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

[George E Hammond MS physics]
... Why don't you post that multipage textbook linear algebra definition of an eigenvector again –
for us, that was really enough to put anyone to sleep – Bah hahaha Bah hahaha

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry cannot oblige

Sold the definition, slightly modified, to Big Pharm and it has been patented to be turned into sleep elixir

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you saying you have taken human personality types and then assumed they apply to gods too? Didn't the ancient Greeks do that as well?
Don't most religions do that with their gods?
That may be a lead to why there are gods, i.e. human created them.

 

Looks like your delusions are bringing you more than happiness, it seems like down right joy. That's nice.

 

Isn't that (the spelling of the laughter) the evil genius laugh from deep in the secret volcano as he plots his revenge whilst performing his hand ablutions ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[George Hammond MS physics]

This is not USENET where unlimited heckling is permitted

This is a moderated forum. Quit your off-topic, no content,

heckling or I will protest to the MODERATOR

 

[George E Hammond MS physics]
Look; "Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Porky pig, Bugs Bunny etc. etc. etc." are the "gods"
of the modern world today !
... 5000 years ago these same 13-personality types, which are eternal because they come from
the "axiomatic cubic cleavage of the brain", were called "Seth, Tpth, Anubis, Bes etc. etc.".
And during the Golden age of Greece t these same gods were called the "12 Olympian gods"!
The same 13- personality types have existed ever since man appeared and will continue to
exist as long as man exists.
... You absolutely don't know what is being discussed here until you watch these 2 videos:

THE GODS

(YouTube 6-min)

'WORLD'S 1st SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

(YouTube 12-min)

When you finish watching the first (6 minute) video you will then
know what they "gods" are – – – if you watch the 12 minute video
then you will know what "God" is.

Until you do that, you are completely ignorant of what you are talking about !

George Hammond

 

Diddums. Good luck with that.

 

Sorry, it is just that that this whole thread is so silly and absurd it is impossible to treat it seriously.

 

You are seriously correct origin

It appears with George E Hammond though he is taking it seriously

Also it appears with George E Hammond we have a dying swan actor from

there have been 7 postings the last one containing

Two statements, a firm instruction, followed by what happen if George E Hammond's firm instruction is not followed

Seems like the dying swan has reneged on dying

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[George E Hammond MS physics ('67)]

Sod off Wanker. This isn't a gossip column. Post on topic content
or get outta here !

George

 

I did and what you are talking about has in fact been present in the universe and on earth since the beginning.

But you have assigned it the wrong terminology. What you are talking about is not a sentient intelligent agency subjectively named "God" that acts with intent, but a non-sentient quasi-intelligent agency objectively called "Logic" that acts with mathematical determinism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

13th Dimension
Associations

https://www.art10zen.com/the-13-dimensions-of-intelligent-source/

Highlighted; replace "intelligent Source Creator" with "Quasi-intelligent Logical Source Creator" field, and it all begins to fit.

Once the term Logic is accepted and the motivational part is dropped, you have it right. All the gods you cite in your narrative have intent and that is a fatal flaw in the proposition. Replace the intentional motivational part and you'll get deterministic Logic and your mathematical modelling begins to make sense.

You cannot pray to god and get results. It just doesn't work that way. Your sentient intelligent God is a non-sentient deterministic Logical chronolgical ordering process. Logic is your singular quadratic concept of Implicate Order (God) and your 13 demi-urges (minor gods) are the mathematical potentials by which the Implicate becomes deterministically Explicated in manifest reality.

Think along these terms and you may actually have something that can be mathematically analyzed, codified and formalized as science.

Doesn't bosonic string theory posits 26 dimensions, consisting of 10 superstring dimension?

Question; Is the particle/wave theory contained in string theory?

How about this;

https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-get-and-why-are-there-26-dimensions-in-string-theory

Question: Why not 13 ? (1/2 (demi) x 26)

Proposition:
Quasi-Intelligent Mathematical functions do NOT require intent! They are deterministic in essence.

 

Tut tut George

What happened to

Remind me please WHAT is EXACTLY the topic?

When I was on topic asking questions YOU didn't provide answers so from My perspective it appeared YOUR topic was to get ME to watch YOUR video

So again remind me please WHAT is EXACTLY the topic?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[George E Hammond MS physics]
Whaddau blind? Just read the title of the thread
which is:

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

It is the story about how 1000 man academic research army worldwide using desktop computers for 50 years measuring millions of people with
personality and IQ tests and peer–publishing all the data, which is now the size of a major library, and then how a physicist named George Hammond looked at the data and realized that it amounted to the world's first scientific proof of God. Even though they don't know it
because none of those psychologists are physicists !
THAT'S WHAT THE TOPIC IS !!!!'

Next time, look before you leap!
George

 

Sure BUT BUT BUT when I was discussing such YOU didn't want to discuss YOU only wanted to refer me to your video

Referring someone to a video is NOT discussion

So what DO YOU wish to DISCUSS about your statement?

Since you are adverse to answering questions?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[George E Hammond MS physics]
You gotta be kiddin ! What makes you think that I should sit here
and give you a spoonfed tutorial when you are a nobody from the
outback of Australia with no scientific credentials and merely a
curiosity sightseer with a big mouth ! My time is worth a thousand
dollars a minute !!
... You have absolutely no understanding of comprehension of the
"topic" of this discussion, and obviously you could care less, or you
would read the 713 word paper and watch the 10 minute video
to at least absorb some rudimentary comprehension of what is under discussion. But oh no, you want a world-class scientist who was made a historic scientific discovery to give you an entertaining spoonfed tutorial... get outta here you Tic-Toc, moronic kibitzer.
... Until you can pose a reasonably on-topic logical or scientific
query.... Which demonstrates that you have some reasonable comprehension of what this "topic" is about, I'm not about
to waste my time with a run-of-the-mill Internet discussion
list curiosity seeker like you !
George

 

Got it. But you are mistaken

I want a YET TO BE PROVEN "world-class scientist"
who has made a YET TO BE PROVEN "historic scientific discovery"
to engage in DISCUSSION not "give"
and certainly not "entertaining spoonfed tutorial" to a member of SciForum
It appears you do not wish to DISCUSS

YOU have joined a run of the mill (sorry SciForum)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

on the internet to ?WHAT EXACTLY to achieve?

Post ONE of yours

makes numerous CLAIMS as does the heading but not a SUBJECT TO DISCUSS

Which is why I ask AGAIN WHAT EXACTLY do you wish to DISCUSS

Davec4...... gave you an excellent lead which you totally ignored, Post number 19

I'll try by giving you a few headings. If it is not any of these please inform me WHAT IT IS

Is it

• your discovery?
• how the mathematics SHOW proof?
• how you twiged it (discovery) was THE god of the Bible (not one of the few thousand others)

In relation to the mathematics, in another thread it was pointed out 1 person had calculated " where there should be a planet" however another person actually found the planet

I am sure if you have published your calculations and they have been considered by competent people WHY HAVE THEY NOT FOUND god also?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[George E Hammond MS physics ]
... You continue to post OFF TOPIC, NO CONTENT,
ad hominem messages, in violation of forum rules.
... Cease and desist from this activity or I will complain
to the moderating authority !
GH