George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 05:53:49 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 18:23:00 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

[Hammond]
IQ in adults is directly
proportioanal to PFF since both are simply a measure of
mental speed in bits/sec.
[Doug, PhD heckler]
So blind people are dumb? You cannot measure their fusion
rate and, since they have not been trained, it would not
be good. Or are you just saying they are more religious?



[Hammond]
This is an example of why you are a fraudulent science
PhD claimant.
PFF is only ONE WAY to measure "mental speed" in humans,
which is known to be, btw, 16 bits/sec in normal average
adults. this happens to explain why early movies were shot
at 16 frames/second but is true irregardless of wether you
are blind or not as any COMPETENT high school graduate would
know.
You're an incompetent moron, but beyond that you're an
aggravated psychotic heckler which makes it a sheer delight
to bootf''''k you all over Usenet.

[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
So George has a theory that goes like this.

1. Different people are able to see motion at different rates.
Things will blur at different rates for different people.


[Hammond]
Crudely correct statement. Congratulations dimwit

[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
2. Therefore this proves there is a god.


[Hammond]
Again correct statement. However you have left out the
evidence that proves WHY this effect proves "God",
apparently because you are too incompetent and disinterested
to actually read the theory, and because of the vast lacunae
in your general education.

There was no proof to leave out. You just leaped to that
conclusion because you wanted to get to that conclusion
independent of the facts. That is not how science is done.



[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
These two statements are not connected in any way.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
due to the fact that the heckler has not actually READ the
theory or is simply UNABLE to understand it because of
educational ignorance.

[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
He is just assuming that if something is blurry or unseen, it must be
his god.


[Hammond]
BLATANT LIE.
In fact the published theory shows that ALL 20 CLAIMED
PHENOMENA of Religion are proven and explained by this and
other physics structure of the theory... all of which are
simply IGNORED by the heckler. The central achievement of
the SPOG is in fact to PROVE that this invisibility CAUSES
the phenomena of God.

This statement totally ignores the facts. You have made this
wild speculation and just assumed you were right. Your spog
just shows that you have no connection with reality.



One simply has to be aware that this poster is HIGHLY
IGNORANT, HIGHLY AGGRAVATED, AND HIGHLY INCOMPETENT.
AND IS A TYPICAL "PSYCHOTIC HECKLER".

So pointing out your mistakes is not appreciated by you?
If you want to be a scientist, you should welcome this.
But, then again, you are not a scientist.


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
His "theory" predicts that high speed cameras and all flash
cameras are capable of seeing his god since they can stop
motion at higher rates than a person can see. The cameras
do not so there is no evidence for his "theory".



[Hammond]
This CANARD has been discussed a million times by Hammond
and thoroughly debunked.
"SLO-MO" and ZOOM LENS will not and CAN NOT reproduce the
effect on reality seen by a person with changed mental
speed. The fundamental reason for this is that our
identification of OTHER PEOPLE'S IDENTITY is based on our
own mental speed and our estimate (identification) of
others' mental speed (identity recognition). This means
that if your mental speed were to change then everybody
ELSE'S identity would suddenly change also. OTOH, filming a
person and then slo-mo-ing the film only makes it look like
the SAME PERSON is "moving slowly"...... there is a WORLD OF
DIFFERENCE between these two situations!

This is a really impressive word salad of meaningless assumptions
and unrelated speculation.


If it weren't for this crucial difference we would not
need artists like Rembrandt, or Da Vinci to paint the visual
phenomenon of God using their own "variable and
controllable" mental speed and we could simply replace them
with photographic cameras..... which is a WELL KNOWN AMATEUR
ERROR based on stultifying common IGNORANCE. The Mona Lisa
is worth $50,000,000

As far as I know, the Mona Lisa is not god. Or do you have
another one in mind of the either one, 12 (or 13) or billions
that you have claimed at different times?

and the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is worth
a billion dollars... there is no "photograph" that is worth
50 million dollars and never will be! and for the SAME
REASON Hammond and Hammond's discovery of the SPOG is worth
another billion dollars! Stupid!

How much has it earned you so far?


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
This is why it shows up in only the vanity press and Usenet.


[Hammond]
LIAR...LOL LOL LOL LIAR LOL LOL LOL
LIAR...LOL LOL LOL LIAR LOL LOL LOL
_New ideas In Psychology_ (Pergamon Press) is a
prestigious, thoroughly peer reviewed, premier academic
publication.
QUIT YOUR LYING HECKLER

It is still a vanity press. You do not like that fact but
that is the way it is.



and the Noetic Journal is also a peer reviewed Journal with
25 Professorial ranking members on it's editorial board.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS A FAUD AND A LIAR
AND AN ANONYMOUS PSYCHOTIC HECKLER

[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
If it were a real theory, it would show up in science.


[Hammond]
It already has, it's called the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE and
has been front page news in Physics for 25 years. You're
an irresponsible scientifically incompetent anonymous
heckling retarded hyena and stooge.

You have taken your own perverted interpretation of the
work of competent people. That does not mean that your
misunderstanding was what they said.


=====================================
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
=====================================

George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT), Titus
wrote:

On May 7, 8:09 pm, George Hammond wrote:
The "God" of Man is simply a 100% fully grown man.
[Titus, serendipitous twit]
Is he a blond, brunette, red, or black hair? What race is he? Blue,
green, or brown eyes? Height? Weight? Double-jointed or no? I'm
assuming that he is ambidextrous and perfectly symmetrical.



[Hammond]
He's whaterver YOU are! The "god" of each individual is
a perfect fully grown version of YOU. However, since there
are 6 billion people all of the same species, and the
perceptual effect is the same for all of us, the general
phenomena is called "God" with a capitol "G".

You should make up your mind. Is there one god? or 12 (or
13 if the Greeks could not count)? Or are there billions,
one for each of us? I bet my god could beat up your god.


[Hammond]
Na, I was born an atheist, and remained an atheist up
until the time that I accidentally stumbled across the
scientific proof of God when I was 55 years of age in 1997.
I had no religious beliefs whatsoever. I was searching
for the Structural Model of Personality when I ACCIDENTALLY
discovered the SPOG, and suddenly realized that there WAS a
"God" and what it was, and what religion was actually
talking about behind all that metaphorical mumbo jumbo!

No, you just made more mumbo jumbo.

[Titus, serendipitous twit]
Wait. You were saying earlier how this discovery took 25 years of
research. 25 years of one man's research _part time_ is not 25 years
of research either.


[Hammond]
Wahddau mean "part time" asshole. People like me don't
"work" for chrissakes, we fight for a living 24 hours a
day... in my case doing full time independent research. Go
punch a time clock moron.


I forgot that you have not been able to get a job so you look
down on those who do productive work while you live on welfare.

snip horse****
=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .

Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30.


[Hammond]
His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
million names in the Human Language.
On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion; scientifically
speaking. Stop trying to pretend you're not an aggravated
halfwit heckler.

If I recall correctly, your Psychometric correlation matrix maps out a
"personality space" (and IIRC, it actually isn't your psychometric matrix,
it is Cattell's). The eigenvectors represent orthogonal "directions" within
that space and each would capture some distinct aspects of personality.
Now, as far as gods are concerned: gods can be seen as personality
archetypes. Of course I agree that personality archetypes would necessarily
fit into your "personality space" but it is not at all clear to me that gods
correspond to eigenvectors. So please demonstrate with at least a few
examples how specific gods equate with a specific eigenvectors.

(It's your thesis. You prove it.)

Secondly:
IIRC, your eigenvectors have "levels" or "order". The first order is
lowest, and you proceed level by level up to the highest order, in which
there is a single eigenvector and that, you say, is God who is depicted on
the Sistine Chapel. Now, IIRC you place the Greek gods at a higher order
than Hindu gods. But the Greek gods are personality archetypes of normal
everyday flawed human beings and the Hindu gods (at least in Tibetan
Hinduism) the gods represent aspects of human being who have achieved
enlightenment. Therefore, the Greek gods should be eigenvectors of a lower
order (perhaps the first), and Hindu gods should be a higher order (perhaps
the second).