On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:56:00 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:




Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?



[Hammond]
WRONG..... there IS NO ILLUSION.....!!!!
Our lack of growth creates a REAL GOD, the actual God of the
Bible. It has nothing to do with "thinking"it has to do
with actual "SEEING".


[Doug, alleged PhD physicist, SPOG skeptic]
So this means that the christians have slower reflexes than
the hindus and buddhists?


[Hammond]
WRONG.... obviously..... Unicef, WHOI and academic
research has well documented the fact that the SECULAR TREND
GROWTH DEFICIT is much larger in Third World countries than
it is in the Chrisitian West..... which literally means that
"God, Heaven and the invisible world" are LARGER in the 3rd
World than they are in the Christian West.
That however, means that the wrath of God is much greater
towards the irreponsible Christians who sit by while the 3rd
World starves to death.


By the way...... you're a fast study and a plain
speaker.... I know PdD physicists who see less than you do
and can't even talk!
=====================================
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
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:13:30 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:32:52 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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?
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.
[Michael Moroney, heckler]
Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high frequencies
decreases with age.



[Hammond]
Irrelevant heckler trivia. The next thing he'll do is
start posting about Flickker Fusion Frequency whaich has
NOTHING to do with it.
The following has been well researched and documented:

http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html#_edn1
"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)."

Obviously from this well known data which is common
knowlege in the movie industry since the time of Thomas
Edison, a child cn only see 1/3 of the moving reality that
is visible to an adult. 2/3's OF REALITY IS INVISBLE !
Just like half of "dog world" is INAUDIBLE to a human being.
Go back to school moron. This is cut and dried science.

[John Smith, SPOG critic]
It is controversial claims, NOT "cut and dried science".


[Hammond]
Horse****..... the linear variation of the PFF with
childhood growth, just like IQ, has been common knowlege
known and documented for 75 years.

[Doug, alleged physicist, SPOG critic]
So? It still has nothing to do with a god.


[Hammond]
Stop playing dumb. Obviously the PFF is the Fourier
Cutoff frequency of the human detection of visual motion,
and it WELL KNOWN to vary linearly with Human Growth.
Ergo, since the Secular Trend in Human Growth shows that
the average person only reaches about 80% of full growth;
20% of REALITY is INVISIBLE to the average person!
Clearly this constitutes an INVISBLE WORLD which is
exactly what Religion has been claiming for thousands of
years.
Furthermore, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out
that a fully grown human (of which theire are none) would be
ABLE to see 100% of reality, this person is called "GOD"
historically. QED, a scientific explanation of God has been
discovered.
AND REMEMBER, the evidence from the PFF is only
ELEMENTARY EVIDENCE which bozo's like you are able to
discuss, the SOPHISTICATED AND DEFINITIVE PROOF comes
from100 years of published Psychometry eigenvector structure
which proves that invisibility is caused by a EINSTEINIAN
CURVATURE of subjective spacetime, of course THAT is BEYOND
your puny scientific capacity.... you can't even understand
how a dog whistle works, never mind the "invisible world".
=====================================
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
=====================================
=====================================
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
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:27:59 -0400, TMG
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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?
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.
[Michael Moroney, heckler]
Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high frequencies
decreases with age.



[Hammond]
Irrelevant heckler trivia. The next thing he'll do is
start posting about Flickker Fusion Frequency whaich has
NOTHING to do with it.
The following has been well researched and documented:

http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html#_edn1
"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)."

Obviously from this well known data which is common
knowlege in the movie industry since the time of Thomas
Edison, a child cn only see 1/3 of the moving reality that
is visible to an adult. 2/3's OF REALITY IS INVISBLE !

No, no, no. You keep making the mistaken leap, and you ignore the fact
that it's been pointed out MANY times.

The effect you are describing relates to the point that various subjects
perceive flickering static pictures "merge" into the illusion of motion.
You are leaping to the erroneous conclusion that this means that
there is some sort of information lost.

AGAIN, the experiments show ONLY that apparent motion of flashing static
images convert at different rates, NO information is lost, no matter the
apparent conversion rate.

This is stressed AT LENGTH by Siegfried Lehrl and Kristian Gerst Meyer -
they were focused (mostly) on physical science related to the eye
(mostly the lens), but extensively reworked earlier thoughts.

If, as you claim, you know Lehrl "personally" you should keep up.



[Hammond]
NO...... the problem is you're another half baked phony
PhD physicist who has a degree in some lame brain applied
physics field, in your case "ocean physics" whatever the
hell that is.
I suggest you talk to "Doug" who is apparently another
half baked PhD physicist who is also an aggravated SPOG
critic. Sheesh....
Point is, you don't even know enough physics to realize
that the "PFF" is the FOURIER SPECTRUM CUTOFF FREQUENCY of
the human visual system's ability to perceive motion.
You don't know what a Fourier Frequency Spectrum of a
time varying function is, and you are not aware of what
happens if you put a high frequency filter in the line and
CUTOFF all the high frequency components. so I’ll TELL YOU
what the effect is, it causes all fast motion in the field
to become a BLUR.... to become INVISIBLE if it's fast
enough. turns out that filter is you're "intelligence" and
intelligence varies DIRECTLY with growth.
Now that's basic physics, and obviously the "PFF" is
simply a direct way to quantitatively MEASURE the CUTOFF
FREQUENCY in any individual.
You don't know what you're talking about!
=====================================
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
=====================================

On 6 May, 03:17, "John Smith" wrote:
"Roger Pearse" wrote in message

...
On 5 May, 12:58, "John Smith" wrote:

"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong ...

Although I don;t recall where it is; there is a web page showing all the
false and insane claims George has made (which pretty much includes
everything he's ever posted or written).

That's the sort of thing we need, written calmly and sensibly.

Well, I don't understand what George's theory is. But I don't learn
from any of these posts here what it is either.

What I do see is that all the posts which are critical of it (and him
-- surely irrelevant?) are no more than what George called
'heckling'.

The only valid point someone has made in defense of George was something
like "it's not nice to make fun of, and tease, the mentally
retarded."

While true, I haven't seen anybody make a valid point *against* George
yet.

There have been many; maybe you just weren't paying attention.
Most start out making valid points against what George claims - but they
soon find out that George is just an ignorant moron making the same crap
claims over and over again.

How about the latest - where George fraudulently cites his 40 year old CVs
as validation of his claims, then attacks someone who has a Ph.D. because
they aren't as smart (as he)?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I note that you have written your comments in such a manner as to make
it seem that the above remarks are by me. They are not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:27:59 -0400, TMG
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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?
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.
[Michael Moroney, heckler]
Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high frequencies
decreases with age.



[Hammond]
Irrelevant heckler trivia. The next thing he'll do is
start posting about Flickker Fusion Frequency whaich has
NOTHING to do with it.
The following has been well researched and documented:

http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html#_edn1
"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)."

Obviously from this well known data which is common
knowlege in the movie industry since the time of Thomas
Edison, a child cn only see 1/3 of the moving reality that
is visible to an adult. 2/3's OF REALITY IS INVISBLE !
No, no, no. You keep making the mistaken leap, and you ignore the fact
that it's been pointed out MANY times.

The effect you are describing relates to the point that various subjects
perceive flickering static pictures "merge" into the illusion of motion.
You are leaping to the erroneous conclusion that this means that
there is some sort of information lost.

AGAIN, the experiments show ONLY that apparent motion of flashing static
images convert at different rates, NO information is lost, no matter the
apparent conversion rate.

This is stressed AT LENGTH by Siegfried Lehrl and Kristian Gerst Meyer -
they were focused (mostly) on physical science related to the eye
(mostly the lens), but extensively reworked earlier thoughts.

If, as you claim, you know Lehrl "personally" you should keep up.



[Hammond]
NO...... the problem is you're another half baked phony
PhD physicist who has a degree in some lame brain applied
physics field, in your case "ocean physics" whatever the
hell that is.
I suggest you talk to "Doug" who is apparently another
half baked PhD physicist who is also an aggravated SPOG
critic. Sheesh....
Point is, you don't even know enough physics to realize
that the "PFF" is the FOURIER SPECTRUM CUTOFF FREQUENCY of
the human visual system's ability to perceive motion.
You don't know what a Fourier Frequency Spectrum of a
time varying function is, and you are not aware of what
happens if you put a high frequency filter in the line and
CUTOFF all the high frequency components. so I’ll TELL YOU
what the effect is, it causes all fast motion in the field
to become a BLUR.... to become INVISIBLE if it's fast
enough. turns out that filter is you're "intelligence" and
intelligence varies DIRECTLY with growth.
Now that's basic physics, and obviously the "PFF" is
simply a direct way to quantitatively MEASURE the CUTOFF
FREQUENCY in any individual.
You don't know what you're talking about!

Lehrl and Gerst Meyer clearly and specifically say you're flat out wrong.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:53:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Michael Moroney wrote:
George Hammond writes:

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?
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.

Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high frequencies
decreases with age. Google "mosquito ringtone" to see how kids take
advantage of this in schools and elsewhere.

[Doug, alleged physicist, SPOG heckler]
Maybe that means that god is a very young person when he listens to
things and a very old one when he watches things. That cannot be
right though since light travels faster than sound.


[Hammond]
Don't be ridiculous. You've been told a thousand times
that children are only an EXEMPLAR of the effect that
actually causes "God" in the population, and that is the
Secular Trend in Human Growth, which causes the average
person in the human population to only reach about 80% of
full growth...... and this is WHY there is a "God". Stupid
huckster.

Unsupported (insane, psychotic and unscientific) assertion ............
where's the EVIDENCE, ********??????

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:37:05 GMT, "John Smith"

[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
No.
When was yours tested?
By whom?
Where is their report?
Where is this "evidence" that connects earlier work to supporting your
spoc


[Hammond]
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in the bibliography.

You did not answer THE question!
What experiments DID YOU DO?
What evidence did YOU find? (valid - not your usual bull ****)
What connections (again, evidence) do YOU have that shows the previous
experiments are even relted to SPOC?

You HAVE none.
You have, delusionaly and fraudulently, LIED that these cites actually
support SPOC!


The
peer published papers are posted online and have been cited
1000 times.

and each timre it has been SHOWN that they are NOT "peer reviewed"
scientific papers!!!!!
(using quotes directly from the publishers and editors themselves!!!)


If you're too lazy to read it, that's YOUR
problem not mine. I don't runprivate tutorials for
hecklers. If you want to be a heckler, you'll have to do
your own reading.

You don't do anything but dance your psychotic two step pretending it's
science, and you're actually a scientist.


If you were more positive and cooperative I'd help you,
but I'm not gonna feed a heckler and loudmoth asshole with
private tutorials... remember.... you're the enemy, not an
ally.

I started out asking questions and posting rational, serious AND scientific
rebuttals.
You ignored them ... insulted me - and ran away!
As you ALWAYS do!


I'm the enemy of a totally psychotic, fraudulent, ignorant egomaniac?
That's fine with me.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:34:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:37:05 GMT, "John Smith"

[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
No.
When was yours tested?
By whom?
Where is their report?
Where is this "evidence" that connects earlier work to supporting your
spoc


[Hammond]
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in the bibliography.



[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
You did not answer THE question!


[Hammond]
Answered 10 times, you're repeating yourself heckler.


NEVER answered, liar!




[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
What experiments DID YOU DO?


[Hammond]
Hammond didn't do any experiments, Einstein didn't do any
experiments, and Dirac didn't do any experiments, we are not
experimentalists, dip****, we're theorists.

First thing, Einstein and Dirac did REAL scientific work.
You are not Einstein.
You are no Dirac.
You, and your bogus claims, cannot be compared, in ANY way, to either
scientist or the REAL and VALID scientific work THEY did.

Their thories, were tested BY OTHERS - even after their death.
They made predictions that WERE testable - even if they, themselves,
wouldn;t be around to test them.

You have NO ONE testing your crap - because everyone knows it's crap.

YOU, admittedly, have not tested it!

THEY show a connection between previous works, and their own.
You only bellow that these others are supportive of your claaims - but show
NO connection.

You CANNOT claim a "proof" on one hand, and call yourself a theorist on the
other. That is nothing more than egomaniacal fraud.

Apparently you know nothing about the difference between a theory and a
"proof"

Even as a theory, your crap is laughable.
Claimng it is a proof - only reflects your own insanity.

Ha! Some scientist!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:26:44 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:53:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Michael Moroney wrote:
George Hammond writes:

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?
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.

Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high
frequencies
decreases with age. Google "mosquito ringtone" to see how kids take
advantage of this in schools and elsewhere.

[Doug, alleged physicist, SPOG heckler]
Maybe that means that god is a very young person when he listens to
things and a very old one when he watches things. That cannot be
right though since light travels faster than sound.


[Hammond]
Don't be ridiculous. You've been told a thousand times
that children are only an EXEMPLAR of the effect that
actually causes "God" in the population, and that is the
Secular Trend in Human Growth, which causes the average
person in the human population to only reach about 80% of
full growth...... and this is WHY there is a "God". Stupid
huckster.

Unsupported (insane, psychotic and unscientific) assertion ............
where's the EVIDENCE, ********??????



[Hammond]
For the tenth time jackass, the eivdence is cited
meticulously by (author, year) in my peer published papers:
Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html


For the 100th time, **** for brains (posted by me and others) Those are NOT
"Scientific Peer reviewed journals".
Even THEY admit to that!

You have NEVER shown ANY connection between the works you cite - and the
crap you spew.
You have only added to the pile of horse **** you shovel!


I can claim "Pat Boone's singing of "Blue Suede Shoes" proves that I am god.
It means NOTHING unless I can show a VALID and SCIENTIFIC connection between
the two.

Were you a real scientist, you would recognize that!

On Tue, 06 May 2008 20:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:34:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:37:05 GMT, "John Smith"

[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
No.
When was yours tested?
By whom?
Where is their report?
Where is this "evidence" that connects earlier work to supporting your
spoc


[Hammond]
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in the bibliography.



[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
You did not answer THE question!


[Hammond]
Answered 10 times, you're repeating yourself heckler.

[Hammond]
I’ve answered your question dozens of times:
All the supporting evidence is cited by (author,year) in
my published papers and listed in their bibliographies.
Copies of the published papers are posted on my website.
Stop posting repetitive crap when it has been answered
dozens of times.


[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
NEVER answered, liar!





[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
What experiments DID YOU DO?


[Hammond]
Hammond didn't do any experiments, Einstein didn't do any
experiments, and Dirac didn't do any experiments, we are not
experimentalists, dip****, we're theorists.


[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
First thing, Einstein and Dirac did REAL scientific work.
You are not Einstein.
You are no Dirac.
You, and your bogus claims, cannot be compared, in ANY way, to either
scientist or the REAL and VALID scientific work THEY did.


[Hammoond]
WILD UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


[John Smith, wannabee SPOG critic]
Their thories, were tested BY OTHERS - even after their death.

[Hammond]
Hammond is not dead yet, sorry to disappoint you.


snip heckler crap
=====================================
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
=====================================