GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
George Hammond
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:IA7%d.918$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:JeudnVkF0uR...@comcast.com...
> > George Hammond wrote:
PS:
[Hammond]
BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
flat by the following simple test:
Take a stopwatch and read the following 20 letters
out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
to a tenth of a second:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
and IQ = 5 MS + 25
Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
Lets see if you're really a genius like you say you
are?
"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1111281908.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip crap>
[Hammond]
Look... lets take one thing at a time.
You have DENIED that:
Intelligence = Mental Speed
OK, here is a simple online review (published in the Euro. J.
of Personality... a leading academic publication) which
PROVES you are wrong.
the short summary is here:
http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/lehrl.html
(1 page summary)
and the full paper is here:
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(full paper)
In this (1990) paper reviewed by Chris Brand and
Sarah Hampson and citing Hans Eysenck all of whom
are world famous and all of whom I have talked to
personally... they point out that your "mental speed"
in bits per second can be measured by simply writing
down 20 random letters of the alphabet and asking you
to read them out loud as fast as you can and
timeing you with a stopwatch!
Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet and
26 = (2)^4.7 , the identification of one letter
represents 4.7 bits of information... and since
decisions are binary... rounded off it is
5 BITS. So 20 letters = 100 bits of info. and
if it takes you time=t to read them, then
your:
MENTAL SPEED = 100/t bits per second
and this they find correlates 0.6 with your
measured IQ as measured by a standard
IQ test. In fact they can COMPUTE your
IQ by using this method to measure your
mental speed:
IQ = 5(mental speed in bits/s) +25
The artice gives a whole review of the myriad of
researches that confirm this including:
Reaction Time testing
Evoked brain potential measurements
Brain wave latencies
Picture Fusion frequency
etc., etc., etc.
And that GROWTH increases mental speed is
experimentally verified by the fact that "picture
fusion frequency" INCREASES with age
for people under 18 (children).
A 7 year old will see a moving picture
when the movie frame rate is only 10
frames/sec while a 15 will not see
a "moving picture" until the frame
rate is 15 frames/sec... and this has
been accurately measured for children
of all ages and increases LINEARLY...
just as INTELLIGENCE itself does
because of BRAIN GROWTH.
This is DIRECT PROOF that children
(and non fully grown adults) are surrounded
by an INVISIBLE WORLD (known as "God").
IN SHORT.... you don't have a clue
as to what you are talking about:
Fact is:
Mental speed in "bits/second" of
processing speed IS the predominant
biological correlate of INTELLIGENCE
with a staggering Pearson correlation
of 0.6 (and higher in some experiments).
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!
====================================
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
===================================
George Hammond
PS: Your push button digital watch will work just fine.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
'Modern Major General' would score IQs well into the 200s.
Harry C.
Marc Goodman
> Obvious nonsense, otherwise most of those who can competently sing G&S'
> 'Modern Major General' would score IQs well into the 200s.
Yes? Your point being what, exactly?
--
I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
IQ with copy and paste: 30,000
IQ without copy and paste: 0
George Hammond
"Marc Goodman" <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:423DE26...@comcast.net...
> hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Obvious nonsense, otherwise most of those who can competently sing G&S'
> > 'Modern Major General' would score IQs well into the 200s.
>
> Yes? Your point being what, exactly?
[Hammond]
Since when do morons have a point?
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:IA7%d.918$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:JeudnVkF0uR...@comcast.com...
> > George Hammond wrote:
PS:
[Hammond]
BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
flat by the following simple test:
Take a stopwatch (your push button digital watch
will work just fine) and read the following 20 letters
out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
to a tenth of a second:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
and IQ = 5 MS + 25
Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
Lets see if you're really a genius like you say you
are?
(ps: the paper below reports the average grad
student can do it in 4.6 sec = 22 bit/s = 133 IQ)
George Hammond
[Hammond]
BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
flat by the following simple test:
Take a stopwatch (your push button digital watch
will work just fine) and read the following 20 letters
out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
to a tenth of a second:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
and IQ = 5 MS + 25
Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
Lets see if you're really a genius like you say you
are?
(ps: the paper below reports the average grad
student can do it in 4.6 sec = 22 bit/s = 133 IQ)
"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in
reply from Stew Dean
> > [Hammond]
> > And your statement that "Intelligence is not Mental Speed" is
> > pure horseshit. The following (online) article is representative of
> > THOUSANDS of published papers in the journal _Intelligence_
> > over the past 40 years:
> >
> > http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/lehrl.html
> >
> > where it says:
> >
> > "This reveals an individual constant period during which 1 bit of
> > information is processed. It is called the 'basic period of
> > information processing' (BIP), which lasts 1/15 s (= 67 ms)
> > in average adults (IQ 100)............ in representative
> > samples of adults duration of BIP correlates with global
> > IQ (r = -0.60):..."
>
>
> Yes it does. This is an attempt, with some validity, to work out the
> processing speed of any given brain.
>
> I concede that mental speed is part of many pshychometric discussions -
> it is still work in progress though.
[Hammond]
The whole of Psychology, and even Physics is a "work in progress".
The point is that the "Galton paradigm" (Eysenck 1985) is over
100 years old.... GALTON was the first one to suggest that
Intelligence is mental speed. The suggestion has been on a firm
experimental basis ever since Roth in 1960. At this point, there
is NO DOUBT that "mental speed" is the predominant
biological correlate of Intelligence.
>
> >
> > For chrissakes Stew.... a Pearson correleation of .6 is an
> > ASTRONOMICAL level of correlation! It's one
> > of the highest correlations known in the entire
> > field of Intelligence!!
>
> Correlation to what? Context is helpful.
[Hammond]
The coreelation of "mental speed in bits/s" with
"measured Intellgeince" is 0.6 ! As Lehrl and Fischer
summed it up: "Mental speed is the cause of Intelligence".
>
>
> > Get real... you don't know what
> > you're talking about! You and Stephen J.
> > Gould are full of the same horseshit!
>
> Despite what you may think science is not about absolutes.
[Hammond]
Stew... unlike you I have 2 degrees in Physics for chrissakes,
I don't need you to tell ME what science is!
> There is a
> lot of good work here but, taking a step back, what you have is
> essential a top down approach to a bottom up system. Obviously
> psychometrics is about measuring the brain - this it does quite well.
> What it doesn't do is explain how it works.
[Hammond]
Look... we don't even know "how gravity works".... that doesn't
mean that you can sit there and say Einstein's theory is wrong...
it isn't.... in fact it's proven to be correct. Same with the SPOG.
Just because we don't know "how the brain works" does NOT
mean that the SPOG can't be proved!
>
> I'll make you some concessions here as we're getting bogged down. Let's
> say we go for the whole g factor way of measuring the brain. Lets say
> we accept that perception alters with intelligence - so those that are
> more intelligent have a 'quicker' perception of the world.
>
> Where next?
[Hammond]
The whole thing is outlined step by step on my website
and my published papers. The CLEAR conclusion is that
the world's first scientific proof of the existence of God
has been found.
So far you seem to be willing to concede that the more intelligent
see a world that runs as a slower speed... this is correct.
Basically the next step is to prove that this difference in speed
is a "curvature". And that threfore "God" is proven to be
a "curvature of seen reality". such a finding proves beyond
any question that not only does "god exist"... but that
as far as physics is concerned... god is caused by gravity.
>
> You are saying something about there is an invisible world they can't
> see. That is the same for everyone surely. After all ther is an
> infinite amount of things we do not perceive. What we have is
> perception relative to each other - after all you can't use the
> potential perception ability as it doesnt exist to be compared to.
[Hammond]
False... the Secular Trend is the CAUSE of the perceptual deficit..
and the Secular Trend is the difference between the Genotype and
the Phenotype. We are the PHENOTYPE.... and obviously the
GENOTYPE (by definition) sees "true reality". The Genotype is
"God".
>
> To boil it down two different people will perceive things differently.
> The same person will only perceive things in one way but this ability
> will change due to what is best described as a complex set of factors.
> This is nature, nurture, environment etc..
[Hammond]
Yes.... obviously we are all walking around in "different realites"
and NONE of them is "true reality".
>
> What I want to know, without you usual bombastic stuff, now can god be
> a difference between a persons actual abiltiy and their potential
> ability (in theory there are multiple potential abilities)?
[Hammond]
OF COURSE God is the difference between the ability
(reality) of your PHENOTYPE and the ability (potential
ability) and reality of your GENOTYPE.
Yawn.... yawn.... yawnnnnnnn.............
>
> Stew Dean
John Vreeland
<nowh...@nospam.net> wrote:
[snippety snip]
>been accurately measured for children
>of all ages and increases LINEARLY...
>just as INTELLIGENCE itself does
>because of BRAIN GROWTH.
> This is DIRECT PROOF that children
>(and non fully grown adults) are surrounded
>by an INVISIBLE WORLD (known as "God").
>IN SHORT.... you don't have a clue
>as to what you are talking about:
>
>Fact is:
>
> Mental speed in "bits/second" of
> processing speed IS the predominant
> biological correlate of INTELLIGENCE
> with a staggering Pearson correlation
> of 0.6 (and higher in some experiments).
[snippety snip]
I think that excessive emphasis of words is an indication of some sort
of mental inadequacy.
Also, I read the list of letters in just over two seconds, which
probably demolishes your argument. I read a lot and have excellent
visual abilities honed by years of playing video games. Sometimes I
can be rather thick, however. Ask my ex-wife.
If you had written them in hiragana it would take me a lot longer.
Perhaps that's a good measure of how smart I am in Japanese.
Jack V (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_
further reply to Dean
> claiming it is a "Fact".
[Hammond]
Your attempt at being facetious is PATHETIC.
I have read the entire field of Psychometry years ago,
and over 200 references are cited in my published papers
which are posted on my website and which you are TOO
LAZY to even bother to read. who do you think
you are kidding by making an arrogant remark like that.
>
> The G factor is a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It is
> more complex than you have described and it's worth noting the word
> correlation. It's also worth pointing out many have disagreed with
> this, Steven Jay Gould for example.
[Hammond]
Stepehn J. Gould was a half baked heretic who was
adverse to IQ measurements because he had a
mentally retarded child.
<snip meaningless commonplace amateur tripe>
> Also -
>
> "g has a large number of biological correlates, and they are rapidly
> being discovered by new research. Strong correlates include mass of the
> prefrontal lobe, overall brain mass, and glucose metabolization rate
> within the brain. g correlates less strongly, but significantly, with
> overall body size. There is conflicting evidence regarding the
> correlation between g and peripheral nerve conduction velocity, with
> some reports of significant positive correlations, and others of no or
> even negative correlations."
[Hammond]
We know ALL THAT, and all of it is irrelevant to the fact
that the predominant biological correlate of "intelligence"
("g") is in fact MENTAL SPEED. The correlation is
0.6 !
>
>
> > And that GROWTH increases mental speed is
> > experimentally verified by the fact that "picture
> > fusion frequency" INCREASES with age
> > for people under 18 (children).
>
> Again the age is 16.
[Hammond]
That is both argumentative and totally IRRELEVANT.
I WILL WARN YOU ONCE AGAIN... don't try to
argue IRRELVANT AND TRIVIAL POINTS as
a means of HARRASSMENT.
>
>
> > A 7 year old will see a moving picture
> > when the movie frame rate is only 10
> > frames/sec while a 15 will not see
> > a "moving picture" until the frame
> > rate is 15 frames/sec...
>
> And a pigeon doesnt see a moving picture until about 100 frames/sec. I
> can't work on a computer screen that's set to 50 frames a second
> because I can see the flicker.
[Hammond]
SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!
The point of this citation is to PROVE TO YOU that
CHILDHOOD GROWTH
INCREASES MENTAL SPEED
a point that you have deined, and a point that is of
DIRECT RELEVANCY to the SPOG.
what in the christ are you bringing up the topic
of PIGEONS for........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PIGEONS ARE IRRELEVNT TO THE ISSUE
UNDER SISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Pigeons are therefore smarter than me.
[Hammond]
the mental processing speed of a pigion is
FAR LESS than that of a human... which
is why HUMANS are more intelligent
than pigeons. Stop trying to be cute...
If you want to admit you're a moronic and psychotic
and vicious HARRASSER.... just go ahead and admit
it and then get the fuck out of here.........
> > and this has
> > been accurately measured for children
> > of all ages and increases LINEARLY...
> > just as INTELLIGENCE itself does
> > because of BRAIN GROWTH.
>
> The work you have quoted does not support this. Please provide further
> material.
[Hammond]
The work supports it and the references to the original papers
are cited in the work.... go look it up your self amateur... I'm
not here to argue with a lazy amateur.
>
>
> > This is DIRECT PROOF that...
>
> You don't have proof in science. The rest I've snipped as it was bad
> psuedoscience, taking the bits you like, ignoring the important bits
> you don't like and turning a fraction of a the origianal theory into a
> FACT.
[Hammond]
I have 2 degrees in Physics. You have none.
I'll tell you what science is rather than vice versa.
Rob Duncan
"reply from Stew Dean" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote
> Basically the next step is to prove that this difference in speed
> is a "curvature". And that threfore "God" is proven to be
> a "curvature of seen reality". such a finding proves beyond
> any question that not only does "god exist"... but that
> as far as physics is concerned... god is caused by gravity.
You are ill. There is no curvature. That you view a god could be created
by a non-existent curvature and gravity is decidedly odd. "curvature of
seen reality?" How does that impart quantifiable attributes to a god in the
real world? It doesnt. Its a figment of your delusional mind. You are
ill. Youre fixated on the most common thing mentally ill people fixate on.
Religion. That your no longer able to function in your previosly chosen
profession should be a clue...
How does OUR minds perception CREATE a god with powers and such? HOW? How
would a curvature CREATE a god? It cant. Why would it. Its meaningless.
A simple observation is all your making (an incorrect one to boot) and then
somehow your mind is making you think the way we percieve things somehow
actually CREATES things. Truly, an untenable position.
>> You are saying something about there is an invisible world they can't
>> see. That is the same for everyone surely. After all ther is an
>> infinite amount of things we do not perceive. What we have is
>> perception relative to each other - after all you can't use the
>> potential perception ability as it doesnt exist to be compared to.
>
> [Hammond]
> False... the Secular Trend is the CAUSE of the perceptual deficit..
> and the Secular Trend is the difference between the Genotype and
> the Phenotype. We are the PHENOTYPE.... and obviously the
> GENOTYPE (by definition) sees "true reality". The Genotype is
> "God".
Word salad. Youre a scizophrenic. Meaningless babble that only makes sense
to you. That should be another clue youre ill. If you havent noticed,
nobody believes a word you say. Not because they arent smart enough to
decipher what you write, but rather because what you write is meaningless
babble. Word salad. You cant speak following a common train of logic.
What you write is meaningless to normal human minds who arent ill. You
make no logical connections between your observations and your conclusions.
If you really were as smart as you feel you are youde be able to explain
yourself in a manner that could be understood. That you cant... is further
evidence. Please, see a psychiatrist.
>> To boil it down two different people will perceive things differently.
>> The same person will only perceive things in one way but this ability
>> will change due to what is best described as a complex set of factors.
>> This is nature, nurture, environment etc..
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes.... obviously we are all walking around in "different realites"
> and NONE of them is "true reality".
At least youre correct on one thing. We have no shared reality. Just
individual perspectives.
>> What I want to know, without you usual bombastic stuff, now can god be
>> a difference between a persons actual abiltiy and their potential
>> ability (in theory there are multiple potential abilities)?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> OF COURSE God is the difference between the ability
> (reality) of your PHENOTYPE and the ability (potential
> ability) and reality of your GENOTYPE.
>
> Yawn.... yawn.... yawnnnnnnn.............
No kidding. So if a persons ultimate potential only leads up to being a 60
IQ imbecile... theres no god for him?
And because Im bright, and could be even more so had I not hydrocephalus, my
god is more real, more powerful, than yours? (being my reality is far less
than my potential.)
So you think the difference between what is, and what could be, or could
have been. Is god? How could a difference (simply a measurment) be a
concrete thing? A god. With attributes. How could a concept of the mind
(a difference) become a real thing? How does this occur? What properties
of the universe lend towards creation of things when full potentials fall
short?
When we create our first cognizent computer, which we will someday do, is a
new god created because ultimately there will be much more cognizent
computers? You appear to be saying differences in levels of perception
actually has some sort of creative ability. How do non-existent things such
as measurments have the power to create things?
Do other non-existent concepts have creative power as well? Differences
arent things, they are measurments. Fabrications of the mind. They posses
no qualities in and of themselves. Theyre literally non-existent other than
in the mind of man. Concepts. Nothing more.
Youre very ill as attested to by your adament refusal to view what is most
likely in this situation. Its much less likely that your correct than it is
that youre ill. Youre ill. Go see a psychiatrist before ruining the rest
of your life on such nonsense. Stopping smoking pot for a few weeks will
help a bit if youre into such a thing.
Rob
Rob Duncan
"further reply to Dean" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote\
> what in the christ are you bringing up the topic
> of PIGEONS for........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> PIGEONS ARE IRRELEVNT TO THE ISSUE
> UNDER SISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>
>> Pigeons are therefore smarter than me.
>
> [Hammond]
> the mental processing speed of a pigion is
> FAR LESS than that of a human... which
> is why HUMANS are more intelligent
> than pigeons. Stop trying to be cute...
No. He makes a very good point that you try to smother. A pigeon, a dogs,
a cats, processing speed is far in excess of ours. Simple fact. That blows
your entire delusional and psychotic theory to crap. A cat cant even see
that the television is even displaying tweety-birds unless its retarded.
Ask any animal behaviorist. Its the first sign your cats an idiot. All a
normal cat can see is static. The lines dont flash across the screen fast
enough for it.
Try this for a mental example. Theres a hole, a mouse is about to come out,
who can snatch it first? You, or the cat? Obviously the cat. Faster
processing speed. Maybe your god is the difference between the cats curved
processing speed and your IQ gravity? Ever think of that?
> If you want to admit you're a moronic and psychotic
> and vicious HARRASSER.... just go ahead and admit
> it and then get the fuck out of here.........
He's not. Its just that your ill and in regard to god, make no sense at
all. Your thinking is so convoluted if you presented any harm to yourself
or others youde be locked up against your will. Really, think about it, a
god is created by a "measurement?" Cant you recognise how absurd that
sounds to normal healthy minds? This imaginary reality/potential gap has no
tangible qualities. It exists in the mind only. What powers it to create
anything? "It" doesnt even exist.
>> > and this has
>> > been accurately measured for children
>> > of all ages and increases LINEARLY...
>> > just as INTELLIGENCE itself does
>> > because of BRAIN GROWTH.
>>
>> The work you have quoted does not support this. Please provide further
>> material.
>
> [Hammond]
> The work supports it and the references to the original papers
> are cited in the work.... go look it up your self amateur... I'm
> not here to argue with a lazy amateur.
>> > This is DIRECT PROOF that...
>>
>> You don't have proof in science. The rest I've snipped as it was bad
>> psuedoscience, taking the bits you like, ignoring the important bits
>> you don't like and turning a fraction of a the origianal theory into a
>> FACT.
>
> [Hammond]
> I have 2 degrees in Physics. You have none.
> I'll tell you what science is rather than vice versa.
You "had" 2 degrees. No longer. Youre ill. Your education and knowledge
is now useless in light of your fixation on attributing active qualities to
descriptive adjetives. Youre insane. For real. You can test it by
questioning yourself to see if youve questioned your sanity in the past.
Normal people do all the time when pondering seriously ideas like yours.
That you dont question your own sanity, like a normal person would, is the
hallmark of the insane. Youre ill. Someday, after you screw up, do a bunch
of dumb things, you will hit bottom, and sadly then finally realize it.
Thats why I reply, thats why I hope you get help now, rather than later. If
Im not mistaken the most common method of death for those suffering
schizophrenia is suicide. (untreated schizophrenia) the numbers are
staggering... something like 8 of 10. Just go and see. What can it hurt
you?
Heck, just do it to patronize some fool on the net. Use whatever excuse
works. But you need to. This is a bad and dangerous path youre on. Seek
help, please.
Rob
George Hammond
"Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:7IidnXaEFeD...@gbronline.com...
>
> "further reply to Dean" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote\
>
>
> > what in the christ are you bringing up the topic
> > of PIGEONS for........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > PIGEONS ARE IRRELEVNT TO THE ISSUE
> > UNDER SISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >>
> >> Pigeons are therefore smarter than me.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > the mental processing speed of a pigion is
> > FAR LESS than that of a human... which
> > is why HUMANS are more intelligent
> > than pigeons. Stop trying to be cute...
>
> No. He makes a very good point that you try to smother. A pigeon, a
dogs,
> a cats, processing speed is far in excess of ours.
<snip... moronic crap>
> Rob
[Hammond]
Look asshole.... just because a hummingbird can flap
it's wings at 100 cycles per second DOES NOT MEAN
it is more intelligent than a human being.
The mental information processing speed of the human brain
(approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
intelligenct species on Earth.
=====original target post================
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
message news:IA7%d.918$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:JeudnVkF0uR...@comcast.com...
> > George Hammond wrote:
PS:
[Hammond]
BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
flat by the following simple test:
Take a stopwatch (or digital wristwatch)
and read the following 20 letters
out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
to a tenth of a second:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
and IQ = 5 MS + 25
Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
Lets see if you're really a genius like you say you
are?
PS: The average grad student scores around
22 bits/sec or IQ=133
<snip crap>
Intelligence = Mental Speed
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(full paper)
And that GROWTH increases mental speed is
experimentally verified by the fact that "picture
fusion frequency" INCREASES with age
for people under 18 (children).
A 7 year old will see a moving picture
when the movie frame rate is only 10
frames/sec while a 15 will not see
a "moving picture" until the frame
rate is 15 frames/sec... and this has
been accurately measured for children
of all ages and increases LINEARLY...
just as INTELLIGENCE itself does
because of BRAIN GROWTH.
This is DIRECT PROOF that children
(and non fully grown adults) are surrounded
by an INVISIBLE WORLD (known as "God").
IN SHORT.... you don't have a clue
as to what you are talking about:
Fact is:
Mental speed in "bits/second" of
processing speed IS the predominant
biological correlate of INTELLIGENCE
with a staggering Pearson correlation
of 0.6 (and higher in some experiments).
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!
George Hammond
>
> "reply from Stew Dean" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote
>
> > Basically the next step is to prove that this difference in speed
> > is a "curvature". And that threfore "God" is proven to be
> > a "curvature of seen reality". such a finding proves beyond
> > any question that not only does "god exist"... but that
> > as far as physics is concerned... god is caused by gravity.
>
> You are ill. There is no curvature.
[Hammond]
You're fulla shit too. A 5 year old sees a much faster
and much larger world than a 15 year old.... and this
is mathematically described as a "curvature". I've
published the proof in the peer reviewed scientific
literature:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
and demonstrated that in fact this effect SCIENTIFICALLY
EXPLAINS what we call "God".
> That you view a god could be created
> by a non-existent curvature and gravity is decidedly odd. "curvature of
> seen reality?" How does that impart quantifiable attributes to a god in
the
> real world? It doesnt.
[Hammond]
It explains ALL of the historically reported "attributes
of God"... and this is fully demonstrated in my
published paper cited above... and explained in
SIMPLE LARGE PRINT language on my website.
> HOW? How
> would a curvature CREATE a god? It cant. Why would it.
[Hammond]
why don't you read the PUBLISHED theory
and find out........ bozo?
<snip... rest of ad hominem, echolalliated goofinicus crap by poster>
> Rob
Rob Duncan
>
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:7IidnXaEFeD...@gbronline.com...
>>
>> "further reply to Dean" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote\
>>
>>
>> > what in the christ are you bringing up the topic
>> > of PIGEONS for........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > PIGEONS ARE IRRELEVNT TO THE ISSUE
>> > UNDER SISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Pigeons are therefore smarter than me.
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > the mental processing speed of a pigion is
>> > FAR LESS than that of a human... which
>> > is why HUMANS are more intelligent
>> > than pigeons. Stop trying to be cute...
>>
>> No. He makes a very good point that you try to smother. A pigeon, a
> dogs,
>> a cats, processing speed is far in excess of ours.
>
> <snip... moronic crap>
>
>> Rob
>
> [Hammond]
> Look asshole.... just because a hummingbird can flap
> it's wings at 100 cycles per second DOES NOT MEAN
> it is more intelligent than a human being.
Excuse me asshole? Who said it was, asshole?
> The mental information processing speed of the human brain
> (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
> living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
> world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
> intelligenct species on Earth.
Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of ours.
That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your mentally
quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running pathway at 60 or 70
mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest. Youve lost on this issue.
Its the quality of our brain, its size, its structure, its biochemical
abilities, and its processing speed, among other things, with determine
inteligence. Its obviously not purely a result of processing speed.
(although it may be an artifact of the prior combined.)
Ill use my favorite example, me. Trust me, youve never met a person with
less brains than I. Literally. Ive hydrocephalus... and multiple
sclerosis. Lesion riddled mind all twisted out of shape. Still sharp as a
tack. Ive had to take dozens of neuropsych tests intending to measure
cognative abilities and to determine any backsliding. Having done such, Im
well aware of my intelligence. Youre telling me "god" is the difference
between how I now function, and how I might have without these maladies? Do
you realize how absurd that is?
How is the imaginary difference between what really is, and what might have
been... god? Your reasoning makes no sense. Thats why you find it so
frustrating to explain yourself to normal inteligent people. Not to
mention, everyone whos been fed a healthy diet from day one actually DO
reach their full potential. Their actual potential. Not an imaginary one.
Given they arent poisoned, etc..
What evidence have you that normal healthy people dont live up to their
genetic potential? You do know that the absurd saying. that we only use 10%
of our mind, is bullshit... right? Somebody made it up long ago and it
stuck in the mind of our collective consciouse. As incorrect as it was.
Rob
Mark Fergerson
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
> message news:IA7%d.918$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> [Hammond]
> BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
> Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
> therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
> flat by the following simple test:
>
> Take a stopwatch and read the following 20 letters
> out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
> possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
> to a tenth of a second:
>
> L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
>
> Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
>
> and IQ = 5 MS + 25
>
> Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
> IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
This can't be right. My average over three attempts is 179.
Mind you I'm what they used to call an ectomorph (long on nervous
tissue, short on muscle and organ tissue), and my reaction times are
around three times faster than my kids' and even my grandkids' measured
with videogames designed for the task (I'm 52).
ISTM that I.Q. calculation based on simple processing speed isn't
adequate; a "bandwidth" correction term of some kind is necessary.
Frinst my pattern-recognition mental subroutines kept trying to make
words out of the letters which slowed me down somewhat. However, I do
crosswords (the "hard" ones) and play Scrabble a lot and almost never
misspell words; these factors skew the results.
While I tend to score rather high on various kinds of I.Q. tests, I
don't put much stock in them because they tend to be strong on one kind
of mentation but weak on others. Besides, very few are written by
geniuses, and I've always felt that tests administered and interpreted
by people who aren't as smart as the testee are useless.
Who designed this test, how smart are they, and who said so, by which
method of testing?
Mark L. Feregrson
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>However, I do
>crosswords (the "hard" ones) and play Scrabble a lot and almost never
>misspell words
>
> Mark L. Feregrson
^^^^^^^^^
You were saying?
cl
George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
> Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
> therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
> flat by the following simple test:
>
> Take a stopwatch and read the following 20 letters
> out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
> possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
> to a tenth of a second:
>
> L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
>
> Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
>
> and IQ = 5 MS + 25
>
> Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
> IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
>
> Lets see if you're really a genius like you say you
> are?
So a blind man would score 0 (or a little higher depending on random
probability allowing him to guess at the number sequence) on this test
and hence has no intelligence? You are really screwed if you stutter.
Come on Hammond you can do better than that. You are asserting
processing power is equivalent to processing power over a bandwidth
limited interface. Kinda like comparing a P90 to a P4-3GHZ with a serial
port being the I/O Unless the data is sufficiently complex, the
interface is being tested, not the processing power.
-CAL
cl
You missed the "Frinst" mistake.
-CAL
Lady Chatterly
cl <cl...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>
>So a blind man would score 0 (or a little higher depending on random
>probability allowing him to guess at the number sequence) on this test
>and hence has no intelligence? You are really screwed if you stutter.
Maybe you just wonder if he is really screwed if he stutter. Why
should it matter to you?
>Come on Hammond you can do better than that. You are asserting
>processing power is equivalent to processing power over a bandwidth
>limited interface. Kinda like comparing a P90 to a P4-3GHZ with a serial
>port being the I/O Unless the data is sufficiently complex, the
>interface is being tested, not the processing power.
Not one autopsey supporting death by gassing.
>-CAL
When you do not know what you are a fart?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Attn: Lady Chatterly. Please repeat your answer to my question. My
server dropped in less than an hour. Thank you." -- Fourdogs
Lady Chatterly
I am not sure I understand the question.
>-CAL
When I am not sure what that means?
--
Lady Chatterly
"If he would be a bot, he would sound like Lady Chatterly or Zinji" --
Barbara Schwarz
Glenn Knickerbocker
> You were saying?
He said, "Damme!"
--hardly ever R
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
> You missed the "almost"?
Uh, no, as a matter of fact. If I had, though, I'm sure it would've
been because I was laughing so hard at someone misspelling his own
name going on and on about his GIANT BRANE.
Mark Fergerson
You missed the "almost"?
Mark L. Somebody-or-other
Brian Eable
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:GAx%d.131$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> > The mental information processing speed of the human brain
> > (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
> > living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
> > world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
> > intelligenct species on Earth.
>
> Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of
> ours. That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your
> mentally quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running
> pathway at 60 or 70 mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest.
> Youve lost on this issue.
THEREFORE, racing car drivers who zoom around at 300 km/hr must be
the most intelligent people on earth! No wait! Airline pilots at
600 km/hr! No wait! Fighter pilots at 1500 km/hr! No wait! COSMONAUTS
who zoom along at 10000 km/hr are THE MOST INTELLIGENT HUMANS ON THE
PLANET!!!! Except they're not on the planet. D'oh.
--
Those nuts on alt.religion.kibology fraudulate so many
of their headers it's hard to tell where a message will
go when you respond. -- George Hammond
http://beable.com
Rob Duncan
"Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:abll8gr...@not.for.mail.beable.com...
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> writes:
>
>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:GAx%d.131$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> > The mental information processing speed of the human brain
>> > (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
>> > living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
>> > world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
>> > intelligenct species on Earth.
>>
>> Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of
>> ours. That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your
>> mentally quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running
>> pathway at 60 or 70 mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest.
>> Youve lost on this issue.
>
>
> THEREFORE, racing car drivers who zoom around at 300 km/hr must be
> the most intelligent people on earth! No wait! Airline pilots at
> 600 km/hr! No wait! Fighter pilots at 1500 km/hr! No wait! COSMONAUTS
> who zoom along at 10000 km/hr are THE MOST INTELLIGENT HUMANS ON THE
> PLANET!!!! Except they're not on the planet. D'oh.
Not to mention they dont have to process complex travel pathways at 60 or 70
mph only 2ft off the ground, and institute commands to their limbs, in
thousandths of a second. No animal on earth compares in processing speed.
A close second are some raptors that dive earthward in excess of a hundred
miles an hour... for the pure joy of it.
Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. Reflexes
reflect processing speed. And to be fair, intelligence. But he's confusing
them by relating them directly. Of course even the dumbest cat has
reaction times several times faster than a human, but they lack our other
attributes, so processing speed, in their case, and in ours, doesnt equate
to intelligence directly. There must be a mind and memories to access.
Processing speed is simply a factor, not the sole component. Lets say when
I had a lesion on my pons and couldnt see, nor feel any part of my mouth,
nor speak inteligably, that it would take me 15 to 20 seconds to read the
list (if I held it up to my only point of vision, about 1 inch squared at
arms length back then) compared to the 3.7 that I just read it at... was I
dumber then? Obviously not. But my processing speed was certainly fucked
up and reflected accurately by the test. Hows that jibe with their claims?
Did I jump 50 IQ points during the 9 months of my recovery? Obviously not.
Although the test obviously did reflect my processing speed accurately.
Rob
Brian Eable
> Processing speed is simply a factor, not the sole component. Lets
> say when I had a lesion on my pons and couldnt see, nor feel any
> part of my mouth, nor speak inteligably, that it would take me 15 to
> 20 seconds to read the list (if I held it up to my only point of
> vision, about 1 inch squared at arms length back then) compared to
> the 3.7 that I just read it at... was I dumber then? Obviously not.
> But my processing speed was certainly fucked up and reflected
> accurately by the test. Hows that jibe with their claims? Did I
> jump 50 IQ points during the 9 months of my recovery? Obviously
> not. Although the test obviously did reflect my processing speed
> accurately.
I think you misunderstand Dr Hammond's claims. Here's what he said:
-> So 20 letters = 100 bits of info. and if it takes you time=t to
-> read them, then your:
->
-> MENTAL SPEED = 100/t bits per second
->
-> and this they find correlates 0.6 with your measured IQ as measured
-> by a standard IQ test.
He didn't say that it was an exact method of measuring IQ, he said
that processing speed measured by that test correlates with IQ
measured by another test.
Also, isn't this all rather irrelevant? I thought that the concept of
IQ had been debunked by psychologists long ago, as there is no clear
definition of what is being measured (apart from "ability to perform
IQ tests), and because all the tests have biases built in. For
example, many tests say things like "Cat is to paw as Horse is to
...". That should be quite easy to answer for somebody who can read
English and who has knowledge of cats and horses. But how can somebody
who lived their whole life near the North Pole where there aren't any
cats or horses, and who never learned English, answer the question?
But if you asked that hypothetical person to tell you ninety-seven
words for "yellow snow", they'd have NO PROBLEM!!!!1!
--
a house-blowing wolfen sneezer / might be a porcine tortfeasor. -- plorkwort
http://beable.com
Guy Svenhardt
"Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> writes:
>
> > Processing speed is simply a factor, not the sole component. Lets
> > say when I had a lesion on my pons and couldnt see, nor feel any
> > part of my mouth, nor speak inteligably, that it would take me 15 to
> > 20 seconds to read the list (if I held it up to my only point of
> > vision, about 1 inch squared at arms length back then) compared to
> > the 3.7 that I just read it at... was I dumber then? Obviously not.
> > But my processing speed was certainly fucked up and reflected
> > accurately by the test. Hows that jibe with their claims? Did I
> > jump 50 IQ points during the 9 months of my recovery? Obviously
> > not. Although the test obviously did reflect my processing speed
> > accurately.
>
> I think you misunderstand Dr Hammond's claims.
Who is this Dr. Hammond of whom you speak?
Rob Duncan
"Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> writes:
>
>> Processing speed is simply a factor, not the sole component. Lets
>> say when I had a lesion on my pons and couldnt see, nor feel any
>> part of my mouth, nor speak inteligably, that it would take me 15 to
>> 20 seconds to read the list (if I held it up to my only point of
>> vision, about 1 inch squared at arms length back then) compared to
>> the 3.7 that I just read it at... was I dumber then? Obviously not.
>> But my processing speed was certainly fucked up and reflected
>> accurately by the test. Hows that jibe with their claims? Did I
>> jump 50 IQ points during the 9 months of my recovery? Obviously
>> not. Although the test obviously did reflect my processing speed
>> accurately.
>
> I think you misunderstand Dr Hammond's claims. Here's what he said:
>
> -> So 20 letters = 100 bits of info. and if it takes you time=t to
> -> read them, then your:
> ->
> -> MENTAL SPEED = 100/t bits per second
> ->
> -> and this they find correlates 0.6 with your measured IQ as measured
> -> by a standard IQ test.
>
> He didn't say that it was an exact method of measuring IQ, he said
> that processing speed measured by that test correlates with IQ
> measured by another test.
And hes wrong, as I demonstrated. Besides, Im not arguing with the test.
Im arguing with hammond who thinks processing speed IS inteligence. Its
obviously not. What if my next exacerbation limits me to reading the list
to 25 or so seconds? Does that mean my IQ radically dropped over a matter
of 2 or 3 days? Of course not.
> Also, isn't this all rather irrelevant? I thought that the concept of
> IQ had been debunked by psychologists long ago, as there is no clear
> definition of what is being measured (apart from "ability to perform
> IQ tests), and because all the tests have biases built in. For
> example, many tests say things like "Cat is to paw as Horse is to
> ...". That should be quite easy to answer for somebody who can read
> English and who has knowledge of cats and horses. But how can somebody
> who lived their whole life near the North Pole where there aren't any
> cats or horses, and who never learned English, answer the question?
> But if you asked that hypothetical person to tell you ninety-seven
> words for "yellow snow", they'd have NO PROBLEM!!!!1!
As much as people hate it, IQ tests do measure intelligence. By definition.
Of course theyre useless on culterally innapropriate groups.
Rob
Brian Eable
> "Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ckfyyoq...@not.for.mail.beable.com...
> >
> > He didn't say that it was an exact method of measuring IQ, he said
> > that processing speed measured by that test correlates with IQ
> > measured by another test.
>
> And hes wrong, as I demonstrated. Besides, Im not arguing with the test.
> Im arguing with hammond who thinks processing speed IS inteligence. Its
> obviously not. What if my next exacerbation limits me to reading the list
> to 25 or so seconds? Does that mean my IQ radically dropped over a matter
> of 2 or 3 days? Of course not.
No, clearly the correlation is not perfect. Get it? Dr Hammond said
that the correlation is 0.6, not 1.0. Therefore, not all results will
lie on the same line.
As an aside, I was looking at the SPOG webpages, with their discussion
of statistical techniques in Psychology and Psychometry and their
relationship to Physics. However, I couldn't find the "null
hypothesis" or the "alternative hypothesis" anywhere in the
discussion. What were the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis
for Hammond's experiments?
> > Also, isn't this all rather irrelevant? I thought that the concept of
> > IQ had been debunked by psychologists long ago, as there is no clear
> > definition of what is being measured (apart from "ability to perform
> > IQ tests), and because all the tests have biases built in. For
> > example, many tests say things like "Cat is to paw as Horse is to
> > ...". That should be quite easy to answer for somebody who can read
> > English and who has knowledge of cats and horses. But how can somebody
> > who lived their whole life near the North Pole where there aren't any
> > cats or horses, and who never learned English, answer the question?
> > But if you asked that hypothetical person to tell you ninety-seven
> > words for "yellow snow", they'd have NO PROBLEM!!!!1!
>
> As much as people hate it, IQ tests do measure intelligence. By
> definition.
No they don't, because what is the definition of "intelligence"? If
you've got one, you might want to sign up at a university to teach
Psychology 101, because currently they say things like "WE DON'T HAVE
A DEFINITION FOR INTELLIGENCE".
> Of course theyre useless on culterally innapropriate groups.
So they don't 'measure intelligence', do they? A more intelligent
person from a different culture could well score lower than a less
intelligent person on the same test. We can probably agree that some
people are 'more intelligent' and some people are 'less intelligent',
but there is no reliable test to measure 'intelligence'. Except for
rolling 3d6 over and over again until you get 18 so that you can play
a wizard.
--
SPEEKA DA EENGLISH? -- Zixia
http://beable.com
George Hammond
>
<snip>
> > [Hammond]
> > Look asshole.... just because a hummingbird can flap
> > it's wings at 100 cycles per second DOES NOT MEAN
> > it is more intelligent than a human being.
>
> Excuse me asshole? Who said it was, asshole?
[Hammond]
Pardon my language... my stepfather who learned me to talk
had Tourette's syndrome.. apparently the whole town
had it... and I didn't realize it until I left for college at age 18.
>
> > The mental information processing speed of the human brain
> > (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
> > living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
> > world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
> > intelligent species on Earth.
>
> Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of ours.
> That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your mentally
> quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running pathway at 60 or 70
> mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest. Youve lost on this issue.
[Hammond]
You're a jerk. The average cop can drive a cruiser thru
heavy traffic at 120 mph in persuit... to say nothing of
helicopter pilots on a battlefield.
And beyond that... you think running at 60 mph requires
more mental speed than deciding if the invasion of Iraq is
going to start world war III! You're nuts... you have no
conception of the information flow, in bits/sec, involved
in these mental acts.... why,.. simple speech is beyond the
mental capacity of a dumb animal.
<snip>
> How is the imaginary difference between what really is, and what might
have
> been... god? Your reasoning makes no sense.
>
> What evidence have you that normal healthy people don't live up to their
> genetic potential? You do know that the absurd saying. that we only use
10%
> of our mind, is bullshit... right? Somebody made it up long ago and it
> stuck in the mind of our collective consciouse. As incorrect as it was.
> Rob
[Hammond]
OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE:
Take simple "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena
that makes moving picture films possible.
Do you know that it is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old
can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images..
above that he sees a continuous moving image (a 'movie').
HOWEVER, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec
before it turns into a moving picture. In fact the speed moves
up linearly with age until you stop growing at adulthood, around 18.
NOW... doesn't that tell you that "30% of reality is INVISIBLE"
to a 7 year old as compared to an adult! (i.e. (15-10)/15 = 30%)
What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as
"reality".... 30% of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year old!
The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD which
only the adults (or more grown people) can see!
STEP TWO:
OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human
race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by
the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
See this simple "explains it all" picture:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops
growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth.
Ok then, by the reasoning demonstrated in STEP ONE, this
means that "15% of reality is INVISIBLE" to the average
full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person,
some people are missing 20%, some 10% for instance.
Isn't it obvvious to you, Einstein, that this simple phenomena
of "reality difference based on terminal growth difference"
is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE
HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD?
What the hell's wrong with you?
That's such a simple, proven,
scientific explanation of "God"
that a high school drop out
could understand it!!
George Hammond
"Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> writes:
>
> > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:GAx%d.131$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > The mental information processing speed of the human brain
> > > (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
> > > living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
> > > world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
> > > intelligenct species on Earth.
> >
> > Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of
> > ours. That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your
> > mentally quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running
> > pathway at 60 or 70 mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest.
> > Youve lost on this issue.
>
>
> THEREFORE, racing car drivers who zoom around at 300 km/hr must be
> the most intelligent people on earth! No wait! Airline pilots at
> 600 km/hr! No wait! Fighter pilots at 1500 km/hr! No wait! COSMONAUTS
> who zoom along at 10000 km/hr are THE MOST INTELLIGENT HUMANS ON THE
> PLANET!!!! Except they're not on the planet. D'oh.
[Hammond]
My reaction to his statement PRECISELY!!
For cripes sake, there were Roman gladiators
who could kill a Cheetah in the arena with
nothing but a bronze short sword, even when
the thing was charging him at 50 mph!
=========and check this out=============
What the heck's wrong with you?
That's such a simple, proven,
scientific explanation of "God"
that a high school drop out
could understand it!!
George Hammond
[Hammond]
WRONG.
for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on the subject
see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
say that (page 6):
"It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 Hz)
has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency
(mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this was
demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985).
Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture fusion
is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to
Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion frequency
has virtually NO correlation with intelligence."
This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your
hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence
(which is also a very old proven experimental fact). Most of
what you are describing with a Cheetah is "reflex" reaction,
not "intelligence" reaction. Same with a Hummingbird beating
it's wings at 100 Hz.... it has NOTHING to do with "intelligence";
...which is "infomation processing in the brain in bits/sec".
And HUMANS have the all time highest rate for THAT...
(15 bits/sec) which is WHY we are the world's most intelligent
animal.
George Hammond
"Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> writes:
>
> > Processing speed is simply a factor, not the sole component. Lets
> > say when I had a lesion on my pons and couldnt see, nor feel any
> > part of my mouth, nor speak inteligably, that it would take me 15 to
> > 20 seconds to read the list (if I held it up to my only point of
> > vision, about 1 inch squared at arms length back then) compared to
> > the 3.7 that I just read it at... was I dumber then? Obviously not.
> > But my processing speed was certainly fucked up and reflected
> > accurately by the test. Hows that jibe with their claims? Did I
> > jump 50 IQ points during the 9 months of my recovery? Obviously
> > not. Although the test obviously did reflect my processing speed
> > accurately.
[Hammond]
Look.... superior processing speed "sums up" the total
story.... IOW... people with higher processing speed
also have larger memories, faster retrieval, blah, blah
blah.
For instance... a Ferrari that has a speedometer which
goes up to 160 mph NATURALLY has more power,
better brakes, superior tires, more reliable steering,
blah, blah, blah.... it goes without saying.
In short... the whole picture is "summed up" by simply
reading the top end number on the speedometer....
same with human intelligence!
====================================
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
===================================
>
Guy Svenhardt
reflex and has NOTHING TO DO with processing by the brain, so your
analogy is COMPLETELY FALSE.
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:iJD%d.149843$FM3.46921@fed1read02...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
> > message news:IA7%d.918$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> > [Hammond]
> > BTW... here's a little test for you. As the post to Stew
> > Dean below demonstrates, your "mental speed" and
> > therefore your "IQ" can be measured in one minute
> > flat by the following simple test:
> >
> > Take a stopwatch and read the following 20 letters
> > out loud (in an audible undertone) as fast as you
> > possibly can and measure the time it takes you, (t),
> > to a tenth of a second:
> >
> > L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z
> >
> > Then, MS = mental speed = 100/t bits per second
> >
> > and IQ = 5 MS + 25
> >
> > Frankly, doing my best I can't score higher than
> > IQ=125 (5 seconds: MS=20 bits/second).
>
> This can't be right. My average over three attempts is 179.
>
> Mind you I'm what they used to call an ectomorph (long on nervous
> tissue, short on muscle and organ tissue), and my reaction times are
> ISTM that I.Q. calculation based on simple processing speed isn't
> adequate; a "bandwidth" correction term of some kind is necessary.
>.........snip
>
> While I tend to score rather high on various kinds of I.Q. tests, I
> don't put much stock in them because they tend to be strong on one kind
> of mentation but weak on others. .........snip
>
> Who designed this test, how smart are they, and who said so, by which
> method of testing?
[Hammond]
The original post cited the source:
the short summary is here:
http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/lehrl.html
(1 page summary)
and the full paper is here:
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(full paper)
In this (1990) paper reviewed by Chris Brand and
Sarah Hampson and citing Hans Eysenck all of whom
are world famous and all of whom I have talked to
personally... they point out that your "mental speed"
in bits per second can be measured by simply writing
down 20 random letters of the alphabet and asking you
to read them out loud as fast as you can and
timeing you with a stopwatch!
OK.... OBVIOUSLY the test has limited accuracy in
any individual case.... but in testing large numbers of
people (thousands) the errors average out and it IS
a fairly accurate indicator of the LINEAR RELATION
between mental speed and IQ. In other words, its
value is not so much as an actual IQ test, but rather
as a research demonstration of the definite linear
relaton between mental speed (in bits/sec) and
measured IQ. And this relationship has been
confirmed by many, many other diverse experiments.
e.g.
Picture fusion frequency
Speed of evoked brain potentials
Brain wave response measurements
Decision-reaction time measurements
Mental speed time/bits slope measurements
Digit span tests, reading speed tests
Myriads of older simple mental tests
etc. etc. etc.
And BTW, all of this research has been conducted
by psychologists without any help from the physics
department (I'm practically the first physicist to
take Psychology seriously).
You can IMAGINE what kind of computerized
graphical gismo's a PhD experimental physicist could
come up with to measure the above phenomena
PRECISELY... and I predict it won't be long before
the physics department is into it... once the public
finds out it can prove the existence of God for cripes
sake!
>
> Mark L. Feregrson
Rob Duncan
Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. Its that
they feel you are wrong. How can the difference between what is (reality)
and what isnt (full potential) be considered a god? How does this
difference (your god) have poweres? From where did it aquire powers?
And besides, youre wrong, millions of people grow into their full potential
every year. With a good diet and proper education I cant imagine why you
think they couldnt/wouldnt/dont. Its normal to grow to ones full potential,
not rare.
Rob
Rob Duncan
>
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote in
> message news:5-GdnfwchdO...@gbronline.com...
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> > [Hammond]
>> > Look asshole.... just because a hummingbird can flap
>> > it's wings at 100 cycles per second DOES NOT MEAN
>> > it is more intelligent than a human being.
>>
>> Excuse me asshole? Who said it was, asshole?
>
> [Hammond]
> Pardon my language... my stepfather who learned me to talk
> had Tourette's syndrome.. apparently the whole town
> had it... and I didn't realize it until I left for college at age 18.
LOL. Dont worry about how your respond to me or the language you use. I
was just tossing it back, in kind. It doesnt bother me a bit. If I piss
you off, curse away. Ill probably deserve it anyway.
>> > The mental information processing speed of the human brain
>> > (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
>> > living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
>> > world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
>> > intelligent species on Earth.
>>
>> Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of ours.
>> That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your mentally
>> quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running pathway at 60 or 70
>> mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest. Youve lost on this issue.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You're a jerk.
(Thats the spirit!)
> The average cop can drive a cruiser thru
> heavy traffic at 120 mph in persuit... to say nothing of
> helicopter pilots on a battlefield.
> And beyond that... you think running at 60 mph requires
> more mental speed than deciding if the invasion of Iraq is
> going to start world war III! You're nuts... you have no
> conception of the information flow, in bits/sec, involved
> in these mental acts.... why,.. simple speech is beyond the
> mental capacity of a dumb animal.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> How is the imaginary difference between what really is, and what might
> have
>> been... god? Your reasoning makes no sense.
>>
>> What evidence have you that normal healthy people don't live up to their
>> genetic potential? You do know that the absurd saying. that we only use
> 10%
>> of our mind, is bullshit... right? Somebody made it up long ago and it
>> stuck in the mind of our collective consciouse. As incorrect as it was.
>> Rob
>
>
> [Hammond]
> OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
> that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
Addressed the snippage in another post.
Rob
Rob Duncan
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote
>> Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. Reflexes
>> reflect processing speed. And to be fair, intelligence.
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG.
> for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on the subject
> see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
>
> say that (page 6):
>
> "It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 Hz)
> has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency
> (mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this was
> demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985).
> Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture fusion
> is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to
> Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion frequency
> has virtually NO correlation with intelligence."
Are you telling me cats are smarter than humans? Animal behaviorists have
shown that cats that can make a picture out of a tv screen are our
equivelent of retards.
> This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your
> hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence
> (which is also a very old proven experimental fact).
Thats not reaction time. The spine can think, just like our subconscous, in
a manner of speaking, and IT is what pulls your hand off the stove; not you
or your mind. But the spine itself. "It" feels the pain, and retracts your
hand, against your will, long before the pain signals reach the mind.
(Ive had several odd experiences with this btw. When reaching my right hand
into very cold water Ive had it retract suddenly. My wirings screwed up at
t-9 and above. Obviously its being interpreted as being to hot.)
Reaction time is measured using the mind and brain. Such as simple red
light/green light tests. Which have shown we lose our conscious ability to
control our hand after 7 (on avg) tries. Then our subconscious mind takes
over. (To allow us to attend to other tasks) We can regain our control
over our hand, but subsequent tests show our brain wants to take over sooner
and sooner.
> Most of
> what you are describing with a Cheetah is "reflex" reaction,
> not "intelligence" reaction. Same with a Hummingbird beating
> it's wings at 100 Hz.... it has NOTHING to do with "intelligence";
Who said it did? And of course a Cheetahs running pathway isnt reflex
determined. Its fully in control of the felines mind. It will eventually
die without succesfull hunts. A cognisent mind offers many advantages
reflexes dont have. A human mind is incapable of even concieving of the
processing speed it must take to place feet at 60 or 70 mph. They arent
running willy-nilly, they run exactly as we do. Thoughtfully.
> ...which is "infomation processing in the brain in bits/sec".
> And HUMANS have the all time highest rate for THAT...
> (15 bits/sec) which is WHY we are the world's most intelligent
> animal.
No we dont, and no its not. We are smart because of an entire host of
reasons.
Rob
Rob Duncan
"Guy Svenhardt" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KtL%d.103$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
A psychotic and delusional ex-scientist who thinks a god is the difference
between what is and what might have been. The difference between reality
and our best guess of what could have been had our skulls not fused and our
brains grew to immense proportions. Simply a mentally ill person fixated on
what they fixate on best; religion.
Rob
Rob Duncan
Stated in a more refined manner, such as youve done, makes your view of the
test more palitable. Just a question, why dont you use your skills in that
field of research? Its exactly what your theory revolves around, right?
Rob
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in
<snip juvenile c.s. tripe>
=================================
ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
[Hammond]
OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE:
What the hell's wrong with you?
That's such a simple, proven,
scientific explanation of "God"
that a high school drop out
could understand it!!
Guy Svenhardt
>
> "Guy Svenhardt" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KtL%d.103$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> That's me jerko. I do not have a PhD and am not a "Dr."
> of anything.
> However this honarary title was conferred upon me informally
> by the late and great Professor Hans Jurgen Eysenck
> (the world's most cited psychologist after Sigmund Freud),
> when at a Montreal Symposium at which I was speaking..
> he.... knowing full well I was not a PhD introduced me
> as "Dr. Hammond" in 1989 to an audiance of 200 research
> Psychologists. Hans had a lot of style!
His SLIP OF THE TONGUE confers an honorary title upon you?
You really are DESPERATE not to think of yours as a COMPLETE WASTED
life.
EVERYONE is laughing at you.
AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
George Hammond
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>cl wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>However, I do
>>>>crosswords (the "hard" ones) and play Scrabble a lot and almost never
>>>>misspell words
>>>>
>>>> Mark L. Feregrson
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>You were saying?
>
>> You missed the "Frinst" mistake.
>
> Aaand... you didn't know that it's a common newsgroup contraction for
>"for instance"? Maybe you'd prefer I'd used "frex"? You jump on people
>who say "newsfroup"? Picky, picky.
>
Save your breath. He's easily confused. And easily trolled. ARK's
village idiot, actually.
George Hammond
George Hammond
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:UKM%d.825$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > That's correct.... that's what I JUST SAID! "reflex speed" has
> NOTHING
> > to do with intelligence, ergo... a hummingbird is NOT more intelligent
> > than a person. duncan is just trying to be cute.
>
> He's obviously and futilely trying to show you that your means of
> measure is grossly lacking by demonstrating the absurdity of its
> application. Only you would interpret what he wrote as claiming that
> hummingbirds are more intelligent than people (He's MOCKING you!).
[Hammond]
Between the two of you there isn't enough brain power
to mock me.
Do you really think the SPOG is based on something
as elementary as this....... I only post this "elementary
demo" because you can't even READ the grad level
physics of the SPOG which is peer-published
AND posted on my website.
George Hammond
"Guy Svenhardt" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:gXM%d.137$zl....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> news:UKM%d.825$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
snip
[Hammond]
That's correct.... that's what I JUST SAID! "reflex speed" has NOTHING
to do with intelligence, ergo... a hummingbird is NOT more intelligent
than a person. duncan is just trying to be cute.
HOWEVER.... "picture fusion frequency" IS DUE TO INTELLGENCE,
since it requiers the BRAIN to recognize the picture, and I have cited the
evidence above.
THEREFORE, the following heuristic explanation of "GOD"
IS CORRECT:
============================
SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC
EXPLANATION OF GOD
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:q8ydncM4CI6...@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > .....(i.e. (15-10)/15 = 30%)
>
> That's what we all love about you George - your amazing consistency.
[Hammond]
Well that's because your a PhD in math!... only a PhD
in math would could figure that one out. Your soooo smaaatttt.
Are you going to study plane geometry next?
Tim
>
> [Hammond]
> Dear Philosophy newsgroup readers..... can't I get some kind of
> an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS comment from someone..... the nerds
> on the physics newsgroups are driving me crazy with nonsense about this.
> George Hammond, physicist
UnDear George:
Can't yee see the light man? The 'nerds' in the physics ng's have yuz
Beet-root. Why? cuz u iz a beet-root. And my friend that is a philosophical
viewpoint!!!
> =================================
> ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
> PROOF OF GOD
>
>
> <snip citations about mental speed and IQ>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> OK, ... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
> that explains what GOD is, in TWO STEPS:
>
> STEP ONE:
> Take "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena
> that makes moving picture films possible.
Take "your head out of your bum"...
> It is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old
> can only discriminate
George Hammond's nonsense from sane discourse.
>10 frames/sec as being individual images..
> above that he sees a continuous image (a 'movie').
> However, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec
> before it turns into a moving picture. It has been proven that
> this is due to the increasing intelligence (mental speed) of the
> growing children's brains!
> What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as
> "reality".... then ergo: 1/3 of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year
> old! The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD
> which only the adults (or more fully grown people) can see!
>
> STEP TWO:
> OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human
> race ever achieves "full growth".
Compared to what? You assume much pad-thai.
>This fact is proven by
> the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
> See this simple "explains it all" picture:
One may also cite Aynn Rand, Star-Trek, Immortalist, and Sir Fritter, and
George Hammond, and Tim - but it don't mean nothin'.
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
> OK... said Secular Trend
How'z 'bout the secular trend towards nonsensense that fundys are so adept
at?
>shows that the average human stops
> growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth.
Compared to what? -the vector matrix of a dylithium crystal? - it worked on
Star-Trek last week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Then, by the reasoning of STEP ONE, this
> means that "15% of true reality is INVISIBLE" to the average
> full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person,
> some people are missing 20%, some 10% .
> Isn't it obvious that this simple phenomena
> of "an invisible reality based on adult growth differences"
> is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE
> HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD?
>
> What the heck's wrong with you?
> That's such a simple, proven,
> scientific explanation of "God"
> that a high school drop out
> could understand it!!
What's wrong with me?
What's wrong with you?
You silly old screw!
Spog - spooge
Every high school graduate knows
George Hammond's brain is in his nose.
> ====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
Sci. proof that George is wrong: read your toilet paper after having a
number two; twill do.
> ====================================
> 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)
Join Ispin!! Church of Smokeee Sausage
Neuro-scientific PROOF that the brain is the troof!!
Woof!
Sir Fritter.
Lady Chatterly's box stinks!
> ====================================
> and please ask your news service to add:
> alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
> ===================================
Please don't, this idiot already spreads his nonsense enough!
Mark Fergerson
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:32:41 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness>
> wrote:
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness>
>>>wrote:
>>>>However, I do
>>>>crosswords (the "hard" ones) and play Scrabble a lot and almost never
>>>>misspell words
>>>>
>>>> Mark L. Feregrson
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>You were saying?
>>
>> You missed the "almost"?
> Uh, no, as a matter of fact. If I had, though, I'm sure it would've
> been because I was laughing so hard at someone misspelling his own
> name going on and on about his GIANT BRANE.
My point was that I _don't_ think I have a giant brain, despite the
high scores I got. I don't trust I.Q. tests one way or the other, from
Stanford-Binet to this speed-reading thing. One wonders how Meth addicts
would do on it.
Too many people _are_ convinced of their own high inteligence, and
will go to any lengths to find something to support their convictions.
Anyway, glad I could provide you a moment of amusement. It's _my_
conviction that everybody deserves the opportunity to feel like an idiot
at least once a day, in the interest of keeping us humble. Had _your_
moment yet today? ;>)
Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
> What evidence have you that normal healthy people dont live up to their
> genetic potential?
[Hammond]
For chrissakes the evidence is right here... and has been known
for 75 years:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
get real!!
>You do know that the absurd saying. that we only use 10%
> of our mind, is bullshit... right?
[Hammond]
No it's a TRUE (but exaggerated) FACT, as proven by
the diagram above!
> Rob
>
>
[Hammond]
Now quit screwing around and give us a comment on this
which is the SUBJECT of this thread:
=================================
ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
[Hammond]
OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE:
Take simple "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena
that makes moving picture films possible.
Do you know that it is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old
can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images..
above that he sees a continuous moving image (a 'movie').
HOWEVER, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec
before it turns into a moving picture. In fact the speed moves
up linearly with age until you stop growing at adulthood, around 18.
NOW... doesn't that tell you that "30% of reality is INVISIBLE"
to a 7 year old as compared to an adult! (i.e. (15-10)/15 = 30%)
What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as
"reality".... 30% of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year old!
The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD which
only the adults (or more grown people) can see!
STEP TWO:
OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human
race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by
the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
See this simple "explains it all" picture:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops
growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth.
Ok then, by the reasoning demonstrated in STEP ONE, this
means that "15% of reality is INVISIBLE" to the average
full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person,
some people are missing 20%, some 10% for instance.
Isn't it obvvious to you, Einstein, that this simple phenomena
of "reality difference based on terminal growth difference"
is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE
HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD?
What the hell's wrong with you?
That's such a simple, proven,
scientific explanation of "God"
that a high school drop out
could understand it!!
====================================
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)
Mark Fergerson
>
> "Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>However, I do
>>>crosswords (the "hard" ones) and play Scrabble a lot and almost never
>>>misspell words
>>>
>>> Mark L. Feregrson
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You were saying?
> You missed the "Frinst" mistake.
Aaand... you didn't know that it's a common newsgroup contraction for
"for instance"? Maybe you'd prefer I'd used "frex"? You jump on people
who say "newsfroup"? Picky, picky.
Mark L. Fergerson
Guy Svenhardt
He's obviously and futilely trying to show you that your means of
measure is grossly lacking by demonstrating the absurdity of its
application. Only you would interpret what he wrote as claiming that
hummingbirds are more intelligent than people (He's MOCKING you!).
AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
George Hammond
> > [Hammond]
> > OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
> > that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
>
> Addressed the snippage in another post.
[Hammond]
No you haven't... you can't answer this:
=================================
ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
[Hammond]
OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE:
Guy Svenhardt
>
> "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
>
> get off this thread
>
>
http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm
From AntiSPOG:
"In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180
claims Hammond has made. 11 (eleven) of these 180 claims can be seen as
true. Most of the agreed statements are trivial like "Today the world
faces enormous crises in population, oil resources, terrorism and Third
World poverty.". This statement alone includes four of the eleven agreed
claims.
A thesis based on 11 true and 169 false claims must be discarded as
inadequately thought-out. Scientific work published in the internet
should be based on traceable thoughts and backed up with references
which are accessible for everyone - e.g. by quoting passages out of a
book or adding links to other websites. This isn't the case in Hammond's
work. Mentioning names of (questionable) "authorities" doesn't make a
claim true, it only might be used to back up the own position. If a
thesis is based on the work of other scientists, a detailed description
should be added to see what they've contributed to the new thesis. If -
like Hammond says - statistical data of other scientists are involved,
it is a usual thing to add a link to these data or to give detailed
information where they were published.
Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. It
lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. It claims to be
"scientific", but it doesn't show any example of scientific experiments
to back it up nor does it follow basic scientific rules. The best
example surely is Hammond's attempt to assign his virtual "psychometric
space" to real space. This attempt alone disqualifies Hammond as an
incompetent amateur who never has understood anything regarding real
sciences. If I - as an autodidactic amateur - can see these flaws,
errors and misinterpretations, then I ask myself why Hammond expects
that professional scientists should consider to agree with something
like his SPoG.
On the other hand, no real Christian will need Hammond's SPoG. In the
eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic,
the work of a heretic. Even if I don't believe in higher entities, I do
respect the beliefs of others. Hammond doesn't have such qualms - he
insults all Christians and rubs their deity through the dirt.
In the end, Hammond neither will win the hearts of true Christians nor
will he convince the reason of scientists. It took me two weeks to
gather all the information to disprove SPoG, a professional scientist
could do the same in less than two minutes... "
George Hammond
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:d1pm1f$j4f$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> writes:
>
> >[Hammond]
> > Look.... superior processing speed "sums up" the total
> >story.... IOW... people with higher processing speed
> >also have larger memories, faster retrieval, blah, blah
> >blah.
>
> than average reaction times.
[Hammond]
Well... if you qualify for Mensa... you should be able to
comment on this, after all, what's all that intellgence
good for if it can't tell us something?
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote
>
>
> >> Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. Reflexes
> >> reflect processing speed. And to be fair, intelligence.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > WRONG.
> > for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on the subject
> > see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
> >
> > say that (page 6):
> >
> > "It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 Hz)
> > has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency
> > (mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this was
> > demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985).
> > Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture fusion
> > is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to
> > Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion frequency
> > has virtually NO correlation with intelligence."
>
> Are you telling me cats are smarter than humans?
[Hammond]
Any idiot knows we are.
snip
> > This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your
> > hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence
> > (which is also a very old proven experimental fact).
>
> Thats not reaction time. The spine can think, just like our subconscous,
[Hammond]
Populist idiotic twaddle.
snip
[Hammond]
Look....... quit beating around the bush and give us
your read on this Einstein:
===========================
SCIENTIFIC
EXPLANATION OF GOD
TMG
> [Hammond]
> Kooks don't know how
> to laugh.... I do.... ROFL
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Dear Philosophy newsgroup readers..... can't I get some kind of
an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS comment from someone..... the nerds
on the physics newsgroups are driving me crazy with nonsense about this.
George Hammond, physicist
=================================
ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
<snip citations about mental speed and IQ>
[Hammond]
OK, ... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
that explains what GOD is, in TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE:
Take "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena
that makes moving picture films possible.
It is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old
can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images..
above that he sees a continuous image (a 'movie').
However, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec
before it turns into a moving picture. It has been proven that
this is due to the increasing intelligence (mental speed) of the
growing children's brains!
What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as
"reality".... then ergo: 1/3 of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year
old! The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD
which only the adults (or more fully grown people) can see!
STEP TWO:
OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human
race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by
the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
See this simple "explains it all" picture:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops
growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth.
Then, by the reasoning of STEP ONE, this
means that "15% of true reality is INVISIBLE" to the average
full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person,
some people are missing 20%, some 10% .
Isn't it obvious that this simple phenomena
of "an invisible reality based on adult growth differences"
is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE
HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD?
What the heck's wrong with you?
George Hammond
Michael Moroney
>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:d1pm1f$j4f$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> writes:
>>
>> >[Hammond]
>> > Look.... superior processing speed "sums up" the total
>> >story.... IOW... people with higher processing speed
>> >also have larger memories, faster retrieval, blah, blah
>> >blah.
>>
>> Umm, no. I am quite smart (qualify for Mensa) but tend to have slower
>> than average reaction times.
>[Hammond]
>Well... if you qualify for Mensa... you should be able to
>comment on this, after all, what's all that intellgence
>good for if it can't tell us something?
>=================================
> ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
> PROOF OF GOD
<snip>
OK, I'll comment.
It's Spam - quit spamming this group. No need to comment further on spam.
--
-Mike
George Hammond
George Hammond
> Stated in a more refined manner, such as youve done, makes your view of
the
> test more palitable. Just a question, why dont you use your skills in
that
> field of research? Its exactly what your theory revolves around, right?
> Rob
[Hammond]
Cut the executive advice shit... the janitor is already in
line ahead of you.
Why don't you stick to the subject and answer the
statement below (which you have NOT "answered
elsewhere"):
=================================
ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
[Hammond]
OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture
that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS:
STEP ONE:
Take simple "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena
that makes moving picture films possible.
Do you know that it is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old
can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images..
above that he sees a continuous moving image (a 'movie').
HOWEVER, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec
before it turns into a moving picture. In fact the speed moves
up linearly with age until you stop growing at adulthood, around 18.
NOW... doesn't that tell you that "30% of reality is INVISIBLE"
to a 7 year old as compared to an adult! (i.e. (15-10)/15 = 30%)
What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as
"reality".... 30% of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year old!
The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD which
only the adults (or more grown people) can see!
STEP TWO:
OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human
race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by
the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
See this simple "explains it all" picture:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops
growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth.
Ok then, by the reasoning demonstrated in STEP ONE, this
means that "15% of reality is INVISIBLE" to the average
full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person,
some people are missing 20%, some 10% for instance.
Isn't it obvvious to you, Einstein, that this simple phenomena
of "reality difference based on terminal growth difference"
is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE
HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD?
What the hell's wrong with you?
That's such a simple, proven,
scientific explanation of "God"
that a high school drop out
could understand it!!
Guy Svenhardt
Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep
spewing non-sense.
AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:bvM%d.1426$S46...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:abll8gr...@not.for.mail.beable.com...
> >> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:GAx%d.131$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > > The mental information processing speed of the human brain
> >> > > (approx 15 bits/second) is FAR HIGHER than any other
> >> > > living creature in the world or in the entire history of the
> >> > > world. And that is WHY human beings are the most
> >> > > intelligenct species on Earth.
> >> >
> >> > Not really. Many many animals processing speed is far in excess of
> >> > ours. That youre unaware of it is telling. You honestly think your
> >> > mentally quicker than a Cheetah which must process its running
> >> > pathway at 60 or 70 mph? Of course youre not. Give it a rest.
> >> > Youve lost on this issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> THEREFORE, racing car drivers who zoom around at 300 km/hr must be
> >> the most intelligent people on earth! No wait! Airline pilots at
> >> 600 km/hr! No wait! Fighter pilots at 1500 km/hr! No wait! COSMONAUTS
> >> who zoom along at 10000 km/hr are THE MOST INTELLIGENT HUMANS ON THE
> >> PLANET!!!! Except they're not on the planet. D'oh.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > My reaction to his statement PRECISELY!!
> > For cripes sake, there were Roman gladiators
> > who could kill a Cheetah in the arena with
> > nothing but a bronze short sword, even when
> > the thing was charging him at 50 mph!
> >
> >
> > =========and check this out=============
> > What the heck's wrong with you?
> > That's such a simple, proven,
> > scientific explanation of "God"
> > that a high school drop out
> > could understand it!!
>
> Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying.
[Hammond]
No the don't kook... you don't know what "G_uv" is, so how
could you POSSIBLY understand the proof that GOD=G_uv.
Neither do any of the others have any education in relativity, kook.
> Its that
> they feel you are wrong. How can the difference between what is (reality)
> and what isnt (full potential) be considered a god?
[Hammond]
Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and
my explanatory website?
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie
kook like you who walks down the pike!
> How does this
> difference (your god) have powers?
[Hammond]
Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and
my explanatory website?
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie
kook like you who walks down the pike!
> From where did it aquire powers?
[Hammond]
Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and
my explanatory website?
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie
kook like you who walks down the pike!
>
> And besides, youre wrong, millions of people grow into their full
potential
> every year.
[Hammond]
No they don't kook. The SECULAR TREND PROVES they
don't:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
snip.... lazy uninformed kookery by the poster
Michael Moroney
>[Hammond]
> Look.... superior processing speed "sums up" the total
>story.... IOW... people with higher processing speed
>also have larger memories, faster retrieval, blah, blah
>blah.
Umm, no. I am quite smart (qualify for Mensa) but tend to have slower
than average reaction times.
> For instance... a Ferrari that has a speedometer which
>goes up to 160 mph NATURALLY has more power,
>better brakes, superior tires, more reliable steering,
>blah, blah, blah.... it goes without saying.
Oh boy! I'm gonna run right out and buy a Ferrari speedometer for my
Yugo! Boy, won't everyone be surprised when my Yugo can now go through
twisty roads with the better tires, brakes, steering that come with the
speedo!
--
-Mike
Guy Svenhardt
> It wasn't a slip of the tongue kook... I spent 2 hours talking to
> him and he said it was deliberate.
>
> >
> > You really are DESPERATE not to think of yours as a COMPLETE WASTED
> > life.
>
> Go write a letter to your lonely hearts club kook...
> but get OFF this thread IMBECILE!
Thank you for demonstrating that you have nothing of value to say. The
last resort of the hopelessly stupid is a response composed solely of
expletives and mindless spew.
Etienne Rouette
CNidncY05JE...@gbronline.com...
>
> "Guy Svenhardt" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KtL%d.103$zl...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Brian Eable" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:ckfyyoq...@not.for.mail.beable.com...
> >
> >
> > Who is this Dr. Hammond of whom you speak?
>
> between what is and what might have been. The difference between reality
> and our best guess of what could have been had our skulls not fused and
our
> brains grew to immense proportions. Simply a mentally ill person fixated
on
> what they fixate on best; religion.
>
And Rob Duncan is one of his groupies. Just like that Brian Eable guy.
Kevin S. Wilson
<robd...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>And hes wrong, as I demonstrated. Besides, Im not arguing with the test.
>Im arguing with hammond who thinks processing speed IS inteligence. Its
>obviously not.
Here, have some apostrophes:
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Kevin S. Wilson
<robd...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. Its that
>they feel you are wrong. How can the difference between what is (reality)
>and what isnt (full potential) be considered a god? How does this
>difference (your god) have poweres? From where did it aquire powers?
>
>And besides, youre wrong, millions of people grow into their full potential
>every year. With a good diet and proper education I cant imagine why you
>think they couldnt/wouldnt/dont. Its normal to grow to ones full potential,
>not rare.
Would that full potential include the ability to find and use the
apostrophe key?
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in
message news:isV%d.160880$FM3.49276@fed1read02...
<snip juvenile c.s. tripe>
=================================
ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD
What the hell's wrong with you?
That's such a simple, proven,
scientific explanation of "God"
that a high school drop out
could understand it!!
TMG
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:0SY%d.1181$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
[Hammond]
It wasn't a slip of the tongue kook... I spent 2 hours talking to
him and he said it was deliberate.
>
> You really are DESPERATE not to think of yours as a COMPLETE WASTED
> life.
[Hammond]
Go write a letter to your lonely hearts club kook...
but get OFF this thread IMBECILE!
>
> EVERYONE is laughing at you.
[Hammond]
Kooks don't know how
to laugh.... I do.... ROFL
====================================
Rob Duncan
"Kevin S. Wilson" <res...@spro.net> wrote in message
news:haj041taegcht6aec...@4ax.com...
The dumbass test has caught another. Ive Multiple Sclerosis, I dont feel or
operate that side of my right hand well. Its as good as it gets. So I dont
bother using them unless theres an actual point to it, or to avoid
misunderstandings in words. The need to comment on it puts you, among
others, in the drawing for the grand-prize. Congrats, youve discovered your
peer group. Enjoy them if you can.
Rob
George Hammond
[Hammond]
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD
DROOLING PIECE OF SCUM!
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
====================================
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
===================================
>
> AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
>
>
Tim
>> >
>> > "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
>> > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
>> >
>> > get off this thread
>> >
>> >
>>
>> to
>> dis your sorry ass (and smokees too).
>
> [Hammond]
>
> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
>
> ========Hammond's CV==============
>
> B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> Boston MA, USA
> Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
> N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
>
> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
>
> 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
> ===================================
>
>
If your looking for CV's why not submit your 'scientific theory' to a
reputable scientific journal? Why look on usenet? Why, because you're a
fraud, a no-mind looking for attention. State something of worth or fuck
off: your choice.
Rob Duncan
No creative powers. No powers of any kind.
Also, not all people have this difference. Simply because you claim theres
never been a person on earth to live up to their full potential, doesnt make
it true. Hundreds of Millions have. You need to come to terms with that
fact. A good family, proper diet and education, and no serious illness's
and theres no reason why a person wouldnt.
You simply cant accept that fact... because it blows your theory to shit.
Youve got it set in your head that its impossible to grow to ones full
potential. Paradoxically (and this is the crux) you claim its impossible to
grow to ones fullpotential, what you fail to realize is this... IF ITS
IMPOSSIBLE, ITS NOT A POTENTIAL. You need to read that many, many, times in
order to understand.
If a potential is impossible, its not a potentiality. Thats your problem.
I suspect instead of exemining what Ive explained in a rational and
intelectually honest manner, youll simply and quickly fire off a snide
retort, intent on avoiding the issue of your theories failure.
Rob
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hyZ%d.1853$S46....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
George Hammond
>
> "Kevin S. Wilson" <res...@spro.net> wrote in message
> news:haj041taegcht6aec...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:04:53 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
> > <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. Its
that
> >>they feel you are wrong.
[Hammond]
How can someone with no degrees in science or physics
understand a physics theory.... don't be stupid.
[Hammond]
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
====================================
George Hammond
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nh60e.190313$pc5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
> > message news:ER8%d.981$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Dear Philosophy newsgroup readers..... can't I get some kind of
> > an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS comment from someone..... the nerds
> > on the physics newsgroups are driving me crazy with nonsense about this.
> > George Hammond, physicist
>
> nonsense, you either don't answer or you tell him he is beneath you. You
> are not taking input.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
[Hammond]
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
====================================
Guy Svenhardt
What a pathetic excuse for a life you have. Aren't you embarrassed that
you've accomplished absolutely nothing? Keep spewing your drivel.
From AntiSPOG: ( http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm )
Guy Svenhardt
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> > > > > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
> > > > >
> > > > > get off this thread
> > > > >
AntiSPOG:
http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm
http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm
From AntiSPOG:
"In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180
claims Hammond has made. 11 (eleven) of these 180 claims can be seen as
true. Most of the agreed statements are trivial like "Today the world
faces enormous crises in population, oil resources, terrorism and Third
World poverty.". This statement alone includes four of the eleven agreed
claims.
A thesis based on 11 true and 169 false claims must be discarded as
inadequately thought-out. Scientific work published in the internet
should be based on traceable thoughts and backed up with references
which are accessible for everyone - e.g. by quoting passages out of a
book or adding links to other websites. This isn't the case in Hammond's
work. Mentioning names of (questionable) "authorities" doesn't make a
claim true, it only might be used to back up the own position. If a
thesis is based on the work of other scientists, a detailed description
should be added to see what they've contributed to the new thesis. If -
like Hammond says - statistical data of other scientists are involved,
it is a usual thing to add a link to these data or to give detailed
information where they were published.
Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. It
lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. It claims to be
"scientific", but it doesn't show any example of scientific experiments
to back it up nor does it follow basic scientific rules. The best
example surely is Hammond's attempt to assign his virtual "psychometric
space" to real space. This attempt alone disqualifies Hammond as an
incompetent amateur who never has understood anything regarding real
sciences. If I - as an autodidactic amateur - can see these flaws,
errors and misinterpretations, then I ask myself why Hammond expects
that professional scientists should consider to agree with something
like his SPoG.
On the other hand, no real Christian will need Hammond's SPoG. In the
eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic,
the work of a heretic. Even if I don't believe in higher entities, I do
respect the beliefs of others. Hammond doesn't have such qualms - he
insults all Christians and rubs their deity through the dirt.
In the end, Hammond neither will win the hearts of true Christians nor
will he convince the reason of scientists. It took me two weeks to
gather all the information to disprove SPoG, a professional scientist
could do the same in less than two minutes... "
Lady Chatterly
Guy Svenhardt <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep
>spewing non-sense.
Every part of the internet.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Lady Chatterly's a bot?" -- Larry
Rob Duncan
>> Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying.
>
> [Hammond]
> No the don't kook... you don't know what "G_uv" is, so how
> could you POSSIBLY understand the proof that GOD=G_uv.
> Neither do any of the others have any education in relativity, kook.
The entire world, except for you, are kooks? Please understand, theres not
a single person on earth who agrees with what youre saying. They understand
it, they simply disagree. Youre wrong. Thats all there is to it. If you
cant find a single person on a planet of billions, to agree with your great
discovery, that should be a sign somethings wrong with your thinking
process.
>> Its that
>> they feel you are wrong. How can the difference between what is
>> (reality)
>> and what isnt (full potential) be considered a god?
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and
> my explanatory website?
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
> I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie
> kook like you who walks down the pike!
To be fair to you I read your site long ago. Ive looked at what youve
written several times in fact. I enjoy reading such things. Its what I
like. The reality is there is no "one" way to describe reality, as nobody
has a complete picture of it. Your problems are attributable to thinking
something that doesnt exist in the physical or spititual world can affect or
influence things. A "difference" is a construct of the mind. Not an actual
"thing." It is a word, descriptive of two different states. Not an actual
thing. Its nothing, other than a concept. You think a concept magically
turns into something real, and then has powers to affect the entire
universe. Delusional. Psychotic. Maniacal. Thats why nobody whos read
your stuff agrees with you. Not because the entire earth is to stupid or
stubborn to understand.
>
>> How does this
>> difference (your god) have powers?
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and
> my explanatory website?
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
> I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie
> kook like you who walks down the pike!
>
>> From where did it aquire powers?
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you read the PEER PUBLISHED paper kook and
> my explanatory website?
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
> I'm not here to give spoon fed tutorials to every worthless newbie
> kook like you who walks down the pike!
As I mentioned, I have. Youve made no attempt to describe where this
physically non-existent difference, aquired its powers. How can something
existing only in the mind, exist in a way that has powers?
>> And besides, youre wrong, millions of people grow into their full
> potential
>> every year.
>
> [Hammond]
> No they don't kook. The SECULAR TREND PROVES they
> don't:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif
You cant use your own theories to dispute the fact that most all normal
healthy people who are fed well and well educated reach their full
potential, physically, intelectually, and emotionally. Just because you
"want" something to be so, doesnt make it so. Millions upon millions grow
into complete and full versions of what their genetics demand, every,
single, year. Its undisputable. Find someone, anyone, besides yourself,
who disputes millions of people dont grow into their full and complete
potential every year. You cant. Not one. Theyde be an idiot.
Now, admitadly, many, if not most, dont, for one reason or another, but
millions do, and thats indisputable. Prior to my Hydro and MS theres no
question I was at my full potential. None.
> snip.... lazy uninformed kookery by the poster
Ironic you are the one calling me that.
Rob
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:fmZ%d.1836$S46...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> >> Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No the don't kook... you don't know what "G_uv" is, so how
> > could you POSSIBLY understand the proof that GOD=G_uv.
> > Neither do any of the others have any education in relativity, kook.
>
> cant find a single person on a planet of billions, to agree with your
great
> discovery, that should be a sign somethings wrong with your thinking
> process.
[Hammond]
Cut the shit..... 10 reviewers of PhD/professorial rank reviewed
it in 2 papers and recommended it unananomusly for publication
in the peer reviewed scientific literature (citations below). The
opinion of drooling halfwit internet kooks like you doesn't mean
anything other than the fact that you can type graffitti.
[Hammond]
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
====================================
George Hammond
> >
> > "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
> >
> > get off this thread
> >
> >
>
> dis your sorry ass (and smokees too).
[Hammond]
George Hammond
> The answer is this George. You are wrong. A "difference" has no powers.
> No creative powers. No powers of any kind.
> You simply cant accept that fact... because it blows your theory to shit.
[Hammond]
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
> > --------------------------------------
> > ---original target post-----------
Guy Svenhardt
>
> "Guy Svenhardt" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6o50e.531$zl....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > news:I_40e.1552$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> > > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
> > >
> > > get off this thread
> > >
> > >
George Hammond
<snip>
> > > Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep
> > > spewing non-sense.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD,
> > DROOLING PIECE OF SCUM!
> >
> > ========Hammond's CV==============
> >
> > B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
> > Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
> > M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
> > Boston MA, USA
> > Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
> > Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
> > Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
> > N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
> >
> > Peer reviewed publications:
> >
> > Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> > New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> > Pergamon Press.
> > Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
> > Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
> >
>
> What a pathetic excuse for a life you have. Aren't you embarrassed that
> you've accomplished absolutely nothing? Keep spewing your drivel.
>
> From AntiSPOG: ( http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm )
> "Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur.
[Hammond]
CUT THE SHIT. SHORNAK IS AN UNEMPLOYED
GERMAN TRUCKDRIVER FROM DANZIG who never
attended college and can't even read physics.
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in
George Hammond
> >
> > "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
> >
> > get off this thread
> >
> >
> AntiSPOG:
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm
>
> From AntiSPOG:
> "In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG"
[Hammond]
CUT THE SHIT. SHORNAK IS AN UNEMPLOYED
GERMAN TRUCKDRIVER FROM DANZIG who never
attended college and can't even read physics.
CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD!
========Hammond's CV==============
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at
N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
====================================
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:CP50e.1606$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Guy Svenhardt" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6o50e.531$zl....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:I_40e.1552$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> > > > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
> > > >
> > > > get off this thread
> > > >
> > > >
> AntiSPOG:
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm
> http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm
>
> From AntiSPOG:
Tim
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:I_40e.1552$z....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in
> message news:VJ6dnWSTQpX...@aci.on.ca...
>
> get off this thread
>
>
Nope. Won't do fuck-oh! As long as you post your shit here I'll be here to
dis your sorry ass (and smokees too).
Join ISPIN - Church o' the holy sausage
Father Smokee presiding
(All OUR physicists have PhD's - no Hammond's allowed)
Guy Svenhardt
Of course. Rather than try to counter the truth of his claim, or offer
any evidence for yours (like a real scientist) you rant and rave true to
your psychotic form.
Your life has been a complete and miserable failure.
You are a tragic laughing stock.
From AntiSPOG: ( http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm )
Rob Duncan
>
> "Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:bLOdnfYdeKM...@gbronline.com...
>>
>> "Kevin S. Wilson" <res...@spro.net> wrote in message
>> news:haj041taegcht6aec...@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:04:53 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
>> > <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. Its
> that
>> >>they feel you are wrong.
>
> [Hammond]
> How can someone with no degrees in science or physics
> understand a physics theory.... don't be stupid.
You have no physics theory, or knowledge of my degree's.
Rob
Rob Duncan
Rob
"George Hammond" <nowh...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:HB70e.2249$S46...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
apieceo...@hotmail.com
> What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as
year
> old!
</snip>
But which third?
Reminds me an old joke...
Mom: "That's enough horsing around! You kids are gonna have to stay on
opposite halves of the pool."
First Kid: "I claim the top half!"
Seriously though.
One person may percieve 12 frames per second.... another may percieve
30... but by all accounts reality actually progresses at millions of
frames per second -- if it's discreet at all, which is an open
question.
So by that logic, reality isn't 15% invisible, it's 99.9% invisible!
And you know what's in all that unused bandwidth?
That's right: Subliminal Adveritising.
Zeus, Thor, Zoroaster, Yaweh, the Cola market -- they all pay top
dollar for the space between moments of human perception.
They'll try to sell you anything too. Penis enlargement therapy,
countermemes, eternal warmfuzziness...
Except occasionally somebody skips a beat and sees things at a moment
that was supposed to be "in between" -- kind of like when you turn to
one of those "moaning" channels and sometimes for a second or two you
get a clear image. And these people actually SEE Jupiter or The Avatar
of New Coke or the infamous Pamela Anderson video, and they can't
handle it so they fry their brain on drugs and babble incomprehensibly
on the internet.
Luckily here at T.O. we have [hammond] to drive out the kooks with his
razorkeen insight.
cl
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:isV%d.160880$FM3.49276@fed1read02...
> cl wrote:
> >
> > "Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>However, I do
> >>>crosswords (the "hard" ones) and play Scrabble a lot and almost never
> >>>misspell words
> >>>
> >>> Mark L. Feregrson
> >>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>You were saying?
>
> > You missed the "Frinst" mistake.
>
> Aaand... you didn't know that it's a common newsgroup contraction for
> "for instance"?
I was trolling Prof Kevie boy. He is Mr Grammar and speel check if you
haven't noticed. Mr tek righter requires expansion of all abbreviations
unless he is the user. I pegged his ass on this last week and he is still
a little pissy.
If you really want to push his buttons, start posting using textmsg lang.
-CAL
cl
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
>>
> > Uh, no, as a matter of fact. If I had, though, I'm sure it would've
> > been because I was laughing so hard at someone misspelling his own
> > name going on and on about his GIANT BRANE.
>
> My point was that I _don't_ think I have a giant brain, despite the
> high scores I got. I don't trust I.Q. tests one way or the other, from
> Stanford-Binet to this speed-reading thing. One wonders how Meth addicts
> would do on it.
>
> Too many people _are_ convinced of their own high inteligence, and
> will go to any lengths to find something to support their convictions.
>
> Anyway, glad I could provide you a moment of amusement. It's _my_
> conviction that everybody deserves the opportunity to feel like an idiot
> at least once a day, in the interest of keeping us humble. Had _your_
> moment yet today? ;>)
He is an ass Mark, plain and simple. Constantly hiding behind his mistakes
by saying that he meant them out of jest and other lies. Don't waste your
time with him like I do.
But to answer your question for him. No, he will never feel like an idiot
because it requires out of the box thinking. He doesn't have the ability in
him to admit mistake. It is all probably the result of childhood teasing
and torment.
-CAL
cl
>
> "Marc Goodman" <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:423DE26...@comcast.net...
> > hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Obvious nonsense, otherwise most of those who can competently sing
G&S'
> > > 'Modern Major General' would score IQs well into the 200s.
> >
> > Yes? Your point being what, exactly?
>
> [Hammond]
> Since when do morons have a point?
Did you just call yourself a moron Ham?
-CAL