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: reply to Tom Faller on 22 Mar 2005 16:17 "Thomas Faller" <faller(a)sgi.com> wrote in message news:4240614F.6525FB15(a)sgi.com... > George Hammond wrote: > > > "stew dean" <stewdean(a)gmail.com> wrote in > > message news:1111415180.664625.322370(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > No - your next step is to show that the world appears to be running at > > > different speeds between two people because of their perception. > > > > > > I'll leave you with that step for now. Bear in mind your previous step > > > I'm accepting for the sake of argument but only to see how you progress > > > from there. > > > > > > Stew Dean > > > > > > > [Hammond] > > Here you go...... let me give you a simple heuristic picture > > that explains what God is (via different mental speeds), > > in TWO STEPS: > > > > STEP ONE: > > Take simple "picture fusion frequency"... you know, the phenomena > > that makes moving picture films possible. > > Do you know that it is a proven scientific fact that a 7 year old > > can only discriminate 10 frames/sec as being individual images.. > > above that he sees a continuous moving image (a 'movie'). > > HOWEVER, a 15 year old can discriminate 15 frames/sec > > before it turns into a moving picture. In fact the speed moves > > up linearly with age until you stop growing at adulthood, around 18. > > NOW... doesn't that tell you that "30% of reality is INVISIBLE" > > to a 7 year old as compared to an adult! (i.e. (15-10)/15 = 30%) > > What this means is that if we define what the adult sees as > > "reality".... 30% of said reality is INVISIBLE to the 7 year old! > > The 7 year old is surrounded by an INVISIBLE WORLD which > > only the adults (or more grown people) can see! > > If you define reality as the ability to perceive and process separate static > images... [Hammond] That isn't what the result implys. What it means is that if a continously changing real world is presented to him, as it is every day of his life, .... he will MISS 1/3 OF IT... because comprehension of the visual information that changes faster than 1/10 of a second is INVISIBLE to him.... while it is NOT INVISIBLE to a 15 year old or even an adult. OBVIOUSLY 15 year olds wouldn't have this ability if it weren't NECESSARY to "see reality". > Reality is a continuum of sensual impression, not a series > of separate quanta. [Hammond] Yeah, we know that.... and we also know that you have no science or physics background and can't comprehend the significance of it.... even though of course you keep your children out of fast traffic because of it. <snip rest because of poster's scientific incompetency> > > STEP TWO: > > OK.... it is ALSO a proven fact that no one in the human > > race ever achieves "full growth". This fact is proven by > > the existence of the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth. > > See this simple "explains it all" picture: > > http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1_files/img0.gif > > OK... said Secular Trend shows that the average human stops > > growing when he is about, say, 15% shy of full growth. > > Ok then, by the reasoning demonstrated in STEP ONE, this > > means that "15% of reality is INVISIBLE" to the average > > full grown adult. And in fact it varies from person to person, > > some people are missing 20%, some 10% for instance. > > Isn't it obvvious to you, Einstein, that this simple phenomena > > of "reality difference based on terminal growth difference" > > is the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE > > HISTORICALY KNOWN PHENOMENA OF GOD? > > > > What the hell's wrong with you? > > That's such a simple, proven, > > scientific explanation of "God" > > that a high school drop out > > could understand it!! > > > > Reality is so much more that you define it. How can you state as a > physicist that we comprehend reality at all when we only see a tiny > fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum around us, [Hammond] "Reality" is DEFINED as what a full grown human being can "sense, know, discovery, detect or see".... THERE IS NO "other definition of reality". Again...... an obvious fact that appears to be beyond your intellectual reach. ============================= NOTE: THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW APPEARING UNDER THE NEW THREAD ENTITLED: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds PLEASE POST ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT THERE. ============================ > Tom Faller > ==================================== 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 16:25 "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! > > EVERYONE is laughing at you. [Hammond] Kooks don't know how to laugh.... I do.... ROFL ==================================== 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: Guy Svenhardt on 22 Mar 2005 16:27 "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!). AntiSPOG: http://schornak.de/aspog/0000.htm
From: Michael Moroney on 22 Mar 2005 17:26 "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:d1pm1f$j4f$1(a)pcls4.std.com... >> "George Hammond" <nowhere1(a)nospam.net> writes: >> >> >[Hammond] >> > Look.... superior processing speed "sums up" the total >> >story.... IOW... people with higher processing speed >> >also have larger memories, faster retrieval, blah, blah >> >blah. >> >> Umm, no. I am quite smart (qualify for Mensa) but tend to have slower >> than average reaction times. >[Hammond] >Well... if you qualify for Mensa... you should be able to >comment on this, after all, what's all that intellgence >good for if it can't tell us something? >================================= > ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC > PROOF OF GOD <snip> OK, I'll comment. It's Spam - quit spamming this group. No need to comment further on spam. -- -Mike
From: TMG on 22 Mar 2005 17:29
George Hammond wrote: > [Hammond] > Kooks don't know how > to laugh.... I do.... ROFL http://www.twin-music.com/azlyrics/n_file/napoleon.html |