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

[Baldeee]

[GE Hammond MS physics]

Na – "Intuitively obvious and scientifically proven" !

Geo

Seems the crank keeps turning. No support, no actual science, no sound logic, premises that aren't granted, assertions that are more a leap of linguistics than anything else. And this is by no means an exhaustive list. Is this even reaching the bar to be deemed a pseudoscience?? It's surely more appropriate for the likes of "Free thoughts" or "Cesspool", I'd have thought?
Meh. Whatever.

 

[Baldeee]

Seriously, I take all that effort to respond in good faith... and, well, I guess I only have myself to blame.
Maybe I'm doing him a disservice, and he will reply with something more substantial.
Who knows.

 

[James R]

Okay, let me dumb it down for you: – –

Big Bang = Creation of Universe
Genesis = Creation of Man

Anyone who can't figure that out in this day and age is simply ignorant !

How long ago did this "Creation of Man" take place, George? Does around 6000 years ago sound about right to you?

Do you believe in evolution, George? You sound like more of a biblical literalist kind of guy.

 

[James R]

Namely the cubic cleavage of the Brain.

Can you cite any reputable source that that talks about "cubic cleavage of the brain", George?

3. – Obviously, these 13 personality types are then the
legendary and well known "12 Olympian gods" of antiquity.
(Or in today's Disneyland age – Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck,
Porky pig, Bugs Bunny, etc.)

Obviously.

...and Hammond simply points out that since the lower order

eigenvectors are the "gods" then the top eigenvector is obviously
"the God of the Bible".

Obviously?

Is that because the god of the bible is just the Bestest god, or is there a more ... scientific ... reason?

5. – Sure enough, the psychometric description of the top eigenvector
is as follows: – "admired, successful, well-liked, reliable, dependable, energetic, trusted, often nominated for leadership, healthy, long-lived, etc. etc. etc."

"long-lived" is a psychometric factor? Curiouser and curiouser. And, while we're at it, admired, successful, well-liked, trusted, often nominated for leadership, healthy?

Almost every item on that list is about what other brains are thinking, rather than the one we're studying. How can any of these things be psychometric measures?

6. – On top of that, everyone in the world knows ...

Really? Everyone? How interesting.

...

that the " Biblical" age
was preceded by the age of "the gods", hence it makes sense that the
lower psychometric eigenvectors (in the eigenvector pyramid) would underly the TOP eigenvector which would then naturally be God

Do you have anything more sophisticated to argue than your guess that "it makes sense that..."? I mean, we get it that all this nonsense makes sense to you. Your problem here is that you seem completely unable to convince anybody else that any of it makes sense. And it looks like you've made precisely zero progress on that front over at least the past 20 years.

Why do you think this is, George? Just that a person has to be a genius like you to see the Big Picture? Or what?

 

[James R]

You have to to comprehend the entire theory in order
to refute it. Yawn !

Don't be silly, George.

A flaw in part of your theory is a flaw, regardless of whether the person who uncovers the flaw has read or comprehended the theory as a whole.

If your theory is as fragile a house of cards as it seems to be, then pulling out one or two cards might very well bring the whole house down. There's no need to dismantle the whole thing card by card.

 

[sideshowbob]

Na – "Intuitively obvious and scientifically proven" !

If you even passed a high school science class, you should know that science doesn't deal in proofs. Mathematicians deal in proofs. Even lawyers deal in proofs.

But scientists deal in tentative theories based on evidence. Even your hero Einstein's theories are subject to revision. They may be substantiated but they are never "proven".

 

[George E Hammond]

Seems the crank keeps turning. No support, no actual science, no sound logic, premises that aren't granted, assertions that are more a leap of linguistics than anything else. And this is by no means an exhaustive list. Is this even reaching the bar to be deemed a pseudoscience?? It's surely more appropriate for the likes of "Free thoughts" or "Cesspool", I'd have thought?
Meh. Whatever.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay Baldeee, quit straining in the harness
– I am composing an entirely new presentation
of the theory – just for you: – to wit – –


Okay Baldeee – let me explain the SPOG to you
BACKWARDS and see if you can understand it.
... Instead of explaining the Science that causes
God – First I'll explain WHAT GOD IS and then
how I deduced the Science that causes it.

Okay Baldeee, it will take me a few days or even
a week to compose it, and I will post it at that time.
Fact is the thing looks so promising at this point
that I may even use it as the basis for a PLOS–1
(peer reviewed) publication.

I'll be back in a few days, a week at the most, and
will post it here for your review.

George

 

[Michael 345]

Seems the crank keeps turning

George goes down swinging

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay Baldeee, quit straining in the harness
– I am composing an entirely new presentation
of the theory – just for you: – to wit – –


Okay Baldeee – let me explain the SPOG to you
BACKWARDS and see if you can understand it.
... Instead of explaining the Science that causes
God – First I'll explain WHAT GOD IS and then
how I deduced the Science that causes it.

Okay Baldeee, it will take me a few days or even
a week to compose it, and I will post it at that time.
Fact is the thing looks so promising at this point
that I may even use it as the basis for a PLOS–1
(peer reviewed) publication.

I'll be back in a few days, a week at the most, and
will post it here for your review.

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay sports fans – this is a rough outline of the
new paper I am writing – I will post it here in a
couple of days. I intend to publish an extended
version of it as a (peer reviewed) PLOS–1 paper.

PREVIEW OF COMING
ATTRACTIONS

The scientific proof of God
EXPLAINED BACKWARDS

Okay Baldeee – let me explain the SPOG to you
BACKWARDS and see if you can understand it.

... Instead of explaining Science that causes
God – First I'll explain WHAT GOD IS and then
the Science that proves it.

... God is a mental phenomenon that makes the
world appear LARGER and FASTER than it
actually is. It is the most powerful phenomenon
known to Man – since size and speed determine
survival !

... For example when you were a 9-year-old
kid – the world looked TWICE as large and
TWICE as fast as it does now. Ditto for
everyone !
... And the explanation of that is given by this
CURVE, called the "Human Growth Curve": –


And as you can see, the phenomenon never
goes away – since reaching adulthood
your "phenotype" is still not equal to your
"genotype". We call this the "GCD" (Growth
Curve Deficit) and EVERYONE has a GCD !
IOW everyone experiences "God" – because
no one is fully grown! And we see that a
fully grown man would actually be "God in
the flesh" – and no such person exists.

So the word "God" refers
to an "invisible fully grown man" that lives
(latently) inside us in our "subconscious"
and guides us.
Note –(William James quote here)

Fact is THIS CAN BE ACTUALLY proved by
simply using a tape measure for size and
the well known "picture fusion frequency"
to measure perceptual speed.
Problem is – no one would believe that this
was actually a "scientific proof of God".
And here, fortunately, we realize that the
new field of PSYCHOMETRY is just what we need
to actually PROVE that it is GOD

GO TO "PSYCHOMETRY" HERE

and here we encounter the SMOP
(Structural Model of Personality)

and the "GFP" comes from the SMOP !
(General Factor of Psychology).

SMOP is cubic (Eysenck 3, AVA 4,
Big 5, Hexaco 6, K & J 7, Saucier 9
are experimentally proven to be cubic

The cubic brain has EXACTLY 13
symmetry axes
Roux-Lobster
Hirose Jacobson

Cattell actualy found 12 (1973)
but cubically exactly 13 implies they
are"personality types" and therefore
"the gods" (12 Olympian gods}

SHS (septo- hippocampal system)
neurologically explains all 13

therefore the GFP being the TOP
(higher order) eigenvector of the
13x13 "gods matrix" is proven to be
the "God of the Bible".

Finally- (ENPg) is the 4x4
PSYCHOLOGY-METRIC
itself.

The metric is not diagonal
and therefore is "curved"

ENPg is the metric XYZt (13 cube = gods)
the curvature "R" is the GFP therefore:

God is proven to be an
Einsteinian Curvature of
subjectibve spacetime reality

QED there is a REAL GOD

PS don't forget to attach a copy
of the picture of me and Eysenck


____Hans Eysenck_____George Hammond
____________ Montréal 1996

George

[Moderator note: edited to reduce font size and remove bold]

 

[Michael 345]

George

Please take this single word to represent the entire post above

Not sure if George is swinging or flaying in the above post

 

[George E Hammond]

Please take this single word to represent the entire post above

Not sure if George is swinging or flaying in the above post

[GE Hammond MS Physics]

"Not sure" are famous last words.

GH

 

[Michael 345]

[GE Hammond MS Physics]

"Not sure" are famous last words.

GH

I am not sure about that

If you have a link to who said (or is / was claimed to have said them) would help

 

[Baldeee]

I intend to publish an extended
version of it as a (peer reviewed) PLOS–1 paper.

More accurately you intend to have it published in PLOS-ONE, having been peer-reviewed.

... God is a mental phenomenon...

So not the God of the Bible as you have previously claimed.
Understood.
You have defined your own "God" for purposes of being able to say that "God" exists, etc.
I could similarly define my chair as "God", take a photo of it, and claim to have "scientific proof" of "God".
Similarly I could measure the dimensions of this "God" to a "2dp accuracy".
It wouldn't make it any more the God of the Bible than your own definition.

By claiming to have proven "God" a mental construct, you have in essence claimed to prove the God of the Bible to not exist.
You would therefore do well not to equivocate between your "God" and the God of the Bible, since you have certainly not proven the latter to exist, let alone "measure" it.

... that makes the
world appear LARGER and FASTER than it
actually is. It is the most powerful phenomenon
known to Man – since size and speed determine
survival !

It really isn't powerful at all, at least not when comparing between two creatures from the same species.
Between species, sure, a quicker reaction rate means they can avoid physical dangers more - a fly evading the swat, for example.
But it really makes little difference within a species.
A child's survival, compared to an adult's, is nothing to do with their subjective experience of time.

... For example when you were a 9-year-old
kid – the world looked TWICE as large and
TWICE as fast as it does now. Ditto for
everyone !

No, when you are younger you experience time more slowly.
The world certainly looked twice as large when you are younger (due to experience, not subjective experience of time), but it didn't look faster.
If it looked faster then things would have felt as though they lasted a shorter time, when the opposite is true: a week at school was a loooong time, whereas now a week can fly by with not enough hours in each day!

... And the explanation of that is given by this
CURVE, called the "Human Growth Curve": –

The "Human Growth Curve", at least as typically understood, is simply the curve that describes the rate at which the human physically develops.
It certainly doesn't "explain" the change in our subjective experience of time (from slow to quick, not quick to slow, as you age).
For an actual explanation you need to look at physiology, such as the increasing complexity of neural pathways that signals need to navigate etc.
I suggest you look at this, for example, which should also give you a good idea of how to construct and author an idea for publication.
Note the supporting references.

I am also not sure that your diagram is correct, as it labels the curves "phenotype" and "genotype": do you know what those terms actually mean?
In simple terms: genotype is the genetic information passed from generation to generation; phenotype is the overall appearance/characteristics of the entity, due to both genetics and environmental factors.
For example, identical twins have the same genotype, but will not have the same phenotype (even if they may be very close).
The pink colour of flamingos, for example, is not part of their genotype but only of their phenotype, as it is due to what they eat, not their genes.
The genotype of flamingos would have them white.

Is your contention that we each have an optimum characteristic, and that practical achievement always falls short of that - i.e. a case of "we never fulfil our potential"?
If so, I think referring to phenotype and genotype as you do is somewhat confusing: genotype does not equate to "genetic maximum ability", and phenotype does not equate to "actual ability".

And as you can see, the phenomenon never
goes away – since reaching adulthood
your "phenotype" is still not equal to your
"genotype". We call this the "GCD" (Growth
Curve Deficit) and EVERYONE has a GCD !

Redefining terms is not going to help you.
Understanding existing terms will.
Who is the "we" you are referring to?
Again, you seem to be referring to the difference between who we are and our "potential".
Okay - it is understood that none of us reach our potential.

IOW everyone experiences "God" – because
no one is fully grown!

In your diagram you say that the GCD is the cause of "God".
You have asserted it, but no actual explanation, and certainly nothing to support it.

You have also previously defined your "God" as the phenomenon that makes the world appear larger and (incorrectly) faster when we are younger.
How is our subjective experience of time actually related to the difference (if that is your contention) between our potential and our current reality (in terms of characteristics)?
How is our subjective experience of time related to that gap, the "GCD"?

And we see that a
fully grown man would actually be "God in
the flesh" – and no such person exists.

You say that the GCD is the "cause of God".
If there is no GCD for such a person, how could there be a "God in the flesh"?
Again, what is the causal relationship between the GCD and "God"?

So the word "God" refers
to an "invisible fully grown man" that lives
(latently) inside us in our "subconscious"
and guides us.

"Invisible fully grown man"??
Such metaphors in a science paper really isn't going to help you, either.

Right, from all this it sounds like all you have really done is labelled our subconsious desire to better ourselves as "God".
It is certainly not the God of the Bible, as previously claimed.
You have, in a confused manner, explained that there is a difference between our potential and where we are, and that this difference subconsciously drives us to better ourselves... i.e. we experience "God".
Okay.
That in itself doesn't sound too contraversial, although you'd be better taking it to the Psychology arena.

Dressing it up with pseudo-science, however, as you have done is not helpful.
Confusing it with other claims (this "God" being the cause of us experiencing time differently as we age etc) is also not helpful, especially when you get key aspects of it wrong.

Fact is THIS CAN BE ACTUALLY proved by
simply using a tape measure for size and
the well known "picture fusion frequency"
to measure perceptual speed.

"Well known"?
Please can you provide a link as to what you are referring to with "picture fusion frequency"?

Problem is – no one would believe that this
was actually a "scientific proof of God".

Because it is not.
First, you have yet to show how perceptual speed (by which I'm assuming you're referring back to the subjective experience of time) is caused by God, rather than asserting it.
Second, you are referring only to your definition of "God", not God as understood by world religions.
You are making leaps that, to the reader, are wholly unsupported.

To be continued...

 

[Baldeee]

Cont'd...

Okay, I'm guessing the rest is even less fleshed out than the above, so I'll give some leeway, but simply advise where you will need to provide support, and where your bald assertions are not granted.

SMOP is cubic (Eysenck 3, AVA 4,
Big 5, Hexaco 6, K & J 7, Saucier 9
are experimentally proven to be cubic

Not granted.
Simply asking people to fit things in a box does not make them all cubic.

The cubic brain has EXACTLY 13
symmetry axes
Roux-Lobster
Hirose Jacobson

Not granted.
While a cube does indeed have 13 axes of symmetry, you need to provide justification/support etc for the brain being cubic.

Cattell actualy found 12 (1973)

While Cattell did establish 12 second-order factors, this, as explained to you before, was because of the number of first-order factors he began with.
Start with the 16PF and you have fewer 2nd-order.
Start with more than the 25 or so 1st order, and you'll likely end up with more than 12 second-order.
So you appear to be almost abritrarily settling on Cattell's 12 because it fits your conclusion better.

but cubically exactly 13 implies they
are"personality types"

No it doesn't.
You are missing whole swathes of support for this conclusion, which I would expect you to provide in due course.
Further, Cattell only found 12, so you seem to now be adding one, with no justification?
So what is the 13th 2nd-order factor?
Naturally, I would expect, if you're being serious about all this, for your final document to include justification for this jump from 12 to 13, and then to how they are linked to the "cubic brain" (after first establishing and supporting the brain to be cubic) etc.

and therefore
"the gods" (12 Olympian gods}

So now we're back to 12, not 13?
And again, there is no link established between what has so far been said on psychometry and God or any gods.
You again seem to simply be coming across the number 12 and linking it to another thing with 12.
Please provide the support.

SHS (septo- hippocampal system)
neurologically explains all 13

How?
What is that explanation, please?
While I'm sure it is an influence on certain personality traits (e.g. anxiety), you have much work ahead of you to support how it explains "all 13" (not that you have yet stated the 13th, assuming the other 12 are Cattell's 12 2nd-order factors).

therefore the GFP being the TOP
(higher order) eigenvector of the
13x13 "gods matrix" is proven to be
the "God of the Bible".

Non sequitur.
First, you have previously defined "God" for purposes of your argument, and now you have reverted to the "God of the Bible".
Being such an obvious matter, your equivocation of "God" is nothing but blatant intellectual dishonesty.

You need to actually link the two parts and show how either the "God" you were referring to initially is the "God of the Bible", or how the GFP is the "subconscious guide".

Further, there is nothing supporting your assertions, let alone "proof".
There continues to be only assertion.
Simply pulling a rabbit out of a hat and going "thus I prove God exists" does not suffice.

The rest I'll leave for now.


While I appreciate that there is much work for you to do, I sincerely hope that you address all these (non-exhaustive) points.
You haven't really addressed any of the criticisms previously raised, so I'm not holding my breath.
But needless to say, what you appear to be concocting is a confused mess of nothing but pseudoscientific nonsense.

If ever you write words such as "therefore", please ensure that there is an actual logical progression from what has gone before.
Not a linguistic progression, but a logical deduction, or at least induction.

 

[Michael 345]

which I would expect you to provide in due course

Extra large dollop of whale blubber chance

Probably a few whales worth

 

[George E Hammond]

Extra large dollop of whale blubber chance
Probably a few whales worth

[GE Hammond MS physics]
This post is OFF TOPIC with NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT and is pure
heckling. This is a violation of Sciforums rules.

Keep it up, and I'll start hitting the REPORT button

George

 

[George E Hammond]

Cont'd...

[GE Hammond MS physics]
the first statement you made on this thread
was: –

"CREDENTIALS ARE IRRELEVANT"

Publishers, reviewers, universities, and
employers, and the general public, entirely
disagree with that opinion.
... And it is generally agreed that anyone who
holds such an opinion, does so because
HE HAS NO CREDENTIALS .

Meanwhile every single one of your comments
betrays this fact, that you have no actual
understanding of the theory, no real competence
in psychometry, physics, Mathematics, neurology,
embryology, or biology,

I'm not here to entertain you with a spoonfed
tutorial on higher education. It's up to you to
get some scientific competence before you start
attacking someone who has an advanced degree
in physics and has been published in the
PEER-REVIEWED literature.

I don't have time to waste talking to
opinionated know nothings!

George

 

[Michael 345]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
This post is OFF TOPIC with NO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT and is pure
heckling. This is a violation of Sciforums rules.

Keep it up, and I'll start hitting the REPORT button

George

Been there

Heard. It all before

 

[arfa brane]

Normed service will be resummed shirtly.
Thank you for your paint tins.

 

[George E Hammond]

Can you cite any reputable source that that talks about "cubic cleavage of the brain", George?

You have Your problem here is that you seem completely unable to convince anybody else that any of it makes sense. And it looks like you've made precisely zero progress on that front over at least the past 20 years.

Why do you think this is, George? Just that a person has to be a genius like you to see the Big Picture? Or what?

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay, James R let me talk to you for a minute – since
you are a Sciforums administrator at least I can be
assured that:

1. – You are not a convicted felon posting from a
prison cell in the outback of Australia.
2. – That you must have some scientific credentials
or you wouldn't have been hired.

Okay, I have retained TWO of your questions above.
The first is – is there any reputable authority who cites
"the cubic cleavage of the brain"?

And my answer is NO as far as I know – but that's not
unexpected – for the same reason that you won't find
any reputable authority explain why all higher animals
are quadrupeds) – THE POINT IS the answer is so
obvious – no one would even bother to comment on it.

... It is well known that the body is bilaterally symmetric,
and it is well known that the embryo is dorso-ventrally
symmetric (motor-sensory plates) – or that the spinal
column of the vertebrate animal is multiply cleaved
forming the vertebrae etc. – therefore – the brain
itself is cleaved 3 axis orthogonaly (cubically cleaved)
right from the first 3 orthogonal cleavages of the egg.
But that the brain is fundamentally CUBICALLY CLEAVED
is so obvious, that like having 4 legs, no one ever even
bothers to mention it.

Okay, now as to your 2nd question – why am I making
no headway?

And there is a simple answer to that too !

The problem has to do with the state of modern
"PSYCHOMETRY", upon which this ENTIRE
THEORY IS BASED!

Psychometry is only about 70 years old – although
the IQ test may be about 100 years old. The idea of
a "Structural Model of Personality" (SMOP) is less
than 30 years old!

Okay – and here's the problem – there are
NO PHYSICISTSin the entire academic field of
PSYCHOLOGY

It's a problem because academic psychology spent
$50 million over 50 years funding a WORLDWIDE
ARMY of psychometry researchers using desktop
computers measuring millions of people to collect
the necessary data to try and work out this "SMOP".

They never did figure it out – in fact the entire field
became STALLED – in fact STALLED SO BAD that
the field has gone into a steep decline to almost
disintegrate! In fact the situation is so bad a
COUNTER MOVEMENT has actually developed –
which is actively trying to prove that "Psychometry
doesn't exist" ! It's so bad !

And all of this simply because there are NO
PHYSICISTS available to the psychology department.

And that's where I (A Physicist) came in – the first
physicist to actually look at the situation – and it
was IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS to me that the
psychology department had actually discovered the
SMOP and didn't even REALIZE it – and not only
that – that the SMOP leads directly to the worlds first
scientific proof of God (SPOG).

And here I am – talking to you !

So my plan now – having discovered that the
"BACKWARDS EXPLANATION " of the theory is
reasonably comprehensible (effective) –
is to now publish a comprehensive PLOS-1
(peer reviewed) paper – and probably have to
leave it at that – since today is my birthday
and I'm 80 years old.

George

PS – and by the way – I have had some success –
I actually published a fundamental paper
in the peer reviewed academic literature in
a reasonably prominent journal in 1994 –
and I have found that academics are quite
reasonable – although publishing a SPOG
is out of the question for most journals –
I think PLOS-1 can handle it.