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. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    I honestly don't think our friend understands what science is, or even what logic is.
    Shame.
    The main pity is that he has chosen to make a nest at this site rather than seek help elsewhere.
    Ignore the troll, don't feed the troll, and he will disappear soon enough.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Highlighted

    Your definition upon both science and logic .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Probably ignore would be good (best) choice

    I really should not have engaged at all, having cared for patients with such characteristics when I was nursing

    Point taken, will refrain from engaging good sir

    Edit to add (how could I not)



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2022
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    That ain't science either.
     
  8. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    You couldn't n ask a competent
    scientific question if you had to!

    You're just a run-of-the-mill heckler –
    I've seen a million of em –
    I've got the FBI on speed-dial,
    go heckle someone else!

    George

     
    foghorn likes this.
  9. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    You're an outright fraud with no scientific
    credentials.

    How could you say: –
    "God is not of the physical world"
    is possibly be true – if 1000 research
    scientists have physically measured
    God to a –
    two decimal point accuracy?

    You're not a scientist – your a
    full-time Hckler!

    George
     
  10. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Yeah sure big shot – I've got 2 degrees in physics from
    accredited universities in Massachusetts – and you
    have no scientific credentials whatsoever –

    And you're going to tell everyone I don't know
    what sciences and you do!

    That's what every nutcase says – take a hike
    and remember I've got the FBI on speed-dial

    George (MS physics BTW)
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Hey, here's an idea, George: respond intelligently and honestly to the issues that people have raised about your so-called "proof", and to the questions they have. Just ignoring their criticisms and deeming the posters to be what you perceive as ignorant, incompetent, and lacking suitable qualification, is nothing but trolling from you. So, just maybe, they will stop identifying you as a crank and a troll if (a) you stop behaving like one, and (b) you actually address the criticisms that they have kindly raised.
    Oh, and threatening to call the FBI because of what you consider to be "heckling" is not only laughable but yet more evidence that you are somewhat unhinged and would be better served not engaging here any more. But that's ultimately your decision.

    "Hello? Is that the FBI? Good. The nature of my call? Oh, well, you see, I'm being heckled online by some very nasty people. No, they've not threatened me with any physical violence at all, but the names they're calling me, like 'crank', are very hurtful. The context? Oh, see, I've proven the existence of God and measured it to 2 decimal pla... hello? Hello? Are you still there? Hello? Mr. FBI? Hello?"

    Ooh, 2 whole degrees in Physics! I bow down before the might of your authority! How shameful that people should be raising criticism of what you post when, just by dint of having 2 whole degrees in Physics (from accredited universities no less), you must be infallible in all your reasoning.

    Seriously, George: you're a crank.
    You're now only sport for those that need someone to whoop, and not even particularly good for that either.

    So, if you're willing to provide detail: what degrees, from which universities, and how long ago? Any other credentials you care to mention that you think will turn your nonsense into infallible truth?
     
    sideshowbob and Kristoffer like this.
  12. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Get real Sarkus – 20 years ago a PhD scientist employed
    by the Marine Biological Laboratories in Woods Hole MA
    was heckling me and I spotted a conversation he was
    having on another list where he mentioned that he had
    been following me around and had managed to stand
    right behind me in line in a Dunkin' Donuts coffee shop
    for five minutes. Some of these hecklers are actually
    criminal stalkers!


    You've got to remember what happened to the last guy who
    tried to prove there was a real God – he rode into Jerusalem
    On a Donkey and get killed by a mob! Fortunately, I am a
    US citizen and that is unlikely to happen to me. But believe
    me – the FBI takes it seriously.

    George
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    I don't, and they don't. But you're free to believe whatever nonsense you like.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyhoo, did anyone win the Galileo Gambit sweepstake?? Cranks can't help themselves, it seems.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
     
    sideshowbob and Sarkus like this.
  15. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Oooooh – I'm not afraid of the FBI – I'm an "exchemist"

    George
     
  16. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    They did. You don't matter.


    George
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Typical EVERYONE IS AGAINST ME WITH EXAGGERATION PUT INTO THE MIX

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Let's remember – you're the one who said: –


    "God is not of the physical world"
    (Michael 345)

    That's what you've always believed,
    and that's still what you believe –
    and it may be what you will always
    believe !

    But the scientific fact is: –


    YOU ARE RIDICULOUSLY WRONG


    To wit: – how can something be
    PHYSICALLY MEASURED
    to a
    2 decimal point accuracy, by thousand scientists,
    worldwide, over 50 years – if it is "not of the
    physical world"? Let's not be ridiculous.


    George

     
  19. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    You're the only one saying they've got that version of proof of god, George.
    Every other scientist rightly dismiss you as a crank.
     
  20. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [QUOTE="Kristoffer, post: 3695845, member: 280884"
    ]You're the only one saying they've got that version of proof of god, George.
    Every other scientist rightly dismiss you as a crank.[/QUOTE]

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    What "scientists"? None of the people posting to this thread
    have any scientific credentials whatsoever – save one who says
    he has an MA In Chemistry – which is a hellava longways
    from Physics ! Sheesh...


    Moreover – I haven't heard from one poster, not one, who is
    polite, constructive, or who has actually read the OP !

    I am only here because this is the last stop in the scientific
    world and there is some chance that by sheer publicity
    some
    competent person may notice the title
    of the thread – and might look into it!

    George
     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Let's not

    Had to go back to Number 1 post for the following

    In post ONE of this (your) thread YOU (GE Hammond MS physics) in first post put the “gods” were actually “personality types”

    You claim (GE Hammond MS physics)
    because

    All of the above equates to YOU (GE Hammond MS physics) also adding to other claims made throughout the thread a new claim ie

    “personality types” can be physically measured because they are of the physical world

    Soooo

    Question ONE - What physical equipment is used to measure “personality types” ? please

    Take your time. I'm going for coffee

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    434
    [Michael 345 asked:]
    Question ONE - What physical equipment is
    used to measure “personality types”


    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    The "equipment used" consists of: –

    WRITTEN PEERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE TESTS

    It can take up to 2 hours to answer the 300 or 400
    multiple-choice questions in one of these tests.
    In the past 50 years an army of psychologists has
    measured millions of people in 20 languages and
    foreign countries, and peer-published all the data,
    enough printed paper to fill a major library !
    The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality (MMPI) dates
    from the 1930s for instance. But, beginning in the
    1970s Hans Eysenck using modern computerized
    "Factor Analysis" methods discovered that all of
    Personality can be mapped into a 3 dimensional
    psychology space which he named ENP-SPACE
    (extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism) which
    today is known as Eysenck's "Big 3" space. As a
    result of this he became the world's most famous
    living psychologist by the time he died in 1998.
    Both Hans Eysenck and myself were invited
    speakers to address the same audience at the
    XXVI International Congress of Psychology in
    Montréal in 1996 – and here's a photo of Hans
    Eysenck and me talking privately on the
    mezzanine balcony after our speeches:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    _____Hans Eysenck________ George Hammond
    ______________ Montréal 1996



    (Photo by a professor Peter F Merenda,
    Chairman APA Massachusetts)

    By then a worldwide army of psychologists in every
    university began discovering additional personality
    types within Eysenck's 3D (ENP) space. These
    additional Personality Types turned out to be
    cubically intercorrelated vectors in Eysenck's 3D
    personality space, and these models are shown in the
    diagrams below – and it lists the 38 world famous
    psychologists who discovered them: –

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So far – they have discovered 7 cubic models – but
    Raymond B Cattell, America's famous Psychologist
    is known to have reliably measured up to 12 of them
    (even though he didn't know they were cubically
    intercorrelated back in 1973) and published them in
    his legendary 1973 textbook:
    Personality and Mood by Questionnaire.
    So we know there are at least 6 more than the 7
    shown above.
    And finally George E Hammond has advanced the
    theory that these "cubically intercorrelated
    Personality Types" actually come from the cubic
    cleavage of the human brain which is shown at
    the top of the above diagram of the 7 known cubic
    models.
    And as you can see – a cube has 13 symmetry axes
    and will therefore produce 13 eigenvectors – so that
    Hammond predicts that there are exactly theoretically
    13 "Personality Types".
    Finally because of the AXIOMATIC origin of these
    "13 Canonical Personality Types" which have been
    in existence and noticed by the world, ever since man
    appeared on earth millions of years ago – that
    therefore these axiomatic 13 personalities are simply
    the "12 Olympian gods" of antiquity. It turns out the
    Greeks were off by one – there are 13 not 12 – but that's
    a pretty amazing estimate by the Greeks 2500 years ago.

    George
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    The thing is, George, people here do have scientific credentials. However, rather than simply appeal to the authority of those credentials, as you are doing, they let their arguments speak for themselves. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, credentials don't mean a hill o' beans compared to what you actually say. And what you say is simply garbage. As has been pointed out to you also repeatedly.
    You have. A number of them. You have simply dismissed what they have said out of hand, and chosen to disrespect them, as others have pointed out. You are simply not listening to the constructive responses they give. You are seeing every criticism as an unjustified attack, when they are fully justified criticisms of your position, identified by people who have taken their time to read what you have posted, with the intention of helping you improve your position. At least until you revealed just how much of a crank you really are. Sure, being polite probably now isn't top of their list in dealing with you because, well, you're now just another attraction at the Sciforums Zoo. If you were on the outside you might see the "Don't feed the troll" sign on your cage, but, well, there's a doughnut store just around the corner, and nobody really polices around here.
    They have. They have told you, repeatedly, that what you say is nonsense. You're just not listening. Because you're a crank. You never had any intention of listening to the valid criticisms people raise. You have only been posting in the hope that someone will agree with you. Well, they don't. Because it's nonsense.
    And the thing is, they don't need to understand every word of what you say to be able to identify some of the many flaws. That is yet another slide of fallacious reasoning on your part. I don't need to know about quantum tunnelling, or the finer points of stem-cell research, to know that a claimed "proof" has a flaw if it states along the way that a fish is a quadruped and relies upon that statement.

    Yes, this site possibly is the last stop in the scientific world, and so yes, you may find here another crank or naive ignorant willing to take what you have said on nothing but the authority of your MS in Physics. But you are only here, at the last stop, because every other stop en route has read what you have to say, and understands it sufficiently to know that your "proof" is nothing of the sort, that it is pseudo-scientific nonsense, and that you are a crank.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page