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

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Bowden's criticism did not contain
    any specific scientific content.

    Your comment contains even less.

    Until someone makes a (major and
    fundamental) comprehensive science
    containing comment, of course I will
    not reply.

    Especially I will not reply to anyone who
    is stupid enough to think that this is a
    "entertaining crank beatdown"
    sideshow" and not a highly competent
    scientific discussion!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    People have already made plenty of "(major and fundamental) comprehensive science containing comment".
    The issue is not with them but with your dishonest failure to address them.

    This thread is also far from being a "highly competent scientific discussion" for the simple reason that you are the only one defending your "proof", and you are clearly not competent.

    You continue to be a dishonest delusional crank.
    There is no longer any enjoyment (for me at least) in continually beating you down.
    Mostly I just feel pity.
    For you, for this "proof" being the culmination and focus of your efforts, when you seem to be the only one who can not accept that it is utter garbage, ignoring everything that shows it to be, ignoring all the challenges against it.
    I pity you.
    Get help, Mr. Hammond.

    And please stop posting here.
    We're not at the forefront of scientific discussion, and may be the last place serious scientists consider, but even we have standards of behaviour, which you continually fail to uphold.

    I pity you, you poor, dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    • Please do no make personal accusations that you are unable to support with evidence.
    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Baldeee, your above statement is more
    than an exaggeration – it is an outright lie.

    You have no scientific credentials.
    You wouldn't know –

    Statistical covariance from
    Relativistic covariance

    You wouldn't know a
    Christoffel symbol from
    a reverse traced Ricci tensor

    None of your tediously droning
    comments rise to the level of
    scientific competence needed to
    comprehend this theory.

    Your monotonous spew of
    ad hominem remarks
    labels you as a wannabe
    crankbaiter on the prowl
    for a soft target in front of
    an unsuspecting scientific

    Your exaggerated and uneducated
    performance in view of the
    sophistication and significance of
    the subject is nothing less than
    disgusting !

    Prof. Bowden's hasty retreat
    should clue you in to the
    tremendously powerful
    scientific rat–trap that is
    about to spring closed on
    an unsophisticated fraud
    like you.


  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    More likely, what actually happened was that Dr Cornish-Bowden realised that he was wasting his time trying to talk to a crank, and he decided he had better things to do with his time.

    That's what most of us have decided here, too.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: George E Hammond has been warned for a second time not to post personal accusations that he cannot support with appropriate evidence.

    Due to accumulated warning points, Hammond will be taking a day off.
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Pointing out that YOUR post does not contain any scientific content IS scientific comment.
  10. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]


    Hammond has proved that God is a (large)
    Einsteinian curvature of SUBJECTIVE spacetime

    God is caused by a curvature so large that
    similar curvatures in objective spacetime are
    only caused by Black Holes !

    Perhaps this is what Sir Roger Penrose meant
    when he remarked that "the brain is the only known
    device that can detect quantum gravity".

    And, because of this the average adult sees a reality
    that appears 10 to 20% LARGER and FASTER than it
    actually is as measured by clocks and rulers ! And
    this explains the "Sound and the Fury" of life.


    It is a common fact of life that children grow at the
    rate of about 5% per year for the first 20 years of
    their life.
    It is also a common fact of life that child
    intelligence increases nearly linearly with age and
    this is proven by the universal fact that raw
    intelligence is divided by age to obtain IQ.
    It is also known that the principle biological
    correlate of intelligence is "mental speed". This was
    first effectively "measured" by Thomas Edison when
    he invented the movie projector and discovered that
    the average person of average intelligence required
    a frame rate of 16 frames/sec – IOW the perceptual
    speed of the average person is 16 bits/sec.
    Edison also noticed that the speed, like intelligence
    itself, increases linearly with age in children.
    Okay, this means that as a person "grows up"
    the world, for 20 years, appears to get SMALLER
    and SLOWER.
    This means for instance if a child grows up in
    Holland within view of a distant windmill, as the
    child grows up year-by-year, the windmill will
    appear to get smaller and smaller, and turn slower
    and slower.
    So can we mathematically quantify this? Yes, we
    can. Let us define a magnification factor "a" which
    starts at say 3.5 when a child is born and
    DECREASES to 1.18 when the child reaches age 18.
    (we only reach 85% full growth, and 1/.85=1.18
    and this residual magnification is known as "God")
    This means that the size of the windmill has to be
    multiplied by "a" and that the number of seconds
    per revolution has to be divided by "a". This means
    that the "subjective metric" of space-time is given

    then, is given by:

    | a^2 0 0 0 |
    | 0 a^2 0 0 |
    | 0 0 a^2 0 |
    | 0 0 0 -1/a^2 |

    And as all physicist know, the CURVATURE
    of the space-time can be calculated from the metric.

    Plugging this metric into a computer program
    (I am using the MAXIMA program) we find that
    The TOTAL CURVATURE (Ricci scalar curvature
    turns out to be:

    R = 6a (a..) + 12 (a.)^2

    where (a..) = 2nd derivative w.r.t. Time
    and (a.) = 1st derivative w.r.t. Time

    And it turns out 12 of the Riemann Tensor, components are nonzero and are also proportional
    to (a.)^2 and 4 of the Einstein Tensor components
    are also nonzero and proportional to (a.)^2

    A full printout of this MAXIMA computation may be
    seen at:

    In order to post that here I would have to convert it
    to laTex which is tedious – so I simply posted the
    MAXIMA printout on my website for your
    convenience instead.

    OKAY – what all of this mathematically proves is


    Now elsewhere (on this Sciforums thread) I have
    demonstrated how modern PSYCHOMETRY has
    (due to Hammond) shown that this curvature
    is actually the "GOD OF THE BIBLE".

    Thus we finally conclude that: –


    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Does that mean God was created at the same time as Spacetime?

    If not, what came first, God or the Einsteinian Curvature of Subjective (?) Spacetime?

    Is there such a thing as subjective spacetime? What does that look like?
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
  12. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Hi Write4U,
    Let me answer your first 2 questions before I answer
    the 3rd one: –

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    There exists 2 different "CREATIONS" –

    1. – Physical Creation: "the Big Bang" 14 billion years ago
    2. – Biblical Creation: "Creation of Man" 300,000 years ago

    The point is that "Human Reality" was only created 300,000
    years ago. There was no such thing as "Human Reality"
    before that time.

    Therefore it is possible "psychologically" to say that
    "the universe was created 300,000 years ago" because
    The Universe only exists in human reality and human
    reality is only 300,000 years old.

    On the other hand, scientists tell you that there is such
    a thing as "Absolute Reality" which can be physically
    measured with clocks and rulers – and according to that
    the Universe is 14 billion years old.


    HOWEVER – there is another consideration to be
    reckoned with – and that is the fact that "Human Reality"
    DOES NOT EXACTLY COINCIDE with "Absolute Reality".

    It turns out that there is about a 15 to 20% DIFFERENCE
    between Human Reality And Absolute Reality. And this
    is caused by the fact that NO ONE EVER REACHES
    FULL GROWTH – the entire world population on average
    is 15 to 20% short of full growth !

    And this causes a 15 to 20% DIFFERENCE between
    "Human Reality" and "Absolute Reality – and this
    15 to 20% difference is commonly referred to as

    And because of this no one can actually SEE Absolute
    Reality – what they actually see is properly called
    And that statement answers your 3rd question:

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    "Subjective Space-Time" is what you ACTUALLY SEE.
    And everyone of us sees something slightly different –
    because we are all in various different degrees of "growth".
    Some people have a growth deficit of 10%, some 15%,
    some 20%, in the Third World you can find people with
    A Growth Deficit of 30 or 40%.

    They are NOT SEEING the same thing you are seeing.
    And this difference phenomenon is referred to historically
    as "God".

    Okay, I won't beleaguer the point, but believe me when
    I say that BOTH The Theologians And the Scientists
    are correct.

    PS – what do you think of my "GOD METRIC"

    | (a^2) 0 0 0 |
    |0 (a^2) 0 0 |
    |0 0 (a^2) 0 |
    |0 0 0 (-1/a^2)|

    And the fact that it turns out to have a
    just like a said it does ?

    PPS: – You know – since I've now discovered that the
    "God curvature" of subjective space-time is so
    enormously large (Black Hole sized) that I'm beginning
    to see that it is actual scientific evidence that the entire
    ball of wax phenomena of "God, Heaven, Death" etc.
    is somehow probably all wrapped up in a gravitational
    Black Hole type of phenomena – probally at the
    Quantum Gravity level in the brain ! Christ – can you
    imagine that – there actually might be life after death –
    and BTW it probably involves Microtubules !
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2022
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Please stop talking garbage.
    Even in the above drivel there are inconsistencies/flaws that you seem oblivious to, as long as you make it sound "scientific".

    To wit:
    "Human reality" - 300k years.
    "Absolute reality" - 14,000k years
    Sure, even by what you have previously said, and if we accept your notions, there is two orders of magnitude difference between them.
    That's not quite "does not exactly coincide" but is "are vastly different".
    Difference between 300k and 14,000k is 15-20%?
    I guess that's about as reasonable a claim as the rest of the garbage you spout.
    Unfortunately it is simply another example of you not really understanding that your thoughts do need to be logically consistent if they're not to be torn to shreds, especially if you put stock in those thoughts such as, well, working toward a "proof".
    Unfortunately your "proof" suffers from such throughout, and this latest proof is just more of the same.
    And you've wasted the past 20 years or so on it.
    I would actually feel sorry for you if you weren't also so utterly dishonest and pathetic.
    And you're still spouting this garbage even though it has been shown to you that your interpretation and understanding of the data you claimed you used is flawed.

    Seriously, Mr. Hammond, just stop.
    Stop making even more a fool of yourself than you already have.
    You're dishonest, you're delusional, you're a crank of the highest order, and a despicable person to boot.
    You are also one step from being banned from this place - which really says it all for your capabilities and integrity.
    Please, kindly, just fuck off.
    No one cares for your "proof" - because it really is garbage.
    Get the psychological help you clearly need (and are using this site for) from someone else.
    Preferably someone qualified to deal with your issues.
    Kristoffer likes this.
  14. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member


    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Baldeee – your post has been reported to the moderator
    for reason of: –
    profanity, inappropriate content, inappropriate behavior

  15. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Give it up, George. No one here is buying your crank "theory".
    The extreme font size doesn't make your argument anymore meaningful.

    I also don't think you reporting legitimate criticism of your Einsteinian curvature bs helps your case.

    I, and I am sincere here, hope you get over yourself and your bs attempt at proving the unprovable.
  16. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Kristoffer – your post has been reported to
    the moderator for the reason of –

    No scientific content,
    persecutory ad hominem content

  17. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Someone has questioned where the magnification a=3.5
    comes from in the above quote from post#1307.

    A newborn child is 20 inches tall, while an adult is
    70 inches tall – 70/20 = 3.5 magnification.

    Likewise – the average person (worldwide average)
    only reaches about 85% of full growth, and
    1/.85 = 1.18 magnification.

    So the magnification begins at 3.5 at birth and drops
    to 1.18 at adulthood.

    Last edited: Jun 25, 2022
  18. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Noone questioned it here, because it is garbage, like the rest of your "proof".
    And there would be little point in questioning one small aspect when you have so far failed to address the gaping holes in the rest of it.
    But anyway, I'm glad you decided to post an explanation, because if nothing else it highlights how shoddy your capabilities really are:

    To wit:
    I'm really hoping you haven't just taken statistics for the US male.
    That would be a shame.
    This report suggests 69 inches for the average adult male in the US.
    However, the average woman only 64 inches.
    With a roughly 50:50 ratio, you'd expect US average to be 67 inches, not 70.

    But then what about the world as a whole?
    This report suggests 171cm (67.3 inches) for men and 159cm (62.6 inches) for women.

    But, hey, who cares about any rigour or accuracy, right!

    It gets worse...
    Back to the same garbage that you've already spouted and has been shown to be based on flawed interpretation of data.
    You're a joke, Mr. Hammond.

    Still, it gets worse...
    If the 1.18 is based on only achieving 85% of full growth (per your flawed analysis) then why are you comparing the size of a newborn to that of someone only 85% of their "full growth"?
    Surely the initial number should not be 3.5 but 3.5/85% = 4.1

    So you can't even think logically and consistently.
    Even in such a small bit of analysis.
    It's just an example of lack of rigour and thought that your "proof" is littered with, even before the gaping holes already raised (and still unaddressed by you).

    But, again, what's a little more garbage to a delusional dishonest crank when they've already produced a steaming pile of it, eh!
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: George E Hammond has been permanently banned.

    It's time to call it on this nonsense. Mr Hammond hasn't managed to defend his position so far, and if it hasn't happened in 1300+ posts, it's unlikely to happen. Worse that that, Mr Hammond appears to have run out of material and is just repeating his unproven claims at this point.

    Since Mr Hammond is unwilling or unable to answer substantive objections to his claims, further discussion of these matters here is unlikely to be a productive use of our time.

    I'm sure that Hammond can be found elsewhere on the internet, if anybody is interested in following this up.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page