On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:49:39 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:11:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:



[Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.



[Hammond]
Look asshole, it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!
The SPOG is confirmed by:

150 years of Biology research in embryology by Roux,
Conklin, Speman, Dreisch and others.

100- years of neuropsychology research by Bell-Magendie,
Sperry, McClain and others.

80 years of General Relativity research.

50 years of computer research extraction of eignvector
models Psychometry including the Eysenck-3, AVA-4, Big-5,
Brand-6, Cattell-7, Saucier-8, Cattel-13 and many others...
in fact EVERY published psychometric model in the
literature.

110 years of measurement of the Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) since the time of Thomas Edison and recently by Lehrl
and Fischer.

80 years of research on the Secular Trend in human growth by
the WHOI, Unicef, Red Cross and hundreds of academic
studies.

40 years of modern measurements of IQ vis. Mental Speed.

20 years of research on the Anthropic Principle in Physics.

The list goes on, and is all cited in my published papers.

ALL THIS EVIDENCE is EQUIVALENT to Leverrier's Perihelion
measurement in GR. Einstein was right about GR, and Hammond
is right about the SPOG.

[John Smith]
Claiming ancient works support your crap MEANS NOTHING - since those people
are not around to deny your warped claims!


[Hammond]
Baloney, Leverrier's measurement of the Perihelion of
Mercury was the ONLY experimental support for Einstein when
he published GR, and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time.

[Hammond]
Besides, the bulk of the research which supports the SPOG
dates from AFTER the invention of the electronic computer
(post 1970). TENS OF THOUSANDS of Factor Analytic
experiments on MILLIONS of people using MAINFRAME
EIGENVECTOR EXTRACTION from 100x100 matrices, or large,
confirm overwhelmingly that Hammond's SPOG is correct, and
that God is a CURVATURE of reality caused by the Secular
Trend Growth Deficit.


[Doug, physics psycho heckler]
Support this assertion. They have nothing to do with your
"proof".



[Hammond]
Fully supported in my peer published paper, which you are
too dumb to read.
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


Historic research from other fields LIKEWISE confirm it,
notably the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency) measurements, and
notably the entire history of IQ testing.


[Doug, physics jwannabee and psycho cackler]
This is the silliest thing you have said. There is no connection
and you have not even tried to show one.


[Hammond]
LIAR:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...od/Heaven.html
and
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...0d7a76bd6c17c1




Cartesian (orthogonal) Stem Cell cleavage in Embryology is
also well known and a foundation stone of the proof.
Sperry's historic L-R brain discovery is also a major
buttress of the theory as are THOUSANDS of other researches
in diverse fields, all cited in my paper.

So L-R means god?


=====================================
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 01:59:15 +0000 (UTC), Michael Moroney
wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Besides, the bulk of the research which supports the SPOG
dates from AFTER the invention of the electronic computer
(post 1970). TENS OF THOUSANDS of Factor Analytic
experiments on MILLIONS of people using MAINFRAME
EIGENVECTOR EXTRACTION from 100x100 matrices, or large,
confirm overwhelmingly that Hammond's SPOG is correct, and
that God is a CURVATURE of reality caused by the Secular
Trend Growth Deficit.
Historic research from other fields LIKEWISE confirm it,
notably the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency) measurements, and
notably the entire history of IQ testing.
Cartesian (orthogonal) Stem Cell cleavage in Embryology is
also well known and a foundation stone of the proof.
Sperry's historic L-R brain discovery is also a major
buttress of the theory as are THOUSANDS of other researches
in diverse fields, all cited in my paper.

[Michael Moroney, witless agnostic]
Holy word salad, Batman!


[Hammond]
You say so because you're an ignorant, uneducated,
illiterate, loudmouthed, moronic imbecile.
=====================================
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 had no idea the judge would react that way.
Knowing me as you do, what should I tell the judge to get:
“ SSI disability, assisted housing and full medical � ?

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 ...

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'.

As such, you're defeating your own purpose. If you seek to convince,
such posts won't work. Those who think for themselves will infer that
you have no reply, you see, because you *offer* no reply.

I fully realise the tediousness of endlessly repeating the same basic
obvious facts to a poster who is peddling a crank theory. That's why
I suggested an FAQ or something.

Just thought that you might like to know how the debate strikes the
passer-by. I still think George's stuff sounds weird tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

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.

I must stop you here. You are correct ONLY in that you are using a
limited definition of "existence". You have continued to insist that
"perception" must be organic in nature, that a mind-occupied human
brain be involved.

I have repeatedly told you that you are looking at an EMERGENT
phenomenon; that of mind emerging from the physics and chemistry of
biology. Each individual step in "perception" is strict, mind-LESS
physics; sight is photons stimulating (being perceived by) electrons
in rhodopsin molecules in the rods and cones, which stimulates (is
perceived by) poised ions to fall through pores in retinal ganglial
neuron membranes, which via weighted summation stimulates (is
perceived by) yet more ion transfers in other neuron membranes, and so
on until huge sweeping sychronized cascades of ion transfers occur
across otherwise unrelated masses of cerebral neurons aggregated into
various cortexes produce (are perceived by) for instance the speech
cortex, whose output is perceived by chains of neural ion membrane
transfers leading to perception by muscular end effectors leading to
your brain's processing of what you saw being perceived by the air
molecules in front of your face, which pass their perceptions
electromagnetically on to other molecules, and so on to somebody
else's ears.

At NO point in that strictly physical chain of events can ANYONE say
"here is mind" or "here is soul".

Notice that each event in the chain above is a physical/chemical
PERCEPTION by (generally) an orbital electron of a passing photon.

THAT IS THE BASIS OF ALL PERCEPTION.

This is the FICTITIOUS sticking point the Quantum Mechanics cannot
get past and which you have unconsciously accepted as Fundamentally
true; that an Observer (notice capitalization) MUST BE a human.

This is blatantly false. AT NO POINT in the classic Schroedinger's
Cat gedankenexperiment can ANYONE show why the experimenter's
viewpoint is privileged; not only is the cat an equal Observer, SO IS
THE VIAL OF POISON! For that matter SO IS THE DECAY DETECTOR THAT
BREAKS THE VIAL!

All these stimulation-perception events exist INDEPENDENTLY of any
data-processing wetware (except in the case of the cat).

I have been waiting for you to notice this on your own, to
comprehend that THE LACK OF A PREFERRED (privileged) FRAME OF
REFERENCE IN PHYSICS ANALOGIZES DIRECTLY TO YOUR SPOG! You have either
failed to do so because you're too damn busy WASTING TIME AND ENERGY
exchanging vitriol with your detractors, or because you share the 19th-
century arrogance of those who cling desperately to a Preferred Frame
and are red-shifting themselves into the dust of history.

I'm getting too old to wait much longer so I'm telling you
explicitly; your SPOG is a SPECIAL CASE of a more general theory of
Quantum Relativity that to exist, must first have its components (one
of which will be your perfected SPOG) shorn of that 19th-century
arrogance I spoke of above.

Notice that unlike almost all your correspondents here I have NEVER
called you wrong, insane, deluded, or anything similar. I HAVE said
that I think you're on to something more powerful, more important than
anything else humans have ever gotten involved in BUT you must get
your EGO OUT OF YOUR WAY in order to CURE humanity of its ongoing
INSANITY caused by not being AWARE of its FALSE perceptions of
REALITY.

If anybody would like to point out that I'm using CAPITAL LETTERS
every few words like some kind of CRANK, screw them, the emphasis is
necessary.

Don't bother asking me about my C.V. George, I already told you I
don't have one. Except this: I'm the man you proved to be smarter than
you by the measure of that perception-speed website, I'm the man who
told you who the 13th zodiac sign (the Snake Wrestler) was, I'm the
man who told you to investigate why so many ancient cultures valued
slaves that did tile work (BTW did you ever look into that?), I'm the
man who told you to look into the 4-D geometry of the Qaballa, I'm the
man who gave you the term "eigengods", and so on.

I've handed you more and more historical CONFIRMATIONS of your SPOG
and more extrapolative spinoffs of it than anyone else but I've never
required any kind of recognition for that from you UNTIL NOW. Want to
know why? ONLY to emphasize that YOU ARE NOT A GOD. YOU ARE AS LIMITED
AS ANYONE ELSE by your own BGD and therefore YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS
BEING ARROGANT. That BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO LISTEN
TO ME BECAUSE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS I PERCEIVE MORE OF REALITY THAN
YOU DO. Not that I think I'm a god either, but that I know something
you need to hear.

What do I want you to hear? Nothing much. Just get past this
silliness of Reality not existing until humans came along; abandon the
fiction of a preferred reference frame. If you like you might talk
about other "sub-gods" related to other, lesser perceptive mechanisms
and networks all the way down to the quantum gods of individual
electrons*, but that's all COMPLETELY irrelevant to your real work
anyway, bringing the SPOG to its full fruition so that it can do what
only it can do; show INDISPUTABLY that the cause of all human
suffering is our faulty perceptions, and that the path to peace and
harmony is AWARENESS OF OUR LIMITATIONS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK
WITHIN THEM TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

In other words QUIT SCREWING AROUND and GET BACK TO WORK.

Please. Before we extinct ourselves and make the whole thing moot.


Mark L. Fergerson

* That is NOT meaningless; consider that an electron in an atomic
orbital can only "perceive" a limited number of incoming photons; only
those corresponding to allowed transitions to other orbitals, while a
free electron can "perceive" any passing photon. However the latter's
response will not be as predictable BECAUSE it is not constrained-
this obviously correlates to the information-processing power of
"constrained" (organized) matter like rhodopsin molecules and brains.

This is an electron's analog of the BGD, but as electrons do not
grow old and have very limited response mechanisms it is like other
analogies and ought not be pushed too far. However it should be
obvious how the human (and other animals') BGD can be extrapolated
from aggregating large numbers of constrained particles into networks.

But don't spend too much time on this; as I said it's irrelevant to
fully developing the SPOG to free humanity's eyes of its "scales".

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message
...
George had no idea the judge would react that way.
Knowing me as you do, what should I tell the judge to get:
" SSI disability, assisted housing and full medical " ?


Tell them you agree with George.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:57:12 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf
wrote:


[Jeff Relf, C.S.I. lead investigator]
Unlike George Hammond's daydreams, General Relativity
and the second law of thermodynamics are falsifiable.


[Hammond]
Of course the S.P.O.G. is "falsifiable". Because it is
an "experimentally verified" theory, therefore if any of the
myriad verifying experiments had failed, which none did, it
would be "falsified". Your missed Jeff.

What experiments, asswipe?

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:11:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




[Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have
done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.



[Hammond]
Look asshole, it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!
The SPOG is confirmed by:

150 years of Biology research in embryology by Roux,
Conklin, Speman, Dreisch and others.

100- years of neuropsychology research by Bell-Magendie,
Sperry, McClain and others.

80 years of General Relativity research.

50 years of computer research extraction of eignvector
models Psychometry including the Eysenck-3, AVA-4, Big-5,
Brand-6, Cattell-7, Saucier-8, Cattel-13 and many others...
in fact EVERY published psychometric model in the
literature.

110 years of measurement of the Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) since the time of Thomas Edison and recently by Lehrl
and Fischer.

80 years of research on the Secular Trend in human growth by
the WHOI, Unicef, Red Cross and hundreds of academic
studies.

40 years of modern measurements of IQ vis. Mental Speed.

20 years of research on the Anthropic Principle in Physics.

The list goes on, and is all cited in my published papers.

ALL THIS EVIDENCE is EQUIVALENT to Leverrier's Perihelion
measurement in GR. Einstein was right about GR, and Hammond
is right about the SPOG.


[John Smith]
Claiming ancient works support your crap MEANS NOTHING - since those
people
are not around to deny your warped claims!


[Hammond]
Baloney, Leverrier's measurement of the Perihelion of
Mercury was the ONLY experimental support for Einstein when
he published GR, and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time.

Was it verified by later testing?
Was yours?




[Hammond]
Besides, the bulk of the research which supports the SPOG
dates from AFTER the invention of the electronic computer
(post 1970). TENS OF THOUSANDS of Factor Analytic
experiments on MILLIONS of people using MAINFRAME
EIGENVECTOR EXTRACTION from 100x100 matrices, or large,
confirm overwhelmingly that Hammond's SPOG is correct, and
that God is a CURVATURE of reality caused by the Secular
Trend Growth Deficit.

Then why aren't these same people yelling out support for your crap?

Simply because you have warped their writings and work so much - they don't
even recognize it anymore.

You can vclaim, all you want, that "2 + 2 proves SPOG.
The truth (called reality to us) is, IT DOESN'T!






Historic research from other fields LIKEWISE confirm it,
notably the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency) measurements, and
notably the entire history of IQ testing.

You bellowed this particulalr crap before - and it was, like everything else
you propose, shown to be nothing more than blatantly ignorant delusions.



Cartesian (orthogonal) Stem Cell cleavage in Embryology is
also well known and a foundation stone of the proof.
Sperry's historic L-R brain discovery is also a major
buttress of the theory as are THOUSANDS of other researches
in diverse fields, all cited in my paper.

Cited - maybe ....
actual proof or evidence .....
that's laughable!


The FIRST post I made against your crap was that you had absolutely NOTHING
to support your "secular growth trend" except your own psychotic
conclusions.
YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE for ANY of the claims you made.

You ran away, and never even hinted at supplying evidence (experiments or
otherwise) to reach your conclusions.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:11:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




[Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have
done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.



[Hammond]
Look asshole, it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!
The SPOG is confirmed by:

150 years of Biology research in embryology by Roux,
Conklin, Speman, Dreisch and others.

100- years of neuropsychology research by Bell-Magendie,
Sperry, McClain and others.

80 years of General Relativity research.

50 years of computer research extraction of eignvector
models Psychometry including the Eysenck-3, AVA-4, Big-5,
Brand-6, Cattell-7, Saucier-8, Cattel-13 and many others...
in fact EVERY published psychometric model in the
literature.

110 years of measurement of the Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) since the time of Thomas Edison and recently by Lehrl
and Fischer.

80 years of research on the Secular Trend in human growth by
the WHOI, Unicef, Red Cross and hundreds of academic
studies.

40 years of modern measurements of IQ vis. Mental Speed.

20 years of research on the Anthropic Principle in Physics.

The list goes on, and is all cited in my published papers.

ALL THIS EVIDENCE is EQUIVALENT to Leverrier's Perihelion
measurement in GR. Einstein was right about GR, and Hammond
is right about the SPOG.


[John Smith]
Claiming ancient works support your crap MEANS NOTHING - since those
people
are not around to deny your warped claims!


[Hammond]
Baloney, Leverrier's measurement of the Perihelion of
Mercury was the ONLY experimental support for Einstein when
he published GR, and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time.


[Hammond]
Besides, the bulk of the research which supports the SPOG
dates from AFTER the invention of the electronic computer
(post 1970). TENS OF THOUSANDS of Factor Analytic
experiments on MILLIONS of people using MAINFRAME
EIGENVECTOR EXTRACTION from 100x100 matrices, or large,
confirm overwhelmingly that Hammond's SPOG is correct, and
that God is a CURVATURE of reality caused by the Secular
Trend Growth Deficit.
Historic research from other fields LIKEWISE confirm it,
notably the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency) measurements, and
notably the entire history of IQ testing.
Cartesian (orthogonal) Stem Cell cleavage in Embryology is
also well known and a foundation stone of the proof.
Sperry's historic L-R brain discovery is also a major
buttress of the theory as are THOUSANDS of other researches
in diverse fields, all cited in my paper.

So .....................
I'm going to write a paper ................
I'll claim "God is a salt shaker".................
and, at the end of that paper, I will list - as cites and references
............... everything every written by anyone from Shakespeare to
Hefner.

I may even get some supermarket tabloid to print it.

That should clinch it as fact.

"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 ...

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).


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."