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 23 Mar 2005 16:02 George Hammond wrote: > "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in > message news:YpV%d.160879$FM3.26448(a)fed1read02... > > <snip juvenile c.s. tripe> <I have developed the habit of arguing with people on their highest level of comprehension, not _my_ highest level of comprehension> > ================================= > ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC > PROOF OF GOD > > > [Hammond] > OK, Einstein... let me give you a simple heuristic picture > that explains what God is, in TWO STEPS: Fergerson, not Einstein. Yeesh. > STEP ONE: > Take simple "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena > that makes moving picture films possible. > Do you know that 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 moving image (a 'movie'). > HOWEVER, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec > before it turns into a moving picture. In fact the speed moves > up linearly with age until you stop growing at adulthood, around 18. Yes, I am aware of the increase of rate of perception with age (which may also be related to practice; we find it easier to perceive certain things as we become more aware of them), as well as the falloff with the onset of old age (but that's irrelevant as it's linkable with pathologies associated with aging). I do not know if there was any investigation into differences between individuals in a given age cohort based on metabolic rate etc. As I mentioned, I'm what they used to call an ectomorph, and we tend to perceive faster than meso- and endomorphs. Do you know of any definitive correlation between body type and I.Q., other than anecdotal evidence that uber-geeks are either skinny or resemble marshmallows? > NOW... doesn't that tell you that "30% of reality is INVISIBLE" > to a 7 year old as compared to an adult! (i.e. (15-10)/15 = 30%) Would you care to similarly relate an individual's fractional awareness of total reality to I.Q. (by whatever method of testing)? > What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as > "reality".... 30% 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 grown people) can see! Hence for any two individuals, the one with the faster rate of perception perceives more of reality (has achieved the greatest percentage of total possible growth)? > 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. > Ok then, by the reasoning demonstrated in STEP ONE, this > means that "15% of 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% for instance. > Isn't it obvvious to you, Einstein, that this simple phenomena > of "reality difference based on terminal growth difference" > is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE > HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD? Well, George, isn't it equally obvious to you that since I consistently score much higher than do you on these tests, that I've achieved a greater percentage of our total growth potential, hence I perceive more of reality than do you, and that you should stop arguing with me, in particular should drop your habit of arrogantly disregarding what I say? Mark L. Fergerson
From: Mark Fergerson on 23 Mar 2005 16:09 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
From: Tim on 23 Mar 2005 16:16 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:Vlk0e.2236$z.926(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Tim" <qwery(a)qwerty.com> wrote in > message news:AuSdnaLAkrshlNzfRVn-iQ(a)aci.on.ca... > >> If your looking for CV's why not submit your 'scientific theory' to a >> reputable scientific journal? > > [Hammond] > Been there done that... citations below: > > STATE YOU CV OR GET OFF THIS THREAD! > Later Ham head I got bigger fish - saner fish to fry. Say hi to the Zergons for me and be sure to focus your physics genius on the vector-tensor matrix model of the torus - any donut will do. P.S. I noticed, in your picture, that your helmet is quite severely beaten up: do you fall of your motorbike and hit your head allot George? It would certainly explain some opinions I hold about you. > > ========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) > > > =====original Hammond target post================= > > ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC > PROOF OF GOD > > > [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!! > ==================================== > 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: cl on 23 Mar 2005 17:05 Mark Fergerson wrote: > > Well, George, isn't it equally obvious to you that since I > consistently score much higher than do you on these tests, that I've > achieved a greater percentage of our total growth potential, hence I > perceive more of reality than do you, and that you should stop arguing > with me, in particular should drop your habit of arrogantly disregarding > what I say? > > Mark L. Fergerson State your CV or get off this thread. Possibly his answer??? -CAL
From: George Hammond on 23 Mar 2005 17:20
"Don H" <donlhumphries(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:_Of0e.9185$C7.2490(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... [Hammond] Thanks Don for posting some rational comment... I know it takes much strength and bravery to do so when the kooks are screaming "Barabbas, Barabbas..." at the top of their lungs........ > [Don H] > Questions for George H: > (1) If "gravity controls brain function" what happens when astronauts go > where there is no gravity? [Hammond] God is NOT caused by terrestrial or cosmological gravity. This is the first scientific GAFFE which anyone makes who hasn't actually read the paper. God is caused by "brain gravity".. actually "Quantum Gravity" in the brain...... the STUNNING discovery, is that this quantum mechanism (whatever it is) EXPERIMENTALLY can be shown to cause a "classic curvature" in "subjectively seen spacetime" that indicates an "effective gravitational curvature" in "SEEN" spacetime. This is a PROVEN EXPERIMENTAL FACT... and the answer to "where is the gravity coming from" is that it is "most likely" Sir Roger Penrose's celebrated "Quantum Brain Gravity" that is causing it. > (2) If "Gravity causes God" then Levity, (the opposite of Gravity), causes > the Devil? [Hammond] In some sense this is true... on this wise: The "Devil" so called is in fact simply a "psychotic or sociopathic" person. Classically, a "psychotic" is a person who discovers the existence of God (the perceptual deficit) in others, but FAILS to recognize that it is in fact "God".... and in fact FAILS to recognized it in himself and believes that he is "getting away with something" and never realizes that because of this he is actually LOSING the game of "God" and ultimately cought in the pathetic position of "pretending to be something he actually IS... but doesn't know it". Ultimately this produces such frustration and rage that he becomes sociopathic.... a serial killer, murder, common criminals... etc. Jails and graveyards are full of them and have been for millenia. > (3) "the historical God of the Bible" - but in the Bible various gods are > mentioned, eg. Baal. I assume you consider the tribal deity of the > Israelites to be the "true" god, ie. God, and all others impostors? [Hammond] AGAIN... you have been too lazy to actually READ the theory you are talking about. The spog handily explains both Monotheism and Polytheism because of the (linear algebra-eigenvector) HIERARCHY of the Psychometric Factors of human Personality, to wit, it is easily demonstrated that: 30-1st order factors = 30 demigods of the Hindu and ancient religions 13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the Greco-Roman Pantheon 4-3rd order factors = 4 Gospel Saints of Christianity: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John 1-4th order factor = The God of Monotheism: God, Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Buddha, etc. (quoted from: http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s2.html Section VI) Yawn..... > (4) In comparing the Einstein universe of space-time with the Thurstone > psychometric system, aren't you committing the sin of "arguing by analogy"? [Hammond] NO... YOU ARE COMMITING THE SIN OF ARROGANT PRESUMPTION. It is NOT an "analogy"... that is merely your "amateur presumption" which turns out to be FALSE. The reason it is FALSE... is because a PHYSICALLY CAUSAL relationship exists between the dimension of real spacetime (XYZt) and the dimension of Psychometry space (ENPg). Again... ALL of these basic questions are THROUGHLY ANSWERED in my peer-published paper: http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html as has been said, repeated and reiterated over and over and over again to every newbie who has ever come down the pike. > (5) Of course, it is true that we can't have a brain without a body, and a > body without a universe; but does that prove a direct linkage, as per (4)? [Hammond] Naw... we don't need any such "handwaving amateur arguments" the connection is ROBUST, DIRECT, SIMPLE OVERWHELMING. Simply put: XYZt causes ENPg or: Real space PHYSICALLY CAUSES Psychometry space > (6) If the human species becomes extinct (quite likely within a few > decades), will God also become extinct? Or will God just start up another > brainy species on another planet somewhere? Or will another brainy species > start up another God somewhere? [Hammond] Yawn... the God of that species will disappear. Remember, the God of a man is a full grown man, the god of a horse is a full grown horse, the God of a Frog is a full grown frog. Therefore if frogs disappear, the God of a Frog disappears too, but not the God of the Giraffe's. > (7) Are Christian Scientist, Scientific Creationist, and Physicist Theist; > oxymorons? [Hammond] No... they are just people who know more about "Psychology" than you do.... specifically because they have a "need to know" and you don't. > (8) Why do you need to prove God exists, if it is so obvious that he/she/it > does exist? [Hammond] If it was so obvious.... we wouldn't have millions of people walking around asking each other: "do you believe in God"......... would we? > (9) If God did not exist would it be necessary to invent him? [Hammond] NO.... ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is sort of like asking, if poverty didn't exist, would we have to invent it"... of course not. "God" exists because of the unperfected (ungrown) nature of the human condition.. it is therefore a "natural biological fact". After the end of the "Secular Trend" god (in heaven) will in fact no longer exist (in fact neither will poverty).. and I'm SURE no one will want to go back in time to the ages when God (in heaven) did exist. After "Kingdom Come" God will exist in the flesh here on Earth (we will be God), in the meantime he exists only in the (ungrown) subconscious mind (known as 'heaven'). Yawn..... > (10) Is any proof "scientific" because it is mathematical, rational, or > empirical? - and subject to verification or falsification, independently of > authorship? [Hammond] Yes.... and that PRECISELY describes the SPOG. I suggest you actually READ IT and verify that fact for yourself: http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html 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 =================================== |