[Hammond]
Dear Dr. George Murphy (Physics):
Excuse me for responding to you personal email publicly,
however, I must inform you that I do not talk to people
privately unless they are recognized international authorities,
Nobel Laureates, or unusual interdisciplinary experts. The reason
for this, as I have mentioned in my ASA post, is that there is
no one who is qualified to confer with me privately on this
matter unless they have the 3 following credentials:
1. Postgraduate education in Physics
2. Professional expertise in Psychometry (Factor Analysis)
3. Professional competence in Divinity
You mention that you are a PhD in Physics, and, we may take
it that you have some competence in Divinity. However, you have
apparently no competence whatsoever in item #2, Psychometry, and
therefore any summary judgment by you of the theory is automatically
academically disqualified as incompetent and patently presumptuous.
My particular remarks are attached below to you message.
Please, above all else, do not fly off the handle over this and
deluge me with an ad hominem barrage. I have been on the Internet for
a year, have talked to hundreds of scientists great and small, and
have heard insults that would turn your ears red. Such sound and
fury signifies, as you know, absolutely nothing. In fact, the
only persons I can take seriously are people willing to soberly
query me concerning the scientific facts, and/or other matters
they may not understand my answer to. For instance your
objection that "Gravity cannot cause God" is prematurely jumping
the gun and ill considered, for the theory clearly explains how
"Gravity causes God" AND "God causes Gravity" also. Please, do not
take me for a fool or an amateur.
george murphy wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Hammond -
> I received your "scientific proof of God" on the ASA list. Your
> statement '"Gravity" is the ultimate cause of God' is enough to show
> that the "God" of whom you are speaking cannot be the God of the Bible,
> the God of whom Christianity speaks. That God is the ultimate cause of
> all things (which is the basic meaning of the traditional doctrine of
> _creatio ex nihilo_) and thus cannot be caused by gravity or anything
> else.
[Hammond]
Wrong. This is an amateur objection which turns out to be
patently false. It is caused by the fact that you have
little or no understanding of what the theory actually says
or means.
In fact, the theory (read discovery) clearly explains how
it is that "Gravity causes God" and also that "God causes Gravity".
let me caution you that we are not here to be bamboozled or
bombasted by the juvenile "riddles'a Gawd" that pseudointellectual
gaffes have so wantonly enjoyed for centuries on the peasants. The
scientific proof of God is here to wipe every one of them off
the slate.. to answer scientifically, rationally, and axiomatically
every one of them, and finally lay them to rest and bury them,
or place them on the ash heap of history.
The answer to your objection, is simply that "within the framework
of perceptual reality", Physics can show that "Gravity causes God".
However, the theory also shows that the human brain (mind) creates
"perceptual reality", and that this is the "creation of God" which
includes the creation of Physics. So therefore, both Physics and
Theology are correct within their own definitional domains.
You see, as a Physicist surely you are aware that Physics
cannot "define" mass, length and time. It can only hold up a brass
cylinder, a platinum rod, and an alarm clock, and say to the roaring,
smelling, crowd of humanity "... do you unanimously agree these are three
specimens of what we all refer to as 'mass, length, and time'?". If
the crowd howls and roars "yes", then Physics claims that it has
a "definition" of mass, length and time. But, the theologian argues
that what this really shows is that it is sovereign "human perception"
that defines mass, length and time. And this "human perception" is
judged to be the "voice of God". Physics, according to the
Theologians only contains the "laws of human perception", but
"human perception" is created by God. The physicists of course
reject this, and simply say "we don't know where 'a priori' concepts
come from", we only discover the laws "among them".
The result of this then, clearly, shows that a Physicist will
(correctly, by definition) point out that "Gravity causes God", but
that a theologian will likewise correctly point out, by definition,
that "God causes Gravity". Both of them are correct within their
definitional domains.
This incidentally extends to the so called Creationist controversy.
According to classical Physics, the Universe is 15 Billion years
old. According to the Bible it is about 10,000 years old. Both the
Physicists and the Creationists are correct. What the Creationist know,
of course, is that the human mind creates reality (all religious people
know this), and since Homo Sapiens Sapiens only emerged say 150,000
years ago, the human mind (as we know it) is only about 150,000 years
old, and since the human mind creates 'reality' or 'the world' or
'the universe'... that actually the "Universe' is only about 150,000
years old... in the ball park with the Biblical Age of the World. On
the other hand, the physicists are certainly correct that "within
reality" (that is to say, the laws of Physics), the "Universe" is in
fact 15-Billion years old (Big Bang). Both the scientists and the
Creationists are correct.
Now, I'm not a genius, and I have managed to figure this out. And what
I'm beginning to suspect is that both the Creationists, and the
Scientists, are aware of it too, and are simply now engaged in a mutual
conspiracy to confuse, terrorize, and confound and exploit the public.
Both groups are guilty of bad faith as far as I can see.
> God is _a se_ or, as Eberhard Juengel puts it, "more than
> necessary." I think that this would also be the judgment of
> knowledgeable Jews, Muslims but I will not preseume as a Christian
> theologian to speak for them.
[Hammond]
If your presuming to talk for the half of the world which is
starving to death, and fed up with an agnostic society, and are
waiting for God to save them... no, I don't think you speak for them,
in fact, having discovered the scientific proof of God personally,
I would have to presume that I do.
> Since you seem to place a good deal of stock in credentials, I
> should perhaps preface the next comment by saying that I received my
> Ph.D. in physics with a dissertation dealing with general relativity.
[Hammond]
Glad to be speaking with someone else who knows what a
Christoffel symbol is and apparently knows what God is.
Now if you only knew what Psychometry/FA was, we could
really talk turkey.
>
> Your attempt to connect that field with psychology seems to me
> quite unconvincing, resting only on vague analogies. You say:
>
> Three years later, in 1997, Hammond discovered in
> addition to the 3-Axes of
> Personality; that Intelligence (IQ) formed a 4th Axis. Since IQ
> is known to be mental speed
> he immediately recognized this as a "time based dimension"
> whereas the other 3-Axes
> were already known to be "space based dimensions" (due to the
> 3-geometrical space axes
> of the brain). Hammond discovered that the 4 dimensions of
> Relativity (space-time) caused
> the 4 fundamental dimensions of Psychology.
> In the summer of 1997 Hammond actually discovered the
> scientific proof of God. It turns
> out that just as the 4-Axis space-time metric has "curvature"
> and causes Gravity (Einstein
> 1916), likewise the 4-Axis Psychometry metric has curvature
> which produces a single, lone,
> higher order factor- the "last structural factor" of
> Psychology.
>
> To say that IQ is mental speed and therefore "time based" is a
> considerable distance from what
> would be needed to support your claim. You would need to show that this
> fourth dimension actually has timelike character with respect to the
> other three - i.e., that a Minkowski metric can be defined on this space
> in a meaningful way. In the 2d paragraph you have not shown that there
> actually is a "psychometry metric" whose first and second derivatives
> with respect to the coordinates form the Riemann tensor for this space.
> Unless that is done you are far from any kind of "proof" of a
> correspondence between general relativity and psychology, quite aside
> from the basic theological problem which I noted at the outset.
[Hammond]
Come, come now. You know quite well that GR is a nonlinear
theory. Factor Analysis is the theory of linear algebra
and the solution of the eigenvalue problem (eigenvectors of
the symmetric correlation matrix) in Psychometry.
Therefore, in the first palace, we can only expect that
Factor Analysis will reproduce the "Einsteinian linearization"
of GR which he produced in order to show that it confirmed
Newtonian gravity (1916).
This in fact it does, since the Einsteinian linearization
of the metric is identical to Thurstone's decomposition of
the correlation matrix. This identity in itself, given the
fact that a direct mechanical causation is clearly shown
between the space-time and psychometry metrics (via the
cartesian geometry of the brain), is sufficient to prove
that gravity causes God.
Any political adversary who thinks he is going to sit down
and rattle off a few well known trivialities, without making any
serious attempt to investigate the discovery is clearly going
to make a fool of himself. The reason being of course, is that
the discovery happens to be TRUE. Guesswork will usually succeed
against a crank, but it is powerless against the truth.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George L. Murphy
Sincerely,
George E. Hammond
-- BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: ghammond@mediaone.net Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 10 2001 - 23:11:10 EDT