On 24 Aug 2005 07:02:11 -0700, "Sleepyhead"
wrote:

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?

[Hammond]
Decades of peer reviewed published research has established
that "mental speed" in bits/sec is the predominant biological
correlate of measured intelligence. The above paper cites the
literature including notably, Eysenck, Jensen, Vernon, etc.
Beyond the empirical data it doesn't take rocket science to
realize WHY "mental speed" would explain intelligence, since
the mentally retarded have bee called "slow" for thousands of
years.



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.


[Hammond]
For the purposes of this discussion, and IQ test is accepted
as an adequate measure of human intelligence.


snip

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.

[Hammond]
Obviously you have no credentials in physics.
Clearly, the movie film Picture Fusion Frequency
is the "Fourier cutoff frequency of the observers
brain" (the PFF). What this means is that the
observer CANNOT perceptually see any visual
frequency of motion greater than his PFF.
Any competent scientist aware of Fourier
Analysis (which the whole of QM is based on
for instance) would be immediately aware of
this.


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?

[Hammond]
Riedel first discovered it in 1966 (reference given in the
bibliograpy of Lehrl's paper URL above). It has been
confirmed by nemerous investigators since including
Weidenhammer & Fischer and Lehrl himself, citations
included in Lehrl's paper. this is a very well known
result... not to mention that it is a commnly known
fact known to every parent.




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?

[Hammond]
Obviously there is a "theoretical genetic size" for
every specie known to the biological kingdom.
there are for instance acres of closed (identical)
Orchids grown in hothouses for countless
generations. They are all the same size, and
we may presume that this is the "geonotypic
size" for these Orchids. Obviously if you plant one
of these Orchids in your backyard where there
is poor soil, inadequate sun and not enough water,
the plant will never reach it's standard size.
This then is a "growth deficit" and it's exact
percentage can easily be masured with a
tape measure.
Same is true of people... although the full
genotypic size has never been achieved, it
is not hard to determine by simple extrapolation
of the data. Fact is, IT DOESN'T MATTER what
it actually is.... all we have to know is that it
"theoretically exists", which is obvious.



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?

[Hammond]
Your lack of credentials in physicis is rudely showing
here. The Fourier spectrum has NOTHING to do
with the fourier spectrum of LIGHT!! We are talking
about the Fourier frequency spectrum of the MOTION
OF THE OBJECTS VISIBLE IN THE FILM, not the
Fourier spectrum of the light waves!





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!


[Hammond]
the fourier Specturm that we are talking about has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with
the fourier spectrum of electromagnetc field... you
are absurdly off base. The MOTION in the film
(peoples hands moving, their feet moving, there
lips moving etc. etc.) all have a FOURIER FREQUENCY
SPECTURM (lying in the range of 0 to 50 cycles/sec
say. Fact is, the average observer can't see more
than 0 to 15 cycles/sec.... and the PFF is the
PHYSICIAL PROOF of that fact. The fact that
a 7 year old can only see 0=10 cycles/sec, and
an adult can see 0-15 cycles/sec, PROVES that
1/3 of the adult world is INVISBLE to a 7 year old.





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?

[Hammond]
Unfortunately your remarks are incompetent
scientifically speaking because apparently you have
no credentials in basic physics.


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

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2005 07:02:11 -0700, "Sleepyhead"
wrote:

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?

[Hammond]
Decades of peer reviewed published research has established
that "mental speed" in bits/sec is the predominant biological
correlate of measured intelligence. The above paper cites the
literature including notably, Eysenck, Jensen, Vernon, etc.
Beyond the empirical data it doesn't take rocket science to
realize WHY "mental speed" would explain intelligence, since
the mentally retarded have bee called "slow" for thousands of
years.

You're so ****ing insane, it's laughable!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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.

I know of noboby that doesnt. When they get sick they cry out to science,
when they get no answer, they cry out to God.

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

Decades of peer reviewed published research has established that "mental speed" in bits/sec is the predominant biological correlate of measured intelligence. The above paper cites the literature including notably, Eysenck, Jensen, Vernon, etc.

Fair enough, but my question still remains unanswered. Bits per second
is a measure of the number of binary units of packetized data per
second. Peerr review notwithstanding there is no evidence to suggest
that this is how the brain operates. In which case it's still a moot
point as to the relevance of any findings based on such a measurement.

Beyond the empirical data it doesn't take rocket science to realize WHY "mental speed" would explain intelligence, since the mentally retarded have bee called "slow" for thousands of years.

You're using the word "Mental speed" in two different senses here. One
to mean "Visual throughput" and the other to mean "Ability to think
quickly". The mentally slow cannot think quickly, but they might well
have the same visual throughput as everyone else (cf the available
experimental evidence).

Obviously you have no credentials in physics.

It's not obvious to me!

Clearly, the movie film Picture Fusion Frequency is the "Fourier cutoff frequency of the observers brain" (the PFF). What this means is that the observer CANNOT perceptually see any visual frequency of motion greater than his PFF. Any competent scientist aware of Fourier Analysis (which the whole of QM is based on for instance) would be immediately aware of this.

The whole of QM is /not/ based on Fourier Analysis. The maths might
rely on it to a certain extent but without the rest of the model
Fourier Analysis would have nothing to analyze!

Just because they both involve a cutoff frequency doesn't mean the
maths behaves similarly in any other way.

Also: You use the words 'obviously' and 'clearly'. In my experience of
reading scientific and philosophical literature the use of either of
these words means "I can't be bothered to explain myself". It's not
clear to me that PFF just is Fourier cutoff frequency, although the two
might be said to be analogous. Indeed - If it's not clear to anyone
except you that this is how things are then I'd say you have some more
explaining to do.

Obviously there is a "theoretical genetic size" for every specie known to the biological kingdom. there are for instance acres of closed (identical) Orchids grown in hothouses for countless generations. They are all the same size, and we may presume that this is the "geonotypic size" for these Orchids. Obviously if you plant one of these Orchids in your backyard where there is poor soil, inadequate sun and not enough water, the plant will never reach it's standard size. This then is a "growth deficit" and it's exact percentage can easily be masured with a tape measure.

Ah! "Obviously" again! Well just because it happens to be the case for
a flower doesn't mean that it's the case for anything else (including
other flowers). And who's to say that these hothouses have produced the
/maximum/ sized flower? Are you absolutely sure they can't get any
larger? What if you grow them in zero-G?

Same is true of people... although the full genotypic size has never been achieved, it is not hard to determine by simple extrapolation of the data. Fact is, IT DOESN'T MATTER what it actually is.... all we have to know is that it "theoretically exists", which is obvious.

If it theoretically exists then I'd say you need to prove that theory
first. Lots of things exist in theory, but not in practice!

Your lack of credentials in physicis is rudely showing here.

Seeing as you know nothing about me might I suggest you shut your fat
cake-hole and stick to the discussion! My rude language was designed to
make a point - we'll discuss that /point/ or we'll discuss nothing at
all, thanks very much.

The Fourier spectrum has NOTHING to do with the fourier spectrum of LIGHT!! We are talking about the Fourier frequency spectrum of the MOTION OF THE OBJECTS VISIBLE IN THE FILM, not the Fourier spectrum of the light waves!

The fourier Specturm that we are talking about has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fourier spectrum of electromagnetc field... you are absurdly off base. The MOTION in the film (peoples hands moving, their feet moving, there lips moving etc. etc.) all have a FOURIER FREQUENCY SPECTURM (lying in the range of 0 to 50 cycles/sec say.

OK.

But you're using something's visibility to make conclusions about
heaven. Many things are invisible; I ask again - so what?

Fact is, the average observer can't see more than 0 to 15 cycles/sec.... and the PFF is the PHYSICIAL PROOF of that fact. The fact that a 7 year old can only see 0=10 cycles/sec, and an adult can see 0-15 cycles/sec, PROVES that 1/3 of the adult world is INVISBLE to a 7 year old.

No it doesn't. The most it shows is that adults and kids have slightly
different frame-rates. And? How does /this/ prove God exists?


Unfortunately your remarks are incompetent scientifically speaking because apparently you have no credentials in basic physics.

Why are they /incompetent/? Simply /because/ I disagree with you? And
when was PFF /basic/ physics? Child's stuff is it? The kind of thing
one learns in kindergarten?

Anyway you're the berk who's posting to a /philosophy/ newsgroup, and
it's clear to me that you're /conceptually/ confused!

"Brian Fletcher" wrote in message
...

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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.

I know of noboby that doesnt. When they get sick they cry out to science,
when they get no answer, they cry out to God.

So . people who hurting are so desperate, they reach out to invented comic
book characters.

I used to think I was superman too...........

On 25 Aug 2005 06:04:04 -0700, "Sleepyhead"
wrote:

Decades of peer reviewed published research has established that "mental speed" in bits/sec is the predominant biological correlate of measured intelligence. The above paper cites the literature including notably, Eysenck, Jensen, Vernon, etc.

Fair enough, but my question still remains unanswered. Bits per second
is a measure of the number of binary units of packetized data per
second. Peerr review notwithstanding there is no evidence to suggest
that this is how the brain operates. In which case it's still a moot
point as to the relevance of any findings based on such a measurement.

Beyond the empirical data it doesn't take rocket science to realize WHY "mental speed" would explain intelligence, since the mentally retarded have bee called "slow" for thousands of years.

You're using the word "Mental speed" in two different senses here. One
to mean "Visual throughput" and the other to mean "Ability to think
quickly". The mentally slow cannot think quickly, but they might well
have the same visual throughput as everyone else (cf the available
experimental evidence).

[Hammond]
sorry but your remarks on ?mental speed" are too incompetent
to respond to... you're obviously not aware of the VAST
literature on the subject.


Obviously you have no credentials in physics.

It's not obvious to me!

[Hammond]
We know that.
Now you know that.


Clearly, the movie film Picture Fusion Frequency is the "Fourier cutoff frequency of the observers brain" (the PFF). What this means is that the observer CANNOT perceptually see any visual frequency of motion greater than his PFF. Any competent scientist aware of Fourier Analysis (which the whole of QM is based on for instance) would be immediately aware of this.

The whole of QM is /not/ based on Fourier Analysis.


[Hammond]
Of course it is... any Linear Algebra theory is.
The "momentum" eigenfunctions are merely
the Fourier Transform of the position
eigenfunctions. Same with any two
conjugate variables in QM.




The maths might
rely on it to a certain extent but without the rest of the model
Fourier Analysis would have nothing to analyze!

Just because they both involve a cutoff frequency doesn't mean the
maths behaves similarly in any other way.

Also: You use the words 'obviously' and 'clearly'. In my experience of
reading scientific and philosophical literature the use of either of
these words means "I can't be bothered to explain myself". It's not
clear to me that PFF just is Fourier cutoff frequency, although the two
might be said to be analogous. Indeed - If it's not clear to anyone
except you that this is how things are then I'd say you have some more
explaining to do.

[Hammond]
Your posts do not qualify as "scientific literature" whereas mine do
since I am a graduate physicist (M.S. physics) and this theory has
been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Therefore the word "obviously" refers to YOUR scientific
incompetence, which is a correct use of the word.


snip

Your lack of credentials in physicis is rudely showing here.

Seeing as you know nothing about me might I suggest you shut your fat
cake-hole and stick to the discussion! My rude language was designed to
make a point - we'll discuss that /point/ or we'll discuss nothing at
all, thanks very much.

[Hammond]
You have nothing of interest to say.
On top of that you have a non productive attitude.

killfile: news/email: "Sleepyhead"

You can talk ABOUT me, but you are no
longer permitted to talk TOO me. Sorry.

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

"ZenIsWhen" wrote in message
...

"Brian Fletcher" wrote in message
...

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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.

I know of noboby that doesnt. When they get sick they cry out to science,
when they get no answer, they cry out to God.

So . people who hurting are so desperate, they reach out to invented comic
book characters.

I used to think I was superman too...........

That's the problem with thinking.

I am therefor I think.

BOfL

Sorry but your remarks on ?mental speed" are too incompetent to respond to... you're obviously not aware of the VAST literature on the subject.

1) That /was/ a response, although perhaps not the scientific and
thoughtful response I'd have expected from someone who's such a
scientific and philosophical whizz as yourself;

2) I'm quite well aware of the VAST literature on the subject - but you
still haven't answered my point - seeing as the brain isn't a computer
what justifies the postulation that visual throughput can be measured
in bits per second?


Of course it is ... any Linear Algebra theory is. The "momentum" eigenfunctions are merely the Fourier Transform of the position eigenfunctions. Same with any two conjugate variables in QM.

Hmm. Well your remarks might be right about the mathematical aspects of
the QM model, but what makes the model interesting is its explicative
nature and its ability to make predictions. I'd wager that without
those QM wouldn't be based in anything but mathematical speculation.


Your posts do not qualify as "scientific literature" whereas mine do since I am a graduate physicist (M.S. physics) and this theory has been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

a) Your /posts/ don't qualify as "scientific literature" either -
they're UseNet posts, not articles for peer review (unless you count
UseNet argy-bargy as "peer review").

b) This theory may well be part of the scientific literature, but then
so are many theoretical articles, many of which are wrong. Just because
it's published don't mean it's either interesting or correct.


Therefore the word "obviously" refers to YOUR scientific incompetence, which is a correct use of the word.

I know what the word "obviously" referred to in your sentence. And my
points still stand, viz:

1) Just because you think something's obvious doesn't mean it is;
2) Lazy writers use the words "Obvious" and "Clearly" to avoid
writing obviously and clearly.


You have nothing of interest to say. On top of that you have a non productive attitude.

And that, folks, is what psychologists refer to as "projection".


You can talk ABOUT me, but you are no longer permitted to talk TOO me. Sorry.

1) I'm no longer permitted to talk /to/ you, not "too" you. Your
spelling is surprisingly terrible for someone who's done his MPhys.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On 25 Aug 2005 06:04:04 -0700, "Sleepyhead"
wrote:

Decades of peer reviewed published research has established that "mental
speed" in bits/sec is the predominant biological correlate of measured
intelligence. The above paper cites the literature including notably,
Eysenck, Jensen, Vernon, etc.

Fair enough, but my question still remains unanswered. Bits per second
is a measure of the number of binary units of packetized data per
second. Peerr review notwithstanding there is no evidence to suggest
that this is how the brain operates. In which case it's still a moot
point as to the relevance of any findings based on such a measurement.

Beyond the empirical data it doesn't take rocket science to realize WHY
"mental speed" would explain intelligence, since the mentally retarded
have bee called "slow" for thousands of years.

You're using the word "Mental speed" in two different senses here. One
to mean "Visual throughput" and the other to mean "Ability to think
quickly". The mentally slow cannot think quickly, but they might well
have the same visual throughput as everyone else (cf the available
experimental evidence).

[Hammond]
sorry but your remarks on ?mental speed" are too incompetent
to respond to... you're obviously not aware of the VAST
literature on the subject.

Vast? A few questionable, and arguable, papers.
The "vast" literature does nothing to support your crap conclusions.




Obviously you have no credentials in physics.

It's not obvious to me!

[Hammond]
We know that.
Now you know that.

Who's this "We" - you and your pet rabbit Harvy?





Clearly, the movie film Picture Fusion Frequency is the "Fourier cutoff
frequency of the observers brain" (the PFF). What this means is that the
observer CANNOT perceptually see any visual frequency of motion greater
than his PFF. Any competent scientist aware of Fourier Analysis (which
the whole of QM is based on for instance) would be immediately aware of
this.

The whole of QM is /not/ based on Fourier Analysis.


[Hammond]
Of course it is... any Linear Algebra theory is.
The "momentum" eigenfunctions are merely
the Fourier Transform of the position
eigenfunctions. Same with any two
conjugate variables in QM.

Making claims without valid scientific sources again, George?

The maths might
rely on it to a certain extent but without the rest of the model
Fourier Analysis would have nothing to analyze!

Just because they both involve a cutoff frequency doesn't mean the
maths behaves similarly in any other way.

Also: You use the words 'obviously' and 'clearly'. In my experience of
reading scientific and philosophical literature the use of either of
these words means "I can't be bothered to explain myself". It's not
clear to me that PFF just is Fourier cutoff frequency, although the two
might be said to be analogous. Indeed - If it's not clear to anyone
except you that this is how things are then I'd say you have some more
explaining to do.

[Hammond]
Your posts do not qualify as "scientific literature" whereas mine do
since I am a graduate physicist (M.S. physics) and this theory has
been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Therefore the word "obviously" refers to YOUR scientific
incompetence, which is a correct use of the word.

Bwahahaaa............ this comes from an insanewho BLATANTLY makes claims
WITHOUT ANY valid scientific support!

It's doesn't matter if have a Magma Cum Laude in physics from botth
Princton AND Harvard - your claims, and posts, are not only insane, but
totally unscientific to boot!

What about the MANY posts that point out specifics from your posts that
indicate your obvious distortions, lies and insanity?


Your lack of credentials in physicis is rudely showing here.

Seeing as you know nothing about me might I suggest you shut your fat
cake-hole and stick to the discussion! My rude language was designed to
make a point - we'll discuss that /point/ or we'll discuss nothing at
all, thanks very much.

[Hammond]
You have nothing of interest to say.
On top of that you have a non productive attitude.

killfile: news/email: "Sleepyhead"

Yet another sane, rational and logical person joins the esteemed ranks of
George's kill file.


You can talk ABOUT me, but you are no
longer permitted to talk TOO me. Sorry.

You are permitted to show ANY valid scientific evidence for your claims, AND
you sanity.
So far, you have shown the exact opposite.