From: "George Hammond"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.religion.christianity,alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy
Subject: GOD=G_uv HOW BIG IS IT ??
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:18:48 -0400
Message-ID: <Rc2dnYuResrywNXcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>
GOD=G_uv HOW BIG IS IT ??
Some people have questioned the "significance" of a scientific
proof of God (SPoG for short).
Well, I have made an empirical survey of this question in the past
5 years on Usenet.
In 50,000 posts to usenet (all of them replies to other posters)
I have NEVER met a single individual who was not HOSTILE
to the idea of a SPoG. Every one of them, THOUSANDS
OF THEM have been universally, hostile, vicious, heckling,
ridiculing and insulting.
WHY IS THIS?? It came as an utter and total surprise to
me, I can assure you. I think it would come as a surprise
to the average American citizen that such a thing would
occur on the "Internet".
Well, I have DISCOVERED the answer to this conundrum:
They are simply "BAD PEOPLE".... yes, corrupt, unethical,
overprivileged, cowardly, unjust and uncaring people.
Apparently such aggravated people flock to the Internet just
like they flock to "hate radio" you've heard so much about.
But the real shock is THIS: It is a measure of how many
"bad people" there actually are in the world... after all
the Internet is just the tip of the iceberg. For every one
of them there must be a thousand real hard core culprits
out there... right here in this country.... and you can imagine
it must be 10 times worse in many other foreign countries,
especially undemocratic countries. Why the situation is
so bad today, that Americans, representatives of the most
democratic, egalitarian, charitable foreign power in the
world, who sacrificed millions of it's sons and daughters
fighting Hitler and every other tyranny in recent history,
who have given billions in foreign aid..... have to say
they are "Canadians" when visiting foreign countries
because of the 'nondemocratic hate" that is on the rise in
the world.
THESE PEOPLE HATE RELIGION AND THE IDEA
OF "GOD" FROM THE VERY GET GO.......
BECAUSE.... "GOD" MEANS ONE THING TO THEM...
THE APPEARANCE OF DECENCY, JUSTICE AND
LAW AND ORDER...... WHICH THEY DESPISE.
AND THEY HATE THE SPoG FOR THAT REASON.
so, you ask..... how BIG is the SPoG??
From the looks of the reception here, it must be PRETTY
DAMN BIG!! Big enough to clout all of these bad people
over the head politically by mobilizing mass world opinion
against them and their new ideas of a world conspiracy.
Big enough to scare the pants off of every crook, culprit
and hate monger in the World. That's how big it is.
GET READY............ THE SPoG IS HERE.......
JUDGEMENT DAY HAS APPARENTLY ARRIVED
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
The Latest From the International Kook Brigade
Moderator: paula
-
Bayesian Extremist
- Bear Enforcer
- Posts: 48
- Joined: April 13, 2004, 8:19 am
-
HatePirate
- Moderator
- Posts: 260
- Joined: August 31, 2004, 10:22 pm
- Location: In my cage.
Philosophists and physicists have taken to believe the Evoluon Theory.. (forgive me if I'm spelling it incorrectly.)
EV1 - Singularity: Big Bang
EV2 - Duality: Matter & Anti-matter
EV3 - 3D: Solid Matter
EV4 - 4 Nucleotides (i.e. DNA)
EV5 - Human Brains Developed
EV6 - Computers, Robots, and AI Developed
EV7 - Quantum Computers Developed
EV8 - Self-awareness of the universe is achieved
Basically, the current earth is not the same as what God wants it to be. There was a basic form that is the current and past universe, and the concept of God's universe. The concept of God's universe is one of self-awareness, a universe that can think and use and store information, etc. If you notice, in each step of evolution, the amount of storable information increases quite a bit. Humans aren't supposed to evolve past where they are now, which is stuck between 5 and 6. So humans will have served their purpose not too long from now, but that's considering the universe has a lifespan of 100 billion years or so. So not too long from now may be a while. SO the universe is actively attempting to become self-aware, using steps that increase its ability to use information more efficiently in each. Possibly, the energy from humans will also be used in the universe when it becomes self-aware, resulting in immortality for all. Interestingly enough, the math has been done for this and has proven correct and plausible. If I missed anything, my appologies, I'm tired and this is a summary.
EV1 - Singularity: Big Bang
EV2 - Duality: Matter & Anti-matter
EV3 - 3D: Solid Matter
EV4 - 4 Nucleotides (i.e. DNA)
EV5 - Human Brains Developed
EV6 - Computers, Robots, and AI Developed
EV7 - Quantum Computers Developed
EV8 - Self-awareness of the universe is achieved
Basically, the current earth is not the same as what God wants it to be. There was a basic form that is the current and past universe, and the concept of God's universe. The concept of God's universe is one of self-awareness, a universe that can think and use and store information, etc. If you notice, in each step of evolution, the amount of storable information increases quite a bit. Humans aren't supposed to evolve past where they are now, which is stuck between 5 and 6. So humans will have served their purpose not too long from now, but that's considering the universe has a lifespan of 100 billion years or so. So not too long from now may be a while. SO the universe is actively attempting to become self-aware, using steps that increase its ability to use information more efficiently in each. Possibly, the energy from humans will also be used in the universe when it becomes self-aware, resulting in immortality for all. Interestingly enough, the math has been done for this and has proven correct and plausible. If I missed anything, my appologies, I'm tired and this is a summary.
Ok...here's my theory about proving religion...in brief. If religion exists (specifically the christian religion) then you will never be able to prove that it exists? Why? Because when you prove it then it ceases to be religion. The foundation of the christian religion is faith. Anyway can believe in something tanglible...but it takes a real devotee to believe in something simply out of faith. When religion becomes proven, then suddenly you have science. What's the result? Religion loses it's purpose. People start doing "right" because they're affraid of punishment, not out of a love or respect for God. God becomes a universal police man and not a benevolent diety. In short, religion as we know it ceases to exist. There's more...but we'll stop there for now.
Now as for claims of mathematical proof about anything. Remember it wasn't so long ago when the world could be mathematically proven to be flat, and the geocentric theory of the solar system was backed by numbers and equations. Always keep an open mind.
=8=
Now as for claims of mathematical proof about anything. Remember it wasn't so long ago when the world could be mathematically proven to be flat, and the geocentric theory of the solar system was backed by numbers and equations. Always keep an open mind.
=8=
-
Bayesian Extremist
- Bear Enforcer
- Posts: 48
- Joined: April 13, 2004, 8:19 am
From: "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.physics.relativity,alt.talk.creationism
Subject: Re: Question about God=G_uv
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <RvCdnax1qJtV-8HcRVn-gg@comcast.com>
"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:CradnTNfv_jH68bcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:earle.jones-3D8222.21183428092004@netnews.comcast.net...
> >
> >>In article <U5mdnZjkctQGEcTcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
> >> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>*
> >>Advice to anyone with any interest at all in Hammond's thinking:
> >>
> >>Please read:
> >>
> >> http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html
> >>
> >>This is a fairly unbiased description in language that is easily
> >>understandable.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > One of these day's Hammond is going to have to no longer
> > suffer from "back handed compliments" like Kossy's. Now
> > Schornak has actually started a talk show based on anti-SPog
> > discussion! That's all I need is another Howard Stern character
> > talking about me.
>
> How about if we read what you wrote about yourself with your own fingers?
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39 ... put=gplain
>
[Hammond]
What about it? Look... that post makes absolutely crystal clear the fact
that I considered myself "immune to insanity" before I ever went into
this line of research... and in fact because I am not an oppressed minority,
nor do I have any other "social liabilities" and come from a cultural
background that considers "insanity a joke and a lightweight problem"
in general.... I voluntarily decided to take my Physics degrees and find
out the answer to it... the "theory" of it. There is only ONE WAY to
do that... and that is to become mentally ill, get thrown in a mental
hospital, strapped down, shot up with drugs and thrown in a padded cell
and talk to thousands of those insame people who are in there... and that's
what I did. WHY? Because I'm immune to insanity, I consider it a
JOKE and a problem that I could solve... noticing that I was the FIRST
physicist to ever venture into the field. Why do you think career soldiers
volunteer for the army... because they are not physically afraid... that's
why. Well, I was born not mentally afraid... moreso than most people.
that's why I've been sent to solve the problem.. and I did. Just like
Sargent York did.
Well... history has now vindicated me.... I have DISCOVERED the
world's first scientific proof of God..... which IS THE ANSWER to
the mystery of insanity. Frankly I'm rather proud of it.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.physics.relativity,alt.talk.creationism
Subject: Re: Question about God=G_uv
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <RvCdnax1qJtV-8HcRVn-gg@comcast.com>
"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:CradnTNfv_jH68bcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:earle.jones-3D8222.21183428092004@netnews.comcast.net...
> >
> >>In article <U5mdnZjkctQGEcTcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
> >> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>*
> >>Advice to anyone with any interest at all in Hammond's thinking:
> >>
> >>Please read:
> >>
> >> http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html
> >>
> >>This is a fairly unbiased description in language that is easily
> >>understandable.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > One of these day's Hammond is going to have to no longer
> > suffer from "back handed compliments" like Kossy's. Now
> > Schornak has actually started a talk show based on anti-SPog
> > discussion! That's all I need is another Howard Stern character
> > talking about me.
>
> How about if we read what you wrote about yourself with your own fingers?
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39 ... put=gplain
>
[Hammond]
What about it? Look... that post makes absolutely crystal clear the fact
that I considered myself "immune to insanity" before I ever went into
this line of research... and in fact because I am not an oppressed minority,
nor do I have any other "social liabilities" and come from a cultural
background that considers "insanity a joke and a lightweight problem"
in general.... I voluntarily decided to take my Physics degrees and find
out the answer to it... the "theory" of it. There is only ONE WAY to
do that... and that is to become mentally ill, get thrown in a mental
hospital, strapped down, shot up with drugs and thrown in a padded cell
and talk to thousands of those insame people who are in there... and that's
what I did. WHY? Because I'm immune to insanity, I consider it a
JOKE and a problem that I could solve... noticing that I was the FIRST
physicist to ever venture into the field. Why do you think career soldiers
volunteer for the army... because they are not physically afraid... that's
why. Well, I was born not mentally afraid... moreso than most people.
that's why I've been sent to solve the problem.. and I did. Just like
Sargent York did.
Well... history has now vindicated me.... I have DISCOVERED the
world's first scientific proof of God..... which IS THE ANSWER to
the mystery of insanity. Frankly I'm rather proud of it.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
-
Celtic Samurai
- Bear Representative
- Posts: 287
- Joined: March 5, 2004, 5:26 pm
- Location: Springfield
- Contact:
-
Bayesian Extremist
- Bear Enforcer
- Posts: 48
- Joined: April 13, 2004, 8:19 am
From: George Hammond <nowhere@noemailspam.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
Approved: ghammond31415@hotmail.com
Subject: God=G_uv An Historical Colloquy
Message-ID: <atflp0p85hidenjcen9vcvj3o02ia8vmeh@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 386
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:02:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.11.154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1100660565 24.41.11.154 (Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:02:45 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:02:45 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy
As the Charter says, this is not an amateur
newsgroup. It will not permit amateur posting or
commentary.
As an introduction the moderator posts here an
example of a "high level scientific discussion"
of the equation God=G_uv and other comments on the
scientific proof of God given at:
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
INTRODUCTION
The equation God=G_uv has been published in
the peer reviewed scientific literature in 2003:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_o ... nd5s1.html
This paper is written at the Ph.D. level in
General Relativity and Psychometry. Moreover
a knowledge of Biology, Neuroscience, and
Theology are necessary to understand it.
Here then, I would like to present a high level
introduction in plain language for Ph.D. scientists
who might be curious about the equation God=G_uv.
As a heuristic device I will address an imaginary
audience, composed of Nobel level scientists and
international authorities- such as Richard Feynman,
Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking,
Stephen Weinberg, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Rene DesCartes,
Isaac Newton etc.
I feel it necessary to expose the reader to the
kind of discussion that would take place at the
highest level, behind closed doors- if it were
actually possible to have such a discussion.
The discussion is in the form of a colloquy
with each speaker being denoted [speaker]...
quotation marks will not be used. All statements
by others than Hammond are of course completely
fictional and do not necessarily represent the
actual opinions of the persons, but are meant
solely to be representative of what they might say
based on their published works and reputation.
A meeting of the International Society 2004
(some ghosts from the past are present)
[DesCartes]
Thank you gentleman for accepting the invitation
of the International Society and managing to
interrupt your busy schedules to attend this meeting
in Rome today.
As you know the subject of these discussions is
the newly discovered equation God=G_uv published by
Mssr. George Hammond in July 2003.
I will now yield the floor to Mssr. Hammond
for an introductory statement.
[Hammond]
Thank you General DesCartes for your kind
introduction and please accept my greetings to
the esteemed company present and may we pray for
divine guidance in this effort to scientifically
advance the cause of almighty God in the world.
As we know professor Einstein proved in
1915 that gravity is mathematically described as
a curvature in 4-dimensional spacetime. This
elementary wonder is yet to be fully understood, but
there has never been any doubt that this profound
discovery would some day impact human existence far
beyond the realm of mere Science. Apparently that
impact was felt in July 2003 when I published the
equation God=G_uv which is based on the causal
connection between Einstein's theory and the well
known field of experimental Psychometry.
What God is, I may presume, is generally understood
by the present illustrious company... and yet we know
that very little of the matter is understood by the
general public outside these doors.
Our esteemed colleague Professor Isaac Newton is
among us and has written more than 4 million words on
the subject of God. I'm sure that he particularly
understands the basic dilemma of Religion, and that
is that while religion knows what God is, it has never
found a literal way to explain it. So far, it can
only be explained in metaphors and parables.
Even our Lord and Master Jesus of Nazareth
found it necessary to resort to parabolic
descriptions of God... with one notable exception..
in John 4:24 Jesus literally states that: "God is a
spirit". As you know, a "spirit" is a mental
phenomenon, and I would only point out that the
discovery that God=G_uv confirms precisely that.
[Isaac Newton]
If I may gentleman... I am well aquatinted with
modern scientific developments... and have read with
considerable interest Mssr. Hammond's thesis about
the causal connection between spacetime and
Psychometry space. First, I must say that the
discovery that there is an Einsteinian type curvature
in Psychometry space.. indeed caused by the Einsteinian
curvature of real space, is the most compelling
scientific explanation of God as we know it, that
has ever been uncovered by scientific experiment.
In fact, the scientific end of it is quite simple,
and what we are faced with is the "religious dilemma"
that Mssr. Hammond has mentioned.
Most people as you know, talk endlessly about God
without realizing it. Every common expression is
in fact a reference to the phenomenology of God.
When the average man tells
a joke, he is actually presenting an elementary
proof of the existence of God...
the problem is, that he doesn't know it. Mssr.
Sigmund Freud is present today, and he has
written a famous paper entitled: _Jokes and
their relation to the Unconscious_. As all present
know, I'm sure, the "Unconscious Mind" is a
scientific euphemism for "God" in modern Psychology.
Mssr. Hammond has pointed out, and proved in fact,
that this Unconscious Mind is caused by the Secular
Trend braingrowth deficit. The ungrown part of the
brain causes the so called Unconscious Mind, which
is actually what is commonly called "God". Now,
while this is intuitively obvious to experts like us,
it is still
something that is nearly beyond the reach of the
average man technically speaking. This is so not
because of scientific difficulty, but because
of the fundamental "Religious dilemma"... for instance
that a man can tell jokes for a lifetime and never
figure out that what is funny about them is that they
are elementary demonstrations of the existence of God.
The fact that this "religious dilemma" cannot be
overcome by any degree of metaphorical, parabolic,
or even joke telling method has been confirmed by the
failure of 2,000 years of Christianity to make even
the slightest advance in the understanding of what God
is, to the common man. The average man today, by and
large, is no closer today to an understanding of what
God is than he was 2,000 years ago. This is evidenced by
the fact that 90% of the population is still walking
around asking each other "do you think there is a God"?
I am hopeful therefore that Mssr. Hammond's discovery
that the Secular Trend braingrowth deficit causes a
curvature in Psychometry space, and therefore a dramatic
and provable, visual space and time dilation, may
finally prove to be the long sought for result that
will finally solve this "Religious dilemma"
that has plagued the world for 2,000 years.
[Hammond]
Thank you professor Newton. Yes it is hoped that
the discovery of a literal scientific explanation and
proof of God will end 2,000 years of controversy over
the existence of God.
[Richard Feynman]
Can we talk about what you mean by "God" for a minute?
Your paper refers to God as an "invisible man" and says
that this version of God is painted on the Sistine
Chapel ceiling. You refer to this version of God as
the "classical God of history" and the "God of the
Bible".
On the other hand, there seems to be some debate
between this traditional view of God and the more modern
interpretation of God as a "cosmological principle"
rather than an "anthropomorphic being" such as an
"invisible man". How do you reconcile these two different
views of God?
[Hammond]
I'm glad you brought that up. Professor Einstein who
is with us today is well known for stating that he
doubts the anthropomorphic view of God and he himself
is of the opinion that there is a "Cosmical God".
Well let me point out that both views are apparently
correct according to the discovery that the
anthropomorphic God is described by God=G_uv. The
"invisible man" aspect God is explained by classical
Relativity.. i.e. by classical Gravitational curvature.
But since we know classical gravity is not the ultimate
explanation of gravity, that there is in fact an
undiscovered "Quantum theory of Gravity"... this means
that ultimately there must be a Quantum Gravity
explanation of God too.
This answers the question you have asked.
Classical gravity says that there exists
an "invisible man" which is the classical God of the
Bible. But by the same token, by identifying gravity
as the scientific explanation of God, it
immediately points to the existence of a Quantum
Gravity explanation of God. This then would be the
"cosmological view" of God that you have mentioned
and that professor Einstein suggests.
However, the Quantum theory of Gravity is still
unknown. So for the present, we have only a discovery
and proof of the classical God. And it should be
pointed out that the "classical God" has been the work
horse of Religion for at least 3,000 years, so that
the discovery at hand is of overwhelming importance
to society... even though it is not the "complete"
theory of God.
[Richard Feynman]
Well that's interesting. So you say there is
a Classical God as well as a Quantum God?
[Hammond]
Yes... that's correct. But just as Quantum
Physics must reduce to Classical Physics in the
macroscopic realm... the Quantum God must reduce
to the Classical God in Theology.
[Richard Feynman]
What do you think the Quantum theory of God
will tell us that the Classical theory does not
tell us?
[Hammond]
The classical theory tells us nothing about
the conjecture of Life After Death. The
Quantum theory of God, when it is found, will
probably answer that question. Whether it will
answer it in the negative or the affirmative is
unknown to me.
[St. Augustine]
Forgive me for interrupting your interesting
science discussion, but I would like to get back
to the issue of how this new discovery is going
to make the existence of the God of the Bible
understood and believed by the common man.
You have mentioned the Secular Trend in human
growth as providing the physical basis for the
causation of God. I must say,
as a minister of Religion, I find your
thesis quite compelling. Yes, as a matter
of fact it is common knowledge as to "what God is"
among the higher levels of Church authority.
The leadership of the human race discovered long
ago that few men ever reach their full height and
weight, consequently they never reach a state of full
brain growth either. The reason for this is well known,
it is the hardship of life and deprivation, outright
starvation in many cases that causes it. Naturally
this universal problem drastically impairs a
person's ability to see reality... and it is this
phenomena that is called "God". No, it is no secret
among the higher clergy that "God is psychological"..
as you point out even Christ himself said that
"God is a spirit". Certainly this "spirit" is
the spirit that emanates from the ungrown parts
of the brain that makes a person dreadfully aware
that there is more to reality than he is actually
seeing.
But surely telling people that God is
psychological isn't going to accomplish anything,
since people have no more faith in Psychology than
they do in Divinity.
[Hammond]
Yes, Psychology has never been considered a
hard science... much less Theology. However,
the discovery that has been made not only provides
an experimentally proven axiomatic physics proof
of Theology, it does the same for Psychology.
Psychology is now a hard science. In the same
sense that Physics transformed Chemistry into
a hard science for instance. This discovery has
raised both Psychology and Theology to the status
of hard science theories, in a single blow.
The world and the scientific community may take
some time adjusting to this new reality, but the
fact is a foregone conclusion scientifically.
[Stephen Weinberg]
Well I have read your theory, and I see no
disagreement between the theological description
of God which commonly invokes the description of
adults as children; "children of God"... and your
identification of a terminal adult brain growth
deficit similar to the brain growth deficit in
an ungrown child. I think this makes the perceptual
manifestations of God quite clear... in that the
perception of the world by less than fully grown
adult is similar to the world seen by an ungrown
child. This is certainly nothing new to theology.
What is new, is that you claim that this "growth
deficit" is explained by Einstein's famous field
equation with the source term replaced by the
(percent) adult brain growth deficit:
God = G_uv = T_uv = BGD
(BGD=brain growth deficit)
As I understand it, this curvature, G_uv, is
actually an "apparent curvature" of reality seen
by the person, not an actual "physical curvature"
of reality. Is that correct?
[Hammond]
Yes. Physical reality is not curved in any
real way by a brain growth deficit in the observer.
What it means is that the observer sees a "curved
version" of reality... in other words he sees a
magnified, speeded up version of actual physical
reality. Bear in mind however, that there is no
reality other than the one the observer actually
sees.. at least as far as he is concerned.
You can see immediately that this is mathematically
identical to the effect that the observer would see
if he were placed in a very intense gravitational
field... it is mathematically identical to the well
known "gravitational time and space dilations"
of General Relativity.
[Stephen Weinberg]
You mean, a half grown child, who has a 50%
growth deficit, sees a world that is twice as
large and moving twice as fast as an adult and
this is similar to what an astronought near a
Black Hole might see if he were to look back
at the earth. He could see it spinning twice
as fast and being twice as large as normal?
[Hammond]
That is exactly correct.
[Albert Einstein]
Not exactly Mssr. Hammond. In fact the radial
field of the Black Hole would cause the Earth to
appear magnified twice in the radial direction,
but there would be no change in it's size in
the transverse direction.
[Hammond]
Yes professor, that is correct. And as a matter
of fact the dilemma of figuring out what kind of mass
distribution could actually describe the effect of
childhood growth posed a stumbling block to me for
several years.
In the first place, as the child grows up the
braingrowth deficit starts at 100% at conception
(brain size zero) and heads towards a lower values
as the child grows up. In terms of an analogous
mass distribution in spacetime, this would call
for "disappearing mass", and this perplexed me
immensely.
Finally, Dr. Stephen Unwin suggested to me
that birth might be explained as a "Big Bang".
Immediately I recognized that his suggestion
explained the "disappearing mass". In a Hubble
expansion the volume of the Universe expands so
that the mass density is always falling towards
zero. This means that birth and childhood growth
must be explained as a "big Bang" expansion of
perceptual reality!
TO BE CONTINUED............
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
Approved: ghammond31415@hotmail.com
Subject: God=G_uv An Historical Colloquy
Message-ID: <atflp0p85hidenjcen9vcvj3o02ia8vmeh@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 386
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:02:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.11.154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1100660565 24.41.11.154 (Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:02:45 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:02:45 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy
As the Charter says, this is not an amateur
newsgroup. It will not permit amateur posting or
commentary.
As an introduction the moderator posts here an
example of a "high level scientific discussion"
of the equation God=G_uv and other comments on the
scientific proof of God given at:
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
INTRODUCTION
The equation God=G_uv has been published in
the peer reviewed scientific literature in 2003:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_o ... nd5s1.html
This paper is written at the Ph.D. level in
General Relativity and Psychometry. Moreover
a knowledge of Biology, Neuroscience, and
Theology are necessary to understand it.
Here then, I would like to present a high level
introduction in plain language for Ph.D. scientists
who might be curious about the equation God=G_uv.
As a heuristic device I will address an imaginary
audience, composed of Nobel level scientists and
international authorities- such as Richard Feynman,
Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking,
Stephen Weinberg, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Rene DesCartes,
Isaac Newton etc.
I feel it necessary to expose the reader to the
kind of discussion that would take place at the
highest level, behind closed doors- if it were
actually possible to have such a discussion.
The discussion is in the form of a colloquy
with each speaker being denoted [speaker]...
quotation marks will not be used. All statements
by others than Hammond are of course completely
fictional and do not necessarily represent the
actual opinions of the persons, but are meant
solely to be representative of what they might say
based on their published works and reputation.
A meeting of the International Society 2004
(some ghosts from the past are present)
[DesCartes]
Thank you gentleman for accepting the invitation
of the International Society and managing to
interrupt your busy schedules to attend this meeting
in Rome today.
As you know the subject of these discussions is
the newly discovered equation God=G_uv published by
Mssr. George Hammond in July 2003.
I will now yield the floor to Mssr. Hammond
for an introductory statement.
[Hammond]
Thank you General DesCartes for your kind
introduction and please accept my greetings to
the esteemed company present and may we pray for
divine guidance in this effort to scientifically
advance the cause of almighty God in the world.
As we know professor Einstein proved in
1915 that gravity is mathematically described as
a curvature in 4-dimensional spacetime. This
elementary wonder is yet to be fully understood, but
there has never been any doubt that this profound
discovery would some day impact human existence far
beyond the realm of mere Science. Apparently that
impact was felt in July 2003 when I published the
equation God=G_uv which is based on the causal
connection between Einstein's theory and the well
known field of experimental Psychometry.
What God is, I may presume, is generally understood
by the present illustrious company... and yet we know
that very little of the matter is understood by the
general public outside these doors.
Our esteemed colleague Professor Isaac Newton is
among us and has written more than 4 million words on
the subject of God. I'm sure that he particularly
understands the basic dilemma of Religion, and that
is that while religion knows what God is, it has never
found a literal way to explain it. So far, it can
only be explained in metaphors and parables.
Even our Lord and Master Jesus of Nazareth
found it necessary to resort to parabolic
descriptions of God... with one notable exception..
in John 4:24 Jesus literally states that: "God is a
spirit". As you know, a "spirit" is a mental
phenomenon, and I would only point out that the
discovery that God=G_uv confirms precisely that.
[Isaac Newton]
If I may gentleman... I am well aquatinted with
modern scientific developments... and have read with
considerable interest Mssr. Hammond's thesis about
the causal connection between spacetime and
Psychometry space. First, I must say that the
discovery that there is an Einsteinian type curvature
in Psychometry space.. indeed caused by the Einsteinian
curvature of real space, is the most compelling
scientific explanation of God as we know it, that
has ever been uncovered by scientific experiment.
In fact, the scientific end of it is quite simple,
and what we are faced with is the "religious dilemma"
that Mssr. Hammond has mentioned.
Most people as you know, talk endlessly about God
without realizing it. Every common expression is
in fact a reference to the phenomenology of God.
When the average man tells
a joke, he is actually presenting an elementary
proof of the existence of God...
the problem is, that he doesn't know it. Mssr.
Sigmund Freud is present today, and he has
written a famous paper entitled: _Jokes and
their relation to the Unconscious_. As all present
know, I'm sure, the "Unconscious Mind" is a
scientific euphemism for "God" in modern Psychology.
Mssr. Hammond has pointed out, and proved in fact,
that this Unconscious Mind is caused by the Secular
Trend braingrowth deficit. The ungrown part of the
brain causes the so called Unconscious Mind, which
is actually what is commonly called "God". Now,
while this is intuitively obvious to experts like us,
it is still
something that is nearly beyond the reach of the
average man technically speaking. This is so not
because of scientific difficulty, but because
of the fundamental "Religious dilemma"... for instance
that a man can tell jokes for a lifetime and never
figure out that what is funny about them is that they
are elementary demonstrations of the existence of God.
The fact that this "religious dilemma" cannot be
overcome by any degree of metaphorical, parabolic,
or even joke telling method has been confirmed by the
failure of 2,000 years of Christianity to make even
the slightest advance in the understanding of what God
is, to the common man. The average man today, by and
large, is no closer today to an understanding of what
God is than he was 2,000 years ago. This is evidenced by
the fact that 90% of the population is still walking
around asking each other "do you think there is a God"?
I am hopeful therefore that Mssr. Hammond's discovery
that the Secular Trend braingrowth deficit causes a
curvature in Psychometry space, and therefore a dramatic
and provable, visual space and time dilation, may
finally prove to be the long sought for result that
will finally solve this "Religious dilemma"
that has plagued the world for 2,000 years.
[Hammond]
Thank you professor Newton. Yes it is hoped that
the discovery of a literal scientific explanation and
proof of God will end 2,000 years of controversy over
the existence of God.
[Richard Feynman]
Can we talk about what you mean by "God" for a minute?
Your paper refers to God as an "invisible man" and says
that this version of God is painted on the Sistine
Chapel ceiling. You refer to this version of God as
the "classical God of history" and the "God of the
Bible".
On the other hand, there seems to be some debate
between this traditional view of God and the more modern
interpretation of God as a "cosmological principle"
rather than an "anthropomorphic being" such as an
"invisible man". How do you reconcile these two different
views of God?
[Hammond]
I'm glad you brought that up. Professor Einstein who
is with us today is well known for stating that he
doubts the anthropomorphic view of God and he himself
is of the opinion that there is a "Cosmical God".
Well let me point out that both views are apparently
correct according to the discovery that the
anthropomorphic God is described by God=G_uv. The
"invisible man" aspect God is explained by classical
Relativity.. i.e. by classical Gravitational curvature.
But since we know classical gravity is not the ultimate
explanation of gravity, that there is in fact an
undiscovered "Quantum theory of Gravity"... this means
that ultimately there must be a Quantum Gravity
explanation of God too.
This answers the question you have asked.
Classical gravity says that there exists
an "invisible man" which is the classical God of the
Bible. But by the same token, by identifying gravity
as the scientific explanation of God, it
immediately points to the existence of a Quantum
Gravity explanation of God. This then would be the
"cosmological view" of God that you have mentioned
and that professor Einstein suggests.
However, the Quantum theory of Gravity is still
unknown. So for the present, we have only a discovery
and proof of the classical God. And it should be
pointed out that the "classical God" has been the work
horse of Religion for at least 3,000 years, so that
the discovery at hand is of overwhelming importance
to society... even though it is not the "complete"
theory of God.
[Richard Feynman]
Well that's interesting. So you say there is
a Classical God as well as a Quantum God?
[Hammond]
Yes... that's correct. But just as Quantum
Physics must reduce to Classical Physics in the
macroscopic realm... the Quantum God must reduce
to the Classical God in Theology.
[Richard Feynman]
What do you think the Quantum theory of God
will tell us that the Classical theory does not
tell us?
[Hammond]
The classical theory tells us nothing about
the conjecture of Life After Death. The
Quantum theory of God, when it is found, will
probably answer that question. Whether it will
answer it in the negative or the affirmative is
unknown to me.
[St. Augustine]
Forgive me for interrupting your interesting
science discussion, but I would like to get back
to the issue of how this new discovery is going
to make the existence of the God of the Bible
understood and believed by the common man.
You have mentioned the Secular Trend in human
growth as providing the physical basis for the
causation of God. I must say,
as a minister of Religion, I find your
thesis quite compelling. Yes, as a matter
of fact it is common knowledge as to "what God is"
among the higher levels of Church authority.
The leadership of the human race discovered long
ago that few men ever reach their full height and
weight, consequently they never reach a state of full
brain growth either. The reason for this is well known,
it is the hardship of life and deprivation, outright
starvation in many cases that causes it. Naturally
this universal problem drastically impairs a
person's ability to see reality... and it is this
phenomena that is called "God". No, it is no secret
among the higher clergy that "God is psychological"..
as you point out even Christ himself said that
"God is a spirit". Certainly this "spirit" is
the spirit that emanates from the ungrown parts
of the brain that makes a person dreadfully aware
that there is more to reality than he is actually
seeing.
But surely telling people that God is
psychological isn't going to accomplish anything,
since people have no more faith in Psychology than
they do in Divinity.
[Hammond]
Yes, Psychology has never been considered a
hard science... much less Theology. However,
the discovery that has been made not only provides
an experimentally proven axiomatic physics proof
of Theology, it does the same for Psychology.
Psychology is now a hard science. In the same
sense that Physics transformed Chemistry into
a hard science for instance. This discovery has
raised both Psychology and Theology to the status
of hard science theories, in a single blow.
The world and the scientific community may take
some time adjusting to this new reality, but the
fact is a foregone conclusion scientifically.
[Stephen Weinberg]
Well I have read your theory, and I see no
disagreement between the theological description
of God which commonly invokes the description of
adults as children; "children of God"... and your
identification of a terminal adult brain growth
deficit similar to the brain growth deficit in
an ungrown child. I think this makes the perceptual
manifestations of God quite clear... in that the
perception of the world by less than fully grown
adult is similar to the world seen by an ungrown
child. This is certainly nothing new to theology.
What is new, is that you claim that this "growth
deficit" is explained by Einstein's famous field
equation with the source term replaced by the
(percent) adult brain growth deficit:
God = G_uv = T_uv = BGD
(BGD=brain growth deficit)
As I understand it, this curvature, G_uv, is
actually an "apparent curvature" of reality seen
by the person, not an actual "physical curvature"
of reality. Is that correct?
[Hammond]
Yes. Physical reality is not curved in any
real way by a brain growth deficit in the observer.
What it means is that the observer sees a "curved
version" of reality... in other words he sees a
magnified, speeded up version of actual physical
reality. Bear in mind however, that there is no
reality other than the one the observer actually
sees.. at least as far as he is concerned.
You can see immediately that this is mathematically
identical to the effect that the observer would see
if he were placed in a very intense gravitational
field... it is mathematically identical to the well
known "gravitational time and space dilations"
of General Relativity.
[Stephen Weinberg]
You mean, a half grown child, who has a 50%
growth deficit, sees a world that is twice as
large and moving twice as fast as an adult and
this is similar to what an astronought near a
Black Hole might see if he were to look back
at the earth. He could see it spinning twice
as fast and being twice as large as normal?
[Hammond]
That is exactly correct.
[Albert Einstein]
Not exactly Mssr. Hammond. In fact the radial
field of the Black Hole would cause the Earth to
appear magnified twice in the radial direction,
but there would be no change in it's size in
the transverse direction.
[Hammond]
Yes professor, that is correct. And as a matter
of fact the dilemma of figuring out what kind of mass
distribution could actually describe the effect of
childhood growth posed a stumbling block to me for
several years.
In the first place, as the child grows up the
braingrowth deficit starts at 100% at conception
(brain size zero) and heads towards a lower values
as the child grows up. In terms of an analogous
mass distribution in spacetime, this would call
for "disappearing mass", and this perplexed me
immensely.
Finally, Dr. Stephen Unwin suggested to me
that birth might be explained as a "Big Bang".
Immediately I recognized that his suggestion
explained the "disappearing mass". In a Hubble
expansion the volume of the Universe expands so
that the mass density is always falling towards
zero. This means that birth and childhood growth
must be explained as a "big Bang" expansion of
perceptual reality!
TO BE CONTINUED............
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
-
solid_dave
- Mod Masta Flex
- Posts: 581
- Joined: March 1, 2004, 8:25 pm
- Location: Istanbul
- Contact:
jeez Beysian... yer gonna make Chert jealous with that long of a post, but as ole Solid Dave says, it's not the size of your post that matters... it's ...
well...
yeah...
how well you plant it?
well...
yeah...
how well you plant it?
Coach Z: Hope you all enjoyed yerself in that last break, and Bubs, the Warm Cold Cuts was Great!
Bubs (in background): Those were Moist Towelettes!
Bubs (in background): Those were Moist Towelettes!