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: Brandon Loudermilk on 24 Mar 2005 00:02 Guy, you have offered considerable insight into the various falsifications/psychotic "thinking" paraded in "Hammond's" "Spog". You're time has not been wasted nor has your message fallen upon deaf ears. However, you must understand the entity referred to itself as "[Hammond]". This poor creature only believes that your "CV" can give you the power of "intelligent independant thought (or opinions)". You see, as a child (and, no, I do not intend to imply that "[Hammond]" is anything above a child) "[Hammond]" was taught that papers impart intelligence. Something that ingrained is almost impossible to change without "neuro-surgery", "anti-psychotics", and/or "intensive therapy". I find value in your assessment. And, speaking for other sentient beings on this forum, I applaud you. B
From: Rob Duncan on 24 Mar 2005 00:30 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:_Zp0e.6862$S46.5708(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Mark Fergerson" <nunya(a)biz.ness> wrote in message > news:BVk0e.174144$FM3.168639(a)fed1read02... >> 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 > > [Hammond] > WRONG. The first question in LIFE actually IS: > > Why am I such a loser.. and > who are all those winners? > And why do they all seem > superior to me.. even though > I know they're wrong and abusive? > > And the ANSWER to that is: > > You are not aware that you have > a "growth deficit" and therefore > you are NOT AWARE that those > people AREN'T who you think they > are.. and don't even look like you > think they do... the problem is > YOU CAN'T SEE REALITY! > > And THEN... is when you discover what 5-billion > people are talking about when they say the > word "GOD"!......... because THAT is what > "God" is........ the explanation of why YOU can't > see REALITY.... and WHY.... and what it really > looks like.... AND WHO THE BAD GUYS > REALLY ARE....... and why you can't SEE them > for who they really are. > And without knowing that....... YOU'RE DEAD MEAT, > or just plain LUCKY! > ==================================== So now your saying that your god is the difference between what you can see, and what you might be able to see had you better vision? So people who need glasses have really big god(s) and people with 20/15 vision have no god. Right? Can we see your god if we film everything in high speed frames and slow it down so our witto minds can comprehend? Are you saying its like when those people on Star Trek were moving so fast they were invisible and sounded like gnats? Like that? Rob > 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 24 Mar 2005 00:39 <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's why Jesus said "God quickens the flesh". And why God judges the "quick and the dead". And why God gives you life "more abundantly". > > Point A is a story illustrating that long reaction time can be > unhealthy. [Hammond] 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. > Point B is an alleged Proof of God. [Hammond] No my website (wch. includes my PEER-PUBLISHED papers) is the alleged proof of God. Why don't you read it? > > Is there any connection between point A and point B? [Hammond] I don't see any "A's and B's"... whaddaru talking 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 ===================================
From: Kamerynn on 24 Mar 2005 00:48 George Hammond wrote: > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in > message news:ER8%d.981$Vi3.793(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > [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. 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. > > 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: Mark Fergerson on 24 Mar 2005 00:58
George Hammond wrote: > "cl" <cluna(a)midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4241E928.593FD824(a)midsouth.rr.com... >>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 > [Hammond] > Yo.... state your CV Fergerson, or get off this thread! No, and no. Instead, I'll give you the opportunity to choose between your habitual arrogance and dispassionate intellectual honesty. I will not state my C.V. for the excellent reason that I have none. Now, your ego is driving you to seize what looks like the perfect excuse to sidestep responding to my quoted paragraph at the top of this post and gleefully announce that since I have no degrees, I'm not competent to read, much less hold an opinion on, your S.P.O.G. But that would be blatant intellectual dishonesty. You see, since according to the test you presented I am more intelligent than you are and hence according to you aware of more of Reality than are you, it makes absolutely no difference what degrees some institution might or might not have awarded me in recognition of successfully completing one or more of their programs, particularly since it's statistically unlikely that those who would be in a position to judge my competence would be at or above my I.Q. level. If raw intelligence has any positive correlation to the ability to comprehend a field of knowledge broadly and deeply enough to successfully complete degree courses in it, then no matter how many you have, and in what fields, you simply _could not ever_, regardless of holding degrees in them, achieve the equivalent comprehension of those fields I can in a much shorter time, even without the assistance of a University. In other words, _by your own criteria_, you cannot demonstrate your competence to analyze or rebut my criticisms. So here's your choice: You can ignore the fact that you've painted yourself into this corner; you can declare the I.Q. test you presented earlier to be invalid, then snip this post to its third line and reply that you'll respond to me no further merely because I hold no degrees. But dispassionate intellectual honesty will point out that if you continue to try to promulgate your S.P.O.G. on your own, it will, if it happens at all, take much longer than if you accept assistance from those more intelligent than yourself. Being passionate about getting the word out about what may indeed be the greatest scientific _and_ social discovery made to date is a fine thing, but placing your ego as its discoverer before refining, developing, and sharing it with humanity is mere selfishness. So, there's the grounds for your choice. How's _your_ humility these days, George? Will you make the hard choice and accept help developing your S.P.O.G. and its broader applications, or take the easy route of assuaging your ego and continue to go it alone? Mark L. Fergerson |