The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by George E Hammond, Jan 16, 2022.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,566
    Don't toy with us George...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    On the contrary, I think a better piece of
    advice to you all would be : –

    Don't toy with a discovery of the world's
    first Scientific Proof of God !


    George
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2022
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    Okay, we are trying to demonstrate that:

    “God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective spacetime.


    100 years ago Thomas Edison discovered that the
    “frame rate” of movie film had to be 16 frames/sec
    IOW the perceptual speed of the average adult of
    average intelligence was 16 bits/sec. Moreover, he
    discovered the rate increased linearly with age in
    children under 18 – quite obviously due to
    brain growth.

    So here we have a simple method of measuring
    “mental speed” and at the same time an ordinary
    tape measure can be used to measure the size
    (height) of a given subject.
    What we are trying to prove is that simple growth
    causes an “Einsteinian curvature of subjective spacetime
    in the growing individual's perception.

    So let’s keep this simple and direct. It is known
    That: –

    1 – a 9-year-old can watch a movie at 7 frames/sec
    and not notice the difference – while an 18-year-old
    will see the frames clearly jumping by.

    2 – objects appear twice as a large to a 9-year-old
    as they do to an 18-year-old because he is only half
    grown.


    This represents a 50% “magnification of space” and
    a 50% “dilation of time” – for a half grown person!


    Now, the metric of objective space-time is known to be:

    ds2 = dx2+ dy2+ dz2 – dt2 or abbreviated: (1,1,1,-1)


    Now suppose, due to incomplete growth, we want to
    Write the metric of subjective space-time for a less than
    fully grown person – if we assume the magnification of
    length and time is a simple multiplication factor “m”,
    (which would be m=2 for the 9-year-old) we would write

    ds2 = m2 (dx2+ dy2+ dz2 – dt2 ) or: m2 (1,1,1,-1)

    If for convenience we set: m2 = a then we have: –

    |a 0 0 0|
    |0 a 0 0| = ds2
    |0 0 a 0|
    |0 0 0-a|

    Okay, now what we want to know is; does this
    simple “magnification of subjective space-time”
    CAUSE a “curvature of subjective space-time”?


    And for that it turns out that there are desktop
    computer programs (such as Maxima and
    Mathematica ) which will easily compute the
    curvature – from the metric, and in this case
    what we want is the so called “Ricci scalar
    curvature –R”, and the Maxima computer
    program yields this result: –


    Input matrix:
    |a 0 0 0|
    |0 a 0 0|
    |0 0 a 0|
    |0 0 0-a|


    Output (scalar curvature) = R =

    6a (att) – 3(at)2
    2a3
    (where the subscript "t" means the derivative
    with respect to time – i.e. the person is still growing)

    The 2nd time derivative can be ignored, leaving us
    with the simple equation for R which is: –

    – 3(at)2
    = R
    2a3

    And since we put a = m2 we see that


    – 3(2mmt)2 = R
    2m6

    Or:

    -6(mt)2 = -3(mt/m2 )2 = R = (scalar curvature)
    2m4


    So, as we can see, a simple magnification of space
    and a simple equal dilation of time – caused by simple
    GROWTH
    – does indeed produce an: –

    Einsteinian curvature of human
    subjective spacetime


    Now for those of you that have been
    following this thread I have shown
    that Psychometry has found a similar
    curvature (higher order factor) of the
    Psychometry "metric" of |ENPg| which
    is a "spacetime metric" also; which they
    call the GFP and which I have identified
    as the God of the Bible, since the 2nd order
    (lower factors) turned out to be the "gods".
    This of course indicates that "God" is in fact
    a "fully grown man" – and of course no one
    in the history of the world has ever actually
    seen such a person – but he is known to "exist"
    inside our bodies as the "genotype" of which
    we are the less than fully grown "phenotype".

    Hence we have the final result – that: –

    God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective spacetime


    QED there really is a God!


    George
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,194
    Especially when I go technicolour.

    By the way, "I'm about done here.....", apparently. Oh yeah?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Says the man from Cape Cod.
     
  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,110
    "had to be"?
    Interesting, then, that most of his own films were shot at speeds between 16 and 24.
    What I think you mean is that he realised that 16 fps was the minimum one should aim for, as that is when one achieves the illusion of motion.
    That was what Lumiere filmed at.
    Unfortunately, being hand-cranked machines, most experiences of such films were at anything from 20-30, making for rather sped-up motions.
    This is (part of) your problem, Mr. Hammond: just making shit up on the fly and hoping noone notices.
    16 bits/sec is on the very slow side of things.
    Typically it would be about 40-50... at least according to, you know, the science.
    Look it up on Google.
    Get in to the habit of it, while you're at it.
    He did?
    Evidence, please?
    Or is this just more of you "making shit up"?
    "quite obviously", you say.
    So you have the science to support that, or are you again just "making shit up"?
    Bear in mind, as revealed to you before, the human brain of a 5 year old is 90% that of an adult, so not much room to play with, is there.
    What is the method of measuring "mental speed"?
    Can you detail what it is, please, and how it actually "measures" anything?

    Sure, and you need to explain what you mean by "Einsteinian curvature of subjective spacetime", because at the moment all you have suggested is that there is a means to measure "mental speed" (albeit not actually explained what that means is, and how it achieves it) as well as physical size.
    Utter garbage.
    Please, stop making shit up, Mr. Hammond.
    It does you no favours to just make this stuff up as you go along.
    You claim that this "proof" of yours is scientific, so, please, provide the science behind this claim.
    Where is the study that shows 9-year olds don't notice the difference when watching something at 7 fps.
    Because I assure you, they do.
    If nothing else, one can know that you're talking garbage simply because if any computer game they were playing at that age that ran at 7 fps, they would be screaming their house down.
    Seriously, Mr. Hammond, stop talking crap.
    Just stop it.
    Stop it now.
    More garbage, Mr. Hammond.
    IF a 9-year old was only 50% of the size of an 18-year old then perhaps you may be on to something, but the average 9 year old boy, for example (per WHO data that you clearly acknowledge but struggle to understand what they mean) is c.132-133cm, and for an 18yo it is c.176cm.
    That is (I'm sure you can do the maths) an increase of just c.33%, not 100% as you would have us believe.
    Follow the actual science, Mr. Hammond, and people will stop calling you the dishonest crank that you clearly revel in being referred to as.
    Based on the data it would be a 75% "magnification" (i.e. reduction).
    However, as explained to you before, and as supported by, you know, actual science, time goes subjectively quicker the older you are.
    You haven't addressed that but continue blindly on.
    Which is why you are considered a dishonest crank.
    Anyone can plug made-up numbers into a maths formula, or a computer program, and claim that because the computer program outputs a result that it must therefore mean the numbers are verified, and the result verified etc.
    But you're plugging demonstrable garbage in, and claiming a diamond is coming out the other end.
    It's nonsense.
    You have simply failed throughout to support your claims, your links, etc, with actual science.

    You continue, unsurprisingly, to post garbage upon garbage.
    Worst of all, you show no signs of addressing any of it.
    Hence you are a crank, and a dishonest one.
    You are only here to preach about how great you are (in your own mind, at least), how you (think you) have discovered something of earth-shattering significance, and how everyone else is unworthy (according to you) to judge your discovery.
    It, and you, are a joke.
    Stop lying.
    They have not found a "curvature".
    They have, arguably, found what is referred to as the General Factor of Personality (GFP).
    You have simply linked that, without science, reason, evidence, to being a "curvature".
    It is not a given.
    You have failed to support it in any meaningful way.
    Again, without any evidence, reason, or actual science.
    You have simply claimed it to be the "God of the Bible".
    Again, without any evidence, reason, or actual science.
    You have simply claimed them to be the "gods" - despite the inconsistency between 13 2nd-order factors and there being 12 "gods", despite you saying that they were not the "actual gods" but could just as easily be the Disney characters etc.
    I.e. you are just flapping around and hopping from turd to turd on the great garbage pile that you have vomitted beneath your feet, and upon which you proudly stand telling everyone how wonderful you are.
    If this was a movie, the screen would slowly fade from your triumphant declarations to you in a straight-jacket, standing on your bed in a padded cell, showing that all of it really has been just your poor delusion.
    Who can create the universe?
    Who knows all, is all powerful etc?
    All the other attributes of the "God of the Bible" etc?
    Just more inconsistent nonsense from you, Mr. Hammond.
    Although I'm sure, like all that has gone before, it will remain unaddressed.
    Again showing you still don't understand those terms.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Ah, well.

    [insert made-up conclusion that I've been trying to prove, and just thrown things together in the hope noone notices the glaring flaws and lack of, well, sense]

    And there we have it!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    QED you're demonstrably a crank, and utterly dishonest.
    You'll never learn, though.
     
    origin likes this.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,081
    We have TeX support built in. Enclose your TeX code with [tex][/tex] tags.
     
  11. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Get off it Baldeee – you wouldn't know
    the Ricci Tensor from the Kon Tiki

    George
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,566
    You could just respond to Baldeee's valid questions with the evidence to back up your claims, unfortunately there is no such evidence.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    The Kon Tiki is a cube.
     
  14. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Na, but it had a square sail;
    that otta give yall a clue.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    George
     

    Attached Files:

  15. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    The "expansion of the universe" in Relativity only
    causes an "expansion of space (x,y,z)" it does not
    include an expansion (dilation) of time (t).

    So the cosmologists arbitrarily change the metric:

    ds^2 = (-1 + (a^2)[1,1,1])

    To the so-called "FLRW metric" by using
    "conformal time" T defined as:

    T = t/a

    So that they can write:

    FLRW metric = (a^2)[-1,1,1,1]

    And that has a well known
    RICCI SCALAR CURVATURE
    widely known in the literature.

    However it is not identical to the curvature that I gave
    in post # 1203 because I was not using "conformal time".

    HOWEVER, it has recently occurred to me that the as
    yet fully grown person (children for instance) actually
    SEE "conformal time" – IOW the expansion of reality
    caused by the human brain growth deficit not only
    magnifies spatial dimensions, but also "dilates time" –
    therefore I now believe that the "less than fully
    grown person " (including all adults)
    actually ": --

    "SEE" CONFORMAL TIME WITH THEIR OWN EYES

    Which means that the "God curvature" is formally
    IDENTICAL to the classical and well known FLRW
    Ricci scalar curvature R :---

    "GOD" CURVATURE = FLRW CURVATURE

    Okay, no one on this list will understand this post
    but I am merely posting it here so that someone in
    the future who is researching this discovery
    might discover it ! Sort of like chiseling it on my
    tombstone
    !

    George
     
  16. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    I had some last thoughts, that the above equation
    might not be correct – so I asked someone on
    sci.physics.relativity to double check it on
    Mathematica. Someone had checked it about 7
    years ago and said that it was correct – but I
    didn't ask him to actually check that the Riemann
    tensor itself was nonzero.

    So I got back on sci.physics.relativity and asked
    again – and I got this reply: –

    JanPB
    May 18, 2022 1:13 AM
    to George Hammond on sci.physics.relativity

    Yes, (the equation) is correct. It's a bit simpler of you use
    a^2 instead of a.
    The result is then:
    R = 6a../a^3

    Ricci components:
    (still *using a^2 instead of a*). Let's
    denote:
    A = (a.. a - (a.)^2)/a^4
    B = (a.. a + (a.)^2)/a^4
    then:
    R_00 = -3A
    R_11 = R_22 = R_33 = B
    R_ij = 0 otherwise.

    Riemann components:
    R^0_101 = R^0_202 = R^0_303 = A
    R^1_212 = R^1_313 = R^2_323 = (a.)^2/a^4
    R^a_bcd = 0 otherwise.
    --
    Jan

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    So as you can see, half a dozen of the
    RIEMANN TENSOR complements
    are NON-ZERO !!

    Which means that the space-time
    is CURVED. That is absolute mathematical
    proof of the nonzero curvature!

    That's why I can say with
    ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC CONFIDENCE
    that: –


    God is a (large) Einsteinian curvature
    of subjective spacetime


    George
     
  17. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    A fairy is a small being, human in form, playful and having magical powers.
    Pixies are also classed as fairies because they too are human in form.

    If you take ten fairies and subtract 2 fairies, you are left with 8 fairies.
    The equation has been checked over by mathematicians and found to be correct.

    QED fairies exist.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2022
    Baldeee likes this.
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    But none of the mathematics mentions God at all.
     
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,110
    "Here lies George E Hammond
    Delusional to the last
    "
    more like.
     
  20. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ng-O2GGqczM/m/rixDt1GGBQAJ

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ng-O2GGqczM/m/lhjO3xXwBAAJ


    I too have used maths in post #1214 to show fairies exist. My equation was also correct.
     
  21. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Yes and Troglodytes exist also, but they're
    1st-Order Psychometry eigenvectors; the
    Olympian "gods" are 2nd order Psychometry
    eigenvectors – and "God" is the top, single,
    Psychometry eigenvector at the 4th order.
    And BTW, the 4 Psychometry eigenvectors
    at the 3rd Order are Mt, Mk, Lk and Jn !
    – That's you, me and the rest of the posse !


    George.
     
  22. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    You're so desperate to make your belief in a god real.
     
  23. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    George E Hammond said:
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Yes and Troglodytes exist also, but they're 1st-Order Psychometry eigenvectors; the Olympian "gods" are 2nd order Psychometry eigenvectors – and "God" is the top, single,Psychometry eigenvector at the 4th order.
    And BTW, the 4 Psychometry eigenvectors at the 3rd Order are Mt, Mk, Lk and Jn !
    – That's you, me and the rest of the posse !
    George.



    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    A frantic troglodyte like you is so overwhelmed
    you sound like a drowning man grasping at
    straws to stay afloat!

    The entire span of academia from a worldwide
    army of Psychometry researchers for 50 years
    to the most competent mathematical Relativists
    have now confirmed that HAMMOND IS
    CORRECT: –

    The world's first Scientific Proof of God
    has been signed, sealed and delivered !


    God is a (large) Einsteinian

    curvature of subjective
    spacetime reality.

    QED – there is a REAL God !


    George
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2022

Share This Page