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. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    That has nothing to do with anything I said.
    Just because it took you 40 years to come up with a muddled wrong answer doesn't mean it takes 40 years to see that it's wrong.
    But the data collected has nothing to do with physics. Which is why no physicist has come up with the same conclusion that you did.
    What I pointed out in the post you are supposedly responding to is that credentials are not enough to keep you employed. You need to perform - and nobody is satisfied with your performance here.

    So your credentials are irrelevant.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    Bible believers won't agree with you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    434
    George E Hammond said:
    1. – Evaluate the significance of the 50 year,
    $50 million, 1000 man worldwide army
    accomplishment of the actual "2 decimal
    point measurement" of the
    Structural Model Of Personality (SMOP)
    by the Psychometrists – none of whom
    have a degree in physics and thus are unable
    to figure out the meaning of the result !!!


    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    The average physicist wouldn't spend
    2 seconds looking at Psychometry –
    which is why none of them ever did.
    I was the first physicist
    in history to take a serious look at it.
    And you are WRONG – it certainly
    DOES have a Physics explanation –
    and I was the one who discovered it.

    It turns out That the Personality Types
    come from the cubic cleavage of the brain
    which comes from the same origin as
    the fact that all higher animals of 4 legs –
    namely the 3 axis orthogonal structure of
    space. That's Physics !

    And the top eigenvector in Psychometry
    happens to be an Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective spacetime which has a very
    well known name – "God" – hence: –

    God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature

    of subjective spacetime reality

    Which is the world's first and ONLY
    scientific
    definition of God

    So psychometry data certainly has a
    great deal to do with Physics I dare say!

    George
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    WRONG! I had a definition of God years ago:

    "God is a spirit that resides in those that believe."

    I even showed you a picture of God, measured to 2 decimal places (1.77..)

    When will you understand that you are NOT the first person to do what you say you have done?

    You are late to the party. What took you so long??
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2022
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    But you haven't told us what it is.
    No it isn't. It's pseudo-mathematical gibberish.
    You're just repeating the same rubbish. Is that all you know?
    Nothing you've said makes any connection.
     
  9. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    • Please do not flame other members. Do not make accusations that you cannot support with appropriate evidence. Do not insult other members.
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    just to demonstrate how ludicrous it is to
    answer a critic who has no scientific credentials
    and an aggravated attitude – I will actually answer
    this post as a demo: –


    [Hammond said:]
    it (Psychometry) certainly
    DOES have a Physics explanation –
    and I was the one who discovered it.

    [Slideshowbob said:]
    But you haven't told us what it is.


    [Hammond says :]
    I've told you a dozen times in this
    thread. – But here it is again: –


    It turns out That the Personality Types
    come from the cubic cleavage of the brain
    which comes from the same origin as
    the fact that all higher animals of 4 legs –
    namely the 3 axis orthogonal structure of
    space. That's Physics !


    [Slideshowbob said:]
    No it isn't. It's pseudo-mathematical gibberish.

    You're just repeating the same rubbish.
    Is that all you know?

    [Hammond says:]That's just your amateur scientific ignorance and aggravated attitude spewing forth
    name-calling, rather than presenting
    a scientific argument.


    [Hammond says:]
    So psychometry data certainly has a

    great deal to do with Physics I dare say!

    [Slideshowbob says:]
    Nothing you've said makes any connection.

    [Hammond says:]
    that's not true – what's actually true is that
    you are near totally scientifically ignorant
    and have little or no interest in science –
    and are actually a pseudo intellectual
    heckler who likes to harass scientists
    if it looks like you have an opportunity to
    get away with it.

    George
     
  10. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Oh – is that a fact? I'll tell you what –
    you prove that someone else in the
    entire history of the world actually
    discovered and proved
    (before I did) – the following
    scientific definition of God: –


    SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF GOD

    God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective spacetime reality.

    Which is the world's first and ONLY
    scientific definition of God


    And I'll pay you $1000 in cash.

    Knock yourself out !

    George
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,550
    An "Einsteinian curvature" requires some kind of manifold and coordinates to describe it and quantify the curvature.

    What kind of manifold does "subjective spacetime" have? What coordinates can we use to describe it?

    What, specifically, determines the curvature of "subjective spacetime"? Is there an equation similar to Einstein's general relativistic equation for the curvature of regular spacetime? If so, please provide it. (I might ask you for the derivation later, but let's start with the governing equation.)

    Thanks in advance. I'll collect the $1000 from you after a post or two.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2022
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    You can prove that "none of whom have a degree in physics", I assume?
    Or is it just another unsupported assertion on your part?
    The "average" physicist has more than an MS in Physics.
    So that puts you in the "below average" category, which is actually supported by what you have thus far written.
    There is also a very good reason why the "average" physicist wouldn't bother with psychometry.
    Everyone else knows why, except you, it seems.
    And look where it has gotten you: 40 years resulting in a pile of garbage, that you are simply too blinded to appreciate.
    No, that would be biology.
    Alternatively one could argue that since space has 3 spatial dimensions, EVERYTHING EVER comes from the same origin.
    I.e. it becomes a meaningless link, other than the claim of an original source.
    But that is then metaphysics and philosophy, not physics.

    Plus you have yet to support any of your claims above.
    For which we're still waiting.
    And waiting.
    And waiting...
    You do realise you need to actually support these assertions, right?
    1. Show that the top eigenvector is an Einsteinian curvature of "subjective spacetime".
    2. Show the link to "God", other than you simply pointing to something and going "I'll call that 'God'!"
    Well, the logic is valid, at least:
    P1: Top eigenvector in Pyschometry is "God"
    P2: Top eigenvector in Psychometry is an "Einsteinian curvature of subjective spacetime"
    C: "God" is an "Einsteinian curvature of subjective spacetime"

    Unfortunately neither P1 nor P2 are given, and therefore the logic is not deemed sound.
    If you do happen to ever provide the support for accepting P1 or P2, please do get in touch.
    We've waited this long, so waiting longer won't be too much of an onus.
    No, it really isn't.
    It is your definition of God, but is no more a definition of "God" than me pointing to my chair and going "That is 'God'!"
    You can dare, but you have yet to show any meaningful or rational link between the two.
    Which is a shame for the amount of effort you have clearly put in.

    Nope, all you're doing, Mr. Hammond, is piling garbage upon garbage.
    And when asked to provide clarity and support for the garbage pile you have made, you simply fork it up and turn it over, repeating the same nonsense again and again and again.
    The pile of garbage remains.
     
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    He hasn't name-called you anything.
    Certainly not a crank, or dishonest, or narcissistic etc.
    He has called what you have written (pseudo-mathematical) rubbish, so maybe you're referring to that?
    And he also doesn't need to present a scientific counter argument... because you haven't presented a scientific argument to begin with.
    Next you'll be saying "prove me wrong!"
    Once again Mr. Hammond responds to any criticism of his "proof" with personal insults, attacks, and unsupported accusations about the person.
    Will he ever learn?
     
  14. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Oh really?– I can actually PROVE that I published
    the following statements in a book that I published
    in May 2015 entitled: –

    INVESTIGATING THE SPOG (ISBN 9781511824347)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    On page 52 you'll find my statement: –
    "God = curvature of subjective space-time = R"


    And on page 53: –
    "God is a curvature of subjective reality"

    Thousands of people bought this book, many of
    whom I know – and all of them are witnesses
    to the fact that I discovered it prior to 2015.

    Go figure

    George
     
  15. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    TOO LATE!

    Mar 2013. Post #24 I defined God. Check out the NASA pic of God in post #28 in that thread too! You lose! You're a day late and a dollar short!

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/existence-of-god.134107/page-2#post-3055502
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2022
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,846
    Since the thread is nearing 60 pages of what I would class as
    G post - next 3 to 5 G post - dittios

    Shame G has (it appears) no substantial amount of money

    SciForum could place G as being eccentric

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Look, James R – the only difference between "objective"
    reality and "subjective" reality is that the size and speed
    of everything in subjective reality is MAGNIFIED and
    MOVES FASTER than it does in objective reality.

    For example – a 6 month old child crawling around in
    the kitchen "looks up" at the bottom of the kitchen table –
    while an 18-year-old adult "looks down" at the top of
    the table. The "subjective reality" of a 6-month-old
    is MAGNIFIED and SPEEDED UP by about 500%
    compared to the subjective reality of an 18-year-old.

    Okay in Relativity a magnification and speeding up
    of "space-time" is called by Einstein – A CURVATURE
    of space-time. And obviously here the "curvature
    of subjective space-time" is caused by
    HUMAN GROWTH itself.

    Now the fact is that as a worldwide population average
    the "average adult" is actually about 15% "growth stunted"
    which makes the world looks 15% larger and 15% faster
    then it ACTUALLY IS.

    Suppose you're going into battle with an opposing army and
    when you get on the battlefield every opposing soldier
    suddenly looked "15% larger and 15% faster" then he actually
    is. The result would be TERRIFYING. And this is what the
    average person sees in the "Sound And The Fury" of the
    every day world – and this is known as – "the phenomenon
    of God" who mediates and determines the size and speed
    of the world that you are going to actually SEE.

    And there is no appeal from it – it is the most powerful
    force (phenomenon) known to Man.

    So the answers to your questions are obvious: –

    1. – Subjective space-time is a Riemannian manifold
    exactly the same as objective space-time only it
    appears magnified and speeded up.

    2. – The "curvature" of subjective space-time is in
    principle identical to the definition of curvature in
    objective space-time – only it's a lot simpler because
    "no additional mass is moving or accelerated" in
    subjective space-time – hence God can be described
    by a "scalar curvature" (a.k.a. total curvature = R)
    whereas the curvature of "objective space-time"
    involves mass movement, continuity equations,
    conservation laws, etc. and Einstein found that it
    must be described by a 2nd rank tensor curvature: –

    So for real space we have Einstein's field equations: –

    Guv - k (rho) where rho = mass density

    Whereas "subjective curvature" is given by: –

    R = K [g/(1-g)] where g= the human growth deficit

    And incidentally the WHO, CDC, UNESCO, UNICEF,
    and the World Bank data indicates a worldwide "g"
    of about a 15% human growth shortfall.

    I know you must have some academic credentials or
    you wouldn't be a Sciforums administrator – I hope
    this simple explanation succeeds in framing some kind
    of a simple picture of what the
    "Scientific Proof of God" (SPOG) is all about.

    George
     
  18. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Na – YOU'RE 10 YEARS TOO LATE : –

    Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp231-244 (Noetic Press) Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:


    https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God

    I beat you by at least 10 years!

    George
     
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    Wow.
    That explains why everyone always drops things when trying to catch, right?
    I mean, if everything in my subjective reality moves faster than it really does, how do I manage to get my hands up in time to catch a ball?
    The answer, of course, is glaringly simple: it's nonsense.
    So it's all about height?
    What if I'm lying on the floor and "looking up"?
    Or a child is standing on the table "looking down"?
    Did you know that 88% of all statistics are made up?
    I look forward to you supporting your claim, though.

    Further, as has been explained to you before, time is actually experienced slower when you're younger, not faster.
    But, hey, don't let the science stand in the way of your "proof", right.
    Weeks lasted for a long time, summer holidays were almost endless, etc.
    Maybe you can't remember that far back, but some of us can.
    No, it's not.
    There is no such concept as "speeding up of 'space-time'" (although if you honestly think there is, please cite sources that explain it).
    Time speeds up (relatively speaking), sure, as you move from a deeper curvature of space-time to a more shallow one, such as moving further away from a massive body.
    Space-time itself, though, does not "speed up".
    Nor does space-time itself "magnify", although I'm not sure what you are trying to express: do you mean expand?
    So you're not off to a great start here.
    You have yet to show that there is a "curvature of subjective space-time".
    You think things speed up as you age, when pretty much all the literature will tell you that you're wrong.
    Things are certainly perceived as bigger when we are younger, so you may be half-right, at least.

    But then all you're doing is offering a metaphor between our subjective experience and relativity of a space-time curvature.
    A metaphor is not proof.
    Being able to describe one thing in terms of another does not itself link them as anything else.
    Which is a fundamental weakness in your approach littered throughout your "proof".
    As has been explained to you repeatedly.

    So, still a significant number of issues to resolve just from this snippet of your "proof".
    Oh, wait, I need to take all the garbage in to account before I can identify any flaws, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Where is the support for this 15% that you repeatedly claim?
    You tried to provide it once before, accidentally posting data supporting 15% of children between 0-5 as being stunted, not that the average stunting is 15%.
    This was pointed out to you previously, and still you have not provided the support requested.
    Or, more accurately, you misunderstood the data, and are too dishonest to change your "proof" to account for it.

    Also, repeating a point I made earlier, if we experience the world as 15% faster than it is, how do even children manage to catch balls?
    How do you suggest you are able to catch something you perceive travelling 15% faster than it actually is?
    Suppose you're going to write something that isn't an appeal to emotion, or an appeal to authority, or based on flawed concepts.
    The result would be SHOCKING.
    Again, pointing at something and going "this is God" is not "proof" of anything other than that you have labelled something as "God".
    I suggest you do some further research, Mr. Hammond, on this perception of time that you've confused yourself with.
    Such as:
    https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-fluidity-of-time
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00074/full
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685813/

    That's, of course, if you're serious about your endeavours.
    More likely you will just dismiss them so that you can continue in your ignorance and narcissistic delusion of grandeur.
    On what basis do you assert this?
    Bearing in mind that you are still erroneously claiming that our experience of time slows down, contrary to all the, well, actual science.
    If you're still referring to the data you somehow misrepresented previously that I kindly pointed out to you, then you're deliberately lying.
    Otherwise, please provide this data that suggests the 15% "human growth shortfall"?

    To anyone with scientific credentials who bothers to read this garbage it is clearly all about you: your narcissistic delusions of grandeur, your dishonesty, your ignorance, and your inability to actually support any of your assertions.

    But that's what cranks do.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    It's what every scientist says. The psychologists who collected the data disagree with your conclusions. And the physicists who "fail to understand" your conclusion also disagree with you. Apparently, scientific credentials are not the magic bullet you claim they are.

    And I haven't called you names. I have called your ideas "gibberish" and "rubbish" and a few other things. I could call you an "idiot" - but I don't think I have. I could call you "crazy as a sack of bedbugs" - but I don't think I have.

    Having stupid ideas doesn't necessarily make you stupid. You probably manage to get out of bed in the morning and dress yourself and tie your own shoes. You just have one major fault, your gigantic ego. You think you are right and everybody else is wrong. Nobody can understand your "brilliance" except you.

    And yet you talk to each one of us as if we're the only ones who disagree with you.
     
  21. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    But you don't have a pic of God, so you have NOTHING! I have a pic of God in various forms, of which God is mysterious like that, it changes forms because it is God. God is a spirit that resides in those that believe!

    You can't see God in the NASA pic of God or the Squared Circle pic of God because you are a NON-BELIEVER. Non-believers don't have the spirit of God in them so they can't understand why those pics are of God.

    Get with the program already, God is a spirit that resides in those that believe! If you can't see God in those two pics then you don't know what God is!
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    J.R.R.Tolkien also published a book. Millions of people bought it; I have two different editions myself. Movies have been made about it by Ralph Bakshi, Rankin/Bass and Peter Jackson.

    Your fantasy doesn't measure up to Tolkien's. The world you have created in your head doesn't measure up to his.

    But I am looking forward to SPOG: The Motion Picture
     
  23. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Well, there IS going to be a: –


    SPOG: The Motion Picture

    And it will cover Hammond's 30 year Odyssey
    discovering the SPOG in Boston, Washington DC
    and elsewhere – including action-packed car
    chases, brawls, romances, spectacular scientific
    breakthroughs, and his encounters with
    world famous scientists in DC, New England,
    Canada etc. etc. – made perhaps for NOVA TV
    if not Hollywood. Of course by then it will
    be other actors, not me, making the movie.

    In the meantime – I have made a couple of
    short YouTube videos featuring me, about
    the SPOG which you can watch right now
    on your computer: –

    WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

    (YouTube 12-min)

    THE GODS

    (YouTube 6-min)

    Enjoy –

    George

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page