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

That is assuming man is the first self-aware intelligence that emerged in the universe.
I think that is rather prideful and unsubstantiated. After all, our access to the observable
universe is but a sliver of reality. In this universe Logic has existed from the beginning.

Chaos Theory explains in no uncertain terms that the first regular patterns (intelligent forms) appeared from the slightest initial disturbance when energy becomes physical reality.

IMO it proves that mathematical Logic is the formative essence of the unfolding spacetime fabric.

They rest on the concept that Causal laws of pattern forming rests on "Necessity and Sufficiency", as the quasi-intelligent implied mathematically potential patterns continue to form in the proscribed stochastic processes of self-realization, self-assembly, and via natural selection (a quasi-intelligent natural function) in the quantum world.

Thus:
The PHYSICAL CREATION of the universe happened 14 billion years ago
but the POTENTIAL for EXISTENTIAL CREATION of the universe existed long before MAN arrived and wrote it down in human language.
The mathematical "Guiding Equations" were present long before.

(See David Bohm, "Wholeness" and the "Implicate Order")

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT –
GENERAL INFORMATION: –

I will publish an announcement of this type on a regular
basis for the benefit of UNSUSPECTING READERS who may
stumble on this thread by accident –

The author George Hammond (80 years old) has been studying
and publishing on this theory for 40 years and is an expert in –
Physics (MS degree)
Psychometry (peer published author)
Embryology
Neurology
History
etc.
Hammond (yours truly) claims to have discovered that
the academic field of "Psychometry" utilizing a worldwide
Army of researchers over 50 years (and $50 million) has
actually accidentally discovered the world's first Scientific
Proof of God (SPOG) and –

Because they are not physicists they
DON'T REALIZE IT !

My posts #963 – 964 and 966 describe how they
accidentally discovered that the 13 Personality Types
(a.k.a. the gods) actually form a CUBIC structure,
and Hammond has discovered that this is caused by
the CUBIC structure of the brain – and that ultimately
the psychometrists have also discovered that this
13 axis cube leads directly to a SUPREME, TOP,
FINAL result which they have dubbed the "GFP" –
and how Hammond has proven that the GFP is
actually, none other than, "the God of the Bible".

IOW there is a "REAL GOD" and it is exactly the
anthropomorphic God of the Bible.

Okay – that's my general service announcement
and you will be hearing more from me later.

George

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"God is a spirit that resides in those that believe." - Motor Daddy - High School Grad.

"In Bigfoot we trust"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[GE Hammond MS physics]

My shoe size is 17

GH

 

LOL

Do you live in the woods and show up every once in a while so a camera 200 yards away can take a blury photo of you?

What do you eat? Where do you take a dump? Is there a Mrs Bigfoot? Got any little foots running around?

Point being, we should just print "In Bigfoot we trust" on our money, it's more believable than God! What a joke!

 

George E Hammond said:

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

[GE Hammond MS physics]
XENOPHANES said in 500 BC: –

If horses could draw they
would draw God as a horse

George

 

Yes, and obviously God is more than a horse or a human, so where is the relevant equation?

 

Collective unconscious

Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes) refers to the unconscious mind and shared mental concepts. It is generally associated with idealism and was coined by Carl Jung.[/qoute]

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

I believe that the "mirror neural network" may be instrumental in the expression of archetypes in humans and other animals.

 

George E Hammond said:

XENOPHANES said in 500 BC: –
If horses could draw they
would draw God as a horse

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Yes and by the same token – the word "Car" is obviously more
than a Ford or Chevy. Same difference !

l GE Hammond MS physics]
It has been known since the dawn of history that
NO ONE EVER REACHES FULL GROWTH –

a 15% shortfall is probably the world average – but
in Third World countries 20, 30, even 40%
growth stunting from simple starvation is not
uncommon.

... Meanwhile it is also been recognized for
ages that severe growth stunting causes the
world to appear to the victim to be LARGER
and FASTER than it does to a normal person –
just the same as it appears to a child compared
to an adult in normal circumstances.

.. This is enough to tell us that the (measurable)
magnification of objective spacetime is
actually a measurement of "God".
... However – the average person would never
believe it.

Fortunately in the 21st century a
50 year (and $50 million) effort by a
worldwide army of academic psychologists
have now conclusively PROVED this fact
by discovering the GFP (general factor of
psychology) which Hammond has now
discovered is actually the God of the Bible.

Okay – so "God" is a magnification of
subjective space-time. But a magnification
of space-time is called by Einstein a
"curvature of space-time" – so therefore:

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

In fact Einstein's equation of relativity is given by:

Gravity = G = k (rho) where G is the Einstein
curvature tensor and rho is the mass density.

But Hammond finds that God can be described
by the scalar curvature, "R" of subjective
spacetime so that Hammond writes: –

GOD = R = k[(1+GCD)/(1-GCD)]

Where R is the "scaler curvature of subjective spacetime" and
GCD is the "human growth curve deficit" shown below:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I actually published these equations and that diagram in a
book in 2015 entitled: INVESTIGATING THE SPOG


George

 

That is an admission that you intend to preach.
It is against forum rules.
But given your lack of willing, or ability, to address the criticisms thus far raised, by numerous people, it is no more than you have done for the past 50+ pages, I guess.

Please stop lying.
You are demonstrably not an expert, even in the one thing you claim credentials in.

And please, seriously, stop simply reposting (copy/paste) that which either has already shown to be garbage or at least has led to questions / issues that you have yet to honestly address.

1. Self-promotion is against forum rules.
2. It doesn't matter where you write your garbage (nor that you self-publish it), it will remain garbage (as has been shown in this thread) until you address the glaring flaws, errors, lack of rigour, lack of science, and the fallacious logic that is rife within.

But seriously, if all you're going to do is ignore everything anyone says, and simply rehash the same flawed nonsense, then I wish you luck at whichever forum you troll next.
Most don't suffer cranks as long as we seem to.

 

[ GE Hammond MS physics]
I have discovered a transcription error in the
above equation. The equation should read: –

GOD = R = k[(GCD)/(1-GCD)] (correct equation)

Sorry for the error.
Since the GCD runs from 1 to 0, the scalar curvature R
(a.k.a. Total Curvature) runs from infinity to zero as it should.
The curvature of reality is near infinite at birth, and
by the time of adulthood (age 18) the curvature goes towards
zero (flat space) – of course it never actually reaches zero
since the average adult (worldwide) has a residual adult
lifetime GCD of about 15%

George

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
a substantial portion of this theory has been published by me
in the peer reviewed academic literature in a prominent
academic journal: –

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory,
in NewIdeas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Elsevier Scientific Ltd..
Online copy of published paper is available at:
Elsevier Scientific Ltd.

1994https://tinyurl.com/2wnrjht3

also a full length free research only copy is
located here:

https://tinyurl.com/28tyke6w

New Ideas in Psychology is a highly respected and
prominent academic journal – and Elsevier Scientific Ltd.
is the world's largest scientific publisher.

They do not publish "garbage" as you call it !

4 PhD level and/or professorial level reviewer's
including Prof. Richard Kitchener reviewed the
paper and unanimously recommended it for
publication.

So once again – I think you're referring to my work as
"garbage" is nothing more than ignorant heckling !

George Hammond, MS physics

 

So now it's only a "theory"?
Not a "proof"?

Further, a large portion has not been published by you.
A portion, sure, that theorises a link between the "Structural Model of Personality" and biological structure of the brain, but that's not a large portion by any stretch.

And no, having it published does not make it correct, accurate, or in any way beyond pseudoscience.
Your reliance on credentials and authority has been noted before, and here it is now shown again.

Given that the journal encourages papers that look at "conceptual issues and are theoretically creative", this puts it at the fringes of the field, where a large amount of garbage gets published.

Yours is garbage as there is nothing in that paper that actually links, with anything other than pseudoscience, the model and the brain structure, other than, once again, both can be viewed as having 3 dimensions.
Even a modest review can fathom that much.

Let's see their review notes, then!
Let's see the evidence that they gave it even more than a cursory review.
Let's see evidence that they could even comprehend the garbage, rather than just go "oh, look, this looks mildly interesting, not sure what it's really about, but we need papers to publish, and, well, someone may think it worthwhile, and we've reviewed it for structure, typos, and that he's referencing things correctly...."
You have previously dismissed out of hand criticisms by people who do not have the requisite credentials, so, please, tell us the credentials of the 4 reviewers?
Did they have PhDs in Physics?
In Biology?
In Psychometrics?
In Gardening?
Given your previous dismissals, I fully expect you, if you're being in any way honest, to reject the authority of their peer-review (if indeed any substantial review was carried out at all) unless they all have all the necessary credentials.
Can you support that they did?

Furthermore, getting a paper published in any journal is NOT evidence that it is correct.
That is established by people referencing it, using it, corroborating it, supporting the findings through their own subsequent works.
How many citations has yours had, since 1994?
How many people have used it, confirmed it in their subsequent work, and shown your findings to be correct?
How many have built upon your "theory" in that paper?

And that paper, as said, is just a small part of your overall "proof".

As it is, I call your "proof", as posted here, garbage because, well, based on what you have written here, that is what it really is: garbage.
It is pseudoscientific nonsense.
There may be elements of science within it, that other people have conducted, in the building blocks that you rely on, but you link them together with nothing but smoke and mirrors, hoping noone will notice, shoving your (irrelevant) claims to authority down their throats as if that gives you a free pass to having your garbage accepted without question.

This site, this forum, has reviewed your "proof".
It fails on all the counts that have been raised so far, few of which you have had the decency, honesty, or likely capability to address, and those you have have really just highlighted the garbage that it is, as you just pile more garbage on top, trying to cover the original pile.
So you continue to shout your "proof" unedited, sticking your fingers in your ears.
You are, therefore, demonstrably a crank.

Then address the issues that people have found with it, rather than simply regurgitate the same nonsense.
Support your work!
Don't just assert things!
Provide the actual science, and not the pseudoscientific nonsense you just repeat ad nauseam!
Have the decency and honesty to engage with people who have taken the time to review your "proof".
Show them that it is not the garbage that it has all the appearance of being.
Show them you are not the crank that you have all the demonstrated characteristics of.

Can you do that?
Are you capable and willing to do that?
You have failed thus far but there's still time for you to show that it's not garbage, that there is some science in your work (rather than in the work that others have done upon which you rely), that it is supportable, that the conclusions really do follow logically from the premises, and that you are not a crank.

I look forward to your efforts in those regards.[/quote]

 

[GE Hammond MS physics posted:]
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT –
GENERAL INFORMATION: –
I will publish an announcement of this type on a regular
basis for the benefit of UNSUSPECTING READERS who may
stumble on this thread by accident –

[

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay, okay – maybe my "Public Service Announcement"
was a bit over the top – since you are convinced it is a
violation of forum rules – I will NOT post it again !

I only posted a in the first place because this thread is
besieged by well-meaning but off-topic, no scientific content,
friendly heckling, so I posted the announcement for unsuspecting
visitors and thought is would be helpful steering them to
the scientific content.

Meanwhile, I would suggest Baldeee that you consider pulling
in your horns a bit vis-à-vis your vehement and largely
irrelevant and picayune objections to my theory.

As I understand it you actually have no academic credentials
In Physics – or even any scientific credentials at all.
At least I haven't heard you mention them.

Basically as Shakespeare put it:
"Methinks he protest too much".

George

 

[GE Hammond MS physics]
I simply question your "scientific credulity" – I have repeatedly
asked you what exactly your "scientific credentials" actually
are? And you refuse to answer.

As an MS in physics I can tell you that your objections are
scientifically incompetent in the face of the situation at hand.

I don't care if you have a PhD In Philosophy Or History or some
other nonscientific field – it's irrelevant.

We want to know what your "scientific credentials" are and
until you answer the question I placed absolutely no credence
whatsoever in your patently amateur scientific criticisms.

Put up or shut up

George

 

So why did you go searching through your millions of computer files when you could have just written an answer now?

I did read it. It looks like they didn't ask questions at all. It looks like they asked their subjects to self-evaluate according to certain descriptions of personality. You could have just said that now.

Take your own advice. I asked you several times before you deigned to answer.

 

You're the one who is shouting.

 

Where is the physics related relevance in your so-called proof?

 

The only scientific content you have posted is in other people's work that you are relying on.
Your links are spurious, lack science, and in most cases are fallacious.
Your conclusion is certainly fallacious, as previously explained by myself and numerous others.

My objections to what you are now seemingly admitting is merely a "theory" are hardly irrelevant: they speak to the lack of it being a "proof", they speak to the fallacious logic, the incorrect facts, the misuse of language that at its best confuses, at its worst is deliberate dishonesty.
Then there is the evidence that weighs against your character, which while not used as an argument against your theory (which has been adequately dealt with) speaks to you being a crank, and dishonest.

You understand wrong, but as I have stated before, credentials are irrelevant compared to what you post.
I have no intention on relying on the authority of my credentials, and will let my words speak for me.
As should you.
Noone cares that you (claim to) have a MS in Physics.
Only you seem to care.

Because I have no need to detail them.
They won't change the accuracy or otherwise of what I write in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter.
Similarly, no amount of you claiming to have an MS in Physics will make what you have written any less the garbage that it clearly is.

You can't even quote that correctly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Shakespeare also wrote: "More of your conversation would infect my brain."
But I don't think you are quite that old to have been that particular inspiration.

I am credulous of conclusions when they have been reached with valid reasoning, and for which the premises have sufficient scientific support.
I am not credulous of bald assertions, and links made with either fallacious logic or lacking scientific support.
So you need not question any longer.

You haven't "repeatedly asked".
But yes, I do refuse to answer, for the reason I gave very near the start of my involvement in this thread: credentials are irrelevant, and it is what you actually write that matters.

Then show why they are incompetent.
Simply declaring them as such, and appealing to your MS is, as you should hopefully realise by now, fallacious reasoning (appeal to authority).

As are all credentials compared to what you actually write.

At least you are open about simply appealing to authority rather than the actual criticism that has been written.
However, since you should already know that it is fallacious reasoning, to state it so brazenly in an attempt to avoid facing the criticism is also grossly dishonest.
No surprise, though.

I have "put up": the criticisms I have made about your "proof" stand on what I have actually written, not on whether or not you think I have appropriate credentials.