Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.net)
Date: 12/22/04 

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:50:34 +0000 (UTC)

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:5sWdnUix2NIIjlTcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "xeno" <xeno@transbay.net> wrote in message
> > news:20041220201125.A92601@synergy.transbay.net...
> >
> >>
> >>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>& therefore what? The world has the same content at whatever speed or
> >
> > size
> >
> >>>>you want to signify a person has.
> >>
> >>>As a matter of fact NO... that is not true. The "content" does
> >>>DRASTICALLY change.
> >>
> >>Perception doesn't determine what content there actually is. Some
> >>perceptions can be hallucinatory, &/or illusionary. That would explain
> >>the drastic changes in content.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > What content "there actually is" IS IRRELEVANT.
> > It is the "content that is seen" that is RELEVENT.
> > This is because.... the only reality you know is the
> > reality you actually see.
>
>
> Flat out wrong. You depend, on a second by second basis, on all sorts of
> objective reality that you do not see. To say otherwise is clearly insane.
>
> Come stand next to this hard gamma source and tell me what you see. Keep
> standing there - and let's observe what the unseen reality does to you.
>
> > Now.. here is WHY a change in your "mental speed"
> > actually changes the "CONTENT THAT IS SEEN".
>
> Yes - and Ray Charles saw a different set of objects than most of us (a
> null set). Those unseen by Ray Charles objects were still part of his
> reality, and were part of ours. Maybe you think he didn't need to worry
> about cars while crossing the street.
>
> > I point out that the mental speed of a 6 year old is only
> > 1/3 that of an 18 year old adult.... therefore the 6 year
> > old sees a world that is "3 times as fast" as the world seen
> > by the 18 year old.
>
>
> No matter how many times you repeat this, it's still wrong.
>
> If you go back to your first grade classroom, the teacher's desk is
> exactly the same size as it was ~58 years ago. The desk is the desk. It
> occupies the same spacetime and has the same mass as it did then. Same
> as if Ray Charles was you classmate.
>
> > BUT YOU SAY: "so what if its 3 times faster... the
> > CONTENT is still the same".
> >
> > I SAY... NO the content is NOT the same.. and here's
> > why.
> >
> > We all know there are things that are "too fast to be seen"..
> > such as a rifle bullet... it moves so fast an adult cannot see
> > it.
>
> Wrong - rifle bullets are watched all of the time. It's a primary
> technique of the spotter in a sniper team. Happens every single day.
>
> You're flat out wrong.
>
> > The reason you cannot see it is that your mental speed is
> > not fast enough! Therefore it is INVISIBLE!!
>
> Even if you couldn't see it (which you can), according to your crazy
> thinking: if it's unseen, it doesn't exist.
>
> Flat out wrong - go stand down range and we'll test your theory.
>
> > Now... if a 6 year old has 1/3 the mental speed of an 18
> > year old... 66% MORE moving things are going to be invisible
> > to him than are invisible to the 18 year old. Roughly
> > speaking 2/3's of what is "visible" to the 18 year old is
> > INVISIBLE to the 6 year old.
>
> That just isn't true. If this is a prediction of SPOG, it is trivially
> proved incorrect. I have tested this with humans ranging in age from 3
> to 80.
>
> If SPOG makes this prediction, put it to the test. I have and proved it
> wrong. You're up next Sparky.
>
>
> <snip the rest of the blather>
>
> Put up or shut up. Run the test. Gather human subjects from 3 to 30 and
> document what exactly is "seen" and "unseen".
>
> If a theory doesn't provide testable, unique predictions, it isn't
science.

[Hammond]
   With all due respect to your attempt to post a message with actual
scientific content.... everything you've said above is flat out wrong.

And.. we don't need to wade through a morass of data to see
that it is wrong:

   Lets keep it simple. Consider a mentally retarded person with
an IQ of say 66.6 I'm sure you and I have both seen many such
people. Now... some developmental (growth related) accident
happened to that person (in most cases) whereby instead of
reaching their normal intelligence of IQ=100, their brain growth was
"arrested" (e.g. 'retarded') and they were left with the "mind of
a 12 year old" as it is commonly put (note 12yrs = .666 x 18yrs).
   Now we don't need to adminster a battery of tests to that person
to recognize by simple observation that the person is acutely
delimited in their "awareness" of their surroundings... that is,
their "awareness of reality"... "reality" being defined as the world
they would have been aware of (or 'seen') if they had reached
IQ=100 (their normal full growth IQ).
   All I am saying is that this can be expressed by saying that

        "1/3 of reality is INVISIBLE to that retarded person".

   Now, I can't see how you can honestly and in good faith
take issue with that assertion. It is absolutely a known, in
fact legally recognized, fact.
   By the same token then, a normal 12 year old child, who has
only 2/3's the intelligence of an 18 year old (note I said 'intelligence'
not 'intelligence quotent') MUST, just like the retarded adult
above.... SEE ONLY 2/3's of reality... where "reality" is defined
as the world he will see when he reaches 18. QED, 1/3 of the
world is INVISIBLE to a 12 year old child.
   Now try to be reasonable and act like a PhD which you are..
and address the general principle here rather than arguing about
whether a rifle bullet is invisible or not... certainly at close range
they are!
   And further more... that teacher's desk you refer to is the
'same size' it was 50 years ago RELATIVE to the RULER lying
on the desk, but it is NOT the 'same size' relative to YOU, since
you were only half the size you are now 50 years ago... so as
far as YOU are concerned... the desk is now 1/2 the size it used
to be.

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... You depend, on a second by second basis, on all sorts of ... > objective reality that you do not see. ... The desk is the desk. ... > You're flat out wrong. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... > reality you actually see. ... Yes - and Ray Charles saw a different set of objects than most of us (a ... The desk is the desk. ... If SPOG makes this prediction, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ...let the peckerwood veto the bill
    ... I hope that my democratic lawmakers put something on his desk that ... reflects the reality that they were voted in to do precisely this. ... can always blame whatever goes wrong on the opposition that way... ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: an A-PARRRRT-ment
    ... & asked herself there behind the desk are you Mary Bracken? ... I was seeking a flat in town, she’d know where to send me. ... Well, now, she would be very pleased to know her birthday is a continuing cause of celebration - & no doubt would find some way to turn the coincidence into another of her oft-told stories. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Spirit level tool?
    ... That's not he explanation. ... Of course I tried on more than one flat ... surface and experimented before reaching my conclusion. ... think about how great the slope would have to be on the desk to account ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)