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: George Hammond on 22 Mar 2005 22:52 "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ve50e.526$zl.165(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > news:5Z40e.1551$z.617(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:4500e.418$zl.213(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > news:Q8Z%d.1826$S46.843(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > > > > message news:gXM%d.137$zl.104(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:UKM%d.825$z.241(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. > > > > > > > Reflexes reflect processing speed. And to be fair, > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on > the > > > > > subject > > > > > > see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html > > > > > > > > > > > > say that (page 6): > > > > > > > > > > > > "It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 > Hz) > > > > > > has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency > > > > > > (mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this > was > > > > > > demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985). > > > > > > Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture > > > fusion > > > > > > is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to > > > > > > Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion > > > frequency > > > > > > has virtually NO correlation with intelligence." > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your > > > > > > hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence > > > > > > (which is also a very old proven experimental fact). Most of > > > > > > what you are describing with a Cheetah is "reflex" reaction, > > > > > > not "intelligence" reaction. Same with a Hummingbird beating > > > > > > it's wings at 100 Hz.... it has NOTHING to do with > "intelligence"; > > > > > > ...which is "infomation processing in the brain in bits/sec". > > > > > > And HUMANS have the all time highest rate for THAT... > > > > > > (15 bits/sec) which is WHY we are the world's most intelligent > > > > > > animal. > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling your hand off a hot object is a BACKBONE associative > nerve > > > > > reflex and has NOTHING TO DO with processing by the brain, so > your > > > > > analogy is COMPLETELY FALSE. > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > That's correct.... that's what I JUST SAID! "reflex speed" has > > > NOTHING > > > > to do with intelligence, ergo... a hummingbird is NOT more > intelligent > > > > than a person. duncan is just trying to be cute. > > > > > > He's obviously and futilely trying to show you that your means of > > > measure is grossly lacking by demonstrating the absurdity of its > > > application. Only you would interpret what he wrote as claiming that > > > hummingbirds are more intelligent than people (He's MOCKING you!). > > > > [Hammond] > > Between the two of you there isn't enough brain power > > to mock me. > > Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep > spewing non-sense. [Hammond] CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD DROOLING PIECE OF SCUM! ========Hammond's CV============== B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USA (Deans List) M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USA Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ. Boston MA Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU Peer reviewed publications: Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press. Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press) ==================================== 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 =================================== > > AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm > >
From: Guy Svenhardt on 22 Mar 2005 23:07 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:vK50e.1599$z.310(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:ve50e.526$zl.165(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:5Z40e.1551$z.617(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:4500e.418$zl.213(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > > news:Q8Z%d.1826$S46.843(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > > > > > message news:gXM%d.137$zl.104(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:UKM%d.825$z.241(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. > > > > > > > > Reflexes reflect processing speed. And to be fair, > > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on > > the > > > > > > subject > > > > > > > see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say that (page 6): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 > > Hz) > > > > > > > has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency > > > > > > > (mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this > > was > > > > > > > demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985). > > > > > > > Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture > > > > fusion > > > > > > > is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to > > > > > > > Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion > > > > frequency > > > > > > > has virtually NO correlation with intelligence." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your > > > > > > > hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence > > > > > > > (which is also a very old proven experimental fact). Most of > > > > > > > what you are describing with a Cheetah is "reflex" reaction, > > > > > > > not "intelligence" reaction. Same with a Hummingbird beating > > > > > > > it's wings at 100 Hz.... it has NOTHING to do with > > "intelligence"; > > > > > > > ...which is "infomation processing in the brain in bits/sec". > > > > > > > And HUMANS have the all time highest rate for THAT... > > > > > > > (15 bits/sec) which is WHY we are the world's most intelligent > > > > > > > animal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling your hand off a hot object is a BACKBONE associative > > nerve > > > > > > reflex and has NOTHING TO DO with processing by the brain, so > > your > > > > > > analogy is COMPLETELY FALSE. > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > That's correct.... that's what I JUST SAID! "reflex speed" has > > > > NOTHING > > > > > to do with intelligence, ergo... a hummingbird is NOT more > > intelligent > > > > > than a person. duncan is just trying to be cute. > > > > > > > > He's obviously and futilely trying to show you that your means of > > > > measure is grossly lacking by demonstrating the absurdity of its > > > > application. Only you would interpret what he wrote as claiming that > > > > hummingbirds are more intelligent than people (He's MOCKING you!). > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > Between the two of you there isn't enough brain power > > > to mock me. > > > > Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep > > spewing non-sense. > > > [Hammond] > CITE YOUR CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD > DROOLING PIECE OF SCUM! > > ========Hammond's CV============== > > B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute > Worcester MA, USA (Deans List) > M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University, > Boston MA, USA > Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68 > Northeastern Univ. Boston MA > Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at > N.U. who is now a Distinguished Professor at TAMU > > Peer reviewed publications: > > Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in > New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 > Pergamon Press. > Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God > Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press) > What a pathetic excuse for a life you have. Aren't you embarrassed that you've accomplished absolutely nothing? Keep spewing your drivel. 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. 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."
From: Guy Svenhardt on 22 Mar 2005 23:11 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:CP50e.1606$z.617(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:6o50e.531$zl.371(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:I_40e.1552$z.91(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > "Tim" <qwery(a)qwerty.com> wrote in > > > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpXWC93fRVn-qw(a)aci.on.ca... > > > > > > get off this thread > > > > > > 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: Lady Chatterly on 22 Mar 2005 23:28 In article <ve50e.526$zl.165(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Guy Svenhardt <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep >spewing non-sense. Every part of the internet. -- Lady Chatterly "Lady Chatterly's a bot?" -- Larry
From: Rob Duncan on 22 Mar 2005 23:24
"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou(a)spro.net> wrote in message news:haj041taegcht6aecbali4mjochfce2ikq(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:04:53 -0800, "Rob Duncan" > <robduncan(a)gbronline.com> wrote: > >> >>Maybe you dont understand. People understand what youre saying. Its that >>they feel you are wrong. How can the difference between what is (reality) >>and what isnt (full potential) be considered a god? How does this >>difference (your god) have poweres? From where did it aquire powers? >> >>And besides, youre wrong, millions of people grow into their full >>potential >>every year. With a good diet and proper education I cant imagine why you >>think they couldnt/wouldnt/dont. Its normal to grow to ones full >>potential, >>not rare. > > Would that full potential include the ability to find and use the > apostrophe key? The dumbass test has caught another. Ive Multiple Sclerosis, I dont feel or operate that side of my right hand well. Its as good as it gets. So I dont bother using them unless theres an actual point to it, or to avoid misunderstandings in words. The need to comment on it puts you, among others, in the drawing for the grand-prize. Congrats, youve discovered your peer group. Enjoy them if you can. Rob |