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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by George E Hammond, Jan 16, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Stop lying, Mr. Hammond.

    They really haven't, you poor delusional crank.
    Maybe if you stop with the narcissistic delusions of grandeur for just a second and, you know, bother to respond meaningfully and honestly with those that have taken the time to review your "proof", you would realise that your "proof" is nothing of the sort, and has flaws that even a cursory review by anyone of competence will reveal (and have been revealed).
    It is only your pathetic, dishonest, delusional narcissism that prevents you from recognising the reality of it.
    It's a work of fiction.
    Treating it as anything other, given the demonstrable flaws, is delusion on your part.
    No different from claiming "The Lord of the Rings" is an accurate history of Medieval England.

    The longer you go on, Mr.Hammond, the more you extract pity from your audience, at the issues you are clearly suffering from.
    Please seek help.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    And I dare anyone, simply DARE anyone
    to (competently) challenge my scientific proof
    presented in this thread.

    And when I say "competent" I mean you
    better have some advanced academic
    credentials in Science – preferably Physics.

    Bear in mind that this result is IMPORTANT
    to the ecumenical unification of world religion
    which is going to be required to ultimately
    solve the problem of Global Warming!

    In the final analysis, it's the only thing that
    can save us !

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    You're full of it Baldeee – you don't have any
    bona fide scientific credentials – much less
    any credentials in Physics. Your scientific
    comments are at the Junior High school
    level and are ridiculous !

    If you think a serious credentialed scientist
    like me it's gonna sit here and spoonfeed a
    lifelong crank and putrid heckler like you with
    Junior High School argumentation –
    your also nuts ! You wouldn't know the
    Riemann tensor from the Ringling Bros
    circus !

    You're just an opportunistic crank looking for
    a soft target to heckle and name call. You picked
    the wrong boy this time Baldeee – I'm holding
    a Royal Straight Flush in Spades scientifically –
    and I'm calling !

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    They already have, Mr. Hammond.
    This thread is littered with challenges, competent ones, that you have consistently failed to address, through such evasions as appeals to authority.
    Your reliance on such an appeal to authority to help you evade addressing criticism of your "proof" is why you are considered dishonest.
    As has been explained to you several times, it is the words someone writes that matters, not their credentials.
    My, or other's, challenges to your "proof" are no less legitimate, no less valid, than the words that have been written, upon which the challenges stand or fall.
    The challenges as written don't change whether I have no credentials whatsoever, or a list of credentials as long as your arm.
    But you are too dishonest, too much of a crank, to accept that.
    Your narcissistic delusions of grandeur is once again noted.
    As long as that's what you want to believe, Mr. Hammond, and you do so in the privacy of your own home, and don't hurt anyone else, then who are we to take that delusion from you.
    Other than recognising that it may a symptom of a far greater malady, of course.

    Needless to say, your continued argument from confidence is as telling as your lack of addressing of the countless issues/challenges raised against your so-called "proof".
    "it" being the ability to pull your "proof" to pieces, as has clearly been done.
    So you keep asserting.
    Without proof, I might add.
    Ironically much like your so-called "proof".
    Yet you still haven't addressed the flaws identified in your so-called "proof".
    Most of which are not actually related to the underlying science.
    As has already been explained to you, your major flaws are in taking disparate areas of science and trying to link them, but doing so with logical fallacies, quite often just asserting the link as a given.
    One doesn't always need to address the underlying science to recognise such flaws in the logic.
    You're simply too pathetic, and suffering from narcissistic delusions of grandeur, to address such flaws honestly.
    You may have an MS in Physics (or at least so you assert) but you are patently not a "serious... scientist", nor "seriously credentialed [sic]".
    (Hint: an MS in Physics is not that serious a credential).
    That much is demonstrable through your dishonesty in this thread alone.
    For one, serious scientists are open to the identification of flaws in their ideas, and their work, which they then subsequently look to address.
    You, sir, clearly are not.
    I expect no spoonfeeding, Mr. Hammond, just you addressing the demonstrable flaws in your "proof".
    Which you haven't done.
    If you say so.
    I'm looking for someone to support their "proof", to address the obvious flaws in what they have posted, and to do so honestly.
    You are unfortunately delusional, Mr. Hammond.
    You have lain your cards down, and you clearly have nothing.
    Demonstrably so.
    Irrespective of what you might believe about your hand.
    The pot you saw getting ever bigger has done so from your delusions in thinking that a two, four, six, seven, and nine, across four different suits, is the best hand possible.
    And you're not prepared to listen to explanations of why your thinking is wrong.

    I only call you names that succinctly but accurately describe your character as shown in this thread: dishonest delusional narcissistic crank.
    The way you may refer to a table as "a table", for example.
    I don't do that in lieu of actual argument against your so-called "proof", because such arguments have been posted across the last 62-pages of this thread, and remain unaddressed by you.
    I refer to you as those descriptors because they describe the character you have presented.
    The character you are using to evade / avoid addressing those arguments.

    Every post you continue to make without addressing those most basic of flaws in your "proof" just adds to the wealth of evidence that you are a dishonest delusional narcissistic crank.

    And so it is that feeding time ends for another day.
  8. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Dear Baldeee, it has been explained
    to you before, but let me explain it to you
    again – why you are utterly in over
    your head.

    Your assumption was, still is, and will
    indubitably remain – that you
    are talking to some incompetent
    delusional religious crank.

    And since it is quite obvious that your
    favorite sport is heckling delusional
    cranks – you are maniacally at work
    attacking Hammond.

    The problem is that you do not have
    scientific ability via academic credentials
    in SCIENCE to tell the difference

    between real science and pseudoscience.

    So you got caught napping with your
    favorite (aberrant) sport – you got
    caught in the act as it were when you
    inadvertently began heckling a

    Of course it is enjoyable to see a
    malevolent ad hominem ranter
    hoisted on his own petard, but
    that's the ultimate dénouement
    of such malevolent motivation
    in the first place.

    I suspect you're ranting condition to
    continue until the bitter end – as it
    usually does with such objectionable
    pastimes – but watching the crumbling
    fall of Baldeee's ranting obsession in
    the face of cold scientific fact, has always
    been quite inevitable.

    I only wish you were a worthy opponent like
    Richard Dawkins perhaps, rather than a
    run-of-the-mill anonymous Internet clown.

  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    OK so um...

    What's the point in making it secret?
  10. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]

    Duh.. Making what secret ?

    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Your ultimate knowledge?


    Did everyone lie but, you would tell the truth?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  12. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    George E Hammond said:
    [GE Hammond MS physics]

    Duh.. Making what secret ?


    [GE Hammond MS physics]

    The Bible is the main reason.

    A scientific proof of God will prove
    that the Bible is scientifically true.

    Some people don't believe that,
    and it makes them mad !

  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Some people believe all kinds of stupid shit. It makes me mad.

  14. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]

    Buck up sport – the Marines have landed.

    The Physics department and the Psychology
    department have united to discover the
    world's first scientific proof of God, which
    will ecumenically unite the world's 5 major
    religions and an all-out attack on
    Global Warming, global pandemics and
    other existential threats can begin in earnest.

  15. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    You have been spouting this for twenty years now on the web, you have believed for twenty years in a god.
    As I said earlier, you're so desperate to make your belief in a god real, you are preaching George that's all, nothing else.
    You are lucky, you can preach away on this site.
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on your posts.
    But the Bible has been proven to be false in so very, very many ways.
    You're confusing yourself with the Marines.
    And you're confusing yourself with the Physics department and the Psychology department.

    But you've already admitted that neither the Physics department nor the Psychology department agree with your ravings.
  17. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Regardless of what you think of me, the flaws in your "proof" remain, as explained numerous times.
    And those flaws remain unaddressed by you.
    Please try to respond to the flaws, rather than avoid by arguing against the person.
    It never started as an assumption, and has not since become one.
    It is unfortunately an undeniable conclusion of your posting history: you categorically, demonstrably, and factually, are a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
    You are certainly incompetent when it comes to addressing the flaws and issues that people have raised with your "proof".
    Or maybe your gross dishonesty is preventing you from displaying the necessary competence.
    As to the religious part, I couldn't care less about that, and don't give it a moment's thought.
    I've already posted countless issues with your "proof", that remain unaddressed by you.
    I raise comment against your character because it speaks to your continued refusal and/or inability to address them.
    Note that at no point do I try to address your "proof" by reference to your character.

    You, however, claim I have no credentials (still unproven by you) and use that to avoid addressing those issues.
    You are the one committing the ad hominem fallacy, Mr. Hammond, although I am certainly concluding you to be a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
    Address the issues that have been raised, Mr. Hammond.
    It is the honest thing for you to do.
    Firstly, ability does not come from credentials.
    Credentials can come from a demonstration of ability, but they don't always.

    Secondly, you are the only one who claims I have no academic credentials, as you are the only one here who is appealing to authority.
    You do so to try to avoid having to face the issues that have been raised.
    Issues that will remain as written, because it is what has been written that matters, not the credentials of the writer.
    The only person napping, I'm afraid, Mr. Hammond, was you in thinking that this site would give you an easy time to post and run, and not identify you as the dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank that you clearly are.
    Most reputable sites have never given you the time of day.
    For good reason.
    We, however, tend not to ignore the delusional cranks the way we really should.
    Probably a result of this site not having too much on-going discussion, so when the trolls, the cranks, the delusional raise their heads, they get the attention they crave.
    But none of that helps you with your "proof", alas.
    It remains the garbage it was when posted in post #1, and all the flaws, issues, challenges, remain unanswered by you.
    Because you lack the ability, and the honesty, to do so.
    While my comments as to your character are certainly ad hominem in as much as they are aimed at you, they are not raised in lieu of argument against your "proof".
    Your "proof" has been assessed, has been found to be garbage, and many of the reasons why (I'm sure there are far more issues with it than have been raised here) have been adequately documented across the past 60 or so pages.
    All unanswered by you, who instead opts to ignore the challenges due to matters of the person (an appeal to authority on your part, but also a genuine ad hominem fallacy - arguing against the person rather than what they have said).
    Rather ironic, don't you think?
    There has been no ranting, Mr. Hammond.
    Just clear dismantling of your "proof", that you clearly have no answer to.
    Hence your continued avoidance.
    I look forward to the day that you present a proof absent of such basic logical flaws that your current "proof" contains in abundance.
    Given that you can't address the issues raised by such as myself, what do you think that says about your "proof", and your ability (and character) to be able to defend it, let alone from someone who you might consider a "worthy opponent".

    Unfortunately you have become a laughing stock, Mr. Hammond.
    Over the past few pages almost a caricature of even yourself.
    You are, and will always be, a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
  18. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Okay you're pretty much of an aggravated
    no nothing so I'm not about to argue with
    but this thread has gotten upwards of
    16,000 views so for the benefit of innocent
    onlookers I'll address this post to you –
    even though you won't understand a single
    word of it – I consider you to be what the
    legalists call a "HOSTILE WITNESS".

    Anyway – neither the physics department
    nor the psychology department "disagree"
    with me – the problem is that psychologists
    don't know any Physics and physicists don't
    know any Psychology ! So it's impossible
    for them to agree or disagree with me !

    And needless to say you and the rest of the
    moronic hecklers on this thread don't know
    enough physics nor psychology to even
    understand the theory!

    Baldeee doesn't know any physics or
    psychology either – but he's smarter
    then either you or foghorn – in fact smart
    enough to actually comprehend the structure
    of the discovery in its entirety
    – even though
    he has no expertise in any of the relevant

    The fact that the physics department recognizes
    my competence is evidenced by the fact that
    I can go on sci.physics.relativity and immediately
    obtain the cooperation of highly educated and
    competent PhD level physicist as evidenced
    by this recent exchange reported by foghorn
    in his post # 1217 : –

    And in the field of PSYCHOLOGY I
    would point out that Prof. Peter
    Merenda (Chairman URI Psy. Dept.)
    invited both me and Hans Eysenck
    to speak to the same audience from
    the same podium at the XXVI
    International Congress of Psychology
    in Montréal in 1996, and snapped this
    picture of me talking with Hans Eysenck
    who at the time was the world's most
    famous living psychologist
    : –

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hans Eysenck Montréal 1996 George Hammond

    So it is clear that both the Physics department
    and The Psychology department are well aware,
    respectful of, and are cooperating with
    George E Hammond on his research.

  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Your supposed "proof" does nothing of the kind, though. Your claim is that God is just a curvature of psychological spacetime. That has nothing at all to do with the bible, and doesn't describe a God who is remotely like the one described in the bible.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You're not a department, George. Your posts come across as if you have some kind of deluded megalomania. Doesn't it concern you that you come across as an unreformable crank? In 20 years, why have you made no effort to try to support your ideas with a logical argument and supporting evidence? Too much time spent getting yourself kicked off internet forums, perhaps? No time left for any actual effort?
    Who are these nameless people you mention?

    Even if it were true that no physicist knows anything about psychology (which it isn't) and that no psychologist knows anything about physics (also false), it only takes a physicist to knock down your physics nonsense and a psychologist to knock down your psychological mumbo jumbo. Then your "proof" is dead in the water.

    In fact, though, no particular specialist knowledge is necessary to refute your "proof". It is self-refuting, as it is devoid of supporting evidence or logical argument. Your "proof" consists of a set of largely unconnected claims, some of which are obviously wrong and others unsupported. Most of your effort is spent trying to big-note yourself with supposed "credentials" and an ancient selfie, as well as making claims about other people's supposed lack of credentials which you similar cannot support in any way.

    And this is how you've spent 20 years of your life - shopping this bullshit around internet forums one by one, being banned from one after another? Is that time well spent? Life is precious and short, George. Have you really got nothing better to do?
    It's obvious that you desperately hope this to be the case. Unfortunately for you, the required level of physics and psychology knowledge that is needed to dismiss your theory as baloney is almost negligible. Any moderately-educated critical thinker can see through your nonsense almost immediately.
    You can't possibly know that. I understand that you desperately hope your guess is true.

    Regardless, Baldeee has demolished your "proof" anyway, with or without physics or psychology knowledge. You are unable to answer even the most simple and obvious questions about it. All you seem able to do is to reproduce a few stock claims, and to throw insults around. When you've got nothing else, I guess that's what you're reduced to.
    Which physics department? Please name a physicist who will vouch for your competence.
    That's rather a long time ago. What was the title of your talk? (Did you give a talk?) Is there a record of the proceedings of that conference, where we can find you listed as a speaker?

    Did your talk have anything at all to do with your "proof" of God?
    Why do you imagine that anybody cares about the selfie you took with Eysenck? If I show you my selfie with Tom Cruise, does that prove I'm a big important movie star?
  21. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Okay – I'm truly amazed and impressed
    that you have discerned that I claim that: –

    God is just a curvature of
    psychological spacetime.

    I couldn't have said it better myself !

    But, I also identify God as the "GFP"
    (General Factor of Psychology) of
    Psychometry since I prove that the 13
    2nd order factors are the "gods"
    antiquity. (The 12 Olympian gods)

    And the GFP DOES fit the "description
    of God given in the Bible".

    The GFP is the "higher order factor" of
    the Psychometry "metric" (ENPg)
    which is a "spacetime" metric (spatial
    brain cleavage and mental speed).
    The Curvature of ordinary spacetime
    (XYZt) is the "higher order factor" of
    spacetime, while the GFP is the curvature
    of subjective spacetime (ENPg).

    Therefore I conclude that:

    God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective spacetime reality.

    Last edited: May 24, 2022
  22. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Einstein's Field Equations are consistent in and of themselves no matter what numbers you feed in at the start, you will get a result, even a zero result has meaning.
    Just like 2+2=4 or 2-2=0
    George Hammond's feed in numbers come about from George assigning a god to each of the axes of symmetry of a cube. According to George the Einstein Equation popping out a result for George's input means a god exists.

    And, it should be noted in the links I gave, that George does not tell those on that site why he is using the Field Equations.
    Last edited: May 24, 2022
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I know how to spell "know".
    You never have.
    Thank you. Your own posts make you look much worse than I ever could.
    I'm not a witness. I'm a prosecutor.
    The Psychologists can disagree with your psychology and the Physicists can disagree with your physics.
    I know enough logic to see that your conclusions don't follow.
    Recognizing your competence is not the same as agreeing with your conclusions.
    I can beat that. I shook hands with Red Skelton once.
    And yet they don't agree with your conclusions.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page