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

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Baldeee is a pseudo intellectual
anti-science crank with no academic
credentials in science who is absolutely
jealous to the point of being driven
up a wall that some nobody like Hammond
has actually made scientific history
by discovering hard scientific proof
of Prof. William James' legendary 1900
"single paragraph definition of God"
which James couldn't prove in 1900 but
which Hammond succeeded in proving
with the help of an army of computerized
Psychometry researchers 100 years later
in the 21st century.

Baldeee's vindictive and vehement
ad hominem attack on Hammond
full of name-calling proves nothing
but the scurrilous lengths to which
an aggravated anti-intellectual and
most likely rabid Atheist will go to
when they become enraged.
Snarling and threatening and
name-calling in a nonstop
ad hominem rant.

George

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[GE Hammond MS physics]

NO COMMENT

George

 

I have invented a measuring system to place a value on words.

Words less than 3 letters are worth 1/100th of a point. Words with 3 to 10 letters are worth 1/10th of a point.

So "NO COMMENT" has value = .11

.11 is TWO DECIMAL PLACES, and it's greater than zero, so your comment is measured to two decimal places, with a value of .11

See how that works?

In case you missed it:

NO = 1/100 = .01
COMMENT = 1/10 = .1

.01 + .1 = .11, or "11 Hundredths."

It's 10 Hundredths plus 1 Hundredth = 11 Hundredths. (In case your high degree didn't cover that, like it didn't cover degreeing an asymmetrical cam.)

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Can you actually get more power out of a
4 –Cycle engine using an asymmetrical
cam left profile? Or is it more useful for
reducing emissions and/or increasing mileage?

George

 

Power is work/time

HP is a unit of measure of power.

HP = Torque x RPM /5252

If you have a 1 foot bar and you rotate it 1 revolution, the end of the bar travels 6.2832 feet.
If there is a 1 lb load on the end of the 1 ft bar then the 1 lb travels 6.2832 feet.
A 1 lb load on the end of a 1 lb bar is 1 lb-ft of TORQUE.
A 1 lb load that travels 6.2832 ft is 6.2832 ft-lb of WORK
If it takes 1 minute to complete the 1 revolution that is 6.2832 ft-lb of Work per minute.
If you spin the bar 5252 RPM (Revolutions Per Minute) that is 5252 x 6.2832 ft per minute, or with a 1 lb load it is 32,999.3664 ft-lbs of Work

So 1 lb-ft of torque at 5252 RPM is 32,999.3664 ft-lb of work.

The definition of a unit of measure of HP is 550 ft-lbs of work per second, or 33,000 ft-lb of work per minute.

Since 1 HP = 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute and 1 lb-ft of torque at 5252 RPM is 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute, then:

HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

1 lb-ft of torque at 5252 RPM is 1 HP.

The way you measure HP is MEASURE the TORQUE on a DYNO, and do the math.

So 400 lb-ft of Torque at 3454 RPM is (400 x 3454) /5252, or 263.06 HP!

The ONLY way to know for sure how much HP a specific cam puts out in an engine is to dyno the motor.

Motor Daddy - High School Grad!

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Yeah – I got the "Dyno" explanation – but
what I want to know is: –

WHY was the asymmetrical Cam invented?
WHAT was the reason for it?

George

 

When a cam is installed in an engine there is a lifter that rides on the lobes. When the lobe comes around it lifts the lifter, until the lifter is at its highest position, because it is at the highest position on the lobe.

Cams specs are measured at .050" of lift on the way up, and .050" of lift on the way down.

The crankshaft rotates at 2:1 to the cam, and the CRANK DEGREES of rotation of the lift between .050" up to .050" down is the "duration at .050" spec. An example would be 240 degrees of crank rotation for the duration of lift between .050-.050.

A symmetrical cam will have the highest point of lift EXACTLY halfway between the two .050" lift figures, so if the cam is a symmetrical cam the max lift will occur 120 from the two .050 points of lift.

Cam manufacturers and designers grind the cams so that valve openings and closing are timed just right in order for an engine to make the best power in a certain RPM operating range.

It turns out that having the opening and closing points offset is more advantageous for certain motors at certain RPM. So they grind the lobe so that max lift occurs somewhere offset of the "center." in order to make the maximum power at that RPM range.

The dynamics of airflow going in and out of a cylinder are VERY COMPLICATED. Software is used to model the flow and cams are designed in order to achieve maximum flow. Because after all is said and done, the more air you can flow through an engine the more power you can make!

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
You can say that again – back in the day my
favorite engine was the Flathead Ford AB
block – and I could never figure out why they
screwed up the engine by channeling the exhaust
from the right bank through the center of the engine
to the left bank so they could use a single rather
than a dual exhaust !

Thanks for the technically refreshing car
talk – after that desultry theoretical physics
spat with Dear Baldeee !

See ya later – George

 

Unless you can provide a link to where I supposedly said such a thing, I expect (if you were in any way a decent person) a retraction and a public apology.

But I appreciate that expecting anything from someone as dishonest as you, other than continued dishonesty, is wishful thinking.
Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

The only spat was on your side, like a little child running around and screaming because they're not getting their own way.

There is also no theoretical physics in your "proof".
There is little to no science in your "proof" at all (your "proof" being in the supposed links between the otherwise disparate works).
Still you offer no meaningful response to the mountain of queries, issues, flaws, errors that people have found.
Still you resort to dishonest evasion, continued appeals to authority, and most recently blatant lying about what people have supposedly said "elsewhere on the net".

The more you continue to post your nonsense, and the longer you fail to respond meaningfully to any of the issues raised, the more people will continue to point and laugh at you as the (seemingly resident) dishonest crank that you are proving yourself to be.
No skin off my nose: I'm more than happy to continue pointing out errors in your "proof", and watch you squirm and lash out rather than, you know, actually defend your "proof" with a level of honesty and decency that, unfortunately, seems out of your reach.

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay – I hereby publicly retract my statement
that you said:
"of all things, science"
and profoundly apologize for being
unable to recall the origin of the quote.
Meanwhile – I do not intend to respond to
you any further on this thread – because
you have shown no evidence of
the requisite scientific competence to
discuss the material –
in fact you have blatantly asserted that "CREDENTIALS ARE IRRELEVANT"
(your post #806 – page 41)

Since academia, the government, employers
and the majority of the educated world,
including me –
DO BELIEVE CREDENTIALS ARE RELEVANT
and because you have a hostile, negative, and
unconstructive attitude – to say nothing of your
constantly derisive NAME CALLING –

I WILL NOT REPLY TO YOU ANY FURTHER

And in my opinion
YOU HAVE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO OFFER

George

 

You were doing so well, but then you had to go and lie again, Mr. Hammond.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You do know the origin of the quote: your own imagination.
So rather than have the decency and honesty to apologise for making it up in an effort to disparage me, you double-down and lie that you merely can't "recall the origin".
You can't help yourself, really, can you, you pathetic dishonest crank.
But I expected little else.

I have asserted that, in context, that it is what people write that matters, not whether they have a qualification or not.
If you can show me that a credential makes what you write any more or less correct than what you have written, I'll happily change my view.

They are relevant when all you have at hand to assess someone is their credentials.
In such cases then yes, they are relevant.
A forum such as this, though, where it is purely what you type that matters, credentials are not relevant.
Your reliance on them, your appeal to their authority, is fallacious, as has been explained numerous times now.
Your credentials do not turn your errors into truth.
What you perceive as my lack of credentials do not make my criticisms less correct.
You are simply using that excuse to avoid having to face up to the garbage you have actually written, and that is dishonest of you.

My attitude was wholly constructive: highlighting the errors in your "proof" so that you could correct them and thereby strengthen your proof further.
As well as highlighting the error, I even offered you explanation as to why it was an error.
That is what one does when one reviews a claimed "proof".
However, it turned out from subsequent discussion that you had no willing to address the shortcomings, no appetite to hear any criticism whatsoever, no decency or honesty in engaging at all.
All your subsequent posts have merely served to repeatedly highlight that assessment.
As for name-calling: calling you a crank is the most efficient word I can think of to describe your attitude and behaviour.
Similarly by calling you dishonest, lacking decency, ignorant, etc, there is all the evidence in your posts to confirm as much, even this latest one of yours (see above).
Is it "name-calling" when they so accurately describe the person?

Just so it's clear: you haven't actually replied with anything of note thus far anyway.
You certainly have addressed any of the criticisms of your so-called "proof".
The benefit of you not typing any more replies, at least, will be that you won't add to the wealth of evidence that you are a dishonest crank, and that your "proof" is garbage.

Probably the most constructive thing anyone could say to you would be: throw away your "proof" because it is nothing of the sort.
Start again, and this time actually make sense, use logic, reason, and provide support for the links you wish to make.
If you can do that, if you can satisfy all those criteria, you will perhaps be able to put together a "proof" that has merit.
But you then need to have an attitude that is open to criticism as an opportunity to strengthen the "proof", and you need to be able to address those criticisms openly and honestly, not simply assert them wrong and carry on your merry way.
At the moment you have numerous unsupported assertions that are mostly fallacious, and you have an attitude of ignoring criticism, rejecting it out of hand, evading it through fallacious means (such as appeal to authority), or just reposting the proof again and again, as if repetition makes it more correct.

Ultimately, when you learn how to be a decent human being, and have a theory that is not clearly garbage, and want to engage honestly with people's criticisms of it, feel free to come back, as I'll happily take a look.
Until then, you'll just remain a dishonest crank that does nothing but confirm that assessment with every post you make.

Au revoir.

 

Your error is in thinking that credentials are sufficient. Academia, government, employers, etc. will consider one's credentials but the bottom line is not where the person has been; it's what the person does. If his performance is sub-par, he will be fired.

And since your performance here is abysmal, you're fired.

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
No – you're fired – not me.
Baldeee's mistake was to believe that the SPOG
could be challenged via "the bottom up".

Sure it can – but it would take you 40 years
because that's how I discovered it – and it
took me 40 years discovering it.

The only way you can challenge the SPOG is to
critique it from the "top-down" – because life is
too short to challenge it from the "bottom-up".

A "top down" critique would consist of the
following:

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 !!!

2. – Evaluate the significance of the fact
that the Psychometrists have discovered
that it is "correlationally cubic".

3. – Evaluate the fact that Hammond has shown
that the "embryological cubic cleavage" of the
brain causes 3 historically known orthogonal
psychology axes in the brain
(Sperry, Bell-Magendie, McLean)

4. – Evaluate the fact that Hammond has discovered
that the necessary CUBIC NEUROLOGY is supplied
by Gray's SHS (septo- hippocampal system) because
of the "decussation" discovered and peer published
by Hammond, in the Papez Loop (Hammond 1994)

5. – Thus all of this identifies the 13 axis cubic
SMOP as the "origin of the gods" – thus laying
the obvious groundwork for identifying the
GFP (general factor of psychology) the top of the
eigenvector pyramid – as the God of the Bible

Okay – until you can size up the SPOG from the
TOP DOWN like that – it is absolutely HOPELESS
for anybody today to try and size it up from the
"bottom-up" as Baldeee has attempted – it would
take you 40 years to do that – and how do I
know? Obviously I know that because that's how I
discovered it – and it took me 40 YEARS !

So you guys are the ones who
are FIRED – not me.

George

 

Your mistake was posting garbage and expecting people to ignore that it's garbage, while at the same time you're jumping up and down holding a flashing neon sign that says "It's garbage!"

Whichever way you think I'm challenging your "proof", your errors remain errors, your flaws remain flaws, your lack of support remains lack of support, and your garbage remains garbage.

And rather than address those problems you keep shouting "Hey! Look everyone! It's garbage!"

Go figure.

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
In my last post (#1115 page 56 – quoted above) I
listed 5 – points that need to be covered in a TOP
DOWN evaluation of Hammond's scientific proof
of God (SPOG).
I would now like to add a #6 final item to the list.
This one is really way over your head since you're
probably not well versed in Einstein's theory of
Relativity – but I will add it anyway just to complete
the record: –

6. – The well known "GFP" Of Modern Psychometry
has been identified by Hammond as the
"God of the Bible". Experimentally the GFP is
arrived at by "Factoring" (taking the square root of)
the 13 x 13 "cubic brain" intercorrelation matrix of
"the gods". This results in a 4 x 4 3rd order matrix
consisting of the well known ENPg where ENP are
Hans Eysenck's well-known "Big 3" and
g is intelligence (IQ) this 4 x 4 3rd order matrix is
NOT DIAGONAL and since it is a "space-time"
metric (brain cleavage – mental speed) it is what
EINSTEIN calls a "curvature of space-time".
Factoring the 4 x 4 yields ONE, FINAL, TOP
EIGENVECTOR in all of psychology ! This
factor (eigenvector) has been dubbed by the
psychologists "the GFP" (general factor of
psychology).
... But as we have just shown the GFP is actually a
"curvature of subjective space-time". And since we
have identified the GFP as the God of the Bible,
it turns out that we now have the world's first

SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF GOD: –

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


And this is the world's first, and
only, scientific definition of God.

And finally, Hammond has shown that the curvature
of this 3rd order psychometry metric can be used
to calculate what is called the "scalar curvature"
or "total curvature" of the 3rd order 4 x 4
"metric" consisting of ENPg and I have derived
this formula:

total curvature of subjective space-time = R
= GFP = God = k [ g/(1-g)]

Where "g" is the well known human
"growth curve deficit" (percentage of human
growth stunting) as measured by WHO, CDC,
UNICEF, UNESCO, etc. etc. etc.

As you can see this equation for God is entirely
analogous to Einstein's equation for the curvature of

OBJECTIVE space-time –

Einstein = G = k (rho)

where rho is the mass density

Notice that both equations have infinite curvature
at time zero and proceed towards zero curvature
(flat space) a large times.

But of crucial importance notice that the curvature
for humans, unlike the curvature for real space,
never reaches zero – this is because of the well known
world population "growth deficit" (stunting) of adult
human beings of about 15% world average. And this
universal "permanent adult residual curvature" is what
causes the universally observed "phenomenon of God"
for all adult human beings.

George

 

Infinite curvature is not finite, it is infinite because it can always be measured to be greater and greater, with no finite end.

Consider that 1 divided by 3 = .333......... meaning the 3's after the decimal point continue infinitely. The division of 1 divided by 3 continues infinitely because the division is never complete, because the remainder is never divided equally. The division can not end successfully. Proof: .333... x 3 = .999..., but it should equal 1.0, because you started with 1.0 and tried to divide it equally into 3 parts, and FAILED to complete the division. The 3's continue INFINITELY. There is no end to the 3's like there is no maximum curvature.

"Towards zero curvature" is the same deal except the other way around, there is no "zero" curvature in the statement "TOWARDS zero."

1/10=.1
1/100=.01
1/1,000=.001

1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000=.000000000000000001

There is no smallest decimal position on the right side of the decimal point for a 1 to be in, just like there is no largest decimal position for a 1 to be in on the left side of the decimal point.

1/3 = .333... and .333... x 3 = .999..., NOT 1.0

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
I "edited" my post a few seconds before you posted
your post – I and added the last final paragraph –
they don't actually know "how infinite" the mass
density was at the time of the Big Bang – and we
don't know how infinite the curvature is
i.e. (how infinite the radius
of the perceptual universe is) to a fetus in the late
stages of gestation actually might be – or in fact
how small the universe actually looks to a new born
infant – but I would guess that the radius of the
visible universe to a new born infant is not much
more than a few feet.

George

 

It has certainly been claimed by you.
Alas there is nothing scientific about pointing at something and going "Look! 'God of the Bible'!"

No you haven't.
You have simply pointed at the GFP and gone "Look! 'God of the Bible'!"
That's all you've done.
No science.
No rational support.
Just your assertion, backed by your narcissitic confidence, and your appeals to authority.

Again, no you haven't.
You have the scientific definition of nothing at all, because what you are defining is neither God, nor the GFP.
You are simply saying things are linked together and hoping noone knows that there's no actual link.
Because if you were serious about this, or honest, you would have recognised this when people point it out to you, so glaring is the ommission on your part.

All your efforts to link the disparate parts are nothing more than you pointing to things, pointing to a something superficial that they have in common, like the number 13, and then claiming them linked in all other aspects you intend to rely on, all without science or rational argument to support your claim.
And on the matter of "13", since there were only 12 gods of the greco-roman pantheon, you had the narcisstic audacity to claim that you had therefore shown there to have actually been 13.
Why?
Because you needed 13 to be able to continue with the link.
It's all garbage, Mr. Hammond.

The more you continue to post your garbage without addressing all the flaws, without engaging openly, honestly, and civily with people that disagree with you, the more people will continue to point and laugh at you as the most recent crank at the sci-forums zoo.
We've had a few, but most aren't as openly dishonest as you, aren't as narcissistic as you, aren't as delusional as you, and aren't as closed off to criticism as you seem to be.


This thread really should be in the cesspool, because while it is technically pseudo-science, you're not open to actually having a discussion about it with people that disagree with you.