I bet you a dollar that ain't a gonna happen. But don't let me dampen your elaborate fantasy (I know you won't).
The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy
- Thread starter George E Hammond
- Start date
- Status
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
The world's first scientific proof of God
has now been discovered and published
widely to the world.
You don't believe it, which de facto means that
WHATEVER you believe about God , or even if
you don't believe in God, – whatever you
believe about it is in fact an "elaborate fantasy".
"But" don't let me dampen your
elaborate fantasy (I know you won't).".
George
Besides, George Hammond himself wouldn't qualify if the forum was restricted to scientists. I don't believe that George is currently employed as a scientist. Please correct me if I'm wrong, George.
George,
Did you know that posting in bold face does not give your posts greater credibility? In fact, posting in all bold face, all caps, multicolour etc. usually correlates with posting useless crank material.
Young Earth biblical Creationists typically put the age of the Earth at about 6000 years. Are you on the Christian websites telling those Creationists why they are wrong, George? I hope you are.
Creationism as a theory is a lost cause.
You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Did you know that posting in bold face does not give your posts greater credibility? In fact, posting in all bold face, all caps, multicolour etc. usually correlates with posting useless crank material.
More argument by assertion, George? *yawn*
You're not a believer in the biblical Creator God, though, are you George? Adam and Eve and talking snakes and Noah's flood and talking snakes and all that? Your God is just a number representing a degree of curvature in somebody's brain.
Young Earth biblical Creationists typically put the age of the Earth at about 6000 years. Are you on the Christian websites telling those Creationists why they are wrong, George? I hope you are.
Creationism as a theory is a lost cause.
You're telling lies, George. No Christian creationist wants to believe in a god that is just a number in their brain. You might be able to find a few crazies to support your "SPOG", but Christendom is pretty much dismissing it, just like everybody else.
Argument by assertion just doesn't work, George. You have to try to address your critics' substantive objections - something you have been avoiding during your entire time here.
You are defined by the company you keep, George. I'd say you've chosen poorly.
Dembski? You ought to invite somebody who has some credibility left, at least.
You're contradicting yourself, George. A moment ago you were telling us how they all know about your SPOG and support it. So, which is it? They support it, or they haven't got wind of it yet?
You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Somebody will have to bring some science for that to happen. You're certainly not doing it.
374 and you still have yet to support your "proof" from the OP, and have yet to address any criticism, flaws, errors, etc, raised by the others.
Your comprehension is pretty shoddy, Mr. Hammond.
Cluelusshusband merely said he understood it, not that he agreed with it.
Although he did agree that too much education is a hindrance to beliefs, which to me suggests that, given what you believe about your "proof", he thinks you are not particularly well educated.
But I may be wrong.
And I'm not sure why you put is name in quote-marks?
Everyone who has identified flaws in your "proof" have understood it, which is how they have identified the errors.
So fundamentalists, creationists and evangelicals "ALL... easily understand" your proof, but you claim that it will take a raft of people from academia to do so??
Whoop-di-fucking-do.
But it is irrelevant.
You are adorably delusional, Mr. Hammond.
I find myself repeatedly drawn back to this thread just to read the latest nonsense that you vomit onto my screen, although get disappointed when much of it is just the same copy/paste.
Anyhoo, Academia has rejected, and will continue to reject your "proof" because, well, it is demonstrably garbage.
It is an effort to link disparate areas of scientific endeavour with spurious, ludicrous, and simply erroneous links, any one of which brings your house of cards crumbling to the floor, but taken together shows that you're just not very bright where it matters.
Or that you have an agenda of just wanting to revel in the attention that your ridiculousness garners.
If so, well done, you should be feeling quite happy.
We don't seem to mind feeding trolls and cranks around here, so please keep well fed as we keep pointing and laughing at you.
There are far more supposed "proofs" of God out there that are far less fallacious, erroneous, and unsupported as your garbage, Mr. Hammond.
Yours would be among the least convincing because, well, it's garbage, as those 780 or so posts by others have repeatedly tried to point out to you, with detailed analysis of the flaws and errors, all of which you have failed to address.
Your delusions are becoming more aggressive and reactionary, Mr. Hammond.
Ah, well.
Dishonest narcissitic cranks with delusions of grandeur will do what dishonest narcissitic cranks with delusions of grandeur will do.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
I may be wrong, but I think I have a handle on George's idea, I have a big head.
George does believe in a god, it is through this god we have consciousness of the world. George is saying god is not outside of our mind, but 'IS' responsible for your continuous consciousness. That's why George has gone to lengths to 'show' god is inbuilt in the mind's very working. Is that right George?
George's SPOG is his idea of 'scientifically' showing that
In other words, you can think what you like (freewill), but a god is making that possible. Take that god away and you don't have consciousness. Is that right George?
I don't think I'm saying anything new here.
Last edited:
A few questions:
Has Mr. Hammond ever said that "God gives rise to our consciouness" in his "proof"?
Also, if he has, why is he looking at personality as being the bedrock of the "proof", rather than consciousness itself?
And why is he claiming the Septo-hippocampal region as key (again linking it to personality), rather than that which science suggests is the root of our consciousness (e.g. cortex)
So I am not sure I agree that he is looking at consciousness at all, and thus I am not sure you do have a handle on his idea.
Mr. Hammond's "proof" goes like this:
- Psychometry has identified 13 (so he claims) 2nd-order factors of personality.
- A cube has 13 axes of symmetry.
- The brain has a cubic structure (so he claims), so it "is obvious" that the 13 2nd-order factors are caused by the cubic structure of the brain.
- This is also why there were 13 gods of antiquity (greco-roman pantheon), rather than the commonly accepted 12 (so chalk another discovery up to Mr. Hammond!).
- The 13 2nd-order factors can be reduced to fewer 3rd-order factors, and ultimately to a single 4th-order (or it may be a higher order than that, I'm not sure).
- Mr. Hammond has labelled this single factor - the General Factor of Personality (GFP) - "God", but not just any "God", the "God of the Bible", no less.
This, so says Mr. Hammond, is "proof" that God exists, and has been measured to 2dp (because, being a factor of personality, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient is typically measured to 2dp).
But that's not all.
He goes on...
- Humans suffer stunted growth - i.e. there is a gap between our genotype and our phenotype (as meaningless as that is once you understand what those terms ordinarily refer to)
- Since data offered by Mr. Hammond suggests c.15% of children aged 0-5 are stunted, he claims that the average human is stunted by 15%.
- i.e. that our phenotype is 15% smaller/slower than our genotype.
- he explains that this means that we perceive the world 15% quicker and larger than it actually is, supporting this with a child (not fully grown) experiencing the world larger and faster than it actually is.
- this is despite the well understood phenomenon that children experience the world slower than adults.
- anyhoo, this (c.15%) gap is "the phenomenon of God", who lives in each of us as a fully grown invisible man (i.e. our genotype), and this gap is "the most powerful force known to man"... because, well, because Mr. Hammond claims it is, dur!
And then...
- Mr. Hammond claims (incorrectly) the change in speed and magnification of "space-time" is what Einstein called a "curvature of space-time".
- He then says that since we see the world 15% quicker and larger than our genotype would, this is also a "change in speed and magnification" and must therefore be a "curvature of subjective space-time".
- He then proceeds to link the equations from Einstein's field equations to some equations for his "subjective space-time", and voila, a formula for calculating "God".
See, not too hard to understand, really.
And not too hard to see that it is garbage from head to toe.
And not a whiff of "It's all about the consciousness, stupid!"
You mean the "invisible fully-grown man" that resides in all of us?
Well, in a round about way, perhaps, i.e. an idea of showing that there is... nope... I'm sorry, but his "proof" is too flawed to really know what he's trying to do.
Then his "proof" is almost a detraction from that notion, confusing the matter with flaw after flaw after flaw in the reasoning and factual content.
He would also know, if he was honest in his scientific endeavours, that "God" is an unscientific proposition, unless one simply points to something that exists and goes "that's God!" without showing how it matches what is understood about "God".
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Baldeee, don't think I'm evading your questions here.
I'm trying to get a straight answer out of George whether George believes in a god or not. I tried with a simple question to see if George thinks god is a man made idea: Note I do not use the word ''EXISTENCE'', but George in his reply does.
George's reply:
So, my thinking goes that George is a believer trying 'too' hard to make his belief real for 'himself and others' with a 'Proof''.
There are two ''Is that right George?'' in my last post #1166.
I'm waiting for the smoke and mirrors in George's reply to that post.
I'm trying to get a straight answer out of George whether George believes in a god or not. I tried with a simple question to see if George thinks god is a man made idea: Note I do not use the word ''EXISTENCE'', but George in his reply does.
And the reply was (I think) a dodge by George. So, I read that dodge as a Yes George does believe in a god.
George's reply:
So, my thinking goes that George is a believer trying 'too' hard to make his belief real for 'himself and others' with a 'Proof''.
There are two ''Is that right George?'' in my last post #1166.
I'm waiting for the smoke and mirrors in George's reply to that post.
Last edited:
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[Baldeee, post: 3697536, member: 267911]
Mr. Hammond's "proof" goes like this:
1- Psychometry has identified 13 (so he claims) 2nd-order factors of personality.
2- A cube has 13 axes of symmetry.
3- The brain has a cubic structure (so he claims), so it "is obvious" that the 13 2nd-order factors are caused by the cubic structure of the brain.
4- This is also why there were 13 gods of antiquity (greco-roman pantheon), rather than the commonly accepted 12 (so chalk another discovery up to Mr. Hammond!).
5- The 13 2nd-order factors can be reduced to fewer 3rd-order factors, and ultimately to a single 4th-order (or it may be a higher order than that, I'm not sure).
6- Mr. Hammond has labelled this single factor - the General Factor of Personality (GFP) - "God", but not just any "God", the "God of the Bible", no less.
This, so says Mr. Hammond, is "proof" that God exists, and has been measured to 2dp (because, being a factor of personality, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient is typically measured to 2dp).
But that's not all.
He goes on...
7- Humans suffer stunted growth - i.e. there is a gap between our genotype and our phenotype (as meaningless as that is once you understand what those terms ordinarily refer to)
8- Since data offered by Mr. Hammond suggests c.15% of children aged 0- are stunted, he claims that the average human is stunted by 15%.
9- i.e. that our phenotype is 15% smaller/slower than our genotype.
10- he explains that this means that we perceive the world 15% quicker and larger than it actually is, supporting this with a child (not fully grown) experiencing the world larger and faster than it actually is.
(deleted comment)- this is despite the well understood phenomenon
that children experience the world slower than adults.
11- anyhoo, this (c.15%) gap is "the phenomenon of God", who lives in each of us as a fully grown invisible man (i.e. our genotype), and this gap is "the most powerful force known to man"... because, well, because Mr. Hammond claims it is, dur!
And then...
12- Mr. Hammond claims (incorrectly) the change in speed and magnification of "space-time" is what Einstein called a "curvature of space-time".
13- He then says that since we see the world 15% quicker and larger than our genotype would, this is also a "change in speed and magnification" and must therefore be a "curvature of subjective space-time".
14- He then proceeds to link the equations from Einstein's field equations to some equations for his "subjective space-time", and voila, a formula for calculating "God".
See, not too hard to understand, really.
He would also know, if he was honest in his scientific endeavours, that "God" is an unscientific proposition, if one simply points to something that exists and goes "that's God!" without showing how it matches what is understood about "God".
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay Baldeee – your "14 points" above represent
a historic milestone in the history of the SPOG.
Baldeee IS THE FIRST AND ONLY
PERSON to actually COMPREHEND
Hammond's Scientific Proof of God
Okay, in the 25 years since I discovered the SPOG
in 1997 – in the hundreds and hundreds of people
that I have explained it to – you are the only other
person on Earth who actually comprehends it.
I consider the fact that you don't believe it –
irrelevant – compared to the fact that you
can understand it !
I am now wondering who you are? How old are
you? (I'm 80 BTW)!
And I'm beginning to suspect that you are a
professional Academic (perhaps a professor).
You certainly are as intelligent and perhaps more
intelligent than I am – though less knowledgeable
given the fact that I may be twice your age?
At any rate, I was considering leaving this list
until I read your 14 point summary of my theory
above and realized that I had finally stumbled
across someone on this forum who actually
is capable of understanding the SPOG.
It's late at night here and I only discovered your
post a few hours ago – but tomorrow is Sunday
and I'll reply to it in greater length then.
Congratulations on your intellectual capacity
George
Mr. Hammond's "proof" goes like this:
1- Psychometry has identified 13 (so he claims) 2nd-order factors of personality.
2- A cube has 13 axes of symmetry.
3- The brain has a cubic structure (so he claims), so it "is obvious" that the 13 2nd-order factors are caused by the cubic structure of the brain.
4- This is also why there were 13 gods of antiquity (greco-roman pantheon), rather than the commonly accepted 12 (so chalk another discovery up to Mr. Hammond!).
5- The 13 2nd-order factors can be reduced to fewer 3rd-order factors, and ultimately to a single 4th-order (or it may be a higher order than that, I'm not sure).
6- Mr. Hammond has labelled this single factor - the General Factor of Personality (GFP) - "God", but not just any "God", the "God of the Bible", no less.
This, so says Mr. Hammond, is "proof" that God exists, and has been measured to 2dp (because, being a factor of personality, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient is typically measured to 2dp).
But that's not all.
He goes on...
7- Humans suffer stunted growth - i.e. there is a gap between our genotype and our phenotype (as meaningless as that is once you understand what those terms ordinarily refer to)
8- Since data offered by Mr. Hammond suggests c.15% of children aged 0- are stunted, he claims that the average human is stunted by 15%.
9- i.e. that our phenotype is 15% smaller/slower than our genotype.
10- he explains that this means that we perceive the world 15% quicker and larger than it actually is, supporting this with a child (not fully grown) experiencing the world larger and faster than it actually is.
(deleted comment)- this is despite the well understood phenomenon
that children experience the world slower than adults.
11- anyhoo, this (c.15%) gap is "the phenomenon of God", who lives in each of us as a fully grown invisible man (i.e. our genotype), and this gap is "the most powerful force known to man"... because, well, because Mr. Hammond claims it is, dur!
And then...
12- Mr. Hammond claims (incorrectly) the change in speed and magnification of "space-time" is what Einstein called a "curvature of space-time".
13- He then says that since we see the world 15% quicker and larger than our genotype would, this is also a "change in speed and magnification" and must therefore be a "curvature of subjective space-time".
14- He then proceeds to link the equations from Einstein's field equations to some equations for his "subjective space-time", and voila, a formula for calculating "God".
See, not too hard to understand, really.
He would also know, if he was honest in his scientific endeavours, that "God" is an unscientific proposition, if one simply points to something that exists and goes "that's God!" without showing how it matches what is understood about "God".
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay Baldeee – your "14 points" above represent
a historic milestone in the history of the SPOG.
Baldeee IS THE FIRST AND ONLY
PERSON to actually COMPREHEND
Hammond's Scientific Proof of God
Okay, in the 25 years since I discovered the SPOG
in 1997 – in the hundreds and hundreds of people
that I have explained it to – you are the only other
person on Earth who actually comprehends it.
I consider the fact that you don't believe it –
irrelevant – compared to the fact that you
can understand it !
I am now wondering who you are? How old are
you? (I'm 80 BTW)!
And I'm beginning to suspect that you are a
professional Academic (perhaps a professor).
You certainly are as intelligent and perhaps more
intelligent than I am – though less knowledgeable
given the fact that I may be twice your age?
At any rate, I was considering leaving this list
until I read your 14 point summary of my theory
above and realized that I had finally stumbled
across someone on this forum who actually
is capable of understanding the SPOG.
It's late at night here and I only discovered your
post a few hours ago – but tomorrow is Sunday
and I'll reply to it in greater length then.
Congratulations on your intellectual capacity
George
George:
There is no actual proof, and a lot of the claims are baseless nonsense - something else that Baldeee (and others) have helpfully pointed out during the course of this thread.
No. I'm confident that quite a few of your readers here understand the claims you are making, which are elegantly summarised by Baldeee.
There is no actual proof, and a lot of the claims are baseless nonsense - something else that Baldeee (and others) have helpfully pointed out during the course of this thread.
Don't kid yourself. Many of your claims are almost childish. I know that, for some reason, you keep congratulating yourself on your own intellectual capacity. I put it down to an oversized ego, because you have no scores on the board with your "theory" so far.
I agree that Baldee is a pretty smart guy. But you need to get your story straight. Only a few posts ago you were maligning his intellectual capacity AND his qualifications.
Well, who isn't?
Aw, shucks.
I'm blushing.
"Pretty smart", eh?
Highest praise I've had since I finally managed to tie my own shoelaces last week!
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
Aw, shucks.
I'm blushing.
"Pretty smart", eh?
Highest praise I've had since I finally managed to tie my own shoelaces last week!
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hi Baldeee, I inserted your reference to the
septo- hippocampal system under item #3.
Rather than take one item at a time from your
14–POINTS I think I can break it into 3
sections
I. – Psychometry and the cubic brain (1-6)
II. – GFP/GOD and human growth stunting (7-11)
III – God as a subjective Einsteinian curvature (12-14)
Section I is the largest, (and most important)
while section II is shorter, and section III
is the shortest.
I'm still working the problem – and it will take a
few days to compose and post Section I .
C'ya then, George
Mr. Hammond, if all you intend to do is regurgitate the same stuff that you've already posted, or if you still intend not to support the assertions of your links between the disparate elements, and - more importantly - if you are still not going to be open to criticism of what you post, and simply ignore any issue / flaw / error in your data/thinking/support etc, then can I kindly request that you don't bother.
If you just do those things then you will not be progressing anything: neither your "proof" toward something that is sensible, nor your behaviour toward something that is worth engaging with.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Dear Baldeee, while I am frankly astonished that a
person with your meager scientific credentials has
been able to comprehend Hammond's SPOG in its
entirety, but don't let it go to your head, and you're
obviously in no position to be advising me on what
to do next.
What you don't seem to realize is that any major
theory such as the SPOG ultimately rests on a
simple "probability" that is correct.
This in turn depends on the individual probabilities
of the elements that make up the theory. Long story
short – I now believe that the overall probability that
Hammond's SPOG is actually correct – is about 70%
certain.
I now no longer have any intention of answering
your objections – because in fact to a qualified
scientist they have no realistic impact on the
overall probability that the theory is correct.
In the meantime, I will be posting additional
commentary on the matter of this result being
an "Einsteinian curvature of subjective reality".
George
Have you not already been warned for making unsupported accusations about the credentials you claim someone to have (or not have)?
As said previously, it's rather simple, which is why the flaws in it are so glaringly obvious.
And that makes your continued evasion of them simply dishonest.
I only have your best interest at heart, Mr. Hammond.
After all, if you get banned from here, you're going to struggle to get an audience anywhere else.
And that's all you really crave, isn't it?
The attention?
You don't seem to care why people are pointing and laughing at the zoo's attraction, only that it is you they are pointing and laughing at.
Then it is not a "proof".
It is a "theory" at best, and en entirely unscientific one - at least with regards Popper's requirement for falsifiability.
As well as 88% of all stats, it's also 81% of all probabilities are made up on the spot.
You're a joke, Mr. Hammond.
Every time you post just adds to the confirming literature.
Of course you don't.
You never did.
Because you're simply not honest enough.
Whether it is your lack of honesty, or genuine delusion that fuels your crankery, it is certainly not helped by your narcissistic delusions of grandeur.
In this we agree, Mr. Hammond.
Any qualified scientist worth their salt (including those on this site) can readily confirm that the theory, as written, has a zero probability of being correct, precisely because of those objections.
And if those objections were honestly addressed, the "proof" wouldn't reach the conclusion it does (at least not without introducing yet more flaws).
Zero probability with the objections, and zero probability without them.
So, yes, we agree, Mr. Hammond: the objections really don't change the probability.
But by addressing them honestly you will at least come to realise that what you have written is garbage.
Everyone else here already knows it.
Furthermore, you seem to now be admitting that there are flaws in your "proof", so at least we're getting somewhere.
Baby steps, I suppose.
As if the garbage pile isn't already high enough.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
Have you not already been warned for making unsupported accusations about the credentials you claim someone to have (or not have)?
As said previously, it's rather simple, which is why the flaws in it are so glaringly obvious.
And that makes your continued evasion of them simply dishonest.
I only have your best interest at heart, Mr. Hammond.
After all, if you get banned from here, you're going to struggle to get an audience anywhere else.
And that's all you really crave, isn't it?
The attention?
You don't seem to care why people are pointing and laughing at the zoo's attraction, only that it is you they are pointing and laughing at.
Then it is not a "proof".
It is a "theory" at best, and en entirely unscientific one - at least with regards Popper's requirement for falsifiability.
As well as 88% of all stats, it's also 81% of all probabilities are made up on the spot.
You're a joke, Mr. Hammond.
Every time you post just adds to the confirming literature.
Of course you don't.
You never did.
Because you're simply not honest enough.
Whether it is your lack of honesty, or genuine delusion that fuels your crankery, it is certainly not helped by your narcissistic delusions of grandeur.
In this we agree, Mr. Hammond.
Any qualified scientist worth their salt (including those on this site) can readily confirm that the theory, as written, has a zero probability of being correct, precisely because of those objections.
And if those objections were honestly addressed, the "proof" wouldn't reach the conclusion it does (at least not without introducing yet more flaws).
Zero probability with the objections, and zero probability without them.
So, yes, we agree, Mr. Hammond: the objections really don't change the probability.
But by addressing them honestly you will at least come to realise that what you have written is garbage.
Everyone else here already knows it.
Furthermore, you seem to now be admitting that there are flaws in your "proof", so at least we're getting somewhere.
Baby steps, I suppose.
As if the garbage pile isn't already high enough.
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Quit your RANTING !
George
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics] Resident of Pseudoscience.
So, does that mean you're just going to use this thread as your personal notice board/pulpit?
You may be changing your residence to Cesspoool that way George.
- Status