GOD, RELATIVITY & THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
in [Relativity]
|
From: John Stafford on 12 Nov 2009 17:50 Speaking of Sokal http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html Skip down to the mathematics: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins_img1.gif Perhaps John Jones would appreciate it. I'm laughing so hard...
From: Dr. HotSalt on 12 Nov 2009 18:23 On Nov 10, 1:08 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:18:16 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt" > > > > <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 8, 3:29 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:09:29 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt" > > >> <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 7, 10:00 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.net> wrote: > > >> >> Not to worry Toots, I keep several identical mirror sites in > >> >> operation at all times with independent ISP's so I CAN'T be > >> >> shut down, ever: > > >> > Good. I think I warned you about that some time ago. > > >> [Hammond] > >> With all due respect, the day you need to warn me will > >> be the day hell freezes over. my website not only has > >> multiple mirror copies in operation 24-7-365, I also have > >> every square inch of the website backed up on DVDs, flash > >> drives and hard drives and online storage. Think about it > >> for Christ's sake; what do you think the guy who's > >> discovered and published the world's first scientific proof > >> of God knows about danger? don't be ridiculous! > > > I warned you against trying to get recognition and assistance > >spreading word about the SPOG from existing religious institutions but > >you went ahead and tried anyway. How did that work out for you again? > > [Hammond] > How many times do I have to tell you? You're not in a > position to warn me about anything. you just fancy that > you'd like to be.... sorry, amateurs that have nothing to > say on topic about the theory do not automatically get > promoted to executive adviser as a booby prize. Uh huh. Specifically, I warned you that trying to get religious and psych institutions involved would go badly because they would view you as an outsider (Not Invented Here effect), would actively work against you because you offered them nothing that thought they wanted or needed, and worse, offered a complete explanation of their fields that exposed them as trivial derivations of something they could not have imagined; the SPOG. But you went ahead and did it anyway. I point out that it did not go well, as I predicted. You have demonstrated your failure to learn from your mistakes by doing it again per your post in the alt.sci hierarchy, bringing yourself to the attention to another psych "expert". If you insist on pissing your time away doing that sort of thing, so be it, but don't pretend it will ever have positive results. But that's not, as you say, on topic. From reading the post with which you started this thread, the topic is your ego, which is understandable as you are in your manic phase. DO NOT mistake my words as criticism or mockery; they are intended as dispassionate observation. They are quite relevant as well. You are in a unique position to investigate the utility of the SPOG to the study and remediation of "abnormal psychology" re your obviously misnamed "manic-depressive disorder" *from the inside*. Your opportunity is unique because you are the first person so positioned to be armed with the proper tool for the investigation, the SPOG. Consider that one's instantaneous mental state can be mapped as a locus of points (not a single point; the mind's function depends on the interrelationship of several semi-independent modules of the brain) specifiable by coordinates on the PEN axes (or a projected set of axes yielding different "primary characteristics"- BTW you need a SPOG-specific name for these axes that explicitly includes the idea that they can be rotated/projected to reveal all other claimed "fundamental" sets). Yes, I know this is fundamental, but bear with me. I said "instantaneous" because one's mental state is ordinarily fairly stable though easily shifted by external stimuli, and somewhat less easily by internal effort. Mental states will ordinarily shift more or less smoothly from one to another due to such things as holiday-themed advertising, whether one's stomach is full or empty, and so on. They can change dramatically due to a sudden flood of adrenaline, for example, or due to so-called "chemical imbalances in the brain"- so-called by psychiatrists and other witch doctors, that is. Nonetheless they will return to a "normal" equilibrium at some individual-specific locus after the stimulus ends. This locus will be roughly circular meaning one's mental state goes from introverted to extroverted and from anxious to satiated, but out of phase, generating a rough torus in "PEN space". In "PEN-space" frinst you are currently slightly positive on the P axis, very positive on the E axis, and slightly positive on the N axis. In your "depressed" state you will be slightly negative on the P axis, negative on the E axis, and near zero on the N axis. But you will not make a sudden jump, nor will you make a smooth transition; rather the two states more closely resemble widely- separated points on the upper parts of the two branches of the classic Lorentz attractor from Chaos theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenz_attractor_yb.svg you might notice each loop comprises many subloops; I noticed the subloops' resemblance to sets of quantum states long ago but never bothered to develop the idea. It is now obvious that resemblance applies to the SPOG; any person's mental state can be traced by such a trajectory. Such a development will require intensive investment of time and effort by someone with the requisite mathematical background (not me) and the requisite interest and determination (perhaps you?). It will reap huge returns on that investment though, replacing all religions and the pseudosciences of psychology and its relatives with something that will actually allow people to master their own minds. > [Hammond] > The day I become collateral damage will be the day hell > freezes over, are you kidding. I'm already the target, > you're the one who's risking collateral damage just by > sitting therer and trying to talk to me about nothing and > demonstrating to really perverse people that you have no > idea whatsoever who you're taking to or what you're talking > about. By doing that you're a sitting duck for any Internet > sleaze who is smart enough to actually know I am and what > this is about. Trust me on this George, I don't give advice I haven't already test- driven. As for other participants in this thread, don't be too hard on the kibologists, they're Masters of Mockery as a high art form, and you're lots of fun to play with in your current phase. The other groups, well, what can you expect but perceived-threat- response hostility? > > You had to "take courses" to get your degrees. I see you've cycled > >back into your arrogant-manic mode. Careful what it makes you say. ;>) > > [Hammond] > quit being stupid. I enrolled in accredited universities > in Massachusetts and took 2 degrees in theoretical physics > just like every other physicist does. I've told you that a > bazillion times and my CV is posted prominently on my > website to prove it. > As for arrogance and rudeness you don't even know the > half of it.... just by sitting there arrogantly trying to > engage me in a discussion of high school level computer > science and having no idea what this discussion is about > physiciswise is insulting to begin with. Wake up, it's so > painfully obvious that you have no idea who you're talking > to or what you're talking about that it is ludicrous. There's so much to say that I distill my words to the bare minimum. I keep forgetting they don't decompress in your mind like a zip file; I have to point out implications etc. > >> What amazes me is that you've been talking to me for 10 > >> years and you still don't know why am! > > > I know who you are. > > [Hammond] > Yeah we already know what you know and what you don't know! Sure about that? > Unfortunately you have neither the credentials, education or > peer revfiewed publications to back it up We've already discussed the true "value" of scholarly degrees; I ask you yet again- of what value is a degree in a field that the SPOG shows to be bogus at its core? Of what value is a degree conferred by those dumber than the recipient? No matter. I didn't reply to you for ego-competing or -stroking. I want you to succeed, but _you_ must first decide what success means. In your case I think it does not mean the world recognizing the Great George [HAMMOND] as the long-awaited Savior (Obama's got that nailed for the moment anyway) but instead the overthrow of standard psychology and all its related fields, really, all of human culture, whether you get credit in your lifetime or posthumously. Such a revolution will require you to gain allies from the _mavericks_ in the fields most directly impacted by the SPOG, namely the various psych- fields, politics, religion, and of course the hard sciences, not from the "names" in those fields because as you have seen they (think they) have nothing to gain and everything to lose. To do that you MUST show that the SPOG has replicable hands-on utility that NO OTHER system can offer. I am basically posting to suggest that you, in the spirit of the pioneers in all fields of knowledge, use yourself as a test subject. Analyze your OWN mind, suss out its "defects" (no, I don't mean BGD) and determine how to "fix" them WITHOUT drugs or surgery, then DO SO. That will get people sitting up and paying attention. Otherwise you might as well resign yourself to the role of Usenet clown. IMO there are enough of those already. Mark L. Fergerson (AKA Dr. HotSalt)
From: M Otis Beard on 12 Nov 2009 20:36 George, you'd better stop checking out the space-time curvature on five-year-olds, or you're going to be doing your hypothesizing from the inside of a jug. -A. Criminal Heckler, DDS
From: M Otis Beard on 13 Nov 2009 00:21 On Nov 11, 10:30 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.net> wrote: > > Wake up dimwit, I'm not competent, the establishment is. HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW HAW
From: Bryce Utting on 13 Nov 2009 06:54
George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: >>>> Wake up dimwit, I'm not incompetent, the establishment is. >>> >>> >>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA > >>I wonder if he means legally competent. I think you missed out the BWA at >>the start of that heckle. >> > [Hammond] > Don't invite hecklers. I'm not here to carry on off-topic > discussion. oh, pish and tosh: heckling [HAMMOND] is on-topic anywhere. besides, heckling is the one true peer-review. if your theories can't survive a little heckling, best look for new theories. butting -- http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting 'Tis the fell work of the international floating-head-missile-zombie- erupting-tentacle cartel. -- John D Salt |