| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology - Theory Forum » All Ye thousands, tell George Hammond SPOG or SPOD
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Randy M. Dumse |
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pardon my cross posting, I hope to be brief. I'm sure you've all seen
George Hammond's posts on your groups. George claims he is writing for
the thousands of normal poeple out there reading him. I suspect his
number is inflated, so if you would please, reply to this post so we can
have a count.
Feel free to express your appreciation, or otherwise, for George posting
to so many different groups. I think George needs to hear what you think
of him.
Also note, I've politely asked George not to join this conversation, so
we can talk freely how we feel about SPOG, and to keep it a "scientific"
survey, it would help if he didn't interfere.
Also, if any of you care to tell me what you think of the following
premise, it would be appreciated. George's SPOG claims quantum gravity
causes a lack of brain development (typical 15%), he calls brain growth
deficit (BGD). He claims this missing part of our brain, is God. Now I
think, if only for hypothesis sake, we assume that the brain growth
deficit is real, I would imagine the missing part of the brain, would
not be the god part, but instead the devil part. My reasoning follows:
George says a full brain brings about a god like man. So it seems to be,
the developed part of the braind would be the god-like part, so the
missing part, that which keeps man from being god-like, would have to be
the devil. Notice the god-part is larger and more powerful (85%) than
the devil part (15%) so this would also seem to fit. So what do you
think, which makes more sense, SPOG (Scientific Proof of God) or SPOD
(Scientific Proof of Devil)?
Thank you for your replies in advance.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Midjis |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Quantum Mirror" <junebug@pgrb.com> wrote :
Quote: It would be
better if we could just kill him but that is illegal in the US.
Why would that be better? Is he such a threat to you? Do you fear him
that much? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quantum Mirror |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Also, if any of you care to tell me what you think of the following
premise, it would be appreciated"
George is bipolar manic depressive and has spent much time in the nut
house. When he gets off his medications and has a manic episode he
believes he is some kind of genius(which is normal for a maniac) and
has found the utterly ridiculous SPOG. It would be better if everyone
would just put him in their killfile and leave him there. It would be
better if we could just kill him but that is illegal in the US. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Midjis |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Quantum Mirror" <junebug@pgrb.com> wrote :
Hilarious. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quantum Mirror |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Why would that be better? Is he such a threat to you? Do you fear
him
that much?"
Joke!
If you were around for awhile and ever got into a discussion with him
you would understand! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Midjis |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"m.kandal" <m.kandal@agmunich.edu> wrote :
Quote: G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity.
Well, as I said, I'm not an academic. But I DO know that most of the time
when people use the word 'virtual' means questions need asking. "Virtually
finished" means "not finished", for example. "Virtual reality" means "not
real".
Here, if this curvature is 'virtual' that means there's something it's NOT
- which is an ACTUAL 'gravitational curvature'. So that begs the question
of what it actually IS - if anything. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| m.kandal |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns966EC61A1F018ZRHGRGGNVWLDRAVKW@213.123.26.234...
Quote: "Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote :
This is a problem in George's theory I have often tried to get him to
address, and he will not. If God = Guv then the curvature fields cause
by gravity have been constant, the degree the Earth's mass has remained
constant. So this would not be a matter related to evolution.
Aren't you deliberately misrepresenting his theory? He has stated in
a number of posts that the SPOG is not related to terrestrial gravity,
cosmological gravity, nor is it related to genetic Evolution.
G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Hammond |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:IpCdnW9q-Na1QTjfRVnytw@pipex.net...
Quote: I think George is a total crackpot. He has shown no science. No proof and
descends into rambling attacks whenever questioned.
<snip krap>
============KOOKIE KUTTER==================
This (professed atheist) is posting a massive ad hominem
and off topic abuse campaign of HAMMOND to multiple ng's.
Please ignore his posts.
======IGNORE USENET HARASSERS==============
====================================
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@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
=================================== |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ZenIsWhen |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns966EC61A1F018ZRHGRGGNVWLDRAVKW@213.123.26.234...
Quote: "Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote :
If you don't know George, this may be a rather boring discussion.
I am sorry about that, but I'm afraid I don't know him. I will try to
limit my comments to the ideas mooted rather than the man himself.
May I first refer you to Quantum Mirror's description just posted in
this thread? George is a troubled individual, who posts from
sci.physics.relativity, to many groups, promoting a theory he calls
Scientific Proof of God (SPOG).
One of many, sadly.
(I'm surprised you haven't seen his posts. Over here, we've seen him
regularly, to the point he has become a habitual and prolific troll. He
is ill mannered, foul in speech, and easily prone to tirades.)
One of many there, too - but no, I do not recall seeing any of his posts,
although I may simply have forgotten. I admit though that I don't spend
much time on science groups since I have little scientific training.
Yet he was a graduate physicist, now homeless and occasionally
institutionalized. And occasionally, one can catch a glimmer of his
former genius. Many of his ideas have a brilliant in them, as well.
Often the way. A gentleman in my local community, now convinced he is
Jesus Christ, was once a very intelligent and talented man, and in his
case
as well, that former 'self' has not disappeared entirely.
Originally, George started out with the incorporation of Einstein's
Field Equation's curvature term, G_uv (pronounced Gee mu nu and
concluded gravity caused God, so he writes Guv = God. His bases was the
gravitational field had caused the symmetries of human brain
organization.
Pardon me taking this step by step, but as I say I am not trained in
science, even abused science...
This seems to me to be a rather circular argument, or at least an argument
based on an a priori provision that if there is a brain, there must be
God.
Therefore, if gravity can be said to have caused the formation of the
brain
in its existent form, gravity must be God.
The reasoning is invalid.
With that oner statement, you've shown you really DO know "George". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ZenIsWhen |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tim" <qwery@qwerty.com> wrote in message
news:c5-dnWHI7KWvmTvfRVn-hw@aci.on.ca...
Quote:
"Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote in message
news:iw8pe.535$D83.5525@eagle.america.net...
Pardon my cross posting, I hope to be brief. I'm sure you've all seen
George Hammond's posts on your groups. George claims he is writing for
the
thousands of normal poeple out there reading him. I suspect his number
is
inflated, so if you would please, reply to this post so we can have a
count.
Feel free to express your appreciation, or otherwise, for George posting
to so many different groups. I think George needs to hear what you think
of him.
Also note, I've politely asked George not to join this conversation, so
we
can talk freely how we feel about SPOG, and to keep it a "scientific"
survey, it would help if he didn't interfere.
Also, if any of you care to tell me what you think of the following
premise, it would be appreciated. George's SPOG claims quantum gravity
causes a lack of brain development (typical 15%), he calls brain growth
deficit (BGD). He claims this missing part of our brain, is God. Now I
think, if only for hypothesis sake, we assume that the brain growth
deficit is real, I would imagine the missing part of the brain, would
not
be the god part, but instead the devil part. My reasoning follows:
George
says a full brain brings about a god like man. So it seems to be, the
developed part of the braind would be the god-like part, so the missing
part, that which keeps man from being god-like, would have to be the
devil. Notice the god-part is larger and more powerful (85%) than the
devil part (15%) so this would also seem to fit. So what do you think,
which makes more sense, SPOG (Scientific Proof of God) or SPOD
(Scientific
Proof of Devil)?
Thank you for your replies in advance.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/dcp00105.JPG
Take a close look at the condition of George's helmet in the picture that
George has proffered in the above link. I believe that the helmet is
indicative of a cause-effect relationship that scientifically proves that
George suffers from his own personal BGD. He can't stay on his bike - how
could anyone trust him to come up with anything meaningful? In short
George
is a crack-pot with a cracked helmet.
You're mistaken. Those specks on his helmet are nort from crashes - they are
remnants of his attempt to infuse the plastic with Aluminum foil. He tried
to take off the foil because the cops, hospital staff, and homeland security
kept stopping him. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| m.kandal |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns966EF063A9C7AZRHGRGGNVWLDRAVKW@213.123.26.234...
Quote: "m.kandal" <m.kandal@agmunich.edu> wrote :
G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity.
Well, as I said, I'm not an academic. But I DO know that most of the time
when people use the word 'virtual' means questions need asking.
"Virtually
finished" means "not finished", for example. "Virtual reality" means "not
real".
Here, if this curvature is 'virtual' that means there's something it's NOT
- which is an ACTUAL 'gravitational curvature'. So that begs the question
of what it actually IS - if anything.
Physicists refer to "virtual particles" as filling the vacuum, and indeed
they produce real effects such as the Casimer Force on parallel plates
which can be easily measured.
They are not actually particles but are field terms which act like
particles.
Hammond posits that Penrose's quantum brain gravity theory is correct,
and that it in fact produces a real curvature in perception which is
identical
to a real gravitational curvature, therefore Penrose's quantum brain gravity
can be said to cause a virtual classical gravitational field. Actually he
shows
that the curvature is directly caused by the brain growth deficit...
therefore
he deduces that brain growth must be mediated by quantum gravity...
a rather obvious extrapolation of Penrose's theory which I'm sure even he
wouldn't quibble with.
By the way, originally Hammond thought God=g_uv (the metric) but when
I suggested (on an Skeptic email forum) that it was probably G_uv (the
Curvature) and not not g_uv (the metric) that he was looking for, he
immediately commandeered my idea and claimed it as his own discovery.
I don't think he knows very much about Relativity, but his intuition about
the SPOG may very well be correct.
Mark Kandal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| T Wake |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:7qppe.860$pa3.188@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Quote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:IpCdnW9q-Na1QTjfRVnytw@pipex.net...
I think George is a total crackpot. He has shown no science. No proof and
descends into rambling attacks whenever questioned.
snip krap
============KOOKIE KUTTER==================
This (professed atheist) is posting a massive ad hominem
and off topic abuse campaign of HAMMOND to multiple ng's.
Please ignore his posts.
======IGNORE USENET HARASSERS==============
I thought you said you weren't going to post here. Are you following me
George? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Randy M. Dumse |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"m.kandal" <m.kandal@agmunich.edu> wrote in message
news:S4ppe.844$pa3.839@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Quote: Aren't you deliberately misrepresenting his theory? He has stated
in a number of posts that the SPOG is not related to terrestrial
gravity, cosmological gravity, nor is it related to genetic Evolution.
G_uv is a curvature in perception caused by a "virtual gravitational
curvature" caused apparently by Penrose's brain gravity.
Am I misrepresenting George's theory? Perhaps.
Deliberately? Not consciously.
There is George, his theory, myself and my personal knowledge, which
shapes my personal understanding, all interacting. To date, I have not
read the Roger Penrose text he has and sights, so I tend to discount his
leaps to quantum gravity.
After all, quantum gravity is a completely open field and unknown
country right now. Given I know of the status of the field, having
several close friends working in the field, and regularly attend
conferences on gravity developments, I do not believe I can present or
represent his quantum opinions either valid or invalid, but completely
beyond speculation at this point. I also have no opinion on George's
position on the tooth fairy. I really don't know what he thinks, and
would be hesitant to speculate.
But in my opinion, and from having read his position prior to his jump
to quantum gravity, back when he was promoting God = Guv by itself, when
he was saying it was classical gravity (and he still does say classical
gravity often still), and knowing whatever advances happen in quantum
gravity will still have to have approximately the same large scale
result we see in classical gravity, I cannot represent George's quantum
gravity position as other than a dodge of what he has already claimed
and now attempts to mask.
He made the jump to quantum gravity about the same time I pointed out if
we birth and raise a child in orbit (zero G), then the child would have
no BGD, and we could see if the child was god-like. Possibly
coincidence.
For my part, I feel I'm spending far to much time explaining and
promoting George's position anyway, when what I really wanted to do was
verify or more likely falsify his claim he had thousands of appreciative
readers out there, and that's why he posts on all these groups.
My two other purposes were to see if George would respect other people's
threads, which so far he has. And to see if the general consensus on the
god/devil thing, if the devil seemed more obvious as the missing part.
So if you've read Roger Penrose's book, and can do a decent job of
explaining George's position, feel free.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Randy M. Dumse |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:7qppe.860$pa3.188@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Quote: ============KOOKIE KUTTER==================
This (professed atheist) is posting a massive ad hominem
and off topic abuse campaign of HAMMOND to multiple ng's.
Please ignore his posts.
======IGNORE USENET HARASSERS==============
Well, Hello George!
You think you can throw people off your threads. Now here you are in
mine! One of my purposes on this thread was to see if you respected the
right of Original Posters to decide who could be on their threads or
not. And when I politely asked you not to post in my thread, and gave a
logical reason for you not doing so, you said:
Quote: [Hammond]
I NEVER post to anyone else's threads ASSHOLE.... its all I can
do to boot your kind of FILTH off my threads........ why would I
want to climb into your SNAKE PIT?
Huh, that was just about... 8 hours ago. And now here you are.
So, George, understand, if you do not respect other's rights, you have
no claim to your own. You may never again, in good conscience, ask
someone to leave your thread, because 1) it is not a right you respect
yourself and 2) it never was a right that ever existed in the first
place.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Randy M. Dumse |
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote in message
news:ypqpe.566$D83.6165@eagle.america.net...
Quote: My two other purposes were to see if George would respect other
people's threads, which so far he has.
Opps. Correction, which he has not respected. He remained faithful to
his word approximately 1/3 of a day.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:14 pm
|
|