Is GE Hammond MS physics worth un-Iggying now he has
Dropped.......any pretence of honesty in your approach.?
The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy
- Thread starter George E Hammond
- Start date
- Status
Dropped.......any pretence of honesty in your approach.?
A philosophy major named Faunce,
Who was surfing the web for the nonce,
Said to George E, "Hey, bud,
Your 'proof' is a dud."
He predictably got no response.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Ah.. so much for throwing pearls before swine.
Next time try a sincere and honest inquiry
Baldeee, instead of being a wiseacre
and you might catch a Pearl !
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Dummy up SSBob – the first guy to ask a well thought out
SINCERE, UNPRETENTIOUS, and HONEST
scientific question – is apt to become a world-class-star –
its the only thing the public worships – according to the
scoreboard a LOT OF INNOCENT CITIZENS are watching
this thread – go ahead and DARE TO BE A HERO –
– on THEIR BEHALF – ask a serious, sincere, well
thought out scientific question on THEIR BEHALF
– THEY ARE PATIENTLY HOPING, PRAYING
AND WAITING – for a COURAGEOUS HERO
LIKE YOU – to find out the truth about HAMMOND'S
SPOG
They are tired of tinhorn, petty anti, BS, get real !
George
Sorry, I can't quite follow your incoherent rambling. Are you saying that I'm "the first guy to ask a well thought out SINCERE, UNPRETENTIOUS, and HONEST scientific question"?
'Cause you did say once that I asked excellent questions. I think you used the word "genius".
Trouble is, I'm not getting answers to my questions.
Here's one again, in all honesty, unpretentiousness, honesty and non-fireworks formatting:
How do you get from psychology questionnaires to angles? Show your work, step by step. Every step.
If you did get a masters degree, you must have had to defend a dissertation. Did you yell at the members of the panel and tell them how stupid they were.? If you could do that in 1967, try it again now.
There is no spoon.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
psychologists deal constantly with what is known as
"CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS".
All of them are measured to 2 decimal point accuracy
by written questionnaire tests.
It just so happens that a correlation coefficient because of
it's mathematical definition can be represented as the
COSINE OF AN ANGLE
IOW if a psychologist says that:
"Anxiety correlates .71
with Introversion"
he can show this graphically
by drawing 2-VECTORS on a blackboard
separated by an angle of 45° – – BECAUSE
the inverse-cosine of .71 = 45°
IOW: cosine (45°) = .71
It's a simple as that.
George
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Epiphic. I am speechless. I am a Hammond as well and I believe I know how to create consciousness in two different ways. One is the obvious time consuming matter. And the other will get me banned from this website if not carefully placed.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
the oldest known method is of course known as "PRAYER".
The so-called "Rapture of the Church" – which can reach the level of
"talking in tongues" (mimicking a foreign language) etc.
Of course the 2nd oldest method is DRUGS – heroin, cocaine,
methadrine, opium, coffee, tobacco, alcohol etc. . ad infinitum
And of course finally PSYCHOLOGY – Freud etc. – or things
like "Buddhist meditation" etc.
Even things like "dressing up", or using "makeup" are all
attempts to manifest the invisible "genotypic body"
buried within the "Walking Shadow" of our
Phenotypic Body.
I don't know what you've got in mind Beaconator – but if
it's illegal, like drugs – it sure will get you into trouble!
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
sideshowbob said:
How do you get from psychology
questionnaires to angles?
Postscript to slideshowbob: –
Now that you know "where the angles come from"
you pretty much have a handle on Hammond's SPOG –
Because what happened is this – psychologists wanted to
make "geometric models" of their results using the
"inverse-cosine(correlations) – but you can only "DRAW"
in 3-DIMENSIONS – so they constructed all their models
in 3 dimensions – AND GUESS WHAT – all the models
(Eysenck 3, AVA for, Big 5, Hexaco 6, K and J 7, and
Saucier 9) all turned out to be –
CUBIC 3-D MODELS
And they couldn't figure out why –
until Hammond showed up on the
scene and informed them that it was
caused by the: –
CUBIC CLEAVAGE OF THE BRAIN
And from there – it's only one more step
to the
WORLD's FIRST SCIENTIFIC
MEASUREMENT OF GOD;
TO A 2 DECIMAL POINT ACCURACY
George
How do you get from psychology
questionnaires to angles?
Postscript to slideshowbob: –
Now that you know "where the angles come from"
you pretty much have a handle on Hammond's SPOG –
Because what happened is this – psychologists wanted to
make "geometric models" of their results using the
"inverse-cosine(correlations) – but you can only "DRAW"
in 3-DIMENSIONS – so they constructed all their models
in 3 dimensions – AND GUESS WHAT – all the models
(Eysenck 3, AVA for, Big 5, Hexaco 6, K and J 7, and
Saucier 9) all turned out to be –
CUBIC 3-D MODELS
And they couldn't figure out why –
until Hammond showed up on the
scene and informed them that it was
caused by the: –
CUBIC CLEAVAGE OF THE BRAIN
And from there – it's only one more step
to the
WORLD's FIRST SCIENTIFIC
MEASUREMENT OF GOD;
TO A 2 DECIMAL POINT ACCURACY
George
George read some psychology papers that quoted some correlation coefficients from factor analysis to 2 decimal places. From those, via an obscure process, George "discovered" that the human brain is really a cube and that the number 13 always refers to gods of one type or another. George also discovered that certain animated Disney characters are actually gods in disguise. George's discoveries apparently prove that (a) George is a genius (most importantly); and (b) the God of the bible exists as a construct in human minds, related to the number 13 and the cubic brain (second most important finding). Since those original papers George read used 2 decimal places, George thinks he has proved God to 2 decimal places, too.
We can trust that George is right about God and his proof, because George managed to get himself a couple of degrees many years ago. More importantly, he took a selfie of himself standing next to somebody moderately famous to a certain coterie.
Did I miss anything important?
A few minor ones:
- "God" exists as a fully formed invisible man within each of us, and is the gap between our growth as "phenotype" and our "genotype".
- He also proved there to be a 13th god of the ancient 12-god pantheon, not because there were 13, but because the ancient gods are clearly "personality types" and, well, Mr. Hammond has "proven" there to be exactly 13 "personality types".
Ergo, there must be a 13th god of the 12-god pantheon.
- Everything is clearly, obviously, and intuitively as Mr. Hammond claims, such that to provide support for any of them is a complete waste of effort and time.
- If Mr. Hammond claims you don't have any credentials (even if you actually do, and more than him) then you are not worth listening to, and your criticisms of his "proof" are therefore wrong.
(I have used quotes for certain words where Mr. Hammond is using his own personal, and seemingly private, definition of the terms.)
You're not understanding the question. I'm asking why you are associating a correlation coefficient with a cosine. Yes, both of them are numbers between 0 and 1 - but so were most of the prices at Woolworths in the 1950s. You are not showing the logical connection between correlation coefficients and cosines. When you see a correlation coefficient, how do you know whether it is associated with the cosine of an angle and not with the price of a thimble? Show us every step in that thought process.
I could just as easily take the price of a thimble .71 and draw two vectors on a blackboard - but what would that mean? By your "logic", it seems to mean that thimbles equate to Anxiety and/or introversion.
You need to show us the steps, how you're getting from A to B.
But I don't know where the angles come from. You haven't explained why two numbers that are both between 0 and 1 are related. There are many other numbers that are coincidentally between 0 and 1.
So it's all just a construct. It doesn't necessarily relate to reality. And you are the only one who can relate it to reality - but even you can not explain to anybody else how it relates to reality.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
George E Hammond said:
IOW if a psychologist says that:
"Anxiety correlates .71
with Introversion"
he can show this graphically
by drawing 2-VECTORS on a blackboard
separated by an angle of 45° – – BECAUSE
the inverse-cosine of .71 = 45°
IOW: cosine (45°) = .71
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Look slideshowbob – if you do a Google search for the
question: –
Why is a correlation coefficient the cosine of an angle?
You will get 1,200,000 hits !
And every one of them leads to a few paragraphs of a
mathematical proof that the statement is correct !
To sum it up – a "correlation coefficient" is mathematically
similar to a "dot-product" in elementary physics 101 !
And as you know the "dot-product" of A and B is:
A dot B = AB cos(theta)
And any one of these 1 million references shows
mathematically why a "correlation coefficient"
is mathematically similar to a dot-product
and therefore that:
A correlation coefficient may be represented
as the cosine of the angle between 2 vectors
You're supposed to understand elementary physics
if you're on this forum
George
IOW if a psychologist says that:
"Anxiety correlates .71
with Introversion"
he can show this graphically
by drawing 2-VECTORS on a blackboard
separated by an angle of 45° – – BECAUSE
the inverse-cosine of .71 = 45°
IOW: cosine (45°) = .71
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Look slideshowbob – if you do a Google search for the
question: –
Why is a correlation coefficient the cosine of an angle?
You will get 1,200,000 hits !
And every one of them leads to a few paragraphs of a
mathematical proof that the statement is correct !
To sum it up – a "correlation coefficient" is mathematically
similar to a "dot-product" in elementary physics 101 !
And as you know the "dot-product" of A and B is:
A dot B = AB cos(theta)
And any one of these 1 million references shows
mathematically why a "correlation coefficient"
is mathematically similar to a dot-product
and therefore that:
A correlation coefficient may be represented
as the cosine of the angle between 2 vectors
You're supposed to understand elementary physics
if you're on this forum
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[GE Hammond MS physics]
YES, you missed 2 important points: –
1. – That picture of Hans Eysenck and George Hammond
was not a "SELFIE" – it was taken by Prof. Peter F Merenda
then chairman of the APA (American psychological Association)
of Massachusetts.
2. – As for your statement: (did I miss anything important?) –
The answer is: YES ! You forgot to mention the coup de grace
of Hammonds (SPOG) theory: – and that is the psychologists
discovery of the: GFP (general factor of psychology)
the GFP is called the Gen. factor of personality if it only
contains Personality tests
and it is called the Gen. factor of psychology if it includes
IQ tests.
By Factoring the 13 x 13 lower order eigenvector correlation
matrix – they finally arrived at a SINGLE, TOP EIGENVECTOR
which they "dubbed" the GFP.
They DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS – and they
are furiously debatingthe issue to this day in the peer published
academic literature.
HAMMOND however – points out that it is intuitively obvious
to even a casual observer – that since the 13 lower Factors
are the "gods of antiquity" – then obviously the GFP must be
the GOD OF THE BIBLE.
Thus we have the discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God (SPOG)
Okay James R – with that piece of information you are
now in possession of
the world's most dangerous weapon –the SPOG
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
What does that even mean?
The height of God?
[GE Hammond MS physics]
one decimal point – means 10% accuracy (one out of 10)
2 decimal points – means 1% accuracy (one out of 100)
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
] GE Hammond MS physics]
I have explained in a dozen times – I'm not going to explain it
another dozen times.
Do a Google search for:
Why is a correlation coefficient the cosine of an angle?
And you will get 1.2 million hits explaining it
The answer can be summed up thusly:
The mathematical definition of a correlation coefficient
Correlation of A and B=
covariance of (A and B )/ SQRT [(varA)^2 + (varB)*2]
is mathematically similar to the definition of a "dot-product"
in elementary physics which is:
A dot B - AB cos (theta)
If A and B are "unit vectors" (normalized) then:
A dot B = COS (theta) = correlation of (A and B) QED
See my also post #937
George
- Status