Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: Timberwoof (timberwoof_at_stimpberawoofm.com)
Date: 09/12/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:55:26 +0000 (UTC)

In article <t92dnRfSeKQU2dncRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
 "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:

> "bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
> news:chqkvi$o31$06$1@news.t-online.com...
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> >
> > >bv_schornak wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>[Hammond]
> > >>>I've been published in the PEER REVIEWED
> > >>>PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE
> > >>>You have not.
> > >>>
> > >>>[Timberwolf... I guess]
> > >>Okay, George. With these statements you have disqualified yourself
> > >>and have lost the last bit of reputation as a "scientist". Instead
> > >>of giving an answer to a simple question you sneak around and show
> > >>nothing but incompetence. Since you did not come up with any proof
> > >>for your claim, you have disproven its validity yourself.
> > >>
> > >>Since you are too gutless to admit you are wrong in this case, you
> > >>have shown you have no honour. I give you a last chance to show me
> > >>how a cube with one corner in each lobe can be projected in this
> > >>
> > >><http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2001/ling001/cortex_lobes.jpg>
> > >>
> > >>picture of a human brain (the lobes are shown in different colours
> > >>in that picture!). If there is no _on topic_ answer, you have lost
> > >>your face forever.

I did not write that. Get your attributions right, you internet amateur.

> [Hammond]
> No problem, look at this picture:
>
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/indpage2_files/img2.gif

It's a misshapen onion with a Cartesian coordinate system arbitrarily stuck on
top. It proves nothing. How come the origin is not in the middle of the layers?
And don't you think that a simple (x, y, z) coordinate space is inappropriate
to describe locations on that growth off the stem?

> as you can see the brain is cleaved by 3 orthogonal planes causing:
>
> 1. The Medial fissure of the brain
> 2. The Central fissure of the brain.
> 3. The hindbrain-forebrain division
>
> these cleavages come DIRECTLY from the first 3 orthogonal
> cleavages to the EGG in embryology. And therefore are
> much more STRUCTURALLY FUNDAMENTAL than
> the (superficial) structure shown in your cite above.

Sure, it makes perfect sense that the structures of the brain arise from
embryology. But that proves nothing by itself and doesn't support any further
claims.

> OK... 3-orthogonal planes causes 8-Octants, and these are
> the fundamenal "8-lobes of the brain".

8 children's blocks stacked in a 2x2x2 cube have those divisions, too. It proves
nothing.

> > >>Even if I disagree with your SPoG, I did respect you as the person
> > >>George Hammond until now. I would be very disappointed if you turn
> > >>out to be a brain dead posting machine (= troll).
> > >>
> > >
> > >I would be surprised if Hammond came back with anything besides angry
> > >chest-thumping about his pedigree this, degrees that, and published
> > >articles the other; redundant repetitions of ridiculous recycled refuse;
> > >and personal attacks on your character and intelligence.
> > >
> > >I would completely change my mind about Hammond if he just gave a simple,
> > >straightforward college-freshman-level explanation of his gobbledygook. If
> > >he did that I might even respect him as an original thinker, respectful of
> > >others, and able to communicate his ideas unambiguously and without
> > >misunderstanding.

That I did write.

> [Hammond]
> hey.. I don't have time to argue with amateurs like Timberwolf....

Yes, you do.

> what's the
> percentage in it... there's nothing he can do for me even if I took 10 years
> out to convince him.

If you learned to have a coherent theory that actually meant anything, and then
learned to present that theory in a way that actually made sense and was usable,
then you would have accomplished a great deal. Until you do that, you're a kook.

> It's like asking me to play poker with someone who has
> no money... there's no way I can win.

Gosh, what's that thumping noise? Sounds like that gorilla is mad again.
Hammond, that's a flawed analogy. Except perhaps in the sense that you're
bluffing. You're pretending to have something with this so-called "theory" of
yours. And the reason you won't show us your cards is that you would be exposed
as a fraud.

It's either tragic in a funny way, or funny in a tragic way -- I'm not sure
which -- to watch you flounder about, trying to explain your reasoning. You try
on the one hand to explain why you can be so snooty and not explain yourself to
someone you have worked so hard to demonstrate is an "amateur" while on the
other hand you still can't explain yourself to anyone else either.

Let me guess. Your next step is to try to discredit anyone else who tries to
question your th-. Your the-. Argh. I can't say it. Your whatever the hell it
is but it's no theory because it is not based on any research, doesn't hold
together, and it makes no predictions.

> <snip>
>
> > [Schornak]
> > Meanwhile I've finished the evaluation of [Hammond]'s SPoG. Out
> > of his 180 claims I could agree with 11 of them (all so trivial
> > you can't turn them into something wrong). If someone buys this
> > stuff, it can't be a very bright person.
>
> [Hammond]
> I'm not going to argue amateur science with you Schornak.
> In the first place the significance of you is not "scientific",
> but rather "political" since you are bilingual German speaker,
> have put up a website about SPoG and are a native of Gdansk
> Poland of all places. Arguing elementary science with you
> would be about like Pope Leo trying to discuss Theology
> with Gengis Kahn when he showed up outside the Vatican
> walls with an army.

There we go. Just a few days ago you were on your knees raising your hands up
and down saying "I am not worthy!" over and over to this guy, and now that he's
started asking you serious questions, you dig your claws into him. I think I
recognize that pattern. It's ... eerily familiar,

Welcome to the club, Schornak. Sie sind nicht der Erste, dem dieser Hammond-typ
als idiot beschreiben will. (Und auch längst nicht, den dieser Hammond-typ als
idiot erkennt!)

> For openers, I will point out that Jim Jastrebski a competent
> Relativist and mathematical-physicist, also from Poland,

"I am not worthy, I am not worthy! Oh, shed your wisdom on me, Lord! I am not
worthy!"

> DISAGREES with you, and in fact agrees with
> Hammond that:
>
> "Hammond is right, God is a curvature
> of Psychometry space"
> (Jim Jastrebski, 2003)
>
> so, on the political front, one of your own more knowledgable
> constituents does NOT agree with you.
>
> And by the way, let me point out HOW Jastrebski came to his
> conclusion about SPoG. J.J. is a mathematician who has studied
> Relativity at Harvard. He was attracted to the theory of the
> "expansion of the Universe". To him his instincts told him it
> was probably an "illusion" and he spent years trying to prove
> it (as have many others). I think he may have given over this
> contention by now, and moved on into a more profound
> comprehension of his intuitions.... however his mathematical work
> has relevance right or wrong.
> When he saw my theory and immediately understood that a
> "curvature of psychometric space" would produce a "real illusion"
> of Curvature in visual perception... I think a bell went off in his
> head and his decades long quest for the "illusion of curvature"
> came to an end. Jim Jastrebski finally found the "illusion of
> curvature of reality" that he was looking for, and he immediately
> recognized that SPoG is in fact correct.
> Interestingly, it is even closer to Jastrebski's work than he realizes.
> Steve Unwin author of the celebrated book _Probability of God_
> and a PhD physicist himself pointed out to me in a private email
> letter that a "Big Bang expansion" of reality mathematically
> fit the mass description of my God=G_uv equation.... a dilemma
> I had been trying to solve for a year.... so YES Jastrebski is
> correct, "God" is a "Big Bang expansion" of visible reality
> for the first 18 years of our life... and it is sill (incrementally)
> going on in our adult lives... and because of the ever present
> possibility of the "lifting of repression" as Freud put it... can
> actually produce a "miracle".

Okay. So make some measurable predictions with this wonderful new theo-. This
new the-. This thhhhing you've been trying to pull over on us.

> In short, Jastrebski's realization that Hammond's SPoG is
> CORRECT is a major milestone in this theory.. and is further
> confirmed by Unwin's remarkable observation that growth is
> a "Big Bang" phenomena classically speaking... a fact that
> is mathematically confirmed by the theory.. but I didn't
> realize until Unwin suggested it!

Sympathetic magic. That's all you've got here, Hammond. Like creates like.

Oh, look, a brain kind of sort of like eight child's blocks stacked in a cube
and a universe conveniently modeled in three-dimensional Cartesian space. It
must mean something!

If you were to start with polar coordinates instead of rectangular coordinates,
your whole basis for this similarity would disappear. 

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Otto: "Haha! Apes do not read philosophy!"
Wanda: "Yes, they do. They just don't understand it."

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQs OVER 150
    ... > amateur discussions somewhere else. ... Hammond said-> you know... ... Hammond said-> spirit"... ... How in the world can one just arbitrarily draw the conclusion that God= ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: quite an achievement
    ... In message, John Hall writes ... I wouldn't have chosen an amateur. ... Irrelevant to the Hammond case. ... Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... The Medial fissure of the brain ... >>I would be surprised if Hammond came back with anything besides angry ... have put up a website about SPoG and are a native of Gdansk ... J.J. is a mathematician who has studied ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >> And Dhemmeog the mathematician appears to ... So far we haven't been able to locate more than 2 rational scientists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Amatuer mathematicians.
    ... Erdos was definitely not an amateur. ... training to be a mathematician. ... are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. ... Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University ...
    (sci.math)