The Marvellous Discussion: Phase 1
Sally Arturo
phase 2) your scientific proof of God. The rules of the debate have
been agreed so I shall begin.
Question 1) To start with, could you please give a short explanation
of each of the major steps in the proof, in the order in which they
were discovered. This will provide a useful structure for phase 1.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
OK.. I will be posting my first message to this discussion thread
within 24 hours. I wish to make a reasonably coherent and formal
reply, so bear with me for a day or so until I get it written.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
Bilge
Could you not spam this junk to sci.physics.relativity?
George spams the newsgroup enough without additional
encouragement.
George Hammond
THE DISCUSSION BEGINS!!
I will only be posting monday - friday 10am - 4pm (GMT), George
probably more. I remind everyone of the rules set out by George:
> > 1. Absolutely no resort to ad hominem remarks and/or derogatory
> > language, or reference to personal matters is to be permitted
> > in the discussion. More or less a formal academic discussion
> > is suggested.
> >
> > 2. I request a "2-phase" discussion.
> >
> > Phase-1
> > A "non-disputational"
> > query-explanation into what the theory
> > actually says and how it works.
> >
> > Phase-2
> > Argumentation of the
> > credibility and strength of the
> > evidentiary basis of the theory.
Phase 1 has begun. I know you have every right to disrupt the thread
but please don't , why not instead think of a funny and clever name
for a thread discussing the discussion ;-)
Sally Arturo
[Hammond]
OK. In phase-1 we are discussing the "forest" and in Phase-2 we
will be discussing the "trees". Therefore, in Phase-1 I wish to
be able to make statements without having to go into vast digressions
about the evidence which supports them.. that is the purpose of
Phase-2. Phase-1 is intended solely to make clear:
1. What the comprehensive "big picture" of the theory is.
2. What the actual major components of the theory are.
In Phase-2 we can get into the evidentiary data and facts that
purportedly support these elements. This format is necessary simply
because most people are not even familiar with basic elements of the
discovery, never mind the evidence.
You have requested a chronological outline... I'm not sure this is
the best approach.. but it is of interest, so here goes:
1980:
Hammond, a physicist by training (MS 1967) falls into a mental
breakdown due to career failure, decides there is something wrong
with everybody (except himself), that it is "psychological" and
decides that he can use "Physics" to find out what it is. Note
that Hammond is a mature 40 years of age when he begins this
venture, divorced twice he has no dependants, and apparently no
future. Nothing to lose as it were.
1982:
Hammond, now reduced to driving a taxi while crazy in Boston,
begins to analyse people through the eyes of Physics and concludes
all people fall into 4 categories: Good, Bad, Hi-class, Lo-class.
But soon realizes this is nothing but the BI/2P system of
Governmental fame. It's actually Left, Right, Upper, Lower .. it
seemed like a nearly visible "X", structure-wise. Of course, being
a Democrat I had simply taken the Right to be bad and the left Good
(unavoidable personal bias).
1984:
With a physicist's instinct for Cartesian Geometry, I began to
suspect that if this 4-way structure was true, that there
must be evidence of it in the human body, probably in the brain
itself. At the time Julian Jaynes' "Bicameral Mind" was all the
rage and, with true Feynmanesque speed, I immediately assumed that
Left-right Sperrian Brain Geometry must explain the political
Left-Right (you can generally tell a Rep. from a Dem. by looking
at them BTW). That meant that there must be some other "2nd Axis"
in the body that explained the other dimension. I managed to talk
to Julian Jaynes at Princeton for half an hour one day from a
payphone and told him about all this. About all he had to say was
that he was trying to get his book translated into German but
apparently there was no word for "Bicameral" in German. Honest to
God, that's what he told me. He died a few years back I understand,
and it seems this is always happening to me, same is true of Hans
Eysenck whom I met in Montreal the year before he died, and the
letters I got from Raymond B. Cattell 2 years before he died (at 93).
I feel like a deathwatch insect.
Hans Eysenck: http://freespace.virgin.net/darrin.evans/
R.B.Cattell: http://www.stanford.edu/~cattell/rbcmain.htm
Anyway, flooring my Arlex taxi I screeched into the Boston Public
Library, double parked and left the motor running doors locked so
as not to get a ticket. Grabbing a copy of Grey's Anatomy 29th ed.
I flip it open to p. 868, and there it is: Two eyeballs with two
crosses right on top of them... turns out the whole visual system
is an anatomical quadrature.. there is even something called
"Quadrantanopia",... I stood there dazed... knowing what I knew
about physics.. I knew I had discovered a fundamental secret of
Life... how fundamental, I was yet to behold.
1984-1986:
Tearing through every library book in the local libraries back on
the Cape (my hometown), I soon discovered the 3-axis Cartesian
Geometry of the human body begins in the first 3 Orthogonal
Cleavages of the Egg in Embryology and causes a 3-axis cleavage of
the brain... and this is where the "visible X" in personality types
was coming from (simply a square-plane through the cube, a simple
planar projection).
Daily non-stop endless research soon led me to Psychometry where
I discovered Hans Eysenck's E,N,P and soon realized that these were
caused by the 3-cleavage axes of the brain that I had discovered.
Short description of Eysenck's E,N,P:
http://www.fmarion.edu/~personality/corr/eysenck/eysthe.htm
Getting crazier and more exhausted all the time, I am finally
taken to court by a traffic officer who said I was acting funny.
The judge asked me what I am doing for a living and I told him I
was working full time on the theory of Psychology using physics..
and I got involuntarily put in the local funny farm for observation.
A rather benign place full of young people worn out from not being
able to find a job and having mental breakdowns from not being able
to pay the rent.
Released and put on Welfare, I begin writing a book.
I self publish a short book _The Origin of the Cross_ containing the
announcement of the first crude (2-axis) discovery of the Structural
Model in Psychology. Interestingly, one of the 500 copes fall into
the hands of Donna Kossey free lance writer on kook-science in Los
Angeles, and Hammond is now entombed in her bestselling book _Kooks_
(a full chapter starting at p.247):
Donna Kossey, KOOKS (1998, Hammond in 2nd edition only),
Feral House ISBN 0-922915-67-9
also online at: http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html
1988-1990
Ma dies at age 78, her small estate is divided between her 6 kids
and I get 7 big ones in cash. I ditch the bicycle, buy a used
car, call the welfare department and tell them to stop my checks
because I'm leaving town, and drive nonstop to Washington DC to
start a new life. I pick up a nite job as a cashier in a self
service gas station, rent a room in a basement, and discover the
Library of Congress.
Spending 8 hrs. a day at the Library of Congress Xeroxing 1,500
papers on Psychometry and Embryology, Anatomy, Neuroscience etc.
and spending another 8 hours a day studying them at my do nothing
night job, I finally discover the entire body is a 3-Axis construct,
so is the Brain, and this is the cause of Eysenck's celebrated
E,N,P in Psychometry, again, see this URL for a short description:
http://www.fmarion.edu/~personality/corr/eysenck/eysthe.htm
Furthermore, I also realize that the brain is not only
3-axis mirror symmetric, it is CUBIC, and all of the 3,4,5,6,
7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Factor Models in Psychometry are merely geometric
redactions of a cube.. since all cubes as we know have 13
symmetry axes.
see: http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ILLU4.jpg
I write a paper on this sitting in a coffee shop near the
University of Maryland (Hammond 1994), online copy at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/cart.html
After it is turned
down by 21 journals, it finally is accepted in New Ideas In
Psychology (Pergamon Press) thanks to the foresight of Richard
Kitchener (D.Phil) who is the editor. After an initial 1:2
rejection because one reviewer said it didn't "explain the
celebrated Big-5 Model". I discover it does, put that in the
paper, and it is unanimously recommended for publication.
1990:
While out partying in a honky tonk area of Washington I fall
victim to armed thugs with baseball bats resulting in a high speed
car chase including several sideswiping high speed crashes while
being pursued by these local hillbillys. I finally ran a cop off
the road and three armed police arrested us at gunpoint. They are
released but I am held because my drivers license has been revoked
for not paying a $6.75 excise tax. Some female cop is assigned to
drive me to the slammer, and my car is impounded. I promptly decide
to avoid a kangaroo court hearing and possibly jail on a weapons
charge (10" M1 bayonet over the sun visor which was my last resort
if attacked by 3 guys with baseball bats), packed my bags, jumped
bail and fled home to Cape Cod.
1994:
What with 6 mos. review, 18 months lagtime, the paper finally
appeared in early 1994. No one reads it, one person cites it.
It's still sitting on the library shelves because there isn't a
Psychologist inthe world who can understand physics.
Meanwhile, I find myself back on welfare and being hounded by
State Psychiatrists to whom I simply tell the truth.. that I am
working on a scientific theory of Psychology, and they think anyone
doing that full time without pay is mentally disturbed.
Slowly by the way, due to the mental torture of insanity and by
talking constantly to other mentally disabled people, I begin to
discover what God actually is. Never in my wildest dreams do I
suspect I'm going to stumble on a scientific proof of it, but I
knew what God actually was long before I discovered the proof...
which is why I recognized the proof when I accidentally stumbled
on it years later.
All people who know what God is (and there are many) discover it
through great social conflict... psychological conflict. It really
doesn't matter where it comes from.. child abuse, teenage problems,
race conflict, physical disability, whatever.. it is the victims of
society who find it first.. which of course explains why
historically the Jews found it first... all that brick making
without straw, pogroms and gas chambers and stuff for thousands of
years. So here's how you discover it. First of all you have to be
in a social position which leads to a development problem (growth
problem basically). Being oppressed, starved, enslaved, persecuted
for a lifetime, or particularly for generations will cause this.
Then what you begin you realize is that not only are you physically
at a disadvantage with respect to the norm, you begin to realize that
you are at a psychological disadvantage too, and in fact, this is
more dangerous than the former. Better developed persons can
literally "see you", they can almost "watch the wheels turning" in
your head.. in almost the same way that you can watch a child, and
some of the more sinister types will use this to keen advantage.
See faces A,B,C for an illustration of this at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Zygonpaper.html
(see 3-faces and accompanying text
in SECTION VI of this paper)
After awhile, you begin to figure out that "God" has something to
do with this "ability to see" people, and that is where people get
their power (all other things being equal). Finally you figure out
that "God in Heaven" is simply the part of you that never got
grown... and what is most amazing, is that people who actually
have the superior growth, but decide to abuse it, end up getting
it "repressed", so that in the end, it is the good guys who can
see the bad guys. This is when you finally figure out what God is
all about.
So, I knew all this by 1997, but I used to call this the
"general theory" and I figured it would be at least another hundred
years before anybody would make a scientific (quantitative)
penetration into that. Then in February 1997, I made an astounding
accidental discovery, a truly unexpected miracle occurred.
1996:
By 1996 I'm living in a typical State Mental Health "halfway
house", now on SSI disability and asking God to forgive me for
failing to do something more respectable like get a government
grant. Anyway, the paper has been out 2 years and about the only
thing to come of it is getting invited to the XXVIth International
Congress of Psychology, as an invited speaker, through a research
friend Prof. Peter F. Merenda former chairman of the URI Psychology
Department. Hans Eysenck, probably the world's most famous living
research psychologist (psychometry) is to be chief discussant. I
take 10 hour busride to Montreal, check into a fleabag hotel and
go to the Congress. I see Hans sitting on the dais.. he has a nose
like Dick Tracy that you can see from 100 feet. I proceed to the
dais and sit down next to him. All of the rest of the speakers are
sitting politely in the front row in the audience. I spend 2 hours
talking to Hans about the theory (who is near 80 BTW). I hand him
a copy of the paper (which his journal reviewers rejected) and he
declines the copy and says "I've read it". Anyway, 150 scientist
were present, including such luminaries as Robert Stelmack
(U. Ottawa), Costa & McCrae (Baltimore Hospital), John Brebner
(Australia), etc. etc. I spoke for 30 minutes, showed 20 slides
(drawings), and left no time for Q & A. I don't think one person
in the audience understood one word I said. This presentation BTW
was basically a presentation of my 1994 paper.
After the symposium I followed Hans out of the hall and cornered
him on the mezzanine for a short private conversation. He folded
his arms across his chest and seemed to tower a foot over me (I
still have a picture of us, taken by Peter). He leaned back against
the railing and I suddenly got a glimpse of what he was in his prime
when he escaped from Nazi Germany and became England's most famous
psychologist. I suddenly realized that I was looking at a person
like myself.. I'd never seen one before.. of course he was still,
at 80, twice the size of me.... and I suddenly realized it didn't
matter what he said.. that I had found what I had come to Montreal
to see. I discovered who the guys at the top really are.. they're
just like me, only bigger, faster, stronger, and live longer.
But they've got the same correct attitude... they're just big
enough not to have to be defensive about it.
1997:
Back on the Cape again in my 2nd floor room in the halfway house,
I don't know what to do. Nobody is paying any attention to my
discovery. I figure maybe another paper will do it. I decide to
write a paper showing how in detail my theory explains all of the
published Psychometric (geometric) models in Psychometry. Raymond
B. Cattell, the field's most powerful experimentalist (700 papers,
20 books, lived to be 93) and Hans Eysenck, the field's most powerful
theoretician (600 papers, 20 books), had always been at odds over
the interpretation of the meaning of the various Geometric Models,
so I decided a paper entitled _Unification of Cattell, Eysenck
and the Big-5_ was a good idea... showing how Hammond's discovery
of Cubic Brain Geometry (3-Axis Cleavage) showed that everybody
was right and there was no disagreement.
I wrote to Ray Cattell, then 90 and retired in Hawaii. I got
several handwritten letters from him, ignoring everything I said,
and chastising me for not studying his landmark 1973 book
_Personality and Mood by Questionnaire_, undoubtedly the leading
text in the field of Psychometry.
Later, I called one of his daughters then running his famous
institute in Champaign Ill. (IPAT) to obtain some original papers
by him. In these papers Cattell had done a "grand Factorization"
of all the data in the field and found FOUR Factors, not THREE.
Since I had just published a paper saying that the 3 Factors were
caused by 3-dimensional space, I was standing there
wondering what on Earth could be orthogonal to 3-dimensional
space? Suddenly I glanced at Cattell's data and realized he had
included Intelligence (IQ or "g") along with the Personality
tests... Intelligence accounted for the 4th dimension. Cripes...
my knees almost buckled out from underneath me. What I suddenly
realized is that not only did the 3-dimensional structure of
space cause the Structural Model of "Personality", but actually
the whole 4-dimensional structure of "spacetime" caused the
Structural Model of the entire field of "Psychology"! The reason
for this was obvious, 40 years of research had just concluded that
Intelligence was predominantly Mental Speed (brain processing speed
in bits/second), and obviously "speed" would correlate with "time"
which is the 4th dimension of space.
Heretofore, the field of "Intelligence" had always been
considered distinct from the field of "Personality".. no one
knew what the relationship was, if any. Suddenly, I had unified
the two major fields of Psychometry... or rather, Einstein had.
But that isn't what staggered me.. what I realized is that if
"spacetime" caused Psychometry, that there was probably a
"curvature of Psychometry" just like there was a "curvature of
spacetime". In fact, being a mathematician, I was already
familiar with the Matrix formalism of psychometry and it's
uncanny resemblance to the Tensor structure of Relativity. The
whole thing was mathematically similar but the psychologists had
made up their own names. Contravariant and Covariant components
for instance were called Factor Pattern and Factor Structure
components. In fact, I immediately realized that an "oblique"
Matrix in psychometry was a "curved" Metric in Relativity. And
that the higher order Factor of the 4x4 matrix of ENPg (g=IQ),
must be caused by the curvature of the spacetime metric in
Relativity, which is Gravity. This because I had just proved the
4-dimensions of space physically cause the 4-dimensions of
psychometry vis a vis the geometrical cleavages of the brain. At
the same instant that I realized all this, I also realized that
I had (miraculously) stumbled on what I had been calling the
"General Theory"..the scientific explanation of GOD. I knew this,
because I could see immediately that "g" (IQ) at the 3rd order
loaded on the 4th order Factor, which meant it was "brain growth"..
meaning that the entire celebrated and ubiquitous "Secular Trend"
in human growth was the (direct biological) cause of God.. and
that "gravity" must somehow control (mediate) brain growth.
I was also aware at that time of Sir Roger Penrose's celebrated
theory about this "brain gravity". I also realized that the result
was so strong, that I had discovered a "proof of God" without even
mentioning the word "gravity". Gravity, was simply the clincher,
the caveat, the last nail in the coffin of the theory. The blinding
light that made the theory "sensational". Actually the
identification of the Secular Trend is sufficient to make
the case that it's a "scientific proof of God".
I wrote a hasty letter to Cattell, trudged 2 miles through a
blinding February snowstorm to a mailbox and mailed it. I don't
think Cattell ever read it, and probably went to his grave not
realizing that he had experimentally discovered God.
But, perhaps St. Peter, when he gets to those Pearly Gates, will
let him know about it... and Hans Eysenck too.
1999:
Well, after that event, I suddenly realized that I had become
the world's number one living "suicide bomber". The discovery
and knowledge that there was actually a rigorous hard scientific
proof of God was the bomb I was carrying, inside my head, and no
one in the world knew about it, and there was no way I could tell
anyone... after all, who in hell would publish a "scientific proof
of God"... why, they'd think I was nuts.
Then, some street kids up town showed me a computer they'd built
out of stolen parts... they were all enthusiastic about something
called the "Internet". I quickly learned about this, and told them
I had to have a computer. For $200 bucks they kluged together the
133 mc. computer I'm using now. Christ only knows where they got
the parts.. I never asked. But the thing has worked flawlessly for
3 years, has full virus protection, firewall, cable modem, the
works. Since then, I put my theory up on a website:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
and so far 290,000 people have visited it. And, I've posted
(according to Google) 8,562 messages in the past 3 years... and
man, am I getting fast at typing.
In closing, this posting is not theoretically complete by any
means, and I'm sure there are still a lot of basic questions. But,
I do think it is important to get the chronological (i.e.
historical) record of this discovery in the archives somewhere, so
that people will have some idea who Hammond is and where this theory
came from. Thanks Sally for the suggestion. I hope you will not be
too disappointed with the scaresness of theory in this post
at the expense of storytelling. But maybe this will serve to
break the ice a little bit.
*Footnote: I later pleaded nolo by mail to all charges in MD and
thanks to a sympathetic African american judge in the Distric of
Columbia who apparently believed by plea, accepted a fine on the
license charge, filed the other charges, and told the clerk of
courts to take my name off the national crime computer data base
so that I could get my license back. Currently I'm not wanted by
the police.
Thomas Jones
"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D21F03B...@attbi.com...
...snip...
Im sorry but this is where your whole proof breaks down. It doesnt matter if
EVERYTHING else you say is correct. You are stating that these people KNOW
God. That can't be made as a statement of fact and therefore invalidates
the rest of your argument. You could just as easily say that the above
describes what it takes for a "normal" individual to become deluded and
start KNOWING God. Then, if the rest of your proof is 100% correct, you
have not proven God's existence but proven that belief in God is a result of
everything you say.
So, this said, ANY discussion about the actual proof is totally irrelevant.
One of your assumptions is pure specualtion and therefore any conclusions
drawn from it are just as speculative. If you want to include in your proof
some evidence that these people really KNOW God, then maybe the rest of your
proof is worth talking about.
Stated another way, you assumed God existed as a postulate to set up the
whole proof. Using this rule you could just make the following edit to
your proof:
> All people who know "that there are aliens landing nightly and
impregnating humans in a bid to take over the world" (and there are many)
discover it
> through great social conflict... psychological conflict. It really...
Now you have proven that aliens are landing nightly and impregnating humans
in a bid to take over the world.
Basically, put any absurd claim you want in the quotes above and it changes
your entire proof.
Thomas Jones
Anthony Cleopatra
Both to be conducted elsewhere?
A parallel universe perhaps?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG