50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Motion
Next: Free Energy
From: wg on 16 Jan 2006 10:14 80% of statistics are made up on the spot
From: Gary Eickmeier on 16 Jan 2006 15:41 George Hammond wrote: > [Hammond] > The joke title of the post is as old as the hills.... of course > you morons wouldn't know it. Fact is it was a well known > story about President Eisenhower that he exclaimed > disbelief in an Oval Office conversation concerning public > opinion when one of his aides told him "50% of Americans > were below average intelligence". > As for the post itself, it is of course an extremely valuable > and esoteric piece of information... but again, of course > you morons wouldn't have a clue at to what it is. This is what I, and, I presume, Tom was talking about: (Hammond) What does this have to do with God? Answer: Fact is, the avg. person today is only about 80% full grown, which means, by the way, that his brain is only 80% grown. The missing 20% of the brain makes us act like children, since children are the world's best examaple of what a not fully grown person looks and acts like. What we know is that half the world is INVISIBLE to a half grown child (which is why you have to watch them constantly and lead them by the hand so they don't get hurt). Likewise, therefore, if we are 20% less than fully grown, 20% of the world is likewise INVISIBLE to us.... ALL OF US! And this invisble world is called "Heaven" and the fully grown person who would be able to see the rest of the world is called GOD... thus we say there is an "invisible man" named God who "lives in Heaven". Welcome to the club, you now know what the REAL explanation of "God" is,... and that there IS actually a "real God". You should be embarrassed to show your name here again after such drivel. Who the hell is going to take you seriously after that? Will you please stop posting these? Gary Eickmeier
From: George Hammond on 16 Jan 2006 17:01 "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:JxTyf.2049$_c.1329(a)tornado.tampabay.rr.com... > > > George Hammond wrote: > > > You should be embarrassed to show your name here again after such drivel. > Who the hell is going to take you seriously after that? Will you please > stop posting these? > > Gary Eickmeier > [Hammond] I post elementary discussion for your benefit. I'm posting here because the subject matter is actually a Physics problem that is beyond your comprehension....for example the following post of this morning which you are not even qualified to READ much less reply to: (note posted to s.p.r today under the title" "CYCLOIDAL EXPANSION vs GROWTH CURVE": ---------------------------- The use of "Conformal Time" in Friedman solutions is well known. The Conformal Time, T, is defined in terms of the usual Cosmic Time, t, as: dt = dT R(t) However, I happen to be interested in a solution expressed in "Inverse Time", where I define Inverse Time by: dt = dT / R(t) Notice the difference! This time transformation is exactly the inverse of the usual Conformal Time transformation! Incidentally, the motive for all this is that there is some theoretical indication that a solution in terms of "inverse time" might be a model of human growth, since growth is characterized as "getting bigger and faster" as we grow up (note "faster" here refers to mental speed, or intelligence, which increases linearly with age during childhood).... hence the need to transform the time scale to "inverse time". At any rate: Friedman's expansion for positive spatial curvature is well known to be a cycloid solution which is usually written in parametric form as: R = a(1-cosX) t = a(X-sinX) R= radius of the universe (the expansion factor) t=cosmic time (proper time) X= dummy parameter This can also be written in Cartesian form by eliminating X between the 2 parametric equations; as: 1) t = a arcos(1- R/a) - sqrt(2aR-R^2) Ok, what I wish to do is transform this solution into "inverse time" by using the transformation dt= dT/R. Now, my assumption is that one can simply take the differential of the above equation, substitute in dt= dT/R, and then reintegrate the expression to yield T in terms of R. Correct me if I'm wrong about this! I first take the differential of Eqn 1. Amazingly this turns out to be a simple expression: dt = RdR/sqrt(2aR-R^2) Then I make the desired substitution dt=dT/R, and get: dT = R^2 dR/sqrt(2aR-R^2) Having effected the Inverse Time transformation I should be able to reintegrate the above equation to obtain R as a function T. Integrating, I find: T = 3a^2 arcsin(sqrt(R/2a)) - 1/2 (3a+R) sqrt(R(2a-R)) (valid for R = 0-->2a only. The solution is only defined for the first half of the cycloid (the expansion half)). (Note: this integral was found by Mathematica, and I have differentiated it by hand to confirm that it is correct). Note that the constant of integration is zero when integrating from 0 to 2a. 2a is the maximum expansion of the universe in this case. It is amazing that the problem can be solved in closed form and yield a simple result! Unfortunately, like the cycloid equation, it cannot be inverted to get R as a function of T however we can invert it graphically by plotting it and simply rotating the graph by 90 degrees: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Inverse-time.JPG (note: place pointer on graph and auto-enlarge button will appear after 5 seconds, click to clarify the legend) Note that I have rotated and flipped the graph so that the solution is now shown with T being the abscissa and R the ordinate. (I note in passing that this "could" be a human growth curve) OK.... my question is this: Is the simple mathematical procedure outlined above actually correct? Have I correctly found the form of the (closed universe) Hubble expansion when expressed in "Inverse Time", T ? Any assist would be greatly appreciated. ======================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ========================================
From: Tony on 16 Jan 2006 19:01 And if social interactions are a problem, there's always pathology.
From: Gary Eickmeier on 16 Jan 2006 21:25
George Hammond wrote: > "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:JxTyf.2049$_c.1329(a)tornado.tampabay.rr.com... > >> >>George Hammond wrote: >> >> >>You should be embarrassed to show your name here again after such drivel. >>Who the hell is going to take you seriously after that? Will you please >>stop posting these? >> >>Gary Eickmeier >> > > [Hammond] > I post elementary discussion for your benefit. > I'm posting here because the subject matter is > actually a Physics problem that is beyond your > comprehension....for example the following post > of this morning which you are not even qualified > to READ much less reply to: > (note posted to s.p.r today under the title" > "CYCLOIDAL EXPANSION vs GROWTH CURVE": > ---------------------------- Et cetera. What does any of that bullshit have to do with a stupid statement about an invisible world being God and heaven? Gary Eickmeier |