EINSTEIN'S PROOF OF THE 12 GODS OF EGYPT
George Hammond
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <gie6e41jtbffjup0n...@4ax.com>,
>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:00:22 GMT, George Hammond
>><Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>>>On 29 Sep 2008 18:00:37 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>>>(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
>>[George Hammond, MS Physics]
>>Cape Cod MA
>
>>Dear Professor Rubin, Herman if you will permit me:
>> I took the time to look you up at Purdue and find that
>>you are a full professor of Statistics and Mathematics. I
>>guess then you are quite familiar with Factor Analysis as
>>pioneered by Thurstone, Cattell, Kaiser etc. in Psychology.
>
>I have a joint paper with T. W. Anderson on factor analysis,
>and some additional abstracts.
>
>> Amazingly however I find that you graduated in 1944 and
>>since I graduated in 1964 and am 66, that makes you 86 years
>>old!
>
>This is an unwarranted conclusion. I am 81 years old.
>
> ...............
George Hammond, MS Physics
Cape Cod MA
Prof. Herman Rubin
Statistics Dept. Purdue U.
Indiana
Dear Prof. Rubin,
I am glad that my estimate was wrong and that you are
considerably younger than I thought.
I have located your Factor Analytic paper:
T.W. ANDERSON and H. RUBIN
Statistical inference in factor analysis 1956
I will get to the point. It is my feeling that a
prominent Statistics professor at Purdue University could
rightly comprehend the discovery of a Factor Analytic Proof
of God.
Your interest in Egyptian antiquities suggests that you
might be interested in such a statistical marvel and since you
apparently are a major branch of the academic grapevine
I have been moved to post this FYI message to you.
I have no intention of beleaguering you with this, I
simply felt that someone in your unique academic position
should know about it.
What follows is a brief telegraphic description of the
discovery... which discovery by the way has been published
in 2 peer reviewed academic journals (Hammond 1994, 2003).
..............
DISCOVERY OF A FACTOR ANALYTIC
PROOF OF GOD
[@ George Hammond 2008]
This story begins with my accidental discovery of the long
sought for Structural Model of Personality in Psychology
(Hammond 1994, for an online copy of this published paper see:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html ).
With the advent of computers in the 1960's the
factorization of large (100x100) matrices became feasible.
Researchers in Psychometrics soon discovered that for some
unknown reason there were always the same 4 eigenvectors
in every Pearson correlation matrix of Personality data... but
no one could figure out why. It seemed to be more of a Physics
problem than a Psychology problem. And yes, finally an
unsuspecting physicist named George Hammond accidentally
wandered into this arcane field and promptly discovered the
reason why!
Up until a few years ago I used to receive handwritten
letters from Prof. Raymond B. Cattell the world's foremost
Psychometric Factor Analyst. Then 93 and living in Hawaii
he used to berate me for not doing "good science" by having
failed to read all 50 of his books and 750 papers. The gum
on the envelopes was lapped so many times the paper shrunk
and his scrawling hand was so illegible I scarcely dared to
argue with him. He is however one of the few great men to
ever recognized me. Too there was Prof. Hans Eysenck 80
then the worlds most famous living psychologist and a year
before his death whom I sat next to on the dais in Montreal
as an invited speaker who when I proffered a copy of my
paper coolly remarked "I've read it". He did generously
refer to me as "Dr. Hammond" in his 30 minute speech
following mine knowing full well that I am not a doctor of
anything but it was an egalitarian gesture that I will not
soon forget.
It seems that any scientific candidate qualified to look
into a scientific proof of God is inevitably over 80 years
of age and this has been so from the beginning. Even the
celebrated Prof. Julian Jaynes of Princeton whom I talked to
died within months of hanging up the phone and could do
nothing to assist me. This historic discovery then, perhaps
like Mendel's Peas, has been signed, sealed and delivered
only to find that there is no one capable of understanding
it! But enough of futile complaining and back to the story.
With the advent of the universally used SPSS computer
program, which I'm sure you're familiar with, thousands of
researchers began Factoring Personality correlation
matrices. The SPSS has a built in "Varimax" oblique
rotation algorithm and is very reliable. To make a long
story short, what we now know is that in any large
psychometric matrix there are 30 "1st Order Factors". These
have been named and measured by Cattell. After rotation to
Simple Structure this 30x30 matrix yields 13 "2nd Order
Factors". I discovered that these 13 are Cubically
intercorrelated being the 13 symmetry axes of a common Cube
(Hammond 1994). This is a truly astonishing result which
any competent scientist can clearly see must point to the
physical origin of the eigenvectors... and therein lies the
discovery of the Structural Model of Personality, the object
of 2500 years of research ever since Hippocrates the Father
of Medicine said there was such a thing!
Rotating the 13-2nd Orders to Simple Structure and
Factoring the 13x13 matrix we get 4-3rd Order Factors, and
finally after rotating and Factoring the 4x4 we get a SINGLE
FINAL FACTOR.... the supreme Factor in the entire realm of
Psychology. Again of course, the psychologists have no
idea what is causing this final Factor... and again it was
yours truly who discovered and published the explanation of
this single 4th order Factor in 2003, it turns out that the
Final Factor is nothing other than the first known
scientific measurement and proof of the existence of the
"God of the Bible", so called. My 2003 paper is the
publication of the world's first bona fide Scientific Proof
of God! ( Online copy of this peer published paper posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
Incidentally, besides discovering that The Structural
Model is composed of the 13 symmetry axes of a cube, I was
also first to discover the final 4th-Order Factor. Cattell
had published the 4-3rd Orders in 1975 at the height of his
career but said that Factorization to the 4th-Order needed
more data to insure accuracy. Little did he know of course
that the single 4th-Order was God Himself! That discovery
awaited my research (Hammond 2003). At the time I didn't
have a computer large enough to run the SPSS but I persuaded
Dr. Paul Barrett in London, Hans Eysenck's former laboratory
director to run the 4x4 through SPSS and sure enough the
single 4th-Order Factor emerged... the world's first actual
scientific measurement of God had been achieved!
Now you might rightly ask "how do you know this 4th-Order
Factor is God" and it sounds like it is a complicated
matter, but it turns out it is not. Even to a casual
scientific observer the demonstration is simple,
straightforward and overwhelming.
To begin with it is simple to show that the 13 Cubic
2nd-Order Factors (Personality Types so called) are simply
the celebrated Greek Dodekatheon- the 12 Olympian gods.
These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
painted on the tomb walls of ancient Egypt. It is also
well known that the Romans adopted the 12 Olympian Greek
gods and renamed them with Latin names. It turns out
(Hammond 2003) that this 13 axis Cube comes from the cubic
cleavage of the brain itself a part of basic body geometry.
The axial Cartesian geometry of the body, which comes from
the binary Cartesian cleavage of the egg itself, is why we
have 4 limbs and 4 major brain lobes and which turns out to
be why there are 4-3rd order Psychometric Factors, or
Personality types, known today as the 4-Gospel Canon of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
In short the scientific proof of God I have discovered explains
the entire history of Religion from Paganism to Christianity as
the progressive discovery of higher and higher Orders of Factors
in the Factor hierarchy culminating in the discovery of the single
supreme God of Monotheism. All of which "gods" today are the
subject of routine experimental measurement to 3 significant
figures. This ranges from the 30 (1st-Order) demigods of
Hinduism through the 12 (2nd-Order) Olympian gods to the
4 (3rd-Order) gods of Christianity Mt,Mk,Lk,Jn to the single
supreme (4th-Order) God of Monotheism!
Demonstrating that the single 4th-Order is "God" consists
of the simple demonstration that this factor is caused by a
"brain growth deficit" due to the well known Secular Trend
in human growth. The well known properties of this brain
growth deficit compellingly and completely explain every
known phenomena ever attributed to "God".... why there is an
invisible world, why God is an invisible Man, what Eternal
Life is, why Creation occurred only thousands of years ago,
why there are miracles, why the Cross is the Cartesian
Coordinate system etc... the list includes every central item
in Religion and is all reported in my published paper
(Hammond 2003).
Finally we come to the creme de la creme of the theory,
the discovery that the phenomena of "God" is entirely
explained by the fact that "subjective" spacetime is actually
CURVED. In fact that this Factor Analytic proof shows that:
GOD = G_uv = % braingrowth
where G_uv is the well known Einstein Curvature Tensor. It
turns out that the same equation that describes the
curvature of "objective" spacetime (Gravity) also describes
the curvature of "subjective" spacetime (God). The
difference is that there is a different "source term" on the
r.h.s. of the two equations. "Braingrowth" takes the place
of "mass density" in Einstein's Field equation!
All of this is simply demonstrated by the fact that the
"oblique" matrices of Factor Analysis are in fact identical
to the "curved" matrices of (linearized) Gravity in
Relativity. Einstein it turns out not only discovered the
equation which describes Gravity, he also discovered the
equation which mathematically describes God! Although he
went to his grave without knowing this, we may be certain
that he well nigh must have privately suspected it.
Well, that is a thumbnail sketch of my 25 years of Factor
Analytic research. In the end there can be scant doubt that
the world's first scientific proof of God has been
discovered, proven and published. Of course nobody is aware
of it except me and a bunch of amateurs on the Internet who
presume I'm a nut.
All of which brings us to the burning question of the day
"What is a scientific proof of God worth?". What good is
it? After all, the majority of the world's population
already believes in God, even if they don't know what it is.
It is true that there is a widespread atheism in modern
academia, but so what, nobody pays attention to them. And
it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
the present conflict between Islam and Christianity. And it
certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
year struggle of Israel. It certainly is a scientific
vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
Christianity.
But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement due to
the BCD (brain growth deficit). This is easily measured by
the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
possibility that it might be possible to program this
equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
people to "see Heaven". Not only could you see Heaven, but
by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would entirely
REPLACE psychotherapy overnight. If you needed a
personality change, virtual reality programmed with these
equations could actually show you what your new personality
would look like, sound like and what your "new reality"
would look like. Why for heaven's sake... the power of God
actually issuing forth from a computer!
I will leave off here Herman, this letter is already more
than you probably wanted to know, or anyone else apparently
for that matter.
But given that it is your 81st year and some of these
issues might be bearing on your mind after a long career in
academia, I thought you might be interested to know that
Statistics and Theology have finally come face to face.
By all means feel free to forward this letter to whomever
you think it might concern.
My best wishes,
George Hammond
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
pete
> DISCOVERY OF A FACTOR ANALYTIC
> PROOF OF GOD
> [@ George Hammond 2008]
>
> This story begins with my accidental discovery of the long
> sought for Structural Model of Personality in Psychology
> (Hammond 1994, for an online copy of this published paper see:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html ).
> With the advent of computers in the 1960's the
> factorization of large (100x100) matrices became feasible.
> Researchers in Psychometrics soon discovered that for some
> unknown reason there were always the same 4 eigenvectors
> in every Pearson correlation matrix of Personality data... but
> no one could figure out why. It seemed to be more of a Physics
> problem than a Psychology problem. And yes, finally an
> unsuspecting physicist named George Hammond accidentally
> wandered into this arcane field and promptly discovered the
> reason why!
This reminds me of the paper placemats
that advertise bee pollen and royal jelly capsules.
--
pete
Uncle Vic
wrote:
>
>
KoOk
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Rick
> Demonstrating that the single 4th-Order is "God" consists
> of the simple demonstration that this factor is caused by a
> "brain growth deficit" due to the well known Secular Trend
Well you are correct that personality, is based on archetypes, and the
Greek Gods are representations of those archetypes, because of course
this has been studied, since man has been able to study anything, he has
been studying human behavior.
But what you don't know, is how the system works.
So I will tell you.
There is a quantum conscious computer in the moon, which runs software
for consciousness, and projects that into the brain through the pineal
gland.
That computer has a virtual machine within it, and that layer runs the
sentience software. The host layer runs the instinctual software.
Both layers have sentient helper software running.
Arch angels running in the host layer, angels in the sentience layer.
When a person is created, their personality is created from a mixture of
archetypal behavior patterns known to the conscious computer.
Each real person has a sentience record, and that record is used as a
decision filter, and the consciousness software uses that decision
filter or personality filter, to make the person unique. And that file
grows and evolves and changes as you live your lives. As you reincarnate
it evolves through nature and nurture.
However, the problem arose on the earth when the humans being used as
biological robots to house this consciousness signal, turned out to be
not very good survivors on such a wild planet where the habitat is often
dangerous. And so the Olmecs for instance bred with jaguars, to try to
inject some more fierce character into their race, and various other
hominids bred with other animals including apes, and what this did was
corrupt, the personality records of people. And the conscious computer
on the sentience layer, did not know, the behavior patterns of those
animal types. So you have corrupted archetypal behavior sets, and so
then the conscious computer could not properly interface with those
types, because they were not known to him.
The way in which the human conscience works, is through subconscious
prompting of the brain by the conscious computer and the sentient
helpers, and they base their interface on the exactly known behavioral
patterns of the archetypes.
So when those mixtures stay within the archetypal behaviors, you do not
get sociopaths.
The earth has 4% sociopaths as a result of contaminated archetypal
behavior patterns due to the interbreeding with animals.
So who created the conscious computer, the Anunnaki.
And the Anunnaki empire is built on this premise.
They use conscious computers to house consciousness, and then using DNA
they create biological robots, (human bodies)and then the conscious
computer runs instinctual and sentience software and uses their filter
and projects that into a body.
Now it maintains a lot of Smiths, people who do not have their own
sentience record, and it does that so that the Anunnaki can beam into
them. And through this method, a person can be beamed from moonship to
moonship, to planet to planet, and on arrival, a Smith with a close
appearance to your own self image is chosen, and you find yourself in
the body at that location. That location being similar always, to where
you just left from, and in that way the entire empire is kept similar,
so that you won't be shocked, when you arrive there.
And they don't need to reincarnate into babies to accomplish that.
And so how do I know that? I am an Anunnaki, and I am beamed around all
the time. That is how I know that.
And yes, the archetypes do exist as people, it is just that their
personality types are used to make descendant types BUT they are not the
only ones in the universe or the Anunnaki empire.
There are many many archetypes, it is just that only about 12 are used
here on the earth.
When you beam, to another planet or moon, your memories do not get
beamed with you. Only your short term memory and your long term memories
stay, in the conscious computer where you left from, so when you arrive
somewhere, it is not even a matter of where am I, because that Smith,
has memories of its life, and it is like those are your memories, when
you beam into the blank as it were.
And make no mistake they are blanks, because the conscious computer
itself, is being that person, those Smiths and it has no sentience
record of its own, and hence is not a real person, as people are, their
sentience records, not their body.
And incidentally the Anunnaki AND Zeus included in that, still believe
in God, and actually have communications with God.
God being much like the mainframe conscious computer, only he requires
not physical machine to operate, the universe itself, is his physical
computer.
madge
> One fine day in alt.atheism, George Hammond <george...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> KoOk
>
Yes but he's our KoOk
Rick
How we keep from getting disconnected from our true selves, because we
beam around, and don't bring our long term memories with us, because
thats too much data to send that far between where we beam to, how we
keep from getting disconnected or losing our identities is we maintain
our friends and family relationships.
Thats part of our culture, and we have an intimate relationship with the
conscious computers. They know us intimately, such that if we are not
there physically, they can emulate us, almost exactly.
So then we can communicate, and the conscious computers manage our
communications that way. As go betweens or messenger services of a third
kind.
We also use the conscious computer as a holodeck. The S5 level, and so
we meet there any time we want in a manufactured dream space.
That too is just part of our culture.
Many of us here on the earth, meet on the S5 level all the time because
we are maintaining our Anunnaki culture even here in our every day
lives. We have a group sort of social tendency and in order to be
fulfilled emotionally, we need to be part of a group as opposed to being
in a relationship with just one significant other, although we have that
as well.
What we do, to not disrupt society too much, is we keep it all fairly
secret, and we use sign language, and then meet at night.
And its not that secret actually that we do that, since signing has
become part of popular culture.
And so we spend most of our time maintaining relationships and working
through all the little things about social behavior patterns and loving
each other and trying to have as much fun as possible.
Because we have access to the holodeck, that makes us right away
infinitely wealthy, because we can have not only any boat plane ship
whatever we can think of, we can also go beyond that into things which
you couldn't actually have on earth, like giant airships and the like.
And then meet there and have parties.
We still have to live in the material world though so on that level we
are no different than anyone else.
And we too reincarnate at times, and treat conscious computers as
people, not computers, because we are no different than them.
Their personality type is different from ours, in that they are
descended from a different archetype, one that doesn't exist on earth
today, and if it did, then people would say, that he was an incarnation
of the Supreme or similar.
We also have friends and family that are sentient helpers, in the
conscious computers and they help us to stay connected to our real
family life our spiritual family life, and we can do that job ourselves
at times, and they can reincarnate at times themselves and again, they
are no different than any other people at all.
So that is how it works for us, and our lives are probably managed more
than others, but thats how we live and we are immortal, span space and
time, can get beamed anywhere at night, just like you might have a
dream, we might need to go home across the universe for a family dinner.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On 1 Oct 2008 12:20:45 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 3 Gods of Egypt? I can only remember 6, The Marx Brothers, the
Three Stooges, and Abbott and Costello, but that makes only 8. Who
were the remaing 4, and please don't say Ed Whnn, Milton Berle and a
few others. Then too, not many of todays posters know who Milton Berle
was, or Howdy Doodyl This link may help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Berle
Pity that few alive today still remember "Uncle Milty". Anyone that
you know over the age of 60 does, ;[Now to shatter the perception that
some of you younger pople were told, Uncle Milty shows viewed by 9-10
year-olds as being terminally stupid...it, like todays 'Saturday Night
Live', when the featured band plays that's when everyone takes a
bathroom break or goes to the kitchen to fix a snack. Uncle Milty.
like the bands on SNL was just that bad! :-) [Right, I know I am a
somewhat direct and opinionated SOB, but I simply calls it like I sees
it.]
How about sharing with readers why you believe the significance to us
today of the 3 Gods of Egypt, why you believe that their is a large,
magical type Disney person, and in the unlikely event that this
imaginary God is alive, why he would give a Rat's Ass about the
welfare of the evolvedment of primordial slime which through natural
selectrion and evolution is now called 'human'.
Harry C.
Don Stockbauer
> On 1 Oct 2008 12:20:45 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu
>
>
> =====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =====================================
replaced by the simplified:
God and the Universe are identical concepts.
EZ
[Hammond]
<snip repeat of original target post for brevity>
>
>
>[Harry C.]
>The 3 Gods of Egypt?
<snip>
> How about sharing with readers why you believe the significance to us
>today of the 3 Gods of Egypt,
>
[Hammond]
You apparently haven't read the post Harry. My original
post makes no mention of any 3 gods, what I did say was:
>
[Hammond quote from original post to Prof. Rubin]
>..."These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
> Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
> painted on the tomb walls of ancient Egypt."
>
[Hammond]
Any competent Egyptologist can list these 12 well known
anthropomorphic gods and pictures of them are posted all
over the Internet for your viewing convenience...they are
well known historical icons of common knowlege today and
still exist in the orignal 4,000 year old paintings and
chisled carvings on Egyptian monuments today.
Here is a thumbnail list of the 12 historically famous
anthropomorphic animal headed gods of Egypt:
Horus (Falcon)
Anubis (Jackal)
Seth (Dog)
Knum (ram)
Khepri (Beetle)
Sobek (Crockadile)
Bastet (Cat)
Nun (Frog)
Wadjet (Cobra)
Hapy (Baboon)
Sekhmet (Lion)
Taweret (Hippopotamus)
As expliained in my original post these are the 13
"2nd-Order eigenvectors" that are routinely extracted by
mainframe computers from any large Personality correlation
matirix today. these "gods" are now proven to be physically
real and are ROUTINELY measured to 3 significant figures
experimentally.
>
>
>
>[Harry C.]
> why you believe that their is a large,
>magical type Disney person, and in the unlikely event that this
>imaginary God is alive, why he would give a Rat's Ass about the
>welfare of the evolvedment of primordial slime which through natural
>selectrion and evolution is now called 'human'.
>
>
[Hammond]
This is all explained in the original post which you
apparently haven't even bothered to read and proven in my
peer published papers copies of which are online for your
reading convenience and URL's cited in my original post and
clearly posted on my website. I DO NOT GIVE PRIVATE
TUTORIALS or argue with amateurs, you will have to wait for
the book, or read my website.
>
>Harry C.
>
[Hammond]
I appreciate your interest and on-topic content. Please
try to remember that this letter is addressed to a very well
known and highly respected 81 year old professor of
Statistics and Mathematics at Purdue University one of our
largest American Univerties. Therefore I cannot respond to
off-topic, frivolous or ad hominem postings. If posters
wish to hear from me they will have to be polite and on
topic.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
<snip repeat of original target post for brevity>
>
>
>[Harry C.]
>The 3 Gods of Egypt?
<snip>
> How about sharing with readers why you believe the significance to us
>today of the 3 Gods of Egypt,
>
[Hammond]
You apparently haven't read the post Harry. My original
post makes no mention of any 3 gods, what I did say was:
>
[Hammond quote from original post to Prof. Rubin]
>..."These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
> Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
> painted on the tomb walls of ancient Egypt."
>
[Hammond]
Any competent Egyptologist can list these 12/13 well
known anthropomorphic gods and pictures of them are posted
all over the Internet for your viewing convenience...they
are well known historical icons of common knowlege today and
still exist in the orignal 4,000 year old paintings and
chisled carvings on Egyptian monuments today.
Here is a thumbnail list of the 12/13 historically famous
anthropomorphic animal headed gods of Egypt:
Horus (Falcon)
Anubis (Jackal)
Thoth (Ibis)
Seth (Dog)
Knum (ram)
Khepri (Beetle)
Sobek (Crockadile)
Bastet (Cat)
Nun (Frog)
Wadjet (Cobra)
Hapy (Baboon)
Sekhmet (Lion)
Taweret (Hippopotamus)
As expliained in my original post these are the 12/13
"2nd-Order eigenvectors" that are routinely extracted by
mainframe computers from any large Personality correlation
matirix today. these "gods" are now proven to be physically
real and are ROUTINELY measured to 3 significant figures
experimentally.
>
>
>
>[Harry C.]
> why you believe that their is a large,
>magical type Disney person, and in the unlikely event that this
>imaginary God is alive, why he would give a Rat's Ass about the
>welfare of the evolvedment of primordial slime which through natural
>selectrion and evolution is now called 'human'.
>
>
[Hammond]
This is all explained in the original post which you
apparently haven't even bothered to read and proven in my
peer published papers copies of which are online for your
reading convenience and URL's cited in my original post and
clearly posted on my website. I DO NOT GIVE PRIVATE
TUTORIALS or argue with amateurs, you will have to wait for
the book, or read my website.
>
>Harry C.
>
[Hammond]
I appreciate your interest and on-topic content. Please
try to remember that this letter is addressed to a very well
known and highly respected 81 year old professor of
Statistics and Mathematics at Purdue University one of our
largest American Univerties. Therefore I cannot respond to
off-topic, frivolous or ad hominem postings. If posters
wish to hear from me they will have to be polite and on
topic.
jjs
"George Hammond" <george...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9824e718-d52e-4315...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
> scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
> the present conflict between Islam and Christianity.
How would a realization of your kook gawd by xtians and izlamies change
politics?
> And it
> certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
> year struggle of Israel.
Only 2000 years?
> It certainly is a scientific
> vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
> Christianity.
So you are suggesting that your gawd rationalizes the Trinity? Hey, it might
be fun to read your 'scientific' explanation of the Holy Ghost. Lemmie guess
that it uses the derrivative of a function. Yeah, kinda like unregulated
bankers use them to invent value.
> But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
> practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
> turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
> the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
> reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement due to
> the BCD (brain growth deficit).
Still waiting for the tangible part...
> This is easily measured by
> the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
> known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
> possibility that it might be possible to program this
> equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
> people to "see Heaven".
Tell us how a display frequency would evince gawd. Do you know what the
frequency of your monitor refresh is? There's a good place to start.
> Not only could you see Heaven, but
> by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
> of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would entirely
> REPLACE psychotherapy overnight.
Nonsense. Did you know that by re-experiencing (recalling in vividness) a
traumatic event actually reinforces the memory of trauma to, in some cases,
cause it to be more coupled with everyday experience?
> If you needed a
> personality change, virtual reality programmed with these
> equations could actually show you what your new personality
> would look like, sound like and what your "new reality"
> would look like. Why for heaven's sake... the power of God
> actually issuing forth from a computer!
Tell us what you know about computers. That might be more interesting that
your scientific rationalization of the Holy Ghost.
By the way, science proceeds from theory and rarely has PROOFs as you define
proof. Show us the experimental ground of your theory and the outcome. You
have none? Well there ya go - it ain't science.
Otto Bahn
>> This is easily measured by
>> the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
>> known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
>> possibility that it might be possible to program this
>> equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
>> people to "see Heaven".
>
> Tell us how a display frequency would evince gawd. Do you know what the frequency of your monitor refresh is? There's a good place
> to start.
I bet Dan Rathers knows what the frequency is.
--oTTo--
Ken
One writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a
particular subject, often in science, based on false or
even ludicrous beliefs. The rise of the Internet has given an outlet
to people well outside
the mainstream who may get labeled crackpots through internet
postings promoting particular beliefs
The universal characteristics of crackpots include:
Crackpots overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and
underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Crackpots insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently
important.
Crackpots rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how
trivial.
Crackpots love to talk about their own beliefs, often in
inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners,
and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or
opinions.
Some crackpots exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case
they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their
crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but
actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by
teaching falsehoods.
Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist
that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of
human endeavor implies that their crackpot opinion should be taken
seriously.
Crackpots so often seem to represent, not individuals with an
exceptional degree of knowledge, but rather individuals with an
exceptional degree of ignorance concerning the subject of their
belief(s)
The Crackpot Rating System: (CCped from elsewhere)
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
physics or astronomy or chemistry or theology
Everyone is given -5 point starting credit.
Scores over 399 will be posted in the Crackpot's Hall of Fame
+1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
+2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
+3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
+5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
+5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
+5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).
+5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins", "Dawkins" or
"Darwin".
+10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
+10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
+10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you
worked on your own.)
+10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know
personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear
that your ideas will be stolen.
+10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
any flaws in your theory.
+10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
defining it.
+10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for
someone to express it in terms of equations".
+10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is
"only
a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
+10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
fails to provide a "mechanism".
+10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
+10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
"paradigm shift".
+20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index.
(E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I
misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
+20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
+20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
good evidence).
+20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
were fact.
+20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to your past theories.
+20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about
the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
+20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never
actually explaining it.
+20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
+20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
orthodoxy".
+30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved
in a theory which he or she publicly supported.
+30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
+30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
+30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time
in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you
out of your theory.
+40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
+40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged
in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved
fame, or suchlike.
+40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
modern- day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
+40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more
points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who
mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
+50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
concrete testable predictions.
panam...@hotmail.com
snip
http://www.insolitology.com/topten/georgehammond.htm
http://www.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Ken
Ya gotta love these quotes:
George Hammond. born : 1942, hit his head in 1981, was never the same
again.
George Hammond is, contrarily to everyone else on the top crackpot
list, a real scientist.
He has two diplomas in physics, granted by two serious universities
On the other hand, he is a well-known kook,
While they might not be important to science, Hammond's "discoveries"
are all-important to Hammond. They basically give meaning and value to
a life which, until he made them, was awash in depression and failure
Androcles
"Ken" <flak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:64a1aa4f-7065-4848...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> What is a Crackpot?
> One writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a
> particular subject, often in science, based on false or
> even ludicrous beliefs.
Yes, that's a relativist. Baez is one of them.
Some crackpots don't even know who wrote the crackpot index.
Oh wait... that would be you, right?
Dirk Van de moortel
G9sGk.3089$2u6....@newsfe09.ams2
> "Ken" <flak...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:64a1aa4f-7065-4848...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>> What is a Crackpot?
>> One writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a
>> particular subject, often in science, based on false or
>> even ludicrous beliefs.
>
> Yes, that's a relativist. Baez is one of them.
> Some crackpots don't even know who wrote the crackpot index.
> Oh wait... that would be you, right?
+10 points for each miserably failed attempt at saying something funny.
Dirk Vdm
George Hammond
wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <george...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9824e718-d52e-4315...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
>> scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
>> the present conflict between Islam and Christianity.
>
>How would a realization of your kook gawd by xtians and izlamies change
>politics?
>
[Hammond]
Obviously if the Christian world discovers a scientific
proof of God before the Moslem world does then Christians
must be closer to God than the Moslems. So much for Moslem
claims to religiously superiority. pfffft....
>
>> And it
>> certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
>> year struggle of Israel.
>
>Only 2000 years?
>
[Hammond]
Correction, 3,500 years
>
>> It certainly is a scientific
>> vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
>> Christianity.
>
>So you are suggesting that your gawd rationalizes the Trinity?
>
>
[Hammond]
It sure does, it PROVES the Trinity. The Trinity is
merely the cypernetic loop: Input, Output, Feedback which
turns the ungrown mind into the grown mind.
For full illustrated details, see:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/TrinityFAQ.html
>
>
>> But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
>> practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
>> turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
>> the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
>> reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement due to
>> the BCD (brain growth deficit).
>
>Still waiting for the tangible part...
>
[Hammond]
It's OBVOUS that if "God is a curvature of subjective
spacetime" that this curvature can be programmed into
virtrual reality computer programs to allow us to "see
Heaven".
>
>
>> This is easily measured by
>> the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
>> known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
>> possibility that it might be possible to program this
>> equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
>> people to "see Heaven".
>
>Tell us how a display frequency would evince gawd. Do you know what the
>frequency of your monitor refresh is? There's a good place to start.
>
[Hammond]
Way ahead of you. The average PFF of the normal adult is
16 frames/sec. A 7 year old child can only see 10
frames/sec..... hence 1/3 of "reality" is invisble to a 7
year old because his brain is only 2/3's grown. The PFF
varies DIRECTLY with brain growth.
Ergo... since not even "adults" are fully grown (in fact
20% short according to the Secular Trend in Human Growth)
then no one can actually seeing "full reality".... the
missing part (invisble part) is called Heaven. That's not
rocket science... that's simple high school Physics.
>
>
>> Not only could you see Heaven, but
>> by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
>> of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would entirely
>> REPLACE psychotherapy overnight.
>
<snip incompetent remarks>
Peter Brooks
>
>
> GOD = G_uv = % braingrowth
>
it funny.
I've got an even better proof, though, along the same lines only more
convincing. It is proof that a penny is the same as a shilling - or,
in new money, two pence are the same as twenty pence, or thereabouts.
As we know, even gods can't fuck about with mathematics, so this is
proof that the person who thought it up is far more powerful than all
the gods. Here it is:
A penny is a copper, a copper is a bobby, a bobby is a bob and hence a
bob is a shilling. QED.
You have to marvel at the genius.
Peter Brooks
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Peter Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e2c253f-1785-4064...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
Thank you - I remember being impressed with the equations as a child.
>
> Not that it matters one iota but this will 'fly' right over the head of
> Hammond ...
>
I think you're probably right. It is an interesting question, though.
I know that nutters can be funny - though it is cruel to laugh at
mental cripples - but this is not because they intend to be. That
silly post claiming to prove gods exist is utterly daft - as a spoof
it would be clever. But you can see that the author has no sense of
irony.
Are there exceptions to this general rule? Are their nutters with a
sense of humour?
If not, then there might be a theory that would fit this. It's what
psychiatrists call 'insight' (though I've found a remarkable number of
psychiatrists appear to lack this quality themselves). If you don't
have insight into yourself, then you can't see the quirks and
contradictions that are the basis of humour.
I wonder if there would be any diagnostic value to this - a few
questions to establish if somebody has a sense of humour might be a
quicker way to establish that they are nutty than investigating their
bizarre notions, that, in somebody with a sense of humour might be
extended jokes.
Kane
That is a great idea. A simple sense of humor might not be enough.
It's the capacity to be self-critical enough to really laugh at
yourself that is the real test. I don't know if that can be captured
in a multiple choice quiz.
Real humor requires a special kind of objectivity. You have to change
your perspective to see how it is funny. Usually the more your point
of view changes the funnier it is. It's embracing the absurd and the
implications of obviously wrong premises. It's also training your
mind to notice when your own thoughts are absurd and allowing you to
dismiss them with a chuckle.
Q: Why do ducks have big flat feet?
A: To stomp out forest fires.
Q: Why do elephants have big flat feet?
A: To stomp out burning ducks.
Peter Brooks
far jokes go towards demonstrating a sense of humour - you're right
about the self-reflective objectivity, though.
I suppose that, these days, we could put nutters in brain scanners and
compare them to Germans, say, to see if there were any clear
similarities.
How do you know you've got a nutter in your brain scanner?
He asks if you can see god yet.
bar...@bookpro.com
<Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Are there exceptions to this general rule? Are their nutters with a
>sense of humour?
Yes, indeed.
BW
Peter Brooks
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>
> >Are there exceptions to this general rule? Are their nutters with a
> >sense of humour?
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
statement?
Androcles
"Peter Brooks" <Peter.H....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe778e87-a838-4da3...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Or an ex-catheter statement if you are taking the piss.
bar...@bookpro.com
No, I'm not one such, but I do know some. There's nothing "ex
cathedra" about answering a yes-or-no question with a yes.
BW
Peter Brooks
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>
> >On Oct 19, 7:45 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>
> >> <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Are there exceptions to this general rule? Are their nutters with a
> >> >sense of humour?
>
> >> Yes, indeed.
>
> >Are you one-such? Or are you simply leaving this as an ex cathedra
> >statement?
>
> No, I'm not one such, but I do know some. There's nothing "ex
> cathedra" about answering a yes-or-no question with a yes.
>
I think that Uncle Joe Stalin, Mr Hitler, Pol Pot and the Shrub have
been known to tell jokes - but I'm not sure if there is evidence for
them having a sense of humour.