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 26 Mar 2005 04:52 <apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111828947.150138.63920(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > > I don't get it. > > Say I watch a ball roll downhill at 10 frames per second... and my > friend watches it at 20 frames per second. If there was an "invisible > world" for me, it doesn't seem like a very exciting invisible world; in > the in-between times, the ball was just at in-between places -- as my > friend can verify. I can even predict the position accurately with some > simple math. What's special about the invisible part? > > Even if I can't predict it with simple math ... > like, say if I watch something complex at 10 fps, like a person > juggling... I'm sure I won't catch all of the motion. But if I > understand you right, you're saying that even the part I don't percieve > is still regular physics, right? Hands moving, batons accelerating due > to gravity, etc. > > But I thought the invisible world of religion was supposed to have > supernatural stuff in it. I could be wrong though. I'm just going on > what I've been told. > > > 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. > > Bear in mind you DON'T KNOW THIS... have no > > IDEA such a thing exists... > > Well... except, it seems like it would be rude of me to have no idea it > such a thing exists, when you just finished telling me about it. > > Honestly I'm doing my best to follow you. I'm just confused about how > the invisible world is different than the visible world. > > > 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". > > Wait. I don't understand. How is it the cause of all the worlds > problems? > Are you saying people screw up 'cause they can't react fast enough to > reality since they don't see it all? > > If so, are you also saying that people would be able to live in peace > and harmony if they could just think a little faster? > > I agree, thinking faster would be a good start. But it also seems to me > like surely limited perspective is at least as much a part of the > problem. Not to mention hormones. I mean, I can't count the times I've > said something stupid and caused distress just because some critical > information wasn't available to me, and it's not clear to me that > simply thinking faster would have helped any. > > I mean, if I'm understanding you right... no matter how fast I think, > I'll never be able to see what's on the other side of a wall, and that > sort of thing, right? > > > 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. > > I dunno. Maybe you're right and the world will understand someday... > but at least in the past, what Churches have tried to tell me doesn't > sound very much like what you're talking about. > > Maybe some of the clergy understand better than others. > > > 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. > > I didn't know that at all. Thanks for informing me. > > But I'm confused again. Lots of religious people talk about "God" doing > things to the world, like parting the seas or flooding the world (come > to think of it, God is fond of water). > > Are you saying those were those just effects on people's perceptions? > > > > > > > > > > > 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". > > > > Ok. I think I get that part. > I'm still confused about why "true reality" is important. > Is there anything going on in the unpercieved moments of "true reality" > that can't just be extrapolated from the moments we do percieve? > > > > > > <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. > > > > Yeah but when the people at church talk about the invisible world they > make it sound a lot different. Like it has spirits and ghosts and all > kinds of odd things you don't normally see in everyday life -- whereas > you make it sound like the "invisible world" is just the same as > everyday life, except that we don't see 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. > > > > Haha thanks! So 5-10 you say? > Really think it'll catch on in 5-10? > Not worried about being suppressed? > Is there also the possibility that the world in general just won't get > it? I know I'm still confused. > > > > > > > > > <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? > > > > Probably not much. I just make video games. > > > > > > 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! > > Oh ok. Sorry, didn't mean to offend; I didn't know you were so busy. > I'll read your site then. > > Anyway that sure is a lot of money! Do you really get paid that much? > Or are you just saying your time will be worth that much, when people > understand the value of the work you're doing? > > > 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. > > Hey, sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Like I said; I just didn't know > your time was so valuable. > I'll read your site, and try to figure this stuff out. > > Still, any help you can give me is welcome. > > He simply loves to be absolutely wrong about virtually everything, from all of his musings and his "facts" to all of his absurd and unsupportable predictions. 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: Dubh Ghall on 26 Mar 2005 14:44 On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:27:24 GMT, "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> [Hammond] >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: >> > >CITE A PSYCHIATRIST WHO HAS EXAMINED YOU AND WILL ATTEST TO YOUR SANITY >OR GET OFF OF THIS THREAD. I fear that you might be on dangerous ground there, Guy. It would come as no surprise to me, to discover that Hammond actually DID have a certificate, to attest that he is safe/sane enough to be allowed out on his own.
From: Guy Svenhardt on 26 Mar 2005 15:03 "Dubh Ghall" <puck(a)pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message news:arla41lh76ep2etu9tpd69c69rg771et97(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:27:24 GMT, "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> [Hammond] > >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: > >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: > >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: > >> CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD: > >> > > > >CITE A PSYCHIATRIST WHO HAS EXAMINED YOU AND WILL ATTEST TO YOUR SANITY > >OR GET OFF OF THIS THREAD. > > > I fear that you might be on dangerous ground there, Guy. > > It would come as no surprise to me, to discover that Hammond actually DID have a > certificate, to attest that he is safe/sane enough to be allowed out on his own. Even the most incompetent psychiatrist would be able to recognize such an obvious psychotic as hammond.
From: George Hammond on 26 Mar 2005 16:32 "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:rWh1e.1424$vd.481(a)tornado.tampabay.rr.com... > > > > But here's the question: If brain growth deficit is indicated by human > growth deficit, and Jesus was fully grown, does that mean he was a > giant? Help me out here, George. > > Gary Eickmeier [Hammond] Glad to see you are still capable of original thought. You are correct that: "the brain growth deficit is indicated by the human growth deficit" I congratulate you on that monumental piece of scientific learning. First... a "fully grown man" would only be 5 or 6 inches taller than we are, and only have an IQ of say 15 or 20 points higher than ours. this man would of course be "God in the flesh" as the Bible puts it. Supposedly, Jesus WAS "God in the flesh"... but we know scientifically that is impossible because of the Secular Trend... however there is NO DOUBT that he was a far above average physical specimen (probably looked like Elvis Presley for instance).. this is evidenced by the fact that he could stand and preach a controversial doctrine to huge crowds without getting stoned to death. and the fact that he appeared before Kings, Chief priests, Roman governors etc. The POINT IS, that by public acclaim, he was ELECTED to "play the role of God in the flesh" (Son of God so called) and he certainly played the role admirably and threfore passed into history as the world's most famous person... and remains so to this day. Yawn.... ==================================== 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 26 Mar 2005 16:50
<apieceofstring(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111828947.150138.63920(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > [String] > 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". > [String] > So where is God in that analogy? Is he the gunsmith? Boot hill? > The small twitch? [Hammond] God is higher speed. > [String] > 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. > [String] > I don't get it. > > Say I watch a ball roll downhill at 10 frames per second... and my > friend watches it at 20 frames per second. If there was an "invisible > world" for me, it doesn't seem like a very exciting invisible world; in > the in-between times, the ball was just at in-between places -- as my > friend can verify. I can even predict the position accurately with some > simple math. What's special about the invisible part? [Hammond] Hey.... you're TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!! 1. Suppose you were ONLY PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of SEEING 10 indiviual frames per second as "individual pictures"... but your friend was PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of seeing 20 frames a second as "individual pictures". 2. Then OBVIOUSLY his mind is 2 TIMES FASTER than yours when it comes to "seeing visual reality"..... TWICE as fast as yours! 3. THEREFORE: He is capable of seeing "twice as much of reality as you are". If you can't understand that... I suggest you go back and try to get your GED. <snip rest.... you really can't expect me to answer 150 lines of amateur confusion when you don't even understand what is being talked about!> ==================================== 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 =================================== |