An Open Letter to George Hammond:
StanAZ
windmills with your bogus "Proof of God"? And flaming responders - who have
completely misunderstood what you have to say?
As I tried to tell you, long ago (talking to myself): You have, in fact,
arrived at a valid and interesting insight about the origin of our current
beliefs in God, based on our evolutionary history. This can stand alone. It has
no connection with your psychobabble "theory"; no connection to relativity -
nor does it need any; and no relationship to organized religion. Despite your
personal beliefs, your concept isn't religious at all.
Why don't you get off your soapbox, forget any pretensions to science, and
present your idea straight, for what it actually says? I've been waiting
patiently to support you, when you do. -Stan
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Look Stan, all of this is getting tiresome. The simple fact of the
matter is that I have proven 2 things:
1. The Spacetime Metric CAUSES the Psychometry Metric.
2. The Curvature of the Psychometry Metric is "God"
I have in fact discovered THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD.
Now, I've talked to everybody on the Internet, finally Chris Hillman
who is probably the most competent. But remember, he is a mathematician
not a physicist, there's a difference. His best shot was the
following:
> Get real,
> George, since I am a mathematician maybe you ought to listen up when I
> tell you that "proofs" must be preceded by mathematical statements about
> defined quantities. Look up the (semi-humorous) work of Brams for one
> attempt to "define" the concept "God".
>
> Chris Hillman
Now obviously he doesn't know his ass from his elbow or what he's
talking about because there IS NOT ONE basic law of physics that can be
"proved mathematically.
Not Newton's Law
Not Einstein's Field Equations
Not Dirac's equation
Not Schrodinger's equation
Not Pauli's equation
NOT ONE OF THEM CAN BE PROVED "MATHEMATICALLY".
Chris Hillman is a loudmouth jerk who doesn't know what
he's talking about and threw a fit talking to me last week.
What he doesn't know is that PHYSICAL LAWS are "AXIOMS"
that are only established by experimental proof, not
mathematical proof.
Furthermore, because of this, it is NOT TRUE that it
is necessary to have "rigorously defined quantities" to
discover a PHYSICAL LAW, this is only true for mathematical
laws.
There was no rigorous definition of "Caloric" when Heat was
discovered to be atomic motion in Thermodynamics. There was
no rigorous definition of magnetic attraction when Maxwell's Laws
were discovered. There was no rigeours definition of the Wavefunction
when Schrodingers equation was discovered. In fact, just about
everything IN PHYSICS was only vaguely detected before somebody
found a physical law that explained it. Exactly the same is true
about "God"; before somebody (me) found the physical theory of it.
Now , I'm not going to sit here and contend with jerks like
Hillman, or you, or anybody else about it. The fact is that
a scientific proof of God is the central prize in Physics, and
I have won it. I've finally kicked all of you wise guys square
in the in the ass, which is what you've deserved from the beginning.
You and the entire human race for that matter.
How long do you think we were going to sit around and listen
to your synchophantic, loudmouthed arrogance and idiocy? How
long do you think the world was going to tolerate privileged
people walking walking around like big shots giving everybody
orders, ruining their lives, killing people and exploiting
everybody. just what the Hell did you THINK was going to happen?
YES, IT'S HAPPENED.
Somebody has actually found the proof of God.
GOD IS PSYCHOMETRIC CURVATURE
Only this time you are not going to nail the guy up on a cross,
because this time it's scientific, and this time "JESUS" has
his thumb on the nuclear button, and if you try anything funny
he'll blow every one of you bastards to Kingdom Come.
So this is my last posting to you. 10,000 people have hit my website
in the past 2 months, and downloaded one gig of copies of my theory.
that means it's all over the world by now, and within 6 months everybody
on the planet will know that a SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD HAS BEEN
DISCOVERED. And a few of them will even have confirmed it (which is
more than you or Hillman could do). And they all know about my published
paper in the peer reviewed literature too.
I want to tell you something Stan.. something personal. When I was
6 years old, sitting in the dirt somewhere, I looked up for the first
time and took a close look at a passing stranger. And I wondered to
myself "I wonder why there aren't any normal people in the world?".
Well, it's taken me the last 20 years of research to find out, and now
I've finally done something about it. I'VE PROVED THERE IS A REAL GOD.
What this means, since all of you are ungodly, is that I've kicked
you, and the entire human race square in the ass, which is exactly
what you've deserved ever since the time of Adam and Eve. I'M THE
BOY THAT HAS DONE IT. You're talking to the champ Stan, the champ of
champs, the "chief", that's who I am, and I just kicked the entire world
in the ass to prove it.
In closing, let me tell you another thing. We all know what
happened to the last guy who tried to prove there was a real God.
You nailed him to a cartesian coordinate system made out of
2x4's outside the walls of Jerusalem. But this time, you're not
going to get away with it. Jesus didn't have science and he didn't
have the bomb or the Internet. No, you're not going to publicly
crucify me.. you can't do it. Oh sure, somebody may put one through me
with a high powered rifle, or connect a bomb to the ignition
switch on my moped, they can assassinate me, but they can't publicly
crucify me.. not this time. BECAUSE THIS TIME THERE IS PROOF THAT
THERE IS A GOD. This proof is accessible to all 6 billion people
and can be read and understood by a high school student. real physical
proof... no more of this "faith bullshit".
So, so long Stan.. it was nice passing the time of day with you
while I was headed on to bigger and better things.. a glorious
future of happiness and freedom and security. Hope you make it too.
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammed, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Web site: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hillman
On 22 Dec 1999, "StanAZ" wrote:
> For Heaven's sake, George! Why do you waste everybody's time, tilting at
> windmills with your bogus "Proof of God"? And flaming responders - who have
> completely misunderstood what you have to say?
Good grief, I seem to agree with "StanAZ" about something. Namely, poor
George hasn't the slightest clue what a "mathematical proof" is, and he
certainly hasn't "proven" even the existence of the green bean, much less
"God".
But regardless of this point, I don't think George's posts on "God" belong
in this newsgroup, since he clearly isn't talking about either mathematics
or physics. I can't tell whether "StanAZ" feels the same way.
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Chris Hillman
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, George Hammond wrote:
> Chris Hillman is a loudmouth jerk who doesn't know what
> he's talking about and threw a fit talking to me last week.
ROFL.
Starting with this, I'm going to start saving posts which rant about what
a jerk I am so I can archive them somewhere on my web site :-/ You're
known by the company you keep, and also by the company you -don't- keep.
The people who think I am a jerk are such loonies that I'm rather proud to
have earned their enmity :-/
> What he doesn't know is that PHYSICAL LAWS are "AXIOMS" that are only
> established by experimental proof, not mathematical proof.
Gee whiz, I must have posted at least six posts this week alone trying to
explain to various people how science works (falsification of predictions
by "bad theories", confirmation of predictions by "good ones", until an
even better theory comes along, etc.). George must not read those posts.
Chris Hillman
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, George Hammond wrote:
> this time "JESUS" has his thumb on the nuclear button, and if you try
> anything funny he'll blow every one of you bastards to Kingdom Come.
> You're talking to the champ Stan, the champ of champs, the "chief",
> that's who I am, and I just kicked the entire world in the ass to
> prove it.
> Oh sure, somebody may put one through me with a high powered rifle, or
> connect a bomb to the ignition switch on my moped, they can
> assassinate me, but they can't publicly crucify me.. not this time.
> George Hammed, M.S. Physics
^^^^^^
Hmmm.... clearly this poor guy is undergoing a major psychotic episode and
should probably be checked into a hospital, but given the weird slip in
spelling his own name (is his real name in fact Hammed? Is he really
Algerian in nationality?) and given the fact that the Algerian the Border
Patrol arrested in Port Angeles, WA last week, who was apparently in
cahoots with persons unknown who may have been planning a terrorist attack
right here in Seattle (see the news stories), I am wondering if someone
should pass on these threats to the FBI.
Not that I believe for a moment that George has an A-bomb in the trunk of
his Toyota, but he certainly seems angry enough, and crazy enough, to try
to blow "us" up before "we" can "connect a bomb to the ignition switch on
my moped". Yikes, he thinks "we" are trying to -kill- him, and he's crazy
as a loon :-P
Beam me U-U-U-P, Scotty!
George Hammond
>
> On 22 Dec 1999, "StanAZ" wrote:
>
> > For Heaven's sake, George! Why do you waste everybody's time, tilting at
> > windmills with your bogus "Proof of God"? And flaming responders - who have
> > completely misunderstood what you have to say?
>
> Good grief, I seem to agree with "StanAZ" about something. Namely, poor
> George hasn't the slightest clue what a "mathematical proof" is, and he
> certainly hasn't "proven" even the existence of the green bean, much less
> "God".
>
[Hammond]
You haven't made a correct statement yet. You don't what the theory
is and you're making pronouncements about it. You're a screwball.
You've engaged in an idiotic personal attack through 8 posts now with
NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT in any of them. You're a mathematician NOT
a physicist which probably explains it.
> But regardless of this point, I don't think George's posts on "God" belong
> in this newsgroup, since he clearly isn't talking about either mathematics
> or physics. I can't tell whether "StanAZ" feels the same way.
>
> Chris Hillman
>
[Hammond]
You don't know WHAT the subject is. It most certainly is
Physics and Relativity. You're just an aggravated crank who wants to
discuss his pet math subjects and will resort to personal attack and gutter
sniping to get his way. You're not a physicist. You're a "math hobbyist"
and a scientific ignoramus.
However, I now doubt that you could be of help anyway. You are not a
physicist, and mathematicians are well known to be of little help generally
in physics. On top of that you are too immature, aggravated and generally
ignorant to be of any use in a serious scientific discussion. The same is
probably
true of everyone else on the list, so we can allay any qualms that this
theory
will be discussed here and you can get back to your math lectures where
you properly belong.
> Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
--
StanAZ
StanAZ: "Why don't you get off your soapbox, [George,] and present your idea
straight, for what it actually says?"
As I indicated in my post, I basically support George Hammond, in his
underlying views. But I think his approach is in a cocked hat. Let me try to
present a rationale.
What we have to realize is that George Hammond is an Unsung Genius. Unsung,
because he hasn't yet figured what his Melodic Motif is. And, because his Pitch
as a result, ends up Imperfect - not even Relative. Ie, George's pitch on
"relativity" is simply a mistaken and misdirected spiel.
What apparently happened was that George was struck, at some point, by an
insight to the effect that mankind contains, or is undergoing a transition
from, brute force tendencies to altruistic ones. He regards this as a built-in
component of our cerebral structure, which is as yet only partly turned on. In
ordinary terms, this could be seen as a result of conflicting instincts, with
altruism currently gaining ground.
As any study of the last century would show, that much is obviously the case.
That is, rather than considering Men on Horseback, such as Mussolini and
Hitler, as great Folk Heroes - as the Germans certainly did; we regard them as
Evil Villains, who had to be defeated in the name of humanity.
In his epiphany, this built-in drive has been personified in our psyches as
God, which we in turn project onto the cosmos. But rather than presenting his
view on a rational basis which others could accept, George was instead struck
by a prophetic vision of Absolute Truth, which he must reveal to the world.
Unfortunately, prophets have lost favor, in these prosaic days.
Given his recognition of Truth, George then cast about for a model that would
express it, and he found one in an analogy (in his view, an identity) between
psychometrics and relativity.
Now, psychometrics is a science even more dismal than economics - neither of
which have any predictive value, whatsoever; instead, they try to justify their
studies under the rubric of statistics. By inventing a set of imaginary
"directions" to represent "psychic drives," and cataloging imaginary
"personality components", they now have an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem to
diagonalize. Since all quadratic forms are "metrics" in this view, one can
geometrize the results in "psychic space," and identify it with relativity. In
substance, anyway.
(Unfortunately, the signatures don't match. Well, hell; we're talking a new
principle here. Leave us not quibble.
(George even found a paper by David Rutherford with a similar signature
problem. But Dave is a bright fellow, and I'm sure he'll get his theory
straightened out.)
To close the circle: Since mathematics deals with Eternal Truths (a theorem,
once proved, is True retroactively for all time), and so do philosophy and
religion, George's discovery is now "A PROOF OF GOD".
Inasmuch as George has been vouchsafed a Revealed Truth, I have severe doubts
he will be able to recognize the fact, that his beliefs simply won't cut it
with anyone else. But one never knows. -Stan
George Hammond
>
> Now, psychometrics is a science even more dismal than economics - neither of
> which have any predictive value, whatsoever; instead, they try to justify their
> studies under the rubric of statistics. By inventing a set of imaginary
> "directions" to represent "psychic drives," and cataloging imaginary
> "personality components", they now have an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem to
> diagonalize. Since all quadratic forms are "metrics" in this view, one can
> geometrize the results in "psychic space," and identify it with relativity. In
> substance, anyway.
>
> (Unfortunately, the signatures don't match. Well, hell; we're talking a new
> principle here. Leave us not quibble.
>
[Hammond]
Well I'll be a goddamned sonofabitch....!!!! Here's someone who
ACTUALLY KNOWS what the theory is about. Somehow he's discovered
psychometry, figured out that this is the eigenvector space that
I'm talking about. Probably even knows what the curvature is.
StanAZ, I got to hand it to you, .. you're at least half a
scientist.
Unfortunately, it's still only half a scientist. Apparently you
have entirely missed WHY it is that the Psychometry metric would be
related to the spacetime metric... I mean, that IS the SINE QUA NON
of the theory..! Without that you'd be talking about a "coincidence"
or something and not a CAUSALITY.
However, you can be forgiven this. You are certainly heads and
shoulders above all the rest of these jerks who have been flaming me
and don't even recognize that much..!!
As for the "signature problem".... Christ.., you really are a
keen observer.. even if an intuitive dolt. Psychometry only measures
the |absolute value| of the length of the eigenvectors, it doesn't
actually measure their sign. However, here you are getting into a
mathematical point which is beyond what even has been discovered.
It is UNKNOWN what the meaning of the "signature" is in this theory.
There is also a question of "normalization" since all psychometric
variables are "z-scored" (or normalized to one) whereas the diagonal
elements of the Einstein metric can vary in magnitude as well as vary
in mutual angle.
The first one into this is going to discover something.. I'm sure I'll
rapidly be eclipsed by more able scientists... There's probably a hell of
a lot more where this came from.. only I don't know enough physics and
math to recognize it. I'm only the one who (accidentally BTW) stumbled
across the thing.
At any rate, YOUR POST is the first thing approaching a scientific
comment on this discovery in the entire history of the subject.
I can't understand why you didn't say something sooner, although you
probably wouldn't have been heard above the roar of the crowd.
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hillman
Well, pick me up and blow me down! :-/ Lookit this, jStanAZ -does- agree
with me:
> Given his recognition of Truth, George then cast about for a model
> that would express it, and he found one in an analogy (in his view, an
> identity) between psychometrics and relativity.
>
> Now, psychometrics is a science even more dismal than economics -
> neither of which have any predictive value, whatsoever; instead, they
> try to justify their studies under the rubric of statistics. By
> inventing a set of imaginary "directions" to represent "psychic
> drives," and cataloging imaginary "personality components", they now
> have an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem to diagonalize. Since all
> quadratic forms are "metrics" in this view, one can geometrize the
> results in "psychic space," and identify it with relativity. In
> substance, anyway.
>
> (Unfortunately, the signatures don't match. Well, hell; we're
> talking a new principle here. Leave us not quibble.
>
> (George even found a paper by David Rutherford with a similar
> signature problem. But Dave is a bright fellow, and I'm sure he'll get
> his theory straightened out.)
Actually, there are -tons- of papers on statistical methods which employ
some notion of geometry, many of which are close to what poor old George
is trying to talk about, through his psychosis. In particular, there is
the concept of a statistical manifold in "parametric statistics", where
IIRC the Fisher information matrix gives the Riemannian metric. This
stuff is mathematically correct, although not very widely used.
At the other extreme, there is a field of statistics---- the
non-descriptive name slips my mind at the moment--- which is a sure-fire
way to "lie with statistics": basically, by taking a two dimensional
projection of a higher dimensional euclidean space, in which one has
plotted for example absurd "models" of various countries economies in
terms of meaningless scores along meaningless coordinate axes like "degree
of intra-industry cooperation", and comes up with the conclusion that the
economy of Japan lies in a different place on a two dimensional projection
than the economies of other countries, so the economy of Japan is
"different". This method even gives allegedly "quantitative" differences.
Of course, the mathematical operation of making a higher dimensional
euclidean space is fine, and so is projection to two dimensional plane
which "maximally separates" a finite set of points in the big space, but
this statistical method, by its very nature, guarantees that there will be
no rational interpretation of the "meaning" of the axes in the two
dimensional projection, and no rational interpretation of what one can
conclude from observing that point A appears in one place on that plane
and point B in another. So this method is a sure-fire way of lying with
statistics. It gives no meaningful information about anything, but it is
a great way to bamboozle the public.
George Hammond
>
> Well, pick me up and blow me down! :-/ Lookit this, jStanAZ -does- agree
> with me:
>
> > Given his recognition of Truth, George then cast about for a model
> > that would express it, and he found one in an analogy (in his view, an
> > identity) between psychometrics and relativity.
[Hammond]
Wrong Stan, it is neither an "analogy" nor an "identity", it is a
CAUSALITY. the Cartesian Theory (Hammond, published peer reviewed
literature 1994, and posted on website) gives a blow by blow
description of the PHYSICAL CAUSATION of the Psychometry metric
by the spacetime metric, vis a vis the "Cartesian Geometry" of
the human body. without an awareness of this, the theory must seem
a complete mystery to you..!
> >
> > Now, psychometrics is a science even more dismal than economics -
> > neither of which have any predictive value, whatsoever; instead, they
> > try to justify their studies under the rubric of statistics. By
> > inventing a set of imaginary "directions" to represent "psychic
> > drives," and cataloging imaginary "personality components", they now
> > have an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem to diagonalize. Since all
> > quadratic forms are "metrics" in this view, one can geometrize the
> > results in "psychic space," and identify it with relativity. In
> > substance, anyway.
> >
> > (Unfortunately, the signatures don't match. Well, hell; we're
> > talking a new principle here. Leave us not quibble.
> >
> > (George even found a paper by David Rutherford with a similar
> > signature problem. But Dave is a bright fellow, and I'm sure he'll get
> > his theory straightened out.)
>
[Hillman]
> Actually, there are -tons- of papers on statistical methods which employ
> some notion of geometry, many of which are close to what poor old George
> is trying to talk about, through his psychosis. In particular, there is
> the concept of a statistical manifold in "parametric statistics", where
> IIRC the Fisher information matrix gives the Riemannian metric. This
> stuff is mathematically correct, although not very widely used.
>
[Hammond]
there are also tons of shaggy dog stories to be told.
They are irrelevant to the present discussion which is based
on the discovery of an axiomatic physical structural principal,
and the discovery of the Structural Model published by me in the
peer reviewed literature. (Hammond, 1994) I've heard all of
this tautological stuff before from academics at Oxford and
elsewhere, they have something irrelevant to say about everything
and are generally nothing but a pain in the neck. They can't
come to grips with a real problem.
[Hillman]
> At the other extreme, there is a field of statistics---- the
> non-descriptive name slips my mind at the moment--- which is a sure-fire
> way to "lie with statistics": basically, by taking a two dimensional
> projection of a higher dimensional euclidean space, in which one has
> plotted for example absurd "models" of various countries economies in
> terms of meaningless scores along meaningless coordinate axes like "degree
> of intra-industry cooperation", and comes up with the conclusion that the
> economy of Japan lies in a different place on a two dimensional projection
> than the economies of other countries, so the economy of Japan is
> "different". This method even gives allegedly "quantitative" differences.
> Of course, the mathematical operation of making a higher dimensional
> euclidean space is fine, and so is projection to two dimensional plane
> which "maximally separates" a finite set of points in the big space, but
> this statistical method, by its very nature, guarantees that there will be
> no rational interpretation of the "meaning" of the axes in the two
> dimensional projection, and no rational interpretation of what one can
> conclude from observing that point A appears in one place on that plane
> and point B in another. So this method is a sure-fire way of lying with
> statistics. It gives no meaningful information about anything, but it is
> a great way to bamboozle the public.
>
> Chris Hillman
[Hammond]
another irrelevant shaggy dog story. The bottom line is that all this
is personal harassment, and I've been subjected to miles and miles
of it from aggravated academics everywhere, none of whom are capable
of coming to grips with the basic problem. The reason is, of course,
that this discovery "was not invented in academia" and is a direct threat
and embarrassment to academia, just as was Freud's or Einstein's theory.
I represent a social constituency that does not like you people and
you don't like me. So why don't you just but out of here unless you
have something factual to say about the theory per se. We're not interested
in "stories from elsewhere", this isn't a campfire session at summer
camp my friend. this is a discussion about whether "Feynman's question"
has been answered. He said that scientifically as far as God is
concerned the question was "is there or isn't there?". I'm advancing that
proof has been found that THERE IS.
[Hammond]
Well, again the "Hillman rationale" is irrelevant. This is typical
of "academic" analysis. These people don't actually know what the problem
is, they only know what the answers are. So typically they fasten on to
"popular surface descriptions" of things (naievely believing them) and
then construct elaborate mathematical theories to describe them. This
results in a typically "garbage in garbage out" academic production.
Not so with serious physics. Serious physics first stumbles on a
unexpected scientific discovery, recognizes it as something fundamental,
and then goes looking for any mathematical tool to describe it. Their
research is ALWAYS based on the discovery of a SERIOUS PHENOMENOLOGICAL
DILEMMA that needs to be explained. They DON'T go around making up
"what if" problems (as above) and then attempt to solve them. Chris Hillman
still doesn't know what this theory is about, what phenomenology
it's based on, and has no physical insight into the problem. StanAZ
apparently has more of the killer instinct and HAS backtracked the
problem to Psychometric eigenvector space and the metric. He at least
knows what we're talking about. He even recognized the signature problem,
the explanation of which OBVIOUSLY signals the discovery of something
fundamental and important for psychology; such as "what is the meaning
of an invariant distance in psychology? i don't know and neither does
anyone else at this point, but finding the lost negative signature is
going to answer the problem, that's obvious to anyone.. even stanAZ
apparently.
with regard to the "signature problem", YES, I've known about that for at
least a year and a half.. I recognized it immediately when I went to
compare the Thurstone decomposition of the psychometry metric with
Einstein's (Newtonian) linearization of the space time metric
in weak slowly varying fields. They are of course identical except
for the sign of g(44) which is negative. I have never considered this
a fundamental problem because it is clear from the physical origin of
the correspondance that the psychometry metric is DIRECTLY PHYSICALLY
CAUSED
by the spacetime metric.
The explanation of this difference in sign then
has to do with the physical measurements in psychometry. For
instance they do not measure the scale factor of the 4th dimension
directly, they measure the "gravitational time dilation" (to 1st order)
which turns out to be "Intelligence" or mental speed wch. is measurable.
In the Newtonian approximation these have the same mathematical form but
the time dilation has a positive sign.
e.g. in the Newtonian approximantion, and with "phi" as the
Newtonian gravitational potential:
Metric 4th component g(44) = -1 -2phi/c^2
Time Dilation = t/tau = 1 - phi/c^2
as you can see these two formulas differ basically in that one
is negative and one is positive.
I am currently taking time out to analyze and clarify this problem
further and will get back to you (StanAZ) with a more detailed explanation.
>
> Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
--
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond: "I have in fact discovered THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD."
>
> As I indicated in my post, I basically support George Hammond, in his
> underlying views. But I think his approach is in a cocked hat. Let me try to
> present a rationale.
>
><snip irrelevant Sunday school story>
>
>
>> Now, psychometrics ........ By inventing a set of imaginary
> "directions"..... and cataloging...
> "personality components", they now have an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem to
> diagonalize. Since all quadratic forms are "metrics" in this view, one can
> geometrize the results in "psychic space," and identify it with relativity. In
> substance, anyway.
>
> (Unfortunately, the signatures don't match. Well, hell; we're talking a new
> principle here. Leave us not quibble.
>
[Hammond]
To reiterate Stan, you underestimate your own strength as
a scientific sleuth.
You've got the picture right about "psychic space" and the
"eigenvector diagonalization problem", boy that's one hell of
an accomplishment for someone who probably never heard of it
before last week..!
However, you have taken the theory from the top down rather
than the bottom up. You have the two top rungs of the ladder
but you completely jumped over the bottom rung, thus your view
of the theory is floating in air. The first rung of the theory
you have missed, is the point that Hammond's input to the problem
is to have discovered the PHYSICAL CAUSE of "psychic space";
namely the Cartesian geometry of the Brain (Hammond 1994, Pergamon
Press). This is what's new, this is the physics we are talking about,
and this is what physically relates the spacetime metric to the
"psychic space metric". This is the first rung and the cornerstone
of the theory. Without Hammond 1994 we would HAVE NO
physics theory to talk about. Like you say, without this first rung
of the ladder we would be talking about a mere
"mathematical coincidence" instead of a "physical causation".
The discussion of any such thing as that would be sheer insanity
and incompetence of course... surely you don't think I am that
stupid?
Anyway, that brings us to the "signature problem" that you have
mentioned. I remember vaguely working my way through this about a year
ago, but I don't think I got to the end of it. Anyway, as I see it
now the explanation is this. It stems from the fact that all
Psychometry factors (eigenvectors) come from "z-scored" data. Since
there is no such thing as absolute scaling in psychometry, they simply
normalize all scales to one by dividing all data by the standard
deviation. This makes the length of ALL EIGENVECTORS a maximum of
one standard deviation long.
OK, this is not the case in Physics where you have absolute
scaling. The unit vectors (basis vectors) that make up the
spacetime metric (scalar product matrix) can become larger or
smaller than one if a gravitational field is present. They are
only unit vectors in flat space. OK, the theory says that the
spacetime dimensions are causing the psychometric dimensions.
Gravity causes the off diagonal elements of the spacetime metric to
become nonzero, so the matrix (metric) is OBLIQUE. Likewise,
what psychomitrists measure is the OBLIQUNESS of the psychometry
metric. The difference is that the diagonal elements of the
psychometry metric are always "one" whereas the diagonal elements
in the Einstein metric can be larger or smaller than one. This
means that this "linear variation" will show up as an "angular
variation" in the psychometry metric.
Now, so you say; then the psychometry metric can't be equal to
the spacetime metric. Well, it is and it isn't. The point is
the "higher order factor" derived from the psychometry metric is
derived by "diagonalization" a linear algebra process, whereas
"gravity" is derived from Einstein's linearized metric by plugging it back
into the Field Equations... this is a different mathematical
process. However, the result IS THE SAME (in the linearized
Newtonian limit) except for the SIGN, which does not show up in
the final result.
Therefore, it is evident that "Einsteinian gravity" is the
physical cause of the "Final Factor" in psychometry. This Final
Factor turns out to be what we call "God".
Well, that's a hand waving explanation of the signature problem,
and I'm still working on the mathematics of it, and I will get
back to you as soon as I have the thing hammered out in detail.
as I say, it comes from the "normalization" phenomena in psychometry.
StanAZ
StanAZ: "For Heaven's sake, George! [Stop] tilting at windmills with your bogus
"Proof of God"...And flaming responders - who have completely misunderstood
what you have to say..."
Chris Hillman: "Good grief, I seem to agree with StanAZ. [Namely,] George
hasn't the slightest clue what a "mathematical proof" is, and he certainly
hasn't "proven"...the existence of..."God"."
Now, as I understand it...
StanAZ: "Given his recognition of Truth, George...cast about for a model that
would express it [which he discovered in psychometrics]...By inventing a set of
imaginary "directions" to represent "psychic drives" and
cataloging..."personality components" [psychometrics constructs] an
eigenvalue/eigenvector problem to diagonalize. Since all quadratic forms are
"metrics" in this view, one can geometrize the results in "psychic space," and
[hopefully] identify it with relativity."
Chris: "Actually, there are -tons- of papers on statistical methods which
employ some notion of geometry...In particular, there is the concept of a
statistical manifold in "parametric statistics" [which] gives the Riemannian
metric...[However] the mathematical operation of making a higher
dimensional...space gives no meaningful information..."
The quadratic form we are discussing here is the result of doing a least
squares ("correlation") fit to a quasi-elliptical collection of data.
Stan: "Unfortunately, the signatures don't match."
That is, the correlation generates positive definite forms; while relativity
has an indefinite metric.
George Hammond: "[Stan has] discovered psychometry, figured out that this is
the eigenvector space that I'm talking about. Probably even knows what the
curvature is...[But apparently he has] entirely missed WHY it is that the
Psychometry metric would be related to the spacetime metric..."
This reference to "curvature" or "Riemannian geometry" escapes me, since the
GR metric arrives at the concept via a range of physical coordinates, while the
personality data deals only with how the distribution scatters. This is
entirely static. Ie, as Chris says, the math of itself implies no
"displacements".
But, such questions aside, there are real, physical problems involved in the
way our brains work. George finds what we call "God" as a component of our
psychic drives toward "altruism". In other words, the way we happen to be
programmed. But, what of the more practical elements? Such as our sense of
time, or personal identity? Which psychic "dimension" accounts for our sense of
humor? And how can any psychometric measurements relate to the color "red", or
our feelings of awareness?
The trouble with all brain models so far is that they see the brain only as a
collection of logical gates: ie, as a computer. But nerves fire, or they don't.
There is no possible way one can convert this to "pain", or the sensation
"red". Yet, even a one-celled animal can respond to light, and sense its
surroundings. Obviously this is a chemical reaction, unrelated to the
transducer mechanisms involved in nerve processes.
Asimov tells of being told that the visual system is nothing other than a TV
in operation connecting the scanner to the screen. He responded, "Yes - but who
is watching?"
Where in the brain is the "watcher"? -Stan
George Hammond
[Hammond]
>
>
> <..snip ad hominem remarks and rethorical irrelevant
flourishes about "altruism", "drives"... etc.>
>
>
[StanAZ]
> The quadratic form we are discussing here is the result of doing a least
> squares ("correlation") fit to a quasi-elliptical collection of data.
>
> Stan: "Unfortunately, the signatures don't match."
>
> That is, the correlation generates positive definite forms; while relativity
> has an indefinite metric.
>
[Hammond]
OK, I'll lay out the mathematical answer to why the signatures
DO MATCH and why it only APPEARS that they do not match.
According to the theory, GEOMETRIC brain asymmetry causes an
individual psychometry-metric in every persons "psychic space".
As the theory shows, this is caused by the variation in the underlying
spacetime metric in each brain. The "scalefactors" of this underlying
coordinate system in each person's brain vary.. and are a "statistical
variate" in the population.
The "correlation matrix" of psychometry is a measure of this. The
psychometric measure of E,N,P,g in each person, is a measure of
the magnitude of the underlying "scale factors" for each individual.
The "correlation matrix" is a covariation matrix calculated from
these measurements on the population. Since the quantities measured are
REAL
(no complex numbers), the correlation matrix must have ALL REAL NUMBERS
IN IT. This is in distinction to the spacetime metric which has
complex numbers in the last column and last row of the 4x4 matrix.
Therefore, what we see is that the 4x4 "correlation matrix" of psychometry
is only a "magnitude correlation matrix" of the magnitudes of the
matrix elements of the spacetime metric.
The correlation matrix is not actually a true "metric".. it is only a
"covariation matrix". In fact, it is the covariation matrix of the
spacetime metric.
Now then, the question comes up: how can we compare the 4x4 correlation
matrix with the 4x4 spacetime metric that causes it?
OK, Einstein says that the spacetime metric of physics
for the special case of Newton's gravity, (e.g. for small,
quasistatic fields), can be approximated by small first order
deviations from the flat (diagonal) Lorentz metric, in
other words:
Eqn.4 g(u,v) = N(u,v) + f(u,v)
or, writing these (symmetric) matrices out in
full, we have:
Eqn.5
| 1+a b c d | |1 | |a b c d|
| 1+e f g | = | 1 | + | e f g|
| 1+h i | | 1 | | h i|
| -1-#| | -1| | -#|
weak field = flat Lorentz + the small
gravitational metric gravitational
metric terms
OK, what we are comparing this to (or rather what we have
discovered this CAUSES, is the psychometry correlation matrix,
which it is well known, may be similarly decomposed as follows:
Eqn. 7
|1+h1^2 r(ij)| |1 | |h1^2 r(ij) |
| 1+h2^2 | = | 1 | + | h2^2 |
| 1+h3^2 | | 1 | | h3^2 |
| 1+h4^2| | 1| | h4^2|
correlation specific common factor
matrix matrix matrix
OK, we see that these two matrix expansions are identical
in form except for the minus sign in the "44" matrix element.
Another difference that is not readily apparent is that while
ALL elements in the correlation matrix are REAL, the last row
and last column of the gravitational matrix may contain COMPLEX
numbers since the 4th basis vector is imaginary in Minkowski
space. But we have explained how the experimental measurements
of the "statistical variation" in the spacetime metric are used to
compute the "psychometry metric". In other words, we know where
the minus sign went. The "imaginary sign, i=sqrt(-1)" does not
show up in a direct experimental measure of the scale factors
which only measures their numerical covariation (correlation),
it does not actually measure their "scalar product" as the spacetime
metric does.
Now, the question is; given this difference, can we still use the
"matrix element correspondence" between these two equations to
mathematically prove that "God is caused by Gravity"? the answer is
yes, and here is why.
The first eqn. (eqn 5) as is well known, is substituted back into
Einstein's field equations and it turns out that these reduce to
Poisson's eqn with g(44) as the potential. This is the standard
proof that g(44) in eqn 5 is actually phi=#, the classic Newtonian
scalar potential. This demonstration is presented in every
introductory Relativity textbook.
Now, on the other hand, egn 7 is subjected to a different mathematical
process in psychometry. The last matrix in eqn 7
(the so called common factor matrix) is actually "factored" to produce
a single higher order factor (the "common factor"). In other words,
the RANK of this 4x4 common factor matrix turns out to be ONE, which
means that the 4 vectors that generate it are actually collinear, with
lengths h1,h2,h3,h4. Since this is a one dimensional (one factor)
space, h1,h2,h3,h4 and the dimension itself must ALL HAVE THE SAME
DIMENSIONAL UNITS. So, if we can discover the dimensions of any one
of these h's, we can discover the dimensions (or NAME) of the common
factor itself.
But, we already have the answer to this. Comparing the "44" term
in both eqns 5 and 7, we see that it is the variation in "#" (Phi)
that is causing h4^2. In fact h4^2 is proportional to # (phi), the
Newtonian gravitational potential.
From here on out, it's simple calculus to show that the common
factor is in fact caused by Gravity itself:
O.k, now it's time for some simple calculus. We
have discovered the following "factor analytic
isomorphism":
Eqn.8 h4^2 ----------> # (the Newtonian potential)
Now, this is not an equation, it is a factor analytic
isomorphism. We wish to take the derivative of this
equation. On the left, we are taking the derivative with
respect to the communality h. The units of this vector
are units of h (since the length of the vector is
sqrt(h^2) = the standard deviation = h. Therefore,
the proper differentiation is d/dh.
On the right however, we are in physics space, not
psychological space; #, the gravitational potential
is a function of x,y,z,t.
Therefore the proper differentiation is the gradient which
we shall write as d/dx. So, we have:
Eqn.9 d/dh(h4^2) ------------> grad(#) = d/dx(#)
But, by definition, the gradient of the potential is the
gravitational force, or simply GRAVITY, G.
therefore:
Eqn.10 h4 --------------> G (gravity)
Now, this "vector" h4, loads on the common factor.
In fact, since there is only one common factor
it is collinear with it! This then, finally tells
us that the single higher order factor, the disputed "GOD"
factor, must be factor analytically isomorphic to Gravity.
To put it short, God is CAUSED BY GRAVITY.
> George Hammond: "[Stan has] discovered psychometry, figured out that this is
> the eigenvector space that I'm talking about. Probably even knows what the
> curvature is...[But apparently he has] entirely missed WHY it is that the
> Psychometry metric would be related to the spacetime metric..."
>
> This reference to "curvature" or "Riemannian geometry" escapes me, since the
> GR metric arrives at the concept via a range of physical coordinates, while the
> personality data deals only with how the distribution scatters. This is
> entirely static. Ie, as Chris says, the math of itself implies no
> "displacements".
[Hammond]
I don't follow this. There are 6 billion people in the human race.
Each one of them occupies a different point in E,N,P,g (psychic) space.
Random statistics would tell you the distribution would be a normally
distributed sphere. Fact is, it is not. Psychometry "rotates" the
E,N,P,g axes to the positions of maximum density. Thus the
"metric" or 4x4 intercorrelation matrix of E,N,P,g is not
"diagonal", it is an "oblique" or a "curved" matrix. This is the
same situation one has in Relativity. When there is no gravity,
the metric is "diagonal" (the Lorentz metric). When there is
gravity present this 4x4 matrix becomes "oblique" (off diagonal
elements appear), and this signals the existence of "curvature".
An "oblique" metric means that curvature exists in the space.
the same is true in psychometry, only it's not caused (directly) by
"gravity" it's caused by "God". And, since we can show how and
why the psychometry 4x4 metric is caused by the spacetime 4x4 metric,
we say "Gravity causes God".
>
> But, such questions aside, there are real, physical problems involved in the
> way our brains work. George finds what we call "God" as a component of our
> psychic drives toward "altruism".
[Hammond]
I would no more use or consider for one minute the term
"altruism" anymore than I would use the world "quiche"
for Christ's sake.
> In other words, the way we happen to be
> programmed. But, what of the more practical elements? Such as our sense of
> time, or personal identity? Which psychic "dimension" accounts for our sense of
> humor? And how can any psychometric measurements relate to the color "red", or
> our feelings of awareness?
[Hammond]
Look, it takes 20 years of study of Psychology to separate
psychoanalytical from psychometric terminology.
Psychology is "hierarchical". At the lowest level are
"acts", above that, fewer "habits" and above that,
fewer "traits", and above that fewer, "types".
At each level you have psychoanalytical terms.
"Altruism" is a "trait", in this hierarchy.
There are clearly identified 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th order
factors. It turns out there is only ONE 4th order
factor, and that is "God".
There are 4 3rd order factors. Two of these cause the
Bicameral/Two-Party system (republicans, Democrats etc.)
At the 2nd order you have things like Introvert, Extrovert,
Neurotic, IQ etc. At the 1st order you have about 30
primary traits like, tension, self discipline, insecurity,
imagination, suspiciousness, boldness, conformity, impulsivity
etc. etc. etc.
but, DO NOT attach any great significance to these "names",
they are no more meaningful than "charm, color, flavor, and
strangeness etc. etc." in Particle Physics. the ONLY important thing
about these "eigenvectors" is that they are REPLICABLE in
empirical eigenvector extraction from real data, so that
we know something PHYSICALLY REAL exists. The "name" that is
given to it is only an intuitive handle. These quantities
(eigenvectors) reappear replicably in thousands and thousands
of empirical tests such that theirs relative positions and
magnitudes (vector mag and direction) are known to TWO DECIMAL
POINT ACCURACY..!
>
> The trouble with all brain models so far is that they see the brain only as a
> collection of logical gates: ie, as a computer. But nerves fire, or they don't.
> There is no possible way one can convert this to "pain", or the sensation
> "red". Yet, even a one-celled animal can respond to light, and sense its
> surroundings. Obviously this is a chemical reaction, unrelated to the
> transducer mechanisms involved in nerve processes.
[Hammond]
Whoa, whoa, whoa... A handful of SYMMETRY PRINCIPLES finally explained
30 different fundamental particles. the same is true in Psychology.
simple Cartesian Geometry (Cartesian Symmetry) of the brain has
now explained Psychological Structure (The Structural Model).
We no longer have to resort to the "alchemy" of philosophical
psychoanalytical endless speculations of the premetrical era.
>
> Asimov tells of being told that the visual system is nothing other than a TV
> in operation connecting the scanner to the screen. He responded, "Yes - but who
> is watching?"
>
> Where in the brain is the "watcher"? -Stan
[Hammond]
This theory proves conclusively that "God" is
who it is that is watching. And that there is
a REAL PHYSICAL God.
--
Androcles
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3860F4E6...@mediaone.net...
> Chris Hillman is a loudmouth jerk who doesn't know what
> he's talking about and threw a fit talking to me last week.
> What he doesn't know is that PHYSICAL LAWS are "AXIOMS"
> that are only established by experimental proof, not
> mathematical proof.
is a statement which we accept without proof. Not even a physical experiment
can prove an axiom, although it might DISPROVE it.
Androcles.
Androcles
You have been, and will continue to be, flamed.
For as long as you persist in your theory, you will not succeed here in this
group. Might I suggest that you find a following among more simple-minded
folk, as David Koresh did, instead of trying to perpetrate your concepts
among the more intellectual? I wish you no harm, I'm only trying to point
out reality to you, and reality, however you might perceive it, is that you
will not win this debate.
These guys are here to yank your chain and have fun doing it. You will not
faze them. They all have egos every bit as big as yours.
Androcles
George Hammond
YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
YOU ARE APPARENTLY JUST ANOTHER AGGREVATED JERK
LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS
DISCUSSION AND .... STAY OUT.
George Hammond
>
> George,
> You have been, and will continue to be, flamed.
[Hammond]
I'VE SAID IT ONCE, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. YOUR
POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT. THE REASON
IS, YOU HAVE NOTHING SCIENTIFIC TO SAY, AND
DON'T INTEND TO SAY ANYTHING WITH SCIENTIFIC
CONTENT.
ONE MORE POST WITH NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT
AND I'LL SIMPLY KILLFILE YOU ON MY COMPUTER.
I DON'T NEED AN AGGREVATED NO NOTHING
SHITHEAD LIKE YOU BOTHERING ME. SEE A
PSYCHIATRIST FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
GET OUTTA HERE AND STAY OUTTA HERE.
Androcles
> [Hammond]
> YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
> LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS
> DISCUSSION AND .... STAY OUT.
You go to great lengths to try to persuade others of your noble proof of the
existence of god, and then when someone actually listens to you, you respond
like the ugly little twerp you are. I'm surprised you even said "Please".
Well, you have convinced me of this. You are the one looking for an
argument.
Get lost, this NG is for relativity, not religion.
Androcles
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
> >
> > George,
> > You have been, and will continue to be, flamed.
>
> [Hammond]
> I'VE SAID IT ONCE, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. YOUR
> POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT. THE REASON
> IS, YOU HAVE NOTHING SCIENTIFIC TO SAY, AND
> DON'T INTEND TO SAY ANYTHING WITH SCIENTIFIC
> CONTENT.
> ONE MORE POST WITH NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT
> AND I'LL SIMPLY KILLFILE YOU ON MY COMPUTER.
> I DON'T NEED AN AGGREVATED NO NOTHING
> SHITHEAD LIKE YOU BOTHERING ME. SEE A
> PSYCHIATRIST FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
> GET OUTTA HERE AND STAY OUTTA HERE.
NG, it is for relativity discussions. By the way, it should be "aggrAvatING
KnoW-nothing shithead", you clearly have never learned English.
Oh, and PLEASE take me off your computer. I will still respond to your
outrageous nonsense that others might read it, for all the time you respond
here, dickhead.
Androcles
StanAZ
than a TV in operation connecting the scanner to the screen. He responded, "Yes
"watcher"?"
George Hammond: "[My] theory proves conclusively that "God" is who it is that
is watching. And that there is a REAL PHYSICAL God."
I'm just a simple-minded physicist, George, so I'm afraid you'll have to go
slow with me. I don't know from God, or Eternal Truths, or Primal Causes, or
stuff like that. All I know how to do is to make a model of what happens, try
to draw connections and predictions from it, and see where it goes bad, so I
can correct it. There is no provision in any of this for the concept of
"Proof".
So when you say you can "Prove" that gravity "Causes God", or vice versa, or
claim that a construct of your theory which you name "God" is somehow a
mechanism that enables us to perceive the color "red", you make very little
sense to me. I haven't the vaguest idea what "God" has to do with perceptions -
or with gravity, for that matter. Unless "God" in your lexicon means "red",
say. And simply saying that a similarity exists between certain GR metric forms
and other statistical forms doesn't help much.
On the other hand, I did understand your argument to mean that there are
patterns of thought that appear in religion and in our behavior, both, that may
have a common physical or biological basis. In this case there is evidence
which can be checked out and used for prediction. And that is why I got into
the discussion to begin with.
So the upshot is that if you want to continue our dialog on the basis of what
one can test and predict from, I would be happy to do so. The same goes for
your math model itself, which I think we need to straighten out. (Oblique,
curved, and undiagonalized, are unrelated terms. And Minkowski's use of an
imaginary time coordinate was for analogy only; it has no physical
significance. What counts is the negative sign in the metric that it
corresponds to. That was what I objected to about your formalism. That, and the
fact that you have a "metric tensor," but no metric.)
However, if you are interested only in making proclamations about "God",
"Proof", and other intangibles, I'm afraid I'll have to drop out. -Stan
George Hammond
I'm afraid I'll have to drop out. -Stan
[Hammond]
So long Stan. I told you a long time ago
this was iover your head.
--
George Hammond
CONTENT AND ARE THEREFORE A VIOLATION OF THE
NEWSGROUP CHARTER
YOUR POSTS CONTAIN NOTHING BUT INSANE RAVINGS
OF AN AD HOMINEM NATURE ANDE ARE THEREFORE
A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER AND
INTERNET RULES.
George Hammond
CONTENT AND ARE THEREFORE A VIOLATION OF THE
YOUR POSTS CONTAIN NOTHING BUT INSANE RAVINGS
A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER AND
INTERNET RULES.
Androcles
Yes, George. You can stuff your rules, your insane ravings, your shouting,
and your stupid "theory" right up your Khyber Pass. See a psychiatrist. You
are suffering from delusions of grandeur, I'd not be surprised to see you
wearing a Napolean costume with you hand tucked inside it. Get off the
bottle.
Androcles
Androcles
> ANDROCLES: YOUR POSTS CONTAIN NO SCIENTIFIC
> CONTENT AND ARE THEREFORE A VIOLATION OF THE
> NEWSGROUP CHARTER
> A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER AND
> INTERNET RULES.
You are repeating yourself, George. Tuck your hand inside your Napolean
costume and look the other way.
Androcles.
Androcles
StanAZ <sta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991227095850...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
I endorse that, Stan.
(To Napoleon Hammond)
YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
YOU ARE APPARENTLY JUST ANOTHER AGGREVATED JERK
LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS
NG AND .... STAY OUT.
Androcles
George Hammond
>You
> are suffering from delusions of grandeur,
[Hammond]
I AM JUST A BIT CURIOUS ANDROCLES. I've noticed you debating the
finer points of SR with other people. So I assume you
know something about GR also. OK so I'm talking to a scientist.
What I want to know is whether you are scientifically
CURIOUS about a claim that someone has discovered a scientific
proof of God, or are you simply ITCHING for a fight.
That's what I'm wondering about at the moment.
Is all this emotional rhetoric of yours coming from scientific
curiosity, or are you just another brutal predator who thought he
heard a victim screaming and like a vulture thought he would
swoop in for a few leftover morsels?
If you are genuinely scientifically curious... sure I'd
be glad to tell you what it's all about. But I've already been
attacked by aggravated professionals with all the advantages..
naturally I'm not interested in any more amateur bouts.
I just figured you were a lightweight screwball and I'd get
rid of you. Scuze me if I underestimated your scientific
instinct.
Androcles
> StanAZ wrote:
> I'm afraid I'll have to drop out. -Stan
>
> So long Stan. I told you a long time ago
> this was iover your head.
>
10 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
10 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 9 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
9 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
9 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 8 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
8 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
8 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 7 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
7 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
7 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 6 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
6 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
6 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 5 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
5 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
5 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 4 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
4 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
4 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 3 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
3 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
3 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 2 green bottles, sitting on the wall.
2 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
2 green bottles, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be 1 green bottle, sitting on the wall.
1 green bottle, sitting on the wall,
1 green bottle, sitting on the wall,
If one green bottle should accidently fall,
There'll be Napoleon Hammond, sitting on the fence.
1 Napoleon Hammond, sitting on the fence,
1 Napoleon Hammond, sitting on the fence,
If one Napoleon Hammond should accidently fall,
There'll be no more Napoleon Hammond....
'Bye, crackpot.
Androcles
George Hammond
YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER.
YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNET POLICY.
YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
YOUR POST CONSISTS SOLELY OF AD HOMINEM HARASSMENT.
I will gladly report you to abuse.net, the Internet police
and other Internet investigative/policing organizations
including your webserver.
George Hammond
YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER.
YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNET POLICY.
YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
YOUR POST CONSISTS SOLELY OF AD HOMINEM HARASSMENT.
I will gladly report you to abuse.net, the Internet police
and other Internet investigative/policing organizations
including your webserver.
--
Androcles
> [to "Java Joe Androcles"]
>
> YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER.
> YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNET POLICY.
> YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
> YOUR POST CONSISTS SOLELY OF AD HOMINEM HARASSMENT.
>
> I will gladly report you to abuse.net, the Internet police
> and other Internet investigative/policing organizations
> including your webserver.
We'll let the internet police organization decide who was abusive first,
shall we?
Honestly, this is so funny. Go and see Nathan Urban's post on what this NG
is REALLY about. It's posted every 15 days to keep it current.
Androcles
George Hammond
>
> > What I want to know is whether you are scientifically
> > CURIOUS about a claim that someone has discovered a scientific
> > proof of God, or are you simply ITCHING for a fight.
> Now you are asking a question, but it is loaded with an assumption.
> Phrase the question like this.
> "I want to know if you are curious about a claim that someone has discovered
> a scientific proof of god?", then I can answer it with a "yes" or "no" .
> You can then ask another question "Are you simply itching for a fight?" and
> then I'll answer that with a "no" or a "yes". I'll be the one to decide if I
> think my answer requires qualification. I am human too, so had you been
> polite initially, the answer would have been "no". Since you have put my
> back up, the answer is now "yes". However, the responses I give will still
> be truthful, but couched in terms designed to aggravate you as you have
> aggravated me.
>
[Hammond]
OK, as near as I can understand this statement.. you are saying
that you ARE prepared to PASS JUDGMENT SCIENTIFICALLY, on the
matter of whether I have actually scientifically discovered the
long touted "Scientific Proof of God" (e.g. the scientific proof
sought for by Aristotle, Leibnitz, Descartes, Newton, Fermat, and
many other scientists in history, all of whom have failed by the
way in the opinion of modern scientific standards).
Do I read your statement correctly?
Chris Hillman
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, George Hammond wrote:
> YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER.
> YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNET POLICY.
> YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
> YOUR POST CONSISTS SOLELY OF AD HOMINEM HARASSMENT.
>
> I will gladly report you to abuse.net, the Internet police
> and other Internet investigative/policing organizations
> including your webserver.
If he were still among the sane, he'd recognize that the mere fact that a
whole bunch of people who can (apparently) agree on nothing else are
asking him to go elsewhere... I quote the charter of
sci.physics.relativity blow, not that I believe for one moment that George
Hammond will stop threatening us all with legal action simply because the
charter makes it clear that -his- posts (and threats) are inappropriate in
this newsgroup: in particular, the welcome message explicitly states that
the following types of posts are inappropriate:
>> * posting on wildly irrelevant topics,
>> * repeated postings of identical messages,
>> * abusive flaming.
All of which George Hammond is persisting in. Oh well. Hopefully he'll
get checked into some in-patient facilty soon.
(I think everyone recognizes that this remark is not a put-down but an
expression of mild concern for the well-being of a total stranger to
myself who is obviously in the throes of some kind of psychotic breakdown.
The man needs professional help, fast.)
While I'm on the subject, Charles Cagle might want to note the following
lines:
>> Topics which are rarely if ever appropriate in this newsgroup include:
>>
>> * general discussions of the scientific method (try sci.misc),
>> * philosophical discussions unrelated to relativity,
>> * theological discussions (try talk.origins),
>> * "scientific creationism" (try talk.origins).
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Here is the welcome message, quoted in full:
================ Welcome! to sci.physics.relativity ==================
This newsgroup is an open forum devoted to the discussion of scientific
issues involving the physics (and the underlying mathematics) of the
special and general theories of relativity. (These terms are usually
abbreviated in the group by the acronyms str and gtr, respectively.)
The contributors to this newsgroup constitute a diverse group of
laypeople, high school students, college students, graduate students,
engineers and other professionals, as well as physicists, astronomers,
computer scientists and mathematicians. All are united by an interest in
relativity theory, and all are welcome to contribute postings here.
This newsgroup is unmoderated, which means that anyone can post anything
here: there is no censorship of any kind, and no-one "runs" this group.
For this reason, it is important that everyone who participates in the
group should be familiar with and adhere voluntarily to the posting
guidelines suggested in the next section.
======================== Posting Guidelines ==========================
We welcome contributions from newcomers, including questions at all levels
of expertise. However, we do ask that "newbies" always check the FAQ (see
the next section) -before- posting any questions, because experience has
shown that chances are very good that a very similar question is answered
there. (The word FAQ is, after all, an acronym for "Frequently Asked
Questions".)
We particularly welcome posts of the following nature:
* questions about technical points in relativity theory, ranging from
the elementary (but no homework, please!) to the research level,
* answers to same, from people who have studied the subject and who
have their facts straight,
* discussion of new theoretical ideas, experiments, and observations
in relativistic astrophysics, cosmology, gtr, and quantum gravity.
Relativity is a big, big subject! You will find an extensive list of
possible topics for discussion in the FAQ (see next section).
"Wild and crazy ideas" are also acceptable, but please be sure to
check the FAQ before posting to avoid the embarrasment of posting
something based on a VCM (very common misconception).
Topics which are rarely if ever appropriate in this newsgroup include:
* general discussions of the scientific method (try sci.misc),
* philosophical discussions unrelated to relativity,
* theological discussions (try talk.origins),
* "scientific creationism" (try talk.origins).
A common sense rule for deciding whether a possible topic is likely to be
considered acceptable here is to remember that the name of this newsgroup
is sci[ence].physics.relativity. If it's not about science, it doesn't
belong here. If it is about science but has little to do with physics, it
doesn't belong here. If it is about physics but has little to do with
relativity, it doesn't belong here.
If you are replying to another post, please be sure to cut out all
irrelevant text, and to make every effort to ensure that it is clear who
said what. It may be advisable to lurk here for a while to see how
experienced posters accomplish this.
Cross-posting from sci.physics.relativity to other science newsgroups is,
in general, strongly discouraged. If you respond to a message which is
cross-posted to irrelevant groups, please remove the other groups from the
Newsgroup line in the header of your response, or use the Followup line in
the header to direct further followups to just one or two groups.
Cross-posting is -sometimes- acceptable if it is limited to at most two or
three other newsgroups, in each of which the topic is clearly acceptable
and is not considered overly speculative. For example, discussions about
black holes and cosmology can be cross-posted to sci.astro, but discussion
of faster-than-light travel or the twin paradox should be posted only to
sci.physics.relativity. In general, threads in this group should -not- be
crossposted to sci.physics, unless they involve quantum physics or grand
unification schemes which lie outside the topics suggested above.
Please note that the most effective posts are concise, clearly expressed,
and focus on a very specific point. It is always a good idea to re-read
what you have written (and to employ a spell-checker!) -before- posting
your message. It is also wise to make sure that your subject line
concisely and accurately describes the content of the message. Checking
to see that your margins line up can also help to make your post much
more readable.
Finally, it is important to always bear in mind that some behavior is
decidedly -unwelcome- at any time in this newsgroup, including:
* spamming of any kind,
* cross-posting to large numbers of unrelated newsgroups,
* posting on wildly irrelevant topics,
* repeated postings of identical messages,
* abusive flaming.
Bottom line: if you wouldn't say it in front of your mother or your boss,
please don't say it here.
=================== The FAQ and Where to Find It =====================
The FAQ for sci.physics.relativity is available at a number of web sites
as an appendix to the FAQ for its parent group, sci.physics. You can
obtain the FAQ at
http://www.corepower.com/~relfaq/relativity.html
and at the following mirror sites:
(USA)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/relativity.html
http://hermes.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/physics/
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/relativity.html
(UK)
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/relativity.html
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/relativity.html
(The Netherlands)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/relativity.html
(Germany)
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/relativity.html
(Taiwan)
http://www.phy.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/relativity.html
The editor of the sci.physics.relativity FAQ is Nathan Urban, who may
be reached by email at
Please use this email address, and no other, for all FAQ-related
correspondence.
Every effort is made to ensure that the FAQ is well-organized, readable,
and useful to a wide variety of people. In particular, the nature of
the most frequent questions in this group has evolved over time, and
the FAQ is being updated to reflect these changes.
===================== The Charter of This Group ======================
This newsgroup was created in September 1996 with the following charter
(quoted in full):
CHARTER: sci.physics.relativity
Appropriate postings would include, but not be limited to:
1. Queries regarding special and general relativity
2. How to resolve relativity paradoxes
3. Black holes, wormholes and singularities
4. Big Bang and other cosmological models of space-time
5. Equivalence of mass and energy
6. The speed of light and gravity
7. Time dilation, space contraction, redshifts
8. Causality, and faster than light travel
9. The large and small scale structure of space-time
10. Discussion of the scope and validity of relativity
11. Viability of alternative theories to relativity
12. Experimental tests of Relativity
13. Gravitational waves
14. Theories and concepts which take us beyond relativity
The news group sci.physics.relativity will be open to
discussion on all levels. It will accept talk about
alternative theories and other controversial discussions
about relativity which would be outside the charter of
most other sci newsgroups, as well as more mainstream
discussion on physics as described by Einstein's theory
of relativity and modern research to develop more unified
theories combining relativity and quantum mechanics. This
reflects the kind of threads which are now popular in usenet
on the subject of relativity.
The Physics FAQ will be split and extended to create a new
relativity FAQ for this group. The FAQ introduction will
advise caution against cross-posting to other groups.
=========================== This Message =============================
This message is automatically reposted in sci.physics.relativity every two
weeks, and is occasionally updated by the editors. It incorporates
contributions by past and current editors of the sci.physics.relativity
FAQ. Any questions or comments on this message should be directed to the
editors at
We hope that you will find your participation in the group to be
enjoyable, informative, and productive!
Kevin Aylward
May I answer for you on this one?
George, for Androcles, Yes.
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3867E849...@mediaone.net...
> Androcles wrote:
> >
>
> > > What I want to know is whether you are scientifically
> > > CURIOUS about a claim that someone has discovered a scientific
> > > proof of God, or are you simply ITCHING for a fight.
>
> > Now you are asking a question, but it is loaded with an assumption.
> > Phrase the question like this.
> > "I want to know if you are curious about a claim that someone has
discovered
> > a scientific proof of god?", then I can answer it with a "yes" or "no" .
> > You can then ask another question "Are you simply itching for a fight?"
and
> > then I'll answer that with a "no" or a "yes". I'll be the one to decide
if I
> > think my answer requires qualification. I am human too, so had you been
> > polite initially, the answer would have been "no". Since you have put my
> > back up, the answer is now "yes". However, the responses I give will
still
Androcles
Kevin Aylward <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:848qr5$qc8$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> Androcles,
>
> May I answer for you on this one?
>
> George, for Androcles, Yes.
That's cheeky, Kevin, but I'll go along with it for now.
Androcles
George Hammond
[Hammond]
OK, it's a go. I need 24 hours. The reason I need 24 hours
is that I wish to request a "change of venue" in order to gain
a fair hearing for my theory. I wish to "convene" a grand council
to hear my theory. Therefore, I will summon the spirits, or shall
we say "ghosts" of the famous scientists of history who have a
knowledge of this subject to engage in an interlocutory presentation,
the same as Hamlet summoned a ghost. This will take me 24
hours at least, to write, since I am more a scientist than a dramatist.
"Androcles" has given me the inspiration. We shall convene personages
of the Golden Age.. Pericles, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle. Joining
them will be authorities from later ages.. DesCarte, Newton, Aquinas,
Gallileo, and even scientist from the modern age.. Freud, Hilbert,
Einstein, Thurstone, Cattell, Fischer, Feynman, Pauli, Heisenberg,
Sperry. They will all be there to look into this rumor that a
scientific proof of God has been discovered. We shall convene the
conference in a special antechamber of St. Peters Cathedral. There
will be several Popes present and a number of heads of state, Lincoln
for instance. I have extended Jesus of Nazareth and Peter an invitation
and they have agreed to attend also.
OK, that's it. By 11pm EST tomorrow, I will post this exposition and
"verbal inquiry" into "Hammond's Scientific Proof of God" by the Grand
Council. We will hear these great authorities from Aristotle to Penrose
inquire of Mr. Hammond as to just what the substance of his "proof of God"
actually is.
The only thing we won't hear about, is their DECISION. The decision on
the theory will be left to YOU.
See you tomorrow night.
George Hammond
Androcles
Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.991227...@goedel1.math.washington.edu...
> Hopefully he'll
> get checked into some in-patient facilty soon.
>
> (I think everyone recognizes that this remark is not a put-down but an
> expression of mild concern for the well-being of a total stranger to
> myself who is obviously in the throes of some kind of psychotic breakdown.
> The man needs professional help, fast.)
I agree, Chris. Were it not for the fact that he has obviously labored long
and hard on his thesis, I would have concluded him inebriated. There is
obviously more to this than mere drunkeness, and I think you have found it.
However, it is difficult to know what action to take. I am not a trained
psychiatrist, but he is reminiscent of St. John the Divine or Joan of Arc in
a 20th century setting.
Androcles
Androcles
Pontius Pilate, Buddha, Mohammed... hmm...better not, don't what to start a
Jihad, Henry VIII and David Koresh, all to be impartial witnesses, and I
rather think Ptolemy, don't you? And I don't think we should leave out
Fermi, or Pythagoras. I have an objection to Rene DesCarte, though. He was
very ambiguous on the subject before, wasn't he? Throop has said on more
than one occasion that we shouldn't put DesCarte before DeHorse, so we'll
invite DeHorse instead. If you have no objection, of course.
It makes me so happy to be inspiring, thank you.
Androcles
George Hammond
>
> >> Topics which are rarely if ever appropriate in this newsgroup include:
> >>
> >> * general discussions of the scientific method (try sci.misc),
> >> * philosophical discussions unrelated to relativity,
> >> * theological discussions (try talk.origins),
> >> * "scientific creationism" (try talk.origins).
>
> Chris Hillman
[Hammond]
Apparently the situation has taken a turn for the worse since
by optimism of this afternoon, when I planned to present an
exposition of my theory tomorrow. The continued personal attack by
Hillman, Androcles and others is something I am going to
have to nip in the bud before they begin throwing their
weight around with some more dangerous action (which they
are all too eager to do).
Anyway, one thing I can't afford to do is give them any legitimate
leeway; break any formal rules for instance. Turns out there is
an express prohibition against the posting of any "theological
discussion" in the FAQ (according to the above). Therefore I have
decided I don't have a sufficient legal leg to prevent them from
doing something really viscious and will cease posting to this
newsgroup.
As you might suspect, I have also concluded that "casting pearls
before swine" is acutely inadvisable in this instance. I am NOT
apparently talking to anyone who is potentially part of the
solution, but in fact to people who are simply part of the problem.
I have therefore concluded it is disadvantageous to continue posting
to .relativity, as it is detrimental to a greater objective rather
than a benefit. It appears that the "Grand Council" I envisioned
will have to be convened with the publication of my book rather
than in the posts of sci.physics.relativity. So much for the corruption
of the Internet.
I've taken a lot of ignorance, brutality and threats from street
kids on alt.sci.physics.new-theories, but it escalates to a
serious matter when one is dealing with the privileged academic
class who actually have the means to be materially dangerous and
are swaggering drunk with aggravation and just looking for a target
of opportunity ("to have a little fun with" as they say). I don't
intend to play into their hands.
I won't respond any further to threats or insults on the NG, in fact
I won't even be reading the NG. Sorry indeed that things are this
way, but the fact is I knew they were before I tried to talk to you.
Apparently Physics is too ignorant for a scientific proof of God,
and it will have to be published directly to the public thus
bypassing academia, a fact that even Darwin and Einstein discovered.
Fact is, I don't need academia for anything... and I have FINALLY
discovered why it is that even the most sincere efforts are continually
met with ridicule and attack... the fact is the people one is
talking to are corrupt..!
You're not help, you're the opposition, and the last thing I should
be doing is tipping my hand to you. Since I now see a conspiracy brewing
to get me off the list, I'll simply move first and leave now.
I'm not going to work up a sweat posting more entertainment for you
in the naive belief that you are actually looking for scientific truth.
Fact is, you are only looking for political advantage, and I'm the
LAST PERSON who should be talking to you.
Carry on.
George Hammond
Androcles
> Chris Hillman wrote:
>
> >
> > >> Topics which are rarely if ever appropriate in this newsgroup
include:
> > >>
> > >> * general discussions of the scientific method (try sci.misc),
> > >> * philosophical discussions unrelated to relativity,
> > >> * theological discussions (try talk.origins),
> > >> * "scientific creationism" (try talk.origins).
> >
> > Chris Hillman
>
Thank you.
Androcles
George Hammond
> George, I say this with deep sincerity.
> Thank you.
> Androcles
[Hammond]
The only way to shut you up is to killfile
you, and Hillman, and the others, on my computer,
Which I have just done.
You people can rant and rave all you want..
BUT NOT TO ME.
Androcles
Phew... thank goodness for that.
Androcles
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>
> >You
> > are suffering from delusions of grandeur,
>
> [Hammond]
> I AM JUST A BIT CURIOUS ANDROCLES. I've noticed you debating the
> finer points of SR with other people. So I assume you
> know something about GR also.
> OK so I'm talking to a scientist.
An assumption. I think I'm a scientist, but not all would agree.
> What I want to know is whether you are scientifically
> CURIOUS about a claim that someone has discovered a scientific
> proof of God, or are you simply ITCHING for a fight.
Now you are asking a question, but it is loaded with an assumption.
Phrase the question like this.
"I want to know if you are curious about a claim that someone has discovered
a scientific proof of god?", then I can answer it with a "yes" or "no" .
You can then ask another question "Are you simply itching for a fight?" and
then I'll answer that with a "no" or a "yes". I'll be the one to decide if I
think my answer requires qualification. I am human too, so had you been
polite initially, the answer would have been "no". Since you have put my
back up, the answer is now "yes". However, the responses I give will still
be truthful, but couched in terms designed to aggravate you as you have
aggravated me.
> That's what I'm wondering about at the moment.
> Is all this emotional rhetoric of yours coming from scientific
> curiosity, or are you just another brutal predator who thought he
> heard a victim screaming and like a vulture thought he would
> swoop in for a few leftover morsels?
What is this emotional rhetoric you are presently writing, George?
> If you are genuinely scientifically curious... sure I'd
> be glad to tell you what it's all about. But I've already been
> attacked by aggravated professionals with all the advantages..
> naturally I'm not interested in any more amateur bouts.
> I just figured you were a lightweight screwball and I'd get
> rid of you. Scuze me if I underestimated your scientific
> instinct.
'Tain't that easy, George. I've been here a lot longer than you, I know the
rules of this game, I've learnt them the hard way. All I was trying to do
was to warn you of what you face. Abuse is but a small part of it, and if
you are the first to be abusive, you can expect the same in return. If you
want to be heard, quit being a pompous ass.
You have the right to defend yourself, of course, but if you go all out
attack based on your assumptions as to the capabilities of the listener, you
will certainly come a cropper.
Androcles
James Kibo Parry
>
> OK, it's a go. I need 24 hours. The reason I need 24 hours
> is that I wish to request a "change of venue" in order to gain
> a fair hearing for my theory.
I don't know, I think the courts around Dartmouth are already full up.
> I wish to "convene" a grand council to hear my theory. Therefore,
> I will summon the spirits, or shall we say "ghosts" of the famous
> scientists of history who have a knowledge of this subject to engage
> in an interlocutory presentation,
That's right, we won't believe you, but we'll believe your ghost friends.
I want Freddy and Velma to cross-examine. Especially that Velma.
You know she's good with science because she doesn't dress pretty.
> the same as Hamlet summoned a ghost. This will take me 24
> hours at least, to write, since I am more a scientist than a dramatist.
Yeah, but I am EQUALLY as much a world-famous scientist as I am Mr. Universe!
> "Androcles" has given me the inspiration. We shall convene personages
> of the Golden Age.. Pericles, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle.
Don't forget Archimedes.
> Joining them will be authorities from later ages.. DesCarte, Newton,
> Aquinas, Gallileo,
(The guy who dropped things off the Leanning Towwer of Pizza.)
> and even scientist from the modern age.. Freud, Hilbert, Einstein,
Don't forget Archimedes again. And Abian. I would be very happy to
see the ghost of Alexander Abian right now.
> Thurstone, Cattell, Fischer, Feynman, Pauli, Heisenberg, Sperry.
Salright, I'll do it, Mr. Shammond.
> They will all be there to look into this rumor that a
> scientific proof of God has been discovered. We shall convene the
> conference in a special antechamber of St. Peters Cathedral. There
> will be several Popes present and a number of heads of state, Lincoln
> for instance.
It might take more than a day for the Secret Service to secure the area
so he won't get shot again.
> I have extended Jesus of Nazareth and Peter an invitation and they
> have agreed to attend also.
Yeah, Jesus couldn't show up in the cathedral WITHOUT an invitation!
> OK, that's it. By 11pm EST tomorrow, I will post this exposition and
> "verbal inquiry" into "Hammond's Scientific Proof of God" by the Grand
> Council. We will hear these great authorities from Aristotle to Penrose
> inquire of Mr. Hammond as to just what the substance of his "proof of God"
> actually is.
Okay. I shall wait for your proof of something incomprehensible about
you and God being best buddies by five hours ago.
> The only thing we won't hear about, is their DECISION. The decision on
> the theory will be left to YOU.
> See you tomorrow night.
A few hours later, George Hammond (gham...@mediaone.net) wrote:
>
> [to "Java Joe Androcles"]
>
> YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEWSGROUP CHARTER.
> YOUR POST IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNET POLICY.
Oh no! Al Gore will be very angry!
> YOUR POST CONTAINS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT.
Oh no! Archimedes Plutonium will sue for plagiarism!
> YOUR POST CONSISTS SOLELY OF AD HOMINEM HARASSMENT.
YOUR POST CONSISTS SOLELY OF VERY LARGE LOWERCASE LETTERS THAT LOOK
LIKE CAPITALS.
> I will gladly report you to abuse.net, the Internet police
What's the proper sort of smiley that I would use to indicate I just
about fell off my chair if I didn't eschew smileys in favor of just
pointing out that the above phrase is one of the funniest sentence
fragments I've ever quoted?
> and other Internet investigative/policing organizations
> including your webserver.
OH NO! APACHE COULD BE ARRESTED!
And then a few hours later, George Hammond (gham...@mediaone.net) wrote:
>
> Apparently the situation has taken a turn for the worse since
> by optimism of this afternoon, when I planned to present an
> exposition of my theory tomorrow.
Please continue to present your theory this afternoon tomorrow
instead of the other way around.
> The continued personal attack by Hillman, Androcles and others is
> something I am going to have to nip in the bud before they begin
> throwing their weight around
Mixed metaphor! I am going to have to call in the Internet Police
and have them take away your poetic license when they throw you
in Internet Jail for using a mixed metaphor ON THE INTERNET!
> with some more dangerous action (which they are all too eager to do).
> Anyway, one thing I can't afford to do is give them any legitimate
> leeway; break any formal rules for instance. Turns out there is
> an express prohibition against the posting of any "theological
> discussion" in the FAQ (according to the above).
Well, then, don't post your theological discussion in the FAQ!
> Therefore I have decided I don't have a sufficient legal leg
Have you contacted Archimedes Plutonium's Legal-Leg Law Desk Foundation?
> to prevent them from doing something really viscious
HEY EVERYONE LET'S POUR MOLASSES ON GEORGE HAMMOND!!!
> and will cease posting to this newsgroup.
Dear George "Dan Sale" Hammond,
Don't forget to promise to pay everyone on the entire Internet a thousand
dollars each if you never come back which you're obviously never going to do.
Sincerely,
The Internet Police's Official Mascot.
Now back to Mr. Hammond's final post ever...
> As you might suspect, I have also concluded that "casting pearls
> before swine" is acutely inadvisable in this instance. I am NOT
> apparently talking to anyone who is potentially part of the
> solution, but in fact to people who are simply part of the problem.
> I have therefore concluded it is disadvantageous to continue posting
> to .relativity, as it is detrimental to a greater objective rather
> than a benefit. It appears that the "Grand Council" I envisioned
> will have to be convened with the publication of my book rather
> than in the posts of sci.physics.relativity. So much for the corruption
> of the Internet.
I TRIED TO CORRUPT THE INTERNET BUT SOMEONE HAD BEATEN ME TO IT!
WAAH! THE CORRUPTION OF THE INTERNET WAS RUINED!
> I've taken a lot of ignorance, brutality and threats from street
> kids on alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
I agree with you up to the first comma.
> but it escalates to a serious matter when one is dealing with the
> privileged academic class who actually have the means to be materially
> dangerous
THOSE RICH COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS ARE BEATING UP GEORGE HAMMOND AGAIN!
> and are swaggering drunk with aggravation and just looking for a target
> of opportunity ("to have a little fun with" as they say). I don't
> intend to play into their hands.
IT SHOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW FOR COLLEGE PROFESSORS TO SAY THE
PHRASE "TO HAVE A LITTLE FUN WITH"!
> I won't respond any further to threats or insults on the NG, in fact
> I won't even be reading the NG.
Remember, tradition says you must promise to pay everyone a thousand
dollars if you ever post to this newsgroup again, and two thousand if
you mistakenly spell out the word "newsgroup".
> Sorry indeed that things are this way, but the fact is I knew they
> were before I tried to talk to you.
GENIUS!!!
> Apparently Physics is too ignorant for a scientific proof of God,
> and it will have to be published directly to the public thus
> bypassing academia, a fact that even Darwin and Einstein discovered.
While they were collaborating on that paper with Erdos.
> Fact is, I don't need academia for anything...
What's the sort of smiley I would use to indicate "this is the same
sort of smiley I would have used above if I still didn't use smileys
instead of just pointing out when someone said something really funny"?
> and I have FINALLY discovered why it is that even the most sincere
> efforts are continually met with ridicule and attack... the fact
> is the people one is talking to are corrupt..!
> You're not help, you're the opposition, and the last thing I should
> be doing is tipping my hand to you. Since I now see a conspiracy brewing
> to get me off the list, I'll simply move first and leave now.
THAT'S A WAY TO SHOW THEM WHO'S BOSS!
Also, I hear they're trying to make you look like a complete bozo. But I
see you're already ahead of them in that field, too.
> I'm not going to work up a sweat posting more entertainment for you
> in the naive belief that you are actually looking for scientific truth.
NO, REALLY, I AM ONLY READING YOUR CRAZY RANTS WHILE NOT USING SMILEYS
BECAUSE I AM LOOKING FOR SCIENTIFIC TRUTH! NOW RIDE YOUR TRICYCLE
AROUND HONKING YOUR NOSE SOME MORE!
> Fact is, you are only looking for political advantage, and I'm the
> LAST PERSON who should be talking to you.
I disagree. It hasn't yet been demonstrated that you're a person.
> Carry on.
> George Hammond
Carry off George Hammond.
And then, a few hours later, George Hammond posted again:
George Hammond (gham...@mediaone.net) wrote:
>
> [to "Androcles"]
>
> The only way to shut you up is to killfile
> you, and Hillman, and the others, on my computer,
> Which I have just done.
> You people can rant and rave all you want..
> BUT NOT TO ME.
Because already a crazy voice raving in your ear 24 hours a day.
As far as killfiling those who dare call you a wacko, yeah, be sure
to killfile everyone else on the newsgroup while you tell
everyone that you're not posting to the newsgroup any more.
While you're not posting to the Internet, be sure to keep us posted
on how the Internet Police are handling your complaint that a guy
is laughing at you.
BY THE WAY, I'M NOT LAUGHING AT YOU, MR. PERFECTLY SANE CLOWN SCIENTIST SIR!
-- K.
I know bozos. I am a bozo.
And you, sir, are a bozo!
Chris Hillman
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, George Hammond, who said he won't be reading this, so
I can gently mock his post without fear of appearing to be laughing at the
mental plight of a very seriously ill person, right?, wrote:
> Apparently the situation has taken a turn for the worse since by
> optimism of this afternoon, when I planned to present an exposition of
> my theory tomorrow. The continued personal attack by Hillman,
> Androcles and others
His name is "StanAZ"--- how could you possibly forget a name like
"StanAZ"?!
Gosh, the funniest thing about this whole episode is that Androcles, of
all people, had me ROFL with his resume of your website.
(Or did he just make all that stuff up--- nah, the recurrent schizophrenia
and physics grad student drop-out parts just ring too true. If that isn't
mixing metaphors. He must have just downloaded your brain or something.
George, he stole your soul!)
Freaky!-- during this whole episode"Stan", "Androcles" and I actually
-agreed- on something: George Hammond is some crazy kind of guy!
Suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later, though, like one of those
weird statistical fluctuations where the air all smooshes into one corner
of the room, and stays there for a minute or two, while everyone slowly
turns blue in the face.
> is something I am going to have to nip in the bud before they begin
> throwing their weight around with some more dangerous action (which
> they are all too eager to do).
You got us there. Us lower-class Republicans -are- always eager to act
dangerously. Heck, we elected Richard Nixon, didn't we?
> Anyway, one thing I can't afford to do is give them any legitimate
> leeway; break any formal rules for instance. Turns out there is
> an express prohibition against the posting of any "theological
> discussion" in the FAQ (according to the above).
You know, you can check this. You don't need to take my word for it.
Point your God-Like Web Browser of Proven Death at
http://www.corepower.com/~relfaq/relativity.html
> Therefore I have decided I don't have a sufficient legal leg to
> prevent them from doing something really viscious
Like pour some really gooey honey all over your head?
> and will cease posting to this newsgroup.
Oh. OK. Fine. Wow. What a relief that is to all of us, I'm sure.
> It appears that the "Grand Council" I envisioned will have to be
> convened with the publication of my book rather than in the posts of
> sci.physics.relativity.
Yes, I rather think that we uncivilized band of brothers would have made
most merry hay with your Council. Lower-class Republicans being borne
with a pitchfork in one hand and a shovel with the other. Elephants
process a lot of hay each day, and the upper-class Republicans leave it to
us lower-class Republicans to keep the elephants fed and to clean up all
the doo elephants do all day.
Not having competent plumbers, you see, the upper-class Republicans r1lly
r1lly need us lower-class Republicans. The competent plumbers are all
democrats. All we have is G. Gordon Liddy, who couldn't replace a leaky
washer if you held a burning match to his hand. I mean head.
> I've taken a lot of ignorance, brutality and threats from street
> kids on alt.sci.physics.new-theories, but it escalates to a
> serious matter when one is dealing with the privileged academic
> class who actually have the means to be materially dangerous
Oh, wow, I might just whop you with an -electron- for that, George! Not
having an atom bomb handy--- the Democrats have those too, at least until
the next election.
> I won't respond any further to threats or insults on the NG, in fact
> I won't even be reading the NG. Sorry indeed that things are this
> way,
Why? Everyone else seems pretty happy with your plan to Cease and Desist.
> Apparently Physics is too ignorant for a scientific proof of God,
Apparently! :-) Why am I smiling, George? :-)
> and it will have to be published directly to the public thus
> bypassing academia,
Good idea. Especially the bypass part. Can you bypass this ng too while
you're busy bypassing the journals? The public can be found at
talk.origins. This newsgroup is private, the way Republicans like it.
No members of the public can be found here. Just the re-public, and you
don't want to re-publish to the re-public while bypassing academia. No!
You want to PUBLISH to the PUBLIC by posting on talk.origins! Or
publishing in the Congressional Record. Either way, you'll bypass
academia.
Thank you. From all of us now and then and here and there and everywhere
but talk.origins.
(But don't tell tell 'em I sent you. Please.)
> Fact is, I don't need academia for anything...
You most certainly do not, and likewise, I'm sure.
> and I have FINALLY discovered why it is that even the most sincere
> efforts are continually met with ridicule and attack... the fact is
> the people one is talking to are corrupt..!
Well, DUH! What you did expect from the people who elected Richard Nixon?
Twice.
> You're not help, you're the opposition, and the last thing I should be
> doing is tipping my hand to you. Since I now see a conspiracy brewing
> to get me off the list,
-Off- the list?! Hey, I thought we were conspiring to get you -on- the
list. The list of those to whom God sends Delta Shaped Holograms. You
know, four sided thingies, meeting all official NASA specifications for
four sided hologram thingies. Not three-sided, like you might think from
the name, if you were an Upper-Class Democrat or have been spending too
much time staring at the Face on Mars while smoking some -serious- weed.
God sends out Hallmark Holograms twice a day. They say: "George! TAKE
YOUR MEDICINE! (Signed) God". You can tell the Authentic Hallmark
Holograms because if you squint r1lly r11ly hard you can see the E=mc^2
logo at the bottom. That's how you know they are holograms sent by God.
The signature is no clue because God is illiterate, He just signs His name
with a simple X like any simple shephard would. Being illiterate is why
He had to dictate the Bible to someone who could write.
Another way you can tell the authentic Hallmark Holograms from God is that
they are accompanied by black helicopers carrying UN shocktroops who will
drop Icons of World Domination on you if you do not comply with God's
instructions to TAKE YOUR MEDICINE! The Icons look just a little bit like
Fidel Castro and a little bit like Leonid Brezhnev, and well, just an itsy
itsy litte bit like Winston Churchill but really they look more like Xenu,
oh heck, I might as well just tell you that the simple truth is that they
look a -whole lot- like Bill Gates, and they are smoking cigars and
wearing buttons that say "Lyndon Larouche for President!". That's how you
can tell they are authentic Icons of World Domination and that you better
comply with God's orders and TAKE YOUR MEDICINE RIGHT NOW, GEORGE!
> I'll simply move first and leave now.
You already said that. I said it was OK.
It is still OK if you want to leave now. I want it made perfectly clear
that it is OK if you want to leave now.
George, it is OK if you feel that you want to leave now. You have my
permission to leave.
Really. Feel free to leave now.
> I'm not going to work up a sweat posting more entertainment for you
You know, you have more self-awareness today than you've shown in weeks.
I think you really did obey God and started taking your medication again!
But despite the entertainment you have provided while you were still
schizophrenic, you still have my permission to leave now that you are
taking your medicine again. Really, you do.
> in the naive belief that you are actually looking for scientific
> truth. Fact is, you are only looking for political advantage,
No, in this newsgroup we're mostly looking for entertainment. What else
is UseNet for? And you have certainly been providing it.
If we forget ourselves and get serious, it was only an oversight---- we
meant to post to alt.religion.kibology with information information for
the Sekret Kabal that Runs the InterNet.
Oh, and George? The election? The dumbest candidate shares your name,
which is why we lower-class republicans -know- we'll get our nukes back.
Real soon now. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Chris "TAKe Y0UR MeD1C1Ne R1GHT N0W, Ge0RGe*!" Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
*TH1S TIMe G0D -R1LLY- MeANS IT!
George Hammond
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, George Hammond, who said he won't be reading this, so
> I can gently mock his post without fear of appearing to be laughing at the
> mental plight of a very seriously ill person, right?, wrote:
>
How can a guy with a PhD in mathematics post 2 pp of
drivel like this? Nothing left to do Chris... got all
those scientific problems in the bag.. lot of spare time
on your hands.... or what.?
Or does the specter of a relativistic proof of God actually
intrigue and annoy you... because you've actually mathematically
gotten to the bottom of relativity and found nothing there...
"something missing" as it were... the "meaning" of Relativity
in other words.
The "meaning" or Relativity (as you might suspect, considering
it's origins), is in fact the scientific explanation of God...
and you're going to be one of the first that is going to
have to face it.. since you're one of the few competent Relativists.
I think you already suspect this... after all, how can the worlds most
famous scientific theory be:
A. Understood by virtually no one but a hand full of
advanced mathematicians.
B. Have virtually no practical impact (GR).
C. Yet, be universally credited with being the
world's premier scientific accomplishment.
How can this be? What a mystery? What does it mean?
Yep.. that's the suspicion allright... it's actually
the scientific explanation of God. And fact is, some
idiot physicist studying psychometry has actually figured
out how and why it is. (see recent post entitled
"Message to JD" on this NG).
You're beating a dead horse by ridiculing me. The
entire world already suspects GR is a scientific proof
of God, and they are not going to be surprised when
Psychometry claims it is. The world is ready, even if
you remain incredulous.
Chris Hillman
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, George Hammond, who must not have kill-filed me after
all, wrote:
> Chris Hillman wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, George Hammond, who said he won't be reading this, so
> > I can gently mock his post without fear of appearing to be laughing at the
> > mental plight of a very seriously ill person, right?, wrote:
> >
> How can a guy with a PhD in mathematics post 2 pp of
> drivel like this?
Because it was fun.
> Nothing left to do Chris... got all those scientific problems in the
> bag.. lot of spare time on your hands.... or what.?
I'm working on three projects right now. It's hard work and I need some
comic relief now and again. Since I often have to sit here while some
software runs I have minutes here and there to read and respond to posts.
Purely for amusement value, although on occasion a bright student comes
along with a good question, to which is always worth trying to give a good
answer.
> Or does the specter of a relativistic proof of God actually intrigue
> and annoy you...
No, I find it extremely funny!
> because you've actually mathematically gotten to the bottom of
> relativity and found nothing there...
IMHO, noone has yet gotten to the bottom of the EFE (the space of
solutions is still rather poorly understood, although much progress has
been made since 1965 or so). I find gtr to be an extremely deep and
rewarding mathematical structure which I enjoy learning more about.
There are a tremendous number of differnt viewpoints and I enjoy learning
from reading scientific papers about these different viewpoints,
especially if I can use them to answer some question I have been trying to
understand.
> and you're going to be one of the first that is going to
> have to face it..
Weren't you going to bypass academia and take your case to talk.origins?
> since you're one of the few competent Relativists.
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. FYI there are -hundreds- of professional physicists
with long and very impressive publication records in the field of gtr.
They are the experts, not I. You only think I am expert or that gtr is
hard because you never mastered the mathematical background or the core
ideas of gtr.
> I think you already suspect this... after all, how can the worlds most
> famous scientific theory be:
>
> A. Understood by virtually no one but a hand full of
> advanced mathematicians.
> B. Have virtually no practical impact (GR).
> C. Yet, be universally credited with being the
> world's premier scientific accomplishment.
>
> How can this be?
Simple: none of A,B,C are true. Gtr is very well understood by thousands
of people around the world (mostly physicists, not mathematicians), gtr
has practical applications (e.g. to the GPS system), and it is universally
credited as one of the premier accomplishments in the history of physics,
for lots of good reasons. But there are other premier accomplishments in
science, such as the work of Charles Darwin.
> some idiot physicist studying psychometry has actually figured out
> how and why it is.
You said it. Idiot is about right, at least compared to the minimal
standards of intelligence required to learn some gtr; I don't agree that
you are a "physicist" as the rest of the world understands that term,
however.
As for psychometry, that is a bogus "application" of mathematics, for
reasons I hinted at, although a complete explanation would require me to
go to the libary, take out a book on this, and explain using concrete
examples why this a nothing but a method for "lying with statistics".
Actually, if you search back issues of Chance, you'll probably find an
expose in that (expository, undergraduate level) journal. This is a
separate issue which has nothing to do with this ng, however. Try asking
in sci.math.research.
As for your claims, "StanAZ" has already tried over and over again to draw
your attention to some fundamental mathematical points you have missed.
However, unlike me, he doesn't seem to understand why psychometry is crap,
not that this has much to do with the reasons why -your- claim to have "a
proof of God" is hilarious.
> You're beating a dead horse by ridiculing me.
Yeah, but it sure is fun!
> The entire world already suspects GR is a scientific proof of God,
If you say so, George!
> and they are not going to be surprised when Psychometry claims it is.
> The world is ready, even if you remain incredulous.
You must mean the entire world except for me and everyone else but
yourself, right?
Chris "Who Me, Sceptical?" Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
George Hammond
> As for your claims, "StanAZ" has already tried over and over again to draw
> your attention to some fundamental mathematical points you have missed.
> However, unlike me, he doesn't seem to understand why psychometry is crap,
> not that this has much to do with the reasons why -your- claim to have "a
> proof of God" is hilarious.
>
[Hammond]
Here is where you overstep your expertise. The judgment of
whether "psychometry is crap" belongs to physics not to
mathematics (which incidentally is why I can't blame you
and I do blame the physics department). It may be "crap" to
a mathematician but it is hardly crap to a physicist, I know
because I'm a physicist and I've actually surveyed it..
particularly the work of R.B. Cattell.
Psychometry meets all the requirements for "hard science"
standards. In fact the work of Cattell is classic hard science.
The data is real and replicable. The eigenvector extraction
from the correlation matrices is stable. The eigenvector
rotations using computer algorithms is superb linear algebra.
Cattell's work on eigenvector definition, resolution, and
extraction rivals the early linear algebra work and experimental
work in Quantum Mechanics in every respect. But, this is only
evident to the practiced eye of a physicist... which is actually
what Cattell was. It's only the inside circle of a few hundred
scientists who even know this (none of them professional
physicists BTW, Cattell actually had a degree in Chemistry his
daughter told me). For some mathematician like you to scoff
at it is highly suspicious.. it tells me you have less than
professional caution about "physics" matters.. a lack of
caution which is going to lead you into very strange and obscure
opinions eventually.
As for StanAZ's pointing out the "signature problem", it
turns out he has identified a very fruitful scientific
point, however it is hardly a "problem". The correlation matrix
is only proportional to the "absolute value" of the spacetime
metric (matrix) elements, it is therefore not actually a true
metric. Not surprising since the meaning of a "coordinate
transformation" and an "invariant distance" are totally unknown
(at present, BTW) in psychometry.
Nonetheless, the one to one correspondence between the
"magnitude" of the spacetime metric (matrix) elements and
the magnitude of the correlation matrix elements is
SUFFICIENT to show that the higher order eigenvector of the
4x4 correlation matrix is "caused by" gravity, as I have
mathenmatically demonstrated. This is sufficient to show that
the final (top) eigenvector in psychometry is "indubitably God"
as we (historically) know it.
To consider such a thing "hilarious" is about as ignorant
a statement as I have ever heard from a PhD level hard
scientist, short of Rayleigh's pronouncement in 1880 that the
future of science was only to extend the decimal point accuracy
of existing measurements; although I suppose mathematicians
must be granted a special skeptical license when it come to
proofs of God which is ultimately a physics question not a
mathematical question.
As for my lack of mathematical expertise, remember that
Faraday was nearly as ignorant of mathematics as I am,
however he provided Maxwell with the physical data needed
to explain electricity.
StanAZ
support of his own.
The signature problem simply has to do with whether the line element has the
form
ds^2 = dw^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2,
a positive definite form (with the signature +,+,+,+ where w = ct), as you
ascribe; or
(+/-) ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dw^2,
an indefinite form (signature +,+,+,- or equivalently -,-,-,+ for proper
times, instead of proper distances) which standard relativity uses. Note that
it is the differences from all of one sign that matters, not the total sums.
The problem with definite forms is that time is inherently no different from
spatial coordinates. This is not physical. -Stan
George Hammond
>
> You're hardly butting in, Dave. George has referred to your metric ideas in
> support of his own.
[Hammond]
Not so Stan, you misunderstand the problem. A "correlation matrix"
in Psychometry is ALWAYS a +,+,+,+ (i.e. Euclidian) signature matrix.
This is DERIVED from the spacetime metric under the theory.
In the "linear approximation" (Newtonian gravity) Einstein's
apacetime metric has all off diagonal elements zero, and the diagonal
elements are simply 1-2fee, 1+2fee, 1+2fee, 1+2fee, where
fee=the Newtonian scalar potential.
Now this obviously means that the "scale factors" (length of the
basis vectors) in this case are simply 1-fee,1+fee,1+fee,1+fee
since the sqrt(1+2fee)=1+fee.
fee is taken to be the VARIABLE which is causing the Psychometry
correlation matrix. Obviously then, the MAGNITUDES of the diagonal
elements of the correlation matrix will all be positive and
proportional to (fee)^2. It will have positive ++++ signature even
thought the spacetime metric from which it is derived has -+++
signature.
What this means of course, is that the correlation matrix is
NOT a "true metric". It is only "isomorphic to the spacetime metric".
nevertheless, this isomorphism is SUFFICIENT to show that the
"curvature" of the psychometry metric which produces "God", IS
caused by gravity (fee).
>
> The signature problem simply has to do with whether the line element has the
> form
>
> ds^2 = dw^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2,
>
> a positive definite form (with the signature +,+,+,+ where w = ct), as you
> ascribe; or
>
> (+/-) ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dw^2,
>
> an indefinite form (signature +,+,+,- or equivalently -,-,-,+ for proper
> times, instead of proper distances) which standard relativity uses. Note that
> it is the differences from all of one sign that matters, not the total sums.
>
> The problem with definite forms is that time is inherently no different from
> spatial coordinates. This is not physical. -Stan
[Hammond]
Rutherford's "Euclidian Metric" addresses entirely another problem.
He is saying that you can reformulate General Relativity sort of
in a "Minkowski style" by introducing a Euclidian Metric and then
reinterpreting what Einstein called "the relations of reality".
Interestingly, Rutherford's theory does not identically reproduce
Einstein's theory, but actually predicts new hitherto unknown
physical phenomena... some of which have been found questionable
by other physicists on this list.
--