George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:52:12 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:11:53 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?
[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
And that proves god?
[Hammond]
You bet your ass it does, and the faster you find out
about it the less egg you'll wind up with on your face.
[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid.
No. This is not true.
[Hammond]
You don't know your ass fom your elbow.
In this world famous paper (I know Lehrl personally) you
will fined halfway through it the following statment:
"By a similar method, called ‘picture fusion’, Riedel (1966)
demonstrated that the time shortens as children mature. By
this method, which is explained in the next section, he
investigated children from 7 years (10 frames/s) onward to
15 years (15 frames/s).
It is remarkable that critical flicker fusion (30-50 Hz)
has nothing to do with the picture fusion (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 has virtually no correlation with
intelligence."
This fundamental fact, that trhe PFF (frames/sec)
increases linearly with age in children, and linearly with
IQ (mental speed) in adults, is a well known and well
documented fact and has been known in the movie industry for
decades.
You don't know what you're tlking about.
[Doug, physics pretender, SPOG heckler]
I never said that fusion frequency was not true,
[Hammond]
Well that saves us all some precious time doesn't it
heckler?
[Doug, physics pretender, SPOG heckler]
I said it
had nothing to do with your claim. You carefully snipped the
explanation of what was said. You are being very dishonest
in your editing of posts that show you to be wrong. You are
afraid to confront the truth.
[Hammond]
The only truth is that you're a lazy arrogant horse's ass
and a heckler.
When you have no facts, you have to resort to insults and
dishonesty.
FYI, the leadership of the world (which you don't belong
to) have known for thousands of years that poorly developed
people cannot "see" reality as well as highly developed
people, which is WHY highly developed people are in
leadership positions in the first place.
Therefore blind people are poorly developed?
Today, the scientific explanation, measurement and PROOF
of this has been found, and it is most directly demonstrated
by the variation of PFF vs. growth.
You're supposed to be a PhD physicist, then surely you
know what a FOURIER FREQUENCY SPECTRUM is, and if so you
should realize that the PFF is a direct measure of the
FOURIER JSPECTRUM CUTOFF FREQUENCY of the Fourier
Transformed spectrum of VISUAL MOVEMENT in the human visual
field. If that cutoff frequency (PFF) is 50% less for one
person compared to another person, then that person sees
HALF THE MOTION of reality that the other person sees.
This is not true. When you do the fourier transform of the
view of the real world, you get a spectrum of the motion.
With varying cutoff frequencies in this domain, the retransformed
image can be seen to have been affected. However, the
amount of high frequency spectral content in the transform
for our normal world situations is very low. This is why
mpeg video compression works well. Most changes in our
views happen slowly. Thus someone who sees things 50%
slower may still see 99% of the scene contents or more.
The picture of a rock on the ground is the same for
everyone.
The fusion frequency has developed through evolution to be
adequate for our world. Attaching any further significance
to it is pure speculation.
Also, since you cannot see the blades of an airplane engine
when it is running, does this mean that the blades are
god? Or does it mean that engine that drives the propellers
is god?
Now, if you can't understand that simple effect
(identical in all respects to the audio dog whistle version
of the effect), then you are a COMPLETE FAKE as to your
claims of being a PhD physicist.
This analogy you have made explains why no one can see god
when they are young and no one can hear him when they are
old. Maybe he needs to talk to the kids (slowly) and
hold up signs (in large print) for the older people.
FURTHERMORE, it is obvious that this MAJOR EFFECT in
vision, causes what can be called and INVISIBLE WORLD for
some people, since this part of reality is nothing but a
BLUR to them. This blurred and invisible world is
historically referred to as HEAVEN.
So a spinning propeller is heaven? Somehow I though it
would be a nicer place.
SCREW, YOU'RE A FAKE PHYSICIST.
I know it bothers you that I did not fail graduate school
like you did but that is the way it is.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================