WHY I BELIEVE GEORGE HAMMOND
MARY BAKER EDDY
I have noticed that nobody competent has ever
given a serious commentary on Hammond's
claim that that GOD=G_uv
I notice that 99.99% of his detractors are
incompetent anti-religious, anti-scientific
amateurs who like to push computer buttons.
Hammond's dilemma is that his discovery
requires expertise in Physics and Religion,
and there are simply no such experts. This
because most "Sci-Rel" organizations are either
hopelessly incompetent, politically corrupt,
money making endeavors, or all three.
HOWEVER, recently Hammond's research has taken a
fascinating turn.
The first thing anyone might ask is:
If there is a scientific proof
of God, why isn't there any
great social sign of it?
It turns out there is!
It turns out that the Christian Science Religion is
nothing other than a massive experimental verification
of Hammond's discovery. Given this fact, there is no
longer any question that Hammond's discovery is true!
The Christian Science Religion is 130 years old,
and it is one of the most successful modern religions
in the world. There is a Christian Science Church in
every city in America and in 75 foreign countries.
There are Christian Science "reading rooms" on the
main street of almost every town in the country.
The Mother Church in Boston is a national landmark.
They also publish the Pulitzer Prize winning Newspaper,
the Christian Science Monitor. The church has millions
of followers and millions of copies of Mary Baker Eddy's
bible, _Science and Health_, are in print.
Mary Baker Eddy founded the church in 1879 in Boston
as a "scientific" Church. Her "science of God"
amounted to the following:
1. "God is mind"
2. "Heaven is a mental state"
3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind
4. There is no perfect man on Earth
Now, bear in mind, this is the first religion in
history to make an actual scientific statement about
what God is: It says, "God is mind".
No other Religion on Earth makes such a statement.
Jesus never made such a statement (although he did
say "God is a spirit" (Jn 4:24), which it turns out
as Hammond has now proved, is an equivalent statement).
The scientific statement is original with Mary Baker
Eddy. (although some argue Bishop Berkeley published a
similar theory in 1710). Maybe he did, but he never
got a million followers to agree with him.
It turns out according to Hammond's discovery, that
Mary Baker Eddy is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT about her
scientific explanation of God. Absolutely correct!
And, now Hammond has discovered the explanation of
line 4 above:
5. The Secular Trend in human growth shows that
there is no such thing as a "fully grown man"
and this is the reason there is no "perfect man".
Hammond's discovery, GOD=G_uv, is an axiomatic,
experimentally confirmed discovery that God is
explained by the Secular Trend in Growth (braingrowth)
and that this causes a "curvature of perceptual reality"
called "GOD". Thus it proves that "God is mind"... a
"curvature of the mind" to be scientifically precise.
Christian Science it turns out is the massive
empirical confirmation of the SAME THEORY! Thus, we
have OVERWHELMING CONFIRMATION OF
HAMMOND'S DISCOVERY.
The details of this exact concordance between Eddy and
Hammond is given at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/CS.html
AT ANY RATE, a word to the wise should be sufficient.
Don't pay any attention to the thousands of hecklers
stalking Hammond, they are simply the "troops of error"
that follow every great pioneer.
Hammond's "theory" has been PROVEN TRUE, not just by
laboratory psychometric data and Relativity, but by a
major religion, one of the most highly respected and
influential religions in the world!
It takes 2 people to make a motion. One person to
make it and another to second it. HAMMOND and EDDY are
now 2-people who are saying the same thing... one by
"scientifically proving that GOD=G_uv" and the other by
"socially proving that God is mind". These two theories
are shown to be EXACTLY CONGRUENT AND IDENTICAL. Of
course Hammond's discovery being more modern, goes one
step further by proving exactly what it is about the
mind that causes "God", and why God is related to
General Relativity by the equation GOD=G_uv.
Therefore, its now time to face the fact that the
thousands of jeering hecklers stalking Hammond around
are WRONG and their opinions are MEANINGLESS, and that
they should be IGNORED.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Steve Marshall
"MARY BAKER EDDY" <mbe3...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I have noticed that nobody competent has ever
> given a serious commentary on Hammond's
> claim that that GOD=G_uv
Why the hell should anyone take such utter drivel seriously ? George fromed
his own newsgroup and instead of answering questions about his theory he
took the time to hurl abuse at anyone that said he was wrong.
He has no credability. That is why no one will give his work any serious
attention.
> I notice that 99.99% of his detractors are
> incompetent anti-religious, anti-scientific
> amateurs who like to push computer buttons.
Sorry but that isn't true. Further more I would say that a number of
detractors are religious people who find his idea of god has nothing to do
with their idea of god - so his theory does nothing for theists.
> The first thing anyone might ask is:
>
>
> If there is a scientific proof
> of God, why isn't there any
> great social sign of it?
>
The first thing ? Come of it. Did you invent this post yourself George ? It
is bull !
> 1. "God is mind"
> 2. "Heaven is a mental state"
> 3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind
> 4. There is no perfect man on Earth
Therefore there is no god.
QED.
Steve M
George Hammond
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:LcCkc.36422$h44.5...@stones.force9.net...
>
> "MARY BAKER EDDY" <mbe3...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I have noticed that nobody competent has ever
> > given a serious commentary on Hammond's
> > claim that that GOD=G_uv
>
> Why the hell should anyone take such utter drivel seriously ? George
fromed
> his own newsgroup and instead of answering questions about his theory he
> took the time to hurl abuse at anyone that said he was wrong.
> He has no credability. That is why no one will give his work any serious
> attention.
[GH]
No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education
who have "no credibility".
>
> > I notice that 99.99% of his detractors are
> > incompetent anti-religious, anti-scientific
> > amateurs who like to push computer buttons.
>
> Sorry but that isn't true.
[GH]
It is completely true, obviously.
> Further more I would say that a number of
> detractors are religious people who find his idea of god has nothing to do
> with their idea of god - so his theory does nothing for theists.
[GH]
Horseshit.... you haven't a clue as to what God is.
>
> > The first thing anyone might ask is:
> >
> >
> > If there is a scientific proof
> > of God, why isn't there any
> > great social sign of it?
> >
>
> The first thing ? Come of it. Did you invent this post yourself George ?
It
> is bull !
[GH]
You're bullshit from beginning to end.
> > 1. "God is mind"
> > 2. "Heaven is a mental state"
> > 3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind
> > 4. There is no perfect man on Earth
>
> Therefore there is no god.
> QED.
>
> Steve M
[GH]
You're only qualified to write graffiti on bathroom walls.
Steve Marshall
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> [GH]
> No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education
> who have "no credibility".
You act in the same way as any other Internet troll. Name calling and
abusive you fail to argue your case. When the going gets tough, try and dis
the other guy.
Pathetic !
If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge to
debate your case. You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and
conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
Steve M
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >
> > [GH]
> > No... it is you "internet kooks" with no scientific education
> > who have "no credibility".
>
>
> You act in the same way as any other Internet troll. Name calling and
> abusive you fail to argue your case. When the going gets tough, try and
dis
> the other guy.
[GH]
LOL. The point is, I'm not going to sit here and listen
to unqualified people who can't understand the theory
but happen to know some little tidbit of common knowledge
in biology, physicis or something and stand on this piece of
trivia and say that they have "disproved my theory"... you
gotta be kidding.... these people may not be outright
blatent hecklers like the rest, but lets face it... they
are kooks to do something like that.
>
> Pathetic !
[GH]
You're pathetic.
>
> If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge to
> debate your case.
[GH]
Debate with WHO? Some line professional prig who
"knows there can't be a scientific proof of God" so
starts taking an insulting attitude towards me... gimme
a break... I won't take that kid of shit from even the
world's leading physicists (like Chris Isham for instance)..
why the f--- shoud I take it from some professor of
Biology at a midwestern Jr. college.... who the fcu-
do you think you're talking to....?
Get real.
You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and
> conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
[GH]
You're a fcu--n fairy. Try watching some
WWII movies, it might make a man out of you.
> Steve M
Steve Marshall
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
> [GH]
> LOL. The point is, I'm not going to sit here and listen
> to unqualified people who can't understand the theory
> but happen to know some little tidbit of common knowledge
> in biology, physicis or something and stand on this piece of
> trivia and say that they have "disproved my theory"... you
> gotta be kidding.... these people may not be outright
> blatent hecklers like the rest, but lets face it... they
> are kooks to do something like that.
You are now calling your proof a theory. That at least is a step forward.
I can certainly understand it. What I am pointing out are inherent flaws
merely from a point of logic which you have failed to proprly address.
It would seem that you are the one heckling me. It is up to you to show that
you are more than just another troll and yet you don't. Why should anyone
believe someone that acts like a that ?
> > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge
to
> > debate your case.
>
> [GH]
> Debate with WHO? Some line professional prig who
> "knows there can't be a scientific proof of God"
There can be scientific proof of god if you first establish what god is. You
have not. Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
> starts taking an insulting attitude towards me... gimme
> a break... I won't take that kid of shit from even the
> world's leading physicists
You should stop being so defensive if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Your attitude stinks. No-one is going to take you seriously with your
behaviour which can hardly be described as Christian. How can anyone accept
what you say, whether it is truthful or not ?
> You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and
> > conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
>
> [GH]
> You're a fcu--n fairy. Try watching some
> WWII movies, it might make a man out of you.
Again you guess and again you are wrong. I've seen plenty of WWII movies and
talked a lot with relatives who's job it was to pull bodies out of the
rubble.
You don't know what you are talking about and can't argue your case without
resorting to insults. Your posts betray you as a fraudster with nothing to
offer.
Steve M
Adrian Miles-Davros
people, to see how he would react!
Very predictably was the answer to that one LOL!
Adrian.
All emails except those from contacts are blocked, because of the
Fundamentalist garbage I get sent. To contact me by email post that you wish
to do so, and I will add your address to my contacts.
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > [GH]
> > LOL. The point is, I'm not going to sit here and listen
> > to unqualified people who can't understand the theory
> > but happen to know some little tidbit of common knowledge
> > in biology, physicis or something and stand on this piece of
> > trivia and say that they have "disproved my theory"... you
> > gotta be kidding.... these people may not be outright
> > blatent hecklers like the rest, but lets face it... they
> > are kooks to do something like that.
>
> You are now calling your proof a theory. That at least is a step forward.
> I can certainly understand it. What I am pointing out are inherent flaws
> merely from a point of logic which you have failed to proprly address.
[GH]
There isn't any such thing. Which marks you as a kook
immediately for thinking there could be such a thing.
>
> It would seem that you are the one heckling me. It is up to you to show
that
> you are more than just another troll and yet you don't.
[GH]
don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and
is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> Why should anyone
> believe someone that acts like a that ?
[GH]
If you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when
you see it... you're not worth talking to.
> > > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your knowledge
> to debate your case.
[GH]
The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> >
> > [GH]
> > Debate with WHO? Some line professional prig who
> > "knows there can't be a scientific proof of God"
>
> There can be scientific proof of god if [sic: unless] you first establish
what god is. You
> have not.
[GH]
WRONG aggravated and treacherous fool. The scientific evidence
ESTABLISHES what God is.
> Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
[GH]
yes it does if you have the evidence to back up your
claim WHICH I DO.
Simply because you're unqualifed to read the evidence does
NOT mean it doesn't exist.
> > starts taking an insulting attitude towards me... gimme
> > a break... I won't take that kid of shit from even the
> > world's leading physicists
[GH]
neither will I (yawn...)
>
> You should stop being so defensive if you want to be taken at all
seriously.
[GH]
Same to you.
> Your attitude stinks.
[GH]
Same to you.
> No-one is going to take you seriously with your
> behaviour which can hardly be described as Christian.
[GH]
Same to you.
> How can anyone accept
> what you say, whether it is truthful or not ?
[GH]
Same to you.
>
> > You don't. Time and time again you use guesswork and
> > > conjecture to perpetrate a myth.
[GH]
Same to you.
> >
> > [GH]
> > You're a fcu--n fairy. Try watching some
> > WWII movies, it might make a man out of you.
>
> Again you guess and again you are wrong. I've seen plenty of WWII movies
and
> talked a lot with relatives who's job it was to pull bodies out of the
> rubble.
[GH]
Same to you.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about and can't argue your case
without
> resorting to insults. Your posts betray you as a fraudster with nothing to
> offer.
[GH]
Same to you.
Steve Marshall
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> [GH]
> The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
(Answer: - Because you are an attention seeking troll !)
That's the truth !
Steve M
Richard Back
> [GH]
> don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and
> is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
>
tend to *sound* educated.
> [GH]
> If you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when
> you see it... you're not worth talking to.
>
>
Stop then, troll.
>
> > > > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your
knowledge
> > to debate your case.
>
> [GH]
> The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
>
In which case, why bother posting here?
> >
> > There can be scientific proof of god if [sic: unless] you first
establish
> what god is. You
> > have not.
>
> [GH]
> WRONG aggravated and treacherous fool. The scientific evidence
> ESTABLISHES what God is.
>
This isn't even English.
>
> > Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
>
> [GH]
> yes it does if you have the evidence to back up your
> claim WHICH I DO.
> Simply because you're unqualifed to read the evidence does
> NOT mean it doesn't exist.
>
How is someone 'not qualified to read'?
Michael Varney
"Richard Back" <rb...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:108455717...@despina.uk.clara.net...
>
> > [GH]
> > don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and
> > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> >
> Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing. Educated people
> tend to *sound* educated.
Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know. However, he has
not peer reviewed papers in physics. He is quite simply, a nut case.
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >
> > [GH]
> > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
>
> If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
[GH]
A. Because I feel like it.
B. To reach the "responsible public" which I apparently have.
Cite statistics say that more than 10,000 people have typed
"george hammond" into a search engine to reach my websites.
I'm not interested in you kook...; you're just a splooge of gum
on the sidewalk. It's the 500,000 people who have hit my
websites in the past 4 years that count. THAT'S WHY I
POST TO THE PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS KOOK.
You're just a meaningless minor annoyance with no significance.
Nothing you say has any impact on the public response
to my discovery and it certainly has no impact on me. Sorry kook.
George Hammond
> > don't be rediculous... what "troll" hasw an MS in physicis and
> > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> >
> Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing. Educated people
> tend to *sound* educated.
>
>
> > [GH]
> > If you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when
> > you see it... you're not worth talking to.
> >
> >
> Stop then, troll.
[GH]
Get out of here kook. i'm talking to the 500,000 people who have
visited my website in the past 4 years and the hundreds a day
who are visiting it now, and the 10,000 people who have typed
"george hammond" into a search engine to reach my website.
You're just a spot of gum on the sidewalk kook.
>
> >
> > > > > If you had any serious scientific ability you would use your
> knowledge
> > > to debate your case.
> >
> > [GH]
> > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> >
> In which case, why bother posting here?
[GH]
A. because i feel like it.
B. Because I'm talking to the 500,000 people who have
visited my website in the past 4 years and the hundreds a day
who are visiting it now, and the 10,000 people who have typed
"george hammond" into a search engine to reach my website.
You're just a spot of gum on the sidewalk kook.
>
>
> > >
> > > There can be scientific proof of god if [sic: unless] you first
> establish
> > what god is. You
> > > have not.
> >
> > [GH]
> > WRONG aggravated and treacherous fool. The scientific evidence
> > ESTABLISHES what God is.
> >
> This isn't even English.
>
> >
> > > Claiming to do so doesn't mean you have.
> >
> > [GH]
> > yes it does if you have the evidence to back up your
> > claim WHICH I DO.
> > Simply because you're unqualifed to read the evidence does
> > NOT mean it doesn't exist.
> >
> How is someone 'not qualified to read'?
[GH]
By deminstrating that he has never read what he
is shooting off his mouth about. Screw kook,
it's obvious you're barking up the worong tree and
I've plantd my size 14 Keds on your backside
you're beginning to look like a treadmill.
George Hammond
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:zP7pc.204$eg4....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Richard Back" <rb...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:108455717...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > > [GH]
> > > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> > >
> > Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing.
[GH]
We know you're guessing POSTER BOY VARNEY.
We also know you're guessing wrong... (naturally
anybody known as "poster boy Varney" would guess
wrong).
1. My CV is a matter of public record.
2. My publications are a matter of public record.
> Educated people
> > tend to *sound* educated.
[GH]
You wouldn't know what "sounding educated"
sounds like.
>
>
> Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
[GH]
Because you're too lazy to check the public record.
You'd rather lie.
> However, he has
> not peer reviewed papers in physics.
[GH]
The Scientific Proof of God is a physics paper.
It has been published in an (applied) Physicis Journal,
the Noetic Journal. The editor of said Journal is
Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally
known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are
a LIAR poster boy Varney.
> He is quite simply, a nut case.
[GH]
No... YOU are a well known "nut case" (psychotic personality).
you seem to have taken a number of "unexplained vactions"
from the university in the past few years..; check into a psych
ward maybe. i think you're a screwball and according to
the mile long thread entitled "POSTER BOY VARNEY"
a hell of a lot of other people on the internet think you're
a nut case too. Take a hike moron, you're barking up the
wrong tree.
Michael Varney
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vQbpc.50681$iF6.4567859@attbi_s02...
>
> "Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
> news:zP7pc.204$eg4....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Richard Back" <rb...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:108455717...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > > [GH]
> > > > don't be rediculous... what "troll" has an MS in physics and
> > > > is published in the peer reviewed literature. Wake up.
> > > >
> > > Well exactly. You don't have these things, I'm guessing.
>
> [GH]
> We know you're guessing POSTER BOY VARNEY.
> We also know you're guessing wrong... (naturally
> anybody known as "poster boy Varney" would guess
> wrong).
> 1. My CV is a matter of public record.
> 2. My publications are a matter of public record.
I guess you have great diffuclty in parsing message threads. God sure
played a mean trick on your Hammered! *smirk*
> > Educated people
> > > tend to *sound* educated.
>
> [GH]
> You wouldn't know what "sounding educated"
> sounds like.
>
> >
> >
> > Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
>
> [GH]
> Because you're too lazy to check the public record.
> You'd rather lie.
Umm..... huh? I checked the public record and indeed you do have an MS in
physics. Did I lie?
> > However, he has
> > not peer reviewed papers in physics.
>
> [GH]
> The Scientific Proof of God is a physics paper.
> It has been published in an (applied) Physicis Journal
No.. it has not.
,
> the Noetic Journal.
The Noetic Journal is not a peer reviewed physics journal, crackpot.
> The editor of said Journal is
> Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally
> known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are
> a LIAR poster boy Varney.
Not at all.
http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/
>
> > He is quite simply, a nut case.
>
> [GH]
> No
Yes. Dening the fact does not make it false Hammered.
It should be noted that you have admitted to having been sent to the funny
farm. Yes or no Hammond... do you consider yourself cured?
>... YOU are a well known "nut case" (psychotic personality).
Adjust your medications, crank.
> you seem to have taken a number of "unexplained vactions"
> from the university in the past few years
??? Really? Hahahahahahaha! As a graduate student there are no vacations.
>..; check into a psych
> ward maybe. i think you're a screwball and according to
> the mile long thread entitled "POSTER BOY VARNEY"
Well... darn it.... I guess that is proof then.
> a hell of a lot of other people on the internet think you're
> a nut case too.
Note the company you keep in that regard, Hammond. *smirk*
> Take a hike moron, you're barking up the
> wrong tree.
Time to send the rubber room roundup team to your house Hammered.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vQbpc.50681$iF6.4567859@attbi_s02...
>>The editor of said Journal is
>>Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally
>>known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are
>>a LIAR poster boy Varney.
> Not at all.
> http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/
Cool journal. I also note that its editor, Richard L. Amoroso seems to
be the primary author as well, with one or two articles in each issue.
The journal claims to be peer reviewed, but there is no listing of the
editorial board or referees. The related links are interesting.
Appearently one big contributor has been doing Old Testament numerology
for 20 years. Another at least has an advanced degree as an MD, but
still is remarkably vague about where he got his degree and did his
residence. Another MD actually does post his details. It looks like
his last real job ended 20 years after he completed his internship.
Anyway, as I look at it, there is one respected physicist who I could
imagine wanting to publish there: Alan Sokal.
As for me, I'm a PhD drop-out with no academic affiliation. I guess I
would fit right in with that crowd.
-j
George Hammond
>
> > > Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
> >
> > [GH]
> > Because you're too lazy to check the public record.
> > You'd rather lie.
>
> Umm..... huh? I checked the public record and indeed you do have an MS
in
> physics. Did I lie?
[GH]
"POSTER BOY VARNEY"
please go back to your LIGO
experiments. the subject of GOD
is a little bit over your head.
So long POSTER BOY VARNEY
George Hammond
"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:10ab6c4...@corp.supernews.com...
> Michael Varney wrote:
>
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:vQbpc.50681$iF6.4567859@attbi_s02...
>
> >>The editor of said Journal is
> >>Richard L. Amoroso PhD in Physics and an internationally
> >>known authority and editor in Relativity. So, you are
> >>a LIAR poster boy Varney.
>
> > Not at all.
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/
>
> Cool journal. I also note that its editor, Richard L. Amoroso seems to
> be the primary author as well, with one or two articles in each issue.
[GH]
Yes.... he founded and owns the journal.
He is also a well known author in RELATIVITY.
For instance he was recently co-editor of
_GRAVITATION_ (Kluwer 2002) with papers
by Wolfgang Rindler and other Relativity luminaries,
including 2 papers in the book by himself 9on the
CMBR and other topics). He knows roger Penrose
personally and is well known in the physicis community
generally, and is a solid reliable theorist PhD in physicis
and internationally known author in Relativity, was
also a chairman at the recent VIGIER IV Gravity
Symposium in Paris.
what we're talking about here is a competent,
leading, well known physicist, who is experienced enough
in human affairs tos KNOW WHO I AM, and is
able to recognize a persecuted dedicated scientists
who has discovered somethsding of value. He is
famous for knowing this by his popular NOETIC JOURNAL.
and people like Roger Penrose personally respect him for it.
>
> The journal claims to be peer reviewed, but there is no listing of the
> editorial board or referees.
[GH]
Referees are anonomous in all journals.
He *IS* the "editorial board".
> The related links are interesting.
> Appearently one big contributor has been doing Old Testament numerology
> for 20 years. Another at least has an advanced degree as an MD, but
> still is remarkably vague about where he got his degree and did his
> residence. Another MD actually does post his details. It looks like
> his last real job ended 20 years after he completed his internship.
[GH]
Hey... publishing a journal is a business too... a lot of
articles have high motivational and general interest
value.... after all, even in NATURE we find articles
like _The Mating Habits of Clown Fish_ which are of
dubious scientific value, but have a very high
"psycholgical impactr index" and sell copies.
Mt artticle is of course a "serious scientific contribution"
and I am certainly indebted to Amoroso for
publishing it.
> Anyway, as I look at it, there is one respected physicist who I could
> imagine wanting to publish there: Alan Sokal.
[GH]
Henry Stapp publishes there quite regularly.
Wolfe, who has 6 (count em, six) best selling
science books on the book selves of your local
Borders Bookstore also publishes their regularly,
so does Karl Pribram one of the world's most famous
neuropsychologists.
Sorry you small time local yocals couldn't get
published theire and have to write graffitti on the
internet.
>
> As for me, I'm a PhD drop-out with no academic affiliation. I guess I
> would fit right in with that crowd.
> -j
[GH]
If you were smart you'd figure out that Hammond has stumbled onto
the Sutter's Fort gold fields of 2,000 and follow him and stake out a claim
and get rich and retire famous.... all you'd have to do to gain
INSTANT CELEBRITY and guarantee an early retiremant to
fame and glory is be the FIRST ONE to come out and support HAMMOND.
You'd be an instant celebrity, end up being hailed as a hero (like
Karl Jung) and wind up rich and famous for doing NOTHING except
being brave enough to support HAMMOND when nobody
else would.... think about it..... "one good investment is worth
a lifetime of work", so I've been told.
dollars to donuts however, you're too stupid, foolish and
cowardly to make the right choice. So long sucker, never say
I didn't give you a break.
Michael Varney
>
> "Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
> news:hPcpc.244$eg4....@news.uswest.net...
> >
>
>
> > > > Hammond has an MS in physics, obtained how I do not know.
> > >
> > > [GH]
> > > Because you're too lazy to check the public record.
> > > You'd rather lie.
> >
> > Umm..... huh? I checked the public record and indeed you do have an MS
> in
> > physics. Did I lie?
>
>
> [GH]
> "POSTER BOY VARNEY"
> please go back to your LIGO
> experiments.
I don't do LIGO, ingnorant Hammond.
><...>GOD
> is a little bit over your head.
"Father who art in heaven"
Ok.
> So long POSTER BOY VARNEY
Are you taking a much needed vacation, crackpot Hammond?
Steve Marshall
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > [GH]
> > > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> >
> > If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
>
> [GH]
> A. Because I feel like it.
And if you feel like doing so isn't it going to be debated ? Yes it is.
That is where you get found out. Because you don't know how a brain works.
You've proved that.
> B. To reach the "responsible public" which I apparently have.
> Cite statistics say that more than 10,000 people have typed
> "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my websites.
> I'm not interested in you kook...; you're just a splooge of gum
> on the sidewalk. It's the 500,000 people who have hit my
> websites in the past 4 years that count. THAT'S WHY I
> POST TO THE PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS KOOK.
> You're just a meaningless minor annoyance with no significance.
> Nothing you say has any impact on the public response
> to my discovery and it certainly has no impact on me. Sorry kook.
Having people visit your site proves nothing. I visited it and your
newsgroup - as did others. We disagree with you. Where is your evidence ?
Where are the papers cited to prove what you say ?
You have proved nothing but that you are a troll. Your repeated abuse and
namecalling shows what standards you have.
Steve M
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > [GH]
> > > > The issue is not "debatable" with amateurs.
> > >
> > > If that is the case then why are you posting it in public forums ?
> >
> > [GH]
> > A. Because I feel like it.
>
> And if you feel like doing so isn't it going to be debated ? Yes it is.
>
> That is where you get found out. Because you don't know how a brain works.
> You've proved that.
>
> > B. To reach the "responsible public" which I apparently have.
> > Cite statistics say that more than 10,000 people have typed
> > "george hammond" into a search engine to reach my websites.
> > I'm not interested in you kook...; you're just a splooge of gum
> > on the sidewalk. It's the 500,000 people who have hit my
> > websites in the past 4 years that count. THAT'S WHY I
> > POST TO THE PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS KOOK.
> > You're just a meaningless minor annoyance with no significance.
> > Nothing you say has any impact on the public response
> > to my discovery and it certainly has no impact on me. Sorry kook.
>
> Having people visit your site proves nothing. I visited it and your
> newsgroup - as did others. We disagree with you. Where is your evidence ?
[Hammond]
1. All the evidentiary papers are CITED ON MY WEBSITE
listed in the bibliographies of my published papers.
over 200 citations of the experimental evidence.
2. We KNOW you are too lazy and uneducated to actually
read scietific papers.. you're attention span is so short
only a "one liner" is all you are capable of dealing with,
so here is a "one liner" piece of MAJOR EVIDENCE:
1. The Christian Science Religion FULLY
SUPPORTS AND CONFIRMS Hammond's
scientific result.
So even if you can't read the 10,000 peer reviewed scientific
papers that support (prove) my theory.... at least you can
read enough to know what thwe Christian Science Religion is.
> Where are the papers cited to prove what you say ?
[HAMMOND]
answered fully above.
>
> You have proved nothing but that you are a troll. Your repeated abuse and
> namecalling shows what standards you have.
[HAMMOND]
hey dude.... you just called me a name... you called
me a "troll".... if you wanna play the "name calling
game" you better wear an ass protector and a
helmut..because I can out insult you any day.
George Hammond
[HAMMOND]
No POSTER BOY, I'm inviting you to leave
and go do some of your gravitometer homework
and leave this discussion to the big boys.
Michael Varney
>
> "Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
> news:f8upc.40$aQ4....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > So long POSTER BOY VARNEY
> >
> > Are you taking a much needed vacation, crackpot Hammond?
>
> [HAMMOND]
> No POSTER BOY, I'm inviting you to leave
> and go do some of your gravitometer homework
> and leave this discussion to the big boys.
Now I see where Cesar got is misconception of my experiment being a
gravometer [sic].
Cesar sure likes to take his cues from idiots and cranks!
In any event, perhaps Monday I will call your local mental health
establishment and see about having them help you on your way.
George Hammond
HAMMOND]
Yeah... but you numbskulls on sci.physicis.relativity refuse
to address the issue of GOD=G_uv which is a
"completely serious relativity theory".
THANK GOD FOR ALT.RELIGION.KIBOLOGY
they appear to be the only people who are sympathetic
to the mediation of a furious dispute between HAMMOND
and the "academic prigs of the physics department".
If the SCIENCE people continue to stonewall Hammond's discovery
of a "Relativistic proof of God" it is apparently NOT
going to escape the suspicion and notice of the KIBOLOGISTS.
Kibology appears to be the Sheriff's department.
I am grateful for their support, and salute them for their
undaunted bravery in facing the priggish wrath of the
aggravated and hypocritical physicists on sci.physics.relativity
who are deliberately SUPPRESSING HAMMOND (a physicist)
by ignoring his PHYSICS DISCOVERY. The maltreatment
of Hammond by world famous physicist Chris Isham is
simply an example of what underlies the maltreatment of Hammond
on sci.physics.relativity.
Steve Marshall
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
> 1. All the evidentiary papers are CITED ON MY WEBSITE
> listed in the bibliographies of my published papers.
> over 200 citations of the experimental evidence.
Funny, I couldn't find them. Found your own one which I searched for
elsewhere adn didn't find it.
All you seem to wat to do is promote your website. You won't quote your
references here. I've had enough spyware from looking around your site.
>
> 2. We KNOW you are too lazy and uneducated to actually
> read scietific papers
You have no idea what my education is. If this was scientific you'd present
the papers properly.
> 1. The Christian Science Religion FULLY
> SUPPORTS AND CONFIRMS Hammond's
> scientific result.
But that is just some crappy little cult. You'll not find conventional
Christians too much in favour of "Christian Science" - (What an oxymoron !)
> > Where are the papers cited to prove what you say ?
>
> [HAMMOND]
> answered fully above.
Nope. Where ?
> > You have proved nothing but that you are a troll. Your repeated abuse
and
> > namecalling shows what standards you have.
>
> [HAMMOND]
> hey dude.... you just called me a name... you called
> me a "troll".... if you wanna play the "name calling
> game" you better wear an ass protector and a
> helmut..because I can out insult you any day.
Your actions betray you. If you had any real credibility and wanted people
to take you seriously you wouldn't behave like any other troll. That's all.
I'm not calling you names, I'm giving you a description of what you are.
Steve M
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > 1. All the evidentiary papers are CITED ON MY WEBSITE
> > listed in the bibliographies of my published papers.
> > over 200 citations of the experimental evidence.
>
> Funny, I couldn't find them. Found your own one which I searched for
> elsewhere adn didn't find it.
> All you seem to wat to do is promote your website. You won't quote your
> references here. I've had enough spyware from looking around your site.
>
<snippity snip snip>
> Steve M
[HAMMOND]
OK moron... since you can't read my website apparently (are
too lazy to) here are the citations that are listed there... happy
reading jerk... hope you spend 22 years reading it all like
I did:
SCIENTIFIC CITATIONS FROM HAMMOND'S WEBSITE
_______________________________________
Allport, G. W., Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological
Monographs, 47 (1, Whole No. 211).
Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. San Francisco,
London: Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, R B. (1975). Third order personality structure in Q-data: Evidence
from 11 experiments
Journal of Multivariate Experimental Personality and Clinical Psychology
1(3) 118-149.
Dasgupta, P., Hauspie, R. (eds.). (2001). Perspectives in Human Growth,
Development and
Maturation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Einstein, A. ([1922] 1996). The Meaning of Relativity. Fifth Edition. New
York: MJF Books.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological Dimensions of Personality. In Handbook of
Personality:
Theory and Research, edited by Pervin, L. A. 244-276. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3?- Criteria for
a Taxonomic
Paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences 12(8) 773-790.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Intelligence: A New Look. Piscataway N.J.:
Transaction Publishers.
Gamow, G., Stannard, R. (ed.) (1999) The New World of Mr. Tompkins: George
Gamow's
Classic Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge U. Press
Goldberg, L. (1994). The Language of Personality. In Wiggins, J. S. (ed.),
Theoretical
Perspectives on the Five-Factor Model. New York, NY: Guilford.
Hawking, S.W., Penrose, R. (1996) the Nature of Space and Time, Princeton U.
Press, Princeton N.J.
Hameroff, S. R., Penrose, R. (1998). Quantum computation in brain
microtubules? The
Penrose-Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness. Philosophical
Transactions Royal
Society London (A) 356:1869-1896.
Hammond, G. E. (1994). The Cartesian Theory: Unification of Eysenck and
Gray. New Ideas in
Psychology 12(2) 153-167.
Helmholtz, H. ([1868] 1977). On the Facts underlying Geometry. In Hermann
Helmholtz,
Epistemological Writings, by Cohen, R. S., Elkana, Y. (eds.) 39-71.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Jammer, Max (1999). Einstein and Religion. Princeton University Press.
Princeton N.J.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The G Factor, The Science of Mental Ability. Westport
CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Komlos, J. (1993). The secular trend in the biological standard of living in
the United
Kingdom, 1730-1860, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XLVI
Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., Wheeler, J.A. (1973). Gravitation. W.H.Freeman:
New York.
Owen, R. (1848). On the Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton.
London:
J. van Voorst.
Penrose, R. (1989), The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Riemann, B. ([1854] 1873). On the Hypothesis which lie at the Foundations of
Geometry. Clifford,
W. K. (trans.). Nature 8 14-17.
Smolin, L. (2001) Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. New York: Basic Books
Steckel, R. (1996). A tall story for our time. Time Magazine (European
Edition), 148(16)
92-98. New York: Time-Life Publications.
Tanner, J.M. (1981). History of the Study of Human Growth, Cambridge
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple Factor Analysis Chicago: University
ADORNO T.W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK E., LEVINSON D.J., & SANFORD R.N.,(1950), The
Authoritarian Personality, Harper, New York
BRAND C.R.,(1981), Personality and Political Attitudes. In: Dimensions of
Personality, Richard Lynn (ed.), Pergamon Press
BREBNER J.,(1983), A Model of Extraversion, Australian Journal of
Psychology,
Vol. 35, No. 3, 349-359
BREBNER J. & COOPER C.,(1974), The Effect of a Low Rate of Regular Signals
upon the Reaction Times of Introverts and Extraverts, Journal of Research in
Personality, 8, 263-276
BREBNER J. & COOPER C.,(1978), Stimulus or Response Induced Excitations. A
Comparison of Behavior of Introverts and Extraverts. Journal of Research in
Personality, 12, 306-311
BURT C.,(1941), The Factors of the Mind, Macmillan, New York
CLARIDGE G.S.,(1981a), Arousal. In: Underwood G, Stevens R.G. (eds.),
Aspects
of Consciousness, Academic Press, London
CLARIDGE G.S.,(1981b), Psychoticism. In: Lynn R. (ed.), Dimensions of
Personality. Papers in Honor of H.J. Eysenck, Oxford, Pergamon Press
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE, R.R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665
COSTA, P.T., McCRAE, R.R., & DYE, D.A. (1991). facet scales for
agreeableness
and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898
EYSENCK H.J.,(1944), General Social Attitudes, J. Social Psychology, 19,
207-
227
EYSENCK, H.J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London, U.K.: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK H.J.,(1951), Primary Social Attitudes as Related to Social Class and
Political Party, Brit. J. Sociology, 2, 198-209
EYSENK, H.J. (1952). The scientific study of personality. London, U.K.:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK H.J.,(1954), The Psychology of Politics, Routlidge, London
EYSENCK H.J.,(1967), The Biological Basis of Personality, Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield IL.
EYSENCK H.J.,(1970), The Structure of Human Personality (3rd ed.), Methuen,
London
EYSENCK, H.J. (1971). Social attitudes and social class. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 201-212
EYSENCK H.J.,(1975), The Structure of Social Attitudes, Brit. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol., 14, 323-331
EYSENCK H.J.,(1976), Psychoticism as a Dimension of Personality, Hodder &
Stroughton, London
EYSENCK H.J.(ed.),(1981), A Model for Personality, Springer, New York
EYSENCK H.J.,(1990), Biological Dimensions of Personality., In:Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, Lawrence A. Pervin (ed.), The Guilford
Press, New York
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992a). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 667-673.
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992b). the definition and measurement of psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 757-785
EYSENCK, H.J. & EYSENCK, S.B.G. (1969). Personality structure and
measurement. London, U.K.: routledge & Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK H.J. & WILSON G.D.,(1978), The Psychological Basis of Ideology,
Lancaster, MTP Press: University Park Press, Baltimore MD
EYSENCK H.J.,(1986), In: Hans Eysenck. Consensus and Controversy, Modgil &
Modgi (eds.), The Falmer Press
FERGUSON L.W.,(1939), Primary Social Attitudes, The Journal of Psychology,
8,
217-223
FERGUSON L.W.,(1973), Primary Social Attitudes of the 1960s and Those of the
1930s, Psychological Reports, 33, 655-664
GRAY J.A.,(1970), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266
GRAY J.A.,(1972), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion:
A Modification of Eysenck's Theory., In: Nebylitsyn V.D., Gray J.A. (eds.),
The Biological Basis of Individual Behavior, Academic Press, New York, p
185-
205
GRAY J.A.,(1981), A Critique of Eysenck's Theory of Personality. In: Eysenck
H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality, p 272-273
GRAY J.A.,(1982), The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the
Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System, Oxford University Press, New York
GRAY J.A.,(1987a), The Psychology of Fear and Stress, second edition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
GRAY, J.A. (1987b). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In S.M.
Stahl, S.D. Iverson & E.C. Goodman (Eds.), Cognitive Neurochemistry. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
GRAY, J.A. (1987c). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary.
Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493-509.
GRAY, J.A. (1988). Behavioral and neural-system analyses of the actions of
anxiolytic drugs. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 29, 767-769.
GRAY, J.A. (1991a). Neural systems, emotion and personality. In J. Madden,
IV
(Ed.). Neurobiology of learning, emotion and affect. New York: Raven Press.
GRAY, J.A. (1991b). the neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Strelau & A.
Angleitner (Eds.), Exploration in temperament. New York: Plenum Press.
GRAY, J.A., FELDON, J., RAWLINS., J.J.P., HEMSLEY, D.R., & SMITH, A.D.
(1991c). The neuropsychology of schizophrenia. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,
14, 1-84.
HAMMOND G.H.,(1988), The Origin of the Cross, HPpub, ISBN 0-940915-02-2, LC
87-80586 (self published)
HAMMOND, G.E. (1989). Some indications that Eysenck's two factor result
relates to the primary two-axis structure of the brain. Unpublished
available upon request from the author.
MACLEAN P.D., (1973), A Triune Concept of the Brain & Behaviour. U of
Toronto
Pr.
MERENDA P.F.,(1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3), 367-374
POWELL G.E.,(1981), A Survey of the Effects of Brain Lesions upon
Personality. In: Eysenck H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality, Springer-
Verlag, p 69
RAY J.,(1986), Eysenck on Social Attitudes: An Historical Critique., In:
Hans
Eysenck. Consensus and Controversy, Modgil & Modgil (eds.), The Falmer Press
RIEMAN, E.M., RAICHLE, M.E., ROBINS, E., BUTLER, F.K., HERSCOVITCH, P., &
FOX, P. (1986). The application of positron emission tomography to the study
of panic disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 469-477.
ROUX W.,(1888), Bietrage zur Entwicklungsmechanick des Embryo. 5. Uber die
kuntsliche Hervorbringung halber Embryonen durch Zerstorung einer der beiden
ersten Furchungskugein, sowie uber die Nachentwicklung der fehlenden
Koperhalfte., Virchows Arch. Path. Anat. Physiol., 64, 113-154, 246-291
SILBERMAN E.K. & WEINGARTNER H,(1986). Hemispheric Lateralization of
Functions Related to Emotion. Brain and Cognition, 5, 322-353
STELMACK R.M. & PLOUFFE L.,(1983), Introversion-Extraversion: The Bell-
Magendie Law Revisited, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 4, No.
4, 421-427
SWANSON L.W. & COWAN W.M.,(1977), An Autoradiographic Study of the
Organization of the Efferent Connections of the Hippocampal Formation in the
Rat., J. Comp. Neurol., 172, 49-84
BRAND, C.R. (1981). Personality and political attitudes. In: Dimensions of
Personality, Richard Lynn (Ed.). London: Pergamon Press
BRAND, C.R. (1995) Dimensionalizing personality: The "Big 5", the "Gigantic
3"
and the "Capacious 6". Manuscript in preparation
CARROLL, J.B. (1953). An analytical solution for approximating simple
structure
in factor analysis. Psychometrika, Vol. 18, pp. 23-38
CLARIDGE, G. (1985). Origins of Mental Illness. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
CLARIDGE, G. (1986). Eysenck's Contribution to the Psychology of
Personality,
Consensus & Controversy: Papers in Honor of Hans Eysenck, Modgil & Modgil
(eds), .......
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T., McCRAE R.R. & DYE D.A. (1991), Facet Scales for Agreeableness
and
Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 887-898
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality inventory (NEO
PI-RTM)
and NEO Five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992a), Four Ways Five Factors are Basic,
Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol.13, No.6, pp. 653-665
DE RAAD, B. &, HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1993). A circumplex approach to the five
factor
model: A facet structure of trait adjectives supplemented by trait verbs.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 15, No. 5, 493-505
DIGMAN, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor
model.
Annual Revue of Psychology, 41, 417-440
EYSENCK, H.J. (1940). Some factors in the appreciation of poetry, and their
relation to temperamental qualities. Character and Personality, 9, 160-167
EYSENCK H.J. (1944a), General Social Attitudes, Journal of Social
Psychology,
19, 207-227
EYSENCK, H.J. (1944b). Types of personality- a factorial study of 700
neurotics.
Journal of Mental Science, 90, 851-861
EYSENCK H.J. (1947), Dimensions of Personality. London, U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1950). Clyclothymia-schizothymia as a dimension of
personality.
I. Historical review. Journal of Personality, 19, 123-153
EYSENCK H.J. (1952), The Scientific Study of Personality, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. (1954), The Psychology of Politics, London, U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1955). A dynamic theory of anxiety and hysteria, Journal of
Mental Science, 101, 28-51
EYSENCK, H.J. (1964). Principles and methods of personality description,
classification and diagnosis. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 3, 285-294
EYSENCK H.J. (1967), The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970), The Structure of Human Personality,(3rd ed.),
Methuen,
London
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970b). A dimensional system of psychodiagnostics. In:A.R.
Mahrer
(Ed.), New Approaches to Personality Classification. New York: Columbia
University Press
EYSENCK, H.J. (1971), Social Attitudes and Social Class, Brit. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol., 10, 201-212
EYSENCK H.J. (1976), The Measurement of Personality, Lancaster
EYSENCK, H.J. (1987). The definition of personality disorders and the
criteria
appropriate for their descriptions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1,
211-
219
EYSENCK H.J. (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3?- Criteria for a
Taxonomic Paradigm, Person. Individ. Diff., Vol. 12, No. 8, 773-790
EYSENCK H.J. (1992), Four Ways Five Factors Are Not Basic, Personality &
Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No. 6, 667-673
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992b). The definition and measurement of Psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, 7, 757-785
EYSENCK, H.J. (1993), Comment on Goldberg, American Psychologist, December
1993,
p. 1299
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK M.W. (1985), Personality and individual differences:
A
natural science approach. New York, Plenum
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G. (1969), Personality Structure & Measurement,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G (1976), Psychoticism as a Dimension of
Personality.
London: Hodder & Stoughton
EYSENCK H.J. & WILSON G.D. (1978), The Psychological Basis of Ideology,
University Park Press, Baltimore
FERGUSON G.A. (1954), The concept of parsimony in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, vol. 19, pp. 281-290
FERGUSON L.W. (1939), Primary Social Attitudes, J. Psychology, 8, 217-223
FERGUSON L.W. (1973), Primary Social Attitudes of the 1960s and Those of the
1930s, Psychological Reports, 33,655-664
FRANCIS, L.J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian Neuroticism scales:
A
question of sex differences? Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 15,
1, 43-59
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1981), Language and Individual Differences: The Search for
Universals in Personality Lexicons, In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of
Persoality
and Social Psychology, Vol.2, pp. 141-165, Beverly Hills CA: Sage
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1990), An Alternative "Description of Personality": The
Big-Five
Factor Structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1216-1229
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992), The Development of markers for the Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, pp. 26-42
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1993), The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,
American
Psychologist,48, 26-34
GORSUCH, R.L. (1983), Factor Analysis, London: Erlbaum
GRAY J.A. (1970), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extroversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266
GRAY J.A. (1972), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion:
A Modification of Eysenck's Theory, In: Nebylitsyn V.D., Gray J.A. (eds.),
The Biological Basis of Individual Behavior, pp. 185-205, The Academic
Press,
New York
GRAY J.A. (1981), A Critique of Eysenck's Theory of Personality, In: Eysenck
H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality, Springer, New York
GRAY J.A. (1982), The Neuropsychology of Anxiety, An Enquiry Into the
Functions
of the Septohippocampal System, Oxford University Press, New York
GRAY J.A. (1987a), The Psychology of Fear and Stress, second edition,
Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England
GRAY J.A. (1987b), The Neuropsychology of Emotion and Personality, In: S.M.
Stahl, S.D. Iverson & E.C. Goodman (eds.), Cognitive Neurochemistry, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, England
GRAY J.A. (1987c), Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity: A Commentary,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 21, 493-509
GRAY J.A. (1988), Behavioral and Neural-System Analyses of the Action of
Anxiolytic Drugs, Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, Vol. 29, 767-769
GRAY J.A. (1991a), Neural Systems, Emotion and Personality, In: John Madden
IV
(ed.), Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and Affect, Raven Press
GRAY J.A. (1991b), The Neuropsychology of Temperament, In: J. Strelau & A.
Angleitner (eds.), Explorations in Temperament, Plenum Press
GRAY J.A. et al. (1991c), The Neuropsychology of Schizophrenia, Behavioral
and
Brain Science, Vol. 14, 1-84
HAMMOND, G.E. (1988). The Origin of the Cross. Self published, ISBN
0-940915-02-
2 LC 87-80586
HAMMOND, G.E. (1994). The Cartesian Theory: Unification of Eysenck and Gray,
New
Ideas in Psychology,Vol. 12, 2, 153-167
HARMAN, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis (3rd ed.), Chicago: University
of
Chicago Press
HENDRICKSON A.E. & WHITE P.O. (1964), PROMAX: A quick method for
rotation to
oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, vol.
17,
pp. 65-70
HEYMANS G. (1929), Inleiding in de speciale psychologie [Introduction into
special psychology]. Haarlem, Bohn
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., De RAAD, B., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1992). Integration of the
Big-
Five and Circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality
and
Social Psychology, 63, 146-163
HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1994a), The Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) Model of
Trait
Structure: Heymans' Cube, Kiesler's Circle and Peabody and Goldberg's
Double
Cone Model, Revue europeenne de Psychologie Applique, 1st trimestre, vol.
44,
No. 1, pp. 27-33
HORST, P.A. (1941), A non-graphical method for transforming an arbitrary
factor
matrix into a simple structure matrix, Psychometrika, vol. 6, pp. 79-99
JOHN O.P. (1990), The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality
in
the Natural Language and Questionnaires, In: L. Pervin (ed.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, 66-100, Guilford, New York
JOHNSON, J.A. &, OSTENDORF, F. (1993). Clarification of the five-factor
model
with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex. Journal of Personality
and
Social Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 3, 563-576
KAISER, H.F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, vol. 23(3), pp. 187-200
KASS, F., SKODOL, A., CHARLES, E., SPITZER, R.L., & WILLIAMS, J.B.W.
(1985).
Scaled ratings of DSM-III personality disorders. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 142, 627-630
KRAEPELIN, E. (1897). Psychiatrie (6th Edn). Leipzig: Barth
KRETSCHMER, E. (1946). Medizinische Psychologie. Leipzig: Thieme
KRETSCHMER, E. (1948). Korperbau und Charakter. Berlin: Springer
KRUG S.E. & JOHNS E.F. (1986), A Large Scale Cross-Validation of
Second-Order
Personality Structure Defined by the 16PF, Psychological Reports, 59,
683-693
LEARY, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald
Press
MERENDA P.F. (1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3), 367-374
MERENDA P.F. (1989), Four-factor models of personality and Walter Clarke's
Activity Vector Analysis. Tenth Clarke Memorial Lecture, Bryant College,
Providence RI, November 30, 1989. (Available from Peter F. Merenda)
MERENDA P.F. & CLARKE W.V. (1959), Factor analysis of a measure of social
self.
Psychological Reports, 5, pp. 597-605
MODGIL, S. &, MODGIL, C. (1986). Hans Eysenck, Consensus and Controversy.
Philidelphia: Falmer Press
NEUHAUS J.O. & WRIGLEY C. (1954), The Quartimax method: an analytical
approach
to orthogonal simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology,
vol. 7, pp. 81-91
NORMAN, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:
replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583
O'BOYLE, M., & HOLZER, C. (1992). DSM-III-R personality disorders and
Eysenck's
personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No.
10, 1157-1159
PEABODY, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality
perception: A reappraisal. Journal of personality and social psychology,
1970, Vol.16, 4, 639-646
PEABODY, D. (1984). Personality dimensions through trait inferences. Journal
of
personality and social psychology, Vol.46, 2, 384-403
PEABODY, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of
personality and social psychology, Vol.52, 1, 59-71
PEABODY, D., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures
from
personality-trait descriptors. Journal of personality and social psychology,
Vol.57, 3, 552-567
RAY J. (1986), Eysenck on social attitudes: An historical critique, In S.
Modgil
& C. Modgil (Eds.), Hans Eysenck, Consensus and Controversy, Falmer, U.K.:
Falmer Press
REICH, J.H., & THOMPSON, W.D. (1987). Differential assortment of DSM-III
personality disorder clusters in three populations. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 150, 471-475
SAUCIER, G., & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1994 in press). The language of personality:
Lexical perspectives on the Five-Factor model. In: J.S. Wiggins (Ed.),
Theoretical perspectives for the Five-Factor model. New York: Guilford
SMITH B.D. (1988), Chapter 20, In: Nesselroade and Cattell eds.: Handbook of
multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.), Plenum Press, NY NY
THURSTONE, L.L. (1933), The vectors of the mind, Psychological Review, vol.
41(1), pp. 1-32
THURSTONE, L.L. (1947), Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago: University of
Chicago
Press
TUPES, E.C., & CRYSTAL, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on
trait ratings (Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S.
Air Force
WIGGINS, J.S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In: L
Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 265-294).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
ZUCKERMAN M., KUHLMAN M. & CAMAC C. (1988), What Lies Beyond E and
N? Factor
Analyses of Scales Believed to Measure Basic Dimensions of Personality,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107
ZUCKERMAN et al. (1991), Five (or Three) Robust Questionnaire Scale Factors
of
Personality Without Culture, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.
12,
No. 9, 929-942
ZUCKERMAN M. (1993), A comparison of three structural models for
personality:
The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 65, No. 4, pp. 757-768