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 G_uv 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.

---

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.

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.

fireworks_god said:

He has derived a scientific proof of God from studying a "scientific" area of study that has not been proven?

---

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.

fireworks_god said:

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.

---

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 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.

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.