GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
Next: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
From: Mark Fergerson on 24 Mar 2005 01:17 George Hammond wrote: > "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in message > news:BVk0e.174144$FM3.168639(a)fed1read02... > >>Maleki wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote: >> >>>> Who designed this test, how smart are they, and who said so, by which >>>>method of testing? >> >>>I have a simple one for you (and very efficient). What do >>>you think about Khomeyni? >> >> We've discussed this before. I do _not_ care what he does or does not >>believe (or claims to believes), I care what he does and what he >>convinces others to do. >> >> The most important question isn't "What's the nature of reality?" or >>"What is god?" or anything like that; the most important question for >>any human is, "What am I going to do next?". >> >> Mark L. Fergerson > [Hammond] > WRONG. The first question in LIFE actually IS: > > Why am I such a loser.. and > who are all those winners? > And why do they all seem > superior to me.. even though > I know they're wrong and abusive? > > And the ANSWER to that is: > > You are not aware that you have > a "growth deficit" and therefore > you are NOT AWARE that those > people AREN'T who you think they > are.. and don't even look like you > think they do... the problem is > YOU CAN'T SEE REALITY! > > And THEN... is when you discover what 5-billion > people are talking about when they say the > word "GOD"!......... because THAT is what > "God" is........ the explanation of why YOU can't > see REALITY.... and WHY.... and what it really > looks like.... AND WHO THE BAD GUYS > REALLY ARE....... and why you can't SEE them > for who they really are. > And without knowing that....... YOU'RE DEAD MEAT, > or just plain LUCKY! Knowledge is useful, but only actions get results. What we know is irrelevant to what we do if we fail to use that knowledge to help us decide what to do, or worse, let someone else decide for us based on what they know. See my response to your request for my C.V. With your awareness of our relative growth defecits, what will _you_ do next? Mark L. Fergerson
From: George Hammond on 24 Mar 2005 02:46 "Rob Duncan" <robduncan(a)gbronline.com> wrote in message news:S4CdnYc3_anpzd_fRVn-1g(a)gbronline.com... > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > news:_Zp0e.6862$S46.5708(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in message > > news:BVk0e.174144$FM3.168639(a)fed1read02... > >> Maleki wrote: > >> The most important question isn't "What's the nature of reality?" or > >> "What is god?" or anything like that; the most important question for > >> any human is, "What am I going to do next?". > >> > >> Mark L. Fergerson > > > > [Hammond] > > WRONG. The first question in LIFE actually IS: > > > > Why am I such a loser.. and > > who are all those winners? > > And why do they all seem > > superior to me.. even though > > I know they're wrong and abusive? > > > > And the ANSWER to that is: > > > > You are not aware that you have > > a "growth deficit" and therefore > > you are NOT AWARE that those > > people AREN'T who you think they > > are.. and don't even look like you > > think they do... the problem is > > YOU CAN'T SEE REALITY! > > > > And THEN... is when you discover what 5-billion > > people are talking about when they say the > > word "GOD"!......... because THAT is what > > "God" is........ the explanation of why YOU can't > > see REALITY.... and WHY.... and what it really > > looks like.... AND WHO THE BAD GUYS > > REALLY ARE....... and why you can't SEE them > > for who they really are. > > And without knowing that....... YOU'RE DEAD MEAT, > > or just plain LUCKY! > > ==================================== > > > So now your saying that your god is the difference between what you can see, > and what you might be able to see had you better vision? So people who need > glasses have really big god(s) and people with 20/15 vision have no god. > Right? [Hammond] Wrong. Both the 7 year old and the 15 year old have "20-20 vision". But the 15 year old can actually see 15 frames a second as single pictures... while the 7 year old an only discriminate 10 frames a second before it becomes a "movie". The difference is that "comprehending a picture" takes more than vision... it takes "intelligence" (i.e. perceptual processing speed)... and the 15 year old has more of it because his brain is MORE GROWN than the 7 year old's (higher mental speed=higher intelligence, note I didn't say IQ, I said Intelligence... IQ is Intelligence divided by age remember... for exactly that reason by the way). What this means then, since reality is a continously changing scene.... is that the 7 year old "cannot see" 1/3 of reality compared to the 15 year old.... a fact that any parent is well aware of. > Can we see your god if we film everything in high speed frames and slow it > down so our witto minds can comprehend? [Hammond] No.. despite the fascination with "slow motion" in camera phenomena (because it is 'reminicent' of said phenomena of God).... it is NOT THE SAME THING... and is unfortunately NO WHERE NEAR as dramatic as an actual increase in mental speed (i.e. God). The reason is, when you slow down a film of a person, all you see is the same person (same identity) moving slower. However... if that person actually really underwent a total REAL life slow down... his "identity" would change. First, he would be considered a "lower class" person than he is now, he would have a different expression on his face because of that, and different mannerisms and affects of speech.. a totally different 'personality' (and attitude) and would certainly be dressed differently and belong to a different social circle... he would be TOTALLY different.... not merely "the same person but going slower". And this is WHY it takes an "artist" to depict pictures of "God" (i.e. the effects of God) on real people... such as the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is world famous because it represents a very well known personality type in history, and FURTHERMORE, is a dramatic example of what an "increase in mental speed" will DO (e.g. "transform") that particular personality into a person of rare beauty. Mona Lisa is one of the leading (artistic) representations of what the "realization of God" does to a person... which is why the painting is worth $50,000,000 dollars. So... the upshot is NO... we are not going to be able to "see God" by using simple zoom lenses and slow motion on our video recorders (altho someone should be looking into it). My prognostication is that ultimately sophisticated "virtual reality" techniques using artistic input, biology AND massive computing power, eventually WILL allow us to "see God"... see our "real selves".... see "other people's real selves" etc. etc...... but it isn't going to happen overnight. Eventually, such techniques will probably replace psychiatrists (or psychiatrists will become masters at the technique)... and it might even replace drug threapy for mental illness. And CERTAINLY it will be the be all and end all of educational therapy and a large component of public education and even entertainment... far surpassing anything Hollywood ever dreamed of! > Are you saying its like when those > people on Star Trek were moving so fast they were invisible and sounded like > gnats? Like that? [Hammond] Well... you/ve got to realize all of Hollywood fantasy IS in fact an artistic attempt to educate the people as to what "God" is. right now it's pretty crude... with creatures like "Klingons", "Gaaulls" and others wandering around the set. But once "virtual reality" comes of age driven by a mathematical theory of God and substantial computer power.... WOW... you're going to see things you never even dreamed existed. Things Moses, Paul and Jesus never even dreamed of on their best day! > > > Rob ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ==================================== Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent) Send a blank email to COSAchurch(a)hotmail.com and your email address will be added to the COSA discussion list (free, no obligation) ==================================== and please ask your news service to add: alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated ===================================
From: George Hammond on 24 Mar 2005 02:56 "Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail(a)sorry.com> wrote in message news:1144las8fin5if9(a)corp.supernews.com... > > > George Hammond wrote: > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in > > message news:ER8%d.981$Vi3.793(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > [Hammond] > > Dear Philosophy newsgroup readers..... can't I get some kind of > > an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS comment from someone..... the nerds > > on the physics newsgroups are driving me crazy with nonsense about this. > > George Hammond, physicist > > ================================= > > ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC > > PROOF OF GOD > > > > > > <snip citations about mental speed and IQ> > > > > > > [Hammond] > > OK, ... let me give you a simple heuristic picture > > that explains what GOD is, in TWO STEPS: > > Kam: > Of course your first step is to "explain what God > is." > 1 - God is (defined as) x > 2 - x is proven to exist > 3 - Therefore, God is proven to exist. > > The above, circular argument doesn't prove that > God exists, but merely redefines God as something that > already exists. > [Kam] > If you were about to prove the existence of God, you > would *not* begin by explaining what God is, but by > calling upon our already available accounts of God, and > observing that such a thing exists. You've always put the > cart before the horse on this one, although you've never > admitted it. [Ham] Kam.... I've already DONE THAT and published it in the peer reviewed academic literature. But THAT involves 16 pages of print: http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html which nobody including YOU has time to read... so THIS EXERCISE is a synopsis of the RESULT based on that EXISITNG AND PUBLISHED rigorous scientific proof. And, BTW, that is eaxctly what the proof consists of... a demonstration that "X phenomena" which is proven to exist.... completely and overwhemingly explains in complete detail... everything that has ever been reported about the phenomena of God, including the entire Bible. > > > > > STEP ONE: > > Take "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena > > that makes moving picture films possible. > > It is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old > > can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images.. > > above that he sees a continuous image (a 'movie'). > > However, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec > > before it turns into a moving picture. It has been proven that > > this is due to the increasing intelligence (mental speed) of the > > growing children's brains! > > What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as > > "reality".... then ergo: 1/3 of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year > > old! The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD > > which only the adults (or more fully grown people) can see! > > > > STEP TWO: > > OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human > > race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by > > the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth. > > See this simple "explains it all" picture: > > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif > > OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops > > growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth. > > Then, by the reasoning of STEP ONE, this > > means that "15% of true reality is INVISIBLE" to the average > > full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person, > > some people are missing 20%, some 10% . > > Isn't it obvious that this simple phenomena > > of "an invisible reality based on adult growth differences" > > is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE > > HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD? > > > > What the heck's wrong with you? > > That's such a simple, proven, > > scientific explanation of "God" > > that a high school drop out > > could understand it!! > > ==================================== > > SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god > > mirror site: > > http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > > ==================================== > > Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent) > > Send a blank email to COSAchurch(a)hotmail.com > > and your email address will be added to the > > COSA discussion list (free, no obligation) > > ==================================== > > and please ask your news service to add: > > alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated > > =================================== > > > > >
From: Guy Svenhardt on 24 Mar 2005 03:01 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:Yts0e.7089$S46.5522(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Brandon Loudermilk" <toe11(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in > message news:rOr0e.51612$c72.37089(a)bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > > > Guy, you have offered considerable insight into the various > > falsifications/psychotic "thinking" paraded in "Hammond's" "Spog". > > [Hammond] >.... since Pergamon Press does not > publish psychobabble. The only thing that you've ever proven in your miserable excuse for a life is that Pergamon Press will publish complete trash. AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm From AntiSPOG: "In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180 claims Hammond has made. 11 (eleven) of these 180 claims can be seen as true. Most of the agreed statements are trivial like "Today the world faces enormous crises in population, oil resources, terrorism and Third World poverty.". This statement alone includes four of the eleven agreed claims. A thesis based on 11 true and 169 false claims must be discarded as inadequately thought-out. Scientific work published in the internet should be based on traceable thoughts and backed up with references which are accessible for everyone - e.g. by quoting passages out of a book or adding links to other websites. This isn't the case in Hammond's work. Mentioning names of (questionable) "authorities" doesn't make a claim true, it only might be used to back up the own position. If a thesis is based on the work of other scientists, a detailed description should be added to see what they've contributed to the new thesis. If - like Hammond says - statistical data of other scientists are involved, it is a usual thing to add a link to these data or to give detailed information where they were published. Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. It lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. It claims to be "scientific", but it doesn't show any example of scientific experiments to back it up nor does it follow basic scientific rules. The best example surely is Hammond's attempt to assign his virtual "psychometric space" to real space. This attempt alone disqualifies Hammond as an incompetent amateur who never has understood anything regarding real sciences. If I - as an autodidactic amateur - can see these flaws, errors and misinterpretations, then I ask myself why Hammond expects that professional scientists should consider to agree with something like his SPoG. On the other hand, no real Christian will need Hammond's SPoG. In the eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic, the work of a heretic. Even if I don't believe in higher entities, I do respect the beliefs of others. Hammond doesn't have such qualms - he insults all Christians and rubs their deity through the dirt. In the end, Hammond neither will win the hearts of true Christians nor will he convince the reason of scientists. It took me two weeks to gather all the information to disprove SPoG, a professional scientist could do the same in less than two minutes... "
From: stew dean on 24 Mar 2005 03:13
George Hammond wrote: > <apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1111634444.977858.205300(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > George Hammond wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Seriously though. > > > > One person may percieve 12 frames per second.... another may > > percieve > > > > 30... but by all accounts reality actually progresses at millions > > of > > > > frames per second -- if it's discreet at all, which is an open > > > > question. > > > > So by that logic, reality isn't 15% invisible, it's 99.9% > > invisible! > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > Wrong logic. It's like having a lo-pass filter > > > over your entire sensory system. You can't notice > > > that small twich, that small glint in the eye before > > > the gunslinger slaps leather... and you wind up in > > > boot hill with a lot of other suckers who thought > > > they were "fast". > > > > </snip> > > > > So where is God in that analogy? Is he the gunsmith? Boot hill? The > > small twitch? > > [Hammond] > God is higher speed. > That's why Jesus said "God quickens the flesh". > And why God judges the "quick and the dead". > And why God gives you life "more abundantly". Classic Hammond. Buy a dictionary George. > > > > Point A is a story illustrating that long reaction time can be > > unhealthy. > > [Hammond] > That's why people go to church. Learning what God is, > and the fact that it will "quicken your flesh", is what > Religion is all about... in case no one ever told you. You say X is all about Y then you say it's about Z instead. God is all about this, religion is all about that. Intelligence is mental speed, god is the gap between er, two different kinds of growth and now religion is about speed of perception which can be learnt apparantly. > > Point B is an alleged Proof of God. > > [Hammond] > No my website (wch. includes my PEER-PUBLISHED papers) > is the alleged proof of God. Why don't you read it? > > > > > Is there any connection between point A and point B? > > [Hammond] > I don't see any "A's and B's"... whaddaru talking about? Where others see descreat frames you see a blur. Urm. It's what I've also been saying - you have a step 1 and a step 2 but nearly always no actual link between the two. In this case step 1 is how fast your sensory perception works and step 2 is, er, god. Stew Dean |