Is Hammond's GOD=Guv a well-posed theory?
George Hammond
Dr. Jack Sarfatti has recently invoked the scientific notion of
a "well posed theory". I for one subscribe to this principle
completely.
As I see it "well posed theory" in physics means, among other
details:
1. The theory is internally consistent.
2. The theory is sufficient to support it's claims.
3. The theory does not "spuriously conflict with
major experimentally known facts".
This then comprises a "well posed theory".
Whether the theory is in fact true of course, depends on
an additional detail:
4. The theory is confirmed unanimously by sufficient
experimental evidence.
This then, would be not only a "well-posed" theory, but
a "proven-theory".
Hammond claims that his Relativistic proof of God (GOD=Guv)
is:
A. Is a well-posed theory.
B. Is a proven-theory.
That the theory is "well-posed", and proven, Hammond claims
is demonstrated by the following logical structure of the proof:
=============================================================
The Scientific Proof of God is well-posed,
and in fact "experimentally proven" because:
1)
Hammond claims that "God" is a physical phenomena
described by eyewitness reports given in the
Bible. These of course remain to be "scientifically
explained", but at least we do have an extensive
historical description of "what needs to be scientifically
explained". A credible scientific explanation of these
reports becomes then the criteria for judging a
"scientific proof of the existence of God".
2)
Hammond claims that there is a historical "brain growth
deficit" in the human population and that this is
proven by the existence of the "Secular Trend" in human
growth. The existence of the Secular Trend BTW is an iron
clad documented scientific finding of over 70 years
standing (WHO, UN, UNICEF, RED CROSS, etc. etc. etc.)
Basically, the human phenotypic size has yet to reach it's
full genotypic size, and is reaching that goal via a
standard, historic, sigmoidal curve known as the "Secular
Trend". Ipso facto, the proven existence of the Secular
Trend confirms the existence of the brain growth deficit, and
incidentally, its impact on IQ has already been detected
separately and is known as the Flynn Effect, a matching
historic sigmoidal curve.
3)
Hammond claims that the "gross perceptual effects" of a
brain growth deficit handily explain all of the "supernormal"
reports given in the Bible and in the history of religion
generally. IOW, the brain growth deficit is the scientific
"cause of God".
4)
he proof of claim 3 above, rests predominantly on Factor
Analysis in Psychometry (IQ and personality testing), where
an eigenvector extraction actually produces a Factor (eigenvector)
which is shown to be caused by braingrowth, and is easily
phenomenologically identified as "God".
Of CRUCIAL importance to this demonstration, is the fact
that Hammond's theory demonstrates that there is a 4x4 Metric
in Psychometry Vector Space which is CAUSED by the 4x4 Metric
of real Spacetime. It turns out that the Cartesian Geometry
of the human body and brain itself (3-Axis mirror symmetry
cleavage of the brain) is physically caused by the
Riemannian-Euclidean Metric of actual real Spacetime. Therefore,
it is demonstrated that this "God eigenvector" is caused by
the curvature of real spacetime, and hence the relation Guv=GOD.
It turns out then, that the IQ and Personality deviations
(and perceptual speed and length dilations) that are measured
and observed in Psychometry, are actually caused by the
gravitational Time and Space dilations of Relativity. The
entire theory of General Relativity carries over in toto to
Psychology perceptual space (Psychometry Space).
All of this is numerically quantitatively confirmed by the
EXISTING 100 years of published psychometry Factor Analytic
research. God can now be measured to 2-decimal point accuracy.
==========================================================
Thus, not only is Hammond's scientific proof of God a
"well-posed" theory, it is in fact a "proven-theory".
QED, Hammond has discovered the world's first actual
scientific proof of God. The world has been awaiting this
event for some time, at least since the time of Aquinas and
DesCarte, if not since the time of Aristotle and Plato.
Allow me to publicly congratulate myself, since apparently
no one else will.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
George Hammond
=============================================================
Incidentally, Factor Analysis only identifies that God "is"
caused by gravity, it does not tell us where the gravity is.
However, Sir Roger Penrose has advanced a celebrated theory
that qunatum gravity in the brain controls brain processes.
Quite obviously Hammond's result is a direct experimental
confirmation of Penrose's Brain-Gravity, and vice versa.
All of this is numerically quantitatively confirmed by the
EXISTING 100 years of published psychometry Factor Analytic
research. God can now be measured to 2-decimal point accuracy.
==========================================================
Thus, not only is Hammond's scientific proof of God a
"well-posed" theory, it is in fact a "proven-theory".
QED, Hammond has discovered the world's first actual
scientific proof of God. The world has been awaiting this
event for some time, at least since the time of Aquinas and
DesCarte, if not since the time of Aristotle and Plato.
Allow me to publicly congratulate myself, since apparently
no one else will.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
Bob Kolker
George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> Whether the theory is in fact true of course, depends on
> an additional detail:
Additional as in future detail? Aye, there is the rub.
>
> 4. The theory is confirmed unanimously by sufficient
> experimental evidence.
>
> This then, would be not only a "well-posed" theory, but
> a "proven-theory".
No. We can never claim our theories are true because we do not know in
advance under what circumstances they will be refuted by experiment
(this assumes internal consistency). Our best theories are also
incomplete.
The only way to prove a theory is true, is not only to show it is
consistent with all known facts, and facts that will be known in the
future (and how is your crystal ball working today?) but to further show
that no logically non equivalent theory can be consistent with all the
facts or be internally consistent.
That is why our best theories are at most yet to be falsified.
Bob Kolker
John
George Hammond wrote in message <3CC34090...@attbi.com>...
I was gonna pull your tail some more, george, but since I read the
whole thing written above.. I just don't have the heart to. I'm a real
asshole, granted, but I guess there's a limit to everything and I
don't think you need it. I would be curious as to the line "God can
now be measured to 2-decimal point accuracy", specifically; what units
are you measuring in?
John
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>The only way to prove a theory is true, is not only to show it is
>consistent with all known facts, and facts that will be known in the
>future (and how is your crystal ball working today?) but to further show
>that no logically non equivalent theory can be consistent with all the
>facts or be internally consistent.
>
>That is why our best theories are at most yet to be falsified.
>
Exactly
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> >
> > Whether the theory is in fact true of course, depends on
> > an additional detail:
>
> Additional as in future detail? Aye, there is the rub.
[Hammond]
WRONG LIAR The theory is ALREADY CONFIRMED by 250,000
peer reviewed publications in the Psychometry Factor-Analysis
literature. Same as DALTON'S discovery of the chemical
Atomic Weight combination ratios was ALREADY CONFIRMED by
500 years of chemistry experiment. No "tests" had to be
performed to confirm DALTON'S THEORY, it was experimentally
confirmed the second it was discovered. Same is true of
Einstein's Special Relativity. The length and time dilations
were ALREADY KNOWN, what was missing was a theoretical
explanation. Same with the scientific proof of God. The
psychometry measurements are ALREADY KNOWN, what is needed
is a theoretical explanation, and that is what HAMMOND has
found, and it happens to EXPLAIN GOD.
... what's wrong with you, got a thinking disorder or
something, or just mentally retarded?
snip... juvenile jabberwocky philasawfsy rant
John
Mati was responding to the wrong liar? You're not making sense, again,
george..
John
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <3CC43166...@attbi.com>, Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> writes:
> >
> >The only way to prove a theory is true, is not only to show it is
> >consistent with all known facts, and facts that will be known in the
> >future (and how is your crystal ball working today?) but to further show
> >that no logically non equivalent theory can be consistent with all the
> >facts or be internally consistent.
> >
> Yep. Therefore ...
[Hammond]
THEREFORE HAMMOND'S THEORY IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE.
The same was true of Newton's law of Gravitation, Einstein's
Special and General Relativity, and Schrodinger's and
Dirac's theory.
If you think there is any OTHER credible theory which can:
1. Explain all published Factor Analytic Models (as redactions
of a simple cube) and thereby solve the 2,500 year quest
for the STRUCTURAL MODEL of Psychology.
2. Unify 35 years of Intelligence and 70 years of Personality
Factor-analytic research, including 200,000 published papers.
3. Provide an axiomatic physics basis for Psychology and
Psychometry which includes 1 and 2.
4. Explain the Secular Trend and the Flynn Effect.
5. Incorporate Sperrian Lateralization into classical theory.
6. Explain 3,500 years of Religion including the Cross, 4-Gospel
Canon, Polytheism, Monotheism, Heaven, Eternal Life, Miracles,
and God.
7. Confirm Roger Penrose's Quantum Brain Gravity Thesis (1994)
8. Explain Freudian Psychology, explain the Bible, explain the
3-Branches of Government and the Bicameral/2-party System
9. Explain all of Psychology and all of Religion.
10. Explain the 4-Varnas (Castes) of Hinduism, and the 50 demigods
of Hinduism.
11. Explain the Cartesian (3-axis mirror symmetric) body plan
of all plants and animals, including the fact that there
is no 3-legged animal.
12. Propose a rational explanation of Life After Death
OTHER THAN HAMMOND'S GOD=Guv theory, then I'd like to hear about
it. Just like Einstein's theory of Relativity, the odds against
the existence of an ALTERNATE THEORY are a million to one!!!!
Bob Kolker
George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> 6. Explain 3,500 years of Religion including the Cross, 4-Gospel
> Canon, Polytheism, Monotheism, Heaven, Eternal Life, Miracles,
> and God.
You are invoking entities for which there is not one whit of empirical
evidence. God? Which God? Zoroaster, Mazda, Jesus, YooHoo (the Hebrew
god), Allah, El, Ba'al? Which one or ones.
Bob Kolker
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
[Hammond]
You're a smart poker player.. the first to realize that
masked man in the white hat at the end of the table and that
Indian guy Tonto calling and raising all bets, are
NOT BLUFFING. He is holding a Royal Straight Flush in Spades.
My guess is the smart money is already following your lead.
As for "units" of God, all scales in Psychometry are
dimensionless, including IQ. What they represent is
"percentage of one population standard deviation" above
or below the Mean. What this means is that loading on
the "God Factor" is a relative measurement, relative to
the Standard Deviation of the whole human population on
this quantity.
Of course "physics" can go about figuring out what the
actual physical units are. For instance in IQ, the evidence
has long since converged on "mental thinking speed" in
actual "bits/second". They can measure this using computer
interactive programs and millisecond timers, and your "mental
speed" (in bits/second) is found to correlate with your IQ
measurement. So they're well on the road to solving that one.
As far as "God" goes, they (we, (I)) know that God is caused
by the "braingrowth deficit", therefore your actual percentage
of "full brain growth" is a direct measure of "how big your
God is". So far we don't have any "absolute units" for this,
all we have is a Standard Deviation in the population which
is changing over historical times (the Secular Trend), but
it won't be long before medical science (Auxology) begins
to home in on the actual measure of brain growth. In the
meantime, the Psychometric loading of any individual on the
Higher Order Psychometry Factor can actually be measured to
two decimal point accuracy. For instance, "God" is bigger
to Alfred E. Neumann (lo-growth) than to Bill Clinton (hi-growth),
which is why Bill Clinton is elected President. We can
actually measure the difference, although nobody has done
it, since I can't get any serious scientists attention.
Besides, it's not that important, 200,000,000 million
voters can visually see it in a presidential debate between
Alfred E. Neumann and Bill Clinton. The importance of
being able to measure it, is simple to PROVE that God
exists, which is the important question the public wants
answered.
--
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about. Your questions
and objections are so naive and trite that the answers to
them have long ago been written into FAQ's. This one is answered
by the MANY GODS FAQ conspicuously located on my website:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ManygodsFAQ.html
Sorry, but I just can't take the time to retype the same
answer to the same trite newbie questions over and over
again. Please read the FAQ's on my website.
Michael Feldman
news:3CC48026...@attbi.com:
>
>
>For instance, "God" is bigger to Alfred E. Neumann (lo-growth) than to
>Bill Clinton (hi-growth), which is why Bill Clinton is elected President.
No. Bill Clinton was elected President because he was born in the United
States, was at least 35 years old, and won at least 270 electoral college
votes. In addition, Bill Clinton is a real human being. Alfred E. Neumann
[sic] is a fictional cartoon character who cannot be elected President of
the United States. But why am I not surprised that you'd have some trouble
distinguishing fantasy from reality?
Mike
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
[Hammond]
No offense. unless someone says something that manifests
a knowlege of higher education (read; beyond PhD), I don't
even notice their name and don't remember any of the names
of the dozen people I am talking to at once on various email
discussion lists, private groups, newsgroups, etc. etc.
Like the guy said about common knowlege one liners;
"they all look the same to me".
Bob Kolker
George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> 1)
> Hammond claims that "God" is a physical phenomena
> described by eyewitness reports given in the
> Bible.
Unfortunately there is no independent confirmation of the Bible, so
invoking it as evidence of anything is quite in vain.
The Bible particularly the Gospels are what we call in Yiddish a bubbah
meise (Grandma Tales)
Invoking the Bible is about as good as invoking - Lord of the Rings - or
- Alice in Wonderland -.
Bob Kolker
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
[Hammond]
No, it is simply you who cannot think in abstract
(hypothetical) terms. So let us come down to your
level and suppose it is 1992 and DAN QUALE was
running against BILL CLINTON. I'm not saying
that Dan Quale is a stand in for Alfred E. Neumann,
but there does seem to be a resemblance.
Obviously, in that election, Bill Clinton
would take probably 85% of the popular vote (if not
100%).
Fact is, all other things being within reasonably
equal parameters (especially Left-right party strength),
the fact is that the candidate who is judged to be
more "godly" will get elected.... i.e. the person
having the most god on earth and the least god in heaven
(i.e. the highest growth and hence lowest growth deficit)
will get elected. Ideally, the "godliest" person in the
nation is elected to lead... hence the expression
"God save the King", since obviously, being the closest
to God, none other can save him.
This "closeness to god", being caused by a "low brain
growth deficit" is manifested in ones speech, gestures,
body language, clearness of thought, rationality, reality
contact, perceptual speed, evenness of temper, reliability
under stress, commanding presence, etc. etc. and all the
other things that would naturally go with superior
(above population average) levels of growth. This is what
people look for in a presidential candidate... (other things
being equal) and it is certainly apparent in such men
as Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, F.D.R., George Washington,
Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg,
etc, etc.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1)
> > Hammond claims that "God" is a physical phenomena
> > described by eyewitness reports given in the
> > Bible.
>
> Unfortunately there is no independent confirmation of the Bible, so
> invoking it as evidence of anything is quite in vain.
[Hammond]
Get real Bob. According to the following:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
5-Billion people are members of organized religion.
Only 2 billion are Christian. The Scriptures of
the other 3-billion say just about the same thing
christianity does. Are you going to say 5
billion people are talking about nothing? Get real.
>
> The Bible particularly the Gospels are what we call in Yiddish a bubbah
> meise (Grandma Tales)
>
> Invoking the Bible is about as good as invoking - Lord of the Rings - or
> - Alice in Wonderland -.
[Hammond]
You talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.
Go tell it to the Moslems, the Hindus, the
Buddhists, the Christians. As an empirical
argument your shovelling sand against the tide.
There are 5-billion living adherents now, and
there have been at least 50 billion such people
in the past 3,500 years. Are you going to say
50 billion people have been seriously talking
about "nothing". Get outta here. OBVIOUSLY,
there is sufficient historical evidence that
we should be at least seriously maintain a
vigilante lookout for the POSSIBILITY that there
is some scientific phenomenon which would
explain this vast history, widely known as the
world's oldest mystery.
>
> Bob Kolker
--
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
Michael Feldman
>> Mike
>
> [Hammond]
> No, it is simply you who cannot think in abstract
> (hypothetical) terms.
It's simply you who cannot realize when someone's being sarcastic.
So let us come down to your
> level and suppose it is 1992 and DAN QUALE was
> running against BILL CLINTON. I'm not saying
> that Dan Quale is a stand in for Alfred E. Neumann,
> but there does seem to be a resemblance.
> Obviously, in that election, Bill Clinton
> would take probably 85% of the popular vote (if not
> 100%).
Why don't you use an ACTUAL presidential race(s) to prove your claim,
instead of speculatiing on what MIGHT have happened and then using it as
proof of your "theory?"
> Fact is, all other things being within reasonably
> equal parameters (especially Left-right party strength),
> the fact is that the candidate who is judged to be
> more "godly" will get elected.... i.e. the person
> having the most god on earth and the least god in heaven
> (i.e. the highest growth and hence lowest growth deficit)
> will get elected. Ideally, the "godliest" person in the
> nation is elected to lead... hence the expression
> "God save the King", since obviously, being the closest
> to God, none other can save him.
And you have empirical evidence to support this? Including exit polls of
voter opinions (why they voted the way they did, and how it is they
"judged" who is more "Godly")? Question: Is George W. Bush more "Godly"
than Al Gore, because he won the election? Or is Al Gore more Godly than
George W. Bush because more people voted for Gore?
> This "closeness to god", being caused by a "low brain
> growth deficit" is manifested in ones speech, gestures,
> body language, clearness of thought, rationality, reality
> contact, perceptual speed, evenness of temper, reliability
> under stress, commanding presence, etc. etc. and all the
> other things that would naturally go with superior
> (above population average) levels of growth.
Do you actually believe that all (or even most) of our Presidents exhibit
the characteristics you describe above? Rationality, evenness of temper,
reliability under stress? What about Richard Nixon? He was a paranoid,
anti-Semetic nutcase. Do you have ANY hard, SPECIFIC evidence to support
these claims of yours?
This is what
> people look for in a presidential candidate... (other things
> being equal) and it is certainly apparent in such men
> as Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, F.D.R., George Washington,
> Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg,
> etc, etc.
>
Four out of the seven people you mentioned were never candidates for
anything (except two, for Nobel prizes). Hell, Washington was never really
"candidate" either, the citizenry never even got a chance to vote for him!
Really George, you should stick to you area of expertise, though I'm not
quite sure what that is..
Mike
Bob Kolker
George Hammond wrote:
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Get real Bob. According to the following:
Vox populii, vox rectum.
Since when was truth the outcome of a plebiscite or a popularity
contest?
Bob Kolker
George Hammond
> Since when was truth the outcome of a plebiscite or a popularity
> contest?
[Hammond]
Since the discovery of majority rule.
BTW, have a look at this:
> > GOD IS NOT AN "IDEA"
> >
> > GOD IS A REAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENA CAUSED BY GRAVITY
>
> Define GOD(only a couple of sentences please). If its a PHYSICAL
> PHENOMENA CAUSED BY GRAVITY then it obviously has nothing to do with
> the notion of God used in many religions.
[Hammond]
You mean "describe God", not "define" God. Real things do
not have "definitions", only "made up things" have definitions.
Anyway, not to nitpick, I assume you mean "describe" God,
OK, I'll "describe God".
First, for the past 3,500 years we have had a "metaphorical"
description of God given in the Bible, for instance.
Now however, we (Hammond) have discovered a "scientific explanation"
of God, which turns out to explain the existence of this 3,500
year old "metaphorical" description.
Since you are already familiar with the Biblical "metaphorical"
description, I will proceed to give you my (discovered) scientific
explanation (description) of "God".
Scientifically, it is discovered that:
_________________________________________
| |
| SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF GOD |
| (Hammond 4-02) |
| |
| "God" is a heretofore UNRECOGNIZED |
| decrement-and-variability of our |
| "observable reality" that is caused by |
| the effect of a universal brain growth |
| deficit and it's spontaneous variation- |
| in every human being. The decrement |
| causes "God", and the variability |
| causes "miracles". |
|_________________________________________|
As you can see, this is not a "definition" it is clearly
a scientific "description", but, if you do not make a
distinction between definitions and descriptions, you
can call it a "scientific definition" of God, if you
insist.
Bob Kolker
George Hammond wrote:
>
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> > Since when was truth the outcome of a plebiscite or a popularity
> > contest?
>
> [Hammond]
> Since the discovery of majority rule.
Sir, you are a fool and a buffoon.
Bob Kolker
>
John
George Hammond wrote in message <3CC48026...@attbi.com>...
(Big snip)
So, does that all boil out to the higher IQ having the better god, or
does it go the other way?
John
Upthink
[snip]
> The Scientific Proof of God is well-posed,
> and in fact "experimentally proven" because:
>
> 1)
> Hammond claims that "God" is a physical phenomena
> described by eyewitness reports given in the
> Bible.
[snip]
But, what you are attempting to prove is the existence of God - if you
accept the Bible as evidence, NO FURTHER PROOF IS NECESSARY. Further,
by assuming the veracity of a book (the Bible) which states that God
exists, your argument becomes (roughly - fill in the details):
1) God Exists
2) And this
3) And that
==================
4) Therefor, God exists
If this is not so, please show me exactly where I have erred. Thank
you, George.
John
Peter Bowditch
>[Hammond]
>
>Dr. Jack Sarfatti has recently invoked the scientific notion of
>a "well posed theory". I for one subscribe to this principle
>completely.
>
>As I see it "well posed theory" in physics means, among other
>details:
>
>1. The theory is internally consistent.
>2. The theory is sufficient to support it's claims.
>3. The theory does not "spuriously conflict with
> major experimentally known facts".
>
>This then comprises a "well posed theory".
>
> Whether the theory is in fact true of course, depends on
>an additional detail:
>
>4. The theory is confirmed unanimously by sufficient
> experimental evidence.
>
>This then, would be not only a "well-posed" theory, but
>a "proven-theory".
>
>Hammond claims that his Relativistic proof of God (GOD=Guv)
>is:
(I thought I would just quote until I got to the first occurrence of
the author referring to himself in the third person.)
Am I psychic or what? Where's Randi's million bucks? I featured Dr
Hammond on Quintessence of the Loon on 13 April, and when I return to
sci.skeptic after a short break here is the man himself.
I'm afraid his theory lost me when I read that he had noticed the
coincidence in the numbers of wheels on a car and feet on a horse. I
knew that I would have trouble with the maths when it went past 4=4.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
[Hammond]
Try another one. The discovery clearly proves that "all
men are equal under God". One might at first jump to
the conclusion that persons with a lo-growth deficit
and who loads higher on the "god Factor" are better off
than those with poor-growth and a low god loading. No,
that is not true, because there is a personal god and a
social god. Ultimately there is no such thing as
"private enjoyment" because the prime goal and activity
of Man is to create a perfect world, which can only be
done by social cooperation. Therefore, the Social God
rules supreme.. the higher developed person is given a
greater burden to carry in the world. Therefore,
all men are "created equal" under God, and public opinion
and the human conscience is the arbiter of this. People
who think they are "getting away with something" are living
in a fools paradise, and even common opinion holds that
they are paying a dear price for their stupidity. Psychological
repression is the major punishment, and is the origin of
the common expression "even your best friends won't tell you",
and "ignorance of the law is no excuse". All men are
created equal under God, is a scientific fact, and there is
absolutely no appeal from it.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Polymath.html
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
Upthink wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC42B30...@attbi.com>...
>
> [snip]
> > The Scientific Proof of God is well-posed,
> > and in fact "experimentally proven" because:
> >
> > 1)
> > Hammond claims that "God" is a physical phenomena
> > described by eyewitness reports given in the
> > Bible.
> [snip]
>
> But, what you are attempting to prove is the existence of God - if you
> accept the Bible as evidence, NO FURTHER PROOF IS NECESSARY.
[Hammond]
But the majority of the World does not accept the Bible
as "proof of the existence of God". A minority may accept
it, but the majority does not. The majority is in fact Agnostic.
No one is saying the Bible isn't "evidence", all science
is saying is that the Bible is not "scientific evidence",
which it isn't. The Bible is only "eyewitness testimony",
much of it uncorroborated, and none of it, so far,
scientifically reproducible.
What I'm saying is that NOW Science has discovered a
scientific phenomena which EXPLAINS AND CORROBORATES the
3,500 year history of "eyewitness reports" found in the Bible.
There is nothing new and novel about this, DesCartes, Newton,
Leibnitz, even Aristotle searched for such a scientific proof
for years. Turns out it took modern computers in Psychometry,
and the Theory of Relativity to actually produce such a
proof. Nothing mysterious about it.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
======================================================
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> I'm afraid his theory lost me when I read that he had noticed the
> coincidence in the numbers of wheels on a car and feet on a horse. I
> knew that I would have trouble with the maths when it went past 4=4.
[Hammond]
I don't call it a coincidence, I prove its caused by
the Euclidean structure of space, your the moron who
thinks its a "coincidence". Anyone calling it a
"coincidence" is a certified moron. You haven't got the
intelligence of a sixth grader.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
Rich Ulrich
=========== as I quoted GH before ...
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:08:00 GMT, George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com>
wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> [Hammond]
> There is no need to respond to ad hominem remarks, since
> they are not permitted in bona fide scientific
> discussion. To maintain that anyone who has had an M.S.
> in physics since 1967 doesn't know the history of science
> is crap.
>
...
============ ... reflects on GH again (and again)
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:28:28 GMT, George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com>
wrote:
[ ... ]
> [Hammond]
> WRONG LIAR [ snip .... ]
> ... what's wrong with you, got a thinking disorder or
> something, or just mentally retarded?
>
> snip... juvenile jabberwocky philasawfsy rant
>
=====================
Ad-hominem. Hmm.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
Timothy W. Victor
egg him on.
--
Tim Victor
Policy Research, Evaluation, and Measurement
Psychology in Education Division
Graduate School of Education
University of Pennsylvania
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
[Hammond]
Screw, professor jizzbum. The public is wise to your
"studious no comment" policy on Hammond. They've
finally wised up to the fact that you have nothing of
interest to say, and that the discovery is destined to
kick your stuffshirt ass right back to the shoe store
selling shoes where you belong. Don't even think about
starting anything with me. Just get outta here while
the getting is good, or before you provoke me into getting
rude and saying something I'll regret.
--
Peter Bowditch
And I personally know many sixth graders who know the difference
between "your" and "you're". and "its" and "it's". Many of them could
probably understand that a horse has four legs because it is related
to all those other animals with four legs (and to all the other
animals with an even number of legs). They could probably understand
that four wheels is just about right for a stable rectangular
conveyance. If you told them that Michael Schumacher's Ferrari had
four wheels because the horse on the Ferrari emblem has four legs,
they would giggle.
A card table has four legs like a horse, a billiard table has six legs
like a cockroach, and a log table has no legs like an oyster.
Coincidence? I think not!
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >======================================================
> >NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
> > may be seen at:
> >http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
> >======================================================
> >
> >Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >
> >> I'm afraid his theory lost me when I read that he had noticed the
> >> coincidence in the numbers of wheels on a car and feet on a horse. I
> >> knew that I would have trouble with the maths when it went past 4=4.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >I don't call it a coincidence, I prove its caused by
> >the Euclidean structure of space, your the moron who
> >thinks its a "coincidence". Anyone calling it a
> >"coincidence" is a certified moron. You haven't got the
> >intelligence of a sixth grader.
> >
> And I personally know many sixth graders who know the difference
> between "your" and "you're". and "its" and "it's".
[Hammond]
Not many sixth graders are answering 50 emails a day either,
so they can be real careful with typos. Besides, the possessive
case of the pronoun "it" was written for centuries as "it's"
up until the 1900's in fact and still appears in much of the
older literature. It was finally dropped when contractions
became common such as (it's=it is).
> Many of them could
> probably understand that a horse has four legs because it is related
> to all those other animals with four legs (and to all the other
> animals with an even number of legs). They could probably understand
> that four wheels is just about right for a stable rectangular
> conveyance. If you told them that Michael Schumacher's Ferrari had
> four wheels because the horse on the Ferrari emblem has four legs,
> they would giggle.
[Hammond]
Baloney, I had an Oxford Don tell me that a horse had 4-legs
because of "Darwinian Natural Selection"... the most asinine
statement I ever heard.
> A card table has four legs like a horse, a billiard table has six legs
> like a cockroach, and a log table has no legs like an oyster.
> Coincidence? I think not!
[Hammond]
4-LEGS is the MINIMUM number of legs that ANY animal
can have (a centipede has 100 for instance), but
THERE IS NO 3-LEGGED ANIMAL
And BTW, bipeds are 4-legged animals balancing on their
hindlegs. Whales, Walrus', Pinnipeds are actually
4-legged animals as an X-Ray easily proves. Of course
the law does not apply to animals with NO LEGS. BTW,
a Starfish has a bilateral larval stage and therefore
is intrinsically 4-legged, not 5-legged. Blah, blah,
blah.
Listen Mr. aggravated encyclopedia of synchophantic
truth, you happen to be talking to the only person
in the world who knows WHY all (multicellular) plants
and animals have a CARTESIAN (3-Axis mirror symmetric)
BODY PLAN and why all animals have 4-LEGS. The rest of
jerkwater Natural Science think it's caused by "genetics"
or "Natural Selection" or some other screwball political
idea.
Michael Feldman
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>
>> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >======================================================
>> >NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
>> > may be seen at:
>> >http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
>> >======================================================
>> >
>> >Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm afraid his theory lost me when I read that he had noticed the
>> >> coincidence in the numbers of wheels on a car and feet on a horse. I
>> >> knew that I would have trouble with the maths when it went past 4=4.
>> >
>> >[Hammond]
>> >I don't call it a coincidence, I prove its caused by
>> >the Euclidean structure of space, your the moron who
>> >thinks its a "coincidence". Anyone calling it a
>> >"coincidence" is a certified moron. You haven't got the
>> >intelligence of a sixth grader.
>> >
>
>> And I personally know many sixth graders who know the difference
>> between "your" and "you're". and "its" and "it's".
>
> [Hammond]
> Not many sixth graders are answering 50 emails a day either,
[snip]
Hi George! Guess my last post hasn't been one of the dozens you've
responded to. How 'bout it? Maybe you're just getting together all the
evidence you have that votors choose whom to vote for based on how
"godlike" the candidates are. If so, I apologize. Hope to hear from ya!
Mike
Cardinal Chunder
> Listen Mr. aggravated encyclopedia of synchophantic
> truth, you happen to be talking to the only person
> in the world who knows WHY all (multicellular) plants
> and animals have a CARTESIAN (3-Axis mirror symmetric)
> BODY PLAN and why all animals have 4-LEGS. The rest of
> jerkwater Natural Science think it's caused by "genetics"
> or "Natural Selection" or some other screwball political
> idea.
Starfish. Sponges.
John
George Hammond wrote in message <3CC602E6...@attbi.com>...
Something you'll regret, george? You'll regret it alright, 'cause
it'll be fucking STUPID:-)
(Just pulling your tail.. Lighten up, george, holy cow you're uptight
about everything..)
John
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
======================================================
[Hammond]
Why don't you actually READ a post before replying
to it jerk. The answer to your question was right
in the post:
"BTW, a Starfish has a bilateral larval stage and
therefore is intrinsically 4-legged, not 5-legged".
As for Porifera (sponges) they don't have any legs,
and therefore like snakes, are exempt from the rule.
I'm ot interested in discussing grade school science
with amateurs.
John
Cardinal Chunder wrote in message
<3CC72C7...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
legs 'cause that worked best. Insects got 6 legs, cause that works
best for them. Lobsters, crabs and spiders evolved what works best for
them. The automobile evolved from the carriage, and the best
configuration for a vehicle that's pulled by horses is 4 wheels- three
or six might be better for the automobile, but people tend to not buy
them because they look different, and that's evolution too; not the
evolution of what's necessarily the best, but evolution of what sells
the best. No plan, just evolution.
Humans went to walking on two legs for various reasons- we've only got
thumbs on the hands, so that makes them more useful for holding tools
and carrying stuff, the human who stands more is more likely to
percieve both potential advantages and threats in a primative
environment (which, even if it benefits the ones less likely to stand,
it makes him more likely to be a leader and breed more often) walking
on two legs is more efficient, once you're physically adapted to it,
so the two legged walkers were tougher and lasted longer on the move,
etc.
It's not all that tough, just think about it some..
John
Ray Vanlandingham
> This "closeness to god", being caused by a "low brain
> growth deficit" is manifested in ones speech, gestures,
> body language, clearness of thought, rationality, reality
> contact, perceptual speed, evenness of temper, reliability
> under stress, commanding presence, etc. etc. and all the
> other things that would naturally go with superior
> (above population average) levels of growth. This is what
> people look for in a presidential candidate... (other things
> being equal) and it is certainly apparent in such men
> as Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, F.D.R., George Washington,
> Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg,
> etc, etc.
Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Richard Nixon, Bush 2, Stalin....all popularly
chosen leaders.
It seems to me that this whole theory of your comes dangerously close to
saying that some people are 'destined' to be superior to others.
I also think that the Cathloic Church would probably call this heresy, on
several counts.
Methinks that like most theories that claim to explain everything from lost
socks in the dryer to the cure for cancer, you're missing out on the 'claim
follows from the evidence' criterion.
Ray Vanlandingham
> [Hammond]
> I don't call it a coincidence, I prove its caused by
> the Euclidean structure of space, your the moron who
> thinks its a "coincidence". Anyone calling it a
> "coincidence" is a certified moron. You haven't got the
> intelligence of a sixth grader.
<falls out of the chair laughing>
Oh, by the way, you claim to invoke GR in support of your lunacy, but GR
isn't Euclidean.
Gregory L. Hansen
George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>[Hammond]
>
>Dr. Jack Sarfatti has recently invoked the scientific notion of
>a "well posed theory". I for one subscribe to this principle
>completely.
>
>As I see it "well posed theory" in physics means, among other
>details:
>
>1. The theory is internally consistent.
>2. The theory is sufficient to support it's claims.
>3. The theory does not "spuriously conflict with
> major experimentally known facts".
>
>This then comprises a "well posed theory".
>
> Whether the theory is in fact true of course, depends on
>an additional detail:
>
>4. The theory is confirmed unanimously by sufficient
> experimental evidence.
Did you forget Popper's criterion of falsifiability?
What experimental result could prove your theory wrong?
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Cardinal Chunder
> ======================================================
> NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
> may be seen at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/well-posed.html
> ======================================================
>
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Listen Mr. aggravated encyclopedia of synchophantic
>>>truth, you happen to be talking to the only person
>>>in the world who knows WHY all (multicellular) plants
>>>and animals have a CARTESIAN (3-Axis mirror symmetric)
>>>BODY PLAN and why all animals have 4-LEGS. The rest of
>>>jerkwater Natural Science think it's caused by "genetics"
>>>or "Natural Selection" or some other screwball political
>>>idea.
>>
>>Starfish. Sponges.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you actually READ a post before replying
> to it jerk. The answer to your question was right
> in the post:
>
> "BTW, a Starfish has a bilateral larval stage and
> therefore is intrinsically 4-legged, not 5-legged".
No it is not intrinsically 4-legged at all or it would have 4 legs. This
bullshit about symmetrical "body plan" is just that - bullshit. You may
as well say our "body plan" means we're all symmetrical about any axis
since we are all just a ball of cells at one stage.
> As for Porifera (sponges) they don't have any legs,
> and therefore like snakes, are exempt from the rule.
You said ALL animals have 4 legs. Which is it? It's not much of a rule
if there are obvious exceptions.
> I'm ot interested in discussing grade school science
> with amateurs.
So you're a professional marine biologist? No I thought not.
You're a grade-A kook and an elitist prick. Your theory has been
demolished dozens of times yet here you are ranting away same as usual.
Discussion is the last thing you want because when people point out
obvious flaws in your reasoning you just belittle them.
Clearly learning, reason and sanity don't always go together.
Well rant away the rest of your sad life if you like. The world of
science will remember your contribution for what it was - comic relief.
George Hammond
>
snip.... hick remarks
Why don't you go back to night school and
try and get your GED. They don't care about your
criminal record.
Peter Bowditch
Hey, George, haven't you read the book about ad hominem on the
Internet? You are supposed to call someone a paedophile before you
mention their criminal record. And even that's (short for "that is",
George) after you accuse them of bankruptcy, being paid by shadowy
bagmen, and working from a basement at home.
Even sixth-graders know these things.
Cardinal Chunder
Thanks for the tip kook but I already have enough qualifications and
income to lead a very comfortable lifestyle.
Ray Vanlandingham
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you actually READ a post before replying
> to it jerk. The answer to your question was right
> in the post:
>
> "BTW, a Starfish has a bilateral larval stage and
> therefore is intrinsically 4-legged, not 5-legged".
>
> As for Porifera (sponges) they don't have any legs,
> and therefore like snakes, are exempt from the rule.
>
> I'm ot interested in discussing grade school science
> with amateurs.
Actually, snakes are descended from legged creatuires, and all have
non-erupted vestigial legs. Occasionally a snake is found that has very
small non-functional legs, and in some species (boas and pythons) it's
standard equipment.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/snake.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
Yet another example of how you don't know what you're talking about.