"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:49:44 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:14:59 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:



[Hammond]
There is only one thing to be "aware" of and that is God... namely
the fact that no one is fully grown, and therefore no one is actually
in true reality. The person who is AWARE of that, is said to be an
"aware" person. Humility by the way, is the first sign of such an
awareness.

In the sense that God =All there is, there is always another step to
take
on
the eternal journey.

BrianOfLife

[Hammond]
Not "always".... the quest for God WILL officially end when the
Secular Trend curve reaches 100% growth (this is known as
'kingdom come' in the Lord's Prayer, and also as the "end of the
world" in some apocolyptic circles).


fL......and is a "group interpretation" of an individual's stage of the
journey.


[Hammond]
You seem to be unaware that the scientific explanation ("proof") of
the existence of God has been discovered, experimentally proven,
and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

I am however aware of the limits of scentific explaination, and also know of
eminent scientists who would disagree with such 'findings'

It is one thing to identify music scientifically another to acually "hear"
it.

BrianOfLife

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

This scientific discovery proves that:

1. God is caused by the Secular Trend growth deficit of
all adults in the world pupulation. (about a 20% deficit).

2. This causes a "relativistic curvature" of subjective reality
compared to objective reality... which is called "God".

3. This is all confirmed experimentally by 100 years of
2 decimal point peer published Psychometry data.

4. this proves and explains the existence of:

a. The "suppernatural world".
b. Heaven
c. An "invisble God".. (invisible man)).
d. Eternal Life
e. Miracles



Of course, from the looks of the data, the Secular Trend curve will
not plateau any time soon... not for thousands of years probably.

In the mean time "souls" continue to go beyond the worlds of matter
energy,
time and space.


So I'd say theoretically you are wrong, but FAPP (for all pracital
purposes) you are right... wrong theoretically, because theoretically
one CAN "have it all"..... and right, because practically speaking
we are never going to live to see it...... but then again of course,
there is still the question of "life after death" which hasn't been
answered yet....?


Oh yes it has !

[Hammond]
Oh no it hasn't. There is PROOF that "God exists", but there is
NO PROOF of Life After Death.... not yet anyway. Science
(particularly Hammond) is still working on that problem.




BrianOfLife


========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:43:48 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:


[Hammond]
You seem to be unaware that the scientific explanation ("proof") of
the existence of God has been discovered, experimentally proven,
and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

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



I am however aware of the limits of scentific explaination, and also know of
eminent scientists who would disagree with such 'findings'
BrianOfLife

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.

Any "eminent scientist" who wuld dare to say that I haven't
rigorously and indisputably scientifically proven the existence
of God (in fact the God of the Bible) can be easily shown
to be a scientific incompetent, if not a fool..
In fact, one "wannabee eminent physicist", namely Prof. Chris
Isham (Imperial College, Theoretical Physics Group) actually tried
it... and ended up looking like an incompetent who knew so little
about "God" that he brazenly mistook me for a "kook" and presumed
to try and insult me witiouteven taking the precaution of actually
reading the (published) theory. Hence he thereby clumbsily "blew
his cover" and exposed himself as being nothing more than an
aggravated and hostile academic pedagogue.... which in fact is what
he actually is (the record shows). An "eminent" scientist would have
known better than to be so brazenly incautious!

In the meantime, "really eminent" scientists, such as the handful
of Nobel Laureate physicists on the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, or even Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete (also PhD physics, and
noted personal friend of Pope Paul II), or such people as Sir John
Polkinghorne (PhD physics) and ordained Anglican Priest are completely
UNAWARE of this discovery... specifically because such academic louts
as Chris Isham (who knows Sir John personally) are so insanely JEALOUS
and ENVIOUS of an unknown like myself of making such a historic
discovery that they will take every opportunity to try and suppress
my work... even going as far as to publicly get on Usenet and try to
encourage the long list of pseudointellectyual Internet kooks who
have been heckling me.

So much for your "eminent scientists"....


========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:43:48 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:


[Hammond]
You seem to be unaware that the scientific explanation ("proof") of
the existence of God has been discovered, experimentally proven,
and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

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



I am however aware of the limits of scentific explaination, and also know of
eminent scientists who would disagree with such 'findings'
BrianOfLife

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.

Any "eminent scientist" who wuld dare to say that I haven't
rigorously and indisputably scientifically proven the existence
of God (in fact the God of the Bible) can be easily shown
to be a scientific incompetent, if not a fool..
In fact, one "wannabee eminent physicist", namely Prof. Chris
Isham (Imperial College, Theoretical Physics Group) actually tried
it... and ended up looking like an incompetent who knew so little
about "God" that he brazenly mistook me for a "kook" and presumed
to try and insult me witiouteven taking the precaution of actually
reading the (published) theory. Hence he thereby clumbsily "blew
his cover" and exposed himself as being nothing more than an
aggravated and hostile academic pedagogue.... which in fact is what
he actually is (the record shows). An "eminent" scientist would have
known better than to be so brazenly incautious!

In the meantime, "really eminent" scientists, such as the handful
of Nobel Laureate physicists on the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, or even Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete (also PhD physics, and
noted personal friend of Pope Paul II), or such people as Sir John
Polkinghorne (PhD physics) and ordained Anglican Priest are completely
UNAWARE of this discovery... specifically because such academic louts
as Chris Isham (who knows Sir John personally) are so insanely JEALOUS
and ENVIOUS of an unknown like myself of making such a historic
discovery that they will take every opportunity to try and suppress
my work... even going as far as to publicly get on Usenet and try to
encourage the long list of pseudointellectyual Internet kooks who
have been heckling me.

So much for your "eminent scientists"....


========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

Are we talking "The Gold Rush" or "Safety Last"?



Paul

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:43:48 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:


[Hammond]
You seem to be unaware that the scientific explanation ("proof") of
the existence of God has been discovered, experimentally proven,
and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

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

Unsupported assertion.





I am however aware of the limits of scentific explaination, and also know
of
eminent scientists who would disagree with such 'findings'
BrianOfLife

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.

Any "eminent scientist" who wuld dare to say that I haven't
rigorously and indisputably scientifically proven the existence
of God (in fact the God of the Bible) can be easily shown
to be a scientific incompetent, if not a fool..

Bwahahaaaaa ............ which, apparently, means EVERY other scientist in
the whole world.
(Not to mention religious leaders and organizations).

OTOH George has been shown to be a fool by just about anyone - every time he
posts.


In fact, one "wannabee eminent physicist", namely Prof. Chris
Isham (Imperial College, Theoretical Physics Group) actually tried
it... and ended up looking like an incompetent who knew so little
about "God" that he brazenly mistook me for a "kook" and presumed
to try and insult me witiouteven taking the precaution of actually
reading the (published) theory.

Of course!
Your insanity is that azpparent!


Hence he thereby clumbsily "blew
his cover" and exposed himself as being nothing more than an
aggravated and hostile academic pedagogue.... which in fact is what
he actually is (the record shows). An "eminent" scientist would have
known better than to be so brazenly incautious!

You have been shown, dozens upon dozens of times, how YOUR actions show YOU
to be far less than an honest, rational and h0onorable scientist.
All of which you conveniently ignore.



In the meantime, "really eminent" scientists, such as the handful
of Nobel Laureate physicists on the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, or even Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete (also PhD physics, and
noted personal friend of Pope Paul II), or such people as Sir John
Polkinghorne (PhD physics) and ordained Anglican Priest are completely
UNAWARE of this discovery... specifically because such academic louts
as Chris Isham (who knows Sir John personally) are so insanely JEALOUS
and ENVIOUS of an unknown like myself of making such a historic
discovery that they will take every opportunity to try and suppress
my work... even going as far as to publicly get on Usenet and try to
encourage the long list of pseudointellectyual Internet kooks who
have been heckling me.

Have you shown this to the shrink at your "ward"?

Telling you the truth about your abhorrent mental condition and insane
claims is NOT heckling.

"Paul Duca" wrote in message
...
Are we talking "The Gold Rush" or "Safety Last"?



Paul


I think he means the piano player.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.

You dont even understand what this means do you?

Any "eminent scientist" who wuld dare to say that I haven't
rigorously and indisputably scientifically proven the existence
of God (in fact the God of the Bible) can be easily shown
to be a scientific incompetent, if not a fool..

Nonsense. Not to mention your spelling....


my work... even going as far as to publicly get on Usenet and try to
encourage the long list of pseudointellectyual Internet kooks who
have been heckling me.

Deluded, paranoid George.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:43:48 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:


[Hammond]
You seem to be unaware that the scientific explanation ("proof") of
the existence of God has been discovered, experimentally proven,
and published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

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



I am however aware of the limits of scentific explaination, and also know
of
eminent scientists who would disagree with such 'findings'
BrianOfLife

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.

Any "eminent scientist" who wuld dare to say that I haven't
rigorously and indisputably scientifically proven the existence
of God (in fact the God of the Bible) can be easily shown
to be a scientific incompetent, if not a fool..
In fact, one "wannabee eminent physicist", namely Prof. Chris
Isham (Imperial College, Theoretical Physics Group) actually tried
it... and ended up looking like an incompetent who knew so little
about "God" that he brazenly mistook me for a "kook" and presumed
to try and insult me witiouteven taking the precaution of actually
reading the (published) theory. Hence he thereby clumbsily "blew
his cover" and exposed himself as being nothing more than an
aggravated and hostile academic pedagogue.... which in fact is what
he actually is (the record shows). An "eminent" scientist would have
known better than to be so brazenly incautious!

In the meantime, "really eminent" scientists, such as the handful
of Nobel Laureate physicists on the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, or even Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete (also PhD physics, and
noted personal friend of Pope Paul II), or such people as Sir John
Polkinghorne (PhD physics) and ordained Anglican Priest are completely
UNAWARE of this discovery... specifically because such academic louts
as Chris Isham (who knows Sir John personally) are so insanely JEALOUS
and ENVIOUS of an unknown like myself of making such a historic
discovery that they will take every opportunity to try and suppress
my work... even going as far as to publicly get on Usenet and try to
encourage the long list of pseudointellectyual Internet kooks who
have been heckling me.

So much for your "eminent scientists"....

So much for the scientific fraternaty as a single entity, period.

Look at my contributuion on "proof of supreme being" befor you go on the
attack. Then attack by all means.

BrianOfLife

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:32:25 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:


[Hammond]
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html


[Hammond]
So much for your "eminent scientists"....


[Fletcher]
So much for the scientific fraternaty as a single entity, period.

Look at my contributuion on "proof of supreme being"

[Hammond]
Has it been published in the peer reviewed literature?



befor you go on the
attack. Then attack by all means.


[Hammond]
I have made 75,000 posts to usenet... every single one of them
a defensive reply to someone trying to attack me.
I haven't found anyone worthy of attacking yet... yawn!
Frankly I'm more interested in finding someone who
takes the subject of God and Science seriously.


BrianOfLife




========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

In 1966 ... there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

Uh-huh. Above a certain frame-rate humans can't individuate snapshots.


(see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-fu ll.html for a full explanation)

They measure human visual through-put in bits per second.

Humans aren't computers, and neither are human brains. Why, then,
measure visual throughput in bits per second? What meaning does that
measurement have in this context?


Many psychologists will agree that the concept of intelligence is important but difficult to grasp in all its complexity. Therefore, it is necessary to search for more precise and simpler concepts.

Wittgenstein (and I) disagree. His philosophy postulates that such a
"search for more precise and simpler concepts" is not a demythologising
exercise - one which aims to clear up what the word "intelligence"
means (i.e. how it is used) - but simply substituting one form of
expression for another - i.e. a translation or interpretation of the
first concept into another, possibly unrelated, concept. If one wants
to understand the meaning of the word "intelligence" what one should do
is to investigate real-world uses of the word. Of course if (by
contrast) one is under the misapprehension that every substantive
/must/ have /a/ referent then one will be inclined to go searching for
that referent. All the same /this will not help clear up conceptual
confusion relating to use of the word/.

Thus, the reason many psychologists agree that the concept of
intelligence is difficult to grasp is because:

a) They're not looking in the right place;
b) They are themselves conceptually confused (as a result of (a))


blah, blah ... FINALLY, of course... as any trained scientist can see, the "PFF" so called is nothing more than a direct measure of the Fourier frequency spectrum of the motion being filmed. The PFF is the Fourier CUTOFF FREQUENCY of the observers brain!

No it's not. Fourier Analysis is based on the concept that real world
signals can be approximated by a sum of sinusoids, each at a different
frequency (cf http://www.astro-med.com/knowledge/fourier.html). Now
although PFF utilizes the notion of frequncy it doesn't utilize the
concept of amplitude - thus they can't be the same (mathematically
speaking) - one might encapsulate the other. Or maybe they're just
different. Similarity doesn't necessarily make two things the same.

What this means is that 1/3 of the frequency spectrum seen by an adult is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old child.... meaning that 1/3 of the everyday motion seen by an adult is INVISIBLE to the 7 year old!

Any validated experimental support for this hypothesis?

THE SIGNIFICANCE of this, is the fact that the Secular Trend in human growth shows that ALL ADULTS are as much as 20% short of full growth.... ergo.... 20% of the natural world is INVISIBLE to the average person....!

You say "Full Growth", but all the Secular Trend in human growth shows
is that people are, on average, getting taller. In particular it makes
no supposition as to the "Tallest height people can be". Thus when you
say 20% short of Full Growth I ask: what height would that be, then?

Besides - things being invisible has got **** all to do with human
growth. I can't see any non-visible part of the electromagnetic
spectrum (heat, x-rays). Neither can I see sound-waves. I also can't
see things that are behind my head (without the artificial aids). So
what?


This INVISIBLE WORLD is none other than the so called "Supernatural World" of Religion... it is in fact what is popularly called HEAVEN..! This then, constitutes an ELEMENTARY scientific proof of Heaven... and hence GOD..!

The concept "electromagnetic spectrum" is not synonymous with the
concept "Heaven". Heaven is where we go when we're dead, it's a
paradise, a place of plenty, etc. True, we can't see it - but that
doesn't mean Heaven = Electromagnetic spectrum. If not seeing things
was proof their being identical then Jupiter is identical to
Massachusetts from where I'm sitting. This is no /proof/ at all, but
the ravings of a madman!


Here I sit holding the world's first competent scientific proof of God... and I can't even find anyone competent in elementary Science to discuss it with for chrissakes!

What's a /competent/ proof when it's at home?