PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
George Hammond
gham...@mediaone.net
February 10, 2001
PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
I am a physicist, this is a Physics theory, however it
involves Philosophy, and Theology.
HAMMOND has recently discovered a scientific proof of
God. God exists, and this proof may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
The foundation of this theory has been published in the
peer reviewed literature (Hammond 1994) and the rest of
it has been widely discussed on the Internet during the
past year. Suffice it to say that unless you have advanced
degrees in Physics, Psychometry, Neuroscience and a half
dozen other fields, it is an exercise in futility to
attempt to challenge the result... however, with average
ability and education you should at least be able to
comprehend the result, should you be so inclined.
In the meantime, a simple one page FAQ located at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html
should provide the uninitiated (yet serious) reader with
a quick background of this new discovery.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the scientific proof of God
that has been discovered, does not shed any light on the
question of Life After Death (LAD). The proof that has been
discovered only proves that "God exists", and explains what
god actually is scientifically.... but it does NOT say
anything one way or the other about the long standing
historical conjecture of Life After Death (LAD).
Therefore, the author has now turned his attention to an
investigation of LAD, being armed as it were, with this new
discovery of the scientific explanation of God.
It turns out that the newly discovered proof of God DOES
provide us with at least a small scientific penetration into
this vexing mystery called LAD. Namely, it DOES provide us
with the first rigorous scientific PORTRAIT of what LAD must
actually look like... if it exists..!!
As we know, this "portrait" question has been a matter of
some fascination for thousands of years.. ever since the theory
of LAD was first discovered at the foot of the Pyramids 4,000
years ago. The Egyptians painted pictures of "Heaven" on the
walls of their pyramid tombs. Milleniums later, Greek and
Roman writers (Elysian Fields, Aeneid) attempted descriptions
of it. Finally, the Christian theologians, St. Paul, Aquinas,
Augustine, Origin, Swedenborg and many others constructed a
description of Heaven; the one which still exists in the
current Christian religion of today.
However, ALL of these descriptions are judged to be more or
less intuitive and inspired guesswork by, albeit, educated and
recognized authorities. None of them are based on any hard
scientific fact, and indeed, some of them are nothing
more elaborate than men in robes floating on clouds playing
Harps... certainly a portrait that challenges credulity.
So it is with great interest indeed, that for the first time
in history we find that this new scientific discovery actually
DOES provide us with a more or less concrete picture of what
LAD actually must look like.. if it exists. Now, some may
wonder how you can describe something that you aren't sure
exists. Well, you can. For instance, no one knows if there
is a quantum theory of Gravity, and yet, they are quite sure,
in fact positive, that a graviton, if it exists, must have
"spin 2". In other words, the proven science already discovered
dictates that if a graviton exists, it must have spin 2.
Likewise it turns out, that if LAD exists, we DO KNOW what it
must look like. And in the following paragraphs I will explain
how we know that, and what in fact it must look like. I will
try to be brief, so dummy up and try to pay attention.. as this
will necessarily be a rather fast paced analysis.
We now know that the basic phenomena explaining "God" is the
so called SECULAR TREND. The Secular Trend causes a "growth
curve deficit" in all human beings:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
The most popularly known manifestation of this, is the phenomenal
increase in human height that has been noticed in the past few
centuries
see:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm
but.. more important than height is the concurrent increase in
human brain size. Not only has part of our height been missing
for thousands of years... part of out brain-size has been
missing also. It is this missing brain growth that explains
what we call "God".
It turns out that this missing brain isn't actually missing,
it's actually "latent", and causes what we call the subconscious
mind. Because of this grown-ungrown biphasic nature of the brain,
we actually live in "Two Worlds", one of them seen, and the
other invisible. In short, if your brain is only 85% grown,
you only see 85% of reality, the other 15% of reality is
invisible. Thus it is that "God" lives in an "invisible"
world.
Now, essentially, theologians have known this for centuries,
but they could never prove it. Now, modern science (Hammond)
has actually succeeded in proving this to two decimal point
accuracy (see my website). Anyway, from this fact, we actually
CAN paint an accurate portrait of what LAD would have to look
like.. if it exists.
Consider the following "Gedanken Experiment". Suppose you
went to bed one night, and miraculously during the night, your
body began to grow. Suppose in fact, referring to the above
growth curve, that during the night your phenotypic-body size
suddenly grew until it reached the true size of your
genotypic-body? In other words, suppose your growth curve
deficit disappeared overnight. What would the world look like
to you when you woke up the next morning?
Well, first of all, according to the theory, you would now
be God in the flesh. You would be the only man on Earth with
a zero growth curve deficit.. the only man whose phenotype
actually equaled his genotype.
First of all you would look in the mirror and you would be
astonished. You would look like a god. You would look like
a Hollywood movie star, a 5-star general, a head of state...
like Alexander the Great, Charlemaine, the King of England...
Apollo...in fact even better;...like God himself...!! You would
be the first perfect man on the face of the Earth.
Of course your gestures would be commanding, your voice would
be riveting, your appearance would be overwhelming. But that
isn't even the main thing... your MIND would be the eighth
wonder of the world.. you would be the first fully mentally sane
human being on the face of the Earth!
Now, that is what you would look like to us... but the big
question here is, what would we look like to you? What would
the old world of yesterday look to you now on the morning
of this miraculous event? (BTW, bear in mind that we are
talking rigorous hard science here, not science fiction).
The next thing you'd do is rush downstairs to the living room
and look at that framed picture of yourself sitting on the
mantle. You wouldn't believe your eyes. It would now look
like someone out of a prisoner of war camp. Emaciated,
stunted, with a forlorn suicidal look on his face.. you
would barely be able to recognize yourself.
Stepping out the front door would be an even greater shock.
Instead of the neat suburban community you saw yesterday..
suddenly the whole place would look rundown, seedy, chaotic,
like something out of a Third World country. The cars in
the street would look like they were only going 10 miles per
hour.. the people on the sidewalk would look like they were
walking in slow motion.. like zombies. Suddenly you'd
recognize someone.. Ted. You'd run up to him and grab his
hand and say hello, and suddenly your jaw would drop with
shock.. he'd look half dead.. weary, shrunken, pale.. like
a survivor of World War III. Not only that, he'd stare
at you like he was looking at Jesus of Nazareth come back
from the dead. His speech would sound slow like a southern
drawl, his phraseology and idiom like that of an imbecile..
you'd wonder where in hell he'd been living.
Tearing yourself away from this scene you hop in your car
and set out for town.. no one can see you in the car. Driving
through town.. it looks like a ghost town out of a bygone age.
Funky dilapidated buildings, dirt everywhere... crowds of
slow moving zombies on the street in drab clothing.
Suddenly your whole life flashes before your eyes.. all the
accidents, meanness, failures, disappointments... the whole thing
is suddenly seen as nothing but a manifestation of the whole
ungodly poor growth condition of the human race and the world.
But to you.. you are the only one truly alive. Your body is
rushing with unknown strength, your strength is twice what it
was yesterday. Your breathing is like a steam engine, your
heart is pounding like a racehorse.. you can smell everything,
like a dog.. the sun is bright, the green of the leaves is
phenomenal.. the sound of the wind around the car is like a
waterfall.. you suddenly realize that you are in possession of
ETERNAL LIFE. I mean.. you can still die.. all you have to do
is let go of the steering wheel for 5 seconds and you'd probably
wind up crushed under another car... but you are now 100% ALIVE,
and suddenly for the first time, you realize what death really
is... it was the condition you were in yesterday!
OK... so much for my attempt at creative writing.. but the point
is, what you have just read is scientifically factual, absolutely
factual. IF, you could reduce your growth curve deficit to zero,
that is what the world would actually look like. This is a
scientific fact.
Now therefore.. the world of reality that we have just seen
which was created by reducing one mans growth deficit to ZERO,
is in fact.. what LAD HAS TO ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE. I mean,
scientifically speaking, LAD if it exists, de facto, has to
look approximately like the world that we have just described.
Of course this does not mean that we are ever going to see
it.. but it does mean that it hypothetically exists and we KNOW
what it looks like.
Now, we know that nobody is ever going to discover a way to
reduce their growth curve to zero while they are alive.. it's
impossible. You can make small increases in growth.. and this
alone is considered a miracle.. in fact it IS the basis of all
so called miracles, as the above story makes clear. However,
NO ONE is ever going to reduce his growth curve to zero and
become God in this world.
However, historically, the religious people (Religion) have
conjectured that it may be possible that at death, we go
into a dream state, in which we actually move into this
invisible world, and in a dream, we actually see the vision
described above. Some find this fantastic, others believe it.
Parenthetically, let me mention that the old saw that "dead
brains can't dream" is no longer an impediment to the conjecture.
This because modern science has discovered the time dilation,
and now it is surmised that this death dream may take place at
quantum mechanical frequencies in a split second as you die,
and that then it may be time dilated out into months or years
subjectively so that it only looks like "life after death" but
is actually "life before death".
At any rate, to wind this lecture up, we do not know if
there actually is LAD, but clearly, we do know what it must look
like if it does exist. Of course, the above scenario would
be modified somewhat because you would not be walking around
in the real world.. you would be walking around with your
godlike body in a dreamworld constructed out of your memory,
similar to the world of nocturnal dreams.. only a lot more
real because they would not be merely visual.. they would
also be tactile and audible, because ALL 5 senses are shut off
when you die, not merely vision as in sleep. However, based
on the anology to nocturnal dreams, there may be surrealistic
features of this world imposed on the realistic background
described above... making it perhaps somehwat of an "epilog"
to life, according to conventional religious canon.
In summary then; we do not know if there is LAD, but the
recent discovery of the scientific explanation of God by
Hammond has definitely given us the worlds first scientific
description of what LAD would have to be like, more or less,
.. if it exists. And finally, bear in mind that the above
exposition nowhere appeals to conjecture, imagination, fiction,
fantasy or speculation.. it is entirely a rigerous, proven,
hard science fact, which is the only reason that it is
interesting.
HAMMOND
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
DW Suiter
and proved to exist by experiencing and thereby knowing His person.
"George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A85FCF4...@mediaone.net...
CUPhys
> gham...@mediaone.net
> February 10, 2001
>
>
> PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> I am a physicist, this is a Physics theory, however it
> involves Philosophy, and Theology.
>
> HAMMOND has recently discovered a scientific proof of
> God. God exists, and this proof may be seen at:
Then this is not a physics theory.
ghammo...@my-deja.com
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
In article <t8bvra6...@corp.supernews.com>,
"DW Suiter" <dwsu...@wico.net> wrote:
> Error. God is Spirit and does not possess a physical body. God is only
known
> and proved to exist by experiencing and thereby knowing His person.
>
[Hammond]
FALSE. we are not interested in your "opinion". We
are discussing a proven scientific fact. You couldn't
even give us an operational definition of "physical body"
versus "spiritual body"..
> > BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> > Email: gham...@mediaone.net
> > Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
dolittl...@my-deja.com
> gham...@mediaone.net
> February 10, 2001
>
>
> PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> I am a physicist, this is a Physics theory, however it
> involves Philosophy, and Theology.
[snip]
> First of all you would look in the mirror and you would be
> astonished. You would look like a god.
Oh, wouldn't that be a real surprise for our rambunctious Uncle All!
There he was one day Uncle All and next day Aunty All.
> You would look like
> a Hollywood movie star, a 5-star general, a head of state...
> like Alexander the Great,
I sure would like to know: what is so 'great' about Alexander the Great?
Wasn't he a tyrant running through Europe at one time and murdering
every one and his family that refused to obey his slightest demands?
[snip]
> In summary then; we do not know if there is LAD, but the
> recent discovery of the scientific explanation of God by
> Hammond has definitely given us the worlds first scientific
> description of what LAD would have to be like, more or less,
> .. if it exists. And finally, bear in mind that the above
> exposition nowhere appeals to conjecture, imagination, fiction,
> fantasy or speculation.. it is entirely a rigerous, proven,
> hard science fact, which is the only reason that it is
> interesting.
Give yourself a rest....
Your funtasies may be shown all wrong, soon enough!
DW Suiter
"prove" the existence of God through any physical means. You are a most
miserable and deluded fool.
<ghammo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9650np$6et$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
tj Frazir
Let me look at it beter still !
I would nead one iron atom from your dna please. If we are holographic
image prossesors we would record all we know on iron so our brain would
be te player and dna the copier. An animals instincks would be by the
shape of dna and humans by light eched atoms.
The information of all you are could last forever. Within the laws of
science .
Within the laws of physics I have just proved
heven is with in reach ad you may have a soul with out disregard to
science but as a result of observation.
Observation now tilts twards forever.
There is not enough evidence to denie God.
It is a ladder not one giant leap !
And the ladder has falt. Lots of steps missing like gravity and the
stuff space is made of.
What if I proved god .. ? Would you except fact ?. What if you
found god ?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
>
> Then this is not a physics theory.
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
DW Suiter wrote:
SNIP
> miserable and deluded fool.
SNIP
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
dolittl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net>
> wrote in message news:3A85FCF4...@mediaone.net...
> > Posted from: George Hammond
> > gham...@mediaone.net
> > February 10, 2001
> >
> >
> > PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
> >
> > I am a physicist, this is a Physics theory, however it
> > involves Philosophy, and Theology.
>
> [snip]
>
> > First of all you would look in the mirror and you would be
> > astonished. You would look like a god.
>
> Oh, wouldn't that be a real surprise for our rambunctious Uncle All!
> There he was one day Uncle All and next day Aunty All.
[Hammond]
Notice I've only mentioned Heaven.. I haven't mentioned Hell.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of divine
retribution is obviously in store for a smart ass.
>
> > You would look like
> > a Hollywood movie star, a 5-star general, a head of state...
> > like Alexander the Great,
>
> I sure would like to know: what is so 'great' about Alexander the Great?
> Wasn't he a tyrant running through Europe at one time and murdering
> every one and his family that refused to obey his slightest demands?
[Hammond]
He conquored the world before the age of 30 under the
banner of Hellenistic rationalism.. that was considered
great.
>
> [snip]
>
> > In summary then; we do not know if there is LAD, but the
> > recent discovery of the scientific explanation of God by
> > Hammond has definitely given us the worlds first scientific
> > description of what LAD would have to be like, more or less,
> > .. if it exists. And finally, bear in mind that the above
> > exposition nowhere appeals to conjecture, imagination, fiction,
> > fantasy or speculation.. it is entirely a rigerous, proven,
> > hard science fact, which is the only reason that it is
> > interesting.
>
> Give yourself a rest....
> Your funtasies may be shown all wrong, soon enough!
[Hammond]
I'm still looking for an educated challenger.
ghammo...@my-deja.com
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore uneducated crackpost postings
such as the one from the amateur know it all
cited below.
=========================================================
In article <15089-3A8...@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
--
franz heymann
Your preposterous maunderings have been thoroughly demolished in
previous threads.
Are you too much of an imbecile to know when you have been beaten?
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A85FCF4...@mediaone.net...
> Posted from: George Hammond
> gham...@mediaone.net
> February 10, 2001
>
>
> PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> I am a physicist,
No, you have been proven not to be one on many counts.
> this is a Physics theory,
No. It most decidedly is not. It has been proven by many
correspondents to be nothing of the kind.
> however it
> involves Philosophy, and Theology.
>
> HAMMOND has recently discovered a scientific proof of
> God. God exists, and this proof may be seen at:
[Snip the link. It points to a heap of crap]
> The foundation of this theory has been published in the
> peer reviewed literature (Hammond 1994) and the rest of
> it has been widely discussed on the Internet during the
> past year.
It has indeed, ad nauseam. And you have been shown up as a fool.
> Suffice it to say that unless you have advanced
> degrees in Physics, Psychometry, Neuroscience and a half
> dozen other fields, it is an exercise in futility to
> attempt to challenge the result...
Balls. A rudimentary knowledge of physics alone is quite sufficient
to show up the nonsense in it. This has been done more than once by
now.
[Snip a vast amount of guff mercileesly]
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
<dolittl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9653hq$8is$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net>
[Snip]
> Give yourself a rest....
> Your funtasies may be shown all wrong, soon enough!
You are seriously behind the times. Hammond has been shown by folk
from many different disciplines to be a fool in a number of previous
threads started by him.
Franz Heymann
CUPhys
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
>
> =========================================================
>
>
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
>
> > Then this is not a physics theory.
And this is supposed to convince me that it is?
You are some nutcase Hammond.
franz heymann
>
[Snip]
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Why? You have previously shown yourself unable to understand
scholarly comments.
That puts ridiculing you on the order of the day.
[Snip}
Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore crackpot off-topic commentary
such as that posted below.
=========================================================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> Bloody hell, are we going to have all this once again?
> Your preposterous maunderings have been thoroughly demolished in
> previous threads.
> Are you too much of an imbecile to know when you have been beaten?
SNIP
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Look.. am I talking to someone who knows what an
eigenvector is or a Christoffel symbol.. or are you
just another amateur who thinks Physics is all about
computing the curve of a bowling ball or the wheelie
angle of a motorcycle?
Do you mean to tell me that you have taken the time
to read the single page:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html
and after reading it you are going to try and argue
that this is not a bona fide rigerous hard science
Physics theory? If so, you're the nutcase not me.
At least I have a masters degree in Physics.. and I
do know what a physics theory is.
HAMMOND
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the off topic comments of
theophobic cranks such as that cited below.
=========================================================
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
[Hammond]
Franz... on ounce of on-topic commentary is worth a
pound of off-topic nonsense. Please say something
of topical substance or otherwise refrain from chopping
up this thread with bazillions of off-toic ad hominem
remarks. I will respond to ANYTHING that is not
deliberately and unproductively polemical, and which
is sincere and constructive... even if it is
incompetent. Attitude is more important than ability.
HAMMOND
CUPhys
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A866907...@mediaone.net...
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > may be seen at:
> > >
> > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > >
> > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > >
> > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > >
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > >
> > > CUPhys wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Then this is not a physics theory.
> >
> > And this is supposed to convince me that it is?
> > You are some nutcase Hammond.
>
> [Hammond]
> Look.. am I talking to someone who knows what an
> eigenvector is or a Christoffel symbol..
Look... moron... it is safe to say I know much more about physics than you
do. After all, all you have is a masters.
You tell me, how does your flatulence relating to covariant differentiation
have any bearing on proving the existence of god.
> or are you
> just another amateur who thinks Physics is all about
> computing the curve of a bowling ball or the wheelie
> angle of a motorcycle?
> Do you mean to tell me that you have taken the time
> to read the single page:
No need. It us unadulterated garbage from the first sentence.
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html
>
> and after reading it you are going to try and argue
> that this is not a bona fide rigerous hard science
> Physics theory?
It is a bona fide "rigorous" pile of shit is all.
> If so, you're the nutcase not me.
> At least I have a masters degree in Physics
So what. I received that after a mere year and a half of coursework and
thesis. What did you do, fail the comp's twice and could not convince the
committee with blow jobs to let you go on? You must have fucked up big
time. After all, that was the era of "free love".
.. and I
> do know what a physics theory is.
> HAMMOND
Doubtful. All you seemed to have received from your education is a
predilection for giving head.
franz heymann
[Snip]
> At least I have a masters degree in Physics
How much did you pay for it?
I hope it is not on recycled paper.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
CUPhys <CUP...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:9661h0$ejf$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
[Snip]
>
> Look... moron... it is safe to say I know much more about physics
than you
> do. After all, all you have is a masters.
> You tell me, how does your flatulence relating to covariant
differentiation
> have any bearing on proving the existence of god.
When I last read his junk, he mentioned some correlation matrix which
had to do with four "psychometric measurements". He "interpreted"
this as being a metric tensor for "psychometric space". He then went
on to try to make pseudo-deductions connected with Relativity. After
I pressed him for a very long time to prove that his "psychometric
metric tensor" transformed like a tensor in "psyychometric space", he
admitted, (accompanied by a lot of invective) that it was not a tensor
at all. This did not prevent him from talking in the same vein
afterwards. For all I know this bullshit is still in his website. I
am not going to look, because that is a very smelly place. I suspect
that he has not removed it, and if he has, it will have been replaced
by something even more fatuous. The man is quite clearly an obsessive
idiot.
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> [Hammond]
> Franz... on ounce of on-topic commentary is worth a
> pound of off-topic nonsense. Please say something
> of topical substance or otherwise refrain from chopping
> up this thread with bazillions of off-toic ad hominem
> remarks. I will respond to ANYTHING that is not
> deliberately and unproductively polemical, and which
> is sincere and constructive... even if it is
> incompetent. Attitude is more important than ability.
Hammond, since you ask for it, here it is: Please, will you remind me
where in your website it is that you discussed the symmetries involved
in the very early stages of cell division in a growing foetus? I
don't want to wade once again through the stuff to find it, and yet I
want to tear it to pieces publicly, because at the time I read it, it
gave me every indication that you don't know your brass from your oboe
vis-a-vis symmetry.
Now, that was a real on-topic comment. Please respond to it.
Franz Heymann
Uncle Al
>
> Posted from: George Hammond
> gham...@mediaone.net
> February 10, 2001
>
> PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
>
> I am a physicist, this is a Physics theory, however it
> involves Philosophy, and Theology.
Proximity does not imply causality any more than George Hammond
standing in a garbage can implies recycle value.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
dolittl...@my-deja.com
> dolittl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net>
> > wrote in message news:3A85FCF4...@mediaone.net...
> > > Posted from: George Hammond
> > > gham...@mediaone.net
> > > February 10, 2001
> > >
> > >
> > > PHYSICS PORTRAIT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
> > >
> > > I am a physicist, this is a Physics theory, however it
> > > involves Philosophy, and Theology.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > You would look like
> > > a Hollywood movie star, a 5-star general, a head of state...
> > > like Alexander the Great,
> >
> > I sure would like to know: what is so 'great' about Alexander the
> > Great?
> > Wasn't he a tyrant running through Europe at one time and murdering
> > every one and his family that refused to obey his slightest demands?
>
> [Hammond]
> He conquored the world before the age of 30 under the
> banner of Hellenistic rationalism.. that was considered
> great.
'Alaxander' was known as a mass-murderer in history and still
you continue with that propaganda - he was considered 'great'.
There must be something 'humane' missing in
that world-class assumption! But lets continue
and stay with that sort of nonsensical assumptions.
Why then are the other mass-murderers in recent
history like Stalin, Hitler, etc. not considered 'great' ?
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > In summary then; we do not know if there is LAD, but the
> > > recent discovery of the scientific explanation of God by
> > > Hammond has definitely given us the worlds first scientific
> > > description of what LAD would have to be like, more or less,
> > > .. if it exists. And finally, bear in mind that the above
> > > exposition nowhere appeals to conjecture, imagination, fiction,
> > > fantasy or speculation.. it is entirely a rigerous, proven,
> > > hard science fact, which is the only reason that it is
> > > interesting.
> >
> > Give yourself a rest....
> > Your funtasies may be shown all wrong, soon enough!
>
> [Hammond]
> I'm still looking for an educated challenger.
Maybe, you should 'try to investigate' the invisible
string that holds mind/soul and body together.
Greg Neill
news:966mh1$cds$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 'Alaxander' was known as a mass-murderer in history and still
> you continue with that propaganda - he was considered 'great'.
>
> There must be something 'humane' missing in
> that world-class assumption! But lets continue
> and stay with that sort of nonsensical assumptions.
>
> Why then are the other mass-murderers in recent
> history like Stalin, Hitler, etc. not considered 'great' ?
History is written by the victors.
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A868422...@mediaone.net...
> > CUPhys wrote:
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3A866907...@mediaone.net...
> > > > =========================================================
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > > may be seen at:
> > > >
> > > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > > >
> > > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > > >
> > > > =========================================================
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CUPhys wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Then this is not a physics theory.
> > >
> > > And this is supposed to convince me that it is?
> > > You are some nutcase Hammond.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Look.. am I talking to someone who knows what an
> > eigenvector is or a Christoffel symbol..
>
> Look... moron... it is safe to say I know much more about physics than you
> do. After all, all you have is a masters.
[Hammond]
Dear see-you-physics:
If you're a physicist a Christoffel symbol should
mean more than covariant differentiation... that's a
trite mathematical statement. The Christoffel symbol is the
analog of the gravitational field strength ("g") in Relativity..
maybe nobody ever told you. That's the historic physics significance
of the Christoffel symbol. BTW, I don't care if you've got an LLD,
if you don't know what God is physics-wise, then you're an ignoramus.
> You tell me, how does your flatulence relating to covariant differentiation
> have any bearing on proving the existence of god.
>
[Hammond]
Ok, CU... if you're such a mathematical-physics genius you
SHOULD be able to understand the scientific proof of god in one
paragraph... but I doubt that you can. Anyway, try this on
for mathematical-physics size:
Einstein tells us (classically) that there are only 4-metrical
variables in Physics (X,Y,Z,t). He also says that they are
Cartesian locally (Riemannian generally)... i.e. that they
are ORTHOGONAL locally.
OK, I point out that THIS IS WHY the human body has 3-Axis
Orthogonal geometric structure, including notably the BRAIN.
In fact if you include the time operation of the brain... the
brain has ALL 4 METRICAL ORTHOGONAL DIMENSIONS.
It is easy to show (NB:prove) that this 4-Axis Orthogonality
of the brain causes 4-Metrical dimensions in Psychometry
known as E,N,P,g. (note g is historically known as IQ).
Therefore there is a 4x4 Psychometry Metric PHYSICALLY
CAUSED by the 4x4 Space-time Metric. (Hammond 1994, peer
reviewed literature).
We KNOW that the obliquness (curvature) of the 4x4 space-time
metric causes GRAVITY (Einstein 1916). Likewise it is found
that the 4x4 Psychometry metric is oblique (curved) and
produces a single eigenvector. This eigenvector is experimentally
unequivocally identified as GOD, the so called God of world
religion. MOREOVER-OBVIOUSLY, since the 4x4 space-time metric
CAUSES the 4x4 Psychometry metric, GRAVITY CAUSES GOD, and
Einstein's theory becomes de facto the mathematical proof of God.
Now.... a competent physicists could understand that in 5-minutes,
and realize that it is a scientific proof of God... I mean
Richard Feynman could. I doubt that you can understand it or
comprehend the meaning of it, because you're too timid to tackle
anything beyond symmetry breaking in QFT, fractaql geometry or
some other cutr and dried horseshit.... you're not old enough or
big enough to discuss anything as sophisticated or controversial
as "God". I can; physics-wise.
> > or are you
> > just another amateur who thinks Physics is all about
> > computing the curve of a bowling ball or the wheelie
> > angle of a motorcycle?
> > Do you mean to tell me that you have taken the time
> > to read the single page:
>
> No need. It us unadulterated garbage from the first sentence.
>
[Hammond]
What are your academic credentials?
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html
> >
> > and after reading it you are going to try and argue
> > that this is not a bona fide rigerous hard science
> > Physics theory?
>
> It is a bona fide "rigorous" pile of shit is all.
>
> > If so, you're the nutcase not me.
> > At least I have a masters degree in Physics
>
> So what. I received that after a mere year and a half of coursework and
> thesis. What did you do, fail the comp's twice and could not convince the
> committee with blow jobs to let you go on? You must have fucked up big
> time. After all, that was the era of "free love".
[Hammond]
Until you say something of physics-substance concerning the
scientific issue as explained above, I have to assume that
you're not scientifically competent to understand it or
to discuss it.
You don't appear to be cognizant of the meaning of a
scientific theory.. and not a little incautious and
presumptive; generally a sign of weakness, overprivelege
and incompetence.
>
> .. and I
> > do know what a physics theory is.
> > HAMMOND
>
> Doubtful. All you seemed to have received from your education is a
> predilection for giving head.
[Hammond]
And BTW, I'm twice as rude as you are... again showing a greater
mastery of logical analysis... dipshit.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Greg Neill wrote:
SNIP... OT juvenile crap.
>
> History is written by the victors.
[Hammond]
Right; ... reason the Jews wrote the Bible.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
Uncle Al wrote:
>
snip
> Proximity does not imply causality any more than George Hammond
> standing in a garbage can implies recycle value.
>
[Hammond]
Don't you have some silversmith work you're supposed to be doing?
ghammo...@my-deja.com
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
]
In article <966mh1$cds$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
dolittl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > dolittl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
SNIP... boring juvenile high school chatter.
> > [Hammond]
> > I'm still looking for an educated challenger.
>
> Maybe, you should 'try to investigate' the invisible
> string that holds mind/soul and body together.
[Hammond]
Look.... I've given the first simple GRAPHICAL rational
explanation of the body and soul at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
This is a simple graph that any high school student
could understand in 5 seconds. The phenotype
in this graph is the "body", and the gap between the
phenotype and the genotype is the "soul". so I've
already answered your "oh so esoteric question" to
the point where an idiot can understand it. Quit
boring us with simple questions... can't your middle class
street corner intellect dream up something we haven't already
discovered and proven the answer too- to 2-decimal point
experimental accuracy?
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
===========================================================
franz heymann wrote:
>
snip
> Hammond, since you ask for it, here it is: Please, will you remind me
> where in your website it is that you discussed the symmetries involved
> in the very early stages of cell division in a growing foetus? I
> don't want to wade once again through the stuff to find it, and yet I
> want to tear it to pieces publicly, because at the time I read it, it
> gave me every indication that you don't know your brass from your oboe
> vis-a-vis symmetry.
>
> Now, that was a real on-topic comment. Please respond to it.
>
> Franz Heymann
[Hammond]
Sure Franz... Start with these five specific URL's. The first
four are simple pictures, the fifth one is a blow by blow
illustrated explanation of 3-axis body geometry:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/EMBRYO.jpg
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/DRAMAT~1.jpg
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/FIG2AN3.jpg
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/ILLU1.jpg
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/CartesianBody.html
If all these pictures and explanations can't make it clear
to you.. I'm sorry but I'm not here to run a private tutorial
... I'm looking for people who have already spent 10-40 years
studying science and the human condition.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
[Hammond]
This screwball doesn' know anything about physics. Obviously the
correlation matrix is the EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT of the elements of
the 4x4 metrical tensor.
This amateur is not aware that Newtonian gravity is derivable from
a SCALAR POTENTIAL, and that Einstein "linearizes" the general GR
gravitational metric in order to derive Newtonian Gravity from GR (1916).
Or that Newtonian Gravity only depends on the g(4,4) element of the
space-time metric which is the equivalent of the Newtonian potential.
Factor Analysis of the Correlation Matrix is a LINEAR ALGEBRA
EIGENECTOR THEORY (not tensor calculus), and is KNOWN to be only the
first order term in what most likely is a NONLINEAR space- the same as
Newtonian Gravity is only the first order (linear) term in (nonlinear)
GR space.
Franz is not competent in mathematical-physics, and isn't aware of any of
this... neither does he understand the mathematical proof at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
nor is he competent to discuss the theory at the mathematical physics
level. But the main problem is, that he is not qualified even to comprehend
the elementary physics deductions involved, never mind the mathematics.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
[Hammond]
PS to Franz Heymann:
BTW, you don't see a guy like CUphys with his Phd in Physics
daring to argue with me over the mathematics... he knows better.
A guy like him knows enough to be scared of me, and scared of
a scientific proof of God. He knows better than to challenge it
because he'd get his ass kicked and look like an idiot and be
exposed for the hypocritical moron that he is. His strategy,
like the rest of the physics community is to hide from the
scientific proof of God because they know it's competent and
dangerous.. , and that they would look like fools trying to
challenge it.. (it's that simple physics-wise) and, failing
to discredit it scientifically.. they would be exposed as pedantic
no-nothings for ignoring it.
You on the other hand are an incompetent. Incompetents of course
need have no fear of God.. which is why you will challenge me.
It is only the competent stuff shirts in the Physics department
who are afraid that God is going to kick their ass... and they
sure are correct about that. We won't be hearing any more from
his nibs CUphys. I stepped on his toes once, and he knows what
he's in store for if he trys to get serious about challenging
the physics. He's all done.
ghammo...@my-deja.com
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
In article <9668oc$epr$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
[Hammond]
The public records will show the following CV
for George Edwin Hammond (dob 1942):
B.S. Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Inst.
Worcester Mass. USA, 1964
M.S. Physics, Northeastern Univ.
Boston Mass, USA, 1967
Studied Relativity under Richard Arnowitt
now distinguished professor at TAMU, Texas
who is cited frequently in MTW's-_Gravitation_.
Passed PhD qualifying exam, teaching asst.
and PhD candidate 1968, N.U. left w/o
taking doctorate for private sector
employment due to financial problems.
peer reviewed publications:
HAMMOND G.E. (1994), The Cartesian theory,
....New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2)
....pp 153-167, Pergamon Press
(online facsimile, illustrated, located at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
HAMMOND
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prometheus
<snipped incredible volumes of text>
I was wondering how you answer basic questions about these topics..
surely you must have a general sense of the philosophical gravity of
this topic to be posting in here.
Is God supernatural?
Does God have needs?
Would God act in a superfluous manner?
Is it possible to walk away from God?
Is it possible that the Devil wrote the Bible and is using 'knowledge of
duality' to stray _you_ from the flock, and lead you away from the
Kingdom of Heaven so described, by misdefining every aspect of it?
Can humans harmonize realities that do not exist, or are they flawless?
Is binary logic flawless?
Does approximation define reality?
When a Schizophrenic sees ants crawling on their legs that nobody else
in the world can see...and then goes to scratch them, is that proof that
ants were actually crawling on their legs?
Is it possible that you are deluded?
Is it possble that life has no meaning at all?
Is it possible that life is more dependant on meaning, than on any of
that meaning actually existing.. that it is more important to 'lie' than
to see truth, because truth of uninherent meaning would cause life to
enter stasis?
Does it show faith in God to eat?
Does it show faith in God to pray?
Does it show faith in God to live?
Does it show faith in God to post these messages?
Do I seem like the devil tempting you with tricky words from the true
path?
Does cleverness intimidate you?
Is cleverness evil?
Is declaring wisdom, stealing something from God that is not yours to
keep and was never yours to take?
Do questions scare or freighten you?
Do certain perspectives scare or freighten you, give you a pang as if
you are losing yourself.. and that you must fight to defend against
change?
Do you not have the intellect to disprove everything you learned?
Is it possible that history, reality and everything that culminates
whether God exists or not has little or nothing to do with these ideas
of yours?
Are beliefs important?
Is life important?
Do people go to hell?
These are just some of the most basic questions, the digging didn't even
begin.. do you ponder things like this when you make your beliefs?
I wouldn't assume you to answer one or any of these questions.. but
maybe just pondering them will give you a sense of what this group is
about, as opposed to what a scientific group is about. Philosophers do
not brainwash easily, and most of us would rather spend an eternity in
hell than one moment of eternal bliss with a God that couldn't just
collapse reality so people didn't have to be created to spend an
eternity of chaotic suffering somewhere. Bliss is self-evident,
laughing and gleefully forgetting and totally oblivious in mind and
spirit to the depth of suffering that is present for those who tried to
make an integrity of life itself and not assume that they knew anything
about God. I don't want to forget this, I cannot think of anything more
superficial than climbing over dead bodies to reach a point where they
just blink out of memory. There are over 48,000 errors, even simple
addition errors in the Bible... if the Bible has no errors, than
certainly addition must be wrong.. so how is it that even if your
conclusions of physics were sound, that any of the math is cohesive in
the sense that the word of God has declared math? There are probably
another good 5000 or so logical disproofs of God on top of that? Is it
possible that there is a bias here on your behalf, that you require so
little positive reinforcment that mountains of evidence against your
reality using the same exact system are non-existant to you? Is that
what faith is?
-Prometheus
franz heymann
> =========================================================
> [Hammond]
> Sure Franz... Start with these five specific URL's. The first
> four are simple pictures, the fifth one is a blow by blow
> illustrated explanation of 3-axis body geometry:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/EMBRYO.jpg
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/DRAMAT~1.jpg
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/FIG2AN3.jpg
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/ILLU1.jpg
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/CartesianBody.html
I have read the item you pointed me to. Alas, it was not the one
containing the pseudo-physics I remember reading earlier on. It does
not contain the development of
the symmetry I was looking for.
>
>
> If all these pictures and explanations can't make it clear
> to you.. I'm sorry but I'm not here to run a private tutorial
> ... I'm looking for people who have already spent 10-40 years
> studying science and the human condition.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> [Hammond]
>
> PS to Franz Heymann:
>
> BTW, you don't see a guy like CUphys with his Phd in Physics
> daring to argue with me over the mathematics... he knows better.
> A guy like him knows enough to be scared of me, and scared of
> a scientific proof of God. He knows better than to challenge it
> because he'd get his ass kicked and look like an idiot and be
> exposed for the hypocritical moron that he is. His strategy,
> like the rest of the physics community is to hide from the
> scientific proof of God because they know it's competent and
> dangerous.. , and that they would look like fools trying to
> challenge it.. (it's that simple physics-wise) and, failing
> to discredit it scientifically.. they would be exposed as pedantic
> no-nothings for ignoring it.
> You on the other hand are an incompetent.
OK, but please respond to the request in my other post. I asked you
to give a rational mahtematiacl argument in which you prove that your
correlation matrix transforms like a tensor in your "psychometric
space"
> Incompetents of course
> need have no fear of God.. which is why you will challenge me.
On the contrary, I challenge you because I want to expose your
fraudulent arguments.
> It is only the competent stuff shirts in the Physics department
> who are afraid that God is going to kick their ass... and they
> sure are correct about that. We won't be hearing any more from
> his nibs CUphys.
That would not surprise me. He might not like to scrabble in your
dung heap.
> I stepped on his toes once, and he knows what
> he's in store for if he trys to get serious about challenging
> the physics. He's all done.
Amen.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
[Snip]
[Franz Heymann said the "> >" stuff]]
> > When I last read his junk, he mentioned some correlation matrix
which
> > had to do with four "psychometric measurements". He "interpreted"
> > this as being a metric tensor for "psychometric space". He then
went
> > on to try to make pseudo-deductions connected with Relativity.
After
> > I pressed him for a very long time to prove that his "psychometric
> > metric tensor" transformed like a tensor in "psyychometric space",
he
> > admitted, (accompanied by a lot of invective) that it was not a
tensor
> > at all. This did not prevent him from talking in the same vein
> > afterwards. For all I know this bullshit is still in his website.
I
> > am not going to look, because that is a very smelly place. I
suspect
> > that he has not removed it, and if he has, it will have been
replaced
> > by something even more fatuous. The man is quite clearly an
obsessive
> > idiot.
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > Franz Heymann
>
> This screwball doesn' know anything about physics. Obviously the
> correlation matrix is the EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT of the elements
of
> the 4x4 metrical tensor.
See what I mean, folks, Hammond is now reverting and saying once
again that his correlation matrix is a metric tensor.
OK, so I have to repeat the thousand dollar question yet again, for
the umpteenth time:-
Hammond, there is nothing "obvious" about your assertion. Please
show that your correlation matrix transforms like a tensor in
"psychometric space". A person with your much vaunted mathematical
abilities should find this easy (if it can be done at all).
You have intimated that you would reply properly to a reasonable
comment on your writings. Now is your chance to be as good as your
word.
Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Prometheus wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> <snipped incredible volumes of text>
>
> I was wondering how you answer basic questions about these topics..
> surely you must have a general sense of the philosophical gravity of
> this topic to be posting in here.
[Hammond]
Is the Pope a Catholic!
>
> Is God supernatural?
[GH]
He is now according to classical Physics, but my discovery
changes all that to show that Physics actually does explain God
and therefore God is not in fact supernatural.
To scientific man who believes that
all observers see the same thing (universal observer hypothesis)..
then God is "supernatural". However, Hammond's discovery
shows that, clearly, because of the growth deficit wch.
is different for every individual, see:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG
the "universal observer" does not exist except hypothetically,
and in fact all men see a slightly different reality.
Once this varibility of reality is accounted for (by Physics),
then "God" is no longer "supernatural", but in fact is
an explained phenomena; by Physics.
It turns out that the "universal observer" in classical
Physics, is in fact nothing other than "God", however,
Physics up until now has simply failed to recognize the fact
that no one is God.. which is why Physics has considered
God to be a "supernatural" concept. In fact, "God" is
not a supernatural concept once the observational manifestation
of the growth defict is taken into account... then "God"
becomes explained by Physics and is no longer supernatural.
This is basically the whole story of Hammond's discovery.
It's quite simple actually, as most profound scientific
discoveries usually are.
To reiterate, Physics has always tacitly assumed that
man was God (the Neutral Observer theory). Therefore the miracles
and other "supernatural" manifestations of God reported
by so many, which are based on the fact that
THERE IS NO such thing as a fully grown perfect man, were
simply dismissed by Physicists as being "mental abberations". Fact
is, this disbelief in religion (God) is caused by an enormous and
fundamental DEFECT in Physics.
> Does God have needs?
[GH]
No. The basic number one need of man is to reduce the
growth curve deficit to zero, then he becomes God.
Man therefore has needs, while God does not.
> Would God act in a superfluous manner?
[GH]
Negative, chief.
> Is it possible to walk away from God?
[GH]
Not unless you can climb out of your skin.
> Is it possible that the Devil wrote the Bible and is using 'knowledge of
> duality' to stray _you_ from the flock, and lead you away from the
> Kingdom of Heaven so described, by misdefining every aspect of it?
[GH]
Good and Bad are only meaningfully defined as being on
either side of the Distribution Curve of legal behavior which
is centered on the norm at any given time in history.
Fortunately, we may be assured that the Bible, like most
educational texts, was written by people on the high side
of the Distribution Curve of human behavior.
BTW, the curve of distrubution from Bad to Good is quite
skewed in the "good' direction, as we may deduce from the small size
of the prison population compared to the large size of the non-prison
population.
[GH]
THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TRIVIAL QUESTIONS IS
INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT GOD
IS CAUSED BY THE BRAIN-GROWTH-DEFICT, AND WHO UNDERSTANDS
WHAT THE PERCEPTUAL EFFECT OF HAVING A BRAIN GROWTH
DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS.
Like they say, ALL arithmetic questions are answered once
you know the laws of arithmetic. Same with the physics theory
of God, once you understand the theory, all the "arithmetic"
questions such as the ones you have listed below are trivially
answered, just like I have answered the ones above. However,
I'm not here to do your arithmetic for you, I'm here to tell
you the laws of Arithmetic so that you can do your own
"trivial but fascinating" theological problems.
SNIP... list of questions so trivial as to give one a
migraine headache just tediously typing the answers
to them. Apparently philosophy students ingest large
amounts of methamphetamine before they start talking.
>
> These are just some of the most basic questions, the digging didn't even
> begin.. do you ponder things like this when you make your beliefs?
[GH]
Maybe you "make beliefs", but I am a hard scientist, I don't make
them, I discover and prove them.
> I wouldn't assume you to answer one or any of these questions.. but
> maybe just pondering them will give you a sense of what this group is
> about, as opposed to what a scientific group is about.
[GH]
I already know what Philosophy is about, despite it's venerable
4,500 year history, it is apparently a study in rehabilatative
or remedial reasoning for people who suffer from other-directedness
or sonme other associated thought disorder.
Physicists don't need it, since if you manifest any sign of a
thought disorder you are immediatley flunked out of the freshman
class in Physics... although I will admit a tolerable amount of
other-directedness does leak through the dams even in Physics.
SNIP
There are probably
> another good 5000 or so logical disproofs of God on top of that?
[GH]
Logic proves nothing. All Physics proof must be based on empirical
fact. My discovery is in accord with the axiomatic ("logical") laws
of Physics, HOWEVER, it is ALSO CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENTAL PROOF to
two decimal point accuracy.
SNIP
> -Prometheus
....HAMMOND
--
CUPhys
<SNIP>
> Franz is not competent in mathematical-physics, and isn't aware of any
of
> this... neither does he understand the mathematical proof at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
>
> nor is he competent to discuss the theory at the mathematical physics
> level. But the main problem is, that he is not qualified even to
comprehend
> the elementary physics deductions involved, never mind the mathematics.
From what grounds can you argue your competency?
Answer: None whatsoever.
CUPhys
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> =========================================================
>
>
> [Hammond]
>
> PS to Franz Heymann:
>
> BTW, you don't see a guy like CUphys with his Phd in Physics
> daring to argue with me over the mathematics...
No. I also do not argue with children over the existence of the tooth
fairy. Your illiterate ranting is worse than the innocent misconceptions of
little children. At least they can learn.
> he knows better.
> A guy like him knows enough to be scared of me, and scared of
> a scientific proof of God.
Since your "proof" is far from scientific, I am hardly worried. And if it
were scientific, I would be far from worried as then I could subject it to
experimental tests with the knowledge that perhaps it could be disproved.
> He knows better than to challenge it
> because he'd get his ass kicked and look like an idiot and be
> exposed for the hypocritical moron that he is.
Are you going to start ranting about "establishment orthodoxy" and peeing
your pants each time you get upset?
> His strategy,
> like the rest of the physics community is to hide from the
> scientific proof of God because they know it's competent and
> dangerous.. , and that they would look like fools trying to
> challenge it.. (it's that simple physics-wise) and, failing
> to discredit it scientifically.. they would be exposed as pedantic
> no-nothings for ignoring it.
Wipe your chin, screwball.
> You on the other hand are an incompetent. Incompetents of course
> need have no fear of God.. which is why you will challenge me.
> It is only the competent stuff shirts in the Physics department
> who are afraid that God is going to kick their ass... and they
> sure are correct about that. We won't be hearing any more from
> his nibs CUphys. I stepped on his toes once, and he knows what
> he's in store for if he trys to get serious about challenging
> the physics. He's all done.
You must watch too much WCW. You talk a good game, but from what I have
seen you tuck your tail in your bunghole and run each time someone call you
out.
You are pathetic Hammond.
CUPhys
No shit Sherlock, as much as F=ma is only force.
But for you, F=ma is not suited to your rantings on god?
<SNIP>
> > You tell me, how does your flatulence relating to covariant
differentiation
> > have any bearing on proving the existence of god.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Ok, CU... if you're such a mathematical-physics genius you
> SHOULD be able to understand the scientific proof of god in one
> paragraph... but I doubt that you can. Anyway, try this on
> for mathematical-physics size:
<SNIP Blah Blah Blah>
> Einstein tells us <SNIP>
> Now.... a competent physicists could understand that in 5-minutes,
> and realize that it is a scientific proof of God... I mean
> Richard Feynman could.
I met Feynman once, I don't know Feynman, but you are no Feynman.
<SNIP more ranting>
You assume that your "theory" is worth discussion. Since it is not science,
it cannot be discussed scientifically.
> You don't appear to be cognizant of the meaning of a
> scientific theory.. and not a little incautious and
> presumptive; generally a sign of weakness, overprivelege
> and incompetence.
Hey, no fair projectiong your self analysis on me.
> >
> > .. and I
> > > do know what a physics theory is.
> > > HAMMOND
> >
> > Doubtful. All you seemed to have received from your education is a
> > predilection for giving head.
>
> [Hammond]
> And BTW, I'm twice as rude as you are... again showing a greater
> mastery of logical analysis... dipshit.
And that makes you proud?
Better refill your meds Hammond.
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A87A1C5...@mediaone.net...
> > =========================================================
> >
> > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> >
> > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> >
> > =========================================================
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> >
> > PS to Franz Heymann:
> >
> > BTW, you don't see a guy like CUphys with his Phd in Physics
> > daring to argue with me over the mathematics...
> Since your "proof" is far from scientific, I am hardly worried. And if it
> were scientific, I would be far from worried as then I could subject it to
> experimental tests with the knowledge that perhaps it could be disproved.
>
[Hammond]
Obviously this guy is a pisspot phoney lying about his
academic credentials, and certainly lying about his
scientific ability.
He sits there and says the thing can't be tested experimentally
when the entire thing is experimentally proven by 50,000 published
experimental papers... meaning that he isn't even bright enough to
read that far into it. I suspect this jabony is another jerkoff
wannabee scientist. Also he uses junior college invective
(like "pathetic", "worried" etc... which immediatly brands him
as a moron with an IQ less than 115). He isn't intelligent enough
to have a legitimate PhD in physics.
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A879ACB...@mediaone.net...
> > =========================================================
> >
> > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> >
> > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> >
> > =========================================================
CUphys wrote:
> From what grounds can you argue your competency?
> Answer: None whatsoever.
[Hammond]
Until you make an ON-TOPIC scientific remark with some
relevance to the issue, we have to assume that you are
capable of nothing but ad hominem polemics.. such as any
street asshole can make.
Lets hear you make a substantive on-topic scientific
comment asshole. Or can't you make one?
CUPhys
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A87A1C5...@mediaone.net...
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > may be seen at:
> > >
> > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > >
> > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > >
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > >
> > > PS to Franz Heymann:
> > >
> > > BTW, you don't see a guy like CUphys with his Phd in Physics
> > > daring to argue with me over the mathematics...
>
> > Since your "proof" is far from scientific, I am hardly worried. And if
it
> > were scientific, I would be far from worried as then I could subject it
to
> > experimental tests with the knowledge that perhaps it could be
disproved.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Obviously this guy is a pisspot phoney lying about his
> academic credentials, and certainly lying about his
> scientific ability.
Your assertions do not dictate reality. You can claim whatever you want
about my "credentials" and it would make little difference to the fact that
you do not have a scientific theory. What does your theory predict about
god? Can it predict that he does not have to exist if he does not want to?
Does it predict what he will think of you if you were to be judged?
Not only can your "theory" not predict anything, but it can not even be
tested.
Yours is not a scientific theory.
QED.
> He sits there and says the thing can't be tested experimentally
> when the entire thing is experimentally proven by 50,000 published
> experimental papers...
Quote your sources. I want to see the references to those 50000 published
experimental papers. They also have to reference the existence of god.
> meaning that he isn't even bright enough to
> read that far into it. I suspect this jabony is another jerkoff
> wannabee scientist.
You can stamp and pee your pants all you want. You seem to think that you
can declare yourself the winner and it will make you so.
> Also he uses junior college invective
> (like "pathetic", "worried"
Worried is an invective? Open your dictionary and look again.
> etc... which immediatly brands him
> as a moron with an IQ less than 115). He isn't intelligent enough
> to have a legitimate PhD in physics.
So then it must piss you off that you could not even earn a legitimate PhD
in anything.
You are quite the loser Hammond.
Prometheus
This was actually a logical test, which I would wonder how you respond
given this aspect of your answers. If God has no needs, than the fact
that we exist is the very definition of superfluous, given that God is
our creator and sustainer.
> > Is it possible to walk away from God?
>
> [GH]
> Not unless you can climb out of your skin.
So I take it you do not believe in hell?
> > Is it possible that the Devil wrote the Bible and is using 'knowledge of
> > duality' to stray _you_ from the flock, and lead you away from the
> > Kingdom of Heaven so described, by misdefining every aspect of it?
>
> [GH]
> Good and Bad are only meaningfully defined as being on
> either side of the Distribution Curve of legal behavior which
> is centered on the norm at any given time in history.
> Fortunately, we may be assured that the Bible, like most
> educational texts, was written by people on the high side
> of the Distribution Curve of human behavior.
> BTW, the curve of distrubution from Bad to Good is quite
> skewed in the "good' direction, as we may deduce from the small size
> of the prison population compared to the large size of the non-prison
> population.
>
> [GH]
> THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TRIVIAL QUESTIONS IS
> INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT GOD
> IS CAUSED BY THE BRAIN-GROWTH-DEFICT, AND WHO UNDERSTANDS
> WHAT THE PERCEPTUAL EFFECT OF HAVING A BRAIN GROWTH
> DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS.
I agree that God is caused by a "brain growth defict", that 'defict'
being our life. I think death is a great 'cure' for that 'defict'.
> Like they say, ALL arithmetic questions are answered once
> you know the laws of arithmetic. Same with the physics theory
> of God, once you understand the theory, all the "arithmetic"
> questions such as the ones you have listed below are trivially
> answered, just like I have answered the ones above. However,
> I'm not here to do your arithmetic for you, I'm here to tell
> you the laws of Arithmetic so that you can do your own
> "trivial but fascinating" theological problems.
If one arithmatizes arithematic, the system collapses into a null set of
meaning, which renders any physical proof based on that system null,
void and superfluous. That would make your world collapse, your much
labored 'tower of babel' collapse, and have absolutely no form or
meaning.
> SNIP... list of questions so trivial as to give one a
> migraine headache just tediously typing the answers
> to them. Apparently philosophy students ingest large
> amounts of methamphetamine before they start talking.
>
> >
> > These are just some of the most basic questions, the digging didn't even
> > begin.. do you ponder things like this when you make your beliefs?
>
> [GH]
> Maybe you "make beliefs", but I am a hard scientist, I don't make
> them, I discover and prove them.
Are beliefs made? Is there no aspect of discovery which involves
freewill?
> > I wouldn't assume you to answer one or any of these questions.. but
> > maybe just pondering them will give you a sense of what this group is
> > about, as opposed to what a scientific group is about.
>
> [GH]
> I already know what Philosophy is about, despite it's venerable
> 4,500 year history, it is apparently a study in rehabilatative
> or remedial reasoning for people who suffer from other-directedness
> or sonme other associated thought disorder.
> Physicists don't need it, since if you manifest any sign of a
> thought disorder you are immediatley flunked out of the freshman
> class in Physics... although I will admit a tolerable amount of
> other-directedness does leak through the dams even in Physics.
If other-directness is defined as living life instead of committing
suicide, I agree. I don't see how your system bypasses this either
though, it seems that you generate tremendous superfluous meaning from
this system.
> SNIP
>
> There are probably
> > another good 5000 or so logical disproofs of God on top of that?
>
> [GH]
> Logic proves nothing. All Physics proof must be based on empirical
> fact. My discovery is in accord with the axiomatic ("logical") laws
> of Physics, HOWEVER, it is ALSO CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENTAL PROOF to
> two decimal point accuracy.
Logic can find corruptions, and "back doors" through cognitive
simulations. There physics to 'prove' the philosophy always comes
later, not first. It may not seem meaningful for you to accept a
logical incongruency with your formulations, because pgilosophy does not
resolve your problems for you; but rest assured, when generations pass,
those logical flaws and paradoxes become physical law to the proceeding
generations. Philosophy more than any other discipline, predicts the
path of the future knowledge before that knowledge is being abused as a
resource after it becomes defined.
> SNIP
>
> > -Prometheus
>
> ....HAMMOND
-Prometheus
George Hammond
>
SNIP
> > > > > > =========================================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > > > > may be seen at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > > > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =========================================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CUPhys wrote:
> > > > > > >
SNIP
> > > > > You are some nutcase Hammond.
SNIP
> > > Look... moron... it is safe to say I know much more about physics than
> you
SNIP
> No shit Sherlock, as much as F=ma is only force.
SNIP
> I met Feynman once, I don't know Feynman, but you are no Feynman.
SNIP
> > > No need. It us unadulterated garbage from the first sentence.
SNIP
> > > It is a bona fide "rigorous" pile of shit is all.
SNIP
> > > committee with blow jobs to let you go on?
SNIP
> You assume that your "theory" is worth discussion. Since it is not science,
> it cannot be discussed scientifically.
HAMMOND: The prliminary theory has been published
in the peer reviewed literature, proving this
imbecile is a liar.
SNIP
> > > predilection for giving head.
HAMMOND: This moron's head is so far up his ass his eyes and ears
don't work, only his mouth is still working.
SNIP
HAMMOND: Obviously we're talking to a wannabee crank..
probably a jerkoff techie at Colorado U. physics
lab or something.... obviously a half educated
pile of puke. Sounds like a mental case who needs
a swift kick in the ass.
CUPhys
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A879ACB...@mediaone.net...
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > may be seen at:
> > >
> > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > >
> > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > >
> > > =========================================================
>
> CUphys wrote:
>
> > From what grounds can you argue your competency?
> > Answer: None whatsoever.
>
> [Hammond]
> Until you make an ON-TOPIC scientific remark with some
> relevance to the issue, we have to assume that you are
> capable of nothing but ad hominem polemics.. such as any
> street asshole can make.
> Lets hear you make a substantive on-topic scientific
> comment asshole. Or can't you make one?
But that is the point, is it not? You are allowed to post off topic with an
absurd claim that you have discovered a "scientific proof of god". The
level of following discourse fits your abilities to understand.
There is nothing scientific about your "theory" or "proof". It follows none
of the conventions that guide scientific thinking.
It does not predict.
I cannot be disproved.
Etc.
It is not even wrong.
I can see from the level of your thinking that you must have been seriously
lucky to have received your MS. It must have been a mercy degree to save
the professors from having to interact with you further.
CUPhys
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
>
> SNIP
>
> > > > > > > =========================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > > > > > may be seen at:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > > > > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =========================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CUPhys wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> SNIP
> > > > > > You are some nutcase Hammond.
>
> SNIP
It seems that you agree.
<SNIP>
>
> > You assume that your "theory" is worth discussion. Since it is not
science,
> > it cannot be discussed scientifically.
>
> HAMMOND: The prliminary theory has been published
> in the peer reviewed literature, proving this
> imbecile is a liar.
>
By peer do you mean nutty fruit cakes with icing on top?
> > > > predilection for giving head.
>
> HAMMOND: This moron's head is so far up his ass his eyes and ears
> don't work, only his mouth is still working.
It is interesting you would say that so soon after shoving your head up your
ass.
> HAMMOND: Obviously we're talking to a wannabee crank..
> probably a jerkoff techie at Colorado U. physics
> lab or something.... obviously a half educated
> pile of puke. Sounds like a mental case who needs
> a swift kick in the ass.
Tut tut tsk tsk. Judge not lest you be judged. It is not up to you to
decide my punishment you total fruit.
And as for techies, I know many who are orders of magnitude smarter than
you.
We have a disabled janitor who is orders of magnitude more intelligent than
you, Hammond.
Change your depends Hammond.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A87251D...@mediaone.net...
> > =========================================================
> > [Hammond]
> > Sure Franz... Start with these five specific URL's. The first
> > four are simple pictures, the fifth one is a blow by blow
> > illustrated explanation of 3-axis body geometry:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/EMBRYO.jpg
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/DRAMAT~1.jpg
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/FIG2AN3.jpg
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/ILLU1.jpg
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/CartesianBody.html
>
> I have read the item you pointed me to. Alas, it was not the one
> containing the pseudo-physics I remember reading earlier on. It does
> not contain the development of
> the symmetry I was looking for.
> >
snip
> Franz Heymann
[Hammond]
Franz.. wake up, there IS NO "pseudo science" involved in
this discovery. The foundation paper on 3-AXIS body geometry
has been published in the PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE for
Christ's sake... Pergamon Press does not publish pseudo-science.
The only pseudo-science involved here is the half baked
wannabee cranks like CUphys who populate the Internet. The
fact is that I am reduced to talking to these people because
legitimate Physicists are totally ignorant of "God" and
don't have any idea what it is and don't care because they
don't have any idea that it has a pure-physics explanation.
Physicists are not highly socially aware except for rare cases
like Feynman... the average line professional physicist is
as ignorant about psychology, theology, politics, social
science and even the natural sciences to the extent of being
half educated. You have to realize that it takes decades
of study of mathematics and experimental method to become
a successful physicist... how much time do you think they
have left over to study Psychometry or Theology.. or even
History for Christ's sake.... none! They think anyone who
mentions the word "God" is a nut... and for the most part they
are right. So conditioned are they, that when the real
thing comes along they'll never notice it... and here it is.
I mean listen to CUphys ranting about how there is no such
thing as a scientific proof of God... the guy doesn't have a
clue.
Believe it or not, the greatest hope lies with the Philosophy
department even though they know very little Physics. They do
recognize LOGIC and most of them suspect that there is something
to the 5,000 year history of RELIGION. In fact, the editor who
published my CARTESIAN THEORY paper was the chairman of a
Philosophy department at a major university.. and he published it
anyway, even though it was a physics-psychology paper. I was
puzzled about this at the time... but now I am beginning to figure out
what the Philosophy Department is actually good for. They are
apparently the ones who can bridge the gap between Physics and
Theology... hence, scientific proof of God seems to fall on
their turf, politically at least. As a physicist I find it a pain
in the neck to talk to them, but I am beginning to realize that
politically at least, they seem to be the only ones who are in
a position to do anything... and apparently Kitchener, the
editor who published my paper knew it.
HAMMOND
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A87A1C5...@mediaone.net...
> > [Hammond]
> >
> OK, but please respond to the request in my other post. I asked you
> to give a rational mahtematiacl argument in which you prove that your
> correlation matrix transforms like a tensor in your "psychometric
> space"
[Hammond]
You're in over your head mathematically Franz. General Relativity
is a nonlinear tensor calculus theory. Factor Analysis (correlation
matrices) is a Linear Algebra Eigenvector theory. The correlation
matrix is not a tensor. I.e., a "matrix" is not the same as a
"tensor".
For instance, Newtonian Gravity is the "linearized" version of
Einsteinian Gravity. Newtonian Gravity is a SCALAR, while Einsteinian
Gravity is a TENSOR. However, mathematically it is easy to show
that Newtonian Gravity is the first order (linear) term in the
expansion of Einsteinian Gravity. The same thing holds true for
Psychometric Space.. the actual theory is nonlinear and Riemannian
just like GR, but Factor Analysis is the "linearized" version just
like Newtonian Gravity.
Now, what I show at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
is that the all important "g(4,4)" elements in both the Newtonian
linearized Einstein theory and the Correlation matrix are
identical... and since we know that the whole of Newtonian Gravity
depends only on the g(4,4) element (being identical with the
Newtonian scalar gravitationsl potential)... thus we have shown
that the single higher order factor of the Correlation matrix,
the "god eigenvector" is caused by the gravitational potential,
or "gravity". In the above URL I put it this way:
===QUOTATION FROM ABOVE URL======
Well; this is the result we are looking for. What it says, is that the
"common factor" in Thurstone's [4x4] Matrix, is actually being physically
caused by the "Newtonian Gravitational Potential". As we have shown
elsewhere,
this higher order factor is identified, by an enormous and overwhelming
convergence of evidence to be, psychometrically, the "God of the Bible"
(mainly through it's causation which is the Secular Trend of brain growth,
and the known psychometric effect of incomplete brain growth (e.g. M.R.).
[M.R.=Mental Retardation]
Therefore, what we have just demonstrated, is that God is physically
caused by the "gravitational potential", as far as Physics is concerned.
======END QUOTE======
So, what we see is that without even knowing the "signature" or the
true (non-linear) values of the metric, we have sufficient 2-decimal
point accuracy data, and theoretical mathematical-physics structure
to actually PROVE how and why GRAVITY CAUSES GOD.
Now, you may not comprehend all of this, but I can assure you that
any COMPETENT PHYSICIST who took the necessary time to aquaint himself
with PSYCHOMETRY and who already knew RELATIVITY, would immediatly
agree that this is trivially correct, and that it is a PROFOUND
and dramatic scientific explanation and proof of God. The first
scientific proof in the history of the world, thanks to Einstein
and 100 years of published Psychometry including 40 years of mainframe
computer eigenvector extraction.
>
> > Incompetents of course
> > need have no fear of God.. which is why you will challenge me.
>
> On the contrary, I challenge you because I want to expose your
> fraudulent arguments.
[Hammond]
Oh fer chrissakes, quit talking like a street activist half
educated high school kid. You've got more savvy than that.
>
> > It is only the competent stuff shirts in the Physics department
> > who are afraid that God is going to kick their ass... and they
> > sure are correct about that. We won't be hearing any more from
> > his nibs CUphys.
>
> That would not surprise me. He might not like to scrabble in your
> dung heap.
[Hammond]
No... they don't want to scrabble in the dung heap of popular
misconceptions about religion... and I suppose we can't
blame them for not wanting to become heroes if they
aren't forced to... "never volunteer" as they say.
>
> > I stepped on his toes once, and he knows what
> > he's in store for if he trys to get serious about challenging
> > the physics. He's all done.
>
> Amen.
[Hammond]
yeah.. I think CUphys is another pain in the ass loose cannon
who is going to harangue us for awhile until his boss asks
him why he isn't getting anything done at work.
>
> Franz Heymann
PS: Have you noticed that Google just took over DejaNews and
just about shut down the whole thing... you can't even post to NG's
from there anymore.
That means I may start missing a lot of posts since I have AT&T-Roadrunner
and they seem to miss at least 20% of all posts to the NG's. I had
been relying on DejaNews like a lot of other people for the full deck.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Look screwball.. you can't comment on a theory you haven't even read.
The fact that you haven't read is evidenced by the fact that you are
unaware of the hundred citations given at the end of the paper
posted at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
or that you are unaware that it predicts that all 13 known factors
in psychometry are CUBICALLY INTERCORRELATED, which CERTAINLY
can be experimentally tested... in fact is CONFIRMED by existing
data.
At least read the theory before you go shooting your big mouth off.
>
> > He sits there and says the thing can't be tested experimentally
> > when the entire thing is experimentally proven by 50,000 published
> > experimental papers...
>
> Quote your sources. I want to see the references to those 50000 published
> experimental papers.
[Hammond]
Answered above
> They also have to reference the existence of god.
>
[Hammond]
Why would they reference the existenc of God when I AM THE
FIRST ONE IN HISTORY TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
Look asshole, were not discussing something that can
be found in a textbook like everything else you know, we
are discussing an original scientific discovery... textbook
time is over, school's out, you're in the real world.
SNIP
[Hammond]
You're obviously an incompetent mental case.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the crank off-topic comments
containing no substantive content such as the
remarks posted below.
=========================================================
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the crank off-topic comments
containing no substantive content such as the
remarks posted below.
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the crank off-topic comments
containing no substantive content such as the
remarks posted below.
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
>
> Tut tut tsk tsk. Judge not lest you be judged. It is not up to you to
> decide my punishment you total fruit.
> And as for techies, I know many who are orders of magnitude smarter than
> you.
> We have a disabled janitor who is orders of magnitude more intelligent than
> you, Hammond.
> Change your depends Hammond.
--
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > =========================================================
> >
> > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> >
> > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> >
> > =========================================================
> >
> > Prometheus wrote:
> > >
SNIP
> > > Does God have needs?
> >
> > [GH]
> > No. The basic number one need of man is to reduce the
> > growth curve deficit to zero, then he becomes God.
> > Man therefore has needs, while God does not.
> >
> > > Would God act in a superfluous manner?
> >
> > [GH]
> > Negative, chief.
>
> This was actually a logical test, which I would wonder how you respond
> given this aspect of your answers. If God has no needs, than the fact
> that we exist is the very definition of superfluous, given that God is
> our creator and sustainer.
[Hammond]
That doesn't sound logical to me.
>
> > > Is it possible to walk away from God?
> >
> > [GH]
> > Not unless you can climb out of your skin.
>
> So I take it you do not believe in hell?
[Hammond]
God created Hell also, as well as the Devil, all Evil
and everything else under the Sun... or are you going
to argue that there are two Creators?
SNIP
> > [GH]
> > THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TRIVIAL QUESTIONS IS
> > INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT GOD
> > IS CAUSED BY THE BRAIN-GROWTH-DEFICT, AND WHO UNDERSTANDS
> > WHAT THE PERCEPTUAL EFFECT OF HAVING A BRAIN GROWTH
> > DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS.
>
> I agree that God is caused by a "brain growth defict", that 'defict'
> being our life. I think death is a great 'cure' for that 'defict'.
[Hammond]
What exactly death is, is as yet unknown. Anyone's guess
is unprovable.
>
> > Like they say, ALL arithmetic questions are answered once
> > you know the laws of arithmetic. Same with the physics theory
> > of God, once you understand the theory, all the "arithmetic"
> > questions such as the ones you have listed below are trivially
> > answered, just like I have answered the ones above. However,
> > I'm not here to do your arithmetic for you, I'm here to tell
> > you the laws of Arithmetic so that you can do your own
> > "trivial but fascinating" theological problems.
>
> If one arithmatizes arithematic, the system collapses into a null set of
> meaning, which renders any physical proof based on that system null,
> void and superfluous. That would make your world collapse, your much
> labored 'tower of babel' collapse, and have absolutely no form or
> meaning.
[Hammond]
You got to be shitting me. Do you think a physicist
is going to be pursuaded by 4 lines of meaningless jargonese.
Save this stuff for the Philosophy tea parties... physics
deals in experimentally provable arguments only.
SNIP
> > [GH]
> > Maybe you "make beliefs", but I am a hard scientist, I don't make
> > them, I discover and prove them.
>
> Are beliefs made? Is there no aspect of discovery which involves
> freewill?
[Hammond]
"Freewill" can't even be operationally defined... cut the
malarky... physics is not susceptible to rethorical devices
or games.
>
> > > I wouldn't assume you to answer one or any of these questions.. but
> > > maybe just pondering them will give you a sense of what this group is
> > > about, as opposed to what a scientific group is about.
> >
> > [GH]
> > I already know what Philosophy is about, despite it's venerable
> > 4,500 year history, it is apparently a study in rehabilatative
> > or remedial reasoning for people who suffer from other-directedness
> > or sonme other associated thought disorder.
> > Physicists don't need it, since if you manifest any sign of a
> > thought disorder you are immediatley flunked out of the freshman
> > class in Physics... although I will admit a tolerable amount of
> > other-directedness does leak through the dams even in Physics.
>
> If other-directness is defined as living life instead of committing
> suicide, I agree. I don't see how your system bypasses this either
> though, it seems that you generate tremendous superfluous meaning from
> this system.
[Hammond]
De facto, there can be nothing superflous about a discovered
scientific fact.
The problem with Philosophers is that they have run out of stuff
to do. Little do they know that their field is about to go into
overload when it is discovered that a scientific proof of God has actually
been discovered and that the Philosophy department is going to
have to be referee in a historic and embarresing and probably
dangerous crunch between Physics and Religion.
>
> > SNIP
> >
> > There are probably
> > > another good 5000 or so logical disproofs of God on top of that?
> >
> > [GH]
> > Logic proves nothing. All Physics proof must be based on empirical
> > fact. My discovery is in accord with the axiomatic ("logical") laws
> > of Physics, HOWEVER, it is ALSO CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENTAL PROOF to
> > two decimal point accuracy.
>
> Logic can find corruptions, and "back doors" through cognitive
> simulations. There physics to 'prove' the philosophy always comes
> later, not first. It may not seem meaningful for you to accept a
> logical incongruency with your formulations, because pgilosophy does not
> resolve your problems for you; but rest assured, when generations pass,
> those logical flaws and paradoxes become physical law to the proceeding
> generations. Philosophy more than any other discipline, predicts the
> path of the future knowledge before that knowledge is being abused as a
> resource after it becomes defined.
[Hammond]
Granted... but by the same token Religion preceeds Philosophy.
God was known 1,000 years before Socrates.
>
> > SNIP
> >
> > > -Prometheus
> >
> > ....HAMMOND
>
> -Prometheus
........hammond
CUPhys
<SNIP>
>
> franz heymann wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A87251D...@mediaone.net...
> > > =========================================================
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Sure Franz... Start with these five specific URL's. The first
> > > four are simple pictures, the fifth one is a blow by blow
> > > illustrated explanation of 3-axis body geometry:
<SNIP Garbage>
> > I have read the item you pointed me to. Alas, it was not the one
> > containing the pseudo-physics I remember reading earlier on. It does
> > not contain the development of
> > the symmetry I was looking for.
> > >
> snip
>
> > Franz Heymann
>
> [Hammond]
> Franz.. wake up, there IS NO "pseudo science" involved in
> this discovery.
Only the discovery itself.
> The foundation paper on 3-AXIS body geometry
> has been published in the PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE for
> Christ's sake... Pergamon Press does not publish pseudo-science.
If they published you, then it they publish pseudo-science.
> The only pseudo-science involved here is the half baked
> wannabee cranks like CUphys who populate the Internet.
It is nice to see you apply the same logic in figuring out where people are
coming from as you do in your "proof of god".
> The
> fact is that I am reduced to talking to these people because
> legitimate Physicists are totally ignorant of "God" and
> don't have any idea what it is and don't care because they
> don't have any idea that it has a pure-physics explanation.
> Physicists are not highly socially aware except for rare cases
> like Feynman...
To bad he is dead. It would have been fun to see him call you a crackpot.
<Snip>
> I mean listen to CUphys ranting about how there is no such
> thing as a scientific proof of God.
I never said there was no scientific proof of god, I only (correctly) stated
that yours was not a scientific proof of anything.
Oh well, you just keep wetting your britches each time someone points out
the flaws in your theory.
franz heymann
[Snip]
< As a physicist I find .....
Where on earth did you get such grandiose ideas as to make you think
you have anything in common with a physicist?
Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
FRANZ-- I have answered your question at length in another
post about an hour ago, that now should be on this thread.
BTW, have you noticed that DejaNews has been taken
over by Google and they have practically shut down the
whole thing. This means I may miss some posts
since I have AT&T-Roadrunner and they drop many posts
which I had been depending on DejaNews to get.
franz heymann wrote:
>
SNIP
> OK, so I have to repeat the thousand dollar question yet again, for
> the umpteenth time:-
>
> Hammond, there is nothing "obvious" about your assertion. Please
> show that your correlation matrix transforms like a tensor in
> "psychometric space". A person with your much vaunted mathematical
> abilities should find this easy (if it can be done at all).
>
> You have intimated that you would reply properly to a reasonable
> comment on your writings. Now is your chance to be as good as your
> word.
>
> Franz Heymann
[Hammond]
Answered at length in another post, posted an hour ago to this
thread.
CUPhys
<SNIP>
I most certainly can. Alas, yours is not a proper scientific theory and
thus any derogatory comment applies.
> or that you are unaware that it predicts that all 13 known factors
> in psychometry are CUBICALLY INTERCORRELATED, which CERTAINLY
> can be experimentally tested... in fact is CONFIRMED by existing
> data.
Typing in CAPS does not validate your theory any more than pissing your
pants does.
In your abortive attempt at writing a master thesis, did you wear out the
CAPS die on your typewriter?
Did you foam and piss your pants at the defense?
> At least read the theory before you go shooting your big mouth off.
I gave it as much time and attention as it deserved.
> > > He sits there and says the thing can't be tested experimentally
> > > when the entire thing is experimentally proven by 50,000 published
> > > experimental papers...
> >
> > Quote your sources. I want to see the references to those 50000
published
> > experimental papers.
>
> [Hammond]
> Answered above
You have 50000 references on your web page? Lier.
> > They also have to reference the existence of god.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Why would they reference the existenc of God when I AM THE
> FIRST ONE IN HISTORY TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
Is your ego as large as the font you type in?
> Look asshole,
For someone who believes in god, you sure have a fowl mouth about the
subject. Is there a history of turrets in your family? Did you fall off
your motorcycle once to often?
> were not discussing something that can
> be found in a textbook like everything else you know, we
> are discussing an original scientific discovery... textbook
> time is over, school's out, you're in the real world.
And you speak from the small corner of it with padded walls?
> SNIP
>
> [Hammond]
> You're obviously an incompetent mental case.
That is your sig file?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the crank off-topic comments
containing no substantive content such as the
remarks posted below.
=========================================================
CUPhys wrote:
>
SNIP
> > The foundation paper on 3-AXIS body geometry
> > has been published in the PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE for
> > Christ's sake... Pergamon Press does not publish pseudo-science.
>
> If they published you, then it they publish pseudo-science.
>
> > The only pseudo-science involved here is the half baked
> > wannabee cranks like CUphys who populate the Internet.
>
> It is nice to see you apply the same logic in figuring out where people are
> coming from as you do in your "proof of god".
>
SNIP
> > I mean listen to CUphys ranting about how there is no such
> > thing as a scientific proof of God.
>
> I never said there was no scientific proof of god, I only (correctly) stated
> that yours was not a scientific proof of anything.
>
> Oh well, you just keep wetting your britches each time someone points out
> the flaws in your theory.
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
--
CUPhys
Too busy changing your depends to come up with a proper rebuttal?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
CUPhys wrote:
> Too busy changing your depends to come up with a proper rebuttal?
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
CUPhys
> ===================KOOKIE KUTTER=======================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
> containing no substantive content.
>
> ==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
I guess Hammond has reached the limit of his mental abilities and has
resorted to his kookie kutters in place of thought.
What else can be expected of a fruitloop like Hammond.
Prometheus
George Hammond wrote:
> > > Prometheus wrote:
> > > >
>
> SNIP
>
> > > > Does God have needs?
> > >
> > > [GH]
> > > No. The basic number one need of man is to reduce the
> > > growth curve deficit to zero, then he becomes God.
> > > Man therefore has needs, while God does not.
> > >
> > > > Would God act in a superfluous manner?
> > >
> > > [GH]
> > > Negative, chief.
> >
> > This was actually a logical test, which I would wonder how you respond
> > given this aspect of your answers. If God has no needs, than the fact
> > that we exist is the very definition of superfluous, given that God is
> > our creator and sustainer.
>
> [Hammond]
> That doesn't sound logical to me.
Explain then.. you are crossposting to a philosophy group!
No needs. Creates something. What part of creation is not a need? Or
are you suggesting that God is determined by something greater than God,
to which he does not need to create, but is forced to by a result of his
nature.. that he cannot possibly have never created something.
Do you suggest that God did not have the choice to not create? Did God
have a choice to create (inversion of the same statement)?
If God did have a choice, thereby not needing it, then is it not true
that creation would be superfluous, as that which has no need would not
need to move or even be?
Does God need to be?
Does God have a choice?
Can God not be? If not, than clearly he _needs_ to be.
If God cannot be, than how can God be said to know all things? Is God
afraid of _not being_?
You suggest that God by not having needs cannot act superficial or
superfluous.. what could possibly be more superficial and superfluous
than life its self?
If life is not superficial or superfluous, than what is death?
Does God know he has eternal life? God would have to know all things
including _not being_ to know the answer, which would make God a
non-being, or rather.. as a being superfluous to non-being, by avoiding
the depth and truth that is mysteriously there to be found.
> > > > Is it possible to walk away from God?
> > >
> > > [GH]
> > > Not unless you can climb out of your skin.
> >
> > So I take it you do not believe in hell?
>
> [Hammond]
> God created Hell also, as well as the Devil, all Evil
> and everything else under the Sun... or are you going
> to argue that there are two Creators?
Are you going to argue that only one being creates? I may as well stop
typing this post then, for clearly it is not _I_ doing anything.
As for hell.. do you think it moral to create eternal suffering as a
perspective in which to veiw superficial eternal joy; rather than making
a different creation altogether or simply not creating anything at all?
> > > [GH]
> > > THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TRIVIAL QUESTIONS IS
> > > INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT GOD
> > > IS CAUSED BY THE BRAIN-GROWTH-DEFICT, AND WHO UNDERSTANDS
> > > WHAT THE PERCEPTUAL EFFECT OF HAVING A BRAIN GROWTH
> > > DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS.
> >
> > I agree that God is caused by a "brain growth defict", that 'defict'
> > being our life. I think death is a great 'cure' for that 'defict'.
>
> [Hammond]
> What exactly death is, is as yet unknown. Anyone's guess
> is unprovable.
Does God know what death is? As for it being unprovable.. why do you
not brave the scientific method and take your own life, and explore it
instead of making claims about it when you are not there? What is there
to fear in that... science is all about risk, injecting the first polio
vaccine into yourself.. etc.. Go tell us about it...
> > > Like they say, ALL arithmetic questions are answered once
> > > you know the laws of arithmetic. Same with the physics theory
> > > of God, once you understand the theory, all the "arithmetic"
> > > questions such as the ones you have listed below are trivially
> > > answered, just like I have answered the ones above. However,
> > > I'm not here to do your arithmetic for you, I'm here to tell
> > > you the laws of Arithmetic so that you can do your own
> > > "trivial but fascinating" theological problems.
> >
> > If one arithmatizes arithematic, the system collapses into a null set of
> > meaning, which renders any physical proof based on that system null,
> > void and superfluous. That would make your world collapse, your much
> > labored 'tower of babel' collapse, and have absolutely no form or
> > meaning.
>
> [Hammond]
> You got to be shitting me. Do you think a physicist
> is going to be pursuaded by 4 lines of meaningless jargonese.
> Save this stuff for the Philosophy tea parties... physics
> deals in experimentally provable arguments only.
You seem clearly aggrivated by the binary conclusion of binary logical
systems. If one invents invention, invention can no longer occur,
because nothing can no longer be an 'invention', rather it would be all
on the record and simply a matter of clerical observation. The meaning
for the system of invention would collapse, because its resource would
be free and infinite.. those who based meaning on 'inventing' will lose
all of their meaning through that system. If you determined
determinism, you would know every reason why you did, are and will think
every thought you did, are or will ever have; creating a situation where
you cannot possibly concieve of how _YOU_ are actually having a thought,
your perception of yourself would collapse into itself into a state of
omniscient catatonia, or rather, that part of you that uses cause and
effect to determine reality. If you arithatized arithematics, the
system and all of its derivations would become a value of null set.
> > > [GH]
> > > Maybe you "make beliefs", but I am a hard scientist, I don't make
> > > them, I discover and prove them.
> >
> > Are beliefs made? Is there no aspect of discovery which involves
> > freewill?
>
> [Hammond]
> "Freewill" can't even be operationally defined... cut the
> malarky... physics is not susceptible to rethorical devices
> or games.
I think we can easily deduce that if the Bible is indeed true, that
there is no freewill. I want to go to oblivion, I don't care about
heaven or hell.. but God makes it so that if I don't go to heaven, I
have to go to hell instead of oblivion which would be my true desire.
I can conclude that God either cannot grant that wish, or is afraid that
by granting such a wish, that to have any 'freinds' he might actually
have to be accountable for the wellbeing of others ot else they will all
leave him and choose oblivion over this shithole of a creation. Not
offering the choice of oblivion to followers is an example of ineptness
or superficial glory. Would it not be true that the most glorious
nation would be that which offers painless suicide to those who seek it
without condition and nobody chooses to use it?
If a nation does not even offer this choice, how can it even consider
it's glory without being superficially contrived?
i.e. You either do what I say or you suffer, you cannot have the choice
to _not be_.. because that would make me accountable to your well being
as well as my own. Accountability would be interconnected. It is fear
and control tactics to not allow that choice, or just plain ineptness of
potency.
> > > > I wouldn't assume you to answer one or any of these questions.. but
> > > > maybe just pondering them will give you a sense of what this group is
> > > > about, as opposed to what a scientific group is about.
> > >
> > > [GH]
> > > I already know what Philosophy is about, despite it's venerable
> > > 4,500 year history, it is apparently a study in rehabilatative
> > > or remedial reasoning for people who suffer from other-directedness
> > > or sonme other associated thought disorder.
> > > Physicists don't need it, since if you manifest any sign of a
> > > thought disorder you are immediatley flunked out of the freshman
> > > class in Physics... although I will admit a tolerable amount of
> > > other-directedness does leak through the dams even in Physics.
> >
> > If other-directness is defined as living life instead of committing
> > suicide, I agree. I don't see how your system bypasses this either
> > though, it seems that you generate tremendous superfluous meaning from
> > this system.
>
> [Hammond]
> De facto, there can be nothing superflous about a discovered
> scientific fact.
Is that so? Scientific fact evaluation is simple.
Requires falsifiability that must include assumed variable complexity
with a greater explanitory power that is _only_ determined by greater
predictive power.
In order for your explanation to be true, my explanation has to
determine it and be more true. That is believer burden of proof used by
the scientist and religous alike. Does it not strike you that beliefs
are so necessary to maintain sentience that what they are is actually
irrelevant and superfluous, that their 'creation' is a self-evident
indentured system to keep life moving on without collapsing into an
existential vaccuum? All this stuff you write just looks to me like
self-evident tricks that the mind plays to give people meaning, and yet
steer them away from an equally self-evident choice to not live.
You get the benefits of self-awareness with the base animal instict to
'just live' instead of choosing to live or choosing to die.
Why do you consider that anything having to do with life and after-life
is good? You seem to be highly compelled by those who abuse resources
at the expense of others, by offering lack of choice and then raising
them up to an alter of the neo-human.
> The problem with Philosophers is that they have run out of stuff
> to do.
I beg to differ. Philosophy is having a tremendous explosion with
reletive nihilism, quantum and binary systems all existing at the same
time.. and all signalling a harmonaization which will yeild a completely
different form of logic. Philosophy is huge now as has it always been.
Little do they know that their field is about to go into
> overload when it is discovered that a scientific proof of God has actually
> been discovered and that the Philosophy department is going to
> have to be referee in a historic and embarresing and probably
> dangerous crunch between Physics and Religion.
I agree with this. Science and religion are not very distinguishable at
all, they both use indentured systems and assumptions that are ignored
in order to make the system function. They consume tremendous amounts
of energy on endevours that are probably completely pointless, and will
end up collapsing into themselves and become irrelevant to future
generations. Both religions and science use binary logical systems.
I define religion as that which superfluously binds a person to not
commit suicide for a reason, by abusing their options and exposure to
such ideas. Both science and religion use indentured systems to keep
people alive without having to think about it, and have conserved the
energy used to feed these indentured systems by making them extremely
simple in design (defined indefinable terms and variable complexity).
Ever heard the statement to argue against suicide, "You are so afraid of
change.. just step into it and everything will be ok. This too shall
pass."
What could be more change than suicide? What is wrong with that change?
Why is God so afraid to let us have oblivion, instead of living the
contrived game of change? Does God even exist? How does drawing an "x"
show that God exists? Clearly a cross is to an "x" what an elipse is to
a circle.. do these distinctions mean nothing to you? Is approximation
good enough to whet your appetite, and harmonize your need?
Since you seem to be such a science buff... what do you think it means
when the Bible says: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he
had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. God
blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from
all the work of creating he had done."
".. so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."
All the work that is Gods, he rested from on the seventh day.
This means that all the work left is someones besides Gods work, or that
God simply stopped 'working' in an absolute sense. What's interesting
about the number seven is that it is the only number that cannot be
divided equally into single portions by any sort of earthy means,
working through the number seven seemed as impossible to God as it is to
us.. what are we to make of this that God could not transcend seven and
yet asks us to do this very feat to enter the kingdom of heaven?
Septagons and septahedrons have no theorems, they are always
approximations, even in the abstract. (revelations and the seven houses
that must be transcended to enter the kingdom) It sounds like God wants
us to do his work for him.. he rests on the seventh day, but requires us
to move through that day to get to heaven... "do as I say and not as I
do." "Use only black and white crayons to create the color blue and you
will go to heaven, I will not tell you how to do it though, nor will I
show you that I can do it. You must trust that I can do it, or you will
go to hell (get an "F" from God for this insane homework assignment).
The question is.. do you respect an "A" in the class of God more than
you respect your own logic? If you do, the ability for someone to
exploit you will have no bounds.
> >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > There are probably
> > > > another good 5000 or so logical disproofs of God on top of that?
> > >
> > > [GH]
> > > Logic proves nothing. All Physics proof must be based on empirical
> > > fact. My discovery is in accord with the axiomatic ("logical") laws
> > > of Physics, HOWEVER, it is ALSO CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENTAL PROOF to
> > > two decimal point accuracy.
> >
> > Logic can find corruptions, and "back doors" through cognitive
> > simulations. There physics to 'prove' the philosophy always comes
> > later, not first. It may not seem meaningful for you to accept a
> > logical incongruency with your formulations, because pgilosophy does not
> > resolve your problems for you; but rest assured, when generations pass,
> > those logical flaws and paradoxes become physical law to the proceeding
> > generations. Philosophy more than any other discipline, predicts the
> > path of the future knowledge before that knowledge is being abused as a
> > resource after it becomes defined.
>
> [Hammond]
> Granted... but by the same token Religion preceeds Philosophy.
> God was known 1,000 years before Socrates.
Where is your scientific proof for this statement? Is the first thought
of a sentient being "Wow, there's a God!!!!" or was it, "Wow.. I
exist!"?
> >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > -Prometheus
> > >
> > > ....HAMMOND
> >
> > -Prometheus
>
> ........hammond
-Prometheus =)
D
George Hammond wrote:
>
> CUPhys wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A866907...@mediaone.net...
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > may be seen at:
> > >
> > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > >
> > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > >
> > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > >
> > > =========================================================
> > >
> > >
> > > CUPhys wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Then this is not a physics theory.
> >
> > And this is supposed to convince me that it is?
> > You are some nutcase Hammond.
>
> [Hammond]
> Look.. am I talking to someone who knows what an
> eigenvector is or a Christoffel symbol.. or are you
> just another amateur who thinks Physics is all about
> computing the curve of a bowling ball or the wheelie
> angle of a motorcycle?
> Do you mean to tell me that you have taken the time
> to read the single page:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html
>
> and after reading it you are going to try and argue
> that this is not a bona fide rigerous hard science
> Physics theory? If so, you're the nutcase not me.
> At least I have a masters degree in Physics.. and I
> do know what a physics theory is.
> HAMMOND
It is really humorous that your alledged physics theory,
which you claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal,
was not published in any physics journal. Your own
web page points out that your "physics" "theory" appeared
in something called "New Ideas in Psychology". Furthermore
not a single reference that you cite is even related to
physics.
--Donna
D
ghammo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [Hammond]
> The public records will show the following CV
> for George Edwin Hammond (dob 1942):
>
> B.S. Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Inst.
> Worcester Mass. USA, 1964
>
> M.S. Physics, Northeastern Univ.
> Boston Mass, USA, 1967
> Studied Relativity under Richard Arnowitt
> now distinguished professor at TAMU, Texas
> who is cited frequently in MTW's-_Gravitation_.
>
> Passed PhD qualifying exam, teaching asst.
> and PhD candidate 1968, N.U. left w/o
> taking doctorate for private sector
> employment due to financial problems.
>
> peer reviewed publications:
>
> HAMMOND G.E. (1994), The Cartesian theory,
> ....New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2)
> ....pp 153-167, Pergamon Press
> (online facsimile, illustrated, located at:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
>
> HAMMOND
Your only peer reviewed publication is in psychology?
I don't know of a MS physics graduate, much less someone
who was supposed to have been working on a PhD who does
now have something published in their field.
Something is fishy here.
franz heymann
Time for those pillsies again.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
>
> =========================================================
>
> franz heymann wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A87A1C5...@mediaone.net...
> > > [Hammond]
> > >
>
> > OK, but please respond to the request in my other post. I asked
you
> > to give a rational mahtematiacl argument in which you prove that
your
> > correlation matrix transforms like a tensor in your "psychometric
> > space"
>
> [Hammond]
> You're in over your head mathematically Franz.
I'm afraid you are wrong about that.
Now be a nice boy and just provide that proof, instead of
prevaricating.
> General Relativity
> is a nonlinear tensor calculus theory. Factor Analysis (correlation
> matrices) is a Linear Algebra Eigenvector theory. The correlation
> matrix is not a tensor.
Now we are beginning to get somewhere at last. So you admit that it
is not a "metric tensor in psychometric space". That is all I wanted
you to admit.
So the rest of your theory must be crap then.
That means that I can snip all the rest of your burblings.
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Franz Heymann
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A886C96...@mediaone.net...
franz heymann
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
I did. You failed the test. Therefore there is nothing else but to
resort to one-liners ridiculing you.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
I note from the reply below that we are well on the way to driving you
round the bend once again.
Franz Heymann
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A8869F0...@mediaone.net...
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > CUPhys wrote:
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3A866907...@mediaone.net...
> > > > =========================================================
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> > > > may be seen at:
> > > >
> > > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> > > >
> > > > Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
> > > > kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
> > > >
> > > > =========================================================
> > > >
SNIP
D wrote:
> It is really humorous that your alledged physics theory,
> which you claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal,
> was not published in any physics journal. Your own
> web page points out that your "physics" "theory" appeared
> in something called "New Ideas in Psychology". Furthermore
> not a single reference that you cite is even related to
> physics.
> --Donna
[Hammond]
Try reading for more than 10 seconds Snow White;
for instance:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
and it's obvious that the scientific proof of God
depends SINE QUA NON, mathematically, on Einstein's
theory of General Relativity.
In case nobody told you, General Relativity is
a PHYSICS THEORY dahling. Naturally, a "humerous"
broad like you wouldn't know what you're talking about.
And BTW, New Ideas In Psychology is a premier
international journal well known, and published by
one of the world's largest publishers, Pergamon Press,
and is rigorously peer reviewed... with a rejection rate
of more than 80%.
HAMMOND
franz heymann
> D wrote:
[Snip]
> > It is really humorous that your alledged physics theory,
> > which you claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal,
> > was not published in any physics journal. Your own
> > web page points out that your "physics" "theory" appeared
> > in something called "New Ideas in Psychology". Furthermore
> > not a single reference that you cite is even related to
> > physics.
> > --Donna
>
> [Hammond]
> Try reading for more than 10 seconds Snow White;
> for instance:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/mathweb.html
>
> and it's obvious that the scientific proof of God
> depends SINE QUA NON
Nothing in physics goes sine qua non. Not even in capital letters.
> , mathematically, on Einstein's
> theory of General Relativity.
Here we go again, you dunce.
You have already admitted that this is a crap statement to make.
You have admitted that your much vaunted "psychometric metric tensor"
is a load of balls.
Why do you then repeat the same nonsensical mantra?
[Snip]
> And BTW, New Ideas In Psychology is a premier
> international journal well known, and published by
> one of the world's largest publishers, Pergamon Press,
> and is rigorously peer reviewed... with a rejection rate
> of more than 80%.
Whoever reviewed your crap favourably did it in his/her sleep.
I say, is your total oevre confined to one item?
Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
========================================================
[Hammond]
The only thing that is flaky is the fact that you appear unable
to make an ON-TOPIC comment containing any SUBSTANTIVE content.
There are a bazillion techn-nerd-pedants out there who can spout
ad hominem chit chat all day long..... what; are you just another
one?
Say something intelligent, on-topic, substantive, scientific
or go chit chat with some of your techn-nerd boyfriends.
BTW, I've cited my CV, how about citing yours before you start
acting like self appointed moderator of this discussion? Are you
a Physics major, or another B.S. in computer science from a
midwestern junior college who thinks they're an expert on
the theory-of-everyting?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
========================================================
Prometheus wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > > > Prometheus wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > > Does God have needs?
> > > >
> > > > [GH]
> > > > No. The basic number one need of man is to reduce the
> > > > growth curve deficit to zero, then he becomes God.
> > > > Man therefore has needs, while God does not.
> > > >
> > > > > Would God act in a superfluous manner?
> > > >
> > > > [GH]
> > > > Negative, chief.
> > >
> > > This was actually a logical test, which I would wonder how you respond
> > > given this aspect of your answers. If God has no needs, than the fact
> > > that we exist is the very definition of superfluous, given that God is
> > > our creator and sustainer.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > That doesn't sound logical to me.
>
> Explain then.. you are crossposting to a philosophy group!
[Hammond]
A. I don't have to explain anything to you, most of all off-topic
queries.
B. A scientific proof of God OBVIOUSLY HAS PHILOSOPHIC RAMIFICATIONS.
C. I will intellectually kick your wise ass anytime I feel like it.
> No needs. Creates something. What part of creation is not a need?
[Hammond]
This question has no rigerous logical or factual meaning. it may
be deemed a logical string of words in the Philosophy department,
but it is deemed an excercise in echolalia in the Physics depatment.
Or
> are you suggesting that God is determined by something greater than God,
> to which he does not need to create, but is forced to by a result of his
> nature.. that he cannot possibly have never created something.
> Do you suggest that God did not have the choice to not create? Did God
> have a choice to create (inversion of the same statement)?
> If God did have a choice, thereby not needing it, then is it not true
> that creation would be superfluous, as that which has no need would not
> need to move or even be?
[Hammond]
the problem here is that :
A. You have not read the theory and do not
intend to.
B. It's questionable that youcould comprehend it if
you did read it.
C. You make polemicism a professional occupation and
pointless disputation a pastime. You produce nothing,
and are incapable of coing to grips with anything
that does have a material or operational point.
SNIP
> Are you going to argue that only one being creates?
[Hammond]
You're NOT talking to one of your mollycoddled pedant collegues
in the Philosophy Deapartment... you are not in the real world
talking publicly to an interdisiplinary forum including Physicists.
If you ever bother to actualy read the theory on my website,
it is immediatly obvious that the THEORY CONFIRMS the description
of God given in the Bible, and CONFIRMS his historic role as
CREATOR of the Universe.
Until you educate yourself more on what the theory is and what
it says.. you are simply not worth talking to. I'm not here to
argue with you about YOUR beliefs... I'm here to defend a
NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY which explains the history of God,
Religion, and the Philosophy of religion, and the scientific
proof of Religion.
i'm not here to play "Twenty-Questions" with self opinionated
polemicist who has NOTHING NEW to say that hasn't been heard a
gazillion times beofore... especially when there is a NEW AND
STARTLING scientific proof of god sitting on the table.
SNIP
All this stuff you write just looks to me like
> self-evident tricks that the mind plays to give people meaning, and yet
> steer them away from an equally self-evident choice to not live.
[Hammond]
Please bear in mind that you are catogorized, officially, as
a scientific incompetent... regardless of whether you have
an LLD in Philosophy. THEREFORE, your remarks pertaining to
the "stuff I write", which is Physics, are PRIMA FACIE INCOMPETENT.
As for your continual reference to suicide, I could care less
if you go jump off a bridge... a worthless individual life is
irrelevant in comparison to the importance of this discovery
to billions of tragically suffering human beings.
> You get the benefits of self-awareness with the base animal instict to
> 'just live' instead of choosing to live or choosing to die.
> Why do you consider that anything having to do with life and after-life
> is good? You seem to be highly compelled by those who abuse resources
> at the expense of others, by offering lack of choice and then raising
> them up to an alter of the neo-human.
[Hammond]
My discovery only proves that GOD EXISTS... yes, the classic
time honored fully described, historic God of the Bible.
The discovery DOES NOT PROVE that there is Life After Death,
hence, that is the question I am investigating at present and
which is the subject of this post.
The relevant point posted in this thread, is that ALTHOUGH the
scientific discovery of God does not prove the exiastence of life
After Death, it DOES give us the world's first accurate scientific
picture of what it MUST LOOK LIKE (if it exists).
This is certainly a monumental step forward in trying to
investigate this age old question.
SNIP
> I agree with this. Science and religion are not very distinguishable at
> all, they both use indentured systems and assumptions that are ignored
> in order to make the system function.
[Hammond]
oh come now, science can be objectively demonstrated in a
laboratory. Religion can not. Certainly this is a major difference.
They consume tremendous amounts
> of energy on endevours that are probably completely pointless, and will
> end up collapsing into themselves and become irrelevant to future
> generations.
[Hammond]
Electricity, Penicillen, tractors, airplanes, engines... these
are completely pointless? hey... exactly what are your academic
credentials?
Both religions and science use binary logical systems.
[Hammond]
This is obviously some pet philosophy theory of yours
which has no relevence to provable empirical fact and
certainly is of no relevence here.
> I define religion as that which superfluously binds a person to not
> commit suicide for a reason, by abusing their options and exposure to
> such ideas.
[Hammond]
Look... only worthless and aggrevated people commit suicide and
everybody knows it. Who the fuck cares about a few morons slashing
their wrists when billions are suffering and dying from the
poverty level existence of half the human race. Get real, the
scientific proof of god is something that will alter world history
and society, raise the standard of living, mobilize society, enact
world peace, and save billions of people from a miserable and tragic death
of poverty and explaoitation. For Christ's sake can't the Philosophy
department come to grips realistically with this proposal...
toughen up for christ's sake... you're talking to someone who is capable
of kicking just about anyone's ass because i'm holding the royal
straight flush in spades thet the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE IS WAITING FOR...
... the long sought for scientific proof of god that is going to save
everybody.... for Christ's sake Promethius can't you get serious
for a minute and stop beleving tha this is some kind af an academic
parlor game?
SNIP
> What could be more change than suicide?
[Hammond]
Death by poverty is a helluva lot more of a concern to
most people.
SNIP
> > [Hammond]
> > Granted... but by the same token Religion preceeds Philosophy.
> > God was known 1,000 years before Socrates.
>
> Where is your scientific proof for this statement? Is the first thought
> of a sentient being "Wow, there's a God!!!!" or was it, "Wow.. I
> exist!"?
[Hammond]
Judas' priest; what's wrong with you. Moses wrote the first page of the
Old Testament in circa 1,400 BC, and Socrates lived circa 400 BC.
1400-400=1000 .... what, can't you even add and subtract?
> -Prometheus =)
........................HAMMOND--
CUPhys
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> ========================================================
>
> > Explain then.. you are crossposting to a philosophy group!
>
> [Hammond]
> A. I don't have to explain anything to you, most of all off-topic
> queries.
That is why you cannot explain your "theory" in a coherent manner.
> B. A scientific proof of God OBVIOUSLY HAS PHILOSOPHIC RAMIFICATIONS.
> C. I will intellectually kick your wise ass anytime I feel like it.
No, you wet your pants whenever you feel like it.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
CUPhys wrote:
>
> What else can be expected of a fruitloop like Hammond.
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
franz heymann wrote:
> That means that I can snip all the rest of your burblings.
>
> [Snip]
>
> Franz Heymann
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> Hello Hammond MS.
> I note from the reply below that we are well on the way to driving you
> round the bend once again.
> Franz Heymann
>
> > > Did you foam and piss your pants at the defense?
> > >
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic comments
containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> OK folks, a few more times and Hammond MS will be over the wall
> Franz Heymann
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic and /or incompetent
statements containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
franz heymann wrote:
>
> Here we go again, you dunce.
> You have already admitted that this is a crap statement to make.
> You have admitted that your much vaunted "psychometric metric tensor"
> is a load of balls.
> Franz Heymann
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic and /or incompetent
statements containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
franz heymann wrote:
there is nothing else but to
> resort to one-liners ridiculing you.
>
> Franz Heymann
--
Prometheus
George Hammond wrote:
> oh come now, science can be objectively demonstrated in a
> laboratory. Religion can not. Certainly this is a major difference.
>
Your understanding of the relevant queries are absent by making this
claim. There is hardly an established thinker in the world in science
or philosophy that would argue for objectivity. Objectivity possesses
the problem of: lack of data transfer between the subject and object.
Hence the uncertainty principal.
> Electricity, Penicillen, tractors, airplanes, engines... these
> are completely pointless? hey... exactly what are your academic
> credentials?
I think it's pretty safe to say that if what exists on either side of
the life continuum is absolute oblivion, that for all practical purposes
we are already living in such a space, and all of these observations are
utterly pointless and superfluous to that _true_ representation of
reality. Try out an experiment for me... what does reality do to you
when you just let it do to you what it wants, without trying to do
anything yourself? Then ask why you bother to fight so?
> Both religions and science use binary logical systems.
>
> [Hammond]
> This is obviously some pet philosophy theory of yours
> which has no relevence to provable empirical fact and
> certainly is of no relevence here.
Again, showing a lack of understanding of how philosophy and fact
finding processes are catagorized. Binary logical systems (must be this
or that, either or) are _highly_ aknowledged by the vast majority of
thinkers that are exposed to education, who are trying to discern if
there are new paradigms of logic that may help solve many of our oldest
unsolved problems. The movement in science towards this phenomenon is
the exceptional advances in QM.
> > I define religion as that which superfluously binds a person to not
> > commit suicide for a reason, by abusing their options and exposure to
> > such ideas.
>
> [Hammond]
> Look... only worthless and aggrevated people commit suicide and
> everybody knows it. Who the fuck cares about a few morons slashing
> their wrists when billions are suffering and dying from the
> poverty level existence of half the human race. Get real, the
> scientific proof of god is something that will alter world history
> and society, raise the standard of living, mobilize society, enact
> world peace, and save billions of people from a miserable and tragic death
> of poverty and explaoitation. For Christ's sake can't the Philosophy
> department come to grips realistically with this proposal...
> toughen up for christ's sake... you're talking to someone who is capable
> of kicking just about anyone's ass because i'm holding the royal
> straight flush in spades thet the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE IS WAITING FOR...
> ... the long sought for scientific proof of god that is going to save
> everybody.... for Christ's sake Promethius can't you get serious
> for a minute and stop beleving tha this is some kind af an academic
> parlor game?
For one, my issue of suicide is a philosophical stance to help shed a
different light on your ideas, one that philosophers have tried failed
to comprehend sinse the dawn of philosophy itself. Clearly your theory
doesn't weigh or take into account the profundity of this 'back door',
and will not be humored by those who predict the direction of scientific
discovery in the future. You are using highly outdated forms of fact
finding processeze... the problem is that philosophy is still working on
a fundamental shift of fact finding process, while still keeping our
reality cohesive-- science is simply holding its breath.
One of the fundamental issues is your value judgement that only
'worthless' people commit suicide. If life is in fact worthless as a
whole, than clearly there is no more worthy or worthless person, but it
could be said that those who commit suicide in this perspective are
actually more intelligent than those who do not. If those who choose to
commit suicide are truly 'worthless', you would think that there would
be at least _one_ governement in this world that makes suicide legal and
makes the business to provide different forms (competition) for painless
suicide a legal endevour. It would certainly be a lucrative business,
and would give everyone what they want.. or would it? It seems those
who are consumers and require slave labor to keep their wealth flow
moving efficiently would be at great risk and instability to actually
have to be accountable for their oppression. You fail to take into
account that the people your theory 'proves' as more valuable, are those
who have discerned that poverty classes are essential to their
production of wealth from slave labor.
The entire human race is not waiting for God IMO... I would like to see
your scientific proof for that.
> > What could be more change than suicide?
>
> [Hammond]
> Death by poverty is a helluva lot more of a concern to
> most people.
That wasn't the question... and for your information.. I disagree with
your claim that most people are concerned about death from poverty, and
I also completely disagree that your ideas have anything to do with
solving this problem.
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Granted... but by the same token Religion preceeds Philosophy.
> > > God was known 1,000 years before Socrates.
> >
> > Where is your scientific proof for this statement? Is the first thought
> > of a sentient being "Wow, there's a God!!!!" or was it, "Wow.. I
> > exist!"?
>
> [Hammond]
> Judas' priest; what's wrong with you. Moses wrote the first page of the
> Old Testament in circa 1,400 BC, and Socrates lived circa 400 BC.
> 1400-400=1000 .... what, can't you even add and subtract?
Since when is Socrates the beginning of philosophy? That is an absurd
claim, and has no relevance to the question I framed.
You have been skirting around some of the philosophical issures and
perspectives being pondered about reality when making your claims, and I
am making the claim that as a result.. your postings to a philosophy
group are off topic.
-Prometheus
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore kook off-topic and /or incompetent
statements containing no substantive content.
==================KOOKIE KUTTER==========================
CUPhys wrote:
SNIP
Raptor514
> =========================================================
>
> NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
> may be seen at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
>
> Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
> ========================================================
>
> D wrote:
> >
> > ghammo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > The public records will show the following CV
> > > for George Edwin Hammond (dob 1942):
> > >
> > > B.S. Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Inst.
> > > Worcester Mass. USA, 1964
> > >
> > > M.S. Physics, Northeastern Univ.
> > > Boston Mass, USA, 1967
> > > Studied Relativity under Richard Arnowitt
> > > now distinguished professor at TAMU, Texas
> > > who is cited frequently in MTW's-_Gravitation_.
I am a student at Texas A&M (TAMU) and checked our physics' department
webpage for a Dr. Arnowitt. Indeed, there is such a man. I just e-mailed
the good prof asking him for any information regarding George Hammond that
he wouldn't mind passing on to me. The e-mail included a snippet from
George Hammonds prior posts.
I will post Professor Arnowitt's reply in it's entirety if, indeed, he does
respond.
--
--Raptor514---aa#1855-----------------------------
-----BAAWA-Wanna-Be #28----------------------
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
=========================================================
Prometheus wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> > oh come now, science can be objectively demonstrated in a
> > laboratory. Religion can not. Certainly this is a major difference.
> >
>
> Your understanding of the relevant queries are absent by making this
> claim.
[Hammond]
Stop right there amateur spin doctor. It's not a "claim" it is
recognized as a universally accepted common knowledge FACT.
There is hardly an established thinker in the world in science
> or philosophy that would argue for objectivity.
[Hammond]
The entire human race recognizes a practical level
of "objectivity" such as the objectivity embodied in the
"laws of physics". For you to appeal to the
Empyrean heights of theoretical speculation to dispute
such a practical matter with regard to the present issue
is facetiously polemical.
Objectivity possesses
> the problem of: lack of data transfer between the subject and object.
> Hence the uncertainty principal.
[Hammond]
Dragging a statistical concept like the uncertainty principle
into an argument with a physicist is less of an attention getter
than whipping a straw dog.
>
> > Electricity, Penicillen, tractors, airplanes, engines... these
> > are completely pointless? hey... exactly what are your academic
> > credentials?
>
> I think it's pretty safe to say that if what exists on either side of
> the life continuum is absolute oblivion, that for all practical purposes
> we are already living in such a space, and all of these observations are
> utterly pointless and superfluous to that _true_ representation of
> reality. Try out an experiment for me... what does reality do to you
> when you just let it do to you what it wants, without trying to do
> anything yourself? Then ask why you bother to fight so?
[Hammond]
Look.. you're being rhetorical and polemical. Just because we
cannot explain the quantum mechanical theory of fluids does not
mean that someone cannot discover the complex phenomenon and
theory of sailing a ship into the wind.
When such a discovery is made it impacts the welfare of the
entire world, and deserves to be investigated as a mechanical
phenomena rather than discarding the discovery because it
cannot be explained according to the laws of Quantum Theory.
Likewise, when someone discovers that the simple growth deficit
as confirmed by the celebrated Secular Trend allows for a
rigorous, two decimal point accurate, scientific proof of the
existence of God, we should not be assailing the matter because
of the impossibility of answering every recondite question
under the Sun pertaining to Psychology, Theology, Philosophy,
and Quantum Theory.
>
> > Both religions and science use binary logical systems.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > This is obviously some pet philosophy theory of yours
> > which has no relevence to provable empirical fact and
> > certainly is of no relevence here.
>
> Again, showing a lack of understanding of how philosophy and fact
> finding processes are catagorized. Binary logical systems (must be this
> or that, either or) are _highly_ aknowledged by the vast majority of
> thinkers that are exposed to education, who are trying to discern if
> there are new paradigms of logic that may help solve many of our oldest
> unsolved problems. The movement in science towards this phenomenon is
> the exceptional advances in QM.
[Hammond]
The scientific proof of God that I have discovered (based on
100 years of published work in Psychometry and Relativity) is
NOT a "logical system". It is a "factual experimental phenomenon"
that is axiomatically/theoretically in accord with the existing
logical system known as the "laws of physics". It is in fact, a
CLASSICAL run of the mill scientific discovery.
The RESULTS of this discovery are immediately germane for
explaining the "mysteries" of Psychology, Theology and Philosophy;
subjects which heretofore were NOT considered to be amenable
to "hard science" interpretation or proof- but NOW ARE seen to
be amenable to such proof.
> > > I define religion as that which superfluously binds a person to not
> > > commit suicide for a reason, by abusing their options and exposure to
> > > such ideas.
> >
SNIP
> For one, my issue of suicide is a philosophical stance to help shed a
> different light on your ideas, one that philosophers have tried failed
> to comprehend sinse the dawn of philosophy itself. Clearly your theory
> doesn't weigh or take into account the profundity of this 'back door',
> and will not be humored by those who predict the direction of scientific
> discovery in the future. You are using highly outdated forms of fact
> finding processeze... the problem is that philosophy is still working on
> a fundamental shift of fact finding process, while still keeping our
> reality cohesive-- science is simply holding its breath.
[Hammond]
WRONG. This discovery makes the most profound impact on the
theory of our "fact finding processes" since superstition was
superseded by religion 10,000 years ago.
The fact is, the (heretofore) unexplained status of the phenomena
of "God" has had the single most devastating impact on the human
"fact finding process"... far away and above any other known
injurious effect.
Hence, a "rational scientific" explanation of "God" is
unequivocally at the absolute top of the list of priorities
in an age where our "fact finding ability" has become crucial
to our survival.
>
> One of the fundamental issues is your value judgement that only
> 'worthless' people commit suicide. If life is in fact worthless as a
> whole, than clearly there is no more worthy or worthless person,
[Hammond]
95% of all suicides are accidental. Accidental because they
are precipitated by temporary insanity, which, given less
accidental circumstances would not be fatal. This is a problem
for Rescue, Police, Medical and Social Service Personnel and
Government. It is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
Philosophical problem. religion supercedes philosophy, and
Religion has long ago ruled against suicide. It is a
medical-psychological-social problem which we should all be
aware of when dealing with less fortunates under enormous stress
and adverse or seemingly forced into "impossible" circumstances.
Every suicide is someone else's fault... namely, us.
SNIP
> It seems those
> who are consumers and require slave labor to keep their wealth flow
> moving efficiently would be at great risk and instability to actually
> have to be accountable for their oppression. You fail to take into
> account that the people your theory 'proves' as more valuable, are those
> who have discerned that poverty classes are essential to their
> production of wealth from slave labor.
[Hammond]
You're going to lecture ME about all this... hey dude... I'M THE ONE
who has discovered the scientific proof of God.. NOT YOU. That's
evidence right there that I am TWICE AS AWARE of the human condition
as you are.... otherwise you would have discovered it and not me.
The fact is that the major manmade threats to human existence,
such as war, exploitation, oppression, genocide, crime, slavery,
antisemitism, class struggle etc. etc. (as opposed to natural disasters
which are not manmade) are only held in check by the strength of
mass population resistance based on mass belief. Fact is, Religion
is the largest component of social belief, or social theory.
The problem is that Religion is based on the theory of "God", and so
far, no one has been able to actually PROVE that there is a "God".
This means, that we are operating on "faith".
Therefore, we see immediately that if a scientific PROOF of god
was ever discovered, it would immediately STRENGTHEN our first
defense against all of the manmade evils of the world. Undeniably.
Therefore, mass belief, mass opinion, and mass response in the
world population would become IMMEDIATELY much more sure, decisive
and stronger against these evils, IF SUCH A PROOF WERE DISCOVERED.
Hence the importance of a scientific proof of God.
> The entire human race is not waiting for God IMO... I would like to see
> your scientific proof for that.
[Hammond]
Answered above. "Waiting for Godot" is a metaphor for
"waiting for God", IMO.
>
> > > What could be more change than suicide?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Death by poverty is a helluva lot more of a concern to
> > most people.
>
> That wasn't the question... and for your information.. I disagree with
> your claim that most people are concerned about death from poverty,
[Hammond]
Wrong... money (or material sufficiency) is the
NUMBER ONE worry of every living human being.
and
> I also completely disagree that your ideas have anything to do with
> solving this problem.
[Hammond]
Wrong.. AS pointed out above, a scientific proof of God is the number
one miracle that can immediately reduce the world's evils, increase
world peace, reduce crime and exploitation, enact world ecumenical
unification, enable world mobilization, and propel us into a
3rd millennium known as the age of the scientific proof of God.
It is in fact, the greatest miracle since Calvary. And the monstrosity
of the situation, is that even one as intelligent as you is unable
to recognize that he is staring it straight in the face as we speak.
>
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Granted... but by the same token Religion preceeds Philosophy.
> > > > God was known 1,000 years before Socrates.
> > >
> > > Where is your scientific proof for this statement? Is the first thought
> > > of a sentient being "Wow, there's a God!!!!" or was it, "Wow.. I
> > > exist!"?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Judas' priest; what's wrong with you. Moses wrote the first page of the
> > Old Testament in circa 1,400 BC, and Socrates lived circa 400 BC.
> > 1400-400=1000 .... what, can't you even add and subtract?
>
> Since when is Socrates the beginning of philosophy? That is an absurd
> claim, and has no relevance to the question I framed.
[Hammond]
"Philosophy" as we know it certainly began with Socrates and
Plato. They were the first men referred to as "Philosophers".
>
> You have been skirting around some of the philosophical issures and
> perspectives being pondered about reality when making your claims, and I
> am making the claim that as a result.. your postings to a philosophy
> group are off topic.
[Hammond]
Wrong. My dictionary defines Philosophy as:
"The love of wisdom as leading to the search for it;
hence, knowledge of general principles- elements, powers,
or causes and laws- as explaining facts and existences."
Well, certainly a discovery "explaining the fact and
existence" of God and reality; rationally, secularly, and
scientifically, must therefore surely rate as the number one
Philosophy question in history, as far as I can see. And
the matter certainly is "debatable".
Beyond that, this is an ALT group, is an open forum, is
unmoderated... and clearly under the descriptive criteria
stated above, your protestations are simply seen to be personally
motivated whining that can be comfortably ignored.
>
> -Prometheus
.........HAMMOND
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Man what a busy body you are. What the hell is this a
ad hominem gossip column or something.... isn't there
anybody out there who can say something ON-TOPIC?
Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
by popularity contests? Man....!!!
Raptor514
Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the question.
I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
how seriously you should be taken, if at all. It took about one minute for
me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
qualify me as a busy body.
George Hammond
>
SNIP
[Hammond]
RIGHT.... and OBVIOUSLY all you need is a competent scientist
to read it to find out. Are such people in such short demand that
people have to resort to attempting to analyze the AUTHOR instead
of the THEORY to find out? What is this a new way of conducting
physics research?
> I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
> how seriously you should be taken, if at all.
[Hammond]
If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
"discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
could care less.
It took about one minute for
> me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> qualify me as a busy body.
[Hammond]
Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
"Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old. You're not
going to get any email from him. He probably doesn't even
read email.
Fred Stone
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A8A0148...@mediaone.net...
> > [Hammond]
> > Man what a busy body you are. What the hell is this a
> > ad hominem gossip column or something.... isn't there
> > anybody out there who can say something ON-TOPIC?
> > Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
> > by popularity contests? Man....!!!
>
> Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the question.
> I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
> how seriously you should be taken, if at all. It took about one minute for
> me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> qualify me as a busy body.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> > Email: gham...@mediaone.net
> > Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
Try doing a google search on group:sci.physics, Hammond
I think their threads are definitive.
--
Fred Stone
Since when is ignorance a point of view?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original message this discussion refers to
may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Portrait.html
Feel free to post a scholarly ON-TOPIC comment.
Politely ignore the flurry of "penultimate wisdom"
kook one-liners posted by the peanuts gallery.
=========================================================
Fred Stone wrote:
>
> Raptor514 wrote:
>
> > "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A8A0148...@mediaone.net...
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Man what a busy body you are. What the hell is this a
> > > ad hominem gossip column or something.... isn't there
> > > anybody out there who can say something ON-TOPIC?
> > > Since the hell when are scientific theories decided
> > > by popularity contests? Man....!!!
> >
> > Whether or not your theory is a "scientific" one is precisely the question.
> > I'm not discounting you out of hand, I'm following up and trying to find out
> > how seriously you should be taken, if at all. It took about one minute for
> > me to locate the named professor and send him an e-mail. That does not
> > qualify me as a busy body.
> >
> Try doing a google search on group:sci.physics, Hammond
> I think their threads are definitive.
[Hammond]
Definitive of what? Why not take a poll in the lobby of a local
Greyhound bus terminal, it would be just as "definitive" and
likewise proves nothing concerning scientific competence.
>
> --
> Fred Stone
................................HAMMOND
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
>then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
>to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
>unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
>"discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
>could care less.
Just like nobody cares what people who know nothing about the subject say on it,
either(except maybe desperate theists looking for more lame arguments).
(snip)
>Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
>authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
>"Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old.
And that makes him an authority on life after death???? By what standard?
(snip)
Noah Simoneaux
Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
Eastman's Personnel Director's Law
-----= 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
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:09:37 GMT, George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >If you can't tell that by reading the theory ITSELF...
> >then there is NO WAY IN SIAM that you are even qualified
> >to be discussing the matter...!!!! No one cares what
> >unqualified people "discount out of hand".. you can
> >"discount out of hand" the U.S.Constitution and nobody
> >could care less.
>
> Just like nobody cares what people who know nothing about the subject say on it,
> either(except maybe desperate theists looking for more lame arguments).
>
[Hammond]
That's what I just said. Thanks for repeating me.
> (snip)
>
> >Are you kidding... the guy's and internationally recognized
> >authority in Gravity, mentioned a dozen times in MTW's
> >"Bible" of GRAVITATION, and nearly 70 years old.
>
> And that makes him an authority on life after death???? By what standard?
>
[Hammond]
Nobody ever said he was, and he isn't... there's just some
lamebrain named Raptor314 at TAMU, a busybody, who
wants to investigate my academic history for some strange
reason... I say strange, because Raptor obviously isn't
even qualified to discuss the scientific proof of God
that is being discussed here.
> (snip)
>
> Noah Simoneaux
> Anyone who thinks there is some good in everyone hasn't interviewed enough people.
>
[Hammond]
You sure got that one right.
BTW, what are you doing here since you obviously
can't understand the theory either?
Fred Stone
I'm trying to understand your work.Between your site and sci.physics
I figure someone might be able to explain something.
Do you have experimental results to confirm your "Auxology"?
In which peer-reviewed journals have your results been published?
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369