|
daimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 21 hours
|
Scientific Proof of God
#5381163 - 03/09/06 12:36 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Link
Quote:
Abstract:-- This paper follows The Cartesian Theory (Hammond, New Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2), 1994) which advanced 3-axis brain cleavage as the cause of the Structural Model. This second paper reports gravitational curvature in the brain. Intelligence plus Personality form a 4D space. The eigenvector of the 4x4 metric is the Secular Trend and Einstein curvature Guv of linearized gravity. Penrose's quantum brain gravity is the source thus confirming the Hameroff-Penrose model. This factor proves to be the classical "God" of history. A causal link between Relativity and the Structural Model yields the world's first experimentally confirmed scientific proof of God.
Anyone read this? What are your thoughts?
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
|
beavis190
(.Y.)'s


Registered: 01/25/06
Posts: 432
Loc: lost in my head
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: daimyo]
#5381255 - 03/09/06 12:58 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i barley understand that but from what i did how can u link the brain to god? u cannot prove/disprove the existence of god with out solid evidence. "god created adam and eve" science---evolution
"god created the world: science--big bang theory and many others. there always seems to be an explanation for what god did and it is nature but people will not except it
--------------------
Confucius Says ... Man who put cock in Peanut Butter jar is Fucking Nuts. Man with tool in woman mouth May not necessarily be dentist. Schoolboy who play with schoolgirl during wrong period, get caught red-handed. He who fish in other's hole often catch crabs. Man who go to sleep with itchy butt, wake with smelly fingers... Man young when he snatches kisses, old when he kisses snatches.
|
Darkcloud
tiwkcuFtsilihiN


Registered: 04/06/03
Posts: 1,331
Loc: USA
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: beavis190]
#5381359 - 03/09/06 01:25 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well, this "God" that they are talking about is more like a "reality processor device" rather than the traditional idea of a god.
To sum it up, here's a quote from about halfway through it: "At the 4th order, brain growth determines the percentage of reality (size and speed of the world) that a person can actually see; and therein lies the explanation of why this factor is identified as "God"."
Daimyo: Thanks for the interesting read.
|
psychomime
o_O



Registered: 05/16/05
Posts: 520
Last seen: 2 years, 18 days
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: daimyo]
#5381998 - 03/09/06 04:22 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
very interesting read. one wonders though if equating god with unrealised brain growth is a valid assumption. however the argument that this unrealised growth affects our perception of reality (due to relative perception), is a very intriguing explanation of God's ability to influence our lives.
|
LeastResistance
Camp Pink Onion


Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: psychomime]
#5383051 - 03/09/06 09:07 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
hahahahaha
-------------------- "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: daimyo]
#5383971 - 03/10/06 12:58 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It read like something Jonathan Swift would write.
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero


Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 24 days
|
|
i fail to see how it means "God"
you could replace "God" with "magic pixie dust" and the equations would still works
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: kotik]
#5384820 - 03/10/06 09:30 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|

Search Google for "George E. Hammond". Nothing pertaining to this specific George E. Hammond results. For someone who proposes The scientific proof of God, he certainly hasn't received his kudos or his recognition by the scientific community. 
Search Google for "The Scientific Proof Of God". The same site comes up in the results, as well as the same site on a different host. Anything else that pertains to this exact topic is either in the form of a religious-based site that proudly exalts the triumph of a scientific proof of God, and a couple of science-related forums that tend to question and ridicule the site.
None of which disproves the proof itself, of course. I'd address the proof, but I had an incredible amount of trouble discerning exactly what the hell it was saying, much less trouble figuring out what it actually had to do with God, or how it is to be considered "proof".
The shocking thing, I think, is that universities do not study this proof, or attempt to test it. For as much as it is presented as a scientific proof, with a numerous amount of references to stuff based in science, it simply doesn't even seem to be acknowledged by any scientific community, much less addressed. 
My favorite quote from researching this man and his "proof" with Google:
Quote:
George Hammond has been hanging out in physics newsgroups for about three years, I think.
He's generally treated with scorn and derision (which is a bit disturbing because he has at times indicated that he's had treatment for mental illness).
Check out this link where he compares himself to Mendel, and draw your own conclusions
I've added the link to the quote from one of the discussions that I found about it, and I will also do this community one better by providing his own comparison of himself to Mendel, which is hosted on the same website as his proof is. 
Quote:
Subject: Comparing George Hammond to Gregor Mendel Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:21:47 GMT From: George Hammond <ghammond@attbi.com> Organization: AT&T Broadband Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.skeptic
[Hammond]
Gregor Mendel is famous for being the first to discover if 2 genetic types A and B mate they will produce progeny in the ratio AA +2AB + BB. IOW, if a black rabbit and a white rabbit have a family of 4 rabbits, one will be white, one black, and 2 will be grey, statistically. This is known today as the basic "law of genetics", and is a simple result of mathematical probability acting on genes.
Interestingly, this famous discovery was published by Gregor Mendel and it was totally ignored by science until 40 years after his death... an account of the situation is given below:
Gregor Mendel, the "Father of Genetics" was born in 1822 to a relatively poor peasant family. As an adult he entered the Augustinian monastery in Brunn. He also went to study science and mathematics at the University of Vienna but failed his exams to receive a degree. He later returned to the monastery where he became an abbot and spent the rest of his life. At the monastery, he started investigations of heredity of plants at the monastery's experimental garden. In 1866 he published his work but it didn't take affect in the science field until 1900, years after his death, when it was "rediscovered" by European scientists. Mendel's paper, was written in German and published in, the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Br?nn. 115 copies of the journal are known to have been distributed (Olby, p. 103), and one even found its way into the library of Charles Darwin. We know that Darwin did not read Mendel's paper (the pages were uncut at the time of Darwin's death), though he apparently did read other articles in the issue. Like Darwin, most of the journal's recipients seem to have been uninfluenced by Mendel's paper. Gregor Mendel died in Brunn on January 6, 1884.
============== end quote ===================================
[Hammond] It is said that history repeats itself, and the question of whether Hammond's discovery of a "scientific proof of God" is in fact another "Mendel incident", seems to be a real issue, to wit:
1. Hammond, like Mendel, comes from low class peasant origins.
2. Hammond, like Mendel, is also highly persuaded of the practical necessity of Religion.
3. Hammond, like Mendel, studied science and failed to take a PhD
4. Hammond, like Mendel, spent many years in isolation, not in a monastery, but homeless shelters, flop houses etc., studying an obscure subject (Psychometry).
5. Hammond, like Mendel, has made a "historic scientific discovery", a discovery entirely unanticipated by the scientific establishment.
6. Hammond, like Mendel, is ignored by scientific authorities, and has only published one paper in an obscure journal.
7. Mendel spent the remainder of his life bickering with the Church over religious matters, and died an embittered man. Hammond likewise spends most of his time bickering with scientific hecklers on the Internet science newsgroups, (not available to Mendel).
So.. the question is, is it possible that the discovery of the worlds first true "scientific proof of God" is slated to run the same gauntlet as the discovery of the law of genetics.. another "Mendel incident"? And just how close is the similarity between Mendel and Hammond?

 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
From wikipedia.org
Psychometry is a type of retrocognition. Psychometry, like all other paranormal abilities, is unconfirmed and hotly debated in most circles.
This term refers to bursts of energy and/or memories, both negative and positive, which have left an ?imprint? upon an object or place. For instance, a house where a traumatic experience has happened, such as a murder or suicide, may feel distinctly chilled or ?bad?; while a favorite childhood toy or play area may feel light or ?good?. A place or thing may be so charged with emotions and memories that it may even seem haunted.
He has derived a scientific proof of God from studying a "scientific" area of study that has not been proven? 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Darkcloud
tiwkcuFtsilihiN


Registered: 04/06/03
Posts: 1,331
Loc: USA
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: He has derived a scientific proof of God from studying a "scientific" area of study that has not been proven? 
I agree with you that he seems to be using pseudo science in a way, but he's actually right about this. There are two definitions. One is used by psychologists, and the other one is used by supposed "psychics".
Psychometrics: "Measuring mental traits, capacities, and processes: a branch of psychology dealing with the measurement of mental traits, capacities, and processes ( takes a singular verb ) "
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861736135/psychometrics.html
Psychometry "Divination by touching object: the alleged ability to obtain information about a person or event by touching an object related to that person or event."
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736134
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: Darkcloud]
#5384965 - 03/10/06 10:05 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Darkcloud said: Psychometrics: "Measuring mental traits, capacities, and processes: a branch of psychology dealing with the measurement of mental traits, capacities, and processes ( takes a singular verb ) "
How would someone residing in homeless shelters and the like study such a branch of psychology in a scientific manner? 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Darkcloud
tiwkcuFtsilihiN


Registered: 04/06/03
Posts: 1,331
Loc: USA
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Darkcloud said: Psychometrics: "Measuring mental traits, capacities, and processes: a branch of psychology dealing with the measurement of mental traits, capacities, and processes ( takes a singular verb ) "
How would someone residing in homeless shelters and the like study such a branch of psychology in a scientific manner? 
 Peace.
Some colleges offer it, but it's not as well known.
For example: http://www.educ.ucok.edu/PSY/certification.asp http://www.wmcarey.edu/academics/education/docs/psychom.shtml
|
LazyCrash
I like gas.


Registered: 07/02/05
Posts: 896
Loc: T-Town
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:

3. Hammond, like Mendel, studied science and failed to take a PhD

 Peace.
Excuse for not being a life long student?
--------------------
|
daimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 21 hours
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: daimyo]
#5388768 - 03/11/06 10:31 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There's plenty of source bashing done in the usenet groups. I was hoping more for debate on the work(as far out there as it is) itself. Would a mod be kind enough to move this to the "Science and Technology" forum.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Scientific Proof of God [Re: daimyo]
#5389277 - 03/11/06 01:43 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daimyo said: There's plenty of source bashing done in the usenet groups. I was hoping more for debate on the work(as far out there as it is) itself.
Its interesting to not discover any discourse pertaining to the work itself while searching around for information on the proof. Aside from the site itself, the "source bashing", and huzzahs from religious sites, there doesn't seem to be anyone addressing this.
The only debate on the work itself involves demonstrating how the conclusion doesn't make sense. Clouds form interesting shapes, thus, God is proven. Same thing, eh? 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
Does Hammond ever explain what 'God' is or put 'God' into operational terms?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: Does Hammond ever explain what 'God' is or put 'God' into operational terms?
Quote:
As Relativists know, the eigenvector of the spacetime metric is caused by mass and is called Gravity. As we shall demonstrate, the eigenvector of the psychometry metric is caused by brain growth and is called "God". Since real space causes psychometry space? God is caused by Gravity. Penrose's brain gravity is identified as the (semiclassical) source of this curvature. Now, compared to contemporary physics this is an elementary theory. How could such an elementary result lie undiscovered until 2003?
Sort of.... I... guess.... 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
the eigenvector of the psychometry metric is caused by brain growth and is called "God"
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Due to the nebulous nature of the G-word, anything can be "proof of God". The fact that the article is rather inexplicit in its definition of God, and excercises a great deal of circumlocution in their assertions, is likely evident of dishonesty.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
|