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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still don't want the YouTube algorithms to think I want to watch religious pseudoscience, so no thanks.
 
Ghost Appearance said:
But you don't have a pic of God, so you have NOTHING! I have a pic of God

Get with the program already, God is a spirit that resides in those that believe! If you can't see God in those two pics then you don't know what God is!
Click to expand...

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hey dude – dummy up already – Michelangelo
painted a picture of God on the Sistine
Chapel ceiling 500 years ago –
we know what he looks like !

The challenge is to prove (scientifically) that
He REALLY EXISTS.

Fortunately HAMMOND has now done that
and it's called the SPOG.

George
 
George E Hammond said:

The challenge is to prove (scientifically) that
He REALLY EXISTS.
Click to expand...

He?

God is not a "He." God is a SPIRIT that rides in those that believe.

You think God is some dude in the sky that collects dead souls and forces them to be there for eternity?

What if the soul doesn't want to be in Heaven any longer?

What temperature is it in Heaven?

Is it always dark in Heaven?

What do the dead souls do in Heaven, perform God's slave labor?

Do you get on your knees and talk to God every night before you go to sleep? Does HE answer you back? Have you discussed that with a mental professional?

Why does God create Storms and Tornadoes to kill people and save a little dog? Does HE like dogs more than people?

So many questions and so few answers.

If you talk to God and he answers you back you should seek professional psychiatric help!
 
Ghost Appearance said:
He?

God is not a "He." God is a SPIRIT that rides in those that believe.

You think God is some dude in the sky that collects dead souls and forces them to be there for eternity?

What if the soul doesn't want to be in Heaven any longer?

What temperature is it in Heaven?

Is it always dark in Heaven?

What do the dead souls do in Heaven, perform God's slave labor?

Do you get on your knees and talk to God every night before you go to sleep? Does HE answer you back? Have you discussed that with a mental professional?

Why does God create Storms and Tornadoes to kill people and save a little dog? Does HE like dogs more than people?

So many questions and so few answers.

If you talk to God and he answers you back you should seek professional psychiatric help!
Click to expand...

[GE Hammond MS physics]
It's not your job to worry about God.
I'll take care of it.

George
 
George E Hammond said:
[GE Hammond MS physics]
It's not your job to worry about God.
I'll take care of it.

George
Click to expand...

Are you gonna have a talk with HIM tonight before you go to sleep?

Could you ask him to stop killing so many people with wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes etc??

Could you ask him why he collects dead souls and makes them stay in Heaven for eternity?

Ask him what happens when someone wants out of Heaven?

Ask him if it's 72 degrees there, and what regulates the temperature in Heaven?

Ask him how you turn on the lights.

Ask him if people are forced to work, or they just hang out forever doing nothing?

Ask him if a 107 year old lady dies and goes to Heaven if she has to spend eternity in pain as a 107 year old?

Let me know what his answers are, K?
 
Ghost Appearance said:
Are you gonna have a talk with HIM tonight before you go to sleep?

Could you ask him to stop killing so many people with wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes etc??

Could you ask him why he collects dead souls and makes them stay in Heaven for eternity?

Ask him what happens when someone wants out of Heaven?

Ask him if it's 72 degrees there, and what regulates the temperature in Heaven?

Ask him how you turn on the lights.

Ask him if people are forced to work, or they just hang out forever doing nothing?

Ask him if a 107 year old lady dies and goes to Heaven if she has to spend eternity in pain as a 107 year old?

Let me know what his answers are, K?
Click to expand...


[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hey Motormouth – don't puke out your Richard Dawkins
"God Delusion" rap on Sciforums. This forum is for
straight as a ruler scientists – the leadership of the world,
and posting a pseudo-psycho meltdown act here is beyond
boring.
Talk straight science or take your GED and go back to
grinding asymmetric camshafts – where you belong !.

George
 
George E Hammond said:
[GE Hammond MS physics]This forum is for
straight as a ruler scientists – the leadership of the world,
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the same forum that you considered to be scraping the barrel.
You're a hoot, Mr.Hammond.
A narcissistic crank the likes of which we rarely see.
A psychiatrist's dream patient.
Anyhoo, it would be nice to think that this site was for "straight as a ruler" scientists, but we're always kind enough to let the likes of you in.
Please don't outstay your welcome.
"Leadership of the world"... sure, if it makes you feel better, you poor delusional soul.


...and posting a pseudo-psycho meltdown act here is beyond boring.
Click to expand...
Actually makes for a refreshing change to the pseudoscience garbage that you can't help but regurgitate.
Talk straight science...
Click to expand...
You first, Mr. Hammond.
You first.
...or take your GED and go back to
grinding asymmetric camshafts – where you belong !.
Click to expand...
At least he'd be doing something useful, unlike the garbage you seem to waste your time raking into a pile.

Any chance you'll ever get round to addressing the vast number of issues in your "proof"?
Or will you just keep your head buried in the delusion that it actually does what you think it does?
Dishonest cranks will do what dishonest cranks do, I guess.
 
Last edited:
George E Hammond said:
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Look, James R – the only difference between "objective"
reality and "subjective" reality is that the size and speed
of everything in subjective reality is MAGNIFIED and
MOVES FASTER than it does in objective reality.
Click to expand...
As was pointed out to you earlier in the thread, our subjective perception of time seems to move slower when we are younger, not faster. This could be because a given time period when we're young makes up a greater percentage of our total life span to date.

Your claims about "magnification" and time moving faster are so non-specific and unquantified that they are useless, anyway.
Okay in Relativity a magnification and speeding up
of "space-time" is called by Einstein – A CURVATURE
of space-time.
Click to expand...
No. Curvature has a very specific definition in relativity.
Now the fact is that as a worldwide population average
the "average adult" is actually about 15% "growth stunted"
which makes the world looks 15% larger and 15% faster
then it ACTUALLY IS.
Click to expand...
How did you measure the 15% "growth stunting", exactly? What did you measure? And to what did you compare it?
And this is what the
average person sees in the "Sound And The Fury" of the
every day world – and this is known as – "the phenomenon
of God" who mediates and determines the size and speed
of the world that you are going to actually SEE.

And there is no appeal from it – it is the most powerful
force (phenomenon) known to Man.
Click to expand...
Your God doesn't sound powerful to me. He reduces to a number, does he not?
So the answers to your questions are obvious: –

1. – Subjective space-time is a Riemannian manifold
exactly the same as objective space-time only it
appears magnified and speeded up.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're just appropriating Einstein's work and hoping that some of his famous gloss might rub off onto you.

You still haven't answered my questions about what the manifold of subjective reality actually involves. And have you shown mathematically that it appears "magnified and speeded up", and why that is the case? Where can I find your mathematical description?
2. – The "curvature" of subjective space-time is in
principle identical to the definition of curvature in
objective space-time – only it's a lot simpler because
"no additional mass is moving or accelerated" in
subjective space-time – hence God can be described
by a "scalar curvature" (a.k.a. total curvature = R)
whereas the curvature of "objective space-time"
involves mass movement, continuity equations,
conservation laws, etc. and Einstein found that it
must be described by a 2nd rank tensor curvature: –

So for real space we have Einstein's field equations: –

Guv - k (rho) where rho = mass density

Whereas "subjective curvature" is given by: –

R = K [g/(1-g)] where g= the human growth deficit
Click to expand...
I think I get it. Your God can be described by a single number, R.

What is K in your equation for R? How are K and g determined?

Why do you call the number R "God"? That seems like a big word for a very limited concept.
And incidentally the WHO, CDC, UNESCO, UNICEF,
and the World Bank data indicates a worldwide "g"
of about a 15% human growth shortfall.
Click to expand...
Really? Got any references for that figure?
I know you must have some academic credentials or
you wouldn't be a Sciforums administrator
Click to expand...
Academic credentials are not a pre-requisite for being a sciforums administrator.

My scientific credentials are irrelevant to this discussion, anyway. So are yours. If it makes it easier for you, you are free to assume that I have better scientific credentials than you do.
– I hope
this simple explanation succeeds in framing some kind
of a simple picture of what the
"Scientific Proof of God" (SPOG) is all about.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, you're telling us that your conception of God reduces to a single number.

Your God doesn't really match any of the gods of mainstream religions, does it? It's a small, unimportant sort of God.

Do you worship your God? (I think it would be strange if you did, but I thought I'd ask, just in case.)
 
George E Hammond said:
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hey Motormouth – don't puke out your Richard Dawkins
"God Delusion" rap on Sciforums.
Click to expand...

The only mouth here spewing God delusions is yours.

You are mentally ill if you talk to your sky daddy and you hear his voice in your head responding to you.

You are like a 5 year old with a little imaginary friend. The typical response to that is that the parents have the kid mentally evaluated.

You should seek professional help, and stop talking to imaginary creatures in the sky.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
George considers himself as a champion for Creationists.

From: George Hammond
Date: Mon May 28 2001

[Hammond]
Yes, that's on the verge of happening right now in Kansas
where the Creationists actually had enough muscle to twist
the arm of the Kansas City Board of Education to get
Evolution partially banned in the schools (God bless em).
Now the scientifically backed Evolution proponents are going to
sue the Kansas City B.O.E. claiming that teaching Creationism
is illegal. Or, alternatively, the Creationists could flat
out sue in the Kansas State court that Creationism is a scientific
subject, based on the discovery of a SPOG. That's where HAMMOND
comes in. If there IS a "scientific proof of God", then the
Creationists have just as much of a scientific leg to stand on
as the Evolutionists, and the courts can't ban teaching Creationism
because a SPOG makes it a "legitimate scientific subject" just like
Evolution.
It's going to happen Bob, I can assure you. The wind's blowing that
way. The Creationists and Fundamentalists are going to come out of this
smelling like a Rose, and the scientific community is going to
look awfully stupid. And I'm a graduate physicist saying that.
I tried to warn them.
Click to expand...
[Hammond]
My latest position is that the discovery of a
scientific proof of God (below) is going to be used by
the religious Fundamentalists to deliver the
biggest and most embarrassing kick in the pants that
Science has ever received, and that it's going
to happen when the Fundamalists, or Creationists
use the scientific proof of God as a legal defense
in a Supreme Court showdown over the exclusive
teaching of Evolution. The supreme Court will rule
that Creationism (and God) can be taught as a
"scientific subject", along with Evolution.
Click to expand...

Both quotes from:

http://www2.asa3.org/archive/asa/200105/0308.html
 
Does Hammond realise that even if, by some miracle, his proof was valid, that would do nothing at all to prove Creationism or to disprove evolution? I suspect not.
 
George E Hammond said:
Well, there IS going to be a: –

SPOG: The Motion Picture

And it will cover Hammond's 30 year Odyssey
discovering the SPOG in Boston, Washington DC
and elsewhere – including action-packed car
chases, brawls, romances, spectacular scientific
breakthroughs, and his encounters with
world famous scientists
Click to expand...
Too bad Gilbert Gottfried died recently. He could have played you.
 
George E Hammond said:
This forum is for
straight as a ruler scientists
Click to expand...
Where did you hear that? There are people here who know a things or two about science and there are quite a few of us who can recognize nonsense when we see it. If the forum was restricted to actual scientists, there wouldn't be many members (and they wouldn't have much to do).
 
sideshowbob said:
Too bad Gilbert Gottfried died recently. He could have played you.
Click to expand...
There's always Christopher Lloyd?
He plays cranks very well.
And scientists, so maybe that would be to give Mr. Hammond too much credence?
If the forum was restricted to actual scientists, there wouldn't be many members (and they wouldn't have much to do).
Click to expand...
And Mr. Hammond would have been ejected as soon as his first post was read.
But this is Sciforums, and we have a zoo to fill, it seems. ;)
 
James R said:
Does Hammond realise that even if, by some miracle, his proof was valid, that would do nothing at all to prove Creationism or to disprove evolution? I suspect not.
Click to expand...

[GE Hammond MS physics]

Hammond's SPOG proves that BOTH
Evolution and Creationism are scientifically
CORRECT.

All scientific fact and experiment involves
1. – Physical reality
2. – A human "observer"

So that: –

Big Bang = creation of physical reality
Genesis = creation of the "observer"

Unfortunately – the Big Bang was 14 billion
years ago – while the creation of the "observer"
was only about 1 million years ago (Man).

And academics can't figure out how the "observer"
"created" the Big Ban – that in fact, the "observer"
did in fact "existentially" create the Big Bang.

And if you can't figure that out
you're not college graduate material
because the Creationists and
Fundamentalists, many of whom never
went to college, CAN figure it out !

George
 
George E Hammond said:
And if you can't figure that out
you're not college graduate material
because the Creationists and
Fundamentalists, many of whom never
went to college, CAN figure it out !
Click to expand...

As one who speeks from experience (sinse i didnt graduate 9th grade)… i fully understand you’r theory… an i agree that to much education can be a hindrance to beliefs unless you'r a believer.!!!
 
cluelusshusbund said:
As one who speeks from experience (sinse i didnt graduate 9th grade)… i fully understand you’r theory… an i agree that to much education can be a hindrance to beliefs unless you'r a believer.!!!
Click to expand...

[GE Hammond MS physics]
So far, there have been 1158 posts to this thread,
subtracting 374 of my own that leaves 784 posts
by others.

And EVERY ONE OF the 784 POSTS by others
have been – NEGATIVE, HECKLING, and/or
RIDICULING the SPOG – except for ONE –
and that is the last post quoted above , by
"cluelusshusbund" which was AFFIRMATIVE.

He was responding to my post in which I
mentioned that the "Fundamentalists,
Creationists, and I will now add Evangelicals,
ALL inherently support and easily understand
the discovery of the world's first
Scientific Proof of God (SPOG). And understand
the fact that the SPOG proves that Creationism
And Fundamentalism are now SCIENTIFICALLY
PROVEN TO BE TRUE.

And here I want to point out to ACADEMIA in no
uncertain terms – that I personally as well as the
Creationists and Fundamentalists and
Evangelicals are unified in our opposition to the
neo-atheism of Academia including Richard
Dawkins and others.

Furthermore in my post #1058 on page 53 I
suggests that that my (accidental) discovery of
the world's first Scientific Proof of God (SPOG)
could easily be evaluated by Academia utilizing
a scientific panel consisting of: –

It would take a panel of scientists: –
1 or 2 physicists
2 or 3 psychometrists
1 or 2 neuropsychologists
1 embryology expert
a couple of theologians
(Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran
at a minimum)
and others

And I would strongly suggest to Academia that they
convene (via Zoom) such a panel as soon as possible
and they might invite someone like Bill Dembski
while they are at it.

And I suggest they do so before the Fundamentalists, Creationists, and Evangelicals get wind of the discovery
of the SPOG.

There is no doubt now, in view of this discovery, that
"God, and Religion are going to have to be taught in
public school "Science classes"" – so get used to it !

And thank you "cluelusshusbund",
whoever you are.

George
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top