Re: GOD=G_uv FOR THE TALKING CLASS
George Hammond
message news:XEBie.186$G46...@fe02.lga...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "Baugh" <bacon...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:m_Ahe.19853$rt1....@fe04.lga...
> >
> [J.E. Baugh]
> Degrees:
>
> BS Applied Mathematic, Georgia College
> MS Applied Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology
> Thesis: "Symmetry Group Analysis of Reaction Diffusion Eqns."
> PhD Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology
> Thesis: "Regular Quantum Mechanics"
>
> Publications:
>
> Title: Elementary Operations
> Authors: James Baugh (1), Andrei Galiautdinov (1), David Ritz
> Finkelstein (1), Mohsen Shiri-Garakani (1), Heinrich Saller (2) ((1)
> Georgia Institute of Technology, (2) Heisenberg Institute, Max Planck
> Institute of Theoretical Physics, Munich)
> Comments: Based on a talk given at the 5th International Quantum
> Structure Association Conference, Cesena, Italy, 2001.To be published in
> the International Journal of Theoretical Physics
>
> Title: Ultraquantum Dynamics
> Authors: James Baugh (1), David Ritz Finkelstein (1), Andrei
> Galiautdinov (2), Mohsen Shiri-Garakani (1) ((1) School of Physics,
> Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia (2) Department of
> Mathematics and Science, Brenau University, Gainesville, Georgia)
> Comments: 12 pages, Submitted to Foundations of Physics
> Journal-ref: Found.Phys. 33 (2003) 1267-1275
>
> Title: The Qubits of Qunivac
> Authors: James Baugh, David Finkelstein, Andrei Galiautdinov
> Comments: 9 pages, no figures. For the proceedings of Digital
> Perspectives, NSF, Arlington, VA, July 2001
> Journal-ref: Int.J.Theor.Phys. 42 (2003) 177-187
>
> Title: Unimodular relativity and cosmological constant
> Authors: David R. Finkelstein, Andrei A. Galiautdinov, James E. Baugh
> Comments: 7 pages, no figures.
> Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 42 (2001) 340-346
>
> Title: Clifford algebra as quantum language
> Authors: James Baugh, David Ritz Finkelstein, Andrei Galiautdinov,
> Heinrich Saller
> Comments: 13 pages, no figures. Some of these results were presented at
> the American Physical Society Centennial Meeting, Atlanta, March 25, 1999
> Journal-ref: J.Math.Phys. 42 (2001) 1489-1500
>
> "General Covariance is Bose-Einstein Statistics"
> J. Baugh, D.R. Finkelstein, H. Saller, and Zhong Tang
> appearing in: "On Einstein's Path: Essays in Honor of Englebert
Schucking"
> Pub: Springer 1999
[Hammond]
Judas' priest!..... excuse me! I now realize you're a grad student at
the prestegeous Quantum Relativity Group at Georgia Tech's
Theoretical Physics Department.. and that David Finklestein whom
you're publishing papers with is "the Finklestein" who is famous for
discovering "Finklestein coordinates" historically one of the first
transformations to remove the R=2m singularity in the Schwarzchild
metric ............among other things!
Well...!! Certainly you are bright enough and educated enough to
know what a competent scientific theory is..... then again, so is
Prof. Chris Isham. However, ability is no guarantee against
insouciance, which my experience with Chris Isham, I feel, more than
adequately demonstrates!
OK... I am very grateful for your pro bono attention to this controversy..
and I won't even ask what your motives might be.... I don't even care,
I'm so grateful to be talking to someone competent and intelligent... not to
mention being young enough not to be disillusioned!
First... let me respond to a few line item statements of yours... and then
I will make a stand alone summary statement of what I think is an adequate
answer to your preliminary concerns regarding the SPOG:
> I'll repeat the gist of my various points here:
>
> 1) No matter what additional criterion for "valid scientific theory" you
> choose, if it doesn't agree with experimental evidence it is invalid.
[Hammond]
The SPOG is ENTIRELY based on experimental evidence.
There are no "hypotheses" in the entire theory!
>
> 2) No matter what definition of "science" you use, it is meaningless
> unless it is also the definition others use. The semantic meaning
> must be agreed upon.
[Hammond]
Cripes... I'm an M.S. in physics myself... of course I know what
a "scientific theory" is.
>
> 3) The current convention of the English Language is quite specific
> with regard to the sharp academic meaning of "science" and
> that includes only empirically testible theses. (at least
> testible in principle if not yet in practice).
[Hammond]
Agreed! Absolutely! Without equivocation!
... and I wouldn't be wasting my time with anything else!
> 4) Your POG is outside the scope of science and thus should not
> be labeled SPOG.
[Hammond]
Wrong! The SPOG is a "by the book" classic scientific
theory.... just as "Chemistry" is a by the book scientific
explanation of "Alchemy"....... the SPOG is a by the
book scientific explanation of "God and Religion"!
> Call it a metaphysical proof, call it a
> philosophical proof, call it a "common sense" proof.
> Call it anything you like except "scientific".
[Hammond]
Na, naw, naw, naw.... I have no use for metaphysics
or Philosophy. I'm a very simple minded scientific
person... and the SPOG is a very simple scientific theory
which clearly scientifically explains a huge, long standing
historical perceptual phenomenon known as "God and religion".
<snip>
<paste>
> >>Two notes, why is it that your compare your "theory" with
> >>other psychometricist's "models".
[Hammond]
It has been known for decades that the many 2,3,4,
5, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 Factor psychometric "models"
could be drawn as 3D geometrical figures by using
the arc-cosine of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient
as a construction angle. The FIRST discovery I
made was that ALL OF THEM can be unified
to form a CUBE whereby the 13 different models
are various redactions of the 13-symmetry axes of
the CUBE!
... I discovered this by recognizing that the brain
itself is CUBICALLY CLEAVED and that this
(the brain "lobes" are actually the corner octants
of a cube) is the ORIGIN of the cubic structure of
Psychometry. I published this epochical
discovery in 1994 in the moderately prestegous
Psychology journal New Ideas In Psychology
where it was reviewed by 5 professiorial rank
Factor Analysis experts who unanamously
recommended it for publication. This discovery
is known in the business as the long touted
"discovery of the Structural Model of Personality"
although of course it remains unrecognized by
Psychology because none of them can
understand Physics!
> >>Second, where are your
> >>empirical predictions. In your conclusions you assert
> >>that your "theory" will have grand impacts on various
> >>social institutions however nowhere does your theory
> >>actually express a prediction of human behavior which
> >>does not already exist in prior models.
[Hammond]
Wait a minute... I have discovered a "scientific proof
of God".. not merely "discovered the Structural
Model of Psychology".
It has been recognized for centuries what the significance
and impact of the discovery of a "scientific proof of God"
would be on the world... even Newton, DesCartes,
Leibnitz, Pascal and many others searched for it... particularly
DesCartes.
The Vatican even recognizes the "significance" of the
discovery of a scientific proof of God... though they have
expressed the sentiment that "they have no idea what such a
proof would consist of, or who might discover such a
proof" (Vatican encyclical, ca. 1960)
> >>You simply
> >>analogize between Cartesian space in so far as it
> >>has three dimensions and a number of models which
> >>have three (and sometimes four and five) qualitative
> >>components. Nowhere do I see any quantitative exposition
> >>by which the distinction between "Cartesian"
> >>can be distinguished from "non-Cartesian" geometries
> >>with regard to the application you hypothesize.
[Hammond]
Na, naw, naw, naw..... there is no "analogy".... I'm not an unhinged
simpleton who can't tell the difference between a random cooincidence
and a causal relationship for Pete's sake.... I'm a trained scientist
just like you... although obviously your mathematical-physics powers
considerably outrank mine.... I've simply made an (elementary) accidental
theoretical physics discovery in a very recondite corner of experimental
science simply because I (accidently) happened to be the only one
there! Problem is, the discovery has ENORMOUS social, political
and historical implications, since the quest for a "scientific proof of
God" is one of the oldest scientific conjectures known to man!
> >>Where is the metric? What does the metric measure.
[Hammond]
The "Psychometry metric" (which I have discovered) turns out
to be IDENTICAL to the spacetime metric... because it is physically
CAUSED by the spacetime metric:
Psychometry: dS^2 = dE^2 +dN^2 + dP^2 - dg^2
note: E,N,P are the 3 Personality dimensions (Factors)
and g is Intelligence (a.k.a. IQ)
Note that this is IDENTICAL to the spacetime metric:
ds^2 = dX^2 + dY^2 + dZ^2 - dt^2
and the CAUSAL REASON for this identity is that the
4 dimension of spacetime physically cause the 4 dimensions
of Psychometry space via the 3-axis orthogonal SPACIAL
cleavage of the brain, plus the "mental speed" (time function)
of the brain known as "intelligence".
Incidentally, the "proper distance" dS in Psychometry space
is a measure of "personality difference" and thus forms the basis
for a measure of "personality clash" so called.
> Regards,
> James Baugh
[Hammond]
OK.... having made a few random line item responses to some
of your initial questions...... lets get down to business!
In the first place... NO constructive discussion of the SPOG
can be undertaken on the basis of a "shootout" type of adversarial
dispute, whereby the adversary searches (in vain) for an
"obvious loophole" that will dispatch the theory and thereby
eliminate the effort needed to even try and comprehend it.
THAT IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.... and that is what
Chris Isham ever tried to do...... and of course he failed.
As you well know, no major scientific theory or discovery
is so simple minded that it can be "disproved" with a simple
one liner. In the first place major theories, such as Quantum
Mechanics, Relativity, etc. CANNOT be "axiomatically
derived" by simple mathematics. There is no "axiomatic reason"
for instance that the Scalar Curvature , R, must be the Hilbert
Lagrangian of Relativity, nor is there any "axiomatic derivation"
of the Schrodinger or Dirac equations.
Fact is, majpor theories like QM or GR are nearly
ad hoc propositions, usually accidentally arrived at, which:
1. Produce robust and comprehensive results
that make them of unignorable practical utility.
2. Are not supported by any "simple axiomatic derivation"
but insead are supported by a totality of comprehensive
evidence from a myriad of directions, plus the fact that
no contrary evidence can be found.
Well.... exactly the same is true of the SPOG. There is no
"axiomatic simple minded mathematical devivation" of the
SPOG any more than there is of Quantum Mechanics.
Secondly, the empirical support confirming the SPOG is
both massive and comprehensive. It explains ALL of
Psychometry.. and thus all of Psychology. It yields
the long sought for Structural Model, it supplies for the
first time the underlying METRIC of Psychology thus
unifying Personality and Intelligence, it explains every
existing psychometric model, it identifes the long sought
for "biological origin" of the Structural Model, it
incorporates the long enigmatic Sperrian Lateralization
into psychology theory, an outstanding lacunae for
many years, and finally, proves that psychological
structure is is axiomatically derived from spacetime
structure itself... thus founding Psychology as an
axiomatic science for the first time in history.
Beyond that, the SPOG finally produces the world's
first scientific explanation of "Religion".. an actual
scientific explanation of "God"... thus the world's first
"scientific PROOF of God". How does it do this you
ask. Simple. Religion (Christianity for instance) is
known historically to make several major phenomenological
claims:
1. There physically exists an "invisible world" known as
"Heaven" which is similar to Earth only that it is a paradise.
2. "God" is an invisible man who lives there and is all
powerful and rules the actual (visible) world from there.
3. This God can produce miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
4. Historically Religion has evolved from Polytheism
(many demigods) to Monotheism (one supreme God).
5. Christianity predicts the world is transforming itself into
Heaven and will actually arrive there at a date known as
"Kingdom Come"... or the "end of the world".
6. There is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
7. Jesus was the physical "incarnation of God"
8. The Cross for some reason is the central symbol of
(Western) Religion.
9. For some reason our main canonical text is written
in 4 identical versions known as the "4-Gospel Canon".
10. God "created the world" only a matter of "thousands"
of years ago (Genesis) not "billions" of years ago as
Science maintains.
11. God created man "in his own image".
12 The list goes on.....
OK... what I claim is that the SPOG identifies a new physical
phenomena (of human perception) heretofore unidentified
and unexplored by Science which SCIENTIFICALLY
EXPLAINS (and thereby proves the existence of)
ALL OF THE ABOVE CLAIMS OF RELIGION.
Moreover, the phenomena turns out to have an
AXIOMATIC PHYSICS basis (Gen'l. Relativity) and
can be (in fact has been) completely experimentally proved
by over 100 years of published Psychometry and Bilology
data!
-------------------------------------------------
Now, THAT, ... is what I claim is a "scientific proof of God"!
and it is an absolutely by the book, classical scientific
discovery in all respects... just as the discovery by Dalton
that the integer combination of atoms into molecules
SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINS all of Chemistry
(Alchemy)! SPOG is the same thing!
-------------------------------------------------
Now, before leaving off, let me just give you a simple
stick model sketch of HOW the SPOG explains the
above 11 points in Religion.. and bear in mind it is
already evident how it explains all of Psychometry
(the 13 known models etc.). I can do this quite simply
because YOU it turns out already understand Gen'l.
Relativity.
Now this explanation comes as close to a "heuristic
derivation" of the SPOG as is possible, but it in NO
WAY corresponds to the actual chronological history
of how the SPOG was actually discovered!
OK... for 100 years it has been known that the average
adult person is NOT fully grown... this is because Science
has discovered that there is a "Secular Trend" in human
growth, whereby each suceeding generation is larger,
stronger and more intelligent than past generations. This
effect is known to be NOT genetic, but in fact is caused by
sheer growth, due to the rising world standard of living,
particularly nutrition. Modern soldiers for instance cannot
even fit into a medieval suit of armor because they are so
much larger than men of 500 years ago. This fact means
that every organ in the body is less than fully grown,
including notably the human BRAIN.
OK.. turns out we already know what the "perceptual
effect" of not having a fully grown brain is... since we
are surrounded by CHILDREN who are prime examples
of what a "less than fully grown person" actually is. In
fact, it can esily be PROVED that a child sees
a "larger and faster" reality than the reality seen by an
adult! The proof is this (as if the point needs proving)
is for instance this (and there is much more btw):
It is a proven fact that (movie) Picture Fusion
Frequency (PFF) increases linearly during
childhood growth. In fact a 7 year old can only
discriminate 10 frames/sec as individual pictures
before it turns into a "movie", while an adult can
discriminate 15 frames/sec as indiviual still pictures.
This means then, that 1/3 of normal adult reality
is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old simply due to his
reduced mental (perceptual) speed due to incomplete
growth of the brain.
This has been long known to be due to the linear
increase in intelligence that occurs during childhood
growth ... recall this fact is WHY raw intelligence
has to be divided by AGE before the age of 18
when growth stops, in order to calculate (genetic)
IQ.
Furthermore, that a 7 year old sees a larger world
needs no proof, since obviously a 4 foot 7 year old
sees a world that is 1/3 larger than a 6 foot adult.
Similar to the speed effect... this "magnification"
causes spacial structure to exceed the bandwidth of
comprehensibility the same way the speed effect
does... for instance there is a well known parlor game
that consists of trying to identify common objects
from pictures taken at high magnification. Almost
anything becomes unrecognizeable at high magnification,
and therefore there is some proportional unrecognizeabilty
even at modest magnifications.. such as at 133%.
So what we see is that 1/3 of reality is actually INVISIBLE
to a 7 year old... meaning he is surrounded by an
INVISBLE WORLD (namely true reality) that he can't
see. It is for this reason that children require constant
supervision and protection, as every parent well knows.
Now the POINT of this, is that the Secular Trend proves
that as much as 20% of "true reality" is actually INVISIBLE
to the average person... for EXACTLY the same reason..
because the average person according to Secular Trend Data
is actually only about 80% full grown. This means that the
average person is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD
consisting of 20% of "true reality"... and this "invisible
world" is nothing other than the so called HEAVEN of
classical Religion! QED: Heaven exists!
Now surely, for someone of your intelligence, it doesn't
take a long elaboration to point out to you that the
"invisible man" (a.k.a. "GOD") of Religion is nothing more
than the "rest of our ungrown bodies" that of course is
"invisble" because we are not fully grown... nor to explain
to you that the rest of the "ungrown brain" is actually
of course "partially grown" and "partially functioning" and
is in fact what Freud called the "Unconscious Mind", and
that this invisible (e.g. spiritual.. but acting unconsciously)
perception is what we call "GOD"...... therefore,
"GOD EXISTS".
Now I will leave off here... but not before mentioning
that the "size and speed" dilation caused by this "brain
growth deficit" turns out to be mathematically (indeed
physically) a Relativistic Curvature of "seen" reality
as opposed to "true reality". In other words, we only
SEE a "Curved Version" of true reality.... and the magnification
and speeding up of this "seen version" simply puts
(on average) about 20% of said "true reality" outside
the "perceptual bandwidth" of the less than fully grown
person. The proof that this effect is a "Relativistic
Curvature" is given in my paper... but obviously, since
the 4 dimesnions of space cause the 4 dimensions of
Psychometry space.... this proof is trivial compared
to current research in Physics.. it consists merely of
pointing out that "Factor Analysis" is mathematically
identical to "Linearized Gravity" and therefore the
higher order factor of the 4x4 psychometry metric
(ENPg) is identified as "Gravity"... specifically
the curvature G_uv. Hence "God=G_uv", since
this higher order Factor is easily identifed as "brain
growth" which has been identified as "God" (above)
since it explains the 11 points there outlined as the
principle "phenomena of religion".
Finally not only is 20% of reality invisible, but the
80% of true realty that remains VISIBLE is so speeded
up and magnified that it literally TERRORIZES the
individual looking at it who thinks that it is actual reality
and THIS is why the world is so awesome, challenging,
death defying and overwhelms so many human beings...
especially those with large growth deficts... which is also
a well observed fact! Fact is, this change in size and
apeed can so drastically affect human Personality
and attitude that it can make other (psychotic) people look
FEROCIOUS and SINISTER to an such an extreme
degree that most even modestly ungrown people walk
around literally terrorized of being physically attacked
or otherwise exploited... while it is all decent (and well
grown people) can humanly do to try and police the
situation and preserve law and order and prevent open
warfare!
OK.... I'll leave off there. I have gone to this effort in your
case because there is at least some faint hope that you
might take a CONSTRUCTIVE attitude towards all this
rather than insouciantly wasting your time searching
for a "Krypton bullet" that will "easily debunk the theory".
I hope you're more perceptive than to waste time trying to do
that.
Regards, George Hammond.
PS: And give my best regards to professor emeritous
David Ritz Finklestein for me.
> --
> Regards,
> James Baugh
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to COSAc...@hotmail.com
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
====================================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
reply to Baugh
George Hammond
My apologies,
Lost track of the thread and didn't get your reply. If I don't download
on my newsreader daily the number of posts gets too large and I loose
track. I had to find it on the web.
[George Hammond, discoverer world's first sci. proof of God]
My website version is only 1/2 of my posted reply to you, which
you were unable to find because you can't operate your newsreader
correctly. The missing half consisted of 1/2 dozen specific
detailed answers to your questions and was key to my reply.
1. If we are going to have a discussion, you will have to
learn to operate your newsreader. It can be set to only
download 500 or 1000 headers at a time.. there is no need to
download 300,000 headers every time you turn it on.
Would someone please help this PhD physicist with his
newsreader problems so we can get on with this?
2. By clicking on this message ID address you will go directly
to my (full) original post (should you be curious):
----------------------------------
George Hammond:
Re: GOD=G_uv FOR THE TALKING CLASS
Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:05 AM
message news:0i%ie.4413$uR4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
---------------------------------
OK... before I address your reply (such as it is) allow me to
make some preliminary remarks.
You have made the statement:
[Baugh]
"And I can but hope it [religion]
will eventually become extinct."
Ok.. while such a statment might be considered cute within the
confines of the Physics dept at GAtech, it certainly is "telling
tales out of school" for someone in your position to say so publicly.
Let me remind you that even a hard bitten skeptic such as Chris
Isham states plainly the he "believes in God". Now, given the
fact that he doesn't have a clue as to what God actually is.. that
should be a lesson to you about what a senior gravitational physicist
feels is an appropriate public statement on the subject.
Secondly, I would think before you jump to such rash excesses a
person in your position would consider the following:
1. David Finklestein who is you mentor and has put his name as
coauthor on practically every paper you have published, and is
the most famous, and senior member of the Quantum Relativity
group is obviously of Jewish heritage. I think your remark
would be quite offensive to him... even if he demured to say
so.
2. The state of Georgia where GAtech is located is a bastion of
Southern Baptist fundamentalism (51% of the GA population). These
people are practically at the core of God fearing decency in this
country, although New England protestants rank highly also in
that regard. Certainly your remark is offensive to even your own
neighbors.
3. Georgia as you might know, is very high on the list of volunteers
to the U.S. military (Marine corp, Army etc.) and many of
these heroic men are currently being shot at by Moslem terrorists
in Iraq and Afganistan. If the SPOG is true, there is no doubt
that it is a "religious miracle" for the U.S. and will have an
enormous impact on U.S. morale and U.S. international influence
vis a vis any "religously based" international military
confrontation.
4. Let me remind you, you are not a "nobody".. by being a member of
a prestigeous Physics dept. in the U.S. you are held (socially)
to higher standards. I'm sure you have heard in the news how
some incautious person on a U.S. military base got thousands
of peole injured and created a worldwide riot by simply
"flushing a Koran down the toilet". Let me warn you that a
"physicist from GAtech" could easily wind up creating enormous
adverse publicity by being blamed for "flushing the SPOG down
the toilet".
OK... having said that, I would suggest that we proceed with all
due caution in our discussion.
I have read your reply from beginning to end, and I must say,
your view of religion is totally naive.. however, that is
forgiveable (to a certan extent), because:
1. You are young, I presume under age 35, a mere kid.
2. You are a dedicated science scholar who has spent most of
his life studying mathematical-physics to the exclusion
of more general knowledge.
3. To that I would add the caveat that most people will take
dim view of your anti-religious stance in view of your
demonstrated superior intelligence. Most PhD research
scientists have IQ's in excess of 160, certainly in
theoretical physics.
4. So... I highly recommend that you be cautious.. extremely
cautious.. because while nobody NOW will say you represent
the opinion of Physics on God... should the SPOG prove to be
true..(which it is) you can be SURE that they will be very
fast to identify you as the "abominable scapegoat" who
recklessly ignored the SPOG.. and even flushed it down the
toilet! You're the perfect fall guy for them to blame for
everything... mainly their insouciant inattention to the
SPOG. Be careful... for chrissakes!
Better than that... actually make a constructive effort
to evaluate the SPOG... and wind up being the highly envied
and much celebrated... "heroic physicist" who saved Physics
from the biggest potential PR catastrophy in Physics history!
I'm telling you kid... you're the only one who can do
it because you're a jr. nobody in Physics.. they EXPECT
someone like you to jump on the grenade and save the physics
department... and if you don't, and they all get blamed..
you're the one who will get crusified for it!
[James Baugh PhD physics, Quantum Relativity Group, Georgia Tech]
Your summary is as follows:
[Hammond]
Summary of what? Certainly the 11 points defining "existing
religion" is not a "summary of the SPOG"... it is only a
summary of the "existing phenomenological claims of religion".
these claims are not MY claims.. they are the historically
reported (established) claims of Christianity for instance.
My discovery only explains them scientifically, and thereby
confirms that they are true!
> 1. There physically exists an "invisible world" known as
> "Heaven" which is similar to Earth only that it is a paradise.
[Baugh]
Now you say this invisible world exists physically. By what
operational empirical tests do you confirm this? If as you
say it is *invisible* then surely you're saying it is specifically
not empirically observable and thus you've a contradiction if
you claim this hypothesis can be "scientifically proved".
[Hammond]
You're being ridiculous. Microwaves are "invisible"... that
doesn't mean they can't be proven to exist... it doesn't
mean that Microwaves are "specifically not empirically
observable"... what in the world are you talking about?
Sure "God is invisible"... lots of things are invisible..
electrons, X-rays, germs, air... but that doesn't mean
they can't be "experimentally proven to exist"?
> 2. "God" is an invisible man who lives there and is all
> powerful and rules the actual (visible) world from there.
[Baugh]
Again given he is invisible (by choice I would assume since
he is all powerful) then there is no empirical means to confirm
or deny his existance. One must accept or reject this hypothesis
on faith. It thus is *not* a scientific issue.
You needn't repeat your claim of proof. Simply show me,
not the inference you use, but the *repeatable* empirical
observation of God. None can exist "but by his will" so
none can be assumed to exist.
[Hammond]
Again this is absolute semantic stupidity. You seem to assume
that the word "invisible" means "undetectable".. check the
dictionalry, it doesn't mean any such thing. Electrons,
germs, oxygen, gamma-rays, heat, water vapor, are all "invisible"
but that doesn't mean they are "undectable"! They are
all easily detectable. Likewise, God is "invisible" but that
doesn't mean He is "undectable"! Fact is God is not only
detectable, He is "measureable" to two decimal places
experimentally.
The whole section about the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency
test) which you snipped out of my post is a direct
expermental detection of God and an actual quantitative
measurement of God! So is the entire body of published
Psychometry data... a two decimal experimental measurement
of "God".
[Baugh]
Further supposing you can
empirically verify the existance of some powerful being
who label's himself 'God'. You cannot empirically confirm
or deny his omnipotence. It would require an omnipotent
observer to make such a test. Hence if there is a God
only God can empirically verify God. You can at best
only confirm that the entity is more powerful than you
and then only if he permits you to verify this.
[Hammond]
You don't know what you are talking about. Here you are
resorting to "Philosophy arguments" to dispute a scientific
finding. You gotta be kidding! Philosophy jargon (idiom)
is non-scientific. One must start by arguing the meaning
of the hard experimental scientific result and it's explanation
of Philosophy..... NOT start by arguing the logical
inconsistency of "Philosophy jargon". Any fool can do that,
and it is meaningless in the face of a proven scientific
fact.
In the first place, the SPOG explains "omnipotence" by
demonstrating that only a "full grown man" can actually
see "full normal adult reality" NOTE that no definiton of
what "reality" per se is is needed... we refer only to
"adult reality" vs "child reality"... e.g. the change
in reality due to growth. This means that children
(or any less than fully grown person) is "less than
omnipotent" because he CAN'T SEE REALITY, while only
a fully grown person (i.e. God in the flesh) can actually
see reality, and is therefore "omnipotent".
This is similar to discussing the difference in
"temperature" between a mountain top and the valley.. no
longwinded dissertain of what "temperature is" is
required... we are only talking about the difference in
temperature in two places. Same is true of "human reality",
we are only comparing "adult reality" to "child reality"
vis a vis growth... no discussion of "what reality is"
is necessary or relevant other than to call it "perception
of space and time". "spacetime" is larger and faster for
a child than it is for an adult. I.e. "reality" is
larger and faster for a child than an adult. The
PFF test PROVES this as far as "the speed of reality" is
concerned. SIZE of reality is obvious, since a child
is only say 2/3's the size of an adult.
My use of the world "reality" is constrained to
the "METRIC OF REALITY", nothing else... I thought that
was clear form the context.
[Baugh]
Again this means that such issues must be settled on
faith.
[Hammond]
Na, naw, naw... you're continual tautology of repeating this
nonsense simply demonstrates your LUDICROUSLY insouciant
presumption that you are on a "kook bashing sortie"...when
fact is I'm on the kook bashing trail, and the SPOG is bashing
you. Wise up! You're coming off like a fool! And let
me remind you again, those 51% of Georgia citizens who
are Bible Belt believers are just waiting for you
to fall flat on your face so they can report how utterly
stupid the GAtech physics department is. You're going
to wind up with the Southern Baptist Convention, the
Defense Department, and even the state of Israel calling for
an investigation of the GAtech Physics department.. to the
complete and utter mortification of David Ritz Finkelstein!
For chrissakes Jimmy,... wake up and start holding your
cards closer to the vest so everybody can't see them!!
> 3. This God can produce miracles which transcend
> the (known) laws of Physics.
There is only one universal law of Physics... if it happens
it happens.
[Hammond]
CORRECT... and the same is true of the existence of God..
if there is there is... and it is no suprise there is,
because GOD is a "scientifically explainable phenomena".
[Baugh]
The "laws of physics" are laws in a theory
not engraved in the firmament.
[Hammond]
Exactly the same is true of God (scientifically
speaking).
[Baugh]
Now having said all that, what is your empirical proof of
miracles. Note an "I don't know why it happened" event
is not a miracle. A miracle as you define it here is an
intentional intervention.
[Hammond]
Miracles are TRIVIAL to explain. As the SPOG proves:
1. There is something called "standard human adult reality"
to be clear I am talking about the METRIC of reality,
e.g. the standard spacetime scale of reality.
(just as there is a standard height, weight, IQ, etc.)
2. We know that "brain growth" modulates this "std. adult
human metric of reality"... for instance a half grown child
only sees half of it (size and speed wise).
3. Furthermore, besides direct growth, there is a highly
universal phenomena called "repression" or a "mental
block" whereby, as a universal childhood defense
mechanism, we "repress" brain growth if necessary and
(play dumb) as childeren in order to avoid persecution
and thereby survive.
Later on in life, after obtaining our majority, many
times the person will suceed in "breaking the block"
and unleashing the pent up brain growth.
4. This suddenly "unleashed pent up brain growth" produces
a "miraculous" concommitent change in the person's
"reality". This happens in a small way to every person
in adult life.. but in some cases it can be DRAMATIC..
and these instances are what are called "miracles".
They are quite common throughout history, and there are
even examples of "mass miracles" whereby a whole group of
people with the same mental block (such as the Jews fleeing
in the Exodus) can experience a "mental block" breaking
at the same time... such as the "parting of the Red Sea"..
which is the actual explanation of that miracle.
[Baugh]
But let me make another point. Given you hypothesized God
has unlimited power, his will cannot but be actualized perpetually.
So there are no miracles except the continued existance of all
in accordance with his will.
[Hammond]
Frankly I can't even make any sense out of this statement.
[Baugh]
So presuming your omnipotent
one there is no distinction between "miracle" and "natural law".
All phenomena are "natural phenomena" by definition.
[Hammond]
Of course they are. Point is, "miracles" are only called
"miracles" because existing Science does not include the
SPOG. The SPOG shows that "miracles" have a definite,
rational, scientific explanation.. which however exceeds
existing Science... because the SPOG is not presently
accepted by the Physics department.
[Baugh]
Aside from questions of whether natural phenomena are intentional
or accidental you can only observe and encode in theories
how nature behaves.
[Hammond]
right... and SO FAR Physics has failed to scientifically
explain "miracles".. and the SPOG simply remedies that
deficiency of Science.
> 4. Historically Religion has evolved from Polytheism
> (many demigods) to Monotheism (one supreme God).
And I can but hope it will eventually become extinct.
But the need to "believe in absolutes" is strongly engrained
in our heridity.
[Hammoond]
Unsupported presumption. Urban legend.
[Baugh]
I can give you the argument for why
this is a survival trait in our species.
[Hammond]
Please don't bother! this is not an elementary discussion, and
any digression into "high school biology" would only suffice
to make your exposition even more incompetent and boring than it
already is.
[Hammond]
But I ask you
how religion can have any claim to reflect reality if
it has changed over time.
[Hammond]
Same as Physics does, which has also changed over time.
[Hammond]
Simply by looking at the
trend how can you distinguish Monotheism as a fad from
Monotheism as fact.
[Hammond]
The scientific explanation of "God" as the top of
a Factor heirarcy is a scientific discovery of the
explanation of "monotheism is a fact".
The lower order Factors which are numerous, explain
the "polytheistic gods". the history of religon is
easily seen to be then, simply the discovery of the
higher and higher orders of Factors over historical time,
culminating finally in the discovery of the "top Factor"
which is the God of monothism.
> 5. Christianity predicts the world is transforming itself into
> Heaven and will actually arrive there at a date known as
> "Kingdom Come"... or the "end of the world".
[Baugh]
Well so far their prediction has not come true. When it
does we may accept that as empirical support for the theory.
But until then...
[Hammond]
SPOG clearly identifies "kingdom come" with the
end of the "Secular Trend" in human growth. Thus
there is a clear, rational, proven explanation and proof
of the existence of "kingdom come". As far as precisely
predicting the date of the event, that depends on the
accuracy with which the Secular Trend curve can be
predicted. At present, I would put it at around 7,000
AD... of course that is just a "guesstimate" and depends
drastically on the course of human fortunes... it could
be much sooner.
> 6. There is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
Again, how can you confirm this in finite time?
[Hammond]
Well... you are a complete novitiate, so you're question
is absurd to begin with. In the first place, "Eternal
Life" refers to the speedometer of life, not the odometer.
Eternal Life DOES NOT refer to living forever.. i.e. for
millions and billions and trillions of years... don't
be stupid! "Eternal Life" refers to living in "real time"
as opposed to the "dilated time" we live in now due to the
human brain growth deficit. If you had a ZERO brain
growth deficit you woold be living in "real time"..
whereas right now, say your brain growth deficit is 10%..
then you are living in "10% dilated time".
The point is, if you were living in REAL TIME
(zero dilation) then you would see "true reality" (a.k.a.
paradise). In such a physical condition, there is
no death (even though you die eventually).. there is no
"subjective feeling of death, ageing or dying".. and
this is known as "Eternal Life". A full grown man
does not even feel "pain". For instance, when you hit your
thumb with a hammer you shriek, curse swear and jump up
and down with "pain". But a full grown man (God) would
only remark... gees, I smashed my thumb, guess I better
go to the hospital and get a few stiches.
[Baugh]
How can you empirically confirm that an "immortal soul"
is in fact immortal?
[Hammond]
"Imortality" was just explained above. You are
de facto "immortal" if you suceed in getting
fully grown (e.g. phenotype = genotype).
<snip>
> OK... what I claim is that the SPOG identifies a new physical
> phenomena (of human perception) heretofore unidentified
> and unexplored by Science which SCIENTIFICALLY
> EXPLAINS (and thereby proves the existence of)
> ALL OF THE ABOVE CLAIMS OF RELIGION.
[Baugh]
Please don't shout.
[Hammond]
Please pay attention.
[Baugh]
The physical phenomena you cite
is that human perception "of reality" is plastic
[Hammond]
If that 's what you want to call "growing up"..
a "plastic process".... seems to me calling
childhood growth by that name is rather
supercilious.
[Hammond]
<snip.. the usual longwinded pointless "philawspehy" rant
using pseudointellectual words like "ontological" and
"epistemological" blah, balh, blah>
> Moreover, the phenomena turns out to have an
> AXIOMATIC PHYSICS basis (Gen'l. Relativity) and
> can be (in fact has been) completely experimentally proved
> by over 100 years of published Psychometry and Bilology
> data!
[Baugh]
I'll say it again, there are no "Axioms of physics". There are
tenative hypotheses. Axiomatic systems are pure mathematics.
[Hammond]
Please stop posting your highly prepared "kook bashing"
repetoire to another graduate physicist who knows just
as well as you do what a "scientific theory" and an "axiom"
is.
Any physical law which cannot be derived from anything a priori
may be considered an "axiom" of physics in general parlance. Such
as the conservation of energy and momentum etc. Your eagerness to
digress into "semantics" or irrelevant issues is quite tedious...
and the well known hallmark of someone who doesn't know what he
is talking about and is merely an aggravated heckler.
> Now, THAT, ... is what I claim is a "scientific proof of God"!
[Baugh]
Again science proves nothing, it predicts.
[Hammond]
YEAH WE KNOW ALL THAT Baugh.. quit posting common cliches
it is quite tedious. and quit using "pedantic language" where it
is not necessary.. that is also quite tedious. As a graduate
physicist I am well aware fo what wods like "axiom", "proof"
etc mean, both PEDANTICALLY, and in GENERAL PARLANCE.
Quit posting irrelvant diversions in place of real
substance... people like me are very busy.
[Baugh]
If you have a proof
you've exceeded the authority granted by scientific methods
and should not borrow that authority by appending the qualifier
"scientific" to your claim.
[Hammond]
WRONG. I'm sorry that the world "scientific" irks you.. not to
say drives you up a wall... but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It DOES happen to be a SCIENTIFIC proof of God whether you like
it or not... and we may be assured that you don't like it... and
you may be assured we don't give a damn.
[Hammond]
<snip.... boring and irrelevant and longwinded "philawsepy rant">
> Now, before leaving off, let me just give you a simple
> stick model sketch of HOW the SPOG explains the
> above 11 points in Religion.
[Baugh]
You don't need SPOG to explain religion.
[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.
[Baugh]
Religion is a cultural phenomena like disco.
[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.
[Baugh]
It defies scientific
explaination in it specifics because it is a phenomenon of
intent and faith and choice and accidental events.
[Hammond]
Gutteral ignorance.
Unsupported assertion.
Disproven by the discovery of the SPOG.
> OK... for 100 years it has been known that the average
> adult person is NOT fully grown... this is because Science
> has discovered that there is a "Secular Trend" in human
> growth, whereby each suceeding generation is larger,
> stronger and more intelligent than past generations.
[Baugh]
On average, but that is life, evolution evolves. Those lines
which on the scale of eons fails to grow stronger and more intelligent
will fail in the competition for resources with those which do.
[Hammond]
The Secular Trend is known to be NOT GENETIC, therefore
it has nothing to do with "Evolution" which is entirely
genetic.
> This effect is known to be NOT genetic, but in fact is caused by
> sheer growth, due to the rising world standard of living,
> particularly nutrition. Modern soldiers for instance cannot
> even fit into a medieval suit of armor because they are so
> much larger than men of 500 years ago.
[Baugh]
Some have argued that this is in part due to the utilization
of steroids in livestock which we then injest but I've not
seen credible evidence... but I digress...
[Hammond]
No such crackpot thesis could stand up to scientific
scrutiny for 5 minutes.
The whole field of science agrees the main cause
is the increasing world standard of living.. mainly
nutrition. Cut the vaudville routine.
> This fact means that every organ in the body is less than fully grown,
> including notably the human BRAIN.
[Baugh]
Careful here, you are attempting to infer a limit point from the fact
that some qualitative description is monotonely increasing on average.
Rather than say "less than fully grown" simply say that every organ
in the body is still developing and growing. This is no suprise,
it is the definition of life.
[Hammond]
I'd suggest YOU be careful. There is such a thing as
the "genotype" and the "phenotype", and the first thing
starvation does is cause the phenotype to be smaller
than the genotype.
There are hothouse flowers (identical clones) that have been
raised in perfect environments for thousands of generations and
all are the same adult size... this then is the "genotypical size".
Take one of those flowers and plant it out in the back yard
and fail to water it and shade it from the sun, and in a
few generations of that and you will have plants that are
(phenotypically) only HALF the size of the genotypes in
the hothouse. This isn't rocket science, it is common sense..
which isn't quite so common as we thain apparently.
[Hammond]
<snip boring high school biology cliches from Baugh>
> OK.. turns out we already know what the "perceptual
> effect" of not having a fully grown brain is... since we
> are surrounded by CHILDREN who are prime examples
> of what a "less than fully grown person" actually is.
[Baugh]
Again let us say growing instead of "not fully grown"
your phrasing begs an unanswered question (the implicit
assumption you then use to prove itself).
[Hammond]
WRONG. there is such a thing as a "genotype" which is
the "theoretical full grown size" of the beast. You
do greatly err on this point.
There are acres of Orchid in California which are
"genetically identical clones" of each other and raised
under perfect hothous controlled conditions and are
all the same identical size... and this is the "genotypic
size" of that species.
THEREFORE... when you take one of these orchids and
raise it in the cold and the shade and in the desert for a
few generations, and it comes up only half size, it
has by definition a:
50% GROWTH DEFICIT
Please pay attention and be serious, you insouciance and
presumption is becoming very tiresome.
> This means then, that 1/3 of normal adult reality
> is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old simply due to his
> reduced mental (perceptual) speed due to incomplete
> growth of the brain.
[Baugh]
All of one normal adults "reality" is invisible ot another
adult or child. We cannot read minds.
[Hammond]
Please pay attention. By "reality" here, we are refering
only to the "size of space and speed of time" as seen
by and adult, compared to the "size of space and the speed of time"
as seen by someone else who is not fully grown. "Reality"
here is simply taken as "space and time"... e.g. the
METRIC of space and time.
We don't need to be concerned with what someone is
"thinking", or "looking at" for chrissakes... we're talking
about the fundamental METRIC OF REALITY of the person.
The METRIC OF REALITY of a 7 year old is only 2/3's
the size of the METRIC OF REALITY of an adult.
Judas' priest.... why do you guys keep going cutisie on
me?
[Hammond]
<snip... more irrelvant remarks about "reality models"...
for cripes sake by "reality" here I am ponly referring to
the "metric of reality" for Pete's sake.
> Now the POINT of this, is that the Secular Trend proves
> that as much as 20% of "true reality" is actually INVISIBLE
> to the average person... for EXACTLY the same reason..
[Baugh]
Now you have distinguished "true reality" from the mental model.
Let me make two points. First you can amplify your ability
to perceive by use of devices. A child with his less developed
brain may still use a high speed camera to record a visual sequence
and then play it back in slow motion. He then through the use
of this device can see much more than the adult. Your points
about growth trends are immaterial. Your principle point is that
our perceptions may be amplified (either through biological development
as we age or via devices.)
[Hammond]
WRONG.
1. There is no "mental model" involved.
2. When I say "reality" I am referring simply to the
METRIC of reality. No "mental model" is needed
for such a thing.
Moreover... fact is there IS NO "DEVICE" which can aid
perception so that you can see the "rest of reality"..
so far the only device known to man is the ARTIST..
(another human being) who can attempt to "draw you
a picture" of what the invisible world looks like
(assuming he can see more of it than you can)... which
is whay a Da Vinci like the Mona Lisa is worth
50,000,000 dollars.
Using "slow motion" on a camera WON'T allow you to
see the invisible world because the "character" of
people's personality CHANGEs CHARACTER as your visual
speed changes.... A slow motion camera would only
show you the same personalty moving slower.. while
a change in mental speed would show you a different
personaly type who is moving slower. If what you
say was the case... we could have replaced artists
with cameras long ago... fact is ...YOU CAN'T.
> This means that the average person is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD
> consisting of 20% of "true reality"... and this "invisible world" is
> nothing other than the so called HEAVEN of classical Religion! QED:
> Heaven exists!
[Baugh]
Wew you make quite a leap. Let me break it down: First as I pointed
out much of this "invisible world" can be made visible through use
of devices.
[Hammond]
WRONG...... ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
As your "mental speed" changes, your "personality type' also
changes (in real life). therfore, a simple "slow motion"
camera WILL NOT allow you to "see heaven". In fact, the
only known means so far is the perception and drawing ability
of highly skilled (historically famous) artists. For instance
DA VINCI is famous for drawing what happened to Mona Lisa
when she underwnet a "lifting of repression" and underwent
a "mental speed change".... her entire "Personality" changed,
(captured by the espression or "smile" on her face) and only
a DA VINCI can capture this by drawing an "artistic"
rendering of it. An actual photograph of Mona Lisa would
never have become world famous.... it is Da Vinci's artistic
expression of the phenomenon that is worth $50,000,000.
I would think anyone as ignorant of the phenomena of God who
had obtained your kind of status would know enough to be more
cautious... then again... it is POSSIBLE that the higher reaches
of the Physics establishment are actually far more corrupt
and ignorant than even I had imagined?
[Hammond]
<snip... long winded amateur fanciful rap totally reminiscent
of the amateur rants posted by many of the uneducated
simpletons on these threads>
--
Regards,
James Baugh
Likewise I'm sure,
George Hammond
George Hammond
Group at the Georgia Tech Physics department.
On May 22 he posted a criticism of my scientific proof of God
(SPOG) to sci.physics.relativity, and appeared quite eager to
discuss the SPOG and back up his criticisms.
This post may be found at:
-----------------------------
James E. Baugh <bacon...@charter.net>
Re: GOD=G_uv FOR THE TALKING CLASS
posted to sci.physics.relativity
on May 22 at 2:17 pm
Message ID: V04ke.13166$bD5....@fe07.lga
-----------------------------
At 10:56 that evening I posted a full reply and rebuttal to
his comments demonstrating how ridiculous and incompetent his
remarks were, and that reply may be found at:
-----------------------------
George E. Hammond <nowh...@nospam.net>
Re: GOD=G_uv FOR THE TALKING CLASS
posted to sci.physics.relativity
on May 22 at 10:56 pm
Message ID:
NDbke.6037$uR4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
-----------------------------
It is now 4 days later, and we have heard nothing
further from Dr. J.E. Baugh despite my sending a private
email to him the same day notifying him of the existence
of my posted reply! I guess we may assume that
Dr. Baugh has thought better of his amateur presumptions and
has concluded that he was barking up the wrong tree, and has
decided to retreat from his incompetent attack on the SPOG.
Interestingly, this is the 2nd time that a "quantum
physics expert" from a prestegeous physics department has
attempted to attack the SPOG and has been utterly routed,
not to say proven to be utterly insouciant and incompetent.
The remarks of Prof. Chris Isham about the SPOG for instance
may be seen at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Isdemunwin.html
where his comments are demonstrated to be to be utterly
erroneous and frankly nothing more than thinly veiled aggravation.
If any other "physics authority" feels that he has something to
say about the "scientific proof of God" (SPOG) which by the way
has been published in the peer reviewed literature, please feel
free to respond to this thread.
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
reply to Baugh
message news:QQIle.15906$bD5....@fe07.lga...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > It is now 4 days later, and we have heard nothing
> > further from Dr. J.E. Baugh despite my sending a private
> > email to him the same day notifying him of the existence
> > of my posted reply!
>
> George,
> I have a life outside this forum. (Specifically I just
> bought a new digital camera and have been playing with it.)
> If you will show some patience I'll be with you shortly.
>
> --
> Regards,
> James Baugh
[Hammond]
Look.... J.E.B..... would you please get someone to take a picture
of you with that new digital camera and upload it to your
Georgia Tech faculty website so we can see what you look like! I
notice most of the other faculty have their pictures there. A picture
is worth a thousand words you know when it comes to discussing
"a Relativistic theory of God and Psychology". It's nice to know
who the players are... sort of like baseball cards of the Quantum
Gravity Department!
I searched the whole web and couldn't find a pix of Chris Isham
and I finally had to wire him and ask him to email me a picture,
which I did... although recently a lot of pictures of him have
cropped up on the web from his 60th birthday party at the
Imperial College Theoretical Physics Group in London.
Looking forward immensely to talking to you... I don't get to talk
to very many fellow physicists you know!... and am extremely
pleased to discover that you are a sociable type!
And sorry for plastering your name all over s.p.r. in capitol
letters... but I'm desperate to talk to someone who is
competent in Physics! Anything you say on the subject of
GOD=G_uv is meaningful and of extreme interest... since you
actually know what G_uv is!
Anyway... here are a few items you have not responded to yet..
please respond on this thread which should be easier
to find on your newsreader than the other threads which have
reached encyclopedic length by now:
----------------------
[Hammond]
1. There physically exists an "invisible world" known as
"Heaven" which is similar to Earth only that it is a paradise.
2. "God" is an invisible man who lives there and is all
powerful and rules the actual (visible) world from there.
[Baugh]
Now you say this invisible world exists physically. By what
operational empirical tests do you confirm this? If as you
say it is *invisible* then surely you're saying it is specifically
not empirically observable and thus you've a contradiction if
you claim this hypothesis can be "scientifically proved".
[Baugh]
Again given he [God] is invisible (by choice I would assume since
he is all powerful) then there is no empirical means to confirm
or deny his existence. One must accept or reject this hypothesis
on faith. It thus is *not* a scientific issue.
..... show me..... the *repeatable* empirical
observation of God. None can exist "but by his will" so
none can be assumed to exist.
[Hammond]
Again this is an absolute semantic contortion. You seem to assume
that the word "invisible" means "undetectable".. check the
dictionary, it doesn't mean any such thing. Microwaves,
germs, oxygen, radioactivity, heat, smell, are all "invisible"
but that doesn't mean they are "undetectable"! They are
all easily detectable. Likewise, God is "invisible" but that
doesn't mean He is "undetectable"! Fact is God is not only
detectable, He is "measurable" to two decimal places
experimentally.
The whole section about the PFF (movie Picture Fusion
Frequency test) which you snipped out of my post is a direct
experimental detection of God and an actual quantitative
measurement of God! So is the entire body of published
Psychometry data... a two decimal experimental measurement
of "God".... e.g., now that I have explained theoretically
("axiomatic physicswise) what it is!
PS: please do not post trite trivia like "Physics is not axiomatic
only Math is"... we already KNOW that dude.... nevertheless
"axiomatic physics" has a well known common parlance meaning,
namely that any Law the cannot be derived from anything a priori
is commonly referred to as an "axiomatic law of physics".
( such as the conservation of energy, momentum, 2nd law of
Thermo, F=ma, etc. etc.).
[Baugh]
Why is it that your compare your "theory" with
other psychometricist's "models".
[Hammond]
It has been known for decades that the many 2,3,4,
5, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 Factor psychometric "models"
could be drawn as 3D geometrical figures by using
the arc-cosine of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient
as a construction angle. The FIRST discovery I
made was that ALL OF THEM can be unified
to form a CUBE whereby the 13 different models
are simply various "geometrical redactions" of the
13-symmetry axes of a CUBE!
... I discovered this by recognizing that the brain
itself is CUBICALLY CLEAVED and that this
(the "brain lobes" are actually the corner octants
of a cube) is the ORIGIN of the cubic structure of
Psychometry. I published this epochal
discovery in 1994 in the moderately prestigious
Psychology journal _New Ideas In Psychology_
where it was reviewed by 5 professorial rank
Factor Analysis experts who unanimously
recommended it for publication. This discovery
is known in the business as the long touted
"discovery of the Structural Model of Personality"
although of course it remains unrecognized by
Psychology because none of them have any
degrees in Physics and can't understand it!
[Baugh]
Second, where are your
empirical predictions. In your conclusions you assert
that your "theory" will have grand impacts on various
social institutions however nowhere does your theory
actually express a prediction of human behavior which
does not already exist in prior models.
[Hammond]
Wait a minute... I have discovered a "scientific proof
of God".. not merely "discovered the Structural
Model of Psychology". There is no existing "psychometric
model" that predicts the existence of God!!
It has been recognized for centuries what the significance
and impact of the discovery of a "scientific proof of God"
would be on the world... even Newton, DesCartes,
Leibnitz, Pascal and many others searched for it... particularly
DesCartes.
The Vatican even recognizes the "significance" of the
discovery of a scientific proof of God... though they have
expressed the sentiment that "they have no idea what such a
proof would consist of, or who might discover such a
proof" (Vatican encyclical, ca. 1960)
Ok JEB.... I'm waiting to hear from you, and so are MANY other
fans of Gravity Physics too. Please don't let us down!