GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
Next: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
From: Guy Svenhardt on 22 Mar 2005 19:13 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:_200e.1328$z.223(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:bX%%d.415$zl.205(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:0SY%d.1181$z.781(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:KtL%d.103$zl.70(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > > "Brian Eable" <beable+unsenet(a)beable.com.invalid> wrote in message > > > > news:ckfyyoqwkv.fsf(a)not.for.mail.beable.com... > > > > > "Rob Duncan" <robduncan(a)gbronline.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Processing speed is simply a factor, not the sole component. > > Lets > > > > > > say when I had a lesion on my pons and couldnt see, nor feel any > > > > > > part of my mouth, nor speak inteligably, that it would take me > > 15 to > > > > > > 20 seconds to read the list (if I held it up to my only point of > > > > > > vision, about 1 inch squared at arms length back then) compared > > to > > > > > > the 3.7 that I just read it at... was I dumber then? Obviously > > not. > > > > > > But my processing speed was certainly fucked up and reflected > > > > > > accurately by the test. Hows that jibe with their claims? Did > > I > > > > > > jump 50 IQ points during the 9 months of my recovery? Obviously > > > > > > not. Although the test obviously did reflect my processing > > speed > > > > > > accurately. > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand Dr Hammond's claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is this Dr. Hammond of whom you speak? > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > That's me jerko. I do not have a PhD and am not a "Dr." > > > of anything. > > > However this honarary title was conferred upon me informally > > > by the late and great Professor Hans Jurgen Eysenck > > > (the world's most cited psychologist after Sigmund Freud), > > > when at a Montreal Symposium at which I was speaking.. > > > he.... knowing full well I was not a PhD introduced me > > > as "Dr. Hammond" in 1989 to an audiance of 200 research > > > Psychologists. Hans had a lot of style! > > > > His SLIP OF THE TONGUE confers an honorary title upon you? > > [Hammond] > It wasn't a slip of the tongue kook... I spent 2 hours talking to > him and he said it was deliberate. > > > > > You really are DESPERATE not to think of yours as a COMPLETE WASTED > > life. > > [Hammond] > Go write a letter to your lonely hearts club kook... > but get OFF this thread IMBECILE! Thank you for demonstrating that you have nothing of value to say. The last resort of the hopelessly stupid is a response composed solely of expletives and mindless spew.
From: George Hammond on 22 Mar 2005 22:00 "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4500e.418$zl.213(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > news:Q8Z%d.1826$S46.843(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > > message news:gXM%d.137$zl.104(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > news:UKM%d.825$z.241(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. > > > > > Reflexes reflect processing speed. And to be fair, > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > WRONG. > > > > for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on the > > > subject > > > > see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html > > > > > > > > say that (page 6): > > > > > > > > "It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 Hz) > > > > has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency > > > > (mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this was > > > > demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985). > > > > Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture > fusion > > > > is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to > > > > Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion > frequency > > > > has virtually NO correlation with intelligence." > > > > > > > > This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your > > > > hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence > > > > (which is also a very old proven experimental fact). Most of > > > > what you are describing with a Cheetah is "reflex" reaction, > > > > not "intelligence" reaction. Same with a Hummingbird beating > > > > it's wings at 100 Hz.... it has NOTHING to do with "intelligence"; > > > > ...which is "infomation processing in the brain in bits/sec". > > > > And HUMANS have the all time highest rate for THAT... > > > > (15 bits/sec) which is WHY we are the world's most intelligent > > > > animal. > > > > > > > Pulling your hand off a hot object is a BACKBONE associative nerve > > > reflex and has NOTHING TO DO with processing by the brain, so your > > > analogy is COMPLETELY FALSE. > > > > [Hammond] > > That's correct.... that's what I JUST SAID! "reflex speed" has > NOTHING > > to do with intelligence, ergo... a hummingbird is NOT more intelligent > > than a person. duncan is just trying to be cute. > > He's obviously and futilely trying to show you that your means of > measure is grossly lacking by demonstrating the absurdity of its > application. Only you would interpret what he wrote as claiming that > hummingbirds are more intelligent than people (He's MOCKING you!). [Hammond] Between the two of you there isn't enough brain power to mock me. Do you really think the SPOG is based on something as elementary as this....... I only post this "elementary demo" because you can't even READ the grad level physics of the SPOG which is peer-published AND posted on my website. ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ==================================== Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent) Send a blank email to COSAchurch(a)hotmail.com and your email address will be added to the COSA discussion list (free, no obligation) ==================================== and please ask your news service to add: alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated ===================================
From: George Hammond on 22 Mar 2005 22:02 "Tim" <qwery(a)qwerty.com> wrote in message news:VJ6dnWSTQpXWC93fRVn-qw(a)aci.on.ca... get off this thread
From: Guy Svenhardt on 22 Mar 2005 22:18 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:5Z40e.1551$z.617(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:4500e.418$zl.213(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:Q8Z%d.1826$S46.843(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > "Guy Svenhardt" <anonymous(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > > > message news:gXM%d.137$zl.104(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > > > > news:UKM%d.825$z.241(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > Our reflexes arent jack squat compared to the animal world. > > > > > > Reflexes reflect processing speed. And to be fair, > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > > > WRONG. > > > > > for instance, Lehrl & Fischer state in a famous paper on the > > > > subject > > > > > see: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html > > > > > > > > > > say that (page 6): > > > > > > > > > > "It is remarkable that "critical flicker fusion" (30-50 Hz) > > > > > has nothing to do with the picture fusion frequency > > > > > (mean=15-16 Hz). Theoretically and empirically this was > > > > > demonstrated by Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985). > > > > > Their findings are affirmed by the fact that picture > > fusion > > > > > is related to INTELLIGENCE, whereas, according to > > > > > Jensen's (1983) results, critical flicker fusion > > frequency > > > > > has virtually NO correlation with intelligence." > > > > > > > > > > This means that "simple reaction time" (such as pulling your > > > > > hand off a hot object) is NOT correlated with Intelligence > > > > > (which is also a very old proven experimental fact). Most of > > > > > what you are describing with a Cheetah is "reflex" reaction, > > > > > not "intelligence" reaction. Same with a Hummingbird beating > > > > > it's wings at 100 Hz.... it has NOTHING to do with "intelligence"; > > > > > ...which is "infomation processing in the brain in bits/sec". > > > > > And HUMANS have the all time highest rate for THAT... > > > > > (15 bits/sec) which is WHY we are the world's most intelligent > > > > > animal. > > > > > > > > > Pulling your hand off a hot object is a BACKBONE associative nerve > > > > reflex and has NOTHING TO DO with processing by the brain, so your > > > > analogy is COMPLETELY FALSE. > > > > > > [Hammond] > > > That's correct.... that's what I JUST SAID! "reflex speed" has > > NOTHING > > > to do with intelligence, ergo... a hummingbird is NOT more intelligent > > > than a person. duncan is just trying to be cute. > > > > He's obviously and futilely trying to show you that your means of > > measure is grossly lacking by demonstrating the absurdity of its > > application. Only you would interpret what he wrote as claiming that > > hummingbirds are more intelligent than people (He's MOCKING you!). > > [Hammond] > Between the two of you there isn't enough brain power > to mock me. Time after time you demonstrate how very stupid you are. Just keep spewing non-sense. AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm
From: Guy Svenhardt on 22 Mar 2005 22:29
"George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:I_40e.1552$z.91(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > "Tim" <qwery(a)qwerty.com> wrote in > message news:VJ6dnWSTQpXWC93fRVn-qw(a)aci.on.ca... > > get off this thread > > AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0001.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0002.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm http://schornak.de/aspog/0004.htm From AntiSPOG: "In my evaluation of Hammond's "Introduction to SPoG" I checked 180 claims Hammond has made. 11 (eleven) of these 180 claims can be seen as true. Most of the agreed statements are trivial like "Today the world faces enormous crises in population, oil resources, terrorism and Third World poverty.". This statement alone includes four of the eleven agreed claims. A thesis based on 11 true and 169 false claims must be discarded as inadequately thought-out. Scientific work published in the internet should be based on traceable thoughts and backed up with references which are accessible for everyone - e.g. by quoting passages out of a book or adding links to other websites. This isn't the case in Hammond's work. Mentioning names of (questionable) "authorities" doesn't make a claim true, it only might be used to back up the own position. If a thesis is based on the work of other scientists, a detailed description should be added to see what they've contributed to the new thesis. If - like Hammond says - statistical data of other scientists are involved, it is a usual thing to add a link to these data or to give detailed information where they were published. Hammond's SPoG in the given form is the mediocre work of an amateur. It lacks of logic and often contradicts itself. It claims to be "scientific", but it doesn't show any example of scientific experiments to back it up nor does it follow basic scientific rules. The best example surely is Hammond's attempt to assign his virtual "psychometric space" to real space. This attempt alone disqualifies Hammond as an incompetent amateur who never has understood anything regarding real sciences. If I - as an autodidactic amateur - can see these flaws, errors and misinterpretations, then I ask myself why Hammond expects that professional scientists should consider to agree with something like his SPoG. On the other hand, no real Christian will need Hammond's SPoG. In the eyes of a true Christian, any attempt to calculate "God" is blasphemic, the work of a heretic. Even if I don't believe in higher entities, I do respect the beliefs of others. Hammond doesn't have such qualms - he insults all Christians and rubs their deity through the dirt. In the end, Hammond neither will win the hearts of true Christians nor will he convince the reason of scientists. It took me two weeks to gather all the information to disprove SPoG, a professional scientist could do the same in less than two minutes... " |