* George Hammond @2006-04-13 08:15Z
Don't bother replying to this post since odds are you're already
killfiled... and if you aren't... you soon will be if you are an
anonymous poster, heckler, or amateur:

I have this idea that one's identity is the sum of one's expectations of
how one will be treated by other people, or that how you prepare
yourself for and to respond to other people's reactions to your actions
defines who you are. It is kind of amusing to be faced with such hostile
expecations from someone towards whom one has done precisely nothing.

Richard Feynman's first wife Arline died of tuberculosis while he was
working on the Atomic bomb in 1943. After Rich died in 1988 a much
worn letter surfaced , written by him but never mailed. It was found
among his papers (see note *1). Curiously, the letter is addressed
to his dead wife Arline.... written 16 months after her death! In
the letter Dick tells her how much he loves her and will always love
her, and misses her.... in the last line of the letter he tells her
that he would like to mail the letter to her but "is unaware of her
current address".

Yes, Richard P. Feynman was a deeply compassionate man all his life. He
was also remarkably poetic and such a master of words that his writings
and musings have energized and inspired thousands if not millions. Small
wonder that he could energize and inspire himself with a poetic memorial
-- lesser wordsmiths would instead have carred a fading picture of their
lost love. That you sully his image and his memory by pretending that
his poetic ways of expression belie a failure to distinguish fact from
fiction is offensive to all those of us who admire him -- and probably
to anyone who actually believes in a life after death since you abuse an
obvious poetic expressions of sorrow to prove what they believe cannot
be proven but must be accepted on faith.
That you miss the point of such a letter of grief so spectacularly
does not bode well for your ability to empathize with and fully
understand any other poetic expressions, such as the sometimes
exceedingly beautiful and elegant language of the Bible (at least in the
King James version that I have read). Maybe your conflation of fact and
fiction in a personal letter that was clearly never meant for public
view is indicative of a failure to properly develop separate notions of
and concepts for fact and fiction, reality and fantasy? What you purport
to prove may well only apply within the fictional world in your head.
That would be metaphysics, not physics.

What this reveals to us I think, among other things, is that Richard
P. Feynman, one of the modern world's most able scientists ... was in
fact, when all is said and done...... unsure as to the correct answer
to the question "is there life after death"?

What it reveals to me is a man in profound sorrow after the loss of his
love. The deeper one involves oneself in another person, the more
painful the loss and the longer and deeper the grieving period usually
is. Life's hardest emotional task is get over the loss of that other
person who made you more complete. That teenage girls commit suicide
over what appears to be a trifling relationship while boys do not is
well known, but less known is that old men who lose their wives tend to
succumb to their sense of incompleteness and wither and die rapidly,
often by their own hands, while old women who lose their husbands fare
far better.
That you had to drag one of the greatest minds of our time and his
very personal process of loss and sorrow through your religious mud to
prove your stupid notion of life after death when every adequately
evolved human being would see the poetic nature of this letter and
especially of the final phrase, is an affront to mankind.
The best thing one can say about you is probably that you will not
be missed any more than you will miss anyone when you enjoy your life
after death as the atoms you are made of get their next opportunity to
be part of a lifeform that deserves to live after they missed it this
time around. Do us all and yourself a favor and put your money where
your mouth is. If how you present yourself with extremely hostile
expectations towards those who have yet to offend you in any way is
indicative of the quality of your life before death, both the world that
remains after you leave and you will be better off if you are willing to
put your beliefs to the test.

Erik Naggum
--
Member of: AAAS ACM AMS APS ASA EMS IEEE IMS MAA NYAS NBF NFF NMF
What do I read? See http://erik.naggum.no/sources-and-resources/
12 blasphemous Muhammad drawings scaled to match relevance ::::::
ID: 2006-103-67684 Nullius in verba. Lectitare humanum est.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iJ8EARECAF8FAkQ+qH4sGmh0dHA6Ly9lcmlrLm5hZ2d1bS5uby 9DN0Y1ODU3NkND
NTg1MTY3LnNpZ24rGGh0dHA6Ly9lcmlrLm5hZ2d1bS5uby9DN0 Y1ODU3NkNDNTg1
MTY3LmtleQAKCRDH9YV2zFhRZ+tYAJ9qHBkVXHoMG7af0Obq9a kNzzCt5ACfYYw4
BOi6yax6IFpvEDbGbXDVpsg=
=cZg1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Self-contradictory!

'foolsrushin'.

PS: It is perfectly possible in principle for persons to be 'stored'
ouside their bodies in the way Spinoza, for example, implied, though,
along with Russell, I do not think it particularly helpful to have such
an attenuated existence.

On 13 Apr 2006, George Hammond wrote:

2) This scientific proof of God (aka SPOG) turns out to
be "Relativistic"; namely that:

God = G_uv = -ln (braingrowth)

in other words, the normal growth of the brain causes
a "spacetime curvature of reality" (magnification and
speeding up of reality) which we call "God".


Yeah, I squeezed out something this morning that I called
"God".

After an addition of holy water,
"God" really speeded up as it curved around just as it
disappeared.

"God moves in mysterious ways".

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

2) This scientific proof of God (aka SPOG) turns out to
be "Relativistic"; namely that:

God = G_uv = -ln (braingrowth)

in other words, the normal growth of the brain causes
a "spacetime curvature of reality" (magnification and
speeding up of reality) which we call "God".

Scince time is proven to be relative, on what premise do you base this
"speeding up" of reality, or should I say, from what (or whose)
viewpoint is "reality" slower?

"John Vogel" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

2) This scientific proof of God (aka SPOG) turns out to
be "Relativistic"; namely that:

God = G_uv = -ln (braingrowth)

in other words, the normal growth of the brain causes
a "spacetime curvature of reality" (magnification and
speeding up of reality) which we call "God".

Scince time is proven to be relative, on what premise do you base this
"speeding up" of reality, or should I say, from what (or whose)
viewpoint is "reality" slower?


[Hammond]
Hold everything!
A sincere poster seems to have arrived on the
scene!

Please allow me to answer your cogent question Mr. Vogel!

In my statement:
-----------------------------------------------
...the normal growth of the brain causes a
spacetime curvature of reality" (a magnification
and speeding up of reality) which we call "God".
-----------------------------------------------

I am referring to any and all observers with "all other things
being equal"-- EXCEPT for the percentage of growth of their
brains.
Under these specific conditions a "greater magnification
and speeding up of reality" will appear to the observer with
the LOWER % brain growth than will appear to the
observer with the HIGHER % brain growth-- "all other
things being equal".
This means for instance that a 7 year old will see a world
that is "twice as big and twice as fast" (e.g. twice as curved)
as a 14 year old-- all other things being equal except their
age.
I hope that explanation is clear..... however, if it
is not....... such is my appreciation of your civilized
and erudite question.... that I would be glad to
elaborate.

--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================

In . net, sent to
sci.physics on Sunday 16 April 2006 16:36, George Hammond
) had a brainstorm and wrote:

[Hammond]
Hold everything!
A sincere poster seems to have arrived on the
scene!

And the cycle begins again...


--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com

George Hammond wrote:

In my statement:
-----------------------------------------------
...the normal growth of the brain causes a
spacetime curvature of reality" (a magnification
and speeding up of reality) which we call "God".
-----------------------------------------------

I am referring to any and all observers with "all other things
being equal"-- EXCEPT for the percentage of growth of their
brains.
Under these specific conditions a "greater magnification
and speeding up of reality" will appear to the observer with
the LOWER % brain growth than will appear to the
observer with the HIGHER % brain growth-- "all other
things being equal".
This means for instance that a 7 year old will see a world
that is "twice as big and twice as fast" (e.g. twice as curved)
as a 14 year old-- all other things being equal except their
age.
I hope that explanation is clear..... however, if it
is not....... such is my appreciation of your civilized
and erudite question.... that I would be glad to
elaborate.

I haven't commented on this silliness yet, and it has slipped by
everyone under the radar so to speak.

Even if anything George says were true, people cannot perceive the world
"faster" or "bigger" than anyone else, because whatever they perceive
will become the norm for them. In other words, if you ask anyone how
fast or how big something is, their answers would be the same. They
would compare the action or event to whatever norm you want to name, and
the relative speed or size would be described the same way for everyone.
There is no absolute perception as such.

Does everyone understand that? Agree with that?

Gary Eickmeier

George Hammond wrote:
"John Vogel" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

2) This scientific proof of God (aka SPOG) turns out to
be "Relativistic"; namely that:

God = G_uv = -ln (braingrowth)

in other words, the normal growth of the brain causes
a "spacetime curvature of reality" (magnification and
speeding up of reality) which we call "God".

Scince time is proven to be relative, on what premise do you base this
"speeding up" of reality, or should I say, from what (or whose)
viewpoint is "reality" slower?


[Hammond]
Hold everything!
A sincere poster seems to have arrived on the
scene!

Please allow me to answer your cogent question Mr. Vogel!

In my statement:
-----------------------------------------------
...the normal growth of the brain causes a
spacetime curvature of reality" (a magnification
and speeding up of reality) which we call "God".
-----------------------------------------------

I am referring to any and all observers with "all other things
being equal"-- EXCEPT for the percentage of growth of their
brains.
Under these specific conditions a "greater magnification
and speeding up of reality" will appear to the observer with
the LOWER % brain growth than will appear to the
observer with the HIGHER % brain growth-- "all other
things being equal".
This means for instance that a 7 year old will see a world
that is "twice as big and twice as fast" (e.g. twice as curved)
as a 14 year old-- all other things being equal except their
age.
I hope that explanation is clear..... however, if it
is not....... such is my appreciation of your civilized
and erudite question.... that I would be glad to
elaborate.

--
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================

I understand your explanation, and I appreciate your taking the time to
answer my somewhat pedantic question. I can quite easily see where you
are coming from in your approach and I find it exciting. It's based on
solid principles already well known to science (e.g. the curvature of
space time in relation to mass), but applied in a way I don't think
I've ever seen before.

It would seem to me, however, that the effect of the space time
curvature would be very minimal or of a quantum nature, that there
would be very little difference in perception of reality, due to change
in mass (or size) of the brain. However, this may be pendantic as well,
as we may need only a quantum shift in reality to qualify this shift as
"God" (possibly).

Actually, it would probably do me well to peruse your peer reviewed
paper written on the subject before asking more questions, as it would
probably answer most of my questions. The only problem with this is
time constraints, but i will try to prioritize it and hopefully be able
to post more constructive and elucidating questions in a week or so.

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

In my statement:
-----------------------------------------------
...the normal growth of the brain causes a
spacetime curvature of reality" (a magnification
and speeding up of reality) which we call "God".
-----------------------------------------------

I am referring to any and all observers with "all other things
being equal"-- EXCEPT for the percentage of growth of their
brains.
Under these specific conditions a "greater magnification
and speeding up of reality" will appear to the observer with
the LOWER % brain growth than will appear to the
observer with the HIGHER % brain growth-- "all other
things being equal".
This means for instance that a 7 year old will see a world
that is "twice as big and twice as fast" (e.g. twice as curved)
as a 14 year old-- all other things being equal except their
age.
I hope that explanation is clear..... however, if it
is not....... such is my appreciation of your civilized
and erudite question.... that I would be glad to
elaborate.

I haven't commented on this silliness yet, and it has slipped by
everyone under the radar so to speak.

Even if anything George says were true, people cannot perceive the world
"faster" or "bigger" than anyone else, because whatever they perceive
will become the norm for them. In other words, if you ask anyone how
fast or how big something is, their answers would be the same. They
would compare the action or event to whatever norm you want to name, and
the relative speed or size would be described the same way for everyone.
There is no absolute perception as such.

Does everyone understand that? Agree with that?

Gary Eickmeier

First, I don't think Dr. Hammond is talking about absolute perception,
but rather relative perception. For instance, if a person were standing
on the peripheral of a black hole, time would seem to be much slower
(due to the extreme curvature of space time) for them from the
perception of a person standing on earth. To the person on the
peripheral of the black hole, time and space would not seem to be any
different, because of their own objective viewpoint. Dr. Hammond is
using the viewpoint of a fully matured brain in relation to an immature
(or not fully grown) brain. From this basis, the fully developed brain
would perceive time to be moving at a "slower" pace then the immature
brain. The norm being the perception of a fully developed brain.

John Vogel wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

In my statement:
-----------------------------------------------
...the normal growth of the brain causes a
spacetime curvature of reality" (a magnification
and speeding up of reality) which we call "God".
-----------------------------------------------

I am referring to any and all observers with "all other things
being equal"-- EXCEPT for the percentage of growth of their
brains.
Under these specific conditions a "greater magnification
and speeding up of reality" will appear to the observer with
the LOWER % brain growth than will appear to the
observer with the HIGHER % brain growth-- "all other
things being equal".
This means for instance that a 7 year old will see a world
that is "twice as big and twice as fast" (e.g. twice as curved)
as a 14 year old-- all other things being equal except their
age.
I hope that explanation is clear..... however, if it
is not....... such is my appreciation of your civilized
and erudite question.... that I would be glad to
elaborate.

I haven't commented on this silliness yet, and it has slipped by
everyone under the radar so to speak.

Even if anything George says were true, people cannot perceive the world
"faster" or "bigger" than anyone else, because whatever they perceive
will become the norm for them. In other words, if you ask anyone how
fast or how big something is, their answers would be the same. They
would compare the action or event to whatever norm you want to name, and
the relative speed or size would be described the same way for everyone.
There is no absolute perception as such.

Does everyone understand that? Agree with that?

Gary Eickmeier

First, I don't think Dr. Hammond is talking about absolute perception,
but rather relative perception.

He's no "Dr" Hammond. George washed out of grad school long ago.

For instance, if a person were standing
on the peripheral of a black hole,

He would be a microscopic grease stain.

-jc