The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by George E Hammond, Jan 16, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Look Kris – all you post are ad hominem remarks
    with no on-topic content.
    THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A HECKLER
    this is a moderated scientific forum –
    Do you actually have any scientific credentials?

    George
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Yes, but this conversation is so slow moving that we
    haven't even gotten to God yet – God after all is the GFP
    (Gen. factor of Psychology) discovered and measured
    to 2 decimal point accuracy – and fact of the matter is
    that the psychologists who discovered it – HAVE NO
    IDEA WHAT IT IS – and they desperately need the
    Physics department
    to point out what it is !
    ... And meanwhile is taken me 2 weeks to convince
    these responders that a correlation coefficient is the
    cosine of an angle ! At that rate – we we will be forever
    trying to get to the point of all this – which is the
    discovery of the GFP which is the God of the Bible !

    But you are entirely correct – the scientific definition
    of God actually is a mathematical equation: –

    God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective space-time reality


    And that is a mathematical definition of God !


    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Now – that's an interesting analogy
    "Motion" causes the Doppler effect.

    And Hammond has discovered that: –
    "Growth" causes the phenomenon of God.

    Of course the Doppler effect is a
    magnification of the frequency
    of sound – wheras God is a
    magnification of the space-time
    of physical reality


    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    God is NOT A METAPHYSICAL AGENCY – for Pete's sake !

    God is a "human perceptual phenomenon" in which reality
    appears to be larger and faster than it actually is – and it is
    caused by the failure of the brain to reach "full growth"
    which in turn is caused by the overall "growth stunting" of the
    human race. It is a known fact that NO ONE ever reaches full
    growth
    – the world population average being actually about
    15% short of full growth – i.e. a world average of 15%
    growth stunting. I cannot understand why the average person
    finds that so scientifically difficult to understand !

    George
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Yes, but God is also seen as a MOTIVATED causal Agency, rather than a mathematical guiding principle.

    The God Thor was a human perceptual phenomenon and had an undeniable correlation with the motivated expression of thunder and lightning attributed to an angry God. Yet we know that thunder and lightning are not products of motivated causality, but of atmospheric pressures, temperatures, and humidity. There is no God Thor (anymore).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Well, yes – since "God" is simply the "unconscious mind" Of Man,
    He certainly is a "motivated causal agency".
    ... Since our Phenotype is only about 85% of our Genotype this means
    that 15% of our "mind" is "unconscious". But that 15% of our mind
    is active and it is motivated – it simply can't directly communicate
    with our conscious mind (the other 85%).
    ... But the unconscious mind always finds a way to influence the
    conscious mind indirectly – as the spontaneous source of new ideas,
    suggestions, feelings, suspicions blah blah. And that is why
    we consider God to be a "motivated causal agency".

    .
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Thor was a "god" with a little "g" – not a supreme God
    with a capital "G". The gods are "personality types"
    and there are 13 of them because the brain is cubically cleaved
    and a cube has 13 symmetry axes – which causes 13 personality
    types in psychometry. These are known to psychometry us as
    "2nd order eigenvectors" of the correlation matrix. On the
    other hand – Hammond has shown that God is a 4th order
    eigenvector
    – in fact the TOP, FINAL, LONE supreme
    eigenvector in all of psychology.
    ... Incidentally the entire field of psychology refers to this
    TOP eigenvector as the "GFP" (general factor of psychology)
    It has actually been measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
    AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA what the GFP is. THEY DON'T
    DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA LTHAT IT IS THE GOD OF THE
    BIBLE !


    ... Thanks to Hammond's research, we now know that
    there are "13-gods" in the human race – and there have
    always been 13 – and there always will be exactly 13.
    Thor was simply one of them. So was Apollo.
    ''' In fact Walt Disney revived the gods in modern times
    – Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Porky pig, Bugs Bunny,
    Pop Eye. Etc. Bugs Bunny is probably "Apollo",
    while "Thor" was probably Pop Eye in his old age.

    I myself am definitely Bugs Bunny by the way.

    Incidentally – this discussion thread is going so slow
    that I don't think we'll ever get around to discussing
    the GFP – much less ever discussing the question of
    Life after Death (LAD) – which is too bad since my
    theory of LAD involves microtubules – but this forum
    is such a sleazy dive – it seems unlikely we will ever get
    around to discussing that.

    George
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    So your hypothesis rests on the concept that God resides in the mind of man. God is a consciousness mind?

    If that is true how does that explain how the Universe was created? After all the Universe was created long before man and his correlation to the 13 whatever existed . Before there was a pattern that made up "God's Brain".

    So how did God acquire his Mind before there were any correlations?
    What pattern existed that gave rise to an emergent divine consciousness?

    How do you explain the initial Chaos in relation to the 13 characteristics of God? Does the Universe possess 13 human characteristics or is it the other way around? Either way, how then did universal consciousness emerge?
    i.e.
    The Beginning"

    Moreover, no matter how many correlations exist in the universe, why is it that they all are of a mathematical nature?
    And what happened to the Platonic solids or the triangular fractal on which the concept of the Abrahamic God rests?

    How does your God correlate with everything we do know about the universe before man existed?

    And perhaps most important, assuming your hypothesis is correct, where does that lead us in the future?
    Does this knowledge change anything at all ???

    Isn't it interesting that all this can be explained as a logical Mathematical Guiding Principle.

    A logical quasi-Intelligence, a timeless Logical implacable principle that governs how things work.

    The single inescapable conclusion must be that God is a Mathematical Law. Who are the gods of mathematics?

    continued......
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2022
  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    And which "Church" would this be?
    The Church of George Hammond MS Physics?
    The Roman Catholic Church?
    Because you are once again proving that you have no comprehension of that which you speak, and are simply pulling concepts out of the air to stick to your mural, unfortunately with no glue.

    To any religion that believes in God, God exists first and foremost.
    He is the cause of all, including our own existence.
    To those that believe, God exists (not in the physical way that pots and pans exist, though) whether humans are there to experience Him or not.
    He is the most fundamental reality from which all else stems.
    At least to those that believe in Him.

    So, which "Church" are you referring to, because it's not one that follows the God of the Bible, as you have previously referred to the "God" that you are talking about?

    It seems, once again, that you are altering the words you use to suit yourself.

    Do you believe the Big Bang occurred, Mr. Hammond?
    Surely that process didn't "exist", though, right?
    Everything just suddenly appeared the moment homo sapien arrived?
    There is a difference between something existing, and something being confirmed to exist.
    Or are you holding to the philosophy (not science) that something only exists if observed?
    And that there is only a subjective reality?
    That is not a scientific position, but more a philosophical one.
    Science, which you think you adhere to, relies on the existence of that which is being confirmed prior to the moment of confirmation / observation.
    So nothing "existed" (according to you and the supposed "Church" you have referenced above) prior to homo sapiens arriving?
    And you still think you're being scientific?

    How would paleontology help, when almost all of it involves fossils from before the advent of homo sapiens on Earth?
    Either we know something did exist (i.e. that its property of existence is independent of human, even if knowledge of that property for that item was not held), or it didn't actually exist until discovered.
    So all fossils, all the universe, can only have "existed" no earlier than the arrival of homo sapiens.
    Right?
    Which rather makes your notion of "existence" confusing and unhelpful for... well... science.
    No, as far as the Church (at least those who follow the Biblical stories), God existed prior to Man, as God created the heavens and the earth, the animals on the land, the fishes in the sea etc.
    Only then did he create Man.
    Such a Church (unless you can support your claim regarding the "Church" you are referring to) holds God to have existed before Man, indeed to have always existed etc.
    Linguistic garbage, Mr. Hammond.
    To be "physical" is to exist.
    It is to exist with certain properties that also make it physical, as opposed to mental etc.

    You continue to be unscientific, and are now compounding it even further with yet more fallacious ramblings, this time of the linguistic variety.
    Either you are doing it deliberately, in which case it is more evidence of your dishonesty, or it is simply more evidence of your ignorance.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    continued.......

    If the concept that everything about God can be explained by its expression in correlated relational values, then two of the mystery lies in the head of Toth, and breast of what we named Minerva. And all of them lived in the world of Hermes (count them!)

    Hermes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Hermes Ingenui (Vatican Museums), Roman copy of the second century BC after a Greek original of the 5th century BC. Hermes has a kerykeion (caduceus), kithara, petasos (round hat) and a traveler's cloak.
    AbodeMount Olympus

    PlanetMercury[1]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

    Toth
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoth

    What does Minerva symbolize?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!









    Minerva was the goddess of wisdom, war, art, schools, justice and commerce. She was the Etruscan counterpart to Greek Athena.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Athena-Greek-mythology

    Athena was but one of Seshat's patterns
     
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    So "God" is just the part of our brain that governs our subjective experience?
    And you think that this is scientific?
    Not due to "God" but due to any physical growth but due to lack of reference points and due to neural pathways still being developed (through experience, not growth).
    Really?
    My 9-year old self had far fewer cares than my adult self.
    I had ignorance of the world and its true threats.
    I felt safe and secure as a 9-year old by comparison.
    Sure, none of which has anything to do with physical growth but simply lack of experience.
    Again, are you really trying to be scientific with what you're suggesting?
    Where is the science?
    Where is the support for any of this?
    Again, dare I say it, but you're speaking garbage.
    9-year olds are more likely to believe in God than adults.
    Fewer adults turn from atheism to theism than vice versa, therefore there must be more 9-year olds that believe in God than adults that do.
    Now, whether the concept of God held by a 9-year old is as developed as that of an adult, almost certainly it isn't.
    But the 9-year old has a concept (whether it be a sky-daddy or otherwise) and many believe in their concept of God.

    So, again, where is your science?
    So you claim.
    Science, please?
    I explained why I didn't respond to them: because they offer nothing new in addressing the almost countless criticisms that you have so far failed to address in the preceeding 960 posts.

    But hey, let's get to them now:
    #963 - the rhombicuboctahedron, which you claim: "IOW GERARD SAUCIER has actually EXPERIMENTALLY discovered and measured 9 out of the 13 symmetry axes of the CUBE in PSYCHOLOGY"
    No, he hasn't.
    The rhombicuboctahedron is simply the most appropriate shape when trying to show how 6 main factors link to each other, but not to the polar opposite.
    It is a convenience, and here you are reading unscientific things into it.

    #964 - more of the same, this time trying to link two diagrams simply because they are 3d shapes.
    No science here, Mr. Hammond, just an effort to link disparate notions through the most tenuous of (unscientific) connections.

    #966 - yet more of the same.

    They are simply additional evidence that you haven't got a clue, Mr. Hammond.
    There is certainly underlying science upon which you are drawing, but that is not yours.
    All you have done is tried to link those different areas, and you have done so with not one jot of science.
    You have taken the most superficial (and unscientific) similarity and claimed it as a link.

    Until you can be bothered to support your claims with actual science, there is little to review other than your continuing fallacious reasoning, to which you are oblivious despite repeatedly having it pointed out to you.

    You first.
    When it speaks to the manner and overriding content of your posts, it may be ad hominem but it is also pertinent.
    You are a crank, demonstrably so, and until you can provide evidence to the contrary, a crank you shall remain.
    Note how I am not relying on calling you a crank to avoid addressing the (countless, repeated) flaws in your "proof", but rather am referring to you as such as it is an efficient descriptor of your approach.
    Again, you first.
    Put some actual science into the links you are trying to make, rather than merely claim it to be the case.
    As said, yes, there is science in the elements that you are trying to link, but that is not your work.
    Your "proof" is in the links, and they remain uinscientific, unsupported, and, frankly, garbage.
     
  12. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    George, Yours seems to be just another way to interpret the bible.
     
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    It is slow moving because you are a crank: you fail to address the flaws in your "proof" but cling to this unshakable belief in what you're claiming.
    You aren't providing the science to support what you claim, despite repeated requests for it.
    And you wonder why progress is slow?
    It is because you are a crank.
    See, this is why it is slow moving.
    You simply repeat your claims.
    Nothing new.
    Some, sure.
    Which makes me wonder why you are still here, even trying.
    Is it because we are giving you the time of day to speak your nonsense, giving you a platform for you to spout your garbage?
    Is it because we are continuing to feed the troll when other sites don't?
    Perhaps.
    Yet you have failed to address all the flaws thus far discovered in your "proof".
    You have failed to provide answers, failed to provide any science, any support, for what you are linking.
    Your confusion of language, as also pointed out repeatedly, is not helping matters either.
    And you try to lay this at the feet of others?
    When the garbage pile is so large, it is hardly the fault of those trying to remove it that it continues to stink the place out.
    Word salad.
    No, you haven't discovered that.
    You have claimed it, all without one shred of science in what you are attempting to link to arrive at that conclusion.
    ????
    "Magnification"???
    Or do you mean "change due to relative motion of an observer"?
    And how does that relate to "magnification" with regard your "God"?
    So you claim.
    Please provide some science to support your argument, unless you want to go down the purely philosophical route?
    Once again: so you claim.
    None of this is backed by anything you have thus far vomitted onto this forum.
    Maybe because you have failed to produce any scientific evidence or support for it?
    You have simply, as with almost everything you have written, simply asserted it.

    That's all any of us really want from you, Mr. Hammond: actual scientific support for what you claim.
    That may be hard for you to achieve, but why is it so hard for you to understand?
     
  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    So not the God of the Bible, then.
    Glad we've cleared that much up.
    Although I suspect we haven't.
    As has been explained, comparison of phenotype to genotype as you are suggesting is meaningless.
    Further, the notion that 15% of our "mind" is "unconscious" is unscientific garbage.
    But no doubt you'll squirm linguistically to explain what you mean.
    More unscientific nonsense, as above.
    But yet again you are confirming that you are not talking about the God of the Bible.
    "a" supreme God?
    There is more than one?
    1. 13 gods because there are 13 personality types?
    - Your (scientific) evidence for this??

    2. 13 personality types because the brain is cubically cleaved?
    - Your (scientific) evidence for this??

    3. The 13 personality types link to the 13 axes of symmetry of a cube?
    - Your (scientific) evidence for this??

    You claim much.
    But so far zero on the (scientific) evidence, other than linguistic links from the word "cube" to the number 13, and to the desire to conclude in a "God".

    The are 13 of them IF you only adhere to Cottell's analysis and only take the 25 or so personality traits from which he derived those particular 13 2nd order factors.
    As explained to you previously, and as ignored by you repeatedly, if you start with more or fewer initial personality traits, you end up with fewer 2nd order, such as the 7 or 8 from the 16PF questionnaire.
    No, you have simply claimed.
    There is a difference.
    You have shown nothing, claimed much.
    The dispute in this thread is that gaping chasm between your claim and what you are showing.
    Yet you fail to even try to bridge that gap, instead just repeat your claims.
    That is why you are considered a crank.
    So what is it?
    What is the value of this GFP?

    There is certainly debate about what it represents, such as discussed here

    There's probably a very good reason for that.
    It's the same reason that you don't know that my cat is actually a murderous automaton built by Moses.
    13?
    Not the 12 you previously stated there being?
    Can you name them?
    All 13?
    Just 11 more to go.
    So now you're linking every large group of characters to "gods"?
    Or are you merely asserting that every character has a personality?
    Further, you are still confusing "personality type" with "personality factor/trait".
    People, characters, gods, do not have a single personality factor/trait.
    So now you're claiming to be a god?
    And which "personality type" is that?
    You may want to revisit many of the posts you have so far chosen to ignore.
    A sleazy dive that you frequent with regularity, to stand up on stage and vomit your nonsense from?
    At least we reserve such sleazy ongoings to their appropriate subforum, although given the choice this would have been sent to the cesspool long ago when it was clear you had zero interest in actual discussion.

    Everything since is just troll-feeding on our part.
    But at least it's contained.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Actually that is one of the claims I can relate to.
    I don't know the exact figure but it is true that part of the brain works at subconscious level; it's the autonomous brain function in control of homeostasis that continues to function even as the conscious part of the brain has been anaesthetized.

    Actually that part of the brain communicates electrochemically with our bacterial symbionts in the business of regulating the very processes that keep us alive.

    To a bacteria a human is a living universe. A macrobiome instead of a microbiome.

    Does that mean that bacteria are fully matured and see their world at the right size and proper speed?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2022
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    It's not that a % of our brain works on a subconscious level that I am disputing, but the arbitrary manner Mr. Hammond plucks 15% out of the ether, simply to fit what he thinks is a 15% growth gap.
    There is nothing scientific about it.
    Science would more likely support the notion that 95% of our brain works in an unconscious level, not 15%.
    But this doesn't fit his narrative, nor the conclusion he wants.
    So he disregards science and simply makes stuff up.
    Unscientific.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    I know some people claim that. I've never believed it.
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    First of all, I didn't ask you to "find" an answer. I was hoping you would write one.

    Second, I asked you to, "Start by showing us what kind of questions those psychologists asked." You quoted me. But I don't see a single question mark in your reply. Can you give us some concrete examples of the questions?
     
  19. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    I DID WRITE YOU ONE – the explanation contained in
    my post #974 WAS WRITTEN BY ME 20 YEARS AGO !!!
    The 400 word explanation WAS WRITTEN BY ME !!!

    Read paragraph #4 of my answer and it will tell you: –
    1. – What questions are asked
    2. – How they are scored
    3. – How the correlation coefficient is calculated

    PAY ATTENTION


    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    The 400 word explanation WAS WRITTEN BY ME !!!

    Read paragraph #4 of my answer and it will tell you: –
    1. – What questions are asked
    2. – How they are scored
    3. – How the correlation coefficient is calculated

    PAY ATTENTION


    George
     
  20. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    your statement above is absolutely correct!
    and let me tell you something – there are 2 kinds of people in this world –
    people who are intelligent enough to understand WHY that is true –
    and people who are absolutely too stupid to understand WHY that is true –

    In fact there may even be a 3rd category of people who understand why it is true –
    but simply "play stupid" and claim that they "can't understand it".

    Naturally it goes without saying – that the entire VATICAN certainly
    understands it – while apparently the entire PHYSICS establishment
    of the world – including notably RICHARD DAWKINS – is obviously
    too stupid to understand it!

    _______________________________________________
    So here's the explanation of how the Genesis creation of Man a
    million years ago – actually CAUSED the Big Bang 14 billion years ago –
    _________________________________________________

    The EXPLANATION (well known to the intelligentsia of the world
    by the way) – is simply this –

    EXISTENCE ITSELF (of anything) – is the SOVEREIGN PROPERTY
    of the HUMAN MIND – – – –PERIOD – FULL STOP !
    IOW – it is only a HUMAN OBSERVER – which determines the
    "EXISTENCE" – OF ANYTHING.

    Therefore the entire universe did not EXIST until man's MIND was
    created to bring it into a condition of EXISTENCE.

    Now like I say – there are 2 kinds of people in this world – people
    who are intelligent enough to understand – and people who are two
    stupid to understand it.

    And finally – there is one more way to phrase this statement
    and that is –

    The PHYSICAL CREATION of the universe
    happened 14 billion years ago
    but the EXISTENTIAL CREATION of the
    universe happened when
    MAN arrived (in Genesis).


    George
     
  21. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    you can't win an argument by changing the subject!

    Hammond has proven that there is a REAL GOD
    scientifically measurable to 2 decimal point accuracy

    and it has been ACCURATELY MEASURED and published
    peer reviewed scientific literature.

    And it proves to be EXACTLY
    the TRADITIONAL, HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED
    ANTHROPOMORPHIC "GOD of the BIBLE".


    Now you can try and CHANGE Ihe SUBJECT all you want
    but that will never erase the truth of that fact.

    George
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    Do you understand that simply repeating something over and over does not make it true?
     
  23. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    you're the one saying the same thing over and over again – without any
    on-topic scientific content supporting your claim

    You just keep shouting "Hammond is wrong, Hammond is wrong,
    Hammond is wrong – without any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
    supporting your claim – you're just a HECKLER

    George
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page