaa.....
It is akin to saying ? A tree is something "well known": .. so YOU
conclude - a tree proves god"!
C R A P!
Insane delusions!
Neither physics - NOR "deduction" had anything to do with such crap!
> Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
> Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
> who's significance has not been realized".
The first thing you have to know is that Hammond is a KOOK!
Nothing more, nothing less!
This fact is:
>
> Founding Fact of Hammond's
> Scientific Proof of God
>
> No person, past or present, in the history of the
> world has EVER reached full growth.
That is NOT a fact, dipshit!
EVERY (adult) person has reached "full growth". If they DIDN'T - they would
still be growing!
People are
> getting more fully grown with each passing generation
> and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
> growth, and is a well known scientific fact.
Wrong again!
The AVERAGE INCREASE IN HEIGHT - of human beings has NOTHING TO DO with
"achieving- or not achieving "full growth""!
Your VERY FIRST, foundational statement is a deranged, and fraudulent,
concept. That's why your WHOLE pile of garbage means nothing!
Modern
> soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
> of armor since we are so much bigger than our ancestors.
> This is commonly described as the difference between our
> "phenotype" and our "genotype". By studying Third World
> growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
> be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
> 85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
> exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
> "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
> our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
> only 85% grown also.
> OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
> to above.
Your statement is NOT a "well known fact" - it is nothing more than an
insane distortion OF basic facts to lead to YOUR psychotic claims!
What I've simply done is to point out the
> SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
> it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God".
What you've done is start out wityh a totally irrational, UNSCIENTIFIC, pile
of crap ... and added MORE crap as though the FIRST pile had any REAL WORLD
meaning.
ZenIsWhen
--
-
"George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TWXSc.295732$Oq2.44652@attbi_s52...
Yea ... right ...
Let's make it simple for your deranged brain!!!!
The AVERAGE height of mankind has been increasing over the years; that's a
FACT.
Your assertions of ANYTHING after that, ARE NOT FACTS!!!!!
There is NO (and you haven't done ANYTHING TO SUPPORT IT) indication of ANY
"ideal" height that we "should be".
That is NOT a fact - that is a deranged invention!
There is CERTAINLY nothing that leads that deranged invention to anything
called god!
You have gone from ONE fact .... to a pile of insane garbage that means
nothing!!!!
Earle Jones
hcrae...@hotmail.com (Goran Dhemmeog) wrote:
> > [Hammond]
> > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average IQ)
*
Do you even know the definition of IQ?
Hint: The Q stands for 'quotient'.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
George Hammond
> "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hjSSc.295379$XM6.90449@attbi_s53...
> >
> > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:10hmsnn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:24HSc.110369$8_6.31536@attbi_s04...
> > > > NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
> > > > reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
> > > > I think it is of interest to German physicists.
> > >
> > > Get Real! Moron!
> > > Your crap is of no more interest to German physicists than it is to
> > American
> > > physicists!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > The Holocaust happened in Germany not America, remember?
>
> Which has WHAT to do with your insane garbage?
[Hammond]
They may be able to more appreciate the social significance of the discovery
of a scientific proof of God than an American jackass like you.
<snip>
> > [Hammond]
> > OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
> > talking.
> > Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
> > something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
> > that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
> > that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
>
> What? and you CLAIM to be a physicist?
> Gravity is NOT "identical to acceleration" - in NO way shape or form!
> I DARE you to show where Einstein said ANYHING like this!!!
[Hammond]
Any freshman dunce knows that "locally" gravity=acceleration.
I.e., "locally" gravity can be "transformed away" by an
accleration.
>
> There IS no "theory of acceleration"!!!
> Acceleration is a mathematical concept of the measurment of the change of
> speed. There is NOTHING "theoretic" about it!!!!!
[Hammond]
You're incompetent. A "curvature of spacetime"
causes a local "apparent acceleration", otherwise known
as "gravity".
>
>
>
> > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
>
> There CAN be "acceleration" BY gravity ... where does physics, or Einstein
> say ANYTHING about the accelration OF gravity?
[Hammond]
Did you ever get your GED?
the accleration of an apple falling from a tree is called
the "acceleration of gravity" and is equal to 9.8 m/s^2
<snip>
> > Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
> > Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
> > who's significance has not been realized".
>
> This fact is:
> >
> > Founding Fact of Hammond's
> > Scientific Proof of God
> >
> > No person, past or present, in the history of the
> > world has EVER reached full growth.
>
> That is NOT a fact, dipshit!
> EVERY (adult) person has reached "full growth". If they DIDN'T - they
would
> still be growing!
[Hammond]
WRONG. The corn crop during a drought only reaches 60% of
"full growth" and then it STOPS GROWING. Same thing with
people... they STOP GROWING at age 18 IRREGARDLESS
of whether they are full grown or not.
>
> People are
> > getting more fully grown with each passing generation
> > and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
> > growth, and is a well known scientific fact.
>
> Wrong again!
> The AVERAGE INCREASE IN HEIGHT - of human beings has NOTHING TO DO with
> "achieving- or not achieving "full growth""!
[Hammond]
Bullcrap. It is KNOWN not to be "genetic" since it is far to fast.
The average height of school children has increased 3.5 inches since
1900! It is KNOWN to be cause by the increasing standard of living,
mainly nutrition...... i.e. "GROWTH".
> Modern
> > soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
> > of armor since we are so much bigger than our ancestors.
> > This is commonly described as the difference between our
> > "phenotype" and our "genotype". By studying Third World
> > growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
> > be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
> > 85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
> > exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
> > "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
> > our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
> > only 85% grown also.
> > OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
> > to above.
> What I've simply done is to point out the
> > SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
> > it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God".
>
> What you've done is start out wityh a totally irrational, UNSCIENTIFIC,
pile
> of crap ... and added MORE crap as though the FIRST pile had any REAL
WORLD
> meaning.
[Hammond]
Sorry, jerkwater cluck, your comments are obviously uneducated, amateur,
aggravated, presumptious and not even rational.... where they approach any
degree of rationality.... they are just plain WRONG.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
George Hammond
"Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > [Hammond]
> > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average
IQ)
>
> 0 to 1800 on what scale? kg? m? Let us call that unit X. Then the
> dimension of IQ, you say, is [X/year]. I did not know that IQ is time
> dependent. I recall that you want IQ to be bits/s,
[Hammond]
Hey... this is not rocket science... and furthermore all of it
has been known and published in textbooks for 50 years for chrissakes.
Traditionally (historically) intelligence was scaled according to
the standard deviation in the population. In modern times this
has been correlated with "mental speed" (in bits per second)
(information processing speed). this is now measured in
"decision time" measurements using computers, electronic timers etc.
and is measured in milliseceonds, seconds etc. Problems
with a known number of bits are presented and the decision
time is measured.
Hey... this is ELEMENTARY CRAP that I presume anyone
"challenging" my theory has to be familiar with.... if you're NOT
then stop trying to challenge my theory until you get an
education.
>
> > Half the world is "invisible" to a 9 year old because of this.
> > (his "mental speed" is only 50% of an 18 year old).
> > An 18 year old can see a baseball moving TWICE AS FAST
> > as the fastest one that can be seen by a 9 year old... to give
> > you a reallly stupid example you can comprehend.
> > Likewise... about 15% of the world is "invisible" to the
> > average man..... (because of the Secular Trend lack of full growth)
> > and this is the explanation of the "invisible God" we worship.
> > This has been known and PROVEN since the 1930's when
> > they invented the IQ test. You're just too STUPID to understand
> > anything OBVIOUS AND PROVEN.
>
> That I never quite caught with SPOG: if I have 85$ in my wallet, which
> is capable of holding as much as 100$, why is the missing 15$ of any
> importance? Likewise if my salary is increasing such that there is a
> trend that my wallet after a long time will have full 100$, why is
> that of any significance? I would usually be only concerned with the
> amount of $ there now.
[Hammond]
Braingrowth "tapers off asymptotically" from fully grown to zero.
There is no clear line of demarcation.... other than the fact that
at some point the functioning of this ungrwon part becomes
"unconscious" and is not activly "conscious".
Christ... again... this is ELEMENTARY SHIT that should be
obvious to any qualified scientist.
It's like talking about the "visible spectrum" of light. Actually
"light" continues well beyond the visible spectrum. We say it
is "missing visually"... but that doesn't meqan it doesn't exist or that it
isn't having an effect. Invisible UV light causes severe sunburn for
instance.
====================================
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
From: "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.relativity,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity,alt.
atheism,uk.philosophy.atheism
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
> In article <b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> hcrae...@hotmail.com (Goran Dhemmeog) wrote:
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average
IQ)
>
> *
> Do you even know the definition of IQ?
>
> Hint: The Q stands for 'quotient'.
[Hammond]
1800/18 *IS* a quotient Major Cluckly. Having trouble reading?
>
> earle
===============original Hammond target post=============
NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
I think it is of interest to German physicists.
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
<snip>
[Hammond]
> >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
[Schornak]
> Ok, let's try it.
[Schornak]
> >>There's only one reality: The Universe (or Nature). Your
> >>"absolute physical" and "human perceptual" reality isn't
> >>reality _itself_, it's an interpretation of reality.
[Hammond]
OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
talking.
Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
explanation of God!
Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
who's significance has not been realized". This fact is:
Founding Fact of Hammond's
Scientific Proof of God
No person, past or present, in the history of the
world has EVER reached full growth. People are
getting more fully grown with each passing generation
and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
growth, and is a well known scientific fact. Modern
soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
of armor since we are so much bigger than our ancestors.
This is commonly described as the difference between our
"phenotype" and our "genotype". By studying Third World
growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
"theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
only 85% grown also.
OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
to above. What I've simply done is to point out the
SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God".
OK, so the NEW SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact
is that it can "explain God". How does it do that?
Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact. Once
this significance is realized... the entire history of
God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
we have an "invisible man" which is "God". Any "variability"
in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
hence the explanation of miracles. The Secular Trend
itself explains the "kingdom come" of theology... it is
simply the end of the Secular Trend sometime in the future.
Eternal Life is simply a condition of "zero growth deficit"
which will be reached at the end of the Secular Trend...
and on, and on, and on ad infinitem.... EVERY major fact
of religion and theology is SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED
by the "NEW SIGNIFICANCE" of the Secular Trend in human
growth.
OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
Psychometry Space, and in fact:
GOD = G_uv
The reason for this is that:
4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
explained on my website:
> Greetings from Augsburg
> Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from U.S.
====================================
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
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:Km2Tc.23870$js3.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
[Hammond]
Understanding this is what separates Morons from Normal people.
Because of this, there is no quarantee that you will ever understand it.
If you saw a plant or an animal that was 15% stunted... (or even 90%
stunted... say a Bonzai Tree). Don't you think you or a clever artist could
figure out what the real full grown 100 foot tall tree would actually
look like?... and be able to paint a picture of it?. That is who
Michealangelo
painted on the sistine Chapel ceiling.... a "fully grown man".... which is
what God is. The world has never seen such a man in the flesh... but we
intuitively
know what he would look like and act like... and Michealangelo was
designated by
Pope Julius II to paint a picture of him. What the fcuk do you think the
Vatican and 1.3 billion Christians are all about?
For chrissakes wakeup... it isn't safe walking around as ignorant of basic
religion as you are.
===============Original Hammond target post below=============
NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
I think it is of interest to German physicists.
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
<snip>
[Hammond]
> >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
[Schornak]
> Ok, let's try it.
[Schornak]
> >>There's only one reality: The Universe (or Nature). Your
> >>"absolute physical" and "human perceptual" reality isn't
> >>reality _itself_, it's an interpretation of reality.
[Hammond]
OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
talking.
Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
explanation of God!
Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
who's significance has not been realized". This fact is:
Founding Fact of Hammond's
Scientific Proof of God
No person, past or present, in the history of the
world has EVER reached full growth. People are
getting more fully grown with each passing generation
and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
growth, and is a well known scientific fact. Modern
soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
of armor since we are so much bigger than our ancestors.
This is commonly described as the difference between our
"phenotype" and our "genotype". By studying Third World
growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
"theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
only 85% grown also.
OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
to above. What I've simply done is to point out the
SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God".
OK, so the NEW SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact
is that it can "explain God". How does it do that?
Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact. Once
this significance is realized... the entire history of
God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
we have an "invisible man" which is "God". Any "variability"
in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
hence the explanation of miracles. The Secular Trend
itself explains the "kingdom come" of theology... it is
simply the end of the Secular Trend sometime in the future.
Eternal Life is simply a condition of "zero growth deficit"
which will be reached at the end of the Secular Trend...
and on, and on, and on ad infinitem.... EVERY major fact
of religion and theology is SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED
by the "NEW SIGNIFICANCE" of the Secular Trend in human
growth.
OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
Psychometry Space, and in fact:
GOD = G_uv
The reason for this is that:
4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
explained on my website:
> Greetings from Augsburg
> Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from the U.S.
====================================
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
[Hammond]
You're statement does not even make sense.
1. Given perfect (greenhouse) environments, thousands of generations
of a given plant reach the same size... and this is known as the
"genotypic size". However, put one of those plants in a desert
or in the cold and it will only grow to half that size. Therefore we
know what the genotypic size of that plant is. Same for animals
and people or any living thing that grows, generally. Of course there
is a
"genotypic size" for any given human being...or any other living thing
that grows from an egg (or a seed) to an adult.
>
> That is NOT a fact - that is a deranged invention!
> There is CERTAINLY nothing that leads that deranged invention to anything
> called god!
> You have gone from ONE fact .... to a pile of insane garbage that means
> nothing!!!!
[Hammond]
Quit screaming you're deranged illogical statements all over the internet.
Say something intelligent, something with content... show some logic
will you?
===========Original Hammond target post below=============
NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
I think it is of interest to German physicists.
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
<snip>
[Hammond]
> >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
[Schornak]
> Ok, let's try it.
[Schornak]
> >>There's only one reality: The Universe (or Nature). Your
> >>"absolute physical" and "human perceptual" reality isn't
> >>reality _itself_, it's an interpretation of reality.
[Hammond]
OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
talking.
Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
explanation of God!
Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
who's significance has not been realized". This fact is:
Founding Fact of Hammond's
Scientific Proof of God
No person, past or present, in the history of the
world has EVER reached full growth. People are
getting more fully grown with each passing generation
and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
growth, and is a well known scientific fact. Modern
soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
of armor since we are so much bigger than our ancestors.
This is commonly described as the difference between our
"phenotype" and our "genotype". By studying Third World
growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
"theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
only 85% grown also.
OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
to above. What I've simply done is to point out the
SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God".
OK, so the NEW SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact
is that it can "explain God". How does it do that?
Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact. Once
this significance is realized... the entire history of
God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
we have an "invisible man" which is "God". Any "variability"
in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
hence the explanation of miracles. The Secular Trend
itself explains the "kingdom come" of theology... it is
simply the end of the Secular Trend sometime in the future.
Eternal Life is simply a condition of "zero growth deficit"
which will be reached at the end of the Secular Trend...
and on, and on, and on ad infinitem.... EVERY major fact
of religion and theology is SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED
by the "NEW SIGNIFICANCE" of the Secular Trend in human
growth.
OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
Psychometry Space, and in fact:
GOD = G_uv
The reason for this is that:
4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
explained on my website:
> Greetings from Augsburg
> Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from the U.S.
====================================
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
====================================
Scot McDermid
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ByeTc.3830$TI1.2964@attbi_s52...
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:Km2Tc.23870$js3.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:TWXSc.295732$Oq2.44652@attbi_s52...
> >
> > > > > Once
> > > > > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> > > > > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> > > > > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> > > > > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
> >
> > How is the invisible part of man the same thing as the
> > God that is painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
> > If you are trying to speak literally then that 15% is an
> > "invisible part of a man* and not a literally existing
> > entity independent of man, space, time and the universe.
> > If you are trying to speak figuratively then, of course,
> > you could mean anything. Your figurative assertion is
> > too non-specific to be meaningful.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> If you saw a plant or an animal that was 15% stunted... (or even 90%
> stunted... say a Bonzai Tree). Don't you think you or a clever artist
could
> figure out what the real full grown 100 foot tall tree would actually
> look like?... and be able to paint a picture of it?. That is who
> Michealangelo
> painted on the sistine Chapel ceiling.... a "fully grown man".... which is
> what God is. The world has never seen such a man in the flesh... but we
> intuitively
> know what he would look like and act like...
Okay FINE. But that "fully grown man" as you have said
doesn't exist. As you say yourself, the world has never seen
such a man in the flesh. And that "fully grown man" if he DID
come to exist in this universe would not be original creator of
the universe. So, so much for your "fully grown man" that
doesn't exist.
On the other hand, you might be claiming that there EXISTS
a being, that WAS the creator of the universe and continues to
rule over the universe today. A being such that, if a man actually
WERE "fully grown" then that man would be equivalent to that
omnipotent, supreme creator. Now if THAT is your claim then
your "proof of the existence of God" is no better than anyone
else's unsupported claim of God.
ZenIsWhen
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:10hpe3j...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:hjSSc.295379$XM6.90449@attbi_s53...
> > >
> > > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10hmsnn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:24HSc.110369$8_6.31536@attbi_s04...
> > > > > NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
> > > > > reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
> > > > > I think it is of interest to German physicists.
> > > >
> > > > Get Real! Moron!
> > > > Your crap is of no more interest to German physicists than it is to
> > > American
> > > > physicists!
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The Holocaust happened in Germany not America, remember?
> >
> > Which has WHAT to do with your insane garbage?
>
> [Hammond]
> They may be able to more appreciate the social significance of the
discovery
> of a scientific proof of God than an American jackass like you.
>
Whether they would or not is irrelivent since you STILL have nothing to
offer but insane babbling.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
> > > talking.
> > > Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
> > > something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
> > > that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
> > > that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
> >
> > What? and you CLAIM to be a physicist?
> > Gravity is NOT "identical to acceleration" - in NO way shape or form!
> > I DARE you to show where Einstein said ANYHING like this!!!
>
> [Hammond]
> Any freshman dunce knows that "locally" gravity=acceleration.
> I.e., "locally" gravity can be "transformed away" by an
> accleration.
Since I am neither a freshman, nor a dunce - it doesn't matter what YOU
claim THEY know.
Gravity is NOT identical acceleration.
Your IGNORANCE of science is showing:
The FORCE of gravity ON AN OBJECT can be OVERCOME by speed/acceleration.
That does NOT - in ANY scientific sense of sanity - make gravity identical
to acceleration!
Gravity is a FORCE - acceleration is a MATHEMATICAL CALUCULATION!
It is INSANE to say they are identical!
> > There IS no "theory of acceleration"!!!
> > Acceleration is a mathematical concept of the measurment of the change
of
> > speed. There is NOTHING "theoretic" about it!!!!!
>
> [Hammond]
> You're incompetent. A "curvature of spacetime"
> causes a local "apparent acceleration", otherwise known
> as "gravity".
Show ANY reputable scientist that states that!
Show ANY reputable scveintist that agrees with that!
Show ANY science that supports that!
You CANNOT - because it is nothing more than YOUR OWN crap!
> > > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> > > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> > > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> > > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> > > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
I see a lot of YOUR ignorant babbling - but NOTHING supported by ANY
reputable science or scientist!
Gravity is a FORCE - IT CANNOT ACCELERATE! It can ONLY ACT ON OBJECTS ..
MAKING THEM accelerate!
> >
> > There CAN be "acceleration" BY gravity ... where does physics, or
Einstein
> > say ANYTHING about the accelration OF gravity?
>
> [Hammond]
> Did you ever get your GED?
> the accleration of an apple falling from a tree is called
> the "acceleration of gravity" and is equal to 9.8 m/s^2
Bwahashhaaaaa..... THE APPLE ACCELERATES (the speed of the falling apple
increases) - asshole ... NOT GTAVITY!!!!
Show ANY SCIENCE BOOK .. even high school science book that says ANYTHING
like this!!!
> <snip>
>
> > > Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
> > > Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
> > > who's significance has not been realized".
>
> >
> > This fact is:
> > >
> > > Founding Fact of Hammond's
> > > Scientific Proof of God
> > >
> > > No person, past or present, in the history of the
> > > world has EVER reached full growth.
> >
> > That is NOT a fact, dipshit!
> > EVERY (adult) person has reached "full growth". If they DIDN'T - they
> would
> > still be growing!
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG. The corn crop during a drought only reaches 60% of
> "full growth" and then it STOPS GROWING. Same thing with
> people... they STOP GROWING at age 18 IRREGARDLESS
> of whether they are full grown or not.
That has NOTHING TO DO with the stupidity of YOUR claims about humans and
human brain growth!
That I reached 6 feet tall ... while somene else (perhaps with a birth
defect ... or even my great-great grandfather) was shsorter is a WRONG basis
for your asinine claims and assertions!
> >
> > People are
> > > getting more fully grown with each passing generation
> > > and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
> > > growth, and is a well known scientific fact.
> >
> > Wrong again!
> > The AVERAGE INCREASE IN HEIGHT - of human beings has NOTHING TO DO with
> > "achieving- or not achieving "full growth""!
>
> [Hammond]
> Bullcrap. It is KNOWN not to be "genetic" since it is far to fast.
> The average height of school children has increased 3.5 inches since
> 1900! It is KNOWN to be cause by the increasing standard of living,
> mainly nutrition...... i.e. "GROWTH".
Look, shit for btrains ... learn this SIMPLE differeence!
People, in the averagem, have increase in height over the centuris.
That has NOTHING TO DO with YOUR insane claim that there is some kind of
"perfect height" that they afre falling short of!!!!
My great great grandfather - at what ever height he happened to .. (let's
say 5' 10" ) WAS FULLY GROWN.
I, at six feet, AM FULLY GROWN.
There IS NO "X feet high" magical, spiritual, god given, ideal that we are
distant from!
The argument is NOT about the growth in average human height .. the argument
is in your added, INSANE delusions about this fraudulent ideal!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average
> IQ)
> >
> > 0 to 1800 on what scale? kg? m? Let us call that unit X. Then the
> > dimension of IQ, you say, is [X/year]. I did not know that IQ is time
> > dependent. I recall that you want IQ to be bits/s,
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey... this is not rocket science...
No. It's not science in any way, shape or form!
and furthermore all of it
> has been known and published in textbooks for 50 years for chrissakes.
No. It hasn''t.
REAL science has been published in textbooks for generations. Your crap only
appears at your psychotic web site.
IQ = Zero only means one of two things ... death ... or George Hammond!
I.Q. = intellegence level divided by AGE level.
A ONE YEAR OLD can have an IQ of 100.
An 18 year old can have an IQ of 100 ......... 90 .... or 120.
You don't even know the BASICS about I.Q. .... and you're bellowing that
OTHERS aren't educated?????
ZenIsWhen
--
-
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ByeTc.3830$TI1.2964@attbi_s52...
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:Km2Tc.23870$js3.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:TWXSc.295732$Oq2.44652@attbi_s52...
> >
> > > > > Once
> > > > > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> > > > > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> > > > > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> > > > > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
> >
> > How is the invisible part of man the same thing as the
> > God that is painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
> > If you are trying to speak literally then that 15% is an
> > "invisible part of a man* and not a literally existing
> > entity independent of man, space, time and the universe.
> > If you are trying to speak figuratively then, of course,
> > you could mean anything. Your figurative assertion is
> > too non-specific to be meaningful.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Understanding this is what separates Morons from Normal people.
Ahhhhhhhhh............. and since every NORMAL person has called you a hack,
idiot, moron, fool, fraud and many other such, accurate, descriptions ...
are you finally admitting that YOU are the Moron?
This is your initial pile of CRAP!
It is no more a fact than your claim of knowlege of physics!
ZenIsWhen
Of course not .. to you!
Rational thought and sane logic are not a part of your deluusional world!
>
> 1. Given perfect (greenhouse) environments, thousands of generations
> of a given plant reach the same size... and this is known as the
> "genotypic size". However, put one of those plants in a desert
> or in the cold and it will only grow to half that size. Therefore we
> know what the genotypic size of that plant is. Same for animals
> and people or any living thing that grows, generally. Of course
there
> is a
> "genotypic size" for any given human being...or any other living
thing
> that grows from an egg (or a seed) to an adult.
and.....................?
This has NOTHING TO DO with ANY assumption that there EXISTS a
"perfect/ideal size for human beings.
It has nothing to do with the assumption that, even IF there were this
delusional perfect size - we have not reached it.
It has nothing to do that - IF there were this delusional "perfect/ideal
size .. that (assumption) we have not reached ... it has anyting to do with
any god!!!
I'm 6 ft tall.
If I ate my broccoli, and was a good little by .. and did ALL my excercises
.. I MAY have reahed six feet ... 1/4 inches.
That has NOTHING TO DO with your deranged claims about a "perfect/ideal
human height, and god!
> >
> > That is NOT a fact - that is a deranged invention!
> > There is CERTAINLY nothing that leads that deranged invention to
anything
> > called god!
> > You have gone from ONE fact .... to a pile of insane garbage that means
> > nothing!!!!
>
> [Hammond]
> Quit screaming you're deranged illogical statements all over the internet.
> Say something intelligent, something with content... show some logic
> will you?
I did ... and, from your insane world, you replied ....
"> [Hammond]
> You're statement does not even make sense."
IOW .. you cannot handle things logical, rational, or even scientific!
Goran Dhemmeog
You snipped the important part. Do you then agree that the
computational speed of a computer is calculated as follows? If last
year I had a computer with 16-bits and then later added chips to make
it a 32-bit machine then the speed of my computer is 16 bits/year.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Locally it is, and that is sufficient for the heuristic statement I made.
That a "gravitational field" and an "acceleration" cannot be
discriminated "locally" is the first fact of Relativity. I never said they
were "identical".. you said that. Fact is, classically they ARE IDENTICAL
at any "point".
>
> The FORCE of gravity ON AN OBJECT can be OVERCOME by speed/acceleration.
> That does NOT - in ANY scientific sense of sanity - make gravity identical
> to acceleration!
>
> Gravity is a FORCE - acceleration is a MATHEMATICAL CALUCULATION!
> It is INSANE to say they are identical!
[Hammond]
Hey... get your amateur heckling out of here.... "Einstein's elevator
experiment"
is the fundamental demonstration in physicis that a "gravitational field"
is
no different (locally) than an accleration.
>
>
> > > There IS no "theory of acceleration"!!!
> > > Acceleration is a mathematical concept of the measurment of the change
> of
> > > speed. There is NOTHING "theoretic" about it!!!!!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You're incompetent. A "curvature of spacetime"
> > causes a local "apparent acceleration", otherwise known
> > as "gravity".
>
> Show ANY reputable scientist that states that!
> Show ANY reputable scveintist that agrees with that!
> Show ANY science that supports that!
[Hammond]
Dirac, _General Theory of Relativity_, page 22: ".... if the Riemann
Curvature Tensor vanishes, the space is flat" (i.e. "flat" = "no gravity")
Time to get your sorry ignorant ass out of
here.
> You CANNOT - because it is nothing more than YOUR OWN crap!
[Hammond]
Bellowing LIAR. Reference cited above.
>
> > > > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> > > > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> > > > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> > > > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> > > > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
>
>
> I see a lot of YOUR ignorant babbling - but NOTHING supported by ANY
> reputable science or scientist!
[Hammond]
Dirac supports it. So would any other competent scientist. The fact
is well known.
<snip... amateur misconceptions about science by Dr. Cluck>
> >
> > > > Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
> > > > Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
> > > > who's significance has not been realized".
> >
> > >
> > > This fact is:
> > > >
> > > > Founding Fact of Hammond's
> > > > Scientific Proof of God
> > > >
> > > > No person, past or present, in the history of the
> > > > world has EVER reached full growth.
> > >
> > > That is NOT a fact, dipshit!
> > > EVERY (adult) person has reached "full growth". If they DIDN'T - they
> > would
> > > still be growing!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > WRONG. The corn crop during a drought only reaches 60% of
> > "full growth" and then it STOPS GROWING. Same thing with
> > people... they STOP GROWING at age 18 IRREGARDLESS
> > of whether they are full grown or not.
>
> That has NOTHING TO DO with the stupidity of YOUR claims about humans and
> human brain growth!
>
> That I reached 6 feet tall ... while somene else (perhaps with a birth
> defect ... or even my great-great grandfather) was shsorter is a WRONG
basis
> for your asinine claims and assertions!
[Hammond]
All you're demonstrating is that you haven't read the theory and know
NOTHING about what it says. We are talking about only relative
differences in GROWTH, we are NOT talking about:
1. Genetic differences
2. Strange diseases
3. Fetal alcohol syndrome
4. Or any other bizarre condition
You've heard the words "Nature" and "Nurture". "Nature" is another word
for "genetics", while "Nurture" is another name for the
"Secular Trend Growth Deficit"..... IOW, :
"Nurture" = Secular Trend Growth Deficit = GOD
You should be able to understand that!!
[Hammond]
Look asshole.... whaddauthink...cientists are dumb. HEIGHT is controlled by
many things:
1. Genetics
2. Growth
3. Diseases
4. Assortive mating (natural selection)
OK.... AFTER 1, 3, and 4 are "partialed out" of the data.... what you
have
left is 2...... "growth".
Bear in mind "growth" has the biggest impact on HEIGHT since we are born
only 1 foot tall and GROW to be 6 feet tall.
Anyway...... you seem to think this is an AMATEUR DISCUSSION and that
you can CHALLENGE THE THEORY using amateur arguments.
YOU ARE WRONG MY FRIEND
This is a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL TOPIC, and you are in NO WAY
qualified to "challenge the theory", since it clearly cannot be challenged
with ELEMENTARY ARGUMENTS.
George Hammond
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n%cTc.283623$JR4.180293@attbi_s54...
> >
> > "Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > > > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > > > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the
average
> > IQ)
> > >
> > > 0 to 1800 on what scale? kg? m? Let us call that unit X. Then the
> > > dimension of IQ, you say, is [X/year]. I did not know that IQ is time
> > > dependent. I recall that you want IQ to be bits/s,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Hey... this is not rocket science...
>
> No. It's not science in any way, shape or form!
[Hammond]
Bellowing unsupported assertion.
>
>
> and furthermore all of it
> > has been known and published in textbooks for 50 years for chrissakes.
>
> No. It hasn''t.
> REAL science has been published in textbooks for generations. Your crap
only
> appears at your psychotic web site.
[Hammond]
Bellowing unsupported assertion.
>
> IQ = Zero only means one of two things ... death ... or George Hammond!
[Hammond]
Bellowing unsupported assertion.
>
> I.Q. = intellegence level divided by AGE level.
> A ONE YEAR OLD can have an IQ of 100.
> An 18 year old can have an IQ of 100 ......... 90 .... or 120.
>
> You don't even know the BASICS about I.Q. .... and you're bellowing that
> OTHERS aren't educated?????
[Hammond]
Quit posting arithmetic non sequitors.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
[Hammond]
Correction... doesn't exist in the flesh, is the correct statment.
> As you say yourself, the world has never seen
> such a man in the flesh. And that "fully grown man" if he DID
> come to exist in this universe would not be original creator of
> the universe.
[Hammond]
Yes he would, and yes he is. I'm sorry, but I'm not here to give
spoonfed tutorials.. you'll simply have to make some effort to actually
READ the theory.
> So, so much for your "fully grown man" that
> doesn't exist.
[Hammond]
Misconception and unsupported assertion...... yawn....
> On the other hand, you might be claiming that there EXISTS
> a being, that WAS the creator of the universe and continues to
> rule over the universe today. A being such that, if a man actually
> WERE "fully grown" then that man would be equivalent to that
> omnipotent, supreme creator. Now if THAT is your claim then
> your "proof of the existence of God" is no better than anyone
> else's unsupported claim of God.
[Hammond]
Your tortured and contrived statmment doesn't even make sense and
is PURELY a product of your IGNORANCE of what the theory actually
says, because apparently YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ IT and
don't comprehend it.
And because of this, you are BORING and TEDIOUS to talk to.
George Hammond
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WHeTc.284403$JR4.133002@attbi_s54...
> >
> > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:10hpeba...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip tedious amateur ignorant crap and bellowing rudeness>
===============Original Hammond target post below=============
NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
I think it is of interest to German physicists.
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in
message news:cf8sam$cuj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> George Hammond (M.S. Physics 1967) wrote:
<snip>
[Hammond]
> >This misunderstanding on your part is simply caused by the
> >fact that you don't comprehend the BASIC LOGICAL PRINCIPLE
> >of the theory. I think we should discuss this
[Schornak]
> Ok, let's try it.
[Schornak]
> >>There's only one reality: The Universe (or Nature). Your
> >>"absolute physical" and "human perceptual" reality isn't
> >>reality _itself_, it's an interpretation of reality.
[Hammond]
OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
talking.
Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
explanation of God!
Phÿltêr
news:10hr7gt...@corp.supernews.com:
I see you've met George......
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
Scot McDermid
>... you'll simply have to make some effort to actually
> READ the theory.
>
First of all Georgy, I have read your website. And
I have read your paper that was published in the Noetic
Journal. Which means I read the footnote number 5
which says:
Note that the word "God" used throughout this paper
refers to the percentage of the brain which is ungrown.
Thus "God" refers to the traditional "invisible God" of
Heaven in Theology. The balance of God, the grown
part of the brain, is God incarnate, or Man on Earth.
Thus God historically descending from Heaven to Earth,
or even a miracle, is a theological description of brain
growth.
And, this is the only place were you try to link your
"ungrown brain" to the "traditional God". Your link
is not established in this paper, or any other.
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0tkTc.6750$TI1.1540@attbi_s52...
Scot McDermid:
> > Okay FINE. But that "fully grown man" as you have said
> > doesn't exist.
>
> [Hammond]
> Correction... doesn't exist in the flesh, is the correct statment.
> > As you say yourself, the world has never seen
> > such a man in the flesh. And that "fully grown man" if he DID
> > come to exist in this universe would not be original creator of
> > the universe.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes he would, and yes he is. I'm sorry, but I'm not here to give
> spoonfed tutorials.
Your connection between "brain growth" and "traditional God"
is given in a fucking footnote. Establish the link, or give it
up Georgie.
>
> > On the other hand, you might be claiming that there EXISTS
> > a being, that WAS the creator of the universe and continues to
> > rule over the universe today. A being such that, if a man actually
> > WERE "fully grown" then that man would be equivalent to that
> > omnipotent, supreme creator. Now if THAT is your claim then
> > your "proof of the existence of God" is no better than anyone
> > else's unsupported claim of God.
>
> [Hammond]
> Your tortured and contrived statmment doesn't even make sense and
> is PURELY a product of your IGNORANCE of what the theory actually
> says, because apparently YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ IT and
> don't comprehend it.
I did read it. I don't comprehend it. You have not
sufficiently explained it.
> And because of this, you are BORING and TEDIOUS to talk to.
Troll.
George Hammond
"Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr...@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9545B94674A...@192.189.54.177...
>
> --
> Phÿltêr
[Hammond]
No, he just "thinks" he has. Many delusional morons
"think" they know who they are talking to or what
they are talking about.... but this is just a delusion.
ZenIsWhen has "delusional" ideas about who he
thinks he is talking to... but, after all he is not alone.
every dumb cluck on the internet is under the
delusion that Hammond is a crank or an incompetent.
All of them of course are either delusionsal, simply
of low intelligence, or certainly only half educated.
They are the lackeys, the storm troopers of their
handlers (the bigshot PhD's) who egg them on
to further and further vandalism and harrassment
of Hammond, because of course the bigshots are
jealous and scared of Hammond... since THEY
actually know what kind of a threat a bona fide
scientific proof of God is to establishment Science.
this is a very old scenario... we know who all the players
are and what they will do. And we know how it comes
out in the end..... the good guy wins.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> [Hammond]
> >... you'll simply have to make some effort to actually
> > READ the theory.
> >
>
> First of all Georgy, I have read your website. And
> I have read your paper that was published in the Noetic
> Journal. Which means I read the footnote number 5
> which says:
> Note that the word "God" used throughout this paper
> refers to the percentage of the brain which is ungrown.
> Thus "God" refers to the traditional "invisible God" of
> Heaven in Theology. The balance of God, the grown
> part of the brain, is God incarnate, or Man on Earth.
> Thus God historically descending from Heaven to Earth,
> or even a miracle, is a theological description of brain
> growth.
>
> And, this is the only place were you try to link your
> "ungrown brain" to the "traditional God". Your link
> is not established in this paper, or any other.
[Hammond]
Well first of all Scotty, Section 6 of the paper entitled:
6. elementary Science Evidence that the 4th Order Factor is God
is a DETAILED, COMPREHENSIVE and ELABORATE listing
of the evidence that shows that the "ungrown brain" (that is the
perceptual effects of the ungrown brain) *IS* the "traditional God"
of religion, the Bible etc.
So, to be brief, your statement above is a LIE. And you are
either a moron or a liar.
>
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0tkTc.6750$TI1.1540@attbi_s52...
>
>
> Scot McDermid:
> > > Okay FINE. But that "fully grown man" as you have said
> > > doesn't exist.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Correction... doesn't exist in the flesh, is the correct statment.
>
> > > As you say yourself, the world has never seen
> > > such a man in the flesh. And that "fully grown man" if he DID
> > > come to exist in this universe would not be original creator of
> > > the universe.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Yes he would, and yes he is. I'm sorry, but I'm not here to give
> > spoonfed tutorials.
>
> Your connection between "brain growth" and "traditional God"
> is given in a fucking footnote. Establish the link, or give it
> up Georgie.
[Hammond]
As pointed out above you are obsiously a jackass
and a liar.
> >
> > > On the other hand, you might be claiming that there EXISTS
> > > a being, that WAS the creator of the universe and continues to
> > > rule over the universe today. A being such that, if a man actually
> > > WERE "fully grown" then that man would be equivalent to that
> > > omnipotent, supreme creator. Now if THAT is your claim then
> > > your "proof of the existence of God" is no better than anyone
> > > else's unsupported claim of God.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Your tortured and contrived statmment doesn't even make sense and
> > is PURELY a product of your IGNORANCE of what the theory actually
> > says, because apparently YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ IT and
> > don't comprehend it.
>
> I did read it. I don't comprehend it. You have not
> sufficiently explained it.
[Hammond]
Read SECTION 6 for chrissakes.
> > And because of this, you are BORING and TEDIOUS to talk to.
>
> Troll.
[Hammond]
Obnoxious heckler.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
16-bits of what... memory?.... 16-bits/sec processing speed?, or
what? I'm not familiar with computer jargon... I'm a physicist
not a computer science hobbyist.
At any rate, there is nothing important about you're stumblebum
arithmetic. In the above (asinine) argument, the "rate of growth
of the mental speed of your computer" was 16 bits/second/year
if I under stand your terminology correctly.
The point is... you look like Joe Banana trying to draw down on
Billy the Kid by trying to heckle me with such asinine arguments...
for chrissakes I've got an M.S. in Physics.
Scot McDermid
Okay George. I'll go re-read section 6 and have a response for
you shortly.
ZenIsWhen
--
-
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2YpTc.288806$JR4.6914@attbi_s54...
For christ's sake - no matter WHAT you claim - you are TOTALLY ignorant
about even the most basic science!
graham
> news:2YpTc.288806$JR4.6914@attbi_s54...
> >
> > "Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<n%cTc.283623$JR4.180293@attbi_s54>...
> > > > "Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > for chrissakes I've got an M.S. in Physics.
You can get all sorts of things by mail order these days.
Graham
Scot McDermid
> Okay George. I'll go re-read section 6 and have a response for
> you shortly.
>
Alright George. I have re-read your section
VI Elementary science evidence that
the 4th order factor is "God".
At first I thought that it is just crap, and that I
should give up arguing with you. But for some
reason I went back to it again, and read it
again. Here is my response:
(1) I still say that your paper doesn't give an
adequate definition of the traditional God
(all you say is:
In fact, the World's most common description of
God is an invisible man who rules the World.)
and doesn't give an adequate explanation of
how that God is actually brain growth deficit.
So maybe you could start with one simple
question: Did God create the universe?
(The ungrown part of man/men did not create
the universe.)
George Hammond
"graham" <stra...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:wIrTc.102207$J06.31421@pd7tw2no...
[Hammond]
My CV has been checked before (by Mike Varney of all
people). He actually called the grad record department
and checked out my M.S. after I called Colorado Campus Security
about him.
Sorry shithead... I'm legit. If you don't think so, put your money
where your mouth is. My CV is prominently posted
on my website as well as my picture and there are even people
on these threads (TMG for instance who know me personally
and have verified the picture). So you're a lot of
tape-recorded spam and everybody knows it.
Fact is GD (that's Goran Dhemmeog, not an abbreviation for God) has such a
short attention span that he can't formulate a rational question. The guy
has
nothing beyond an inspector Clousou suspicion that there is something to all
this.... but he hasn't got the reach to figure out it's exactly what it says
it is.
ZenIsWhen
--
-
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iikTc.6695$TI1.1507@attbi_s52...
Bull Shit!
Plain and simple!
i.e. just showing more ignorance of basic science!
I never said they
> were "identical".. you said that. Fact is, classically they ARE IDENTICAL
> at any "point".
YOU said they were identical .. anbd, when asked, FAILED to prove evidence
that Einstien ever said that!
They are NOT NOR ARE THEY EVER identical.
That is EQUIVALENT to insanely saying the acceleration of a car is EQUAL to
the horsepower or that car.
The HP AFFECTS acceleration , it is NOT "acceleration".
some physicist!!!!!!!!
> >
> > The FORCE of gravity ON AN OBJECT can be OVERCOME by speed/acceleration.
> > That does NOT - in ANY scientific sense of sanity - make gravity
identical
> > to acceleration!
> >
> > Gravity is a FORCE - acceleration is a MATHEMATICAL CALUCULATION!
> > It is INSANE to say they are identical!
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey... get your amateur heckling out of here.... "Einstein's elevator
> experiment"
> is the fundamental demonstration in physicis that a "gravitational field"
> is
> no different (locally) than an accleration.
SHOW ANY VALID SCIENTIFIC SITES THAT SUPPORT THAT!
You have been asked, and you have ignored that SIMPLE REQUEST TO SUPPORT
YOUR CLAIMS WITH REAL SCIENCE!
Something an HONEST scientist would do ... .and something you have NEVER
done!!!!
There is NO SUCH THING as "AN ACCELERATION". Acceleration is NOT a "thing".
It is a number derived from a mathematical calculation (or measurement).
NOTHING MORE!
Damn, you're stupid!!!!
>> > > > There IS no "theory of acceleration"!!!
> > > > Acceleration is a mathematical concept of the measurment of the
change
> > of
> > > > speed. There is NOTHING "theoretic" about it!!!!!
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You're incompetent. A "curvature of spacetime"
> > > causes a local "apparent acceleration", otherwise known
> > > as "gravity".
> >
> > Show ANY reputable scientist that states that!
> > Show ANY reputable scveintist that agrees with that!
> > Show ANY science that supports that!
>
> [Hammond]
> Dirac, _General Theory of Relativity_, page 22: ".... if the Riemann
> Curvature Tensor vanishes, the space is flat" (i.e. "flat" = "no gravity")
> Time to get your sorry ignorant ass out of
> here.
When you provide VALID FACTS .
This says NOTHING about your claims between acceleration and gravity. If
you'll notice, mush brain, Acceleration is not even mentioned!
> > You CANNOT - because it is nothing more than YOUR OWN crap!
>
> [Hammond]
> Bellowing LIAR. Reference cited above.
>
Reference to meaningless, and unsupportive, cites are only indications of
your fraud and ignorance.
> > > > > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> > > > > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> > > > > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> > > > > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> > > > > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
> >
> >
> > I see a lot of YOUR ignorant babbling - but NOTHING supported by ANY
> > reputable science or scientist!
>
> [Hammond]
> Dirac supports it. So would any other competent scientist. The fact
> is well known.
Dirac, if anything, supports the supposition that the disappearance of the
curvature in sapce would mean a loss of gravity.
Dirac SAYS NOTHING about gravity and any association to acceleration!
You CANNOT supply valid references to support your claims, because THERE ARE
NO valid references to support your claims.,
You offer cites that have NOTHING TO DO with your claims!
>
>
> <snip... amateur misconceptions about science by Dr. Cluck>
Bwahahaaaaa...... because you cannot answer REALITY with invented, and
insane, delusions!
I have read, and I have rebutted the CRAP several times.
EACH time, you play more and more corrupt, insultiung, and fraudulent games
INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A REAL SCIENTIST!
When I read Page !1 ...... and it says "since 2+ 2= for ... then 7+13 =
89.....
I need go no futher to see that you are merely shovleng crap!
>
> 1. Genetic differences
> 2. Strange diseases
> 3. Fetal alcohol syndrome
> 4. Or any other bizarre condition
>
> You've heard the words "Nature" and "Nurture". "Nature" is another word
> for "genetics", while "Nurture" is another name for the
> "Secular Trend Growth Deficit"..... IOW, :
>
> "Nurture" = Secular Trend Growth Deficit = GOD
Bwahahhaaa... you are getting (if possible) even MORE insane a deranged!
You cannot even justify your BASIC claims (still calling them facts when
they are nothing more than Bull Shit) .... and you still keep adding more
crap to the pile that has no foundation!
>
> You should be able to understand that!!
What I understand is that your connection to reality is becoming just as
fragile as your connection to REAL sicne was just before you lost it
totally!
There IS NO "secular trend growth deficit", dipshit!
YOU have bellowed that .. and claimed it facrt .. when it is NOTHING MORE
than oyur own psyschotic delusion!
> > > > People are
> > > > > getting more fully grown with each passing generation
> > > > > and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
> > > > > growth, and is a well known scientific fact.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again!
> > > > The AVERAGE INCREASE IN HEIGHT - of human beings has NOTHING TO DO
> with
> > > > "achieving- or not achieving "full growth""!
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Bullcrap. It is KNOWN not to be "genetic" since it is far to fast.
> > > The average height of school children has increased 3.5 inches since
> > > 1900! It is KNOWN to be cause by the increasing standard of living,
> > > mainly nutrition...... i.e. "GROWTH".
What, when, where and by whom was it "known not to be genetic"?
(again, I am asking for REAL, VALID, scientific evidence and support ...
and, again, I will either gert NONE - or some totally of base, and
meaningless, cite.)
> >
> > Look, shit for btrains ... learn this SIMPLE differeence!
> > People, in the averagem, have increase in height over the centuris.
> > That has NOTHING TO DO with YOUR insane claim that there is some kind of
> > "perfect height" that they afre falling short of!!!!
> >
> > My great great grandfather - at what ever height he happened to ..
(let's
> > say 5' 10" ) WAS FULLY GROWN.
> > I, at six feet, AM FULLY GROWN.
> > There IS NO "X feet high" magical, spiritual, god given, ideal that we
> are
> > distant from!
> >
> > The argument is NOT about the growth in average human height .. the
> argument
> > is in your added, INSANE delusions about this fraudulent ideal!
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Look asshole.... whaddauthink...cientists are dumb. HEIGHT is controlled
by
> many things:
>
> 1. Genetics
> 2. Growth
> 3. Diseases
> 4. Assortive mating (natural selection)
SO WHAT!?
That IS NOT the argument, mush brain!
I am NOT arguing the FACT that people's heights have changed over teh
centyuries - and change within families,m and change due to many
contistions.
The ARGUMENT is agsnt your PSYCHOTIC claims about not reaching "full heght"
as thou there is some height, were we gods, we would reach!
>
> OK.... AFTER 1, 3, and 4 are "partialed out" of the data.... what you
> have
> left is 2...... "growth".
> Bear in mind "growth" has the biggest impact on HEIGHT since we are
born
> only 1 foot tall and GROW to be 6 feet tall.
Bwahahhaaaaaa....... that is one of those statements that are SO stupid - it
is NO supricse you would bellow it!
It is ALSO meaningless to the discussion.
> Anyway...... you seem to think this is an AMATEUR DISCUSSION and that
> you can CHALLENGE THE THEORY using amateur arguments.
That's equivilent to saying "aguing against the claim 2 + 2 = 347 is an
amateur argument.
Whether the arguments are "amateure" or not ... they are VALID.
Whether the arguments are amateur or not - they BLOW AWAY your insane
claims.
Whether the arguments are amateur or not, YOU HAVE NEVER REBUTTED THEM!
If a fifth grader tells you a claim about 2 + 2 = 347 is wrong - you DO NOT
get away with dismissing him because he is just a fifth grader!
THAT is EXACTLY what you do - INSTEAD of being HONEST AND A REAL SCIENTIST!
>
> YOU ARE WRONG MY FRIEND
>
> This is a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL TOPIC, and you are in NO WAY
> qualified to "challenge the theory", since it clearly cannot be challenged
> with ELEMENTARY ARGUMENTS.
i.e nothing more than ignorant, arrogant, fraudelent, unscientific and
dishonest BULL SHIT - to AVOID the FACT that your claims are NOT science!
They are NOTHING MORE THAN deranged CRAP!
Again, if even someone knows LITTLE about science, but can STILL poke WIDE
holes in your claims .. you DO NOT WIN by merely dismissing them, and
REFUSING TO answer the rebuttals with scientific support! You are, as you
always do, just showing, again and again, that you are merely a babling
fraud, idiot!
ZenIsWhen
Shit for brains .. that IS the definition of I.Q..
YOUR crap is totally deranged!
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intelligence+quotie
nt
Main Entry: intelligence quotient
Function: noun
: a number used to express the apparent relative intelligence of a person
that is the ratio multiplied by 100 of the mental age as reported on a
standardized test to the chronological age
i.e. IQ = Mental age/chronological age x 100.
A one year old child, with the IQ equivalent TO a one year old child, HAS AN
IQ OF 100!!!!!!
An 18 year old person, with the intelligence equal to an eighteen year old,
HAS AN IQ OF 100!
That's from A DICTIONARY.
You DON'T need a degree to understand a DICTIONARY.
That ALSO contradicts YOUR claims about IQ.
You can't even agree with (or comprehend) a simple dictionary, asshole!!!!
There IS NO IQ of 1800!!!!
I Q, as YOU claim it, does NOT go from zero TO that fraudulent 1800!!!!
If you CANNOT even comprehend what ANY intelligent person, AND the
dictionary, say about IQ ... your claims of being a physicist MUST be
frauds!
You don't even have the intelligence of a high school graduate!!!!
ZenIsWhen
You use your own piles of crap, to support LATER piles of crap.
That shows you not only to be a moron and a liar, but a psychotic, deranged,
loser!
ZenIsWhen
news:Xns9545B94674A...@192.189.54.177...
>
> I see you've met George......
Well ... it's a hobby .......
one of my other hobbies is to try to teach calculus, and driving, to a
deaf, dumb and blind mule.
That may sound strange, but the similarities are amazing!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr...@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9545B94674A...@192.189.54.177...
> > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> astounded us with:
> > news:10hr7gt...@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> >
> > I see you've met George......
> >
> > --
> > Phÿltêr
>
> [Hammond]
> No, he just "thinks" he has. Many delusional morons
> "think" they know who they are talking to or what
> they are talking about.... but this is just a delusion.
> ZenIsWhen has "delusional" ideas about who he
> thinks he is talking to... but, after all he is not alone.
> every dumb cluck on the internet is under the
> delusion that Hammond is a crank or an incompetent.
Whether you call them "dumb Clucks" or not mewans nothing.
Their claims are supported by the EVIDENCE, FACTS and criteria of REAL
SCIENCE!
That fct is SUPPORTED by the evidence that you have NEVER REBUTTED ANYONE
who has a made any claims AGAINST your psychotic delusions!
> All of them of course are either delusionsal, simply
> of low intelligence, or certainly only half educated.
> They are the lackeys, the storm troopers of their
> handlers (the bigshot PhD's) who egg them on
> to further and further vandalism and harrassment
> of Hammond, because of course the bigshots are
> jealous and scared of Hammond... since THEY
> actually know what kind of a threat a bona fide
> scientific proof of God is to establishment Science.
Ahhh.............. it's a WORLD WIDE conspiracy by ALL scientists to silence
the ONLY person on the EARTH who knows the "real scientific truth".
You're not only arrogantly ignorant ... you're turning into a psychotically
fanatical, and outrageously delusional, martyr/maniac!
> this is a very old scenario... we know who all the players
> are and what they will do. And we know how it comes
> out in the end..... the good guy wins.
(pssst .. they ARE winning .. .and crazy maniacs, like you, are just TOO
ignorant anad arrogant to admit it!!!)
Earle Jones
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups:
> sci.physics.relativity,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity,alt.
> atheism,uk.philosophy.atheism
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:26 PM
> Subject: Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
>
>
> > In article <b9eccd47.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> > hcrae...@hotmail.com (Goran Dhemmeog) wrote:
> >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > > > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > > > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average
> IQ)
> >
> > *
> > Do you even know the definition of IQ?
> >
> > Hint: The Q stands for 'quotient'.
>
> [Hammond]
> 1800/18 *IS* a quotient Major Cluckly. Having trouble reading?
*
Four definitions of IQ:
1. intelligence quotient
n. Abbr. IQ
The ratio of tested mental age to chronological age, usually
expressed as a quotient multiplied by 100.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
2. intelligence quotient
n.
Abbr. IQ, I.Q.
An index of measured intelligence expressed as the ratio of tested
mental age to chronological age, multiplied by 100.
Source: The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published
by Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Main Entry: intelligence quotient
Function: noun
: a number used to express the apparent relative intelligence of a
person that is the ratio multiplied by 100 of the mental age as
reported on a standardized test to the chronological age called also
IQ
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2002 Merriam-Webster,
Inc.
4. intelligence quotient
n : a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an
intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to their
chronological age (multiplied by 100) [syn: IQ, I.Q.]
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
[Hammond]
YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
and its time you understood what they are talking about
when they say that.....!!
> (The ungrown part of man/men did not create
> the universe.)
[Hammond]
YES IT DID, and its time you understood HOW.
Theology has understood it for 3000 years, but they
could never prove it..... now, I have proved it..
Please try to listen..... and find out something new!
Let me give it to you absolutely straight in plain language,
you must understand the simple principle of what is being
talked about before you can even consider arguing about
the evidence!
What they're talking about when they say "God created
the universe" is THIS:
The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
So therefore.... the "creation of the brain" is a
"creation of reality". This is what the "Biblical Creation"
actually is..... the "creation of the brain" 40,000 years ago.
Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
But that doesn't matter. Until MAN is created (40,000 years ago)
to SEE IT..... then it doesn't EXIST. You can't have an
"OBSERVABLE" without and "OBSERVER".
The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
"OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
The first is called the "Big Bang"
The second is called "Biblical Creation".
BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
OK.... see if you can digest that much so we can have a
sensible conversation instead of shouting names at each other.
George Hammond
>
>
> --
> > > > > > > "George Hammond" wrote
> > > > > > > > NOTE: I am grateful to Mr. Schornak of Augsburg for his
> > > > > > > > reply. I am posting this to de.sci.physik because
> > > > > > > > I think it is of interest to German physicists.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Get Real! Moron!
> > > > > > > Your crap is of no more interest to German physicists than it
is
> > to
> > > > > > American
> > > > > > > physicists!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > The Holocaust happened in Germany not America, remember?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which has WHAT to do with your insane garbage?
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > They may be able to more appreciate the social significance of the
> > > discovery
> > > > of a scientific proof of God than an American jackass like you.
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
> > > > > > talking.
> > > > > > Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
> > > > > > something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
> > > > > > that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
> > > > > > that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
> > > > >
> > > > > What? and you CLAIM to be a physicist?
> > > > > Gravity is NOT "identical to acceleration" - in NO way shape or
> form!
> > > > > I DARE you to show where Einstein said ANYHING like this!!!
[Hammond]
Ok... I DARE, and here is EINSTIEN'S OWN WORDS supporting that
fact:
EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR PROOF THAT
GRAVITY=ACCLERATION
There.... Einstin HIMSELF proved it.
>
> SHOW ANY VALID SCIENTIFIC SITES THAT SUPPORT THAT!
> You have been asked, and you have ignored that SIMPLE REQUEST TO SUPPORT
> YOUR CLAIMS WITH REAL SCIENCE!
[Hammond]
LIAR. I just told you that:
"EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT"
is the CLASSIC PROOF of the equivalence of "gravity" and "acceleretion".
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as "AN ACCELERATION". Acceleration is NOT a
"thing".
> It is a number derived from a mathematical calculation (or measurement).
> NOTHING MORE!
[Hammond]
You're an idiot.
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > You're incompetent. A "curvature of spacetime"
> > > > causes a local "apparent acceleration", otherwise known
> > > > as "gravity".
> > >
> > > Show ANY reputable scientist that states that!
> > > Show ANY reputable scveintist that agrees with that!
> > > Show ANY science that supports that!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Dirac, _General Theory of Relativity_, page 22: ".... if the Riemann
> > Curvature Tensor vanishes, the space is flat" (i.e. "flat" = "no
gravity")
> > Time to get your sorry ignorant ass out of
> > here.
>
> When you provide VALID FACTS .
> This says NOTHING about your claims between acceleration and gravity. If
> you'll notice, mush brain, Acceleration is not even mentioned!
[Hammond]
OK..... we have to put it in grad school language for you:
EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT
is proof from EINSTEIN HIMSELF that "gravity"="acceleration"
You're a freakin idiot.
> You CANNOT supply valid references to support your claims, because THERE
ARE
> NO valid references to support your claims.,
> You offer cites that have NOTHING TO DO with your claims!
[Hammond]
Horeshit.... you don't even know about or understand
EINSTIEN'S ELEVATOR PROOF THAT
GRAVITY=ACCELERATION
> > > > > > Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
> > > > > > Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
> > > > > > who's significance has not been realized".
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This fact is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Founding Fact of Hammond's
> > > > > > Scientific Proof of God
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No person, past or present, in the history of the
> > > > > > world has EVER reached full growth.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is NOT a fact, dipshit!
> > > > > EVERY (adult) person has reached "full growth". If they DIDN'T -
> they
> > > > would
> > > > > still be growing!
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > WRONG. The corn crop during a drought only reaches 60% of
> > > > "full growth" and then it STOPS GROWING. Same thing with
> > > > people... they STOP GROWING at age 18 IRREGARDLESS
> > > > of whether they are full grown or not.
> > >
> >
> > 1. Genetic differences
> > 2. Strange diseases
> > 3. Fetal alcohol syndrome
> > 4. Or any other bizarre condition
> >
> > You've heard the words "Nature" and "Nurture". "Nature" is another word
> > for "genetics", while "Nurture" is another name for the
> > "Secular Trend Growth Deficit"..... IOW, :
> >
> > "Nurture" = Secular Trend Growth Deficit = GOD
>
> Bwahahhaaa... you are getting (if possible) even MORE insane a deranged!
> You cannot even justify your BASIC claims (still calling them facts when
> they are nothing more than Bull Shit) .... and you still keep adding more
> crap to the pile that has no foundation!
>
>
> >
> > You should be able to understand that!!
>
> What I understand is that your connection to reality is becoming just as
> fragile as your connection to REAL sicne was just before you lost it
> totally!
>
> There IS NO "secular trend growth deficit", dipshit!
[Hammond]
Proveably WRONG statement.
> > > > > Wrong again!
> > > > > The AVERAGE INCREASE IN HEIGHT - of human beings has NOTHING TO DO
> > with
> > > > > "achieving- or not achieving "full growth""!
> >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Bullcrap. It is KNOWN not to be "genetic" since it is far to fast.
> > > > The average height of school children has increased 3.5 inches since
> > > > 1900! It is KNOWN to be cause by the increasing standard of living,
> > > > mainly nutrition...... i.e. "GROWTH".
>
> What, when, where and by whom was it "known not to be genetic"?
> (again, I am asking for REAL, VALID, scientific evidence and support ...
> and, again, I will either gert NONE - or some totally of base, and
> meaningless, cite.)
[Hammond]
references to the vast and well known literature have been published
in the peer reviewed literture, are known to all, and are posted
on my website.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Look asshole.... whaddauthink...cientists are dumb. HEIGHT is
controlled
> by
> > many things:
> >
> > 1. Genetics
> > 2. Growth
> > 3. Diseases
> > 4. Assortive mating (natural selection)
>
> SO WHAT!?
> That IS NOT the argument, mush brain!
> I am NOT arguing the FACT that people's heights have changed over teh
> centyuries - and change within families,m and change due to many
> contistions.
>
> The ARGUMENT is agsnt your PSYCHOTIC claims about not reaching "full
heght"
> as thou there is some height, were we gods, we would reach!
>
>
> >
> > OK.... AFTER 1, 3, and 4 are "partialed out" of the data.... what you
> > have
> > left is 2...... "growth".
> > Bear in mind "growth" has the biggest impact on HEIGHT since we are
> born
> > only 1 foot tall and GROW to be 6 feet tall.
>
> > This is a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL TOPIC, and you are in NO WAY
> > qualified to "challenge the theory", since it clearly cannot be
challenged
> > with ELEMENTARY ARGUMENTS.
>
====================================
George Hammond
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VIpTc.150889$eM2.114083@attbi_s51...
> >
> > "Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr...@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9545B94674A...@192.189.54.177...
> > > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> astounded us with:
> > > news:10hr7gt...@corp.supernews.com:
> > >
> > >
> > > I see you've met George......
> > >
> > > --
> > > Phÿltêr
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No, he just "thinks" he has. Many delusional morons
> > "think" they know who they are talking to or what
> > they are talking about.... but this is just a delusion.
> > ZenIsWhen has "delusional" ideas about who he
> > thinks he is talking to... but, after all he is not alone.
> > every dumb cluck on the internet is under the
> > delusion that Hammond is a crank or an incompetent.
>
> Whether you call them "dumb Clucks" or not mewans nothing.
> Their claims are supported by the EVIDENCE, FACTS and criteria of REAL
> SCIENCE!
[Hammond]
Mind telling us what exactly your academic credentials ARE?
>
> That fct is SUPPORTED by the evidence that you have NEVER REBUTTED ANYONE
> who has a made any claims AGAINST your psychotic delusions!
[Hammond]
LOL LOL LOL
>
>
> > All of them of course are either delusionsal, simply
> > of low intelligence, or certainly only half educated.
> > They are the lackeys, the storm troopers of their
> > handlers (the bigshot PhD's) who egg them on
> > to further and further vandalism and harrassment
> > of Hammond, because of course the bigshots are
> > jealous and scared of Hammond... since THEY
> > actually know what kind of a threat a bona fide
> > scientific proof of God is to establishment Science.
>
>
> > this is a very old scenario... we know who all the players
> > are and what they will do. And we know how it comes
> > out in the end..... the good guy wins.
>
George Hammond
[Hammond]
LIAR
It has been publsihed in the peer reviewed scientific literature TWICE.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Bellowing unsupported assertion.
> >
> > >
> > > IQ = Zero only means one of two things ... death ... or George
Hammond!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Bellowing unsupported assertion.
> >
> > >
> > > I.Q. = intellegence level divided by AGE level.
> > > A ONE YEAR OLD can have an IQ of 100.
> > > An 18 year old can have an IQ of 100 ......... 90 .... or 120.
[Hammond]
everybody already knows that, bellowing shit for brains.
> > >
> > > You don't even know the BASICS about I.Q. .... and you're bellowing
that
> > > OTHERS aren't educated?????
[Hammond]
I am an M.S. in Physics. You continue to avoid answering the
questions as to what your credentials are. As far as I can see
you're a high school math teacher.
>
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Quit posting arithmetic non sequitors.
>
> That's from A DICTIONARY.
> You DON'T need a degree to understand a DICTIONARY.
> That ALSO contradicts YOUR claims about IQ.
[Hammond]
DICTIONARY...!!
What the fcuk do you think this is.... a high school debate?
Goran Dhemmeog
Excatly, of what, that was my first question to you: from 0 to 1800 of
what? That is the same thing with computers that you say with people
(average IQ = 1800[what]/18[years]).
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> >[Hammond]
> >OK Bernie (if I may)... this is where we have to start
> >talking.
> > Einstein's Theory of Gravity begins by pointing out
> >something that is entirely obvious.. Einstein pointed out
> >that "gravity" is identical to "acceleration", and therefore
> >that gravity could be explained by a theory of "acceleration".
> >This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
> >of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
> >term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
> >everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
> >SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
> >
>
> It wasn't "well know to everyone". Actually, his theory was
> proven to be true 14 years _after_ he published his special
> relativity theory. This proof was the "bending" of light in
> the gravity field of the sun (on photographs shot during an
> eclipse of the sun by comparing them against photographs of
> the same star, without influence of the gravitational field
> of the sun). The idea of the curvature was unique and inge-
> nious, it wasn't know by anyone before.
>
> Gravity isn't acceleration, it is the _curvature_ of the 4D
> "grid". At least, that was what Einstein said. In Newtonian
> philosophy, gravitation is the attracting force between two
> masses. Accelleration is the effect which is caused by gra-
> vitation - or the contrary force to equalize the effects of
> gravitation (orbits in the micro- and macrocosm).
>
> I would prefer Nikola Tesla's "Dynamic theory of gravity" -
> but he died before he could publish the details. I would be
> interested which of both theories would have made it, if he
> would have had the chance to publish it.
>
> > The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
> >based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
> >by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
> >ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
> >explanation of God!
> > Now, the first thing you have to know in order to understand
> >Hammond's scientific proof of God is this "well known fact
> >who's significance has not been realized". This fact is:
> >
> > Founding Fact of Hammond's
> > Scientific Proof of God
> >
> > No person, past or present, in the history of the
> > world has EVER reached full growth. People are
> > getting more fully grown with each passing generation
> > and this is called the "Secular Trend" in human
> > growth, and is a well known scientific fact. Modern
> > soldiers for instance cannot fit into a medieval suit
> > of armor since we are so much bigger than their ancestors.
> > This is commonly describeded as the difference between their
> > "phenotype" and their "genotype". By studying Third World
> > growth stunting, and measuring ancient skeletons, it can
> > be estimated that Man is at present (on average) maybe
> > 85% of his full genotypic size. Estimating this is
> > exactly the same problem as trying to estimate the
> > "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
> > our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
> > only 85% grown also.
> > OK... so this is the WELL KNOWN FACT that I referred
> > to above. What I've simply done is to point out the
> > SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact.. by showing that
> > it leads directly to scientific explanation of "God"...
> > OK, so the NEW SIGNIFICANCE of this well known fact
> > is that it can "explain God". How does it do that?
> > Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
> > the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
> > This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
> > or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact. Once
> > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> > we have an "invisible man" which is "God". any "variability"
> > in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
> > repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brian growth to
> > come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
> > hence the explanation of miracles. The Secular Trend
> > itself explains the "kingdom come" of theology... it is
> > simply the end of the Secular Trend sometime in the future.
> > Eternal Life is simply a condition of "zero growth deficit"
> > which will be reached at the end of the Secular Trend...
> > and on, and on, and on ad infinitem.... EVERY major fact
> > of religion and theology is SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED
> > by the "NEW SIGNIFICANCE" of the Secular Trend in human
> > growth.
> > OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
> > it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY
> > to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to have
> > some scientific training. It turns out that just like "gravity"
> > is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
> > Psychometry Space, and in fact:
> >
> > GOD = G_uv
> >
> > The reason for this is that:
> >
> > 4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
> >
> > Due to the Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
> > Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer reviewed
> > scientific literature, and the papers are posted and clearly
> > explained on my website:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Greetings from Augsburg
> >>Bernhard Schornak
> >>
>
> Okay, George, after doing a lot of research on 'zillions of
> websites, here are some facts which speak against your the-
> sis. Maybe we should discuss these flaws and make a _valid_
> synthesis (theory) out of your thesis and my anti-thesis?
[Hammond]
Not likely Bernie. 'zillions of websites is NOTHING''!!
I have been researching this theory for 22 YEARS!!
>
> Even if I don't have a degree, I do have a good educational
> background and _some_ knowledge about many different fields
> of sciences. If you can't convince me, then you will have a
> problem to convince a "real" scientist. If you are serious,
> I would expect a fruitful discussion rather than that usual
> NG babble, exchange of libels and calling each other names.
> I will not do that, it's not my style. In a real discussion
> both of us might have a chance to learn something.
>
> [phenotype / genotype]
>
> Could you provide some data - e.g. fitness landscapes - for
> this? Is the increase in weight (BMI = body mass index) in-
> cluded? BMI's growing more rapid than height, it should not
> be left out of the overall evaluation. As a matter of fact,
> the growing BMI turns out to be the real problem. We do not
> grow in height at the moment, we grow in weight.
[Hammond]
Hey.... human growth essentially STOPS at age 18.
So when we are discussiong GROWTH we are discussing
childhood growth up to age 18.
Growth curves for humans age 0 to age 18 are well known and
can be found anywhere, textbooks, a wall chart in your
doctors office, the Encyclopedia, or a gazillion google
search entires. In fact such a growthcurve is shwon in my
paper as figure 1.
> BTW - brain size has nothing to do with intelligence.
[Hammond]
Wrong Bernie. After you partial out genetics, braingrowth
IS the major determinant of IQ. This fact is so well known
that health workers for UNICEF and the RED CROSS
actually can wrap a tape measure around a starving person's
head in Third World countires and estimate their IQ loss
due to malnutrition growth stunting.
.
>
> Where are the 85% of an "estimated full size" derived from?
[Hammond]
From the 85 years of study of the Secular trend in
human growth.
Look, the human life span has increased by 25 years since 1850,
don't you think we can use that data to try and estimate
the "theoretical human lifespan"?
> Having a look at African tribes, there are tribes with very
> tall humans and tribes with very short humans, where taller
> ones live in landscapes like veldts or the Sahara and short
> ones can be found in jungles or dense rain forests. I would
> expect the difference in height depends on the environment,
> not on other reasons. Evolution is accommodation to the en-
> vironment in the first place, and in dense forests the tall
> human has less chances to survive than the short one.
[Hammond]
Yah but we are talking about "partialing out genetics" before
we begin the analysis. Identical twin studies is a well known
method for doing this... i.e. eliminating the genetic differences
in order to study the growth differences.
>
> If a human has reached an age of 14 or so, it is physically
> "fully grown". Once a body is fully grown, the size of gray
> mass in the head has reached its final size. It cannot grow
> any further, the head bones don't allow growth beyond their
> physical shape.
[Hammond]
that's true.... you reach what is called TERMINAL GROWTH
at age 18... but that does not men it is FULL GROWTH.
The problem is, as they say, we "never reach our full height and weight".
This SHORTFALL is what causes the phenomenon of "God".
>
> How do you define "brain growth"?
[Hammond]
Are you kidding. Wrap a tape measure around a 2 month old
babies head. then measure it agin at age 3, then again at age 6,
then again at age 10, then again at age 18. Each time you will get
a BIGGER AND BIGGER measurement.... this is::
BRAIN GROWTH
>
> [brain / reality]
>
> Where is the relation between brain and reality?
[Hammond]
Brain growth increases intelligence. A 6 year old is
twice as intelligent as a 3 year old. (this is why they have
to divide the kids intelligence by his age to get IQ).
OK... intelligence is a direct measure of "mental speed".
As your mental speed increases with age (up to age 18) you
are able to faster and faster motion. A 6 year old can
see motion which is twice as faxt as what can be seen by a 3 year
old. Therefore the 6 year olds world is "twice as big"
as a 3 year olds world. This is how BRAIN GROWTH
changes REALITY.
As you al-
> ready told, your assumption is based on the diversification
> of reality into "human perception" and "absolute physical".
> But: Human perception isn't related to the abilities of our
> brain.
[Hammond]
Yes it is see above.
> It only is determined by the "quality" of our senses
> (eyes, ears, nose, sensors for temperature and touch, equi-
> librium, etc.). The quality of these senses isn't depending
> on their actual size.
[Hammond]
yes it is... the "mental speed" (intellgence) of the brain
depends DIRECTLY on its size.... this is PROVEN by
the fact that we have to correct intelligence by dividing
by a persons age due to their increasing brain size.
> [invisible part]
>
> If that missing 15% would be true - how do you come to your
> conclusion that they "exist" as an invisible part of us? It
> would be interesting to know how you came to this point. If
> I have a balloon and fill it with air until it has one half
> of the possible size (before it goes bang), is it true that
> the difference between its actual and its possible size can
> be defined as "invisible"? I mean, the missing part just is
> a hypothetical "object", it doesn't exist in reality. Is it
> really there as an "invisible" part, even if the balloon is
> not filled that far?
[Hammond]
A "baloon" does not have a DNA code. We do know that a living
thing growing has a "complete" DNA code regardless of its size.
This DNA code predetermines the "genotypic size" of the animal.
Unlike the baloon, a living thing "knows" how big its supposed to get.
The growth of the body is a heirarchy of molecular processes
all of which never go to completion in a living thing that doesn't
reach full growth.... nothing is "missing"... everything is simply
less in amount than it should be. This goes for the brain too.
The "missing" part is actually there, but its not fully grown.
It actually "functions" to a certain extent but in a peculiar way
because it is not fully grown. This peculiar function is
called the "unconscious mind" and has been known and
detected since the time of Sigmund Freud. It has a definite
influence over our perception and thinking. While psychologists
call it the "unconscious mind" the theologians have been
calling it "God" for thousands of years.
>
> Okay, let's assume the difference really would be invisible
> and "exists". How do you derive the existence of "God" from
> the (to be explained) invisible part of a biological system
> like the Homo sapiens?
[Hammond]
The most direct example of this invisible man is to simply
look at a child... a child is the most well known case
of an "ungrown person". Half the world is "invisible" to
a 9 year old child, because his brain is only half grown.
The world looks twice as big and twice as fast to a 9
year old as it does to an 18 year old. We say "God protects
children" and they are considered "minors" because of this
until they are 18. A child knws and recognizes "God"
when he sees him.... he considers all adults to be this
"God".... i.e. "God the father" and follows him and does what
he says. Of course a child also recognizes that all of
these "adults" are not exactly "God".... that there is something
"wrong" with most of them.... later on he will recognize
that none of them ever reached "full gorwth" either... and
that is why they are not perfect and not completely
reliable.
I rmember when I was 6 years old sitting somewhere playing
in the dirt and looking at some particularly imperfect adult walking
by and I said to myself "I wonder why there are no 'normal'
people in the world"... little did I know it would be 55 years
before I would figure out the answer to that... and that
in fact that was one of the worlds most basic mysteries,
and that it caused "religion" and was known as the
question of "God"
..
>
> [miracles]
>
> This is quite OT. Give me an example of a miracle that ever
> could be proven with scientific methods. All of them turned
> out to be fakes of some kind. We are talking about sciences
> and this includes we leave pseudo- and proto-sciences where
> they belong to, e.g. Hollywood.
[Hammond]
Miracles so called are examples of a drastic and sudden appearance
of "sudden brain growth" in a person. Actually the brain cannot
"suddenly grow" but it was noticed long, long ago that there is a
common phenomena associated with normal braingrowth called
"Repression" in modern terminology. Many, many people are born in
what are called "ruduced circumstances". You don't have to be
the bastard son of the nobility to experience this... almost everybody
experieinces it to some degree.. simply because "natural selection"
is constantly striving to improve the genetics of every generation.
Therefore almost everybody is "better than the last generation"
that they are born into. Because of this they immediately recognize
that they are in danger of persecution... and the natural instinct is
to be "humble" or in some cases to "act dumb" in order to
defend themselves. In some cases this can be a dire circumstance
(in the case of the bastard son of the king for instance" and this
exertion can actually cause artificial "mental retardation" in the
individual. So called "dumb blondes" are an anecdotal example of
this for instance. At any rate... later on when the person grows up
they begin to recognize what happened to them and begin to
get suspicious of their reduced status. This is the source of so
called "mental problems" and "strange personalities" etc.
Everyone visiting a psychiatrist is working on this problem.
That is becsause it has been discovered that this "artifical
brain growth deficit" is actually caused by a "mental block"
and that this block can in fact (to some degree) be actually
broken by psychotherapy (analysis..thinking.. learning) and
the person can undergo a "personality change". In some cases
(rare) this change can be SUDDEN and DRAMATIC.
In these cases the SUBJECTIVE effect is spectacular... the
entire world suddenly changes in front of the persons eyes...
everybody he ever knew suddenly takes on a new identity...
actually LOOKS DIFFERENT to him. All of the social
structure... even the size and speed of the world dramatically
changes. This apparently is what happened to St. Paul.
So called "faith healing" is based on this dramatic phenomenon,
and is absolutely real. Every "underdog" in the world is
silently looking for and praying for this kind of a miracle.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to achieve and is dangerous....
the mental wards full of people who tired it and failed are
testimony to the difficulty of such an effort.
Neverthe less this SINGLE PHENOMENA accounts
for the entire existence of "Religion" and religious services
are based on the fact of its existence and the fact that
everybody (inherently) knows about it and is looking for it.
> [kingdom come]
>
> Only royalists will be happy to hear this. No one living in
> a democracy would wish the "return" of kings and queens who
> rule us because their rulership is "god-given". Such things
> are outdated for almost one century now.
[Hammond]
As has been explained above, achieving "full brain growth"
is the first priority of mankind, and failure to do so is the
FIRST and FUNDAMENTAL dilemma of human existence.
It turns out that all of mankinds acivities are dictated by this
problem... Man is constantly "building the world".. advancing
the "standard of living" in order to solve this problem. It is
after all, the "standard of living" that causes the problem
of poor growth in the first place. Generation by generation
over thousands of years we have been moving forward on
this problem and each generation is better grown than the last..
this can be measured and is known scientifically as the
Secular Trend in Human Growh. The Secular Trend is
a sigmoidal curve (S-Curve0 and it is known that
eventually the entire human race will reach "full growth".
This may take thousand s of more years. But when it happens,
the problem of "god" will finally be solved... we will all be
God in the flesh. This is called by the theologians,
"kingdom come", and now has a clear and precise
scientiofic explanation... it is simply the terminal end of
the Secualr Trend in human growth.
>
> [eternal life]
>
> If secular growth is the biological function of our genes -
> then the logical conclusion would be we get 15% older if we
> reach a state where we are fully grown. Are these let's say
> 100 years we could reach then immortality? I would have de-
> fined immortality as an infinite lifespan - where we should
> discuss if immortality includes the property of being inde-
> structible or if these immortals could be killed by force.
[Hammond]
As explained in section 6 of my paper (see website),
"Eternal Life" is another name for the condition of
"full growth". NO ONE has ever achieved this condition,
obviously, because the Secular Trend says none of us are full
grown. Full Growth is a condition of "Eternal Life" because
there is no "time dilation" in a full grown person. Living
"forever" means living in REAL TIME not "living forever".
Real Time has the property of being "eternal" because a person
who is living in Real Time (no dilation) sees a "perfect world".
Living in a "perfect world" is what "eternal life" actually
is. This is the "paradise" promised to us by relitgion.
As far as we know, no one will see this until "kingdom come"
occurs when the Secular Trend ends... altho, as you know
there is a theory of "life after death" which says that by
some mystery we will go there "spiritually" when we die.
the present discovery sheds NO NEW LIGHT on this
fabulous speculation.. on the other hand it doesn't
prove it false either. We simply do not know about
this at the present time. It might even be true.
> [psychometry]
>
> | Some of the principles Denton discovered were as follows:
> |
> | 1. If several persons held an object, the first to hold it would
> | be read first before the others. This is known as the Principle
> | of Primary Impression.
> |
> | 2. If, however, a person had strong positive or negative emotions,
> | these would be read first even if he held the object last.
> |
> | A kitchen knife used solely to cut vegetables and peel fruits will
> | not have strong vibes attached to it. But if that same knife, for
> | example, is used to kill somebody with hatred and anger, this
> | knife acquires a different character. A good psychometric reader
> | can describe exactly how the knife was used and the person who
> | held it.
>
> Source: <http://www.inq7.net/lif/2004/jan/27/lif_22-1.htm>
>
> This is crap, if you ask me. I thought you are a physicist,
[Hammond]
Hey... YOU'VE MADE THE FIRST MISTAKE IN THE BOOK!!
THERE ARE TWO DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "PSYCHOMETRY",
AND YOU HAVE THE WRONG ONE.
try looking under "PSYCHOMETRICS" for the correct definition.
this is sort of the equivalent of looking up the word "physic" in a
dictionary
and concluding that "physicists" are in the business of giving people
enemas!!
> not a meta-physicist? I guess you have mismatched this term
> "psychometry" with something else - please explain what you
> really meant.
[Hammond]
see above
>
> [cartesian cleavage]
>
> Exactly this is what I think isn't explained at all at your
> website. It would be nice if you provide some real data (to
> get an overview of your experimental work). I am interested
> in your own work, not in things others found out or said.
[Hammond]
Cartesian Brain Cleavage was first recognized by me and proposed as
the bilogical origin of the so called "Structural Model" in Psychology.
My 1994 paper entitled:
The Cartesian Theory (Pergamon Press, 1994)
is a complete discussion of this discovery. A copy of that (peer/published)
paper is posted on my website.
> Greetings from Augsburg
>
> Bernhard Schornak
[Hammond]
Once agian Bernie I am indepted for your sincere and formal scientific
discussion of this theory. You have no idea how valuable this is.
I certainly look forward to hearing from you again.
George Hammond
George Hammond
Alan
> > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > question: Did God create the universe?
>
> [Hammond]
> YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> and its time you understood what they are talking about
> when they say that.....!!
> What they're talking about when they say "God created
> the universe" is THIS:
> The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
> So therefore.... the "creation of the brain" is a
> "creation of reality". This is what the "Biblical Creation"
> actually is..... the "creation of the brain" 40,000 years ago.
But that isn't what anyone else that I know of believes. We all KNOW
that we have our "personal reality", which first started when we
became cognizent of ourselves and the world around us. So? "Creation"
is understood, by everyone else that I know of, to represent actual
physical reality.
>
> Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
And that's the REAL question about God's existence, since theists
believe that God created actual physical reality. Did He (She? It?) or
didn't He?
>
> But that doesn't matter.
It may not matter to YOU. Since everyone else that I know of is
concerned, in the question of God's existence, with the creation of
the actual physical universe, it DOES matter.
> Until MAN is created (40,000 years ago)
> to SEE IT..... then it doesn't EXIST. You can't have an
> "OBSERVABLE" without and "OBSERVER".
Sounds like the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which
HAS NOT been "proven", nor is it universally accepted by top-notch
physicists - in fact, nowadays the majority of top-notch physicists
would probably not support this view. If you CALL something
"observable", then you are REFERRING to it as being able to be
observed, which implies an observer. That's mere definition, a
tautology. If nothing is "observable" because no observers exist, you
have nowhere demonstrated that actual physical reality does not exist
- and it IS actual physical reality that everyone else is referring to
when they speak of creation. We KNOW our own, individual, perceived
"universes" would not exist if we did not - that is OBVIOUS - "my"
universe would not exist if "I" did not - but "creation", by everyone
else's definition, refers to "the" universe (the actual physical one),
rather than our own individually perceived "universes".
>
> The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> The first is called the "Big Bang"
> The second is called "Biblical Creation".
But in Biblical Creation, God created Man, pre-existed Man, and was in
no way dependent on Man for his own existence. How does this
reconcilew with your theory?
> BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
That human observers only came on the scene recently (relative to the
Big Bang) is incontrovertible. Calling THIS "Biblical Creation" has
not, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, been shown to be
"scientifically real" - and that has nothing to do with relativity,
psychometry, or even religion. You seem to be trying to "theorize" the
universe into being in accord with your own, perceived reality - while
everyone else, besides druggies, try to adjust their perceived
realities to be in accord with the universe.
ZenIsWhen
Notiuced that you IGNORED the FACTS that show your ignorance of something as
basic as the definition of I.Q.".
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:nMrTc.34301$js3.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > >
> > > Okay George. I'll go re-read section 6 and have a response for
> > > you shortly.
> > >
> >
> > Alright George. I have re-read your section
> > VI Elementary science evidence that
> > the 4th order factor is "God".
> >
> > At first I thought that it is just crap, and that I
> > should give up arguing with you. But for some
> > reason I went back to it again, and read it
> > again. Here is my response:
> > (1) I still say that your paper doesn't give an
> > adequate definition of the traditional God
> > (all you say is:
> > In fact, the World's most common description of
> > God is an invisible man who rules the World.)
> > and doesn't give an adequate explanation of
> > how that God is actually brain growth deficit.
> >
> > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > question: Did God create the universe?
>
> [Hammond]
> YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> and its time you understood what they are talking about
> when they say that.....!!
You haven't even proven god yet.
You CERTAINLY have no evidence of god creating the universe!!!!!
>
> > (The ungrown part of man/men did not create
> > the universe.)
>
> [Hammond]
> YES IT DID, and its time you understood HOW.
> Theology has understood it for 3000 years, but they
> could never prove it..... now, I have proved it..
> Please try to listen..... and find out something new!
PLEASE try to use your brain .. and understand that MAN - WHO CAME ABOUT
AFTER THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE - could NOT have created the VERY SAME
UNIVERSE THAT CREATED MAN!!!!
>
> Let me give it to you absolutely straight in plain language,
> you must understand the simple principle of what is being
> talked about before you can even consider arguing about
> the evidence!
Let ME give it to you STRAIGHT .. Bull shit is BULL SHIT!
There is NO WAY to disguise BULL SHIT - as fact - no mater HOW many times
you lie, distort and avoid reality!
>
> What they're talking about when they say "God created
> the universe" is THIS:
> The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
Which is nothing more than ANOTHER of your deranged, psychotic, anbd
UN-scientific delusional claims!
BTW .. I LOVE the way you COMPLETELY distort (christian) religion to fit
YOUR OWN insane claims!
> So therefore.... the "creation of the brain" is a
> "creation of reality". This is what the "Biblical Creation"
> actually is..... the "creation of the brain" 40,000 years ago.
CRAP .. posted before, and repeated, does not make it anything mroe than the
same crap!!!!
Reality existed LONG before the (human) brain!
WERE you a scientist, you would KNOW that this is a FACT KNOWN FROM THE
EVIDENCE!!!!
>
> Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
Damn!!! You got something right!!!!! You must be having an off day!!!!
>
> But that doesn't matter. Until MAN is created (40,000 years ago)
> to SEE IT..... then it doesn't EXIST. You can't have an
> "OBSERVABLE" without and "OBSERVER".
More of the same (reposted) BULL SHIT!
While it is TRUE, you cannot have a "Human Observation of a rock" until a
human observes it ...
You CAN have a ROCK without a human there to see it.
IT DOES EXIST - dipshit!!!!
>
> The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> The first is called the "Big Bang"
> The second is called "Biblical Creation".
> BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
Not according to any science based in reality!!!!
The "OBSERVABLE EXISTED 15 billion years ago.
The OBSERVABLE was there before god "created the universe" (according to the
bible - and NOT your psychotic degradation of scripture)?
YOU are SO warped - one needs to be TOTALLY warped, at times, to even follow
your insane claims!
>
> OK.... see if you can digest that much so we can have a
> sensible conversation instead of shouting names at each other.
Intelligent human beings CANNOT digest crap!
YOU cannot have an intelligent conversation with ANYONE - because your WHOLE
personal is so ignorant and corrupt!!!!
Scot McDermid
"Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
I agree with Alan. The God of the Bible is not Hammond's Guv.
ZenIsWhen
Whoops ..... pardon my mistake.
I was talking about Albert Einstein - the world famous physicist; not
someone named Einstin.
Just as a note - YOUR bellowing what anyone supposedly said means NOTHING -
as far as a reference is concerned.
> > SHOW ANY VALID SCIENTIFIC SITES THAT SUPPORT THAT!
> > You have been asked, and you have ignored that SIMPLE REQUEST TO SUPPORT
> > YOUR CLAIMS WITH REAL SCIENCE!
>
> [Hammond]
> LIAR. I just told you that:
Bwahahaaaa....and your SUPPOSED to be a scientist - and you pull this CRAP?
>
> "EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT"
>
> is the CLASSIC PROOF of the equivalence of "gravity" and "acceleretion".
> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>
>
> >
> > There is NO SUCH THING as "AN ACCELERATION". Acceleration is NOT a
> "thing".
> > It is a number derived from a mathematical calculation (or measurement).
> > NOTHING MORE!
>
> [Hammond]
> You're an idiot.
Obviously that's the best (only) "rebutal" you can invent!
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > You're incompetent. A "curvature of spacetime"
> > > > > causes a local "apparent acceleration", otherwise known
> > > > > as "gravity".
> > > >
> > > > Show ANY reputable scientist that states that!
> > > > Show ANY reputable scveintist that agrees with that!
> > > > Show ANY science that supports that!
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Dirac, _General Theory of Relativity_, page 22: ".... if the Riemann
> > > Curvature Tensor vanishes, the space is flat" (i.e. "flat" = "no
> gravity")
> > > Time to get your sorry ignorant ass out of
> > > here.
> >
> > When you provide VALID FACTS .
> > This says NOTHING about your claims between acceleration and gravity. If
> > you'll notice, mush brain, Acceleration is not even mentioned!
>
> [Hammond]
> OK..... we have to put it in grad school language for you:
>
> EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT
>
> is proof from EINSTEIN HIMSELF that "gravity"="acceleration"
> You're a freakin idiot.
It shows NO SUCH THING, you fucking idiot!!!!!
Gravity is a FORCE, Acceleration is a numerical result of a mathematical
equation.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Misunderstanding, or blatantly lying, about Eistein DOES NOT CHANGE THAT
FACT!!!!
> > You CANNOT supply valid references to support your claims, because THERE
> ARE
> > NO valid references to support your claims.,
> > You offer cites that have NOTHING TO DO with your claims!
>
> [Hammond]
> Horeshit.... you don't even know about or understand
I know (enough) about horse-shit .. and I know enough about YOUR bellowing
.. and they are REMARKABLY similar!
OK........ shit brain ..
SHOW ME EXACTLY how/where Einstein's elevator experiment chows gravity is
the sames as, similar to otr ANYTHING LIKE Acceleration!!!!
SHOW ME WRONG BY PROVING EXACT PROOF!
YOU WON'T ...
You CAN'T
because you're WRONG!!!!
>
> EINSTIEN'S ELEVATOR PROOF THAT
> GRAVITY=ACCELERATION
Regurgitating the SAME lie does nto make it right.
SHOW ME WHERE!!!
(I'll even provide a basic URL ...
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm)
Which is MORE than you did!!!!
Then PROVE IT .. don't just BELLOW it!!!!!
>
> > > > > > Wrong again!
> > > > > > The AVERAGE INCREASE IN HEIGHT - of human beings has NOTHING TO
DO
> > > with
> > > > > > "achieving- or not achieving "full growth""!
> > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > Bullcrap. It is KNOWN not to be "genetic" since it is far to
fast.
> > > > > The average height of school children has increased 3.5 inches
since
> > > > > 1900! It is KNOWN to be cause by the increasing standard of
living,
> > > > > mainly nutrition...... i.e. "GROWTH".
> >
> > What, when, where and by whom was it "known not to be genetic"?
> > (again, I am asking for REAL, VALID, scientific evidence and support ...
> > and, again, I will either gert NONE - or some totally of base, and
> > meaningless, cite.)
>
> [Hammond]
> references to the vast and well known literature have been published
> in the peer reviewed literture, are known to all, and are posted
> on my website.
CRAP is posted on your web site - exactly like the CRAP you post here!!!!
YOU HAVE NO peer reviewed literature - we've been over THAT fraudulent claim
before!!!!
The SCIENCE that is "known to all" does NOT support YOUR insane claims ...
that's why YOU have already mentioned that the world's scientist are
IGNORANT, and only YOU know the truth!!!
How can these SAME scientists be both WRONG (ignorant, conspiratorial - or
whatever delusion you claim) and, at the SAME time - support YOUR
claims?????????
Einstein's work DOESN'T support your claims .. even though you Below such
ignorance!!!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:10hsl0i...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:VIpTc.150889$eM2.114083@attbi_s51...
> > >
> > > "Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr...@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns9545B94674A...@192.189.54.177...
> > > > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> astounded us with:
> > > > news:10hr7gt...@corp.supernews.com:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I see you've met George......
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Phÿltêr
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > No, he just "thinks" he has. Many delusional morons
> > > "think" they know who they are talking to or what
> > > they are talking about.... but this is just a delusion.
> > > ZenIsWhen has "delusional" ideas about who he
> > > thinks he is talking to... but, after all he is not alone.
> > > every dumb cluck on the internet is under the
> > > delusion that Hammond is a crank or an incompetent.
> >
> > Whether you call them "dumb Clucks" or not mewans nothing.
> > Their claims are supported by the EVIDENCE, FACTS and criteria of REAL
> > SCIENCE!
>
> [Hammond]
> Mind telling us what exactly your academic credentials ARE?
IMMEDIATELY after you shoew VALID evidnce (not jut a claim) that you have a
degree in physics.
Immediately AFTER you give YOUR credentials as a psychologist/psychiatrist.
(since YOU constantly bellow that - people who do NOT have "scientific
degrees" are too ignorant to understand (and, therefore judge) your work!
You DO infuse your claims with alledged references to knowledge of
psychiatry/psychology!
Immediately AFTER you show that finding FAULTS IN your work REQUIRES a
degree in science!!!!
> > That fct is SUPPORTED by the evidence that you have NEVER REBUTTED
ANYONE
> > who has a made any claims AGAINST your psychotic delusions!
>
> [Hammond]
> LOL LOL LOL
Again ... the ONLY (meaningless, and unsupportive) rebuttal a jackass could
invent!
> > > All of them of course are either delusionsal, simply
> > > of low intelligence, or certainly only half educated.
> > > They are the lackeys, the storm troopers of their
> > > handlers (the bigshot PhD's) who egg them on
> > > to further and further vandalism and harrassment
> > > of Hammond, because of course the bigshots are
> > > jealous and scared of Hammond... since THEY
> > > actually know what kind of a threat a bona fide
> > > scientific proof of God is to establishment Science.
Yet YOU claim the conclusions in YOUR work is "supported" by the findings of
THESE VERY SAME scientists!!!!!
ZenIsWhen
There you go with your insane lies again!
ONE was merely a "leter to the editor" - which MEANS NOTHING!
THE other is the FACT that you DID NOT have this CRAP published in "peer
reviewed" scientific literature.
Since you are NO scientist - you don;lt even KNOW what scientific "peer
reviewed literature IS!!!
The RAG that printed YOUR crap is as "peer reviewed" and "scientific" as
Readers Digest . or MAD Magazine!!!
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Bellowing unsupported assertion.
You don't need subtitles - we already know who you are and how you intend to
post!!!
> > > > IQ = Zero only means one of two things ... death ... or George
> Hammond!
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Bellowing unsupported assertion.
Show me an ALIVE person with an IQ of zero (usin the REAL definition of IQ
... not your insane claims!)
> > > > I.Q. = intellegence level divided by AGE level.
> > > > A ONE YEAR OLD can have an IQ of 100.
> > > > An 18 year old can have an IQ of 100 ......... 90 .... or 120.
>
> [Hammond]
> everybody already knows that, bellowing shit for brains.
Then everyone KNOWS that your sick bellowing about IQ going from zero (at
birth) - to the CRAZY number of 1800 (AT the age of 18) is WRONG!
IF EVERYONE KNOWS THAT - WHY DID YOU insanely CLAIM IT?
IOW .. do you KNOW that YOU'RE Wrong????
If you DO ... why not admit it?
If you DON'T ..then you are just as stupid, and corrupt, as assumed.
> > > > You don't even know the BASICS about I.Q. .... and you're bellowing
> that
> > > > OTHERS aren't educated?????
>
> [Hammond]
> I am an M.S. in Physics.
You are crap; nothing more!
You have not only NOT shown any evidence of having ANY education in
physics - you have CLEARLY shown youself lacking in even BASIC scientific
knowledge!!!
You continue to avoid answering the
> questions as to what your credentials are. As far as I can see
> you're a high school math teacher.
Your being insane, and WRONG, have NOTHING TO DO with my educational level
and experience!!!!
You were IGNORANTLY wrong about even the BASIC meaning of IQ.
I knew the CORRECT definition well before 9th grade!!!!!!!
My qualification don't change YOUR ignorance!!!!
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Quit posting arithmetic non sequitors.
> >
>
>
> > That's from A DICTIONARY.
> > You DON'T need a degree to understand a DICTIONARY.
> > That ALSO contradicts YOUR claims about IQ.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> DICTIONARY...!!
> What the fcuk do you think this is.... a high school debate?
From your ignorance - you haven't even reached THAT level of intelligence OR
integrity!
Or are you claiming that a dictionary is NOT a valid reference in ANY
debate?
ZenIsWhen
Using the REAL definition of IQ ... he is saying an 18 year old person, with
an IQ of 1800 ..... is as intelligent as a 324 year old
person...................
ZenIsWhen
??????????????????????///
First you go from "it wasn't well known" to the REALITY .. Gravity ISN'T
acceleration.
Since GRAVITY isn't aceleration - then it COULD NOT have been well known!!!!
What you are talking about is the fact that LIGHT is affected BY gravity
...... which has NOTHING TO DO
with gravity BEING acceleration.
Bwahahhaaaaaaa............................. "zillions of web sites" .. is as
equally as unimportant as hundreds and thousands of scientists - when ALL
you have to offer is UNSCIENTIFIC CRAP!!!!
> > Even if I don't have a degree, I do have a good educational
> > background and _some_ knowledge about many different fields
> > of sciences. If you can't convince me, then you will have a
> > problem to convince a "real" scientist. If you are serious,
> > I would expect a fruitful discussion rather than that usual
> > NG babble, exchange of libels and calling each other names.
> > I will not do that, it's not my style. In a real discussion
> > both of us might have a chance to learn something.
> >
> > [phenotype / genotype]
> >
> > Could you provide some data - e.g. fitness landscapes - for
> > this? Is the increase in weight (BMI = body mass index) in-
> > cluded? BMI's growing more rapid than height, it should not
> > be left out of the overall evaluation. As a matter of fact,
> > the growing BMI turns out to be the real problem. We do not
> > grow in height at the moment, we grow in weight.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey.... human growth essentially STOPS at age 18.
> So when we are discussiong GROWTH we are discussing
> childhood growth up to age 18.
> Growth curves for humans age 0 to age 18 are well known and
> can be found anywhere, textbooks, a wall chart in your
> doctors office, the Encyclopedia, or a gazillion google
> search entires. In fact such a growthcurve is shwon in my
> paper as figure 1.
The discussion is NOT about the fact that humans grow .. how much they grow
.. or how tall they become;
it is about the INSANE assertions you make that have NOTHING TO DO with the
growth of humans.
>
> > BTW - brain size has nothing to do with intelligence.
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong Bernie. After you partial out genetics, braingrowth
> IS the major determinant of IQ.
Yo!
DIPSHIT!
Brain GROWTH is NOT the same as "BRAIN SIZE"!!!!
BTW .. since YOU are making claims about genetics --- what are YOUR
(college) credentials as a geneticist?????
This fact is so well known
> that health workers for UNICEF and the RED CROSS
> actually can wrap a tape measure around a starving person's
> head in Third World countires and estimate their IQ loss
> due to malnutrition growth stunting.
Bwahahhaaaaa... SHOW THE EVIDENCE, don't make just another UNSUPPORTED,
ignorant claim!!!!
Were your CRAP true - the PHYSICAL head of Einstein would be TWICE normal
size!!!!!
> > Where are the 85% of an "estimated full size" derived from?
>
> [Hammond]
> From the 85 years of study of the Secular trend in
> human growth.
From your INSANE imagination!!!!
> Look, the human life span has increased by 25 years since 1850,
> don't you think we can use that data to try and estimate
> the "theoretical human lifespan"?
What is YOUR degree in Statistics, asshole?????
You CAN TO A CERTAIN EXTENT!!!!
You CANNOT assusme that ... if the average human lifespan increased - let's
say - 25 years in the past 100 ....that in the NEXT 100 years, it WILL be 25
years more!!!
You CERTAINLY cannot make that ASSUMPTION wihtyout ANY claim to ABSDOLUTE
ACCURACY ... the SAME type of "accuracy" YOU assume TO PROVE GOD (fromn you
derange claims).
***************************
MANY years ago - I saw a con .....
There was a promised job "delivering pizza's". You buy into a terrirtory
(franchise costing, if I recall, a few thousand) ... you pick up (buy) the
(microwavable) pizzas from a warehouse .. and you deliver (sell) them to
bars and such as "quick food" items.
Anyway .... in the promo video .... they said over the past "X" years ...
the sales of pizza has gone from one million per year ... to three million
per year.
They SAID that means it will reach 5 million in another few years.
I walked out immediately.
Given that "logic" the sales of pizzas, in a few more years, would be in the
trillions. (i.e 1 pizza per hour, for every man woman and child in the U.S.)
**********************************
You can ONLY take "future statistical probability" IN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS ..
and in LIMITED degrees.
Something you, NOT being a scientist - or even a rational person - obviously
does NOT understand!!!
> > Having a look at African tribes, there are tribes with very
> > tall humans and tribes with very short humans, where taller
> > ones live in landscapes like veldts or the Sahara and short
> > ones can be found in jungles or dense rain forests. I would
> > expect the difference in height depends on the environment,
> > not on other reasons. Evolution is accommodation to the en-
> > vironment in the first place, and in dense forests the tall
> > human has less chances to survive than the short one.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yah but we are talking about "partialing out genetics" before
> we begin the analysis. Identical twin studies is a well known
> method for doing this... i.e. eliminating the genetic differences
> in order to study the growth differences.
>
> >
> > If a human has reached an age of 14 or so, it is physically
> > "fully grown". Once a body is fully grown, the size of gray
> > mass in the head has reached its final size. It cannot grow
> > any further, the head bones don't allow growth beyond their
> > physical shape.
>
> [Hammond]
> that's true.... you reach what is called TERMINAL GROWTH
> at age 18... but that does not men it is FULL GROWTH.
Bull S H I T !!!!!
That is just ONE of you basic, basically fraudulent, and basicall insane,
ASSUMPTIONS.
FROM THAT LIE you go on to make MORE insane and more outrageous claims!
> The problem is, as they say, we "never reach our full height and weight".
> This SHORTFALL is what causes the phenomenon of "God".
That's YOUR claim ... and is TOTALLY unsupported by REALITY OR SCIENCE!!!!
This (LIE) is SO blatantly ignorant because it ASSUMES that this
"difference" in human grown causes a god .. the SAME god that "created"
those humans.
You CANNOT HAVE the "created" create the "creator"... ..shit for brains!!!!
>
> >
> > How do you define "brain growth"?
>
> [Hammond]
> Are you kidding. Wrap a tape measure around a 2 month old
> babies head. then measure it agin at age 3, then again at age 6,
> then again at age 10, then again at age 18. Each time you will get
> a BIGGER AND BIGGER measurement.... this is::
>
> BRAIN GROWTH
That is PHYSICAL brain growth. AS usual, you are IGNORANTLY misusing THAT
information in your claims!
> > [brain / reality]
> >
> > Where is the relation between brain and reality?
Here, I MUST start wondering if "bv_schornak" is just Hammond trying to
feign a valid theory by discussing the topic with an alieas HE created!!!
( I have been jokingly, spammed by a KNOWN LOCAL PERSON - who got to me
through an alias with a ".de" address)
>
> [Hammond]
> Brain growth increases intelligence. A 6 year old is
> twice as intelligent as a 3 year old. (this is why they have
> to divide the kids intelligence by his age to get IQ).
BUT .. .moron .. ONE 18 year old CAN have a significantly DIFFERENT IQ than
another 18 year old.
And .. now get this .. they can BOTH have hte same HEAD SIZE!!!!!!
> OK... intelligence is a direct measure of "mental speed".
> As your mental speed increases with age (up to age 18) you
> are able to faster and faster motion. A 6 year old can
> see motion which is twice as faxt as what can be seen by a 3 year
> old.
Oh...... bull shit!!!!!
You're talking abut REACTION TIME. which has LITTLE to do with IQ.
While IQ tests ARE timed .. that does NOT mean that a six year old thinks
twice as fast as a three year old!
Once again, you are showing your BASIC ignorance ... this time about
statistics and (again) about intelligence!
Therefore the 6 year olds world is "twice as big"
> as a 3 year olds world. This is how BRAIN GROWTH
> changes REALITY.
More bull shit based on the first tidbit of ignorance!!!!
The (perceived) size of the world has NOTHING TO DO with how fast it is
perceived!!!!!
DAMN, are you ignorant!!!!
> As you al-
> > ready told, your assumption is based on the diversification
> > of reality into "human perception" and "absolute physical".
> > But: Human perception isn't related to the abilities of our
> > brain.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes it is see above.
While human perception IS DIRECTLY related brain activities and
capabilities - it has NOTHING TO DO with the crap you spew!!!
> > It only is determined by the "quality" of our senses
> > (eyes, ears, nose, sensors for temperature and touch, equi-
> > librium, etc.). The quality of these senses isn't depending
> > on their actual size.
>
> [Hammond]
> yes it is... the "mental speed" (intellgence) of the brain
> depends DIRECTLY on its size.... this is PROVEN by
> the fact that we have to correct intelligence by dividing
> by a persons age due to their increasing brain size.
and that delusional absolute is DISPROVEN by the fact that two adults CAN
AND DO have different IQs .. and the SAME head size!
While a six year old can be SMARTER than a three year old ... as YOU EVEN
ADMITTED .... they BOTH can have IQs of 100!!!
A six year old DOES NOT have "twice the IQ" of a three year old! (something
you suggested by another insane claim)!
Once again, you are taking a basic fact .. and distorting beyond sanity to
support your insane crap!!!
That's enough time spent proving that good old George is not only deranged
and insane .. but NOTHING like a real scientist!
George Hammond
> > > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > > question: Did God create the universe?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> > and its time you understood what they are talking about
> > when they say that.....!!
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > What they're talking about when they say "God created
> > the universe" is THIS:
> > The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> > reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
>
>
> But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
[Hammond]
Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
The World would not exist if we were all dead!
First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focssed
attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
This point is PROVEN using advanced physics and experimental
evidence and has been published. I PRESUME that you are
not a trained scientist, however I will therefore proceed to try
and explain this point HEURISTICALLY and see if I can get
through to you. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION!
First, let us examine what the statement "the world would exist
even if we were all dead" actually means. What it means is
"if we were suddenly to reappear, the world would still be here".
But this negates the original proposition which says that we
are all dead. So we see that the statement is actually a contradiction
in terms. The statment is meaningless.
There is a simple reason why the statment is meaningless. The fact is
that the world "exists" actually means:
"exists" = "is existing" = "is observeable by a human being"
obviously, if there "are no human beings" it is NOT observable by
a human being. In FACT:
The "existence" of something depends sine qua non
on the "existence" of a human being. There is no
such thing as "existence" without the existence of a
human being to "create its existence". "Existence" is a
physical property of the human perceptual system.
The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
for a "majority vote
of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
will confirm this. The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
is SOLELY BASED on the esistence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
system of a human being!
Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
die with them!!!!! The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
Of crucial importance, is that "TIME" itself does not exist without the
existence of Man. Therefore, "TIME" itself was "CREATED" when Man
was created, 40,000 years ago. This "creation of time" includes a
15 Billion year old "Big Bang" and billion year old fossils. "Age" is
not the same thing as "time itself". "time itself" was created when Man
was created,
and "Time itself" was CREATED 40,000 years ago and already contained
a 15 billion year history!!
Now... I shouldn't think that this is beyond your comprehension. And I
would
point out it was obvious to many great men long before the invention of
modern science. For instance in 300 AD Saint Augustine said it himself
when he said:
"the world was created WITH time, not IN time."
(Saint Augustine)
He understood EXACTLY what I have just explained to you, and which
is now PROVEN by modern science.
>
>
> > So therefore.... the "creation of the brain" is a
> > "creation of reality". This is what the "Biblical Creation"
> > actually is..... the "creation of the brain" 40,000 years ago.
>
>
> But that isn't what anyone else that I know of believes.
[Hammond]
Saint Augustine believed it. The entire Christian Science
Church in modern times, believes it. Hammond has now
SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED it.
> We all KNOW
> that we have our "personal reality", which first started when we
> became cognizent of ourselves and the world around us. So? "Creation"
> is understood, by everyone else that I know of, to represent actual
> physical reality.
[Hammond]
All we really know is that the juman perceptual system creates
an "image we call reality).... i.e. the 5 senses. What the absolute
nature of what it is perceiving is, we have no way of knowing.
All we reallly KNOW is that we can't know anything beyond
the "perceptual map" produced by our 5 senses.... and if
our 5 senses all die tomorrow.... then this perceptual construct
called "reality' disappears with us.
>
> >
> > Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> > 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
>
>
> And that's the REAL question about God's existence, since theists
> believe that God created actual physical reality. Did He (She? It?) or
> didn't He?
[Hammond]
"Absoulte physicial reality" is only a convenient hypothesis... in fact it
is an "unobservable". the only thing we observe is "perceptual reality"
and it is a know fact that "perceptual reality" disappears if man
disappears.
Of course... let me anticipate the PRACTICALLITY of this staement
by pointing out that "human perceptual reality" can be MODIFIED
by brian growth, since human perceptual reality deppends crucially on
the BRAIN. This is the practical point of all this discussion, because
it turns out that "brain growth" crucially modifies "perceptual reality"
and this PHENOMENON is the CAUSE of both RELIGION and GOD!
And THAT is why we are actually here taliking about all this...
NOT because it is of some abstract Philosophical importence!
>
> >
> > But that doesn't matter.
>
>
> It may not matter to YOU. Since everyone else that I know of is
> concerned, in the question of God's existence, with the creation of
> the actual physical universe, it DOES matter.
[Hammond]
NO.. it doesn't matter to St. Augustine, and it doesn't matter
to the Christian religion and its 1.3 billion followers.. The only people
it matters to are a handful of misguided scientific hobbyists and
woefully uninformed counter culture enthusiast like you.
>
>
> > Until MAN is created (40,000 years ago)
> > to SEE IT..... then it doesn't EXIST. You can't have an
> > "OBSERVABLE" without and "OBSERVER".
>
>
> Sounds like the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which
> HAS NOT been "proven", nor is it universally accepted by top-notch
> physicists - in fact, nowadays the majority of top-notch physicists
> would probably not support this view. If you CALL something
> "observable", then you are REFERRING to it as being able to be
> observed, which implies an observer. That's mere definition, a
> tautology. If nothing is "observable" because no observers exist, you
> have nowhere demonstrated that actual physical reality does not exist
> - and it IS actual physical reality that everyone else is referring to
> when they speak of creation. We KNOW our own, individual, perceived
> "universes" would not exist if we did not - that is OBVIOUS - "my"
> universe would not exist if "I" did not - but "creation", by everyone
> else's definition, refers to "the" universe (the actual physical one),
> rather than our own individually perceived "universes".
[Hammond]
You're simply going around and around in circles with your erroneous
tautology. The fact that you need an OBSERVER to define the
term OBSERVABLES in physicis predates quantum mechanics by many
centuries. PHYSICIS has simply never concerned itself with the
question of the "esistence of the observer". However, it turns out
there IS a question of the "existence of the observer" and this is called
the
"theory of God" and it has now achieve a SCIENTIFIC PROOF by
Hammond 2003.
>
> >
> > The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> > "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> > The first is called the "Big Bang"
> > The second is called "Biblical Creation".
>
>
> But in Biblical Creation, God created Man, pre-existed Man, and was in
> no way dependent on Man for his own existence. How does this
> reconcilew with your theory?
[Hammond]
A. God created himself
B. God created Man at the same time as himself
because he created "time itself" when he created Man
and the World. And this is called "Creation".
>
> > BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
>
>
> That human observers only came on the scene recently (relative to the
> Big Bang) is incontrovertible. Calling THIS "Biblical Creation" has
> not, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, been shown to be
> "scientifically real" -
[Hammond]
Sorry, Saint Augustine and Bishop Ussher, and the Bible,
and the Christian Science Church more recently, ALL
strongly disagree with you and SUPPORT ME.
so qudit saying I stand alone.... fact is the entire history
of both Science and religion support me fully.
> and that has nothing to do with relativity,
> psychometry, or even religion. You seem to be trying to "theorize" the
> universe into being in accord with your own, perceived reality -
[Hammond]
No.... that's just one of you PRESUMPTIONS and CHERISHED HOPES,
turns out it has been dashed to smithereens by my discovery of an axiomatic
experimentally proven hard scientific proof. Sorry..... yawn....
> while
> everyone else, besides druggies, try to adjust their perceived
> realities to be in accord with the universe.
[Hammond]
Unfortunately for you... the only hope for the survival of your
pre-scientific proof
beliefs is now to harass me as vigorously as possible and try to SUPPRESS
the discovery.
you DO apparently have the support of your handlers the scientific
establishment).
You will have to use the internet to muster as many hecklers, stalkers,
kooks,
nuts and radicals as you possible can to try and destroy my reputation and
prevent
publication in the leading journals.
However, your efforts seem to be slipping:
1. The theory has been published in the peer reviewed literature
and is already sitting in hundreds of copies in libraries and
subscribers hands
2. 2 million people have visited my websites in the past 4 years
and the theory God=G_uv is already widely known
3. Scores of the world's leading scientists including Chris Isham,
Stephen Unwin, the Vatican Observatory and many others have
already commented on the discovery.
If you're going to make a serious effort to suppress and discredit this
discovery,
you're already running behind the clock.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> I agree with Alan. The God of the Bible is not Hammond's Guv.
>
[Hammond]
Alan's arguments have been totally trashed by the following reply from
Hammond:
"Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > > question: Did God create the universe?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> > and its time you understood what they are talking about
> > when they say that.....!!
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > What they're talking about when they say "God created
> > the universe" is THIS:
> > The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> > reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
>
>
> But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
[Hammond]
Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
The World would not exist if we were all dead!
First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
This point is PROVEN using advanced physics and experimental
evidence and has been published. I PRESUME that you are
not a trained scientist, however I will therefore proceed to try
and explain this point HEURISTICALLY and see if I can get
through to you. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION!
First, let us examine what the statement "the world would exist
even if we were all dead" actually means. What it means is
"if we were suddenly to reappear, the world would still be here".
But this negates the original proposition which says that we
are all dead. So we see that the statement is actually a contradiction
in terms. The statement is meaningless.
There is a simple reason why the statment is meaningless. The fact is
that the world "exists" actually means:
"exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
obviously, if there "are no human beings" it is NOT observable by
a human being. In FACT:
The "existence" of something depends sine qua non
on the "existence" of a human being. There is no
such thing as "existence" without the existence of a
human being to "create its existence". "Existence" is a
physical property of the human perceptual system.
The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
for a "majority vote
of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
will confirm this. The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
system of a human being!
Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
die with them!!!!! The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
Of crucial importance, is that "TIME" itself does not exist without the
existence of Man. Therefore, "TIME" itself was "CREATED" when Man
was created, 40,000 years ago. This "creation of time" includes a
15 Billion year old "Big Bang" and billion year old fossils. "Age" is
not the same thing as "time itself". "time itself" was created when Man
was created,
and "Time itself" was CREATED 40,000 years ago and already contained
a 15 billion year history!!
Now... I shouldn't think that this is beyond your comprehension. And I
would
point out it was obvious to many great men long before the invention of
modern science. For instance in 300 AD Saint Augustine said it himself
when he said:
"the world was created WITH time, not IN time."
(Saint Augustine)
He understood EXACTLY what I have just explained to you, and which
is now PROVEN by modern science.
>
>
> > So therefore.... the "creation of the brain" is a
> > "creation of reality". This is what the "Biblical Creation"
> > actually is..... the "creation of the brain" 40,000 years ago.
>
>
> But that isn't what anyone else that I know of believes.
[Hammond]
Saint Augustine believed it. The entire Christian Science
Church in modern times, believes it. Hammond has now
SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED it.
> We all KNOW
> that we have our "personal reality", which first started when we
> became cognizant of ourselves and the world around us. So? "Creation"
> is understood, by everyone else that I know of, to represent actual
> physical reality.
[Hammond]
All we really know is that the human perceptual system creates
an "image we call reality).... i.e. the 5 senses. What the absolute
nature of what it is perceiving is, we have no way of knowing.
All we really KNOW is that we can't know anything beyond
the "perceptual map" produced by our 5 senses.... and if
our 5 senses all die tomorrow.... then this perceptual construct
called "reality' disappears with us.
>
> >
> > Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> > 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
>
>
> And that's the REAL question about God's existence, since theists
> believe that God created actual physical reality. Did He (She? It?) or
> didn't He?
[Hammond]
"Absolute physical reality" is only a convenient hypothesis... in fact it
is an "unobservable". the only thing we observe is "perceptual reality"
and it is a know fact that "perceptual reality" disappears if man
disappears.
Of course... let me anticipate the PRACTICALITY of this statement
by pointing out that "human perceptual reality" can be MODIFIED
by brain growth, since human perceptual reality depends crucially on
the BRAIN. This is the practical point of all this discussion, because
it turns out that "brain growth" crucially modifies "perceptual reality"
and this PHENOMENON is the CAUSE of both RELIGION and GOD!
And THAT is why we are actually here talking about all this...
NOT because it is of some abstract Philosophical importance!
>
> >
> > But that doesn't matter.
>
>
> It may not matter to YOU. Since everyone else that I know of is
> concerned, in the question of God's existence, with the creation of
> the actual physical universe, it DOES matter.
[Hammond]
NO.. it doesn't matter to St. Augustine, and it doesn't matter
to the Christian religion and its 1.3 billion followers.. The only people
it matters to are a handful of misguided scientific hobbyists and
woefully uninformed counter culture enthusiast like you.
>
>
> > Until MAN is created (40,000 years ago)
> > to SEE IT..... then it doesn't EXIST. You can't have an
> > "OBSERVABLE" without and "OBSERVER".
>
>
> Sounds like the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which
> HAS NOT been "proven", nor is it universally accepted by top-notch
> physicists - in fact, nowadays the majority of top-notch physicists
> would probably not support this view. If you CALL something
> "observable", then you are REFERRING to it as being able to be
> observed, which implies an observer. That's mere definition, a
> tautology. If nothing is "observable" because no observers exist, you
> have nowhere demonstrated that actual physical reality does not exist
> - and it IS actual physical reality that everyone else is referring to
> when they speak of creation. We KNOW our own, individual, perceived
> "universes" would not exist if we did not - that is OBVIOUS - "my"
> universe would not exist if "I" did not - but "creation", by everyone
> else's definition, refers to "the" universe (the actual physical one),
> rather than our own individually perceived "universes".
[Hammond]
You're simply going around and around in circles with your erroneous
tautology. The fact that you need an OBSERVER to define the
term OBSERVABLES in physics predates quantum mechanics by many
centuries. PHYSICS has simply never concerned itself with the
question of the "existence of the observer". However, it turns out
there IS a question of the "existence of the observer" and this is called
the
"theory of God" and it has now achieve a SCIENTIFIC PROOF by
Hammond 2003.
>
> >
> > The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> > "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> > The first is called the "Big Bang"
> > The second is called "Biblical Creation".
>
>
> But in Biblical Creation, God created Man, pre-existed Man, and was in
> no way dependent on Man for his own existence. How does this
> reconcile with your theory?
[Hammond]
A. God created himself
B. God created Man at the same time as himself
because he created "time itself" when he created Man
and the World. And this is called "Creation".
>
> > BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
>
>
> That human observers only came on the scene recently (relative to the
> Big Bang) is incontrovertible. Calling THIS "Biblical Creation" has
> not, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, been shown to be
> "scientifically real" -
[Hammond]
Sorry, Saint Augustine and Bishop Ussher, and the Bible,
and the Christian Science Church more recently, ALL
strongly disagree with you and SUPPORT ME.
so quit saying I stand alone.... fact is the entire history
of both Science and religion support me fully.
> and that has nothing to do with relativity,
> psychometry, or even religion. You seem to be trying to "theorize" the
> universe into being in accord with your own, perceived reality -
[Hammond]
No.... that's just one of you PRESUMPTIONS and CHERISHED HOPES,
turns out it has been dashed to smithereens by my discovery of an axiomatic
experimentally proven hard scientific proof. Sorry..... yawn....
> while
> everyone else, besides druggies, try to adjust their perceived
> realities to be in accord with the universe.
[Hammond]
Unfortunately for you... the only hope for the survival of your
pre-scientific proof
beliefs is now to harass me as vigorously as possible and try to SUPPRESS
the discovery.
you DO apparently have the support of your handlers the scientific
establishment).
You will have to use the internet to muster as many hecklers, stalkers,
kooks,
nuts and radicals as you possible can to try and destroy my reputation and
prevent
publication in the leading journals.
However, your efforts seem to be slipping:
1. The theory has been published in the peer reviewed literature
and is already sitting in hundreds of copies in libraries and
subscribers hands
2. 2 million people have visited my websites in the past 4 years
and the theory God=G_uv is already widely known
3. Scores of the world's leading scientists including Chris Isham,
Stephen Unwin, the Vatican Observatory and many others have
already commented on the discovery.
If you're going to make a serious effort to suppress and discredit this
discovery,
you're already running behind the clock.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> I agree with Alan. The God of the Bible is not Hammond's Guv.
>
[Hammond]
Alan's arguments have been totally trashed by the following reply from
Hammond:
"Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > > question: Did God create the universe?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> > and its time you understood what they are talking about
> > when they say that.....!!
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > What they're talking about when they say "God created
> > the universe" is THIS:
> > The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> > reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
>
>
> But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
[Hammond]
Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
The World would not exist if we were all dead!
First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
This point is PROVEN using advanced physics and experimental
evidence and has been published. I PRESUME that you are
not a trained scientist, however I will therefore proceed to try
and explain this point HEURISTICALLY and see if I can get
through to you. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION!
First, let us examine what the statement "the world would exist
even if we were all dead" actually means. What it means is
"if we were suddenly to reappear, the world would still be here".
But this negates the original proposition which says that we
are all dead. So we see that the statement is actually a contradiction
in terms. The statement is meaningless.
There is a simple reason why the statment is meaningless. The fact is
that the world "exists" actually means:
"exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
obviously, if there "are no human beings" it is NOT observable by
a human being. In FACT:
The "existence" of something depends sine qua non
on the "existence" of a human being. There is no
such thing as "existence" without the existence of a
human being to "create its existence". "Existence" is a
physical property of the human perceptual system.
The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
for a "majority vote
of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
will confirm this. The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> became cognizant of ourselves and the world around us. So? "Creation"
> is understood, by everyone else that I know of, to represent actual
> physical reality.
[Hammond]
All we really know is that the human perceptual system creates
an "image we call reality).... i.e. the 5 senses. What the absolute
nature of what it is perceiving is, we have no way of knowing.
All we really KNOW is that we can't know anything beyond
the "perceptual map" produced by our 5 senses.... and if
our 5 senses all die tomorrow.... then this perceptual construct
called "reality' disappears with us.
>
> >
> > Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> > 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
>
>
> And that's the REAL question about God's existence, since theists
> believe that God created actual physical reality. Did He (She? It?) or
> didn't He?
[Hammond]
"Absolute physical reality" is only a convenient hypothesis... in fact it
is an "unobservable". the only thing we observe is "perceptual reality"
and it is a know fact that "perceptual reality" disappears if man
disappears.
Of course... let me anticipate the PRACTICALITY of this statement
by pointing out that "human perceptual reality" can be MODIFIED
by brain growth, since human perceptual reality depends crucially on
the BRAIN. This is the practical point of all this discussion, because
it turns out that "brain growth" crucially modifies "perceptual reality"
and this PHENOMENON is the CAUSE of both RELIGION and GOD!
And THAT is why we are actually here talking about all this...
NOT because it is of some abstract Philosophical importance!
term OBSERVABLES in physics predates quantum mechanics by many
centuries. PHYSICS has simply never concerned itself with the
question of the "existence of the observer". However, it turns out
there IS a question of the "existence of the observer" and this is called
the
"theory of God" and it has now achieve a SCIENTIFIC PROOF by
Hammond 2003.
>
> >
> > The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> > "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> > The first is called the "Big Bang"
> > The second is called "Biblical Creation".
>
>
> But in Biblical Creation, God created Man, pre-existed Man, and was in
> no way dependent on Man for his own existence. How does this
> reconcile with your theory?
[Hammond]
A. God created himself
B. God created Man at the same time as himself
because he created "time itself" when he created Man
and the World. And this is called "Creation".
>
> > BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
>
>
> That human observers only came on the scene recently (relative to the
> Big Bang) is incontrovertible. Calling THIS "Biblical Creation" has
> not, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, been shown to be
> "scientifically real" -
[Hammond]
Sorry, Saint Augustine and Bishop Ussher, and the Bible,
and the Christian Science Church more recently, ALL
strongly disagree with you and SUPPORT ME.
so quit saying I stand alone.... fact is the entire history
George Hammond
> I agree with Alan. The God of the Bible is not Hammond's Guv.
>
[Hammond]
Alan's arguments have been totally trashed by the following reply from
Hammond:
"Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > > question: Did God create the universe?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> > and its time you understood what they are talking about
> > when they say that.....!!
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > What they're talking about when they say "God created
> > the universe" is THIS:
> > The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> > reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
>
>
> But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
[Hammond]
Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
The World would not exist if we were all dead!
First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
This point is PROVEN using advanced physics and experimental
evidence and has been published. I PRESUME that you are
not a trained scientist, however I will therefore proceed to try
and explain this point HEURISTICALLY and see if I can get
through to you. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION!
First, let us examine what the statement "the world would exist
even if we were all dead" actually means. What it means is
"if we were suddenly to reappear, the world would still be here".
But this negates the original proposition which says that we
are all dead. So we see that the statement is actually a contradiction
in terms. The statement is meaningless.
There is a simple reason why the statment is meaningless. The fact is
that the world "exists" actually means:
"exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
obviously, if there "are no human beings" it is NOT observable by
a human being. In FACT:
The "existence" of something depends sine qua non
on the "existence" of a human being. There is no
such thing as "existence" without the existence of a
human being to "create its existence". "Existence" is a
physical property of the human perceptual system.
The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
for a "majority vote
of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
will confirm this. The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> became cognizant of ourselves and the world around us. So? "Creation"
> is understood, by everyone else that I know of, to represent actual
> physical reality.
[Hammond]
All we really know is that the human perceptual system creates
an "image we call reality).... i.e. the 5 senses. What the absolute
nature of what it is perceiving is, we have no way of knowing.
All we really KNOW is that we can't know anything beyond
the "perceptual map" produced by our 5 senses.... and if
our 5 senses all die tomorrow.... then this perceptual construct
called "reality' disappears with us.
>
> >
> > Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> > 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
>
>
> And that's the REAL question about God's existence, since theists
> believe that God created actual physical reality. Did He (She? It?) or
> didn't He?
[Hammond]
"Absolute physical reality" is only a convenient hypothesis... in fact it
is an "unobservable". the only thing we observe is "perceptual reality"
and it is a know fact that "perceptual reality" disappears if man
disappears.
Of course... let me anticipate the PRACTICALITY of this statement
by pointing out that "human perceptual reality" can be MODIFIED
by brain growth, since human perceptual reality depends crucially on
the BRAIN. This is the practical point of all this discussion, because
it turns out that "brain growth" crucially modifies "perceptual reality"
and this PHENOMENON is the CAUSE of both RELIGION and GOD!
And THAT is why we are actually here talking about all this...
NOT because it is of some abstract Philosophical importance!
term OBSERVABLES in physics predates quantum mechanics by many
centuries. PHYSICS has simply never concerned itself with the
question of the "existence of the observer". However, it turns out
there IS a question of the "existence of the observer" and this is called
the
"theory of God" and it has now achieve a SCIENTIFIC PROOF by
Hammond 2003.
>
> >
> > The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> > "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> > The first is called the "Big Bang"
> > The second is called "Biblical Creation".
>
>
> But in Biblical Creation, God created Man, pre-existed Man, and was in
> no way dependent on Man for his own existence. How does this
> reconcile with your theory?
[Hammond]
A. God created himself
B. God created Man at the same time as himself
because he created "time itself" when he created Man
and the World. And this is called "Creation".
>
> > BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
>
>
> That human observers only came on the scene recently (relative to the
> Big Bang) is incontrovertible. Calling THIS "Biblical Creation" has
> not, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, been shown to be
> "scientifically real" -
[Hammond]
Sorry, Saint Augustine and Bishop Ussher, and the Bible,
and the Christian Science Church more recently, ALL
strongly disagree with you and SUPPORT ME.
so quit saying I stand alone.... fact is the entire history
Rick Cvejic
>
> "Rick Cvejic" <hybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6ef5b8f1.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> "George Hammond" <resea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<3VGSc.245727$IQ4.111140@attbi_s02>...
>> > This "acceleration" turns out to be caused by a "curvature
>> > of spacetime". OK, when Einstein pointed that out, the
>> > term "acceleration of gravity" was already WELL KNOWN to
>> > everyone... in other words Einstein just pointed out the
>> > SIGNIFICANCE of something that was ALREADY WELL KNOWN!
>> > The scientific proof of God that I have discovered is
>> > based on exactly the same kind of circumstance... it begins
>> > by pointing out the SIGNIFICANCE of something that is
>> > ALREADY WELL KNOWN, and then deduces from that a scientific
>> > explanation of God!
>>
>> Correction:
>>
>> Einstein pointed out the greater significance of something which
had
>> been PROVEN centuries before. Not "well known". Proven.
>
> [Hammond]
> Same difference. The "SECULAR TREND" has been "proven"
> for more than 50 years!
Although I admit I am not qualified to say much on the topic of
secular
trends, I think you and I have a difference of opinion on the meaning
of the word 'proof'. Proof to me implies "beyond doubt*". You know.
Like
the sky is blue, or that 1+1=2.
*except for the small percentage of kooks who believe things like an
airliner didn't hit the Pentagon, or who are colour-blind, or
mathematically incompetent.
>> You are pointing out a new interpretation of something which has
not
>> and cannot be proven;
>
> [Hammond]
> IDIOTIC STAEMENT!! The "Secular Trend" was discovered over
> 75 years ago, has been and continues to be studied by the WHO,
> RED CROSS, UNICEF and a bazillion academic researchers
> and can be found in full page articles in a 20 year Encyclopedia
> Britannica. It has even made the front pages of TIME MAGAZINE:
> http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time1.htm
> A Google search will turn up 10,000 published papers on it.
> You don't know what the fcuk you're talking about.
I was referring to SPOG, but hey, whatever you like.
>> > "theoretical human life span". Incidentally, since
>> > our bodies are only, say, 85% grown... our BRAINS are
>> > only 85% grown also.
>> <snip>
>> > Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
>> > the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
>> > This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
>> > or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact.
>>
>> This is a good theory, but you have no experimental proof of this.
>
> [Hammond]
> Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average IQ)
> Half the world is "invisible" to a 9 year old because of this.
> (his "mental speed" is only 50% of an 18 year old).
> An 18 year old can see a baseball moving TWICE AS FAST
> as the fastest one that can be seen by a 9 year old... to give
> you a reallly stupid example you can comprehend.
Are you kidding me? Eyesight doesn't speed up. In fact, I think most
researchers say that mental processing speed diminishes with time -
and
so does IQ (which is why you cant teach old dogs new tricks, or show
an old man that he is wrong). The only reason the 9 year old doesn't
hit
the baseball is that he isn't as coordinated as the 18 year old.
Intelligence does not grow with time. Knowledge does. Thats why IQ
tests
try to be independant of language and anything beyond simple
arithmetic.
Needless to say, you have no evidence that there is a missing part to
our
reality (although your example of the child would have sufficed if you
had sources to back it up).
> Likewise... about 15% of the world is "invisible" to the
> average man..... (because of the Secular Trend lack of full growth)
> and this is the explanation of the "invisible God" we worship.
> This has been known and PROVEN since the 1930's when
> they invented the IQ test. You're just too STUPID to understand
> anything OBVIOUS AND PROVEN.
Funny you should mention the IQ test...
>> > Once
>> > this significance is realized... the entire history of
>> > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
>> > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
>> > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
>>
>> Invalid assertion. No evidence. Blah blah blah.
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you shove your fingers in your ears, close your
> eyes and say "na, na, na, na ,na, na ,na" like a 5 year old does?
Because if I did that too, who would write sensible posts to
Usenet?
>> > Any "variability"
>> > in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
>> > repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
>> > come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
>> > hence the explanation of miracles.
>>
>> You could just as easily "prove" psychics, ESP, ghosts and maybe
even
>> hypnosis in the same way.
>
> [Hammond]
> No shit Seherlock.... If it explains "God" it certainly
> explains all those phenomena (a fact which I discovered years
> ago). I'll assign that boring exercise as a homework exercise.
Funny how most religions deny the existence of those phenomena...
surely
they would know, right?
>> > OK.... that's the "new significance". But BEYOND THAT,
>> > it turns out this "theory" can actually be PROVED
EXPERIMENTALLY
>> > to two decimal point accuracy. This is where you have to
have
>> > some scientific training. It turns out that just like
"gravity"
>> > is a curvature in spacetime... "God" is a curvature in
>> > Psychometry Space, and in fact:
>> >
>> > GOD = G_uv
>> >
>> > The reason for this is that:
>> >
>> > 4D spacetime CAUSES 4D Psychometry Space
>> >
>> > Due to the 3D Cartesian cleavage of the Brain.
>> > Anyway... the PROOF has been published in the peer
reviewed
>> > scientific literature, and the papers are posted and
clearly
>> > explained on my website:
>>
>> The curvature of psychometric space might be something,
>
> [Hammond]
> That's the first intelligent thing you've ever said!!
> As a matter of fact, more intelligent and learned
> than what any other scientist has said about this... including
> his nibs professor CHRIS ISHAM.
> What's your name again?
> However, it is not as intelligent as Dr. STEVE UNWIN'S
> comments on the matter.
Lets not start on that miserable excuse for a statistician, shall we?
>> but it isnt
>> God.
>
> [Hammond]
> You have one more intelligent realization to make: It is God.
> After you figure that out you and I can have a whiff of Smirnoff
> and celebrate belonging to the most exclusive club in the world;
> the "Men who know what God is Club"!
>> Even if we assume it is, it seems like all you've done here is
>> prove that God is in our minds. If God is in our minds, how did he
>> create the world?
>
> [Hammond]
> God is not "COGNITIVE" (i.e. is not an IDEA)
> God is PERCEPTUAL, and percepion is REALITY.
> Therefore, GOD IS REAL.
>
> God is caused by the brain... but the brain creates more than just
> "thoughts".
> The brain is responsible for allowing you to SEE REALITY.
> God is not an IDEA. God is SEEN REALITY.
So.... God is outside The Matrix? Gimme a break. Perception is not
reality. If I don't see a car pull out in front of me, I still slam
into
the back of him. If I'm the one pulling out, and I think a car hits
me,
but none really does, I wont be getting whiplash, and my insurance
company
wont be getting upset at me.
Similarly, just because people with mental illness "see things",
doesn't
mean they are there.
Constructs of the mind do not change the shape of reality. They only
change the shape of perceived reality.
Rick Cvejic
> [Hammond]
> Thanks for the courage Androcles, even if it is a bit late.
> What has been done to a serious graduate physicist and
> peer reviewed published scholar on the Physics Newsgroups in the past 4
> years is an absolute disgrace to the physics community. How they could
> totally abandon one of their own collegues to the heckling, threatening,
> stalking and menacing wolves of the internet is more a reflection on YOU
> than it is on them.
> Not since the Nazis pillaged Albert Einstein's home in Belgium has there
> been
> a greater disgrace to the Physics community than the treatment afforded
> George Hammond by professional physicists on the Physics newsgroups.
> It is a scandal that I'm sure my future biographers will unfortunately for
> Physics,
> document for all posterity.
George Hammond is the king of Godwins Law.
Scot McDermid
Alan asked:
> > But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> > actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
>
> [Hammond]
> Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
> The World would not exist if we were all dead!
Aha! Well that actually ties a lot of your theory together.
What you are saying might actually be internally consistent.
Internally consistent but based on that false premise.
Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.
> First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
> attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
Yes... it is crucial. Your whole theory rests on it.
> The fact is
> that the world "exists" actually means:
>
> "exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
Yes "is *observable*" but when there is no human present
to observe it, would you say that it continues to exist?
Would you say it (pick an object) blip in and out of existence?
> The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
> time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
> definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
> up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
> for a "majority vote
> of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
> what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
> will confirm this.
Yes.. I'll actually agree. Without human to define mass, length
and time, then these concepts would not exist.
> The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
> is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
> system of a human being!
I'll agree.
> Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
> die with them!!!!!
Yes. I agree.
> The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
No, wrong. That does not necessarily follow.
Human conceptions would die. That brass
cylinder of "mass" and platinum rod of "length"
you mentioned above would continue to exist.
There would simply be no one there to know
the significance of those objects.
George Hammond
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aQyTc.252766$a24.68011@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:10hsjo1...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > When you provide VALID FACTS .
> > > This says NOTHING about your claims between acceleration and gravity.
If
> > > you'll notice, mush brain, Acceleration is not even mentioned!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > OK..... we have to put it in grade school language for you:
> >
> > EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT
> >
> > is proof from EINSTEIN HIMSELF that "gravity"="acceleration"
> > You're a freakin idiot.
>
> It shows NO SUCH THING, you fucking idiot!!!!!
[Hammond]
You've had your ass thouroughly whipped by the above statement.
Please fold your tent and take a hike. Go pedal your bellowing tripe
somewhere else.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Sure, no problem. My CV is posted on my website:
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U.; presently Distinguished Professor at TAMU
>
> Immediately AFTER you give YOUR credentials as a
psychologist/psychiatrist.
[Hammoond]
Sure, no problem. These peer reviewed and published papers are prominently
posted on my website:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
<snip rest of bellowing trash>
[Hammond]
You've had your puny ass thoroughly whipped time and time again
including above. Take a hike.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1gUTc.131845$8_6.45397@attbi_s04...
>
> Alan asked:
> > > But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> > > actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
> > The World would not exist if we were all dead!
>
> Aha! Well that actually ties a lot of your theory together.
> What you are saying might actually be internally consistent.
> Internally consistent but based on that false premise.
>
> Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
> Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.
[Hammond]
Of course you can't prove it.... it's a false statement.
The word "objective" means "outside the mind".
There is nothing that "exists" "outside the mind of Man".
If there was, we wouldn't know about it, would we!
>
> > First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
> > attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
>
> Yes... it is crucial. Your whole theory rests on it.
[Hammond]
Wrong. The proof of the discovery is not "linear" it is
"convergent" like any other major theory.
Any scientific discovery (proven theory) must have the following
characteristics:
1. Must be comprehensive, i.e. must explain all knon evidence
2. Must be internally consistent
3. Must be sufficient
4. There must be NO contrary evidence
the scientific proof of God I've discovered and proven meets ALL of these
requirements, and is not "founded" on any one argument or piece of
evidence.
> > The fact is
> > that the world "exists" actually means:
> >
> > "exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
>
> Yes "is *observable*" but when there is no human present
> to observe it, would you say that it continues to exist?
[Hammond]
Of course not. Because "reality" only exists in the perception
of the observer.... the "observer" in this case being the entire
body of mankind. If the eitire body of mankind died tomorrow,
"reality as we know it" OBVIOUSLY would no longer exist.
You know..... you can go round and round with "rethorical, semantic
and philosophical" arguments for only so long.... and then science
gets fed up and points to God=G_uv and the identity between
Factor Analysis and Linearized Gravity and the Curvature in
Psychometry Sapce and so on and quickly decides that your
"philawsephy" arguments are IRRELEVANT.
Same is ture of any scientific theory..... you can argue that
"nothing can be proven" blah, blah, blah and plenty of kooks
on sci.physicis.relativity are.... and they argue that "relativity
cannot be true" becuse of this.... however, the mass of
world opinion is that it HAS BEEN PROVED and it IS
true.
the same is true of the scientific proof of god.... you can
argue your "philawsephy" all you want... but the mass of
scientific evidence (comprehensive) shows that God=G_uv
and Science is only concerned with that, even if you aren't.
> Would you say it (pick an object) blip in and out of existence?
[Hammond]
Not unless the human race en toto blips in
and out of existence.
>
> > The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
> > time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
> > definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
> > up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
> > for a "majority vote
> > of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
> > what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
> > will confirm this.
>
> Yes.. I'll actually agree. Without human to define mass, length
> and time, then these concepts would not exist.
[Hammond]
Your admission is equivalent to admitting that "human
perception creates reality"... which is about all that
Relgion actually says. And there is now a scientific proof
they are correct.
>
> > The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
> > is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> > INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
> > system of a human being!
>
> I'll agree.
>
> > Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
> > die with them!!!!!
>
> Yes. I agree.
>
> > The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
>
> No, wrong. That does not necessarily follow.
> Human conceptions would die. That brass
> cylinder of "mass" and platinum rod of "length"
> you mentioned above would continue to exist.
[Hammond]
Please tell me how you would PROVE that assertion.
I'll tell you in advance you CAN'T prove that assertion
because it is unprovable. The reason it is unprovable is
that without Man (the observer), the universe becomes an
"unobservable" and as any physicist knows, an unobservable
is not observable.
The point is... "reality" is actually a product of the human
mind, and therefore disappears if all human minds disappear.
You would have to "redefine" the world "existence" in order
to say reality "exists" without Man, since in fact, the world
"existence" IS defined in terms of Mans ability to oberve
things that "exist".... "exist" MEANS "humanly observable".
If there is any OTHER kind of "existence" we certainly don't know
about it.
> There would simply be no one there to know
> the significance of those objects.
[Hammond]
More than that... there would be nobody here to "create the
existence" of those objects.
[Hammond]
ONE FINAL STATEMENT:
Don't go away thinking that you have been involved in an
"academic philosophy" discussion, YOU HAVEN'T.
There is an extremly PRACTICAL point to all this.
The practical consideration has to do with the fact that
history has noticed, and now science has explained and measured,
a significant VARIABILITY of "human perception" due to
brain growth (and particularly the lifting of repression of pent
up brain growth which unleashes "new reality"). This phenomena
explains MIRACLES.
Moreover, it has been discovered scientifically that no one has a
"full grown brain"... and that means that part of reality is
INVISIBLE to all of us, and this explains the mysterious phenomena
called GOD.
Fact is, modern science has found, at last, the rational, logical,
provable and measurable SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GOD,
what has traditionally called "the scientific proof of God".
This discovery is of TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE to the
security and prosperity and civilization of the world!
TMG
> [Hammond]
> Sure, no problem. My CV is posted on my website:
>
> B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> Boston MA, USA
> Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
> at N.U.; presently Distinguished Professor at TAMU
A pointed and very specific question: Why couldn't you get that Ph.D?
There are lots of very detailed descriptions of the meltdown - but all
you (so far as I've seen) ever say is "I chose not to complete it".
Here's your chance to clarify the record and update a C.V. that peters
out ~35 years ago.
Any work record? What have your been doing for the last >35 years? I
know the answer, but I'm curious as what your lie is going to be.
You're kinda quick to take a swing at your betters - but you still have
that big blind spot about why they (we, they) are your betters.
BTW - Arnowitt has an email address, what does he think of your SPOG?
Think carefully before you answer - you never know about who knows who.....
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1gUTc.131845$8_6.45397@attbi_s04...
>
> Alan asked:
> > > But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> > > actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
> > The World would not exist if we were all dead!
>
> Aha! Well that actually ties a lot of your theory together.
> What you are saying might actually be internally consistent.
> Internally consistent but based on that false premise.
>
> Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
> Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.
[Hammond]
Of course you can't prove it.... it's a false statement.
The word "objective" means "outside the mind".
There is nothing that "exists" "outside the mind of Man".
If there was, we wouldn't know about it, would we!
>
> > First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
> > attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
>
> Yes... it is crucial. Your whole theory rests on it.
[Hammond]
Wrong. The proof of the discovery is not "linear" it is
"convergent" like any other major theory.
Any scientific discovery (proven theory) must have the following
characteristics:
1. Must be comprehensive, i.e. must explain all knon evidence
2. Must be internally consistent
3. Must be sufficient
4. There must be NO contrary evidence
the scientific proof of God I've discovered and proven meets ALL of these
requirements, and is not "founded" on any one argument or piece of
evidence.
> > The fact is
> > that the world "exists" actually means:
> >
> > "exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
>
> Yes "is *observable*" but when there is no human present
> to observe it, would you say that it continues to exist?
[Hammond]
Of course not. Because "reality" only exists in the perception
of the observer.... the "observer" in this case being the entire
body of mankind. If the eitire body of mankind died tomorrow,
"reality as we know it" OBVIOUSLY would no longer exist.
You know..... you can go round and round with "rethorical, semantic
and philosophical" arguments for only so long.... and then science
gets fed up and points to God=G_uv and the identity between
Factor Analysis and Linearized Gravity and the Curvature in
Psychometry Sapce and so on and quickly decides that your
"philawsephy" arguments are IRRELEVANT.
Same is ture of any scientific theory..... you can argue that
"nothing can be proven" blah, blah, blah and plenty of kooks
on sci.physicis.relativity are.... and they argue that "relativity
cannot be true" becuse of this.... however, the mass of
world opinion is that it HAS BEEN PROVED and it IS
true.
the same is true of the scientific proof of god.... you can
argue your "philawsephy" all you want... but the mass of
scientific evidence (comprehensive) shows that God=G_uv
and Science is only concerned with that, even if you aren't.
> Would you say it (pick an object) blip in and out of existence?
[Hammond]
Not unless the human race en toto blips in
and out of existence.
>
> > The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
> > time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
> > definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
> > up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
> > for a "majority vote
> > of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
> > what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
> > will confirm this.
>
> Yes.. I'll actually agree. Without human to define mass, length
> and time, then these concepts would not exist.
[Hammond]
Your admission is equivalent to admitting that "human
perception creates reality"... which is about all that
Relgion actually says. And there is now a scientific proof
they are correct.
>
> > The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
> > is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> > INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
> > system of a human being!
>
> I'll agree.
>
> > Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
> > die with them!!!!!
>
> Yes. I agree.
>
> > The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
>
> No, wrong. That does not necessarily follow.
> Human conceptions would die. That brass
> cylinder of "mass" and platinum rod of "length"
> you mentioned above would continue to exist.
[Hammond]
Please tell me how you would PROVE that assertion.
I'll tell you in advance you CAN'T prove that assertion
because it is unprovable. The reason it is unprovable is
that without Man (the observer), the universe becomes an
"unobservable" and as any physicist knows, an unobservable
is not observable.
The point is... "reality" is actually a product of the human
mind, and therefore disappears if all human minds disappear.
You would have to "redefine" the world "existence" in order
to say reality "exists" without Man, since in fact, the world
"existence" IS defined in terms of Mans ability to oberve
things that "exist".... "exist" MEANS "humanly observable".
If there is any OTHER kind of "existence" we certainly don't know
about it.
> There would simply be no one there to know
> the significance of those objects.
[Hammond]
More than that... there would be nobody here to "create the
existence" of those objects.
[Hammond]
ONE FINAL STATEMENT:
Don't go away thinking that you have been involved in an
"academic philosophy" discussion, YOU HAVEN'T.
There is an extremly PRACTICAL point to all this.
The practical consideration has to do with the fact that
history has noticed, and now science has explained and measured,
a significant VARIABILITY of "human perception" due to
brain growth (and particularly the lifting of repression of pent
up brain growth which unleashes "new reality"). This phenomena
explains MIRACLES.
Moreover, it has been discovered scientifically that no one has a
"full grown brain"... and that means that part of reality is
INVISIBLE to all of us, and this explains the mysterious phenomena
called GOD.
Fact is, modern science has found, at last, the rational, logical,
provable and measurable SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GOD,
what has traditionally called "the scientific proof of God".
This discovery is of TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE to the
security and prosperity and civilization of the world!
TMG
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:rdVTc.367$vc4.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>>"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1gUTc.131845$8_6.45397@attbi_s04...
>>
>>Alan asked:
>>
>>>>But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
>>>>actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
>>>The World would not exist if we were all dead!
>>
>>Aha! Well that actually ties a lot of your theory together.
>>What you are saying might actually be internally consistent.
>>Internally consistent but based on that false premise.
>>
>>Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
>>Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Of course you can't prove it.... it's a false statement.
> The word "objective" means "outside the mind".
Of course it doesn't. Another collision of OBJECTIVE reality and
Hammond. Doesn't he EVER get tired of being flat out stupid?
ob·jec·tive
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an
objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an
objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign
of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar.
1. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun
that serves as the object of a verb.
2. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at
intention.
3. Grammar.
1. The objective case.
2. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical
instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the
image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
ob·jective·ly adv.
ob·jective·ness n.
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
n.
The lens or lenses in the lower end of a microscope or other
optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object being
examined and forms its image.
adj.
1. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
2. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease
by someone other than the person affected.
ob·jective·ness n.
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Main Entry: 2objective
Function: noun
1 : a lens or system of lenses that forms an image of an object
2 : something toward which effort is directed
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the
realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and
perceptible by all observers <objective reality>
2 : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual <an
objective symptom of disease> <caused objective or subjective clinical
improvement or both —Journal of the American Medical Association>
—compare SUBJECTIVE 2b —ob·jec·tive·ly adverb
George Hammond
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:52:46 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
> >> > Well, as I pointed out above, it means that 15% of
> >> > the human brain is missing (i.e. is only partially grown).
> >> > This means that 15% of our "reality" must be missing..
> >> > or must be "invisible" to us, to be more exact.
> >>
> >> This is a good theory, but you have no experimental proof of this.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Another IDIOTIC STATEMENT. "Brain growth" is the main
> > cause of "intelligence". Intelligence goes from ZERO to 1800
> > during the first 18 years of your life. (i.e. 1800/18=100=the average
IQ)
> > Half the world is "invisible" to a 9 year old because of this.
> > (his "mental speed" is only 50% of an 18 year old).
> > An 18 year old can see a baseball moving TWICE AS FAST
> > as the fastest one that can be seen by a 9 year old... to give
> > you a reallly stupid example you can comprehend.
>
> Are you kidding me? Eyesight doesn't speed up. In fact, I think most
> researchers say that mental processing speed diminishes with time -
> and
> so does IQ (which is why you cant teach old dogs new tricks, or show
> an old man that he is wrong). The only reason the 9 year old doesn't
> hit
> the baseball is that he isn't as coordinated as the 18 year old.
[Hammond]
Who are you kidding. Youth is no different from being "mentally retarded"
in fact mentally retarded people are generally catogorized by their
"mental age".... i.e. "the mind of a ten year old".... "intelligence of a
13 year old" etc. Mentally retarded people are called "slow" and have
been for thousands of years.... same with children.. they are
"mentally slow"... the mental processing speed (decision speed) of
people can be easily measured by modern equipment and children
are of course significantly slower than adults... simply because
processing speed in bits/second correlates directly with Intelligence
(raw intelligence not IQ which is "age corrected" intelligence".
>
> Intelligence does not grow with time.
[Hammond]
WRONG It increases LINEARLY from birth to age 18.
THAT'S WHY they have to divide intelligence by age to get
IQ.
Knowledge does. Thats why IQ
> tests
> try to be independant of language and anything beyond simple
> arithmetic.
[Hammond]
Hey.... you're confusing "intelligence" (bits/second processing speed)
with IQ which is intelligence divided by age.
> Needless to say, you have no evidence that there is a missing part to
> our
> reality (although your example of the child would have sufficed if you
> had sources to back it up).
>
[Hammond]
Baloney. A 9 year old (half grown person) has half of
his reality missing.
> > Likewise... about 15% of the world is "invisible" to the
> > average man..... (because of the Secular Trend lack of full growth)
> > and this is the explanation of the "invisible God" we worship.
> > This has been known and PROVEN since the 1930's when
> > they invented the IQ test. You're just too STUPID to understand
> > anything OBVIOUS AND PROVEN.
>
> Funny you should mention the IQ test...
>
>
> >> > Once
> >> > this significance is realized... the entire history of
> >> > God, religion and theology fall into place like putting
> >> > a simple puzzle together: Since 15% of man is invisible,
> >> > we have an "invisible man" which is "God".
> >>
> >> Invalid assertion. No evidence. Blah blah blah.
[Hammond]
Correction... "no evidence you're aware of". Please try to
remember I know what you know and what you don't know.
> > [Hammond]
> > Why don't you shove your fingers in your ears, close your
> > eyes and say "na, na, na, na ,na, na ,na" like a 5 year old does?
>
> Because if I did that too, who would write sensible posts to
> Usenet?
>
>
> >> > Any "variability"
> >> > in the brain growth deficit (such as the sudden lifting of
> >> > repression) can cause pent up (repressed) brain growth to
> >> > come on line and produce a "miraculous" change in reality..
> >> > hence the explanation of miracles.
> >>
> >> You could just as easily "prove" psychics, ESP, ghosts and maybe
> even
> >> hypnosis in the same way.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No shit Sherlock.... If it explains "God" it certainly
> > explains all those phenomena (a fact which I discovered years
> > ago). I'll assign that boring exercise as a homework exercise.
>
> Funny how most religions deny the existence of those phenomena...
> surely
> they would know, right?
[Hammond]
On the other hand those people generally deny the existence of God,
so you've got ignorance arguing with ignorance as usual.
[Hammond]
Again you've demonstrated you don't know what you''re
talking about. Steve Unwin is a PhD in theoretical Physics
(quantum gravity as a matter of fact).
>
> >> but it isnt
> >> God.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You have one more intelligent realization to make: It is God.
> > After you figure that out you and I can have a whiff of Smirnoff
> > and celebrate belonging to the most exclusive club in the world;
> > the "Men who know what God is Club"!
>
> >> Even if we assume it is, it seems like all you've done here is
> >> prove that God is in our minds. If God is in our minds, how did he
> >> create the world?
[Hammond]
"in our minds" is a misnomer, God "is our mind", and if part of
our mind is "ungrown", then this means part of us is not in
"reality"... this other place is called "heaven".... really, I think
it's time you made some attempt to become unignorant of wht God and
Religion actually is.
> > [Hammond]
> > God is not "COGNITIVE" (i.e. is not an IDEA)
> > God is PERCEPTUAL, and percepion is REALITY.
> > Therefore, GOD IS REAL.
> >
> > God is caused by the brain... but the brain creates more than just
> > "thoughts".
> > The brain is responsible for allowing you to SEE REALITY.
> > God is not an IDEA. God is SEEN REALITY.
>
> So.... God is outside The Matrix? Gimme a break. Perception is not
> reality. If I don't see a car pull out in front of me, I still slam
> into
> the back of him. If I'm the one pulling out, and I think a car hits
> me,
> but none really does, I wont be getting whiplash, and my insurance
> company
> wont be getting upset at me.
[Hammond]
Yeah, but when you're fighting with a Kung Foo expert
and he makes all these funny mesmerizing gestures in front of your
face that make you real scared and you suddenly get the feeling that
he could slap you silly if he wanted to.... you are looking at someone
who can SEE the size of your "invisible world" and he is WARNING
YOU that HE CAN SEE IT (because the size of his invisible world
is smaller)and if you try anything funny he's
going to punch the shit out of you and he's putting on a mimicking
act of "what you look like" to him to PROVE IT.... and YOU
recognize no one could do that unless he could really "see you"
which he CAN!! Hey Rickey.... once you find that out you
can be a Kung Foo expert too and all those big guys on the beach
will stop kicking sand in your face.
> Similarly, just because people with mental illness "see things",
> doesn't
> mean they are there.
[Hammond]
Oh yes they are... only they haven't enough experience to
know what they really are. There is a DANGER in going in
search of the "invisible world" just like there is a danger of
going into the mountains looking for lost Gold. Most people
looking for gold get killed by snakes, outlaws, wild women
or cyotes. Most people who go looking for the invisible world
wind up talking to a psychiatrist or in a mental ward or on
tranquilizers. However, some people (usually of high intelligence
significant education and great physical stamina) actually find
the invisible world... significant glimpses of it....enough to
know what it is and how to work with it... Jesus was one of them....
and you're talking to one of them right now, dude.
>
> Constructs of the mind do not change the shape of reality. They only
> change the shape of perceived reality.
[Hammond]
Tell that to Bruce Lee the next time you run into him.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:muadnevinvt...@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > [Hammond]
> > Sure, no problem. My CV is posted on my website:
> >
> > B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> > Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> > M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> > Boston MA, USA
> > Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> > Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> > Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
> > at N.U.; presently Distinguished Professor at TAMU
>
> A pointed and very specific question: Why couldn't you get that Ph.D?
> There are lots of very detailed descriptions of the meltdown - but all
> you (so far as I've seen) ever say is "I chose not to complete it".
> Here's your chance to clarify the record and update a C.V. that peters
> out ~35 years ago.
[Hammond]
Who the fcuk cares. Why don't you go and investigate why Einstein
couldn't pass the entrance requirments at Zurich Polytechnic Inst. or
wherever it was. Just because you have NOTHING of on topic interest
to say about this discovery, does NOT mean that we want to listen
to your ad hominem heckling. Take a hike.
>
> Any work record? What have your been doing for the last >35 years? I
> know the answer, but I'm curious as what your lie is going to be.
[Hammond]
Stop ad hominem and off topic heckling.
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > > > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > > > question: Did God create the universe?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> > > and its time you understood what they are talking about
> > > when they say that.....!!
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >
> > > What they're talking about when they say "God created
> > > the universe" is THIS:
> > > The human brain creates OUR IMAGE of actual physical
> > > reality. Without this image there IS NO REALITY.
> >
> >
> > But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> > actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
>
> [Hammond]
> Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
> The World would not exist if we were all dead!
That is not contrary to my expectation.
I ALWAYS expect you to bellow the most stupid, insane, UNSCIENTIFIC and
deragned things every time you post.
You have NEVER disappointed me!
>
> First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focssed
> attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
> This point is PROVEN using advanced physics and experimental
> evidence and has been published.
It has NEVER been proven!
It was only your bellowed crap that wsa printed in a NON-SCIENTIFIC rag!
I PRESUME that you are
> not a trained scientist, however I will therefore proceed to try
> and explain this point HEURISTICALLY and see if I can get
> through to you. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION!
No more than you can get an intelligent human being to swallow any of your
other bull shit!
>
> First, let us examine what the statement "the world would exist
> even if we were all dead" actually means. What it means is
> "if we were suddenly to reappear, the world would still be here".
> But this negates the original proposition which says that we
> are all dead. So we see that the statement is actually a contradiction
> in terms. The statment is meaningless.
> There is a simple reason why the statment is meaningless. The fact is
> that the world "exists" actually means:
>
> "exists" = "is existing" = "is observeable by a human being"
There's where you crap begins!
Things exist whether we are there to see them or not, moron!!!
>
> obviously, if there "are no human beings" it is NOT observable by
> a human being. In FACT:
Being observed by a human being is NOT the same as existing, shit for
brians!!!!!
>
> The "existence" of something depends sine qua non
> on the "existence" of a human being. There is no
> such thing as "existence" without the existence of a
> human being to "create its existence". "Existence" is a
> physical property of the human perceptual system.
Bull SHIT!
> The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
> time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
> definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
> up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
> for a "majority vote
> of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
> what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
> will confirm this. The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and
time"
> is SOLELY BASED on the esistence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
> system of a human being!
> Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
> die with them!!!!! The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
> Of crucial importance, is that "TIME" itself does not exist without the
> existence of Man. Therefore, "TIME" itself was "CREATED" when Man
> was created, 40,000 years ago. This "creation of time" includes a
> 15 Billion year old "Big Bang" and billion year old fossils. "Age" is
> not the same thing as "time itself". "time itself" was created when Man
> was created,
> and "Time itself" was CREATED 40,000 years ago and already contained
> a 15 billion year history!!
a ten TON pile of bull shit!!!!
> Now... I shouldn't think that this is beyond your comprehension. And I
> would point out it was obvious to many great men long before the
invention of
> modern science. For instance in 300 AD Saint Augustine said it himself
> when he said:
>
> "the world was created WITH time, not IN time."
> (Saint Augustine)
>
> He understood EXACTLY what I have just explained to you, and which
> is now PROVEN by modern science.
It is NOT proven by modern science; and Augustine's statement has NOTHING TO
DO with your claim.
You're just showing more of your unbelievable ignorance!!!!
> > > So therefore.... the "creation of the brain" is a
> > > "creation of reality". This is what the "Biblical Creation"
> > > actually is..... the "creation of the brain" 40,000 years ago.
> >
> >
> > But that isn't what anyone else that I know of believes.
>
> [Hammond]
> Saint Augustine believed it. The entire Christian Science
> Church in modern times, believes it. Hammond has now
> SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED it.
merely a five ton pile of crap!
>
>
> > We all KNOW
> > that we have our "personal reality", which first started when we
> > became cognizent of ourselves and the world around us. So? "Creation"
> > is understood, by everyone else that I know of, to represent actual
> > physical reality.
>
> [Hammond]
> All we really know is that the juman perceptual system creates
> an "image we call reality).... i.e. the 5 senses. What the absolute
> nature of what it is perceiving is, we have no way of knowing.
> All we reallly KNOW is that we can't know anything beyond
> the "perceptual map" produced by our 5 senses.... and if
> our 5 senses all die tomorrow.... then this perceptual construct
> called "reality' disappears with us.
Our "perceptual concept" does die with our brain .. but that does NOT mean
REALITY disappears when we die!
Any SANE scientist would know that ... fool!!!!
> > > Now, its true that "actual physical reality" was created
> > > 15-billion years ago in the Big Bang.
> >
> >
> > And that's the REAL question about God's existence, since theists
> > believe that God created actual physical reality. Did He (She? It?) or
> > didn't He?
>
> [Hammond]
> "Absoulte physicial reality" is only a convenient hypothesis... in fact it
> is an "unobservable".
To someone as insanely deranged as you, ANY reality is unobservable.
On the other hand, sane people ... and REAL scientists know, FROM THE
EVIDENCE, that things existed for a LONG TIME before mankind was here to
observe anything!
the only thing we observe is "perceptual reality"
> and it is a know fact that "perceptual reality" disappears if man
> disappears.
> Of course... let me anticipate the PRACTICALLITY of this staement
> by pointing out that "human perceptual reality" can be MODIFIED
> by brian growth, since human perceptual reality deppends crucially on
> the BRAIN.
There is no "praticality" to your insane crap.
You, obviously, do not know the simple difference between something EXISTING
.. and something OBSERVED BY MAN.
This is the practical point of all this discussion, because
> it turns out that "brain growth" crucially modifies "perceptual reality"
> and this PHENOMENON is the CAUSE of both RELIGION and GOD!
No .. it's caused by an ignorant, fraud, moron, pretending he has ANY
intelligence!
> And THAT is why we are actually here taliking about all this...
> NOT because it is of some abstract Philosophical importence!
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > But that doesn't matter.
> >
> >
> > It may not matter to YOU. Since everyone else that I know of is
> > concerned, in the question of God's existence, with the creation of
> > the actual physical universe, it DOES matter.
>
> [Hammond]
> NO.. it doesn't matter to St. Augustine, and it doesn't matter
> to the Christian religion and its 1.3 billion followers.. The only people
> it matters to are a handful of misguided scientific hobbyists and
> woefully uninformed counter culture enthusiast like you.
Say WHAT?
You babble is becoming even MORE outrageously incomprehensable ... which I
though impossible!
> > > Until MAN is created (40,000 years ago)
> > > to SEE IT..... then it doesn't EXIST. You can't have an
> > > "OBSERVABLE" without and "OBSERVER".
> >
> >
> > Sounds like the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which
> > HAS NOT been "proven", nor is it universally accepted by top-notch
> > physicists - in fact, nowadays the majority of top-notch physicists
> > would probably not support this view. If you CALL something
> > "observable", then you are REFERRING to it as being able to be
> > observed, which implies an observer. That's mere definition, a
> > tautology. If nothing is "observable" because no observers exist, you
> > have nowhere demonstrated that actual physical reality does not exist
> > - and it IS actual physical reality that everyone else is referring to
> > when they speak of creation. We KNOW our own, individual, perceived
> > "universes" would not exist if we did not - that is OBVIOUS - "my"
> > universe would not exist if "I" did not - but "creation", by everyone
> > else's definition, refers to "the" universe (the actual physical one),
> > rather than our own individually perceived "universes".
>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You're simply going around and around in circles with your erroneous
> tautology.
That's the safest way to deal with a pile of bull shit .. keep going around
it.
Seriously ... his points make sense ... which is why you cannot comprehend
them
The fact that you need an OBSERVER to define the
> term OBSERVABLES in physicis predates quantum mechanics by many
> centuries.
Observables and observers have NOTIHNG TO DO with existEnce!
PHYSICIS has simply never concerned itself with the
> question of the "esistence of the observer".
Because it is meaningless.
However, it turns out
> there IS a question of the "existence of the observer" and this is called
> the "theory of God" and it has now achieve a SCIENTIFIC PROOF by
> Hammond 2003.
It only turns out that you have several, intermixed, piles of crap .. and
constantly try to use ONE pile to justify another.
> > > The "OBSERVABLE" was created 15-Billion years ago, but the
> > > "OBSERVER" was only created 40,000 years ago.
> > > The first is called the "Big Bang"
> > > The second is called "Biblical Creation".
> >
> >
> > But in Biblical Creation, God created Man, pre-existed Man, and was in
> > no way dependent on Man for his own existence. How does this
> > reconcilew with your theory?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> A. God created himself
> B. God created Man at the same time as himself
> because he created "time itself" when he created Man
> and the World. And this is called "Creation".
Bwahahhaaa.. DAMN your dumb!
Even YOU admitted the universe was created 15 billion years ago!
Who created it if the god you bellow about was created when man was created?
Was there a "super god" who created both man and the other god?
You other statements indicated that it was the difference in human growth
that was god; how can something involving the created "man" become what
created the created man?
Even YOU cannot come up with something, other than insane crap, to explain
how the created can create the creator!!!
> > > BOTH are absolutely scientifically REAL.
> >
> >
> > That human observers only came on the scene recently (relative to the
> > Big Bang) is incontrovertible. Calling THIS "Biblical Creation" has
> > not, to anyone's satisfaction but your own, been shown to be
> > "scientifically real" -
It has been shown to be insane crap; nothing more!!!
>
> [Hammond]
> Sorry, Saint Augustine and Bishop Ussher, and the Bible,
> and the Christian Science Church more recently, ALL
> strongly disagree with you and SUPPORT ME.
> so qudit saying I stand alone.... fact is the entire history
> of both Science and religion support me fully.
Sorry .. you stand alone..............probably in a padded cell.
St. Augustine only agrees with you if St. Augustine says he agrees with you
... and he's dead.
Your quote FROM St. Augustine is just anothier of your deranged frauds -
where the statement does NOT confirm ANYTHING about your claims!
The C.S.C. does not agree with you - just because YOU claim it either!!!
You have NEVER shown ANYTHING valid indicating the C.S.C. stands with you.
It has been pointed out an OUTRAGEOUS number of times how both science AND
religion, AND the bible contradict your claims! You just, as usual, present
YOUR OWN DISTORTION of the bible, science and the christian religon ... and
use YOUR DISTORTION to support your own lies!!!
> > and that has nothing to do with relativity,
> > psychometry, or even religion. You seem to be trying to "theorize" the
> > universe into being in accord with your own, perceived reality -
and Hammond's "perceived reality" is totally corrupt and egomanically
insane!
>
> [Hammond]
> No.... that's just one of you PRESUMPTIONS and CHERISHED HOPES,
> turns out it has been dashed to smithereens by my discovery of an
axiomatic
> experimentally proven hard scientific proof. Sorry..... yawn....
Sorry .. fart .......... your crap proves nothing other than you own
insanity, corruption and ignorance!
> > while
> > everyone else, besides druggies, try to adjust their perceived
> > realities to be in accord with the universe.
>
> [Hammond]
> Unfortunately for you... the only hope for the survival of your
> pre-scientific proof
> beliefs is now to harass me as vigorously as possible and try to SUPPRESS
> the discovery.
You cannot supress REAL scienice and scientific discoveries!
Your CRAP is ignored (as all crap should be) ... not supressed by some
insanely imangine scientific world wide conspiracy!
> you DO apparently have the support of your handlers the scientific
> establishment).
?????????????//
The same scientific establisment whose works you say SUPPORTS your claims?
Which is it ... are they right and honorable, or wrong and conspiring
against you?
They CANNOT be both!
> You will have to use the internet to muster as many hecklers, stalkers,
> kooks, nuts and radicals as you possible can to try and destroy my
reputation and
> prevent publication in the leading journals.
You ONLY have a reputation as an insane kook. That is ALL YOU ARE.
The "leading (scientific) journals" do NOT publish unsupported CRAP!
There is a saying that ... no matter what YOU think, if 100 people tell you
you're drunk .... yoou beter sit down.
You're playing the INSANE .... If they (meaning ALL reputable scientist and
reputable scientific journals) disagree with ME .. they THEY are wrong.
You're, obviously, WAY beyond any psychiatric help for, not only your
insanity, but your egomaniacal delusions of grandeur!
> However, your efforts seem to be slipping:
>
> 1. The theory has been published in the peer reviewed literature
> and is already sitting in hundreds of copies in libraries and
> subscribers hands
It was NEVER published in "peer reviewed ( not to mention SCIENTIFICALLY
peer reviewed) literature!
You don't even have a clue about the REAL and VALID scientific peer review
process that goes into a REAL sceince journal!!!
>
> 2. 2 million people have visited my websites in the past 4 years
> and the theory God=G_uv is already widely known
Ten times more than that visit porn sites .. that does NOT make it science.
I visited you site three times ... and found nothing but CRAP!
Using hits as a suggestion of validity is mere ignorant FRAUD ... but,
obviously, that's all you have is ignorant, and fraudulent, claims!
>
> 3. Scores of the world's leading scientists including Chris Isham,
> Stephen Unwin, the Vatican Observatory and many others have
> already commented on the discovery.
Scores? some meaningless unknowns............comments which said NOTHING
supporting your claims ....
The "Vatican observatory? That's a new one.... .. exactly WHAT did they say
that supports your insane claims?
>
> If you're going to make a serious effort to suppress and discredit this
> discovery, you're already running behind the clock.
There is nothing to suppress ... since you have nothing but UNSCIENTIFIC
CRAP!!!!
There is nothing to discredit (other than your bellowed, ignorant, claims)
since you have PROVEN nothing!
You just keep bellowing the same crap!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:hEOTc.3123$5b4.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> > news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I agree with Alan. The God of the Bible is not Hammond's Guv.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Alan's arguments have been totally trashed by the following reply from
> Hammond:
Once again Hammond shows another psychotic side of talking about himself as
though he's someone else!
You have NEVER "trashed" anyone's rebuttal.
You have only either ignored, insulted, distorted, lied or slandered the
reputtal and the one posting the rebutal.
>
>
> "Alan" <gp...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:847702a8.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > > > So maybe you could start with one simple
> > > > question: Did God create the universe?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > YES, unequivocally, YES. God DID create the universe
> > > and its time you understood what they are talking about
> > > when they say that.....!!
> > [snip]
Is that your "trashing" .. you bellow nothing more than continuations of
your ignorant crap as though it were fact?
When someone calls your crap, crap .. you do not "trash them" by bellowing
the same (or more) crap!
ANY scientist would know that!!!!
ZenIsWhen
You're being sane, rational, reasonable, logical and even civil.
Sadly, that will all be lost on Hammond!
ZenIsWhen
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:rdVTc.367$vc4.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1gUTc.131845$8_6.45397@attbi_s04...
> >
> > Alan asked:
> > > > But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully
expect
> > > > actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't
you?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
> > > The World would not exist if we were all dead!
> >
> > Aha! Well that actually ties a lot of your theory together.
> > What you are saying might actually be internally consistent.
> > Internally consistent but based on that false premise.
> >
> > Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
> > Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.
>
> [Hammond]
> Of course you can't prove it.... it's a false statement.
He said ... since you didn't comprehend it the first time .. that he would
not be able to prove it TO YOU.
He's starting to recognize the fact that the deranged, delusional and insane
world YOU seem to inhabit has nothing to do with the REAL world the rest of
us are in!
BTW .. The statement is not false!
> The word "objective" means "outside the mind".
> There is nothing that "exists" "outside the mind of Man".
> If there was, we wouldn't know about it, would we!
Yes .. we would.
We KNOW about dinosaurs from the EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND .. yet we were not
here to see them.
We KNOW that a whole universe existed for billion of years ..... even though
we were NOT there to "see it".
WE KNOW that there are even PLANTS so old - and in such out of the way
places - that are HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD ... and live before ANY man had
evere seen them!
even YOU - in your own insanity - ontradict your own claims!
If mankind (using YOUR claims) existed for 40,000 years .... then how could
teh UNIVERSE (you also admit) be 15 billion years old .. if NOTHING EXISTS
OUTSIDE OF MAN'S OBSERVATION/MIND?
What IS, then, the UNIVERSE that existed between that time of 15 billion,
and 40,000 years ago?
IF it was "nothing", then it was not "a universe".......... IF there was a
"universe" then SOMETHING EXISTED OUTSIDE OF MANKIND'S MIND!!!
You don't even understand that when your working with nothing but corrupt
ideas and insane claims - eventually you will prove yourself a liar with
your own words!!!
(snip remaining regurgitated, unsupported ignorance, bellowing and crap)!
ZenIsWhen
--
-
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nLVTc.132290$8_6.125181@attbi_s04...
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:10hveef...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:aQyTc.252766$a24.68011@attbi_s03...
> > >
> > > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10hsjo1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > > > When you provide VALID FACTS .
> > > > This says NOTHING about your claims between acceleration and
gravity.
> If
> > > > you'll notice, mush brain, Acceleration is not even mentioned!
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > OK..... we have to put it in grade school language for you:
> > >
> > > EINSTEIN'S ELEVATOR EXPERIMENT
> > >
> > > is proof from EINSTEIN HIMSELF that "gravity"="acceleration"
> > > You're a freakin idiot.
> >
> > It shows NO SUCH THING, you fucking idiot!!!!!
>
> [Hammond]
> You've had your ass thouroughly whipped by the above statement.
> Please fold your tent and take a hike. Go pedal your bellowing tripe
> somewhere else.
I read the cite (offred to you in a laer post) and read NOTHING that suports
your claim.
I asked you, in that other post,m to show me EXACLTY WHERE the evidence was
thqt supports you lie ...
you OFFER NOTHING! You CONFIRM nothing! You give EVIDENCE of nothing!
You cannot "wipe my ass" just by bellowing, loudly, more ignorance and
deranged lies!
ANY REAL scientist will tell you that!
Any HONEST person will tell you that!
Any INTELLIGENT person will tell you that!
Obviously, you do not belong to any of the above groups!
ZenIsWhen
I could create a web site that lists me of teh emporer of teh whole world!
That is NOT valid evidence.
Considering ALL your other insane claims, delusioinal lies, and blatantly
ignorant responses - there is NOT reason to assume that ANYTHING YOU SAY ...
here or on your web site - is even REMOTELY connected to the truth!
The MOST anyone could assume is that there possibly WAS "A" Hammond that
acheived those things ...
but, from the total and basic ignorance shown BY YOU IN YOUR POSTS .. that
person is NOT you!!!!
> > Immediately AFTER you give YOUR credentials as a
> psychologist/psychiatrist.
>
>
> [Hammoond]
> Sure, no problem. These peer reviewed and published papers are
prominently
> posted on my website:
The truth is - you have NEVER been published in a "peer reviewed" or "peer
reviewed scientific" journal ANYWHERE! An ODDBALL MAGAZINE talking about
things NOT ERECOGNIZED AS VALID SCIENCE PRINTED your CRAP .. without the
LEAST bit of scientific review for validity!
Eeither way ... having your crap printed is NO INDICATION OF QUALIFICATIONS
AS A PSYCHIATRIST!
Once again, you ignorantly distort reality and pretend that what you SHOVEL
in return is actually a valid answer.
>
> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
They are NOT "per reviewed scientific" journals!
They are NOT recognized by ANY REAL scientific community as "per reviewed
scientific journals".
They DO NOT go through ANY "scientific peer review" process. ( You don;t
even KNOW what a scientific peer review process is about!!!!)
> <snip rest of bellowing trash>
>
> [Hammond]
> You've had your puny ass thoroughly whipped time and time again
> including above. Take a hike.
That is just as insane as your other claims!
Throwing tons of crap does NOT rebut ANY VALID condemnations of your FIRST
piles of crap!!!!
***********************************************************
ACTUAL PEER REVIEW IN A REAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL....................
The scientist (working in a research facility - or some similar place) makes
a discovery that is either totally new ... or significantly different enough
from earlier works to be of interest in the scientific community.
He is either already engaged in, or, if not, GETS engaged in experiments to
test his information/theory/hypothesis.
After gathering the evidence from the experiments, and, often, going over
and over that evidence to re-confirm it, and the intended paper's claims, he
STARTS writing the paper.
This process can, at the very least, take months.
If he, like MY peers, works at a research facility .. AFTER (or even WHILE)
the paper is written .. he asks fellow scientists to examine and judge his
work.
They are NOT looking for spelling errors .. they are judging the SCIENTIFIC
VALIDITY, and EXPERIMENTAL DATA, of the paper and the claims.
(You and your rag magazines NEVER did this!)
When, finally, which can be up to a YEAR OR TWO LATER (even though there is
often a "rush to publish") the paper is sent to the appropriate journal.
(I showed you a list of "appropriate" and "valid" scientific journals ..
your magazines were NOT among them!!)
When the magazine gets the paper ... it IMMEDIATELY sends it out to SEVERAL
other, impartial scientists who work in and understand the topic!
(Neither you nor your rag did this either.)
These scientists, AGAIN, are NOT looking for spelling errors ... they are
VERY CRITICAL .. and are JUDGING THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY of the CLAIMS AND
the experimental data.
They may even take MONTHS and REPLICATE the experiment to retest the
evidence supporting the theory/claims.
THEIR REPUTATION IS ON THE LINE HERE with not only the journal that sent
them the paper - but the WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!... so they DO NOT
fudge!
(Neither you nor your magazine EVER did that!!!)
Either before, or after, the REAL AND VALID "peer review" .. the staff of
the journal (who are also scientists) look at the paper to insure that it is
either new or significantly different enough from other papers to make it
"publish worthy".
The spend a LOT of time going over, again and again, ALL the information
they have from their own readings .. and from those doing the peer review
(neither you nor your magazines did ANYTHING like this).
They also judge the importance of the topic - knowing that they only have
space enough for the MOST important and relative papers.
Then, AND ONLY THEN does the paper get published.
**************************************
All your magazine did, at best, was ... someone there read your garbage ...
NO ONE checked it for scientific validity .. possibly a few decided that it
was a topic that fit what their magazine was about ... they probably looked
to see if anyone had printed the same thing in the magazine before .....and
they also, probably, picked topics based on space and what they thought was
interesting .... and then, if it fit those MINIMAL criteria .. they printed
it!
Readers Digest goes through about the same process...
MAD magazine goes thorough about he same process.....
Although it MAY be a big deal to have something YOU wrote appear in ANY of
those, or your, magazines .. that does NOT make them "scientifically peer
reviewed".
and let's not forget that ONE of the things you BELLOW about is ONLY a
"letter to the editor".
Andrew Cunningham
self-obsessed, self-important, (probably self-loathing) human being ever to
have stood up and say, "I know what God is!"
Hmm, about actual reality not existing when we're all dead... so this means
that (indirectly) Galileo created Jupiter, by noticing it first? Does this
mean that the universe just plinked into existence, as soon as the first of
us opened our eyes? If we are all dead, if there is utterly NO life and NO
intelligence in the universe, does that mean it isn't there anymore? OF
COURSE IT'S THERE!!! It just means the universe would have achieved the
impossible task: of being even more pointless than you, Hammond.
Join Hammond next week as we all take a helter-skelter trip into the
bleeding obvious.
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MyWTc.265065$%_6.111130@attbi_s01...
Marc Goodman
> If we are all dead, if there is utterly NO life and NO
> intelligence in the universe, does that mean it isn't there anymore? OF
> COURSE IT'S THERE!!!
Post proof or retract!!!11!!
George Hammond
"Andrew Cunningham" <a.c.cun...@btinternet.com> wrote
in message news:cfpu58$qgm$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Once again, Hammond has proved that he is the most self-centred,
> self-obsessed, self-important, (probably self-loathing) human being ever
to
> have stood up and say, "I know what God is!"
[Hammond]
I will admit that I have never met nor even seen another person who
is more scared, more paranoid, or has a greater inferiority complex
than me (a history of child abuse has caused this). And look out for
this...
this is why I AM THE ONE who was driven to find out what God is.
Your worst fears and greatest nightmares do not even begin to
compare to the treachery and brutality that I see in the world.
On the other hand, even loathing and despising it, I understand it,
I have scientifically discovered the ultimate cause of it, and I forgive it.
Even killing people in war notwithstanding. Where, where, do I find
another person to talk to... the Pope?
> Hmm, about actual reality not existing when we're all dead... so this
means
> that (indirectly) Galileo created Jupiter, by noticing it first? Does this
> mean that the universe just plinked into existence, as soon as the first
of
> us opened our eyes?
[Hammond]
Yes. When the first two Homo Sapiens sapiens opened their eyes 40,000
years ago "blink" the world was "Created". These two HSs's are
commonly referred to as "Adam and Eve".
> If we are all dead, if there is utterly NO life and NO
> intelligence in the universe, does that mean it isn't there anymore? OF
> COURSE IT'S THERE!!! It just means the universe would have achieved the
> impossible task: of being even more pointless than you, Hammond.
> Join Hammond next week as we all take a helter-skelter trip into the
> bleeding obvious.
[Hammond]
Is not as "obvious" as you seem to think, altho it was obvious to
St. Augustine who said:
"the world was created WITH time, not IN time"
(Saint Augustine, ca. 300 AD)
It is also obvious to many hillbilly Ozark mountain Bible thumping
fundamentalists.... and yet "incomprehensible" to many of the world's
most brilliant PhD research scientists.
The scientists better dummy up pretty soon, since a "scientific"
proof of it has been discovered by this physicist, and it won't be long
before the Fundamentalists are clamoring in the courts that "God"
should be explained (tought) in the public school science curriculem. And
I predict the Supreme Court will agree with them once this scientific
proof of God is recognized.
George Hammond
"Marc Goodman" <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:pT%Tc.18945$mD.16409@attbi_s02...
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
[Hammond]
Ditto. HOW, exactly, do you propose that it can be "scientifically
verified"
that it is "still there", if there are no humans "still there" to observe
it??
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You're a tough nut to crack, Zen.... sorry I don't have time to argue with
you.
Scot McDermid
> The point is... "reality" is actually a product of the human
> mind, and therefore disappears if all human minds disappear.
> You would have to "redefine" the world "existence" in order
> to say reality "exists" without Man, since in fact, the world
> "existence" IS defined in terms of Mans ability to oberve
> things that "exist".... "exist" MEANS "humanly observable".
> If there is any OTHER kind of "existence" we certainly don't know
> about it.
Georgie, are we now going to play "dictionary"?
Let's look up a few important words
in a dictionary, shall we?.
**********
Definitions from www.dictionary.com
ob搜ec暗ive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
[From the citation of "objective" it would appear that
"existence" and "reality" are objective.]
re戢l搏暗y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re戢l搏暗ies
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the
weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact:
ex. "Your observations do not seem to be about reality."
[Meaning #4 certainly indicates that reality is objective. Meaning 3
supports is as well.]
ex搏st ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)
intr.v. ex搏st搪d, ex搏st搏ng, ex搏sts
1. To have actual being; be real.
******* end of definitions *********
So Georgie, when we play "dictionary" the words
seem to support that reality is objective.
(1) Your thesis that reality 'blipped into existence' when
the mind of man developed the 'invisible undeveloped
powers of God' is self-defeating.
Before intelligent man, there was no reality.
Then man developed the powers of God and 'reality'
popped into existence. But WAIT!!! Man didn't *really"
develop the powers of God. Man actually only developed
*potential* and those powers are undeveloped.
The undeveloped was developed. A contradiction.
(2) Your thesis that reality 'blipped into existence' when
the mind of man developed the 'invisible undeveloped
powers of God' is not a scientific theory. It is a religious
theory.
Some people have advanced that reality doesn't exist
unless someone is present to observe it. Thus when there
is no one in a room, the room ceases to exist. (How
a telephone answering machine could receive a message
from an automated phoning machine when no one is
around to observe either one, I do not know.)
Hammond's theory dictates that 'the room' continues to
exist just so long as human kind exists. (However, I
find it more reasonable to believe that an old rock that
existed before the dawn of man, that I can pick up and
hold today, will continue to exist after mankind is gone.)
*That rock* I just mentioned is objective and is reality.
My subjective perception of the rock is not reality.
Mankind's collective perceptions of the rocks are not
reality.
Marc Goodman
Questions:
A. If man does not exist, then the Universe does not exist. True/False
B. If the Universe does not exist, then God does not exist. True/False
C. If A and B are true, then God did not create man, the existence
of man created God. True/False
D. If A is true and B is false, then why isn't God enough of an
observer for the universe to exist?
E. If A and B and C are true, then God has no independant existence
apart from man. True/False
F. If E is true, then in what sense is "God" God?
Eric Gisse
<ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote:
[snip]
Just stop, seriously. I have nothing against what you are saying, it
is just that Hammond can not understand.
Hammond is psychotic - officially so. Along with being stupid.
Therion Ware
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:33:08 -0800 in alt.atheism, Eric Gisse (Eric
Gisse <fseggNO!SP...@uaf.edu>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Officially so?"
I'd often suspected the reason he didn't complete his PhD was that he
suffered a breakdown of some kind. Has this actually been established
as being the case?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Hey.... TMG on this thread knows me by sight (has met me), he has verified
that the picture posted of me, is me.
Mike Varney (well known on the physicis newsgroups and ARK) has actually
called the universities and checked out my credentials. Talk to them if you
don't believe it. I'm legit... no question of it.
>
>
> > > Immediately AFTER you give YOUR credentials as a
> > psychologist/psychiatrist.
> >
> >
> > [Hammoond]
> > Sure, no problem. These peer reviewed and published papers are
> prominently
> > posted on my website:
>
> The truth is - you have NEVER been published in a "peer reviewed" or "peer
> reviewed scientific" journal ANYWHERE! An ODDBALL MAGAZINE talking about
> things NOT ERECOGNIZED AS VALID SCIENCE PRINTED your CRAP .. without the
> LEAST bit of scientific review for validity!
[Hammond]
More baloney.... Pergamon Press is one of the world's premier academic
publishers. They published my first paper which was reviewed by 5
reviewers of professorial rank in psychology/psychometry and all 5 of them
recommended publication.
> Eeither way ... having your crap printed is NO INDICATION OF
QUALIFICATIONS
> AS A PSYCHIATRIST!
[Hammond]
LIAR, peer reviewed publication of original research IS the "gold standard"
by which academic competence is judged.
> > Peer reviewed publications:
> >
> > Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> > New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> > Pergamon Press.
> > Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> > Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
>
> They are NOT "per reviewed scientific" journals!
[Hammond]
LIAR
> They are NOT recognized by ANY REAL scientific community as "per reviewed
> scientific journals".
[Hammond]
LIAR
> They DO NOT go through ANY "scientific peer review" process. ( You don;t
> even KNOW what a scientific peer review process is about!!!!)
[Hammond]
LIAR
>
> > <snip rest of bellowing trash>
>
> All your magazine did, at best, was ... someone there read your garbage
...
> NO ONE checked it for scientific validity .. possibly a few decided that
it
> was a topic that fit what their magazine was about ... they probably
looked
> to see if anyone had printed the same thing in the magazine before
.....and
> they also, probably, picked topics based on space and what they thought
was
> interesting .... and then, if it fit those MINIMAL criteria .. they
printed
> it!
[Hammond]
Horseshit. My first paper was reviewed by 5 professorial rank reviewers
in psychology/psychometry. At first they rejected it (3 for, 2 against)
mainly because my theory did not explain the "5-Factor Model" which
was all the rage at the time. I did further research and AMAZINGLY
discovered that my discovery is the ONLY KNOWN EXPLANATION
of the 5-Factor Model. I put that in the paper and sent it back to them
(6 months later) and they were so IMPRESSED they immediately
recommended it for publication 5 to Zero! (Pergamon Press 1994)
My second paper was personally reviewed by Dr. Richard Amoroso
(PhD physics) with the help of other members of the 25 man editorial
board (8 of whom are internationally prominent physicists). At first
they rejected it and I had to rewrite it 3 times over a period of 12
months before they would accept it for publication. Believe me,
it was thoroughly reviewed, and it was published right next to
a paper by Henry Stapp (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
who is an internationally prominent PhD physicist and celebrated
author of _Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics_ , Springer-Verlag
1993. The Noetic Journal has a wide reputation for publishing
internationally prominent scientists like Karl Pribram, Benjamin Libet,
T. A. Wolf, etc. etc. It is a new (5 yr old) and very hot "physicis
of consciousness" journal... and only "hot news" gets published in it.
And that is exactly what Hammond is ... "hot news".
>
> Readers Digest goes through about the same process...
> MAD magazine goes thorough about he same process.....
> Although it MAY be a big deal to have something YOU wrote appear in ANY of
> those, or your, magazines .. that does NOT make them "scientifically peer
> reviewed".
>
> and let's not forget that ONE of the things you BELLOW about is ONLY a
> "letter to the editor".
[Hammond]
Both of the above papers are 15-PAGES long. I didn't even bother
to mention the "one page letter" which is another item.
====================================
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
[Hammond]
Quit being elementary. When I say "outside" the mind, I mean something
that cannot be "deduced", "inferred", "conjectured" or detected by
any means whatso ever. these things are called "unobservables" by
scientist. there is NO WAY to prove that an unobservable exists.
>
> even YOU - in your own insanity - ontradict your own claims!
>
> If mankind (using YOUR claims) existed for 40,000 years .... then how
could
> teh UNIVERSE (you also admit) be 15 billion years old .. if NOTHING EXISTS
> OUTSIDE OF MAN'S OBSERVATION/MIND?
[Hammond]
Because, as Saint Augustine said 1700 years ago:
"the Universe was created WITH time, not IN time"
(St. Augustine, ca 300 AD)
and Hammond has now SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED that that
statement is CORRECT.
One can easily see that if "time was created" 40,000 years ago, that
a 15-billion year "history of time" could also (and in fact was)
be created along with it at the same time. Cripes Zen... chill out for
a sec and think about it!
>
> What IS, then, the UNIVERSE that existed between that time of 15 billion,
> and 40,000 years ago?
[Hammond]
We don't know....it was an "unobservable" up until 40,000 years ago
when the observer came into being and thus "Created" "time and space itself"
====================================
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
====================================
Scot McDermid
> [Hammond]
> > > The word "objective" means "outside the mind".
> > > There is nothing that "exists" "outside the mind of Man".
> > > If there was, we wouldn't know about it, would we!
> >
> [Hammond]
> Quit being elementary. When I say "outside" the mind, I mean something
> that cannot be "deduced", "inferred", "conjectured" or detected by
> any means whatso ever. these things are called "unobservables" by
> scientist. there is NO WAY to prove that an unobservable exists.
So... what you are saying is that something is "objective" when
we (as humankind) are unaware of it. But as soon as we become
aware of it, it is "observed", and comes into "existence inside the
mind of man".
For example, what you are saying is this:
Before planet Pluto was observed, it was "objective"
but didn't exist. Once it was observed by Percival Lowell
it "exists" but is no longer objective.
George Hammond
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8lWTc.260838$a24.91922@attbi_s03...
> > The point is... "reality" is actually a product of the human
> > mind, and therefore disappears if all human minds disappear.
> > You would have to "redefine" the world "existence" in order
> > to say reality "exists" without Man, since in fact, the world
> > "existence" IS defined in terms of Mans ability to oberve
> > things that "exist".... "exist" MEANS "humanly observable".
> > If there is any OTHER kind of "existence" we certainly don't know
> > about it.
>
> Georgie, are we now going to play "dictionary"?
> Let's look up a few important words
> in a dictionary, shall we?.
>
[Hammond]
Hey... get the high school dictionary crap outta
here... this isn't a "philawsephy" discussion,
it's a SCIENCE discussion.... if you can't
say something scientific... screw.
Graduate scientists don't have to consult dictionaries
for chrissakes.
====================================
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
====================================
Scot McDermid
> > > Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
> > > Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.
> > [Hammond]
> > Of course you can't prove it.... it's a false statement.
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> He said ... since you didn't comprehend it the first time .. that he would
> not be able to prove it TO YOU.
Actually I can't prove it as an absolute fact to anyone, and neither
can anyone. However, I find it MORE reasonable that when
I pick up a rock what I.see and feel are perceptions of something
REAL and objective. When I put the rock down, leave the area,
but then come back and find that rock again, it is reasonable to
believe that rock exists in its own right. Given how old rocks
can be, it is reasonable that the rock existed before mankind and
will exist after we are gone. I can't prove it, but it is more reasonable
than the story that the rock 'blips into existence' when it is observed,
and 'blips out of existence' when it is not observed.
And it is also a better use of language to use the words
"exist, reality and truth" to describe things that are *objective*,
and use the word "perception" to describe things that are
inside the human mind and are therefore *subjective*.
Hammond is using the words "exist, and reality" inside
the 'subjective perceptions' box.