Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Dr. Henri Wilson · Guest

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:32:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

[quote]
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:cc1sk31un4cajk0pib36jfc2i9l5molig2@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:37:05 GMT, "Androcles"
Engineer@hogwarts.physics_a
: wrote:
:
:
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:94mrk3h9a71pn53r0uluck1t6npk7h2hcp@4ax.com...
:
: >: >The stationary frame focus of propagation does
: >: >move at c+v, or c-v, in the other frame, but the other
: >: >frame nevertheless also has a focus of propagation
: >: >travelling at velocity c, which is the focus of
: >: >propagation it will detect, if it detects the photon.
: >:
: >: ...all part of the hoax that made Einstein famous for 100 years.
: >:
: >Yep... just like your attempts to copy him.
:
: >"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
: > http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
:
: Don>t lie.

http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
[/quote]
<plonk>

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Dr. Henri Wilson · Guest

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:25:59 -0800 (PST), Don Stockbauer
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 30, 1:29 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:03?am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Man, that>s encouraging. Apparently you can say anything at all in
this group and not be banned. Hmmmm.....

EINSTEIN>S THEORIES HAVE BEEN 100% PROVED EXCEPT FOR A FEW TINY
INCONSEQUENTIAL EXCEPTIONS, MOST LIKELY CLERICAL ERRORS.
[/quote]
Einstein>s whole theory has the credibility of a clerical error.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

George Hammond · Guest

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:19:35 GMT, George Hammond
<Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:46:08 GMT, "John Smith"
<bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:49lfv39rrjobrm5qcfs27v9ve9l5oq22aj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:07:34 GMT, "John Smith"
bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Hammond]
We>re taling about "exist" or "not exist", not "confirm" or
"not confirm". I>m just saying that with no people nothing
can "exist".... i.e. how would you know it "existed" if
there were no people? Nothing would "exist", because
"existence", obviously and de facto, depends on the prior
existence of Man. That>s not rocket science Einstein, its
simple logic.

No; it>s Hammondcrap - just like all the other piles.

[Hammond]
You>re an aggravated kook.
The AP is a "prima facie truism".
Stephen Hawking says:

HAWKING:
"The Anthropioc Principle can be paraphrased as-
We see the universe the way it is because we exist."
( Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 128)

Which: 1 - is as much a philosphical statement as it is a personal
observation.
and

[Hammond][/quote]
Not so Jackass... Hawking says on the next page:

[HAWKING]
"Few people would argue with the validity or utility of
the Anthropic Principle."
( Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 129)

That>s a SCIENTIFIC statement, jackass.
[quote]

2: means absoutely nothing as far as supporting ANY of your uinsane
argument.

[Hammond][/quote]
Not so Jackass, Hammond>s SPOG says that the human mind
is the "creator of existence" therefore the human mind
created the Universe and all of reality when it came into
being 200,000 years ago. this is provwen by the fact that
with no human minds, reality would not exist!
That very assertation is PRIMA FACIE IMPLICIT in the
Anthropic Principle which is now accepted universally in
Science.
[quote]

Anybody who would try to argue against that obvious
truism is an aggravated imbecile.

Anyone who would try to connect that OBSERVATION to scientificic certainties
.. is nothing mote than ..... than .......a george hammond.

[Hammond][/quote]
1. It is a scientific certainty that the universe is 14
billion years old because of the AP.
2. It is a scientific certainty that there is an excited
state of C-14 because of the AP. (Hoyle)
3. It is a scientific certainty that Dirac>s famous
variable-G conjecture is explained by it (Dicke)

So... Hammond merely points out that the (universally
accepted) modern Anthropic Principle clearly support>s the
founding principle of Hammond>s SPOG.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

George Hammond · Guest

On Wed, 07 May 2008 07:21:14 GMT, George Hammond
<Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

[quote]
On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:26:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt"[/quote]
<Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On May 5, 4:40 pm, "Varekem" <hanaram...@archangels.mil> wrote:

(brevity snip)

Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?

No. I am saying that what he says is _partly_ correct, that humans
are capable only of observing that which we are capable of observing.
That would be a simple tautology except for the BGD (Brain Growth
Deficit)* issue; different humans are capable of observing different
amounts of reality due to their state of development in terms of how
accurately their DNA had the opportunity to be expressed as they grew
to adulthood, limited by in-utero and later nutrition and so on.

I am saying that he is partly _incorrect_ not in that the above is
false (for it is obviously not) but in so far failing to analyze the
meaning of "perception" to see that it breaks finally down to physical
photon-driven interactions between fundamental particles.

George built the SPOG on a correspondence between the BGD and
Relativity* in that a fully developed human would "see" a "flat
psychometric* universe" such that nothing would be hidden beyond its
curvature analogous to how we cannot see into the past beyond a
certain point no matter how good a telescope we use; the Universe
simply is so big that some things are too far away for their light to
ever get here.

Since the causes of what happen around us are observable, and the
more you can observe, the more causes you can correlate with effects,
the more you will attribute to "God" when you cannot perceive but a
little of reality. A fully developed human brain would support a mind
without such limitations; it would "know the mind of 'God'".

What he has not so far accepted (I think) is that _all_ physically
real entities are subject to similar general rules except that
inorganic entities are not subject to a developmental BGD but rather
to situational limitations in their range of perception. Get down to
the level of electrons and it>s obvious that a free electron can
"perceive" much more than can one confined in an orbital; the latter
is completely "blind" to photons that do not correspond to allowed
transitions. Of course electrons can change their situation so there
is no direct analog of "growth" for them, but they are extremely
simple systems- something as complex as a human brain is time-
direction-limited and cannot be "ungrown" from a given point then
"regrown" with more nutrients etc. to improve their functionality.

Hence the SPOG is not only congruent with Relativity but Quantum
Mechanics as well; if George will recognize and develop the latter
congruence fully he will have done what Einstein tried and failed to
do; unite Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This will make it simply
impossible for an educated person to reject the SPOG in part or in
whole.

It is my suspicion that George resists my points due to his strong
orthodox Christian upbringing which places Humanity at the apex of
Creation, and completely discounts the possibility of other
sentiences. It is this sort of thinking that informs the "observer
effect" in the infamous Schroedinger>s Cat gedankenexperiment- that
only a human can "observe" the outcome of an event. Yet when pressed,
a proponent of that view will admit that an observer isolated in a
laboratory with the apparatus CANNOT "collapse the waveform" for the
universe exterior to the lab until he tells someone outside, WHICH IS
BLATANTLY RIDICULOUS. AN OBSERVER IS AN OBSERVER, BE THEY HUMAN, CAT,
OR A SINGLE ORBITAL ELECTRON IN THE RADIATION DETECTOR APPARATUS.

OTOH one could argue that the perceptions of an electron are simply
not relevant to any sort of "God" concept humans would be interested
in, but I point out that the SPOG is a PHYSICAL theory which CANNOT
afford to ignore the physics it is rooted in. It is my contention that
George is IGNORING one of the major roots of the SPOG. Without it the
SPOG is fatally incomplete just as current physics is and for the
exact same reasons; the elaborate developments of Relativity and
Quantum mechanics separately describe beautifully and deeply many,
many aspects of reality; but until they are combined successfully
NEITHER IS ADEQUATE ON ITS OWN for there are many phenomena each
CANNOT ALONE describe or predict. Hence the SPOG is HOBBLED from
explaining and predicting many phenomena of the human brain and mind
until George buckles down to COMPLETING the SPOG by FULLY quantizing
it. I will point out that he has started to by realizing that the
ancients had already split the idea into what I called eigengods
except they called them members of a pantheon. Now George must reach
down into the guts of the SPOG and see that it must ALL be similarly
quantized.

(There is also the possibility that George thinks that what I write
may simply be elaborate mockery. However I say let what I write stand
on its own merit. I have no stake one way or the other save this; I
believe that if the SPOG becomes generally known and accepted, a large
proportion of the population will be relieved of the usual anxiety and
guilt over their intellectual status which gives religions the control
used to manipulate them into becoming tools of "smarter" people
leading to wars and mass deaths.)

Again I emphasize that this will make the SPOG completely
INDISPUTABLE ON ANY BASIS TO AN EDUCATED PERSON.

At one time I had suggested that George break the SPOG>s components
down into a set of "baby steps" that an uneducated person could follow
from one to the next so that any person who could read would be led
inexorably to accept the SPOG but George seems to think this to be
unnecessary. I suggested it as a way to bypass "authoritative"
arguments against the SPOG by educated persons with an agenda to
defend; currently to grok the SPOG one must be at least passingly
familiar with many separate disciplines from General Relativity to
neurophysiology. Most people simply glaze over at detailed
descriptions and accept the pronouncements of "authorities", and
perhaps George is right; most people would simply glaze over at the
prospect of even a single volume version of "baby stepped SPOG".

* These and other terms' relevance to the SPOG are better explained by
George; I spell them out just for clarity in this limited context.

Mark L. Fergerson

[Hammond][/quote]
Mark,...... whew..... I>m glad to find out that "Dr.
Hotsalt" is actually you!
For Christ>s sake Ferguson you scared the shit out of me!
You know BTW; just pigeon holing our names, if we were
flying a B-24 in WWII you would have been the pilot and I
would have been merely the navigator.... its against
regulations for pilots to be scaring the shit out of
navigators ya know!
What I mean is, I read through the first few paragraphs of
your post and thought I was listening to an all time record
breaking genius, whom I thought must be some internationally
known polymath posting under a phony name and was absolutely
floored by the guy>s understanding of the SPOG.
Frankly, from what I remember of talking to you back in
2000, I didn>t recall that you had so much of a handle on
the SPOG... but I guess we>re all 8 years older and wiser
now!
Unfortunately you didn>t post until 2:30 in the morning
and it>s now after 3 am. So, I>m going to print out your
post and will study it tomorrow morning over breakfast at
the local town coffee shop. It is a long and penetrating
post and I want to study it thoroughly, and will post a full
reply tomorrow afternoon.
Meanwhile, thank Christ for people like you who can still
think on their feet and who have the savvy to notice a
discussion like this and know what it is about.
Thanks for making my day.
George Hammond
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

George Hammond · Guest

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:48:17 -0800 (PST), "nuny@bid.nes"
<Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Dec 14, 10:52 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
Note: Heavy traffic may hit my website looking for this
picture so that it may become temporarily overloaded. If so
try again after the rush is over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHOTO OF GOD

Here is the picture, and it needs a little explaining:

http://www.geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Photo-of-God.JPG
(image copyright Kevin Atkinson 2007)

The photo is a single still frame captured from a
computerized "curvature" video made by Kevin Atkinson a
celebrated Canadian programmer and video producer. The
original video from which it is taken may be seen on his
Internet Blog at
http://methodart.blogspot.com/2007/09/been-too-busy-to-post-for-while-but.html
(all images copyright Kevin Atkinson 2007)

The person in the photograph is in fact Kevin Atkinson
himself. Of course by no means am I implying that Kevin
Atkinson is God, don>t be ridiculous... the video could have
been taken of any person, including you or me!
The reason this is a photo of God however is that it
captures two images of the person a split second apart so
that two faces are superimposed, but due to the TIME VARYING
CURVATURE ALGORITHM being used, the two faces are not
completely identical....in fact the main difference is in
the eyes. Notice that the face seems to have two sets of
different eyes!
The two sets of eyes are "curved" differently (as in a
curved mirror) even thought the rest of the face is nearly
identical, and this is why I say that it is a PHOTOGRAPH OF
GOD. If you follow my instructions you will see why!
By the way, real fans may want to blow the picture up
using their "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" which is on
every computer running Windows.
Now, by taking a coffee stirrer or pencil, depending on
how much you>ve blown the picture up, simply block out the
lower set of eyes. This leaves us with what I call the
"upper face". Now block out the upper set of eyes, and this
leaves us what I call the "lower face".
Upper and lower here refers to the difference in
development apparent in the two faces. Notice that the upper
face looks much large and stronger than the lower face, much
more dominant and powerful.

[Mark L. Fergerson]
Long time no talk, George. Couple of points:

[George Hammond][/quote]
Hi Mark, glad to see you>re still saddled up. I>ve been
studying your comments and am highly impressed with your
comprehension...extremely rare for Usenet or even academia
for that matter!
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
I would primarily characterize the lower and upper faces as being
those of a youth and an adult respectively rather than using the terms
(larger, stronger, dominant, powerful) that you did, based on my
perception that in the lower face the eyes are smaller, closer
together, and lower on the face making the skull appear
proportionately larger and the nose reduced in vertical length as in a
child, whereas in the "upper face" the eyes are larger, farther apart,
and higher on the face making the skull and nose appear in relative
adult proportion.

[Hammond][/quote]
Yes... we>re looking at a "growth deficit", and yes
"youth" is the classic exemplar of a growth deficit.. a 9
year old is roughly "half grown" compared to an 18 yr old
adult therefore has a "growth deficit" of 50%.
As you know, "God" is caused by an adult or "terminal"
growth deficit according to the SPOG.
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
I find this interesting because we both performed an instinctive
assessment of the two faces based on our (and every human>s) inbuilt
awareness of the SPOG; we parsed them by age (and in your case by
puissance) based on the criteria we all have in the facial recognition
wetware in our optic cortex; your choice of terminology was perhaps
indicative of a greater priority in your mind for such things than
mine, though I do indeed recognize what you describe.

[Hammond][/quote]
"Youth vs. adult" may certainly be characterized by a
"puissance" difference. Also notable is that Intelligence
(mental age) increases linearly with growth also.... and
perhaps you were focusing more on the Intelligence
difference rather than the apparent "class" difference.
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
The relative curvature of the lower face>s eyes suggest to me a
pseudo-racial effect, or possibly a genetic defect e.g. Downs'
syndrome.

[Hammond][/quote]
Yes, Down>s Syndrome for sure, certainly the lower face
reflects abnormally lowered intelligence. Racial nuance I
think is irrelevant since both persons are de facto racially
(e.g. genetically) identical... basically the lower face
looks "lower class" compared to the upper face. Of course
as you know Intelligence correlates directly with "social
class",in fact some call it the "definer" of social class.
Point is, "class" so called is obviously composed of both
Nature and Nurture (i.e. BOTH genetics and growth). In this
case the difference in apparent class is de facto ENTIRELY
caused by a difference in growth since both persons are
genetically identical. The difference between the two
people is COMPLETELY due to "God" in other words!
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
The former may be a mere wetwired misperception due to my
European/Mediterranean heritage. The latter may be an actual
genetically-wired "diagnosis" of diminished competence as you implied.
Such perceptive capacity would be very useful in pretechnological
humans (or for that matter any species, but particularly social
mammals), so we could recognize at a glance relatively vulnerable
individuals.

[Hammond][/quote]
Obviously I intentionally selected an example with the
MAXIMUM apparent difference in Class (e.g. maximum
Intelligence difference) and this required that I look for a
frame that made the lower face practically look like a
Retarded individual with subnormal IQ for the purposes of
dramatization.
[quote]
[George Hammond]
Interestingly, and unknown to most people, many
professionals and otherwise worldly people can actual "see"
the double identity of most people. Yes, due to repression
which we all have, most of us have a "double identity" and
very few of us are aware of it. This rarely bothers the
average person, but in extreme cases "God" may break through
and move the person up towards the invisible man in all of
us... in which case the person may undergo a personality
change.

[Mark L. Fergerson]
The potential for this perceptive ability must exist in all of us
but is rarely used for the fairly obvious reason that in most of us,
there is not sufficient brain growth to make use of it _and_ live our
day-to-day lives.

[Hammond][/quote]
No, in most of us there is not sufficient EXPERIENCE to
develop this perceptual power.
Anybody is capable of developing this perceptive
ability... the question simply being who would want to? It
turns out that it has useful application particularly in
social leadership, Art, Psychology, Politics, business
management, Acting, Combat, Religion etc.... basically it is
a "social skill" as opposed to merely "technical skill" such
as bricklaying and therefore is only acquired on a "need to
know basis" by people who are in charge of directing other
people. Supposedly the priesthood are traditionally the
masters of the art.
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
In many people though the ability exists to a great degree; anyone
capable of "reading" people deeply such as (some) psychologists,
police, and politicians, not to mention many criminal classes e.g. con
men.

[George Hammond][/quote]
Exactly correct!
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
This brings up a point I>ve been wanting to discuss for some time
but just haven>t gotten around to; that brain growth is not consistent
across the board as it were, extreme examples being so-called idiot
savants of various kinds (and less extreme being what are currently
called "nerds"). I use that term in a rather broader fashion than most
though, I include what most would consider the exact opposite of such,
namely politicians and others who, while capable of gaining others'
trust and manipulating them on brief acquaintance, are however not
particularly adept at anything else and may actually measure as fairly
stupid according to current standardized tests.

[Hammond][/quote]
Idiot savants are a case of an extreme personality
syndrome in reaction of severe repression... bordering on
Autism in come cases. Generally speaking their overall
growth is quite average and their apparent "idiocy" is due
more to severe personality distortion and repression more
than anything else IMHO.
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
For instance, I parsed the image in one specific set of terms, you
in another. Both are valid but _partial_ descriptions of the subject.
An individual with zero BGD would not have missed either and would
have been able to add much that neither of us would comprehend.

[George Hammond][/quote]
A person with a "zero growth deficit" would of course be
God in the flesh! No such person has ever existed according
to Secular Trend data nor is expected to be born within the
foreseeable future, the Christian legend of Christ
notwithstanding.
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
I bring this up because I was thinking about how to objectively
assess a given individual>s BGD. As you know, current I.Q. testing
uses as its standard what amounts to the average BGD of all previously
tested individuals of comparable calendar age. But that tells us
nothing about what a given individual might have attained had they
been achieved their brain growth potential (or BGP, a convenient
term).

[George Hammond][/quote]
Yes that problem is central to the SPOG. Fact is there
is no laboratory means available to determine what exactly
the size of the population growth deficit actually is,
although it is not hard to estimate it from long experience
with known data. this is one of the fundamental problems in
the field known as Auxology. After 20 years of looking at
the data I estimate the human growth deficit to be somewhere
in the neighborhood of 20%, on average.
Basically one can estimate it in principle by observing
the curvature of the Secular Trend curve in human growth
(height for instance). this is known to be a Logistics
(sigmoidal) curve and Roughly speaking it appears that it
will plateau at something like 20% taller than we are at
present.
Also illuminating data comes from many diverse Auxology
databases. For instance Orchids are an example of exact
genetic "clones", they are all identical twins. Thousands
of generations of these plants have been grown in ideal
hothouse conditions in CA for decades so therefore we may
assume they have reached their "genotypic full size" by now.
It is quite obvious from inspection that this growth
increase is somewhere in the range of 20% over wild Orchids.
The argument here is that since the Industrial Revolution we
have become sort of "hothouse" flowers in the West and
indeed the average school child has increased 3.5 inches
since 1900 and since leveled off.
The same is true of Red Tailed Deer almost dying out in
Europe transplanted to the US where the growth increase
amounted to some 20 or 30% after a few generations.
Also immense data on "nutrition growth stunting" from
third World countries supports the idea that that the human
growth deficit currently is about 20%. IOW, all of this
diverse data supports our interpretation of the Secular
Trend curve in human growth prediction that we are at
present about 20% short of full growth, historically.
Historically, when we finally reach 100% growth is known
in Theology as "Kingdom Come". Predicting the date of
Kingdom Come is practically the central problem of Auxology.
Needless to say is apparently thousands of years in the
future.
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson]
Obviously determining an individual>s BGP will also require huge
advances in the understanding of our DNA and what it can achieve given
unrestricted supplies of the chemical building blocks it requires and
freedom from interference by disease organisms, toxic chemicals etc.
ISTM we should (eventually) be able to look at an individual>s DNA and
know what their BGP is, and then measure it directly rather than
having to infer it from mass measurements and guesswork as is done
with conventional I. Q. testing.

[Hammond][/quote]
The entire problem is tied up with the Standard of Living
It is the Standard of Living that determines when Kingdom
Come (zero growth deficit) is going to arrive.
The Logistics Curve (growth curve) is generated by the
well known Feedback equation:

open loop gain
Closed loop gain = -----------------------------
1 + open loop gain
A
or G = --------
1 + A

Now, to see how this works in the case of the SECULAR TREND,
we simply identify G as the average percentage of brain
growth in the population of the world (somewhere between 0
and 100 percent) and we identify A as the "Standard of
Living of the civilization. A is assumed to be growing
exponentially with time, i.e. because of population increase
and the invention of tools, mass production, (synergy) etc.
OK, using:

A = a exp(bt)

we get:
a exp(bt)
G = ------------
1 + a exp(bt)

or:
1
G = -----------------
1 + 1/a exp(-bt)

Which is the standard formula for the famous SIGMOIDAL
GROWTH CURVE.

This explains why the Secular Trend is observed to be a
Sigmoidal Curve. Notice in particular that A, the Standard
of Living, has to go to infinity in order for G, human
growth, to reach 100% !!
And by the way, the Cybernetic Loop (the feedback
equation) in Theology is known as the "Trinity of God"
(input=Father, output=Son, feedback=Holy Ghost) and was
discovered by Christianity 1500 years before modern Science!
[quote]

[Mark L. Fergerson
Why do I care about this? Because it would be very useful to know
exactly what the maximum potential mentational performance of modern
humanity is. I use the word "mentation" to include not just
traditional "intelligence"-oriented mental tasks like math and
sociocultural norm recognition, but other less commonly considered
functions like the subject of your post.

It>s obvious that what we consider our highest aims may well be
completely irrelevant compared to what we could achieve with zero BGD,
but it would be nice to know how far off we are so we could stop
wasting time and effort on things we will consider pointless in a few
dozen generations, when we>ve eliminated starvation and other barriers
to full growth.

[Hammond][/quote]
Well as you can see it is necessary for the Standard of
Living to reach infinity in order to reduce the human growth
deficit to zero, or put the other way around, as the growth
deficit approaches zero, the world Standard of Living will
approach INFINITY!
Try to imagine a world with an "infinite" standard of
living..... the idea of being simply "rich" pales in
comparison!
[quote]
[George Hammond]
Of further interest is the common ailment of
"schizophrenia" so called. In this case the person has
become disturbed and has discovered that there is another
reality and another identity... and before he recovers he
may see "both people at once" when interacting with other
people.... he may actually SEE people with two faces such as
in Atkinson>s photo!

[Mark L. Fergerson]
From personal experience I can tell you that certain hallucinogens
also enhance the perceptual ability.

[Hammond][/quote]
Yes, and that is EXACTLY the lure and fascination of
hallucinogenic drugs.... or even narcotic drugs! There has
always been a quest for a "drug" that would allow you to see
God or reach Heaven... and I wouldn>t rule the idea out...
but it is a fact that no drug so far has been able to effect
a permanent lifting of "repression" and therefore made any
substantial progress toward reducing the human growth
deficit. Even ordinary medical psychotropic drugs work in
this direction, but most physicians are agreed that
psychotropics only treat the symptoms of repression rather
than actually removing the repression.
[quote]

[George Hammond]
This of course calls for professional
counseling before it gets out of hand. Hopefully this kind
of research will ultimately provide a new tool for easing
the change to a new personality without running the risk of
falling into the trap of schizophrenia or other less severe
mental illness.

[Mark L. Fergerson]
Did I not tell you years ago that a fully developed SPOG will not
just replace, but make a mockery of, conventional psychiatry and
psychology?

[Hammond][/quote]
Indeed. and that is one reason why the leading
Psychology Journals wouldn>t publish my discovery of the
Structural Model and I had to publish it in a Philosophy
Journal where it has sat unread since 1994.
Academic in general are scared to death of me and twice
as jealous. It is doubtful that I will ever receive any
help from that quarter.
[quote]
[George Hammond]
At any rate, take it from me... our Canadian film
producer and computer guru HAS effected one of the world>s
first "photographs of God" .

[Mark L. Fergerson]
Yes he has, George.

[Hammond][/quote]
Wow... you are now the only person of record who has
publicly agreed with me! I won>t forget that any time soon.
[quote]

[Mark L. Fergerson]
Now, how will you apply it?

[Hammond][/quote]
At the moment I am more concerned with collecting
illustrations for my upcoming book than anything else:

THE
SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD

(Hammond, ISBN 0-940915-34-0 to be released 2009)

However, as you point out in the following 2 paragraphs,
the ultimate application of the SPOG is t put the discovery
of God into a VIRTUAL REALITY format... i.e. to actually SEE
and experience what "Heaven" really is !
Kevin Atkinson>s video of course is merely the accidental
discovery of the Rosetta Stone of this large new world of
possibilities.

[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
Consider for
instance sitting someone in front of a monitor running a descendant of
Atkinson>s software crossed with police suspect-face-drawing software,
and measuring your subject>s emotional state via the sort of
instruments used in lie detectors to feed back to the software,
eventually producing a face that the subject>s "subconscious" will
consider perfect; this will be unmistakable from the subject>s
physiological responses. What the subject considers perfect will tell
an observer much about the subject>s BGD and current mental state; it
might even be possible to "cure" certain forms of schizophrenia by
deliberately steering the software to draw a particular kind of face
for the subject to perceive.

[George Hammond][/quote]
I>m frankly totally amazed that are able to discern all
of this. I>m trying now to recall your vocational and
academic background and can>t for the life of me remember.
However you are obviously old enough and experienced enough
to comprehend the "diamond in the rough" scenario which is
what Atkinson>s accidental video discovery is.
Kevin has obviously made the first strike in what is a
very large gold field. A strike that ultimately will
involve the Hollywood graphic arts industry, the entire
scientific community, the APA, the APsyA, and even the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, for heaven>s sake!
[quote]
[Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
Consider running such a test backwards; present a person with a
"perfect" face based on their own DNA-determined BGD, then morph it in
ways gauged to decrease its perfection in specific ways, monitoring
the subject to see when he considers it "normal". This could also
treat certain forms of mental illnesses, particularly the sort of OCD
derived from the usual socially-induced "failure to measure up" to
bogus ideals.

[Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
Now consider that this sort of thing is already being done in a
primitive fashion by marketers presenting us with "perfect" salesmen/
women/presenters, by political parties presenting us with "ideal"
candidates,.. would it not be better to take this powerful tool away
from such venal uses?

[George Hammond][/quote]
Using presently available technology (albeit guided by
mental health professionals and Hollywood caliber graphic
artists) to generate "psychology films" that can effectively
"show" a person undergoing therapy for personality change
what his "new reality" will actually look like. Obviously
this is a great advance over the traditional methods of
simply trying to tell the patient about it... showing is far
more effective than telling, since as we know, seeing is
believing.
In such a film, the facial personas of the person>s
current world can be depicted especially instances of
personality clash.... and then the film would cut to the
"new reality viewpoint" where the person>s antagonist would
suddenly be miraculously transformed into another facial
identity, and the viewer would gasp with a sigh of relief
and comprehension, and his entire psychological problem, and
his entire life, would be suddenly transformed. I believe
such a development is nearly at hand using current theory
and technology. Of course it would revolutionize Psychology
and mental health as we know it.
On the "normal psychology" front, of course the demand
for documentary, educational and entertainment material will
be enormous. Actual films of "Heaven" eventually will be
generated... films that will transform our everyday world
into a Gulliver>s Travel>s/Grandma Moses type of reality and
historically transform the public understanding of God,
Heaven and Religion.
Ultimately of course, technology will harness these
developments to the nascent field of "Virtual Reality"
whereby a person will actually be able to physically "visit
Heaven" or visit the diverse and sundry world>s that many of
our citizens are actually living in. It would be
fascinating and highly instructive to see the world through
the eyes of an Adolph Hitler, or Osama Bin Ladin... to say
nothing of it>s value to public security.

[quote][Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
As usual George I come across as impatient. I know, why didn>t _I_
invent this embodiment of your SPOG so you didn>t have to stumble
across it?

Beats me.

Mark L. Fergerson

[George Hammond][/quote]
Mark, we are certainly indebted to you for stepping up to
the plate and posting something knowledgeable, commanding
and positive about Hammond>s SPOG to the public world of
Usenet.
After this demonstration of your profound comprehension
of the SPOG any further remarks or suggestions you might
have would be very welcome.
Regards,
George Hammond MS Physics,
Cape Cod MA, Dec. 2008

=====================================
HAMMOND>S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Philosophy - Tech Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33
Page 33 of 33