Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist
From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/06/04
- Next message: TMG: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes"
- In reply to: rsm109_at_york.ac.uk: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Next in thread: TMG: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Reply: TMG: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Reply: VoiceOfReason: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 02:27:44 +0000 (UTC)
"rsm109@york.ac.uk" <rob.sm109@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbe2bd28.0409051609.67662bb1@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<t96dnYU2GoBP06bcRVn-uA@comcast.com>...
> > "rsm109@york.ac.uk" <rob.sm109@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bbe2bd28.0409050709.79c8f431@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > > > So make up your mind... do you want a formal discussion,
> > > > or an idiomatic pedestrian discussion.?
> > >
> >
> > [RSM]
> > > A formal discussion, in which scientific and mathematical terms are
> > > used correctly and unambiguously with no scope for confusion, is
> > > always preferable. No question. Many of the great popular
> > > misconceptions about physics originate from unclear language in
> > > explanations, especially when coupled with the slapdash approach to
> > > derivations that seems to be favoured in A-level physics and even some
> > > undergraduate courses.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I would be interested in discussing the theory with you, mainly
> > because you seem polite, rational and actually interested in
> > science.
> > From what I gather you are an undergraduate or possibly a
> > grad student in Physical Chemistry... is that correct? If so, I
> > am wondering how it is that you might be familiar with General
> > Relativity?
>
> I'm an undergraduate in chemistry. I've also self-studied physics to a
> similar level, including a basic grasp of general relativity.
>
> You make some very ambitious claims for your theory. This makes me
> immediately cautious because my understanding of the scientific method
> tells me that a theory will be examined and either accepted or
> rejected on its own merits.
[Hammond]
Not necessarily. I'm sure you've heard of Gregor Mendel who is
the prime counter example. He discovered the mathematical law
of inheritence, later confirmed by genetics, and named after him
today (e.g. "Mendelian Inheritence").
He wrote to every leading biologist at the time, and it went in
one ear and out the other. They even insulted him. He, like me,
could only get it published in an obscure Bavarian nature journal
since none of the leading journals would even consider it... since it
was too revolutionary and far over their heads.
40 years after he died, some scientists in Germany rediscoverd
it and did a literature search only to discover that Mendel had beat
them out by 50 years. Science did have the courtesy of naming
it after him.
So, your "understanding of the scientific method" as you put
it is far from actual reality in many significant cases.
>So someone with a good theory shouldn't
> need to build it up dramatically - the wider scientific community will
> do that for him if it's good enough.
[Hammond]
That's probably what Mendel thought, he was wrong.
> How often do you read an abstract
> in a respectable scientific journal that goes "we are going to
> revolutionise the field and the world will never be the same again"?
> That sounds more like something a salesman would come out with.
[Hammond]
The peer reviewed journal abstract to my paper containing
the scientific proof of God (Noetic Journal Vol.4(3), 2003):
A SEMICLASSICAL THEORY OF GOD
certainly says nothing of the kind:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:-- This paper follows The Cartesian Theory
(Hammond, New Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2), 1994)
That paper advanced 3-axis brain cleavage as the cause of
the Structural Model of Psychology. This paper reports the
discovery of a large gravitational curvature in the brain.
Intelligence plus Personality form a 4D vector space in
Psychometry. The eigenvector (Factor) of the 4D metric
is identified as the Secular Trend in human growth and as the
Einstein curvature G_uv of "linearized gravity". Penrose's
quantum brain gravity is identified as the source, thus also
providing support for the Hameroff-Penrose model.
Unexpectedly, elementary science indicates that this factor
is the anthropomorphic "God" of history. The discovery of
Brain Gravity has apparently yielded the long sought for
scientific proof of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand... half of Usenet discussion is merely
"psychodrama" and "theatrical posturing" in lieu of the fact
of any real education on the part of most posters.
>
> As for the connection between brain function and GR: my background
> leads me to think of brain function as an electrochemical process - a
> very complex one, but still ultimately a quantitative rather than
> qualitative difference from basic laboratory electrochemistry.
> On the
> scale of the human brain, the effects described by GR are
> infinitesimal in comparison to (for instance) the electromagnetic and
> quantum effects
[Hammond]
This is the usual first statement of every amateur who has not
actually read the paper and has no idea of what the theory says.
Don't feel bad, Prof. Chris Isham made the same faux paux.
In the first place "God" is NOT a curvature of real spacetime,
(that is called 'Gravity') God on the other hand is a curvature
of "perceptual spacetime", to wit:
----------------Proof of God----------------------
1. Physics detects actual physical reality.
2. But Man can only SEE sensory reality.
3. Hammond has discovered that sensory
(visible) reality is a CURVED VERSION
of physical reality. This Curvature (G_uv)
produces a large "supernatural" difference
between the two, and this phenomena is what
we call "God". Hence we say: God=G_uv.
------------------------------------------------------
In comparison to us adults for instance, a 10 year old
child sees a "highly curved" (magnified and speeded
up) world, compared to what adults see. This is the
"curvature of reality G_uv" that we are talking
about.... not the "miniscule" curvature of real spacetime
caused by the Earth under our feet!
> very much in evidence in this kind of system. But more
> importantly, describing its function in principle requires no
> theoretical advances beyond the normal laws of physics as we
> understand them. In practice it's not been done because our
> understanding of the specifics is lacking, not because our theoretical
> framework isn't up to it.
[Hammond]
This is of course is the "status quo presumption" that we
are all aware of.... however, Hammond has discovered a
NEW FACT that shows that in fact "God" is described
by classical Relativity, thus apparently supporting
Sir Roger Penrose's celebrated theory that "quantum
brain gravity" is at the root of mental function.... on top
of all the conventional physicis that you have just
alluded to.
>
> Finally we come onto the main postulate of your theory. It seems to be
> a point of philosophy rather than science.
[Hammond]
NO.... there ARE NO "philosophical postulates", nor in fact
"any postulates or definitions whatsoever" in my theory.
The entire theory is a deduction from experimental facts,
mainly from psychometry, biology, neuroscience and Relativity.
> My own perspective is that
> the supreme power in the universe, should such a being exist, will be
> far beyond the comprehension of humans.
[Hammond]
Well.... now you are stating personal opinion.
Certainly such a thing has no place in a scientific
discussion.
> This is because the concept of
> an anthropocentric universe is something I find impossible to accept.
> To me it's an idea that became obsolete as we began to realise just
> how amazingly vast and complex the universe actually is. But the
> ancient view of the supreme force, which antedates those advances by
> millennia and is firmly based on anthropocentrism, is the one that you
> seem to be claiming that your theory describes.
[Hammond]
Look... any amateur knows that there is "Man" and there
is a "chemical, physicial" explanation of "Man".
Classical Physics assumes:
1. There is an absolute physical reality.
2. Man is an obvserver of that reality.
OF COURSE any amateur can see that such a thing is only an
"approximation" (known as the "classical physics approximation"),
and in fact Quantum Mechanics addresses this problem (uncertainty
principle) and is still struggling with it since the theory of quantum
gravity has not been discovered.
Religion reflects the same situation. There is a "classical person-God"
who
is the mainstay of the major monotheistic religions. "God the Father"
and his picture is painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. THIS GOD
is what is explained by classical Einsteinian Relativity.
Of course OBVIOUSLY, if clessical gravity explains the classical
God, then Quantum Gravity will probably explain the "cosmological
God".
NEVERTHELESS, just as "Newtonian Gravity" will exist forever...
no matter what they discover about quantum gravity, SO TO the
"classical God" will exist forever no matter what they discover about
a "cosmological God".
> This might very well
> make some people feel better, but it has no real scientific basis.
[Hammond]
Again, you are merley stating a personal opinion.
Surely such statements have no relevance to a "formal scientific
discussion" which you said you were interested in.
> As
> for me, the thought of our ultimate insignificance on the cosmic scale
> doesn't bother me because I know that there's nothing that can
> realistically change this - so I just get on with my life. :-)
[Hammond]
I hope your personal philosophy and opinion won't clutter
the stage so much that a "scientific discussion" would be
impossible. Personally, I have no interest in "philosophical
or personal matters" whatsoever.
In closing, let me say that I recognize that you are probably under
the age of 25... which is very young. But, I am impressed with the
fact that you are (reasonably) polite... politness is of course the
first sign of intelligence. As you can see, rudeness, is the accpted
norm in Internet conversation... and I have been exposed to it
on the Internet for years... and it is INVARIABLY a sign of
low intellligence.
I would also remind you that Wolfgang Pauli wrote the first
textbook on General Relativity at the age of 21. Einstein
almost fell off his chair when he saw it... stating that he couldn't
believe a 21 year old person could write such a thing.
====================================
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
====================================
- Next message: TMG: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes"
- In reply to: rsm109_at_york.ac.uk: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Next in thread: TMG: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Reply: TMG: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Reply: VoiceOfReason: "Re: Message to Aardpig, astrophysicist"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
