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

[George E Hammond]

The only scientific content you have posted is in other people's work that you are relying on.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Dear Baldeee, it occurs to me that you really have no idea
who you are talking to – so I have decided to post this
"timeline history of the SPOG" to give you a better idea
of where I'm coming from.

George


A timeline History of Hammond's SPOG
(Scientific Proof of God)

Note: "H" is a nickname for George E Hammond


1970s H socially notices L-R – upper–lower (BI/2P system)
of human personality structure

1982 H joins academic psychology quest for the SMOP
(structural model of personality)

1980s H notes academic – cubic psychometry models

Late 1980s H posits cubic brain as the cause
(Sperry – Bell-Magendie – McLean)
the 3 axis orthogonal cleavage of the brain

1994 H peer publishes "a decussation" in Gray's SHS
and cubic brain theory – unifies Eysenck and Gray
(in New Ideas in Psychology – Elsevier Scientific)

1996 H meets Hans Eysenck while invited as a
co-speaker at the XXVI international Congress of
Psychology in Montréal.

1997 H concludes there exist 13 personality types because:
1. A cube has 13 symmetry axes (cubic brain cleavage)
2. Cattell had measured/published 12 in 1973
3. Big 3, AVA 4, Big 5, Hexaco 6, K&J 7, Saucier 9 – all cubic

1997 H concludes 13 –PTs = 12 Olympian gods of antiquity

1997 H realizes that since SMOP is the gods – GFP must be God

2000–2010 H realizes God is an Einsteinian curvature
of "subjective" space-time consisting of:
1. A magnification of subjective space
2. It dilation of subjective time
3. Hence a "curvature" of subjective spacetime

2015 H posits GOD = curvature of subjective space-time with

total curvature = R = k [GCD/(1-GCD)]

where R the scalar curvature and GCD
is the "human growth curve deficit" – which is near zero at
birth and proceeds towards unity at adulthood where it arrives
at about a 15% terminal shortfall; world population average.

2020 H discovers Gray's SHS controls all 13 PTs thus
neurologically confirming the cubic brain theory

So finally – H has discovered that GOD IS REAL and that
via psychometry – God Has Actually Been Measured
to a 2 decimal point accuracy.

So finally we discover that –

God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
of subjective space-time

Which is now the world's 1st and only scientific definition of God.

George E Hammond Hyannis April 25, 2022

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Dear Baldeee, it occurs to me that you really have no idea
who you are talking to – so I have decided to post this
"timeline history of the SPOG" to give you a better idea
of where I'm coming from.

George


A timeline History of Hammond's SPOG
(Scientific Proof of God)

Note: "H" is a nickname for George E Hammond


1970s H socially notices L-R – upper–lower (BI/2P system)
of human personality structure

1982 H joins academic psychology quest for the SMOP
(structural model of personality)

1980s H notes academic – cubic psychometry models

Late 1980s H posits cubic brain as the cause
(Sperry – Bell-Magendie – McLean)
the 3 axis orthogonal cleavage of the brain

1994 H peer publishes "a decussation" in Gray's SHS
and cubic brain theory – unifies Eysenck and Gray
(in New Ideas in Psychology – Elsevier Scientific)

1996 H meets Hans Eysenck while invited as a
co-speaker at the XXVI international Congress of
Psychology in Montréal.

1997 H concludes there exist 13 personality types because:
1. A cube has 13 symmetry axes (cubic brain cleavage)
2. Cattell had measured/published 12 in 1973
3. Big 3, AVA 4, Big 5, Hexaco 6, K&J 7, Saucier 9 – all cubic

1997 H concludes 13 –PTs = 12 Olympian gods of antiquity

1997 H realizes that since SMOP is the gods – GFP must be God

2000–2010 H realizes God is an Einsteinian curvature
of "subjective" space-time consisting of:
1. A magnification of subjective space
2. It dilation of subjective time
3. Hence a "curvature" of subjective spacetime

2015 H posits GOD = curvature of subjective space-time with

total curvature = R = k [GCD/(1-GCD)]

where R the scalar curvature and GCD
is the "human growth curve deficit" – which is near zero at
birth and proceeds towards unity at adulthood where it arrives
at about a 15% terminal shortfall; world population average.

2020 H discovers Gray's SHS controls all 13 PTs thus
neurologically confirming the cubic brain theory

So finally – H has discovered that GOD IS REAL and that
via psychometry – God Has Actually Been Measured
to a 2 decimal point accuracy.

So finally we discover that –

God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
of subjective space-time

Which is now the world's 1st and only scientific definition of God.

George E Hammond Hyannis April 25, 2022

ERRATA:-

The entry for the year 2015 in the
above quotation should should be
replaced with this corrected copy:-

2015 H posits GOD = curvature of subjective space-time
with:

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

where R is the scalar curvature and GCD
is the "human growth curve deficit" – which is near 1 at
birth and proceeds towards 0 at adulthood where it arrives
at about 15% terminal shortfall (world population average).
Thus R ~ infinity at birth (radius of the Universe=1/R ~ 0) and
R ~ 0 at adulthood (flat space, radius of Universe= 1/R ~ infinity)
However due to ~15% terminal adult growth deficit, average
adult
R~k(.15/.85)=.18k and radius of Universe (and all objects therein) will appear 18% larger than they actually are and
appear to move 18% faster than they actually are moving,
for the average adult.

George

 

[Baldeee]

Dear Baldeee, it occurs to me that you really have no idea who you are talking to....

Apologies, are you not the same George E Hammond who wrote the opening post (i.e. #1 of this thread), and that I have been responding to since post #802.
Has someone hacked your login details and been impersonating you?
If so, you best report that to the Moderators.

If you are the same George E Hammond, however, then I have all the idea of who you are that I need with which to be able to respond in the manner I have been.
That idea is contained in your posts, both in the content (which has been addressed, repeatedly, and ignored by you, repeatedly) and in your overall manner (addressed separately).

– so I have decided to post this
"timeline history of the SPOG" to give you a better idea
of where I'm coming from.

It's all irrelevant, Mr. Hammond.
Why do you not yet understand that?

I have addressed (only some of) what you have written in this thread, and my criticisms stand and fall on what I have written in response to you.
Not on who I am.
Not on the credentials and qualifications I have, or that you think I don't have.

And what you have written in this thread stands and falls on the content of what you have written in this thread.
Not on who you are.
Not on your MS in Physics, or any other qualifications or credentials you claim to have.
Not on how many papers you have had published, or books you have published.
Simply on what you have typed out (or for you more likely copy/pasted) in this thread.

It's not such a hard concept to grasp, yet you, wilfully or otherwise fail to do so.

Tell you what: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were somehow ignorant of the fallacy.
The alternative is that you already do understand but are simply being dishonest, and having nothing else with which to argue your case (you know, like actual facts and science and logic and stuff) you retreat to your last resort in avoiding having to face up to what you have written being garbage.

Either way, you have been told (again), and for someone with an MS in Physics it should not be such a hard concept to grasp.
Unless you're also stupid?
So I'll assume you do now understand.
Therefore in future any appeals to authority you commit will rightly be considered as demonstration of your dishonesty rather than any ongoing ignorance.

How does that sound?

 

[George E Hammond]

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

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Dear Write4U – I think I have found the
"relevant" equation !

In post #1022 I give the equation: –

GOD = R = K [GCD/(1-GCD)]

where R is the curvature of "subjective spacetime"

And where GCD = The Human Growth Curve Deficit

Note that this is similar to Einstein's field equations: –

G = k (rho)

where rho is the mass density and G is the curvature
of "objective spacetime".

Okay, in the Big Bang the mass density, rho, is
infinite so Einstein's curvature tensor G is infinite
but as the universe expands rho drops to zero,
so the Einstein curvature tensor G also drops to zero.
(Known as flat space)

Now notice Hammond's God equation again: –

GOD = R = K [GCD/(1-GCD)]

The GCD is 100% (=1) when a human baby is conceived,
and the GCD eventually drops towards zero as the
human growth goes to adulthood. This means that
"R" the "subjective perceptual curvature" goes from
infinity near birth to zero at full growth.

In other words – there is a "mathematical identity"
between Birth and the Big Bang creation of the
Universe in Einstein's relativity.

You might want to put a reference to that in your
treatise on "the conscious mathematical universe"

George

 

[Motor Daddy]

Note that this is similar to Einstein's field equations: –

So total BS. Got it!

GOD = R = K [GCD/(1-GCD)]

where R is the curvature of "subjective spacetime"

So you're saying God = curvature of subjective spacetime

So God is a curvature, according to you.

Is God a circle, then? Circular? Circular reasoning?

 

[Write4U]

You might want to put a reference to that in your treatise on "the conscious mathematical universe"
George

Thank you George for that thought. I believe you do understand my perspective on inherently mathematical based universal dynamics.

In turn, I believe that I understand your mindscape on this issue.

Personally, I am not so sure that a motivated "conscious" pattern can be ascribed to the entire universe. IMO it doesn't need to.

I would rather put this in the format of a "quasi-intelligent mathematical universe", where all measurable interactive dynamics can be mathematically solved and therefore are ultimately mathematically related.

This mathematical essence inhabits all animate and inanimate patterns in nature and of course human thought as well.
This would express itself in phenomena such as fractality, the exponential function, and all the identified and codified laws of nature and the human sciences.

In that respect, your recognition of a recurring mathematical formula in physics and the human application of these symbolic mathematical patterns in metaphysics may well be valid.

The universal hypothesis of CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) is based on the mathematical principle of universal fractality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

The question is when does mathematics have practical application in the living world? This is why I am an atheist and stay relatively close to home in the practical application of mathematics, without trying to identify the grand scopes involved such as put forth by David Bohm in his "Wholeness and the Implicate (mathematical) Order"

 

[Motor Daddy]

God = 2 + 2

Wait

God - 2 = 2

Wait

God - 4 = 0

God = 4

God = 1 (Earth) +1 (Fire) +1 (Water) +1 (Wind)

God = 1(Sun) +1(Moon) + 1(Earth) +1(George)

Done deal, and the math proves it!

 

[Write4U]

Ghost Appearance, are you an atheist?
If so, can you present a physical model of Universal dynamics? I am interested.

I am an atheist and I believe that the universe is a mathematical object in essence, guided by mathematical dynamics.

What say you?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Ghost Appearance, are you an atheist?
If so, can you present a physical model of Universal dynamics? I am interested?

I am not religious, so if religious people want to call me an Atheist, great, but to me that is a religious label of non-believers. I'm not religious so I have no use for which religious category I fall into. Am I technically an Atheist? Yes, because I don't believe in a God.

But I just posted this in another thread, which pretty much sums up my view on mass, distance, and time:


The term "atom" is an object, like the term "solar system" is an object.

An atom has a nucleus, comprised of protons and neutrons, and the nucleus is surrounded by electrons.
A solar system has a nucleus, which is our Sun, and the Sun is surrounded by planets and such.

An atom and a solar system are both objects that are comprised of smaller components, which are also comprised of smaller components, etc ....

Of course, an atom is a component of a solar system, and a solar system is a component of a galaxy, which is a component of a universe, which is a component of a multiverse etc....

All of those objects are massive objects, comprised of smaller massive objects.

It is all motion, so small it is beyond our scope to measure and observe, and so large it is beyond our scope to measure and observe. It is all matter, comprised of massive objects, extending infinitely in scale, small and large. "Turtles all the way, UP AND DOWN!"



I also believe that mass evolves to space. That means that smaller objects emerge from larger objects. So the Earth (and all the planets) came from the Sun. The Sun (and all the planets) came from the center of the Galaxy etc...

It is not being created, it is being destroyed and flying apart! The universe is a potential energy that is being converted to heat, and ultimately space. Mass evolves to space, not the other way around.

 

[Write4U]

All of those objects are massive objects, comprised of smaller massive objects

Do you believe these objects are ruled by physical laws and that these physical laws are mathematical in essence?

Turtles all the way, UP AND DOWN!"

I agree.
All the way down to a singularity.
But do you believe all turtles are mathematical patterns?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Do you believe these objects are ruled by physical laws and that these physical laws are mathematical in essence?

I think the objects generally follow mathematical laws which we created to (as closely as possible) describe the actions of the objects. They generally can be described mathematically, because we create math to do that very thing.

The objects do what they do, and we try really hard to describe that mathematically as best we can. We do a pretty good job, but it is not exact. "Close enough" is within sight!

 

[Motor Daddy]

But do you believe all turtles are mathematical patterns?

Like I said before, I think we invent the math to describe the patterns we observe, and do a pretty good job of it.

But since we can't see the smallest turtle, or the largest turtle, it is beyond our scope to observe just how far it is that the turtles end, if they do in fact end.

Consider that 1+1+1+1...extends infinitely.
Consider that .000000000000000001 can always have another decimal place, effectively meaning infinitesimal. Infinitely large, and infinitely small.

Do the turtles actually extend infinitely in the large and small scales? We can never know that. We may think we find a border, but that border might be just a tip of the iceberg. There may be something even more distant even larger.

Consider that if we could only see to the edge of the solar system, and then there was nothing for a distance. We would think we found the limit. But we both know that is just our limitation, as there are vast galaxies way beyond our limit of scope.

We do a pretty good job, but we will never know the full extent, because space is infinite.

 

[Write4U]

I think the objects generally follow mathematical laws which we created to (as closely as possible) describe the actions of the objects. They generally can be described mathematically, because we create math to do that very thing.

The objects do what they do, and we try really hard to describe that mathematically as best we can. We do a pretty good job, but it is not exact. "Close enough" is within sight!

Yes and would you agree that if humans can codify natural dynamics with human symbolic mathematical language, it suggests that all natural relational dynamics are mathematical in essence?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Yes and would you agree that if humans can codify natural dynamics with human symbolic mathematical language, it suggests that all natural dynamics are mathematical in essence?

If we could accurately mathematically describe every action then it would suggest that everything can be described mathematically, if only we could invent the math to do that accurately.

 

[Write4U]

We do a pretty good job, but we will never know the full extend, because space is infinite.

We would immediately know if 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

This why George tries to equate God with a mathematical equation. He recognizes that God must be a mathematical construct of the human mind.

It is a little too esoteric for me, but I can see the honest attempt to reconcile religious concepts with a certain universal mathematical pattern.

My objection is that Gods themselves do not seem to obey mathematical guiding equations and IMO that is a disqualifying characteristic.

 

[Motor Daddy]

We would immediately know if 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

This why George tries to equate God with a mathematical equation. He recognizes that God must be a mathematical construct of the human mind.

Like I posted earlier in this thread, "God is a spirit that resides in those that believe."

In other words, God is a belief that resides in people that believe.

The mind is a powerful thing, much more powerful than we give credit to.

If one believes in a God, and in turn goes out to the world and does good deeds, then the belief in God had a real effect on the universe. Is that God in itself, a belief in God, doing good deeds? You tell me.

But is there a white bearded dude in the sky that created the Earth, that has a place for dead souls to hang out for eternity. Absolutely NOT!

 

[Write4U]

The mind is a powerful thing, much more powerful then we give credit to.

I agree.

If one believes in a God, and in turn goes out to the world and does good deeds, then the belief in God had a real effect on the universe. Is that God in itself, a belief in God, doing good deeds? You tell me.

OTOH, beliefs in God are based on human morality and has also resulted in the most horrendous wars, not only between Gods, but between humans themselves as demanded by the Gods.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I agree.
OTOH, beliefs in God are based on human morality and has also resulted in the most horrendous wars, not only between Gods, but between humans themselves as demanded by the Gods.

Yup. Pros and cons to everything. I wonder what the NET effect is?

If I had to guess I would say religion does more harm than good.

If nothing else it brainwashes people at a very young age, when they are most vulnerable and gullible.

"In God we trust, all others pay CASH!"

 

[Motor Daddy]

To paraphrase AlphaNumeric on our math: "It might be BS but it's the best BS we have."

I'll always remember that.

 

[Write4U]

To paraphrase AlphaNumeric on our math: "It might be BS but it's the best BS we have."

I'll always remember that.

It seems to be sufficient.

As a Mars Rover tech said about the Law of Falling bodies: "The applied maths don't need to perfect, they just need to be good enough" and our applied maths proved sufficient to land that Rover without any problems. A remarkable accomplishment.