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: jillarontown on 25 Mar 2005 05:19 (George Hammond) wrote: > [Hammond] > Dear Philosophy newsgroup > readers..... can't I get some kind > of an INTELLIGENT-SERIOUS > comment from someone..... > the nerds on the physics newsgroups > are driving me crazy with nonsense > about this. > George Hammond, physicist =================================                 ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC             PROOF OF GOD <snip citations about mental speed and IQ> [Hammond] OK, ... let me give you a simple heuristic picture that explains what GOD is, in TWO STEPS: STEP ONE:     Take "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena that makes moving picture films possible.       It is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images.. above that he sees a continuous image (a 'movie'). However, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec before it turns into a moving picture. It has been proven that this is due to the increasing intelligence (mental speed) of the growing children's brains!       What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as "reality".... then ergo: 1/3 of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year old! The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD which only the adults (or more fully grown people) can see! STEP TWO:       OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth. See this simple "explains it all" picture:   http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth.       Then, by the reasoning of STEP ONE, this means that "15% of true reality is INVISIBLE" to the average full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person, some people are missing 20%, some 10% .       Isn't it obvious that this simple phenomena of "an invisible reality based on adult growth differences" is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD?                               What the heck's wrong with you?                 That's such a simple, proven,                 scientific explanation of "God"                 that a high school drop out                 could understand it!! ================================== [jillaront] 1] I have been thinking about the above text and how it might relate to some philosophical ideas. It should indicate an interest in philosophical circles because of its historical roots. 2] I started comparing the above to what Plato's analogy of the cave or Hegel's phenomenology of Spirit gives as the ground work. They make a similar case with different terminology. What is missing in the above text is the WORDING of the 'dialectical'. a] One philosophical question then is, can science even be dialectical, or is there a purist claim in science that it must omit such discourse in order to be science? b] ...."it varies from person to person, some people are missing 20%, some 10%"... If we use Plato's or Hegel's thinking or even a modern day dialectics there must be some type of dialecticism occurring between the 20% and the 10% groups. I would be interested in how a criteria is established in science where a community has some scientists with 20% secular trend deficit, or some with only10%? What is the neutral ground for discoursing the opposition of ideas for each group and to argue the truth about the identity of the invisible part? What grants the common terms that allows the discourse over the differences between the two groups? 3] The naming of all known and deficit parts for a wholistic identity is termed 'total agency' by critical realism. The use of the term 'God' is authoritative and therefore deontic to common logical scrutiny. "Total agency" is a more neutral term. Older philosophical terms have been: 'virtue' [the virtual good], the 'shinning', the 'divine', the 'spirit'. Again we should note these as historical but not neutral because of how their meanings are practiced in cultures. jillaront
From: jillarontown on 25 Mar 2005 05:21 More comments using Critical Realism to addresses the complexity in Mr Hammond's text: 1] When something is claimed 'invisible' it is detotalizing the ground before us. Providing a process of identity for the whole, the parts, and the detotalization is called dialectics. 2] Modern dialectics and critical realism [CR] replaces the term 'invisible' with the term 'absence' or 'negation'. This aligns the function of logical ontic coherence by restructuring the critical thinking process away from irrealistic and logically deontic terms. a] Arguing the identity of something thought to be 'invisible' is philosophical irrealism. b] Arguing the identity of something irrealistically termed 'invisible' as that which is 'absent' or 'negative' is a process for ontic logic and the philosophical method of critical realism. [A] Mr Hammond's text is complex because there is a realistic reference to the deficit found in the 'secular trend'. The claim of the argument is one of science, realism, and theism. What is interesting to note in the text is a reversal of the phenomenological method [PM] to arrive at the theistic conclusion. PM asserts that its methodology can claim scientific knowledge of the phenomenological experience. In short, the text starts out with mediated categories and ends with attending immediate experiential terminology- God. Historically, the order has been in reverse of this. There is an experience that forms its grounding from the immediate personal to a mediated communion and its social celebration which is all tied to a guided authority of a doctrine. Not only is this the reverse order of the phenomenological method- I have discussed this before, in older threads in AP- it is also method which is closed to any re-circuiting of the entire PM process, which should always be open to repeat mediations and therefore changes. [B] Defining the character of this 'deficit' seems to be what is fuelling continuing arguments which are mostly do to the terminology that is propagating more philosophical irrealism. Philosophical critical realistic methodology can be represented to propose the removal of this irrealism with the identity of this deficit as negation or absence. It is a more logically ontic terminology and clearing for processing ontic logic. That is how dialectics works. That is how dialectics clears out irrealism. jillaront
From: Brian Eable on 25 Mar 2005 06:41 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> writes: > "Etienne Rouette" <etienne.rouette(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in > message news:mpL0e.37445$nK.1410363(a)news20.bellglobal.com... > > > > For the record: are _we_ the public? Just thought I'd ask. > > > > Etienne Rouette > > > [Hammond] > Anyway, I'd be glad to have you as a member > of the COSA church.... so far I've only got 4 members, > and haven't even set up a discussion mailing list yet (see my > signature file below)... anyway... COSA could use a "French > connection".... I'm not surprised you are trying to get that Etienne Rouette broad to join COSA. I heard a rumour that she has a PhD in Psychology and is studying for her MS in Physics (Relativity). And she's a HAWT CHYK! HUBBA HUBBA!!!1! -- Anybody who would use the term "ignorant racist" IS AN IGNORANT RACIST.. which probably means you are an ignorant racist. -- George Hammond http://beable.com
From: TMG on 25 Mar 2005 09:25 George Hammond wrote: <snip> > [Hammond] > there are cameras that can take a million frames per second > (i.e. can photograph a bullet in flight)... Millions? That wouldn't be another made up "fact" that's a couple of orders of magnitude off - would it?
From: Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC. on 25 Mar 2005 18:18
"George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:rVN0e.3390$z.2411(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > [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. Therefore, "God" cannot make it rain. |