On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:58:36 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
...
On 4 May, 00:47, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[snip crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.
Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.
Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...

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 ...


[John Smith, incredulous bystander]
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).


[Hammond]
It was posted in Augsberg Germany by a German truckdriver
and musician named Bernhard Schornak.... I went looking for
it the other day but discovered that his ISP has apparently
gone chapter 11 or and his anti-SPOG website is no longer up
and running. Maybe he's in jail or something?


=====================================
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 17:27:53 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2008 07:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

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.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
Wake up Roger, what you're witnessing is the beginning of
a scientific-social revolution, the world's first scientific
proof of God has been discovered, the aughorities don't
realize it, the innocent bystanders don't realize it (such
as you),... the only thing that is visible is the roar of
cannon fire and the smoke..... which is what this 500 post
thread is. This is because ONLY THE COMBATENTS, only the
FRONT LINE TROOPS have recognized that it is happening.
You won't hear any coherent organized rational argument
here... all that has been said and done with in thousands of
posts on Usenet, and my website, and my publications, in the
past 5 years. What you're witnessing now is the MOVEMENT OF
ARMIES which are headed your way.
Heads up dude, this is what the discovery of the world's
first Scientific Proof of God looks like..... just like a
mob and a crusifixion marked the last social reviolution in
the world 2000 years ago..... it's happening again.... and
this time it's called the SPOG and it's a scientific
discovery destined to move world religion into the
scientific age.
=====================================
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 Mon, 05 May 2008 09:16:48 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Roger Pearse wrote:
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.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
This is kind of sad. Lot of valid points against his nonsense have been
made. He just swears and insults in return.

Lets go over some of them. He predicts the Greeks had 13 gods. They
had 12. That is a valid scientific objection. His defense is to say
that they either could not count or did not care that they were wrong.

He claims his fusion frequency graph proves god. There is no connection
between these two things. He does not try to make a connection. He
just states it without any proof. He cannot give any proof because there
is none. You cannot refute baseless assertions if the other person is
not looking for the truth.

His theory is much like me claiming that you are a monster from outer
space in human form. You would then, logically, point out that you
are human and I would claim that that is proof of my statement since
only aliens could have the technology to make a perfect human appearing
being. Then when you brought out your baby pictures and school records,
I would start swearing and insulting.


[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?
And that proves god?

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. Look up mpeg encoding for an example.
You are confusing motion with perception in general. An
object at rest is the same for everyone.

And then from that maybe youcan figure out
that since the Secualr Trend says that the average human is
only 80% fully grown,

So?

why it is that 20% of REALITY is
INVISIBLE

No. This has nothing to do with the above.

to the average person, and why it is called HEAVEN

No. Your first assumption was wrong and this does not even
have anything to do with heaven. The back side of the moon
is not visible to me either. Does that mean that heaven is
there?


and why the hypothetically fully grown man is considered an
INVISIBLE MAN who lives in this invisble world and is called
GOD.

This is not connected to anything above. Why would the hypothetically
full grown man be invisible to us? He moves to fast?
If there were an invisible being, there is no justification for your
calling it a man. You are just anthropomorphizing your god because
man created god in his own image.

Now, how would you test this hypothesis? Is the fact that your
god is invisible the proof? There is another option which is that
he is not there which cannot be excluded by your model. Maybe your
god is hiding somewhere else.


HALFASS, LOUDMOUTH, STUPID JACKASS!
=====================================
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 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.

[Hammond]
And then from that maybe youcan figure out
that since the Secualr Trend says that the average human is
only 80% fully grown,

So?

why it is that 20% of REALITY is
INVISIBLE

No. This has nothing to do with the above.

to the average person, and why it is called HEAVEN

No. Your first assumption was wrong and this does not even
have anything to do with heaven. The back side of the moon
is not visible to me either. Does that mean that heaven is
there?


and why the hypothetically fully grown man is considered an
INVISIBLE MAN who lives in this invisble world and is called
GOD.


[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
This is not connected to anything above.


[Hammond]
Horse****, the cited evidence proves otherwise.


[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
Why would the hypothetically
full grown man be invisible to us? He moves to fast?


[Hammond]
Of course asshole. In practical terms it means you can't
see his FACE (read his facial expression). How do you think
a psychotic fools so many people, he is INVIVISIBLE to the
average person, only people like ME (and law enforcement
agents and judges)) know who the guy is, because they know
what the phenomenon of God is! That's why I know you''re
actually and ignorant halfass nincompoop and your academic
friends think you're brilliant.... because you're a PSYCHO
and I can see you, and they can't. ****wit piece of trash.
=====================================
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 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.

On May 5, 10:09 am, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 01:29:30 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:51 pm, George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; NOTHING EXISTED before Man arrived, because
"EXISTENCE" is a HUMAN PERCEPTION.... no people, no
existence.

[Hammond]
Is that you Mark L. Fergerson? Glad to hear that you
are still alive and kicking. I always considered you a
friend.

You may not after you read this. But if you read this to the end,
then reread what I wrote above, you will.

First, let me point out that the SPOG is not based on
recondite, picayune, or obscure trivia. It is based on the
MAMMONTH, ROBUST, INDISPUTABLE MOUNTAIN TOPS
OF THE EMPIRICAL FACTS of SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.

Noted.

Therefore, for you to sit there and argue obscure,
unproven, speculative trivia against the SPOG is JUST not
credible.

I am not interested in my credibility. I am interested in preventing
humanity from making itself extinct. That will best be aided by tools
which allow us to understand ourselves and thus each other. Your SPOG
is a logical extension of Alexander Pope's famous dictum.

You say trivia, I say FUNDAMENTALS. Read the archives of our past
exchanges and you will see that I insist on making sure your
supporting fundamentals are UNASSAILABLE. You are making a huge
mistake if you ignore or try to dismiss me this time.

You are arguing about the TREES when in fact the SPOG is
about the FOREST!

You are proposing a PHYSICAL theory without explicitly detailing its
underpinnings; you have adequately explained the interrelations of the
parts but you have not addressed the individual functionality of the
parts themselves.

To use your own analogy, you CANNOT discuss the ecological
functionality of a FOREST unless you accurately, explicitly describe
the biochemical functionality of the trees!

THIS IS NOT TRIVIAL. A forest CANNOT be described as anything other
than an aggregate of trees. One CANNOT speak of the gas exchange, soil
and gas sequestration, or even timber yield of a "forest" without
explicitly determining the properties of its component trees and their
proportional population densities.

But notice that all of this is USELESS until you understand HOW
chlorophyll uses incoming light to convert sugars into starches.

This information WAS NOT AVAILABLE while nascent ecologists were
wondering if clearcutting was really a good idea in the late 19th
century. Now that it is we can make much better estimates of how much
of a given forest must be left standing in order for us not to
asphyxiate.

Why did I type all that material you are impatiently categorizing as
IRRELEVANT?

To make the point that DETAILS MATTER! If you don't get ALL the
details RIGHT you cannot build ANYTHING on them!

If you build an edifice on ASSUMED details that turn out to be other
than what you assumed YOUR EDIFICE FALLS!

You have ASSUMED that ONLY human perception maintains the existence
of Reality and I say that is WRONG for the simple reason that YOU HAVE
NOT BOTHERED TO EXAMINE WHAT "human perception" MEANS!

It is EXACTLY what I said it is; an EMERGENT phenomenon arising from
the INDIVIDUAL quantum photon exchange events of ALL the body's
constituent particles.

Those events are the SAME as quantum photon exchange events
occurring in INORGANIC matter.

IOW the Universe PERCEIVES ITSELF through EVERY quantum photon
exchange event ALL THE TIME, including well before LUCY of OLDUVAI
GORGE WAS BORN!

THIS IS THE BASIS BY WHICH THE SPOG CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE _FULLY
EQUIVALENT_ TO PHYSICS! You have built your SPOG upon the Relativities
but you must surpass Einstein who was unable to reconcile them with
Quantum Mechanics. Don't make the same mistake he did at first and
reject it out of hand. It exists, it is real AND INTEGRATING IT INTO
THE SPOG IS ESSENTIAL.

Here it is in a nutshell, George-

The human BGD is an analog emergent aggregate of the individual
quantized perceptual deficits of fundamental particles. Numerically it
is equivalent to the degree to which the DNA coding the brain's
structure was not adequately expressed during growth to adulthood. In
the case of fundamental particles it is numerically equivalent to the
reduction in their degrees of freedom due to being constrained by e.g.
electrons in orbitals rather than being free; as such it is not an
analog quantity but is expressed as quantum states.

HENCE FOR ANYONE TO DISMISS THE SPOG THEY MUST DISMISS QUANTUM
MECHANICS!!!

DO YOU GET IT YET? CAN I STOP SHOUTING NOW?

I am aware that you dislike slogging through the sort of detail work
usually handed to undergrad students, but you don't have them
available.

But in order to solidify your position you MUST accept what I have
said about perception and the concomittant fact that your SPOG needs
to be quantized. I have shown you the outlines, the rest is up to you.

If you are fortunate you can find a "White Knight" to tackle this.

btw you will notice this thread is fast approaching 500
posts with no end insight....... the REASON for this Mark is
that the phrase:

GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

has struck a chord and rung a bell with the scientific
community....... they KNOW THE TRUTH when they hear it.
Hang in their guy, as the GI's used to say, it's only
another 50 miles to Berlin!

It is evident to me that many have decided that there must be some
fire underneath all the smoke.

Don't disappoint them George, make the connections I've pointed out
to you. Make your foundations UNASSAILABLE.

It would be especially ironic if Quantum Theory and the Relativities
were finally united via the SPOG, wouldn't it?


Mark L. Fergerson

"Dr. HotSalt" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 10:09 am, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 01:29:30 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:51 pm, George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; NOTHING EXISTED before Man arrived, because
"EXISTENCE" is a HUMAN PERCEPTION.... no people, no
existence.

[Hammond]
Is that you Mark L. Fergerson? Glad to hear that you
are still alive and kicking. I always considered you a
friend.

You may not after you read this. But if you read this to the end,
then reread what I wrote above, you will.

First, let me point out that the SPOG is not based on
recondite, picayune, or obscure trivia. It is based on the
MAMMONTH, ROBUST, INDISPUTABLE MOUNTAIN TOPS
OF THE EMPIRICAL FACTS of SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.

Noted.

Therefore, for you to sit there and argue obscure,
unproven, speculative trivia against the SPOG is JUST not
credible.

I am not interested in my credibility. I am interested in preventing
humanity from making itself extinct. That will best be aided by tools
which allow us to understand ourselves and thus each other. Your SPOG
is a logical extension of Alexander Pope's famous dictum.

You say trivia, I say FUNDAMENTALS. Read the archives of our past
exchanges and you will see that I insist on making sure your
supporting fundamentals are UNASSAILABLE. You are making a huge
mistake if you ignore or try to dismiss me this time.

You are arguing about the TREES when in fact the SPOG is
about the FOREST!

You are proposing a PHYSICAL theory without explicitly detailing its
underpinnings; you have adequately explained the interrelations of the
parts but you have not addressed the individual functionality of the
parts themselves.

To use your own analogy, you CANNOT discuss the ecological
functionality of a FOREST unless you accurately, explicitly describe
the biochemical functionality of the trees!

THIS IS NOT TRIVIAL. A forest CANNOT be described as anything other
than an aggregate of trees. One CANNOT speak of the gas exchange, soil
and gas sequestration, or even timber yield of a "forest" without
explicitly determining the properties of its component trees and their
proportional population densities.

But notice that all of this is USELESS until you understand HOW
chlorophyll uses incoming light to convert sugars into starches.

This information WAS NOT AVAILABLE while nascent ecologists were
wondering if clearcutting was really a good idea in the late 19th
century. Now that it is we can make much better estimates of how much
of a given forest must be left standing in order for us not to
asphyxiate.

Why did I type all that material you are impatiently categorizing as
IRRELEVANT?

To make the point that DETAILS MATTER! If you don't get ALL the
details RIGHT you cannot build ANYTHING on them!

If you build an edifice on ASSUMED details that turn out to be other
than what you assumed YOUR EDIFICE FALLS!

You have ASSUMED that ONLY human perception maintains the existence
of Reality and I say that is WRONG for the simple reason that YOU HAVE
NOT BOTHERED TO EXAMINE WHAT "human perception" MEANS!

It is EXACTLY what I said it is; an EMERGENT phenomenon arising from
the INDIVIDUAL quantum photon exchange events of ALL the body's
constituent particles.

Those events are the SAME as quantum photon exchange events
occurring in INORGANIC matter.

IOW the Universe PERCEIVES ITSELF through EVERY quantum photon
exchange event ALL THE TIME, including well before LUCY of OLDUVAI
GORGE WAS BORN!

THIS IS THE BASIS BY WHICH THE SPOG CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE _FULLY
EQUIVALENT_ TO PHYSICS! You have built your SPOG upon the Relativities
but you must surpass Einstein who was unable to reconcile them with
Quantum Mechanics. Don't make the same mistake he did at first and
reject it out of hand. It exists, it is real AND INTEGRATING IT INTO
THE SPOG IS ESSENTIAL.

Here it is in a nutshell, George-

The human BGD is an analog emergent aggregate of the individual
quantized perceptual deficits of fundamental particles. Numerically it
is equivalent to the degree to which the DNA coding the brain's
structure was not adequately expressed during growth to adulthood. In
the case of fundamental particles it is numerically equivalent to the
reduction in their degrees of freedom due to being constrained by e.g.
electrons in orbitals rather than being free; as such it is not an
analog quantity but is expressed as quantum states.

HENCE FOR ANYONE TO DISMISS THE SPOG THEY MUST DISMISS QUANTUM
MECHANICS!!!

DO YOU GET IT YET? CAN I STOP SHOUTING NOW?

I am aware that you dislike slogging through the sort of detail work
usually handed to undergrad students, but you don't have them
available.

But in order to solidify your position you MUST accept what I have
said about perception and the concomittant fact that your SPOG needs
to be quantized. I have shown you the outlines, the rest is up to you.

If you are fortunate you can find a "White Knight" to tackle this.

btw you will notice this thread is fast approaching 500
posts with no end insight....... the REASON for this Mark is
that the phrase:

GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

has struck a chord and rung a bell with the scientific
community....... they KNOW THE TRUTH when they hear it.
Hang in their guy, as the GI's used to say, it's only
another 50 miles to Berlin!

It is evident to me that many have decided that there must be some
fire underneath all the smoke.

Don't disappoint them George, make the connections I've pointed out
to you. Make your foundations UNASSAILABLE.

It would be especially ironic if Quantum Theory and the Relativities
were finally united via the SPOG, wouldn't it?


Mark L. Fergerson

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?
Wait, I knew that already!And then I got my Kibo number when he yelled at me
for bothering!

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.
=====================================
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, 5 May 2008 18:40:40 -0500, "Varekem"
wrote:

"Dr. HotSalt" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 10:09 am, George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 01:29:30 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:51 pm, George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; NOTHING EXISTED before Man arrived, because
"EXISTENCE" is a HUMAN PERCEPTION.... no people, no
existence.

[Hammond]
Is that you Mark L. Fergerson? Glad to hear that you
are still alive and kicking. I always considered you a
friend.

You may not after you read this. But if you read this to the end,
then reread what I wrote above, you will.

First, let me point out that the SPOG is not based on
recondite, picayune, or obscure trivia. It is based on the
MAMMONTH, ROBUST, INDISPUTABLE MOUNTAIN TOPS
OF THE EMPIRICAL FACTS of SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.

Noted.

Therefore, for you to sit there and argue obscure,
unproven, speculative trivia against the SPOG is JUST not
credible.

I am not interested in my credibility. I am interested in preventing
humanity from making itself extinct. That will best be aided by tools
which allow us to understand ourselves and thus each other. Your SPOG
is a logical extension of Alexander Pope's famous dictum.

You say trivia, I say FUNDAMENTALS. Read the archives of our past
exchanges and you will see that I insist on making sure your
supporting fundamentals are UNASSAILABLE. You are making a huge
mistake if you ignore or try to dismiss me this time.

You are arguing about the TREES when in fact the SPOG is
about the FOREST!

You are proposing a PHYSICAL theory without explicitly detailing its
underpinnings; you have adequately explained the interrelations of the
parts but you have not addressed the individual functionality of the
parts themselves.

To use your own analogy, you CANNOT discuss the ecological
functionality of a FOREST unless you accurately, explicitly describe
the biochemical functionality of the trees!

THIS IS NOT TRIVIAL. A forest CANNOT be described as anything other
than an aggregate of trees. One CANNOT speak of the gas exchange, soil
and gas sequestration, or even timber yield of a "forest" without
explicitly determining the properties of its component trees and their
proportional population densities.

But notice that all of this is USELESS until you understand HOW
chlorophyll uses incoming light to convert sugars into starches.

This information WAS NOT AVAILABLE while nascent ecologists were
wondering if clearcutting was really a good idea in the late 19th
century. Now that it is we can make much better estimates of how much
of a given forest must be left standing in order for us not to
asphyxiate.

Why did I type all that material you are impatiently categorizing as
IRRELEVANT?

To make the point that DETAILS MATTER! If you don't get ALL the
details RIGHT you cannot build ANYTHING on them!

If you build an edifice on ASSUMED details that turn out to be other
than what you assumed YOUR EDIFICE FALLS!

You have ASSUMED that ONLY human perception maintains the existence
of Reality and I say that is WRONG for the simple reason that YOU HAVE
NOT BOTHERED TO EXAMINE WHAT "human perception" MEANS!

It is EXACTLY what I said it is; an EMERGENT phenomenon arising from
the INDIVIDUAL quantum photon exchange events of ALL the body's
constituent particles.

Those events are the SAME as quantum photon exchange events
occurring in INORGANIC matter.

IOW the Universe PERCEIVES ITSELF through EVERY quantum photon
exchange event ALL THE TIME, including well before LUCY of OLDUVAI
GORGE WAS BORN!

THIS IS THE BASIS BY WHICH THE SPOG CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE _FULLY
EQUIVALENT_ TO PHYSICS! You have built your SPOG upon the Relativities
but you must surpass Einstein who was unable to reconcile them with
Quantum Mechanics. Don't make the same mistake he did at first and
reject it out of hand. It exists, it is real AND INTEGRATING IT INTO
THE SPOG IS ESSENTIAL.

Here it is in a nutshell, George-

The human BGD is an analog emergent aggregate of the individual
quantized perceptual deficits of fundamental particles. Numerically it
is equivalent to the degree to which the DNA coding the brain's
structure was not adequately expressed during growth to adulthood. In
the case of fundamental particles it is numerically equivalent to the
reduction in their degrees of freedom due to being constrained by e.g.
electrons in orbitals rather than being free; as such it is not an
analog quantity but is expressed as quantum states.

HENCE FOR ANYONE TO DISMISS THE SPOG THEY MUST DISMISS QUANTUM
MECHANICS!!!

DO YOU GET IT YET? CAN I STOP SHOUTING NOW?

I am aware that you dislike slogging through the sort of detail work
usually handed to undergrad students, but you don't have them
available.

But in order to solidify your position you MUST accept what I have
said about perception and the concomittant fact that your SPOG needs
to be quantized. I have shown you the outlines, the rest is up to you.

If you are fortunate you can find a "White Knight" to tackle this.

btw you will notice this thread is fast approaching 500
posts with no end insight....... the REASON for this Mark is
that the phrase:

GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

has struck a chord and rung a bell with the scientific
community....... they KNOW THE TRUTH when they hear it.
Hang in their guy, as the GI's used to say, it's only
another 50 miles to Berlin!

It is evident to me that many have decided that there must be some
fire underneath all the smoke.

Don't disappoint them George, make the connections I've pointed out
to you. Make your foundations UNASSAILABLE.

It would be especially ironic if Quantum Theory and the Relativities
were finally united via the SPOG, wouldn't it?


Mark L. Fergerson




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".
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
=====================================

"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