George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
I'm trying to work out, is he the young one in the photo?
[George]
...Hammond is the one holding his glasses in his left hand.
The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy
- Thread starter George E Hammond
- Start date
- Status
[George]
...Hammond is the one holding his glasses in his left hand.
That's great, and it is to 3 decimal places not just 2!
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA]
God is 7'3" tall according to the data. This is approximally 6 inches taller than Larry Bird the famous Celtics basketball player.
God has got to be pretty darn impressive walking into a room at 7' 3", not as impressive as say a giraffe or an elephant but pretty impressive none the less.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA]
... The average Giraffe is 18 feet tall. But as you know the phenotype of any animal including Man Never Reaches Its Genotype:
Therefore while ordinary worldly "genotypic" Giraffes are 18 feet tall, the God of a Giraffe (which is a genotypic giraffe) is actually 22 1/2 feet tall. And that is truly a an "impressive giraffe".
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
Seriously?!
[Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA]
...YEAH.... Absolutely serious; are you? Do you have any scientific education? And/OR high intelligence? Good teeth? Belong to a racial minority? Or any other qualification that would qualify you to join this investigation? If so, reply to this post. If not, take a hike and don't bother me !
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
Didn't think imperial measurements worked with decimal points / places
[George Hammond Cape Cod MA USA]
... The ancient Egyptians used the "cubit" which was the length of your forearm. That was certainly an "Imperial system" since it was invented by the Pharaohs.
... Certainly you can say that the height of the average American man is 5.75 cubits. If it works with cubits, why shouldn't it work with "feet" ?
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
Does SANITY count as a qualification?
[Hammond MS physics Cape Cod MA USA]
...NO, but knowing the English System can be expressed in decimal form CERTAINLY IS, since even a Jr. high school student knows that !
Stuff up
Which would make it a royal (not imperial) system.
Er, the Egyptian cubit varied from 20.61 to 20.83 in in length...
Which would make an average Yank 9.88 to 9.98 feet tall. I doubt that somehow.
Even the "nominal" cubit is 18" - still rather tall at 8.6 feet.
Knew I should have kept growing when I hit 6'1, but I'll settle for being a minor god.
George, you're a numbskull.
Get over yourself.
George, you're a numbskull.
Get over yourself.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George Hammond MS physics]
... Yes, I've read a lot about the "qubit" in the past 50 years and have seen the "20 – 21 inch" citations in many places. My impression is that the actual length of the "qubit" has been lost a history. In the end I found the statement that some researchers believe that the cubt was actually the "length of the forearm" and taking a tape measure I find that my forearm is about 12 inches long! Anyway, the length of the cubit is really not the issue, the issue is whether or not any standard of length can be expressed in a decimal form such as writing 2 1/2 units = 2.5 units, which of course it can ! Frankly, I'm rather sorrowful that the actual length of the cubit cannot definitely be proven at this late date.
So how do you reconcile the fact that some populations are above 5'9 on average? I'm Danish, 6'1 and I often feel like I'm short.
Are we Danes closer to godliness?
No. We're not. You're just nuts, George.
Use your time better.
Are we Danes closer to godliness?
No. We're not. You're just nuts, George.
Use your time better.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George Hammond MS physics]
... Hey Bubba, cut the ad hominem remarks okay? This is a moderated scientific forum not a catcalling USENET list ! I recommend being particularly polite on widely read academic forums.
But it's pretty clear you're not exactly bound to scientific thinking.
You're a crank that has an obsession.
An obsession that you've pursued since the usenet days.
An obsession that have clouded your thinking for far too long.
Get over yourself.
Edit to add: it's been quite a while since this could be called a widely read "academic" forum.
You're a crank that has an obsession.
An obsession that you've pursued since the usenet days.
An obsession that have clouded your thinking for far too long.
Get over yourself.
Edit to add: it's been quite a while since this could be called a widely read "academic" forum.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George Hammond MS physics]
... I have published a major portion of this theory in the peer-reviewed academic literature, and here's the citation:
Hammond G.E (1994)
...The Cartesian Theory, Unification of Eysenck and Gray
in New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd.. Online copy of published paper is posted 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 fully peer-reviewed prominent academic worldwide journal published by the world's largest scientific publisher.
... Furthermore, this happens to be a fundamental scientific discovery paper from which I was congratulated by both Hans Eysenck and Jeffrey Gray. A picture of me with Hans Eysenck, the world's most famous living psychologist at the time, is shown on page 1 of this thread.
... Peer-reviewed academia and the world's largest scientific publisher, do not publish papers by "obsessional cranks with clouded thinking"
... It is far more likely given this evidence that your opinions are merely the aggravated remarks of scientifically unqualified person who feels that the discovery is somehow adverse to his own belief system.
... I can tell you right now, the only way you can attack me is on purely scientific grounds, and my guess is, you're not able to do so.
... And by the way, I see some of these SciForums topics receiving 10, 20 or even 30,000 views. From what I've seen, that is a pretty "widely read" scientific forum!
Didn't say could not be EXPRESSED in decimal
Not WORKED as decimal ie cannot be notated as 5 (foot) . 9 (inches) 5"9'
Which is why you CONVERTED 5"9' IMPERIAL into DECIMAL 5.75
Additionally 7.188 would only round DOWN to two decimal places 7.19 OR one decimal place 7.2
Last edited:
- Status