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: Guy Svenhardt on 25 Mar 2005 01:11 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:TcL0e.7988$S46.7799(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:PNF0e.15157$C47.4295(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou(a)spro.net> wrote in message > > news:ck3641dgmu97j3jnkcedtr370c4iahbqo0(a)4ax.com... > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:11:56 GMT, "Guy Svenhardt" > > > <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >From AntiSPOG: ( http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm ) > > > >"Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. > > It > > > >lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. > > > > > > Also from AntiSPOG: > > > > > > "His detailed speculations about this assignment can be found here. Be > > > aware that the page has an awfully small font, making it almost > > > unreadable!" > > [Hammond] > Schornak is an uneducated German truck driver from Danzig > who never attended college and can't even read physics. > On the other hand.... his expenditure of so much energy > certainlyu shows he takes the discovery of a scientific proof > of God SERIOUSLY.... which is more than you halfwits > are able to do. and don't think the public doesn't realize > it. And he can OBVIOUSLY think rings around you. Just goes to show how very STUPID YOU ARE. Of course. Rather than try to counter the truth of his claim, or offer any evidence for yours (like a real scientist) you rant and rave true to your psychotic form. Your life has been a complete and miserable failure. You are a tragic laughing stock. You can't counter the obvious truths of what he says so you dismiss him instead. How typically stupid of you. You can't shoot the messenger no matter how badly you want to. 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... " 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: George Hammond on 25 Mar 2005 01:12 "Brandon Loudermilk" <toe11(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:SCM0e.63181$Q83.48431(a)bignews5.bellsouth.net... > You don't right so good do you? :) [Hammond] I don't play the violin either jerko. Get off this thread. This is an academic discussion and you have no CV relevant to the discussion. > > read on: > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > news:mgI0e.7864$S46.195(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > "Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail(a)sorry.com> wrote in > > message news:1145jma8p6a394(a)corp.supernews.com... > > > > > >>>[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. > > > > > > Kam: > > > You've posted that link before, and it still doesn't > > > rectify your cart/horse problem. > > > > [Hammond] > > Liar. > > > > > > > > > It leaves the discussion > > > open as to whether or not God *really is* brain growth deficit. > > > > [Hammond] > > Liar... it is a PROOF of that fact. > > A proof that YOU are unable to refute. > > > > > > > Of course, many people don't believe that He is. > > > > [Hammond] > > I'm not interested in "beliefs", I'm only interested > > in PROOF... and I'm the only one who has it. > > > > > > > > > *Instead*, > > > they believe that God created brains, and that brain growth > > > deficit itself is a part of His divine plan. Orthodoxy > > > directly contradicts your "explanation" of God - the one > > > you created for no purpose but to serve your theory. > > > > [Hammond] > > WRONG.... that kind of hypocritical stupidity has been > > run out of court as OBSOLETE by the discovery > > of the scientific explanation of God. > > If A=B, then it is merely "convention" as to whether > > A created B or B created A... and of course no nothing > > kooks like you with no scientific credentials are relegated > > to the back wards of mental hospitals to sit there and argue > > forever which is the case. > > MEANWHILE competent people understand that if > > the "mind produces reality".... and the brain "exists in > > said created reality"... then kooks like you can argue forever > > that "reality created the brain" instead of "the brain created reality". > > That's simply because you're an envious unqualified and > > unaccomplished kook. Normal people, including scientists > > and religious people, can easily see that the discovery CLEARLY > > explains both the "physics viewpoint" and the "religious > > viewpoint" and BOTH of them are correct. > > AND WE DON'T NEED TO LISTEN TO UNACCOMPLISHED > > FRAUDS LIKE YOU TRY TO OBFUSCATE THE DISCOVERY. > > It is amazing that one such as you immediately decides when another should > be in the "back wards" of "mental institutions". Usually people throw their > own fears into their attacks of others. Interesting I'd say. > > > > > Frankly, I'd suggest you try to find some honest > > employment since you are now an anachronism > > in Philosophy... perhaps selling shoes or something > > bigshot. > > You certainly have nothing of interest to say to me, > > and I have no intention of wasting my breath arguing > > with echollaiated tautologists such as you. >
From: Guy Svenhardt on 25 Mar 2005 01:26 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:DwL0e.3215$z.644(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > message news:MVI0e.15214$C47.7842(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > NOTE: "shornak" in the above URLs is an unemployed > > > German truck driver from Danzig who never attended > > > college and can't even read physics. > Of course. Rather than try to counter the truth of his claim, or offer any evidence for yours (like a real scientist) you rant and rave true to your psychotic form. Your life has been a complete and miserable failure. You are a tragic laughing stock. And you can't shoot the messenger no matter how badly you want to. 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... " 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: Peter H.M. Brooks on 25 Mar 2005 01:29 George Hammond wrote: > "Brandon Loudermilk" <toe11(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in > message news:SCM0e.63181$Q83.48431(a)bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > I don't play the violin either jerko. Get off > this thread. This is an academic discussion > and you have no CV relevant to the discussion. > I've seldom seen a more amusing instance of Argumentum ad Verecundiam - apparently quite without irony too! -- O how I cried when Alice died The day we were to have wed! We never had our Roasted Duck And now she's a Loaf of Bread! At nights I weep an cannot sleep, Moonlight to me recalls I never saw her Waterfront Nor she my Waterfalls - W.H. Auden verses for 'The Dog Beneath the Skin' * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
From: stew dean on 25 Mar 2005 03:11
George Hammond wrote: > <apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1111726276.980668.315310(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > 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 seems like a very abstract way to define God. > > What is divine about higher speed? > > Why not just say "higher speed is faster"? > > [Hammond] > You got a lot to learn dude. > Religion says there exists an "invisible world".. > they are correct... and science has now explained > what it is and why it is invisible. People who are more > fully grown can of course see more of it (see more > of reality) while as much as 10 to 20% of reality is > actually INVISIBLE to you and the average man. I think the reason you get some much greif from people is you don't define the phrases you use. Vauge concept builds upon vauge concept and we end up with a kind of mush. You probably think it's pedentic, well being pedantic is part of science. First 'invisible world'. Science and religion both say there are things beyond our undersstanding - but science adds in the word 'current', that is what we don't know we can know. Many religions include things that are unknowable or nearly unknowable, only achivable by a select few (scientology is based around this concept and makes money from it). But I digress. The invisible world could mean what we cannot perceive or what we cannot comprehend. Which is it or it it neither? Second 'fully grown' - what does this mean? If you mean physical growth then most in the west are fully grown or overly grown. I can't help think that you're trying to simplify are complex problem here by calling all of human physical developement 'growth'. The body does not scale up in a smooth linear way. I understand you mean actual compared to potential growth as well (the nature / nurture bit) and let's take that growth affects IQ. If person A has 100% growth and has an IQ of 130 and the has a potential of 140 (in theory this is not down just to genetics) but has reached 130 the two people would have roughly the same intelligence. So does one see less of reality than the other? That's what I can't understand with your arguments. Lastly you claim that a person would not see 10% or reality doesnt make scientific sense. As stated by many here we only perceive a tiny percentage of reality, a fraction of a fraction of a percent, so the differences in slight growth in IQ is relative to other people and that person, not to overall reality. That is unless you mean perceived reality. Stew Dean > Bear in mind you DON'T KNOW THIS... have no > IDEA such a thing exists... but the Church does, and > has known it for millenia... and now science has proved > it. > the fact that 15-20% of the average man's "mental > speed" is missing... means that what he is looking at > is NOT "true reality"... and believe it or not this is > the cause of ALL of the world's problems... depression, > death, failure, crime, war, poverty... you name it... > The phenomena is so huge, so universal and so > important.... it is called "God". > Of course.... most people have no des[erate need to > know about this and generally never even bother to > find out about it.... despite the fact there is a Church on > every street corner trying to tell them about it. > However.... there ARE millions of people in the world, > including those in high places... who DO have a need > to know about it. > > > > > I mean, a TV plays at 30 frames a second (in north america anyway) or > > 60 fields per second, which is way faster than human perception. > > So a TV is an example of higher speed -- but a TV is clearly not an > > example of God (well... maybe for some, but that's a separate problem > > ;) ). > > [Hammond] > there are cameras that can take a million frames per second > (i.e. can photograph a bullet in flight)... so what... what does > that have to do with PEOPLE.... bear in mind "God" is a > phenomena which only effects LIVING ORGANISMS... > such as you and me.... not t.v. cameras. > > > > > > So... I don't think I'm catching your meaning there. I assume "god is > > higher speed" was intended as an allegory for some deeper observation, > > but it's lost on me. Can you put it in simple terms please? > > > > [Hammond] > I have tried to put it in simple terms above. If you are not > up to your "full grown speed".... a significant portion > of the world is INVISIBLE to you, which means you are > not seeing "true reality".... and that is what the subject of > "God" is all about.... the fact that no one can see "true reality". > > > > > > > > <snipping ahead... > > > > 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. > > > > Actually this is all news to me... and I'm still not sure if I > > understand. > > Are you saying people go to church in order to think faster? > > [Hammond] > they go to find out that there is an "invisible world" and what > kind of an impact that has on human behavior, history and > society... and how to deal with it. > > > > Or so they can learn that people who think faster than them are closer > > to god than they are? > > Or so they can learn that they are closer to god than people who think > > slower than them? > > Or something else entirely? > > > > And are you sure this is true? I'm an atheist but I've had a lot of > > conversations with religious people -- many of whom have tried to > > convert me -- and none of them said anything about brain speed in their > > pitch. Why not? > > [Hammond] > they don't know about it..... the discovery of a provable and > measureable "scientific proof of God" is NEW... I only > published it in 2003..... they haven't even heard about it yet. > Consider yourself in on the ground floor.... you're probably > 5-10 years ahead of the rest of the world. > > > > > > > > > > > <snipping ahead...> > > > > > [Hammond] > > > No my website (wch. includes my PEER-PUBLISHED papers) > > > is the alleged proof of God. Why don't you read it? > > > > So far you haven't convinced me that it's worth my time. > > [Hammond] > Hey... I could care less. Of what help could you possible > be to me? > > > > But if you can give me a compelling synopsis of your theory, then I'll > > visit your site. > > [Hammond] > Naw..... you're not worth it... I don't give "private tutorials" > to mere "curiosity seekers".... for chrissakes my time is > worth a thousand dollars an hour! > So, take it or leave it.... and p.s. don't chew up valuable bandwidth > posting a reply saying "I'll leave it".... we've got enough > amateurs chewing up bandwidth as it is. > ==================================== > 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 > =================================== |