Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2005

This is posted in case Mr. Hammond has missed my posts in his
newsreader, although it would be hard to imagine that he has not seen
it. I have posted these questions four times in the How to Avoid
Homicide thread, and then formally in a new thread called The Eickmeier
Anti-SPOG. George Hammond has simply ignored it, because he apparently
has no answers to it. So let's all focus our attention on his response
to this new thread, which I promised him I would keep posting until he
does answer. It should be very interesting.

The Eickmeier Anti-SPOG

Bernhard Schornak has posted an excellent Anti-SPOG on his website

http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm.

This is my humble attempt to add to that voluminous work, but in a
simpler manner, something that Hammond can understand.

Why an Anti-SPOG? If you are new to these groups, you may not have
endured the constant harrassment of a fellow named George Hammond, who
has hatched a theory about proving the existence of God. We try to ask
him pointed questions to show him the errors in the paper, but he
responds with more nonsense and/or insults. He is relentless, mouthy,
disrespectful, and very frustrating. When one thread ends or
deteriorates into a pissing contest, he will start another one, hoping
to catch a few innocents gullible enough to believe that there is some
science to it, but all you need is a high school education to see
through a description of God as caused by our brain growth deficit, or
equating him to a quantity in an equation.

In the last couple of weeks, I have posted some questions to George that
he hasn't been able to answer. I posted them four times in the "God =
Guv HOW TO AVOID HOMICIDE" thread, and still no response. He is
apparently hoping it will all go away and he won't have to answer. So
let's post them one more time, in this new thread, and see what happens.

The questions result from boiling down his paper to its essentials and
discovering the gaps that he fails to fill in with his assertions, and
pointing out the circular reasoning involved in his mathematics.

His paper is a triumph of assumption, assertion, and circular reasoning.
In Figure 1 he states an assumption that BGD = God. In his mathematical
section which attempts to "prove" his statements, he says that

"However, since time, the 44-element of Einstein's equation correlates
negatively with speed (speed=time-1), we see that F is actually an
increase in the brain growth deficit (1-M) thus identifying F with "God"
as shown in Figure 1. Thus we have formally established that God is
identified with the gravitational potential."

So he uses his own assumption in part 1 to prove that a quantity is
identified with God. Any idiot can see that as circular reasoning, and
invalid.

Then there is the PFF, or Picture Fusion Frequency. Here is an example
of his reasoning from a previous post:

I don't think it takes a genius to see that a higher or lower PFF does
not mean that you are missing "seeing" part of the world around you. I
have asked him for examples of what an adult can see that a seven year
old cannot, but he has not responded to that either.

(Eickmeier)
"Can you direct us to your experiments in which you show something to a
7 year old and to an adult, and the 7 year old cannot see it? I can't
think of any case or instance of such a phenomenon. I don't even know
what you are talking about. What are you saying, exactly, with that
statement? What can't the child "see"?"

His other assertions are that BGD, Brain Growth Deficit, causes us to
not be able to "see" part of reality, and finally, that this "invisible
world" contains God, religion, and heaven. I know, it sounds as idiotic
as it is, but he is serious about this, and we are just trying to help.

QUESTIONS TO GEORGE HAMMOND:

I am now going to put back into this post the questions that you did NOT
answer, and see if you are sincere or not. I have given the reasoning
above for these questions. This involves the core of your paper, so
whether you answer them or not pretty much determines your fate. You
either have answers or you are a faker, trying to appear sciency but
with no more behind you than a high school graduate. To quote for the
fifth time from my previous post:

Your paper is a house of cards. It is built on certain unfounded
assumptions which are referred to later and used in mathematical proofs.
The missing steps are between:

* PFF and seeing reality

You have asserted that a lower PFF means that you see less of reality.
Please explain or show the steps in your reasoning or relate the
experiments that led you to believe this.

* BGD and "invisible world"

You have asserted that a BGD means that there is a world that is
invisible to us. Please explain your reasoning or the experiments that
led you to believe this. These steps are missing in your paper.

* "invisible world" and God, heaven, religion

Please explain why the invisible world would have to be God, or heaven,
or anything to do with any particular religion. Tell us your reasoning,
or relate the experiments that revealed to you what was in there. If
this world is invisible to us, how did you manage to see what was in
there? These steps are missing in your paper, and would be certainly the
most interesting part of it, if you care to reveal it.

Fill in the missing steps before you go to any mathematics.

Gary Eickmeier