I am somewhat confused, are you saying that Romeo and Juliet can prove the
existence of Shakespeare?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Hammond <ghammond@mediaone.net>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: SOC/PSYC: Scientific Proof of God
>[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 : Fri May 11 2001 - 09:24:58 EDT