GOD, RELATIVITY & THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
George Hammond
WASHINGTON D.C.
I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt
on my right. It was 3 am in a honky tonk section of Laural
Maryland a block from where George Wallace was shot. The
three punks in the car started blowing their horn. I knew
it was run or pull the K-Bar over my visor and probably kill
one of them in a fight. I jambed it into reverse flooring
the accelerator and spinning the steering wheel. The car
spun into a 180 facing the wrong way on a divided highway. I
gunned it into the oncoming traffic. The three punks in the
sedan followed suit and came after me! That was the day I
discovered the world's first scientific proof of God. I
discovered it while studying in the library of Congress on
Capitol Hill and was on my way home. Needless to say I got
away or I wouldn't be here telling you about it.
The way I discovered it is an interesting story. I'm a
physicist who got interested in psychology research. The
first thing I found out is that modern psychology research
consists mainly of an activity called Factor Analysis. They
use the world's largest computers to extract the
eigenvectors from 100x100 correlation matrices. The
correlations are obtained from psychology tests given to
hundreds of thousands of people world wide.
The upshot of all this is that they have known for
decades that every analysis results in exactly 4
eigenvectors, but being psychologists and not physicists
they have never been able to figure out why or what they
mean or where they come from. Being a physicist I
immediately recognized that the 4x4 matrix is what
physicists call, "curved". I went looking for the cause of
this curvature and soon discovered that it comes from the
3-axis orthogonal structure of the body, in particular the
3-axis cleavage of the brain. That accounted for 3 of the
eigenvectors, they were "space" related. The 4th one was IQ
which is mental speed and is time related. The curvature of
this matrix was actually caused by brain growth, in
particular the well known Secular Trend in human growth.
What I had discovered is that all of psychology is explained
by a curvature of subjective spacetime.... a CURVATURE OF
REALITY! . I was amazed at how simple this discovery was...
apparently I must have been the first physicist in history
to ever take psychology seriously. Little did I know how
momentous this discovery actually was!
Once the stunning fact is discovered that psychology is a
CURVATURE it is not long before one realizes that this
curvature is actually the explaination of "God"... yes, the
God of the Bible. Sure enough, the Secular Trend growth
deficit in the brain causes the "unconscious mind" which is
in fact the God of the Bible. Analysis soon showed that
this discovery explained the following 13 major historical
facts about the phenomenon of God:
1. There physically exists an "invisible world" known as
"Heaven" which is similar to Earth but is a paradise.
2. God is an "invisible man" who lives there and is all
powerful and rules the actual (visible) world from
there.
3. This God can effect miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
4. Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
5. Historically Religion has evolved from Polytheism
(many demigods) to Monotheism (one supreme God).
6. Christianity predicts the world is transforming itself
into Heaven and will actually complete this at a
date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the "end of the
world".
7. There is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
8. Jesus was the physical "incarnation of God"
9. The Cross for some reason is the central symbol of
(Western) Religion.
10. For some reason our main canonical text is written
in 4 identical versions known as the "4-Gospel Canon".
11. God "created the world" only a matter of "thousands"
of years ago (Genesis) not "billions" of years ago
(Big Bang) as Science believes.
12. God created man "in his own image".
13. There is a "Trinity of God", functionally or
operationally speaking.
the complete detailed explanation of all 13 of these
leading items PROVES without any doubt that a curvature of
subjective reality (the reality we see) is caused by the
brain growth deficit and explains the entire phenomenon of
God:
GO GOD IS A CURVATURE OF REALITY
Naturally I have published all of this in the peer
reviewed literature in order to protect my priorities, and I
am currently writing a book. My peer published papers are
prominantly posted on my website for your reading
convenience (url in signature file below).
Meanwhile, the discovery of the world's first scientific
proof of God is my calling card to history.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror sites
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
Madge
wrote:
> Copyright 2009 Madge
Hi George, Piss off
--
http://www.madge.tk Madges Links
http://twitter.com/MadgeTwits Yes IKNOW.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
CIA Brainwashing Techniques
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Z91bg9BghaE&feature=related
How to Brainwash a Nation
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8ZvYNlxiM&feature=related
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Madge" <deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:op.u2zg11ggf11096@loutside...
Lits O'Hate
> My peer published papers are
> prominantly posted on my website for your reading
> convenience
Wow. You can even make spelling errors using speech
recognition software. Very impressive, George!
--
"God's feet are 16" long, and his IQ is 333." -- George Hammond
Nicko
> Copyright 2009 George Hammond M.S. Physics
>
> WASHINGTON D.C.
> I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt
> on my right.
You never told us that you had telekinetic powers. That is just,
like, sooo cool!
Or maybe it's just a matter of frame of reference.
--
YOP...
Otto Bahn
> WASHINGTON D.C.
> I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt
> on my right.
<
<You never told us that you had telekinetic powers. That is just,
<like, sooo cool!
<
<Or maybe it's just a matter of frame of reference.
I saw a Law & Order where they framed a reference.
--oTTo--
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "Otto Bahn" <e...@eio.com>:
>"Nicko" <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote
>> WASHINGTON D.C.
>> I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt
>> on my right.
><You never told us that you had telekinetic powers. That is just,
><like, sooo cool!
I think he's going for a Bulwer-Lytton award:
It would have been easier if he'd managed to combine his
screed into one sentence, like this one:
"It came to him in a cocaine rush as he took the Langley
exit that if Aldrich had told Filipov about Hancock only
Tulfengian could have known that the photograph which Wagner
had shown to Maximov on the jolting S-bahn was not the
photograph of Kessler that Bradford had found at the dark,
sinister house in the Schillerstrasse the day that Straub
told Percival that the man on the bridge had not been
Aksakov but Paustovsky, which meant that is was not Kleist
but Kruger that Cherensky had met in the bleak, wintry
Grunewald and that, therefore, only Frau Epp could have
known that Muller had followed Droysen to the steamy,
aromatic cafe in the Beethovenstrasse where he told Buerger
that Todorov had known since the Liebermann affair that
McIntyre had not met Stoltz at the Goerlitzer Bahnhof but
instead had met Sommer at the cavernous Anhalter Bahnhof."
(Winner, Spy Fiction category, 1984)
><Or maybe it's just a matter of frame of reference.
>I saw a Law & Order where they framed a reference.
I think I saw that one... ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Otto Bahn
>>> WASHINGTON D.C.
>>> I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt
>>> on my right.
>
>><You never told us that you had telekinetic powers. That is just,
>><like, sooo cool!
>
> I think he's going for a Bulwer-Lytton award:
>
> http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/
It was a dark and stormy night. The dark part is redundant; had
the lonesome moon even been out, it would have been obscured by
the ephemeral clouds. Suddenly, three men entered a cave. One
said, "Otto, tell us a story." The story began...It was a stormy
night, and three men entered a cave. One said, "Cut it out, Otto!"
And he did.
--oTTo--
George Hammond
[Hammond]
There are more interesting answer-bot programs littering the
Internet. That one apparently uses a German dictionary.
Simple minded dimwit!
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
Don Stockbauer
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:57:53 -0700, Bob Casanova
>
>
>
> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared in
> >sci.skeptic, posted by "Otto Bahn" <e...@eio.com>:
>
But you missed the REAL proof of God:
"God and the Universe are identical memes."
Bryce Utting
> It was a dark and stormy night. The dark part is redundant; had
> the lonesome moon even been out, it would have been obscured by
> the ephemeral clouds. Suddenly, three men entered a cave. One
> said, "Otto, tell us a story." The story began...It was a stormy
> And he did.
IFYPFY.
butting
--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
If this is UI for anyone - even TimC - I shall be extremely alarmed.
-- Dan Birchall
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.net>:
What a shame, then, that it wasn't the product of a 'bot at
all, but exactly what it claimed to be. Perhaps you're in
transference mode...?
> Simple minded dimwit!
Yes, you are. Which is what I believe I showed.
George Hammond
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
[Hammond]
Great scholars and true intellectuals like myself do not
speak any yuppie language such as "transference mode". We
speak in simple universal poor man's English.
Unlike you, I'm not a phony smart ass! I got the courage
to talk to people, any people, about real and newly
discovered facts. If you want to talk to me you'll have to
get real.
>
>> Simple minded dimwit!
>
>Yes, you are. Which is what I believe I showed.
>
[Hammond]
you didn't show anything, this one shows something:
http://tinyurl.com/ygqopj5
And this:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
Unless you can address that in specific terms, in plain
English, you're just a worthless stumblebum with nothing to
say.
Bob Casanova
You have delusions of adequacy.
> do not
>speak any yuppie language such as "transference mode". We
>speak in simple universal poor man's English.
> Unlike you, I'm not a phony smart ass!
Nope, you're a genuine smartass.
> I got the courage
>to talk to people, any people, about real and newly
>discovered facts. If you want to talk to me you'll have to
>get real.
>>
>>> Simple minded dimwit!
>>
>>Yes, you are. Which is what I believe I showed.
>>
>[Hammond]
>you didn't show anything, this one shows something:
>http://tinyurl.com/ygqopj5
>And this:
>http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
>Unless you can address that in specific terms, in plain
>English, you're just a worthless stumblebum with nothing to
>say.
Sorry, but this...
"First, since gravity is real, God is real. Secondly,
tradition tells us that God is "supernatural" and we find
that Relativity explains the supernatural aspect of God.
Relativity is the only physical phenomena which causes a
'supernatural' effect on reality; reality being space and
time itself."
...contains *at least* 3 significant errors.
First, the existence of gravity implies nothing about the
existence of God. Gravity is a function of the curvature of
space-time.
Second, tradition is not evidence for anything (in a
scientific sense); evidence must be visible to all and not
rely on any particular system of belief (other than the
belief that reality is observable) to be considered
scientific.
Third, the supernatural is *by definition* outside the
purview of science, which addresses only observable
reality. Relativity is about observable reality;
supernatural entities are not.
Your beliefs don't constrain reality, nor do they constitute
evidence.
>========================================
>GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary site
>http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>=======================================
George Hammond
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>Sorry, but this...
>
>"First, since gravity is real, God is real. Secondly,
>tradition tells us that God is "supernatural" and we find
>that Relativity explains the supernatural aspect of God.
>Relativity is the only physical phenomena which causes a
>'supernatural' effect on reality; reality being space and
>time itself."
>
>...contains *at least* 3 significant errors.
>
>First, the existence of gravity implies nothing about the
>existence of God. Gravity is a function of the curvature of
>space-time.
>
>
[Hammond]
Okay try and pay attention:
Gravity is a curvature of OBJECTIVE space time.
God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE space time .
Definition:
OBJECTIVE space time is measured relative to the clock on
the wall and a ruler.
SUBJECTIVE space time is what any given individual actually
sees.
Clearly objective space time is universal for all people.
And just as clearly subjective space time is different for
every individual. For instance a five-year-old kid sees a
larger and faster world than eight point-year-old adult. So
that is an example of how SUBJECTIVE SPACE TIME varies from
person to person.
So your first objection is immediately thrown out of court.
>
>
>
>Second, tradition is not evidence for anything (in a
>scientific sense); evidence must be visible to all and not
>rely on any particular system of belief (other than the
>belief that reality is observable) to be considered
>scientific.
>
[Hammond]
your second objection is rule of court as follows. We
assume the entire history of religion to be an
"unsubstantiated claim". And then we discover an actual
proven scientific phenomenon which turns out to predict that
precise claim in every exact detail! That is what is known
as a scientific proof of God.
So your second objection has been tossed out of court.
>
>
>
>Third, the supernatural is *by definition* outside the
>purview of science, which addresses only observable
>reality. Relativity is about observable reality;
>supernatural entities are not.
>Your beliefs don't constrain reality, nor do they constitute
>evidence.
>
>
[Hammond]
Wrong again Toynbee. Science claims that so-called
supernatural phenomena are simply phenomena for which the
scientific explanation HAS NOT YET been discovered. So
therefore I am simply pointing out that the previously
called "supernatural" phenomena of God actually has been
found to have a PROVEN experimentally measured and
theoretically known, scientific explanation.
So your third objection has now been rudely ejected from the
courtroom.
But don't go away mad, although your commentary is based
on elementary misconception of the theory, I am more than
impressed by your professional and polite demeanor which
indicates a significant ability, awareness, and above all
else serious motivation.
Bob Casanova
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:35:01 -0700, Bob Casanova
><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Sorry, but this...
>>
>>"First, since gravity is real, God is real. Secondly,
>>tradition tells us that God is "supernatural" and we find
>>that Relativity explains the supernatural aspect of God.
>>Relativity is the only physical phenomena which causes a
>>'supernatural' effect on reality; reality being space and
>>time itself."
>>
>>...contains *at least* 3 significant errors.
>>
>>First, the existence of gravity implies nothing about the
>>existence of God. Gravity is a function of the curvature of
>>space-time.
>[Hammond]
> Okay try and pay attention:
>
>Gravity is a curvature of OBJECTIVE space time.
Correct.
>God is a curvature of SUBJECTIVE space time .
This is meaningless handwaving, of exactly as much value as
"The snark is a boojum", and exactly as testable by science.
>Definition:
>
>OBJECTIVE space time is measured relative to the clock on
>the wall and a ruler.
>
>SUBJECTIVE space time is what any given individual actually
>sees.
>
>Clearly objective space time is universal for all people.
>And just as clearly subjective space time is different for
>every individual. For instance a five-year-old kid sees a
>larger and faster world than eight point-year-old adult. So
>that is an example of how SUBJECTIVE SPACE TIME varies from
>person to person.
This is a matter of psychology, and has zero to do with
physics.
>So your first objection is immediately thrown out of court.
So your handwaving is rejected.
>>Second, tradition is not evidence for anything (in a
>>scientific sense); evidence must be visible to all and not
>>rely on any particular system of belief (other than the
>>belief that reality is observable) to be considered
>>scientific.
>[Hammond]
>your second objection is rule of court as follows. We
>assume the entire history of religion to be an
>"unsubstantiated claim". And then we discover an actual
>proven scientific phenomenon which turns out to predict that
>precise claim in every exact detail! That is what is known
>as a scientific proof of God.
There is no such phenomenon, since all religions are
mutually contradictory and all religious writings are
allegory and metaphor, not science texts.
>So your second objection has been tossed out of court.
So your second "explanation" is rejected as more
unsubstantiated handwaving.
>>Third, the supernatural is *by definition* outside the
>>purview of science, which addresses only observable
>>reality. Relativity is about observable reality;
>>supernatural entities are not.
>>Your beliefs don't constrain reality, nor do they constitute
>>evidence.
>>
>>
>[Hammond]
> Wrong again Toynbee. Science claims that so-called
>supernatural phenomena are simply phenomena for which the
>scientific explanation HAS NOT YET been discovered.
Nope. Science categorically rejects evaluation of
"supernatural" phenomena, since none has been shown to exist
outside the minds of proponents. Physical phenomena can be
evaluated, but until they are observable *by a disinterested
observer* science will not and cannot address them.
> So
>therefore I am simply pointing out that the previously
>called "supernatural" phenomena of God actually has been
>found to have a PROVEN experimentally measured and
>theoretically known, scientific explanation.
Your "proof" doesn't seem to exist except in your mind, and
no amount of handwaving can change that. You have
demonstrated nothing but an ability to conjecture and define
an unobserved phenomenon, then "prove" its existence by
first assuming it exists; IOW by assuming the consequent,
or, if you prefer, by circular logic.
>So your third objection has now been rudely ejected from the
>courtroom.
So your third "explanation" is summarily rejected for faulty
logic and poor science.
> But don't go away mad,
Never fear; errors in the conception of what "science"
actually means isn't something which generates anger in the
observer.
> although your commentary is based
>on elementary misconception of the theory,
You have no theory, which in science is an explanation of at
least one, and usually several, tested and unrefuted
hypotheses. You have a conjecture which you're unable to
support with evidence; IOW, you have a personal belief.
Sorry 'bout that.
> I am more than
>impressed by your professional and polite demeanor which
>indicates a significant ability, awareness, and above all
>else serious motivation.
>========================================
>GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary site
>http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>=======================================
Bill Marcum
On 2009-11-06, George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.net> wrote:
> Copyright 2009 George Hammond M.S. Physics
>
> WASHINGTON D.C.
> I braked at the stoplight and a sedan skidded to a halt
> on my right. It was 3 am in a honky tonk section of Laural
> Maryland a block from where George Wallace was shot. The
> three punks in the car started blowing their horn. I knew
> it was run or pull the K-Bar over my visor and probably kill
> one of them in a fight. I jambed it into reverse flooring
> the accelerator and spinning the steering wheel. The car
> spun into a 180 facing the wrong way on a divided highway. I
> gunned it into the oncoming traffic. The three punks in the
> sedan followed suit and came after me! That was the day I
> discovered the world's first scientific proof of God.
red lights in His honor. Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord.
(Thank you, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards)