In 1966 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).

Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain. The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

OK... Schornak has take issue with Riedel's findings... and even
claims to have made some gifanimations which show that the
average adult PFF is not 15 frames/sec. He cites for instance
the fact that all modern movies are shot at 24 frames/sec.

Well, guess what? A little research turns up the fact that the
ORIGINAL movies (called silent movies) were actually shot
at 16 frames/sec! Why? Because it was experimentally found
by the fledgling movie industry that this is the minimum frame
rate that will produce a seamles, fluid, real life motion. Naturally
they were trying to use the minimum amount of film and run at
the slowest speed possible... in other words 16 frames/sec *IS*
the actuall PFF of the average adult!

(see: http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim458...als/Video.html )

Also, this is the reason why "home movies" were all shot at
16-18 frames/sec, and not 24 frames/sec... to keep the cost
of film/developing down.

So why are modern films shot at 24 frames/sec.... because of the
SOUND TRACK for chrissakes! It turns out that 16 frames/sec
is too slow to record sound... hence when "talkies" came into
vogue they had to bump up the frame rate from 16 to 24 frames/sec
to keep the sound from warbling! (see above URL)

So at any rate... Riedel claims that the PFF of the "average adult"
is 15 frames/sec. CLEARLY the entire history of the movie industry
CONFIRMS that fact!

Furthermore of course, Riedel claims that the PFF goes up with age
(in children) from 10 fps at age 7 to 15 fps at age 15. Well, now that
we have established the ACCURACY of Riedel's result for adults, I
don't think there is any reason to doubt his measurements on the
scores of school age children either... clearly we can trust his result...
at least his peers Weidenhammer & Fischer, and Seigfrieid Lehrl
(URL above) trust it and have also experimentally confirmed it.

So Schornak doesn't know what he's talking about... and his
"gifanimation experiments" are a bunch of baloney. Schornak
claims that he can "see 40 frames/sec" as still pictures. Obviously
this is crazy since billions of people are sitting in movie theatres
world wide watching 24 fps movies and can't see a single frame
of it as an individual picture.. silent films prove that they can't even
see single pictures at 16 frames/sec!


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! 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!

1/3 of the world that is visible to an adult,
is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old... and this is
entirely caused by the "brain growth deficit"
of the child compared to the adult!

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....!

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..!

For cripes sake..... isn't there ANYONE on these physics
newsgroups who is competent in elementary Science....!!!

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!
========================================
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 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).

Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain. The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

OK... Schornak has take issue with Riedel's findings... and even
claims to have made some gifanimations which show that the
average adult PFF is not 15 frames/sec. He cites for instance
the fact that all modern movies are shot at 24 frames/sec.

Well, guess what? A little research turns up the fact that the
ORIGINAL movies (called silent movies) were actually shot
at 16 frames/sec! Why? Because it was experimentally found
by the fledgling movie industry that this is the minimum frame
rate that will produce a seamles, fluid, real life motion. Naturally
they were trying to use the minimum amount of film and run at
the slowest speed possible... in other words 16 frames/sec *IS*
the actuall PFF of the average adult!

(see: http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim458...als/Video.html )

Also, this is the reason why "home movies" were all shot at
16-18 frames/sec, and not 24 frames/sec... to keep the cost
of film/developing down.

So why are modern films shot at 24 frames/sec.... because of the
SOUND TRACK for chrissakes! It turns out that 16 frames/sec
is too slow to record sound... hence when "talkies" came into
vogue they had to bump up the frame rate from 16 to 24 frames/sec
to keep the sound from warbling! (see above URL)

So at any rate... Riedel claims that the PFF of the "average adult"
is 15 frames/sec. CLEARLY the entire history of the movie industry
CONFIRMS that fact!

Furthermore of course, Riedel claims that the PFF goes up with age
(in children) from 10 fps at age 7 to 15 fps at age 15. Well, now
that
we have established the ACCURACY of Riedel's result for adults, I
don't think there is any reason to doubt his measurements on the
scores of school age children either... clearly we can trust his
result...
at least his peers Weidenhammer & Fischer, and Seigfrieid Lehrl
(URL above) trust it and have also experimentally confirmed it.

So Schornak doesn't know what he's talking about... and his
"gifanimation experiments" are a bunch of baloney. Schornak
claims that he can "see 40 frames/sec" as still pictures. Obviously
this is crazy since billions of people are sitting in movie theatres
world wide watching 24 fps movies and can't see a single frame
of it as an individual picture.. silent films prove that they can't
even
see single pictures at 16 frames/sec!


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! 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!

1/3 of the world that is visible to an adult,
is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old... and this is
entirely caused by the "brain growth deficit"
of the child compared to the adult!

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....!

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..!

For cripes sake..... isn't there ANYONE on these physics
newsgroups who is competent in elementary Science....!!!

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!
========================================
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
...
In 1966 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).

1: When providing references to the works of others, it is common
scientific practice to include any and all data referencing that work.
Providing just the date - and not the title of the paper, the publication
and even the page numbers is indicative of an amateur.

2: Since the articles cannot be located using general searches and the
minimal information provided, it is impossible to assess the validity of the
claims and conclusions.

3: The authors mentioned MAY have had some papers printed about the topic,
but there is no way to evaluate the outrageous conclusions made ...........
making the claims and asserted conclusions worthless.



Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain.

and your evidence for this is..............?
I hope it's based on more than your previous, worthless, conclusions.


The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

The European Journal of Personality?
Is this supposed to be a science journal?

" 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. One possibility
is to attempt a reconstruction of intelligence using elementary variables.
It seems worthwhile to reconstruct this fuzzy and complex concept using
basic variables as building units, which are easier to grasp than the
complex concepts to which they belong. If it can be shown that this
reconstruction approximates the original concept of intelligence, its
scientific value and applicability will increase."

In other words - intelligence is so difficult (and fuzzy) a concept to
define, we must look for standards by which we can agree MAY apply to
intelligence.

While FFF MAY apply to intelligence, so does age, diet, drugs, headaches,
hormones, education, personality, stress, genetics, gender, time of day,
season, skin rashes and a myriad of other human conditions.

To select ONLY one arguable aspect opf this - and to try to use it as proof
of anaything - is mere pompous fraud!



OK... Schornak has take issue with Riedel's findings... and even
claims to have made some gifanimations which show that the
average adult PFF is not 15 frames/sec. He cites for instance
the fact that all modern movies are shot at 24 frames/sec.

Well, guess what? A little research turns up the fact that the
ORIGINAL movies (called silent movies) were actually shot
at 16 frames/sec! Why? Because it was experimentally found
by the fledgling movie industry that this is the minimum frame
rate that will produce a seamles, fluid, real life motion. Naturally
they were trying to use the minimum amount of film and run at
the slowest speed possible... in other words 16 frames/sec *IS*
the actuall PFF of the average adult!

and how do you draw that conclusion from this information?
Where are the references?
Where is it written that the reason for the frame rate was economics?

If those basic comments are anything near the truth - why isn' the whole
following visual industry working with that rate?



(see: http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim458...als/Video.html )

Also, this is the reason why "home movies" were all shot at
16-18 frames/sec, and not 24 frames/sec... to keep the cost
of film/developing down.

So why are modern films shot at 24 frames/sec.... because of the
SOUND TRACK for chrissakes! It turns out that 16 frames/sec
is too slow to record sound... hence when "talkies" came into
vogue they had to bump up the frame rate from 16 to 24 frames/sec
to keep the sound from warbling! (see above URL)

" With a rate of 24 frames per second, film viewers perceived constant
motion,
but the flicker phenomenon would still occur.

This problem was easily resolved by flashing each frame of a film on the
screen twice utilizing a two bladed shutter. Therefore with a film rate of
24 frames per second, the viewer is actually seeing illumination of the
screen at a rate of 48 times per second as with the Lumiere example
above.Early television experiments in 1920s used mechanical systems to
produce an image of 60 vertical lines of resolution. In this NBC Television
demonstration Felix the Cat is displayed for mechanical television "


I'm confused.
You use citations that blatantly contradict your claims?
Either you don't actually read the references -
you don't understand the references -
or you only read/comprehend what you can use to (pretend to) support your
faulty arguments.



So at any rate... Riedel claims that the PFF of the "average adult"
is 15 frames/sec. CLEARLY the entire history of the movie industry
CONFIRMS that fact!

No. Obviously it doesn't.


Furthermore of course, Riedel claims that the PFF goes up with age
(in children) from 10 fps at age 7 to 15 fps at age 15. Well, now
that
we have established the ACCURACY of Riedel's result for adults, I
don't think there is any reason to doubt his measurements on the
scores of school age children either... clearly we can trust his
result...
at least his peers Weidenhammer & Fischer, and Seigfrieid Lehrl
(URL above) trust it and have also experimentally confirmed it.

"We" have resolved nothing.
YOU have fraudulent misused, distorted and even ignored the facts to support
an unsupportable, unscientific, claim.


So Schornak doesn't know what he's talking about... and his
"gifanimation experiments" are a bunch of baloney. Schornak
claims that he can "see 40 frames/sec" as still pictures. Obviously
this is crazy since billions of people are sitting in movie theatres
world wide watching 24 fps movies and can't see a single frame
of it as an individual picture.. silent films prove that they can't
even
see single pictures at 16 frames/sec!


FINALLY, of course... as any trained scientist can see, the "PFF"

Any "real" scientist would NEVER have presented information and arguments
based on such shoddy work, irrational thinking, false and fraudulent
conclusions and claims, and even less than amateurish references.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:27:24 -0400, "Demosthenes"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
In 1966 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).


1: When providing references to the works of others, it is common
scientific practice to include any and all data referencing that work.
Providing just the date - and not the title of the paper, the publication
and even the page numbers is indicative of an amateur.

2: Since the articles cannot be located using general searches and the
minimal information provided, it is impossible to assess the validity of the
claims and conclusions.

3: The authors mentioned MAY have had some papers printed about the topic,
but there is no way to evaluate the outrageous conclusions made ...........
making the claims and asserted conclusions worthless.


[Hammond]
The complete citations to these papers are given in Siegfried Lehrl &
Bernd Fischer's 1990 paper a copy of which is online and the URLwas
posted below and here again; http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(by the way this paper is in English and the others are in German),
but here are the full citations from the online bibliography:

Online paper: ( http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html ):
Siegfried Lehrl and Bernd Fischer, (1990), A basic information
psychological parameter (BIP) for the reconstruction of
concepts of intelligence, European Journal of Personality
4 259-286 (online, URL above)

From the online paper's bibliography:

Riedel, H. (1966): Untersuchung zur Abhängigkeit des
Zeitauflösungsvermögens vom Lebensalter. Grundlagenstudien
der Kybernetik und Geisteswissenschaften 7: 65-72.


Weidenhammer, W. and Fischer, B. (1985): Flimmerverschmelzungsfrequenz
und Subjektives Zeitquant – sind sie unabhängige Größen?
Grundlagenstudien der Kybernetik und
Geisteswissenschaften/Humankybernetik 26: 51-60

Note, the online paper reviews these 2 works on page 6 of 26 in
paragraphs 2 and 3.



Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain.

and your evidence for this is..............?
I hope it's based on more than your previous, worthless, conclusions.

[Hammond]
1. Don't waste your breath trying to insult me.

2. The above cited works prove that speed of information processing
is the cause of the PFF.

3. It is well known in the film industry that "persistence of vision"
is an "amateur misnomer" only used in textbooks and film
making classes, and that modern psychology has long
concluded that it is caused by "mental speed".
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

4. In fact, they still don't know what causes movies to work,
but they are quite sure by now that it is not "persistence
of vision". Fact is, the above papers and the vast
evidence identifying "mental speed" as the dominant
biological correlate of intelligence, that and the fact
that the brain processing rate is 15 bits/sec which corresponds
exactly to the average (movie) Picture Fusion Frequency
identifies unambiguously, the rather obvious fact that it
is (limited) Intelligence (i.e. limited brain speed) that causes
movies to work.





The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

The European Journal of Personality?
Is this supposed to be a science journal?

[Hammond]
I don't answer retorical questions.



" 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. One possibility
is to attempt a reconstruction of intelligence using elementary variables.
It seems worthwhile to reconstruct this fuzzy and complex concept using
basic variables as building units, which are easier to grasp than the
complex concepts to which they belong. If it can be shown that this
reconstruction approximates the original concept of intelligence, its
scientific value and applicability will increase."

In other words - intelligence is so difficult (and fuzzy) a concept to
define, we must look for standards by which we can agree MAY apply to
intelligence.


[Hammond]
From that i assume you are an amateur who thinks he is going
to reinvent the wheel from his native scintillating logic instead
of taking the time to become familiar with the vast peer publsihed
empirical research on Intelligence. Excuse me, but this is not
an amateur discussion, and I am not an amateur.







While FFF MAY apply to intelligence, so does age, diet, drugs, headaches,
hormones, education, personality, stress, genetics, gender, time of day,
season, skin rashes and a myriad of other human conditions.

To select ONLY one arguable aspect opf this - and to try to use it as proof
of anaything - is mere pompous fraud!

[Hammond]
OK... that does it asshole, you're outta here...:

killfile news/email: "Demosthenes"



========================================
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 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:27:24 -0400, "Demosthenes"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
In 1966 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).


1: When providing references to the works of others, it is common
scientific practice to include any and all data referencing that work.
Providing just the date - and not the title of the paper, the publication
and even the page numbers is indicative of an amateur.

2: Since the articles cannot be located using general searches and the
minimal information provided, it is impossible to assess the validity of
the
claims and conclusions.

3: The authors mentioned MAY have had some papers printed about the topic,
but there is no way to evaluate the outrageous conclusions made
...........
making the claims and asserted conclusions worthless.


[Hammond]
The complete citations to these papers are given in Siegfried Lehrl &
Bernd Fischer's 1990 paper a copy of which is online and the URLwas
posted below and here again; http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(by the way this paper is in English and the others are in German),
but here are the full citations from the online bibliography:

" Abstract
Adherents of the Galton paradigm favour the concept that the single
parameter 'speed of information processing' has a physiological basis and
determines complex achievements assessed in intelligence tests as well as
social success.

Can you understand this??????????
"Adherents of the Galton paradigm"

THAT means that not ALL scientists (and it doesn't tell how many) do NOT
"favor" the same concept.
This is merely a paper presenting a concept (that not all scientists agree
with)! i.e. not PROOF of anything.



Online paper: ( http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html ):
Siegfried Lehrl and Bernd Fischer, (1990), A basic information
psychological parameter (BIP) for the reconstruction of
concepts of intelligence, European Journal of Personality
4 259-286 (online, URL above)

From the online paper's bibliography:

Riedel, H. (1966): Untersuchung zur Abhängigkeit des
Zeitauflösungsvermögens vom Lebensalter. Grundlagenstudien
der Kybernetik und Geisteswissenschaften 7: 65-72.


Weidenhammer, W. and Fischer, B. (1985): Flimmerverschmelzungsfrequenz
und Subjektives Zeitquant - sind sie unabhängige Größen?
Grundlagenstudien der Kybernetik und
Geisteswissenschaften/Humankybernetik 26: 51-60

Note, the online paper reviews these 2 works on page 6 of 26 in
paragraphs 2 and 3.

More of the same unscientific, pre-biased, claims.





Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain.

and your evidence for this is..............?
I hope it's based on more than your previous, worthless, conclusions.

[Hammond]
1. Don't waste your breath trying to insult me.

Why not?
You waste a lot of time presenting faux science and outrageous, unsupported,
claims!




2. The above cited works prove that speed of information processing
is the cause of the PFF.

No. That is a theory presented by some sceintists in an attempt to define
"intelligence" using factual sounding data.
It proves nothing.


3. It is well known in the film industry that "persistence of vision"
is an "amateur misnomer" only used in textbooks and film
making classes, and that modern psychology has long
concluded that it is caused by "mental speed".
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

All they are saying is that the eye is not an independent unit - and works
in conjunction with the brain.

"Psychologists and physiologists have abandoned this theory's applicability
to film viewership, though film textbooks, film professors, and film
theorists have largely not."

What's the problem? forgot to read your own references again?



4. In fact, they still don't know what causes movies to work,
but they are quite sure by now that it is not "persistence
of vision". Fact is, the above papers and the vast
evidence identifying "mental speed" as the dominant
biological correlate of intelligence, that and the fact
that the brain processing rate is 15 bits/sec which corresponds
exactly to the average (movie) Picture Fusion Frequency
identifies unambiguously, the rather obvious fact that it
is (limited) Intelligence (i.e. limited brain speed) that causes
movies to work.

This is where you take some basic, arguable, and fuzzy information (and some
lies) - and pretend it is a solid base of support for your outrageous,
following, claims!



The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

The European Journal of Personality?
Is this supposed to be a science journal?

[Hammond]
I don't answer retorical questions.

From what I've seen, you don't answer any questions where your knowledge,
integrity, claaims and intelligence have been challenged.

Just a short time ago, you arrogantly mentioned that you had a post to a
real science group - (and they don't harass you) ... and included that your
detractors would NOT be allowed to post there.

It was easy to find out that YOUR messages are not posted there -
It is generally a fact that ANYONE can post to any news group at any time
(the only criteria is the applicability, honesty and integrity of thier
posts.)

You were told this ........ and, apparently ran away for a few days .... and
then came back without even mentioning the fact that you had be caught in a
bald faced lie.

" 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. One possibility
is to attempt a reconstruction of intelligence using elementary variables.
It seems worthwhile to reconstruct this fuzzy and complex concept using
basic variables as building units, which are easier to grasp than the
complex concepts to which they belong. If it can be shown that this
reconstruction approximates the original concept of intelligence, its
scientific value and applicability will increase."

In other words - intelligence is so difficult (and fuzzy) a concept to
define, we must look for standards by which we can agree MAY apply to
intelligence.


[Hammond]
From that i assume you are an amateur who thinks he is going
to reinvent the wheel from his native scintillating logic instead
of taking the time to become familiar with the vast peer publsihed
empirical research on Intelligence. Excuse me, but this is not
an amateur discussion, and I am not an amateur.

From that, I assume you are going to start playing the same childish,
unscientific, mentally corrupt games that you always seem to play when
cornered.

Your "assumption" is wrong. I paraphrased a quote from one of the sites YOU
presented.
It is mere fraud to delete THAT important part of the message, so you can
childishly attack and insult me.

IF you can show where I was mistaken in my simpler description of what was
said - then do it!
Again you seem to be playing your usual games - ignoring the actual
information (not providing any rational, sane, or even mature rebuttal), and
resorting to worthless insuslts.


While FFF MAY apply to intelligence, so does age, diet, drugs, headaches,
hormones, education, personality, stress, genetics, gender, time of day,
season, skin rashes and a myriad of other human conditions.

To select ONLY one arguable aspect opf this - and to try to use it as
proof
of anaything - is mere pompous fraud!

[Hammond]
OK... that does it asshole, you're outta here...:

Now THAT'S what I call a mature response from a gifted, educated scientist
............................. who is suffering from a myriad of mental
problems!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
ink.net...


In 1966 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).

WOW! This is BIG news! I would *never* have worked this out for myself.

20% of the natural is invisible to *all* adults? So, ****wit, just how do
*you*
know it's there? Can you see it? what does it look like?

sr

Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain. The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

OK... Schornak has take issue with Riedel's findings... and even
claims to have made some gifanimations which show that the
average adult PFF is not 15 frames/sec. He cites for instance
the fact that all modern movies are shot at 24 frames/sec.

Well, guess what? A little research turns up the fact that the
ORIGINAL movies (called silent movies) were actually shot
at 16 frames/sec! Why? Because it was experimentally found
by the fledgling movie industry that this is the minimum frame
rate that will produce a seamles, fluid, real life motion. Naturally
they were trying to use the minimum amount of film and run at
the slowest speed possible... in other words 16 frames/sec *IS*
the actuall PFF of the average adult!

(see: http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim458...als/Video.html )

Also, this is the reason why "home movies" were all shot at
16-18 frames/sec, and not 24 frames/sec... to keep the cost
of film/developing down.

So why are modern films shot at 24 frames/sec.... because of the
SOUND TRACK for chrissakes! It turns out that 16 frames/sec
is too slow to record sound... hence when "talkies" came into
vogue they had to bump up the frame rate from 16 to 24 frames/sec
to keep the sound from warbling! (see above URL)

So at any rate... Riedel claims that the PFF of the "average adult"
is 15 frames/sec. CLEARLY the entire history of the movie industry
CONFIRMS that fact!

Furthermore of course, Riedel claims that the PFF goes up with age
(in children) from 10 fps at age 7 to 15 fps at age 15. Well, now that
we have established the ACCURACY of Riedel's result for adults, I
don't think there is any reason to doubt his measurements on the
scores of school age children either... clearly we can trust his result...
at least his peers Weidenhammer & Fischer, and Seigfrieid Lehrl
(URL above) trust it and have also experimentally confirmed it.

So Schornak doesn't know what he's talking about... and his
"gifanimation experiments" are a bunch of baloney. Schornak
claims that he can "see 40 frames/sec" as still pictures. Obviously
this is crazy since billions of people are sitting in movie theatres
world wide watching 24 fps movies and can't see a single frame
of it as an individual picture.. silent films prove that they can't even
see single pictures at 16 frames/sec!


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! 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!

1/3 of the world that is visible to an adult,
is INVISIBLE to a 7 year old... and this is
entirely caused by the "brain growth deficit"
of the child compared to the adult!

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....!

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..!

For cripes sake..... isn't there ANYONE on these physics
newsgroups who is competent in elementary Science....!!!

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!
========================================
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
ink.net...

snip
Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain. The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

snip

[Zagan]
While I don't know if movies work by bits/sec or persistence of vision, I
must take exception to your statement that "there is no such thing as
'persistence of vision'." Anyone can perform a simple experiment to
demonstrate their own persistence of vision. For example, while looking at
my computer monitor, if I shut my eyes, the image of the screen persists for
what I guess is a few milliseconds. The reason for the persistence of vision
is that the eye-brain process is not instantaneous. It takes time for the
eye-brain mechanism to process images due the limitations of the
electrochemical processes involved. Intelligence has nothing to do with this
process.

If I cannot process more than 15 frames/sec. why is it that when I go to a
movie theater, it takes me several minutes before the "flow" of the movie
seems continuous. I'm not saying I see each individual frame. I'm saying I
sense a discontinuity. It is this discontinuity that causes some people to
get headaches. Some theaters use projectors operating at 48 fps. Think about
it before you decide the movie is running at twice speed.

I do not get this effect when watching TV (in the US 30 interlaced frames
per second, or 60 images per second). But this is because the phosphorus
"dots" on the screen do not glow/fade instantaneously.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

I know you will consider me an idiot, but we have become accustomed to that.

// Jim

George Hammond wrote:

[...]

(see: http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim458...als/Video.html )


How does this link support your "PPF" hypothesis?

Also, this is the reason why "home movies" were all shot at
16-18 frames/sec, and not 24 frames/sec... to keep the cost
of film/developing down.


Here's something to learn, George:

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/motionpicture1.html

Schornak
claims that he can "see 40 frames/sec" as still pictures. Obviously
this is crazy since billions of people are sitting in movie theatres
world wide watching 24 fps movies and can't see a single frame
of it as an individual picture.. silent films prove that they can't even
see single pictures at 16 frames/sec!


Oh, George, it's not only me. You admitted yourself you can see
the 40 single frames - everyone can see them. You mismatch this
with a motion picture where different frames show different ob-
jects. A continuous loop of two images isn't a movie!

If you deny the result of an experiment you performed yourself,
then you leave the path of science and enter the field of theo-
logy, where knowledge is replaced by beliefs. Making this step,
you're no longer a scientist - you're the high priest of SPoG.


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

--
http://schornak.de/aspog/index.htm

Official Bulletin for George E. [Hammond] fans!

Have you read David Deuche's "Fabric Of Reality"?

He is a quantum scientist who came up with similar conclusions. What I found
interesting (and confirming as a layman) was many of his peers reject his
conclusions.

The conformation for me was "awareness is not directly proportional to
intellectual capacity".

BrianOfLife


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:27:24 -0400, "Demosthenes"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
In 1966 Riedel in Germany discovered that (movie) Picture
Fusion Frequency (PFF) increases with age in children. In
fact the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec, while the PFF
of a 15 year old is 15 frames/sec... an astounding 1/3 increase
in the basic speed of visual perception.
This was confirmed by Weidenhammer & Fischer (1985)
as being due to the fact that Picture Fusion is INTELLIGENCE
related! Hence the increase in PFF of children is due to the
well known fact that the intelligence of a growing child increases
linearly from 0-18 years of age (due simply to brain growth).


1: When providing references to the works of others, it is common
scientific practice to include any and all data referencing that work.
Providing just the date - and not the title of the paper, the publication
and even the page numbers is indicative of an amateur.

2: Since the articles cannot be located using general searches and the
minimal information provided, it is impossible to assess the validity of
the
claims and conclusions.

3: The authors mentioned MAY have had some papers printed about the topic,
but there is no way to evaluate the outrageous conclusions made
...........
making the claims and asserted conclusions worthless.


[Hammond]
The complete citations to these papers are given in Siegfried Lehrl &
Bernd Fischer's 1990 paper a copy of which is online and the URLwas
posted below and here again; http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
(by the way this paper is in English and the others are in German),
but here are the full citations from the online bibliography:

Online paper: ( http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html ):
Siegfried Lehrl and Bernd Fischer, (1990), A basic information
psychological parameter (BIP) for the reconstruction of
concepts of intelligence, European Journal of Personality
4 259-286 (online, URL above)

From the online paper's bibliography:

Riedel, H. (1966): Untersuchung zur Abhängigkeit des
Zeitauflösungsvermögens vom Lebensalter. Grundlagenstudien
der Kybernetik und Geisteswissenschaften 7: 65-72.


Weidenhammer, W. and Fischer, B. (1985): Flimmerverschmelzungsfrequenz
und Subjektives Zeitquant - sind sie unabhängige Größen?
Grundlagenstudien der Kybernetik und
Geisteswissenschaften/Humankybernetik 26: 51-60

Note, the online paper reviews these 2 works on page 6 of 26 in
paragraphs 2 and 3.



Thus, it turns out that moves DON'T work on the principle of
"persistence of vision", but in fact work because of the
"slowness" of the human brain.

and your evidence for this is..............?
I hope it's based on more than your previous, worthless, conclusions.

[Hammond]
1. Don't waste your breath trying to insult me.

2. The above cited works prove that speed of information processing
is the cause of the PFF.

3. It is well known in the film industry that "persistence of vision"
is an "amateur misnomer" only used in textbooks and film
making classes, and that modern psychology has long
concluded that it is caused by "mental speed".
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

4. In fact, they still don't know what causes movies to work,
but they are quite sure by now that it is not "persistence
of vision". Fact is, the above papers and the vast
evidence identifying "mental speed" as the dominant
biological correlate of intelligence, that and the fact
that the brain processing rate is 15 bits/sec which corresponds
exactly to the average (movie) Picture Fusion Frequency
identifies unambiguously, the rather obvious fact that it
is (limited) Intelligence (i.e. limited brain speed) that causes
movies to work.





The human brain can only
process 15 bits/sec of information, and this is what causes
the PFF of the average person to be 15 frames/sec... and this
is why "movies work".... not because of "persistence of vision"..
there is no such thing as "persistence of vision"!

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

The European Journal of Personality?
Is this supposed to be a science journal?

[Hammond]
I don't answer retorical questions.



" 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. One possibility
is to attempt a reconstruction of intelligence using elementary variables.
It seems worthwhile to reconstruct this fuzzy and complex concept using
basic variables as building units, which are easier to grasp than the
complex concepts to which they belong. If it can be shown that this
reconstruction approximates the original concept of intelligence, its
scientific value and applicability will increase."

In other words - intelligence is so difficult (and fuzzy) a concept to
define, we must look for standards by which we can agree MAY apply to
intelligence.


[Hammond]
From that i assume you are an amateur who thinks he is going
to reinvent the wheel from his native scintillating logic instead
of taking the time to become familiar with the vast peer publsihed
empirical research on Intelligence. Excuse me, but this is not
an amateur discussion, and I am not an amateur.







While FFF MAY apply to intelligence, so does age, diet, drugs, headaches,
hormones, education, personality, stress, genetics, gender, time of day,
season, skin rashes and a myriad of other human conditions.

To select ONLY one arguable aspect opf this - and to try to use it as
proof
of anaything - is mere pompous fraud!

[Hammond]
OK... that does it asshole, you're outta here...:

killfile news/email: "Demosthenes"



========================================
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 Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:01:12 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
wrote:

Have you read David Deuche's "Fabric Of Reality"?


[Hammond]
That's " Deutsch" not Douche.
Anyway, my impression of Deutsch is the old Polish proverb
which says:

"If you aren't powerful enough to discover a simple
theory.. then you had better look for a complicated
one."

I'm not impressed with complicated theories. I like simple
theories like "GOD=G_uv" for instance.



He is a quantum scientist who came up with similar conclusions. What I found
interesting (and confirming as a layman) was many of his peers reject his
conclusions.


[Hammond]
That's the price you pay for the sin of having peers. As far
as I know I don't have any peers.


The conformation for me was "awareness is not directly proportional to
intellectual capacity".

BrianOfLife


[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.


Anyway, congratulations for not making my killfile list on the first
shot. FYI for other's reading this list, my master killfile list now
reads:

TMG
Wake
ZenIsWhen
Schornak
Stew Dean
Tom Capizzi
Dan Skunk
Toupin
Gary Eickmeier
Dudley
Mark Martin
Midjis
Isham
JohnM
Don Freeman
hanson hanson.quick.net
Cardinal Chunder
Micheal Gray
Nosterill
Clive
Steve Ralph
Androcoles
Demosthenes
Zagan OSPAM



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