From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Wed May 9 23:55:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D0617ACB for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 23:55:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F18B17BAF for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 23:55:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBAD17ACB for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 23:55:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id XAA11174 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Wed, 9 May 2001 23:55:19 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f Message-ID: <3AF9CCC4.217BA6BA@mediaone.net> From: George Hammond X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsgroups: talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationis,sci.physics,bionet.biophysics,alt.sci.physics,harvard.course.physics11a.q-a,sci.bio.paleontology,alt.atheism Subject: Re: The "Science" of John Boatwright References: <3ae8b06a.109420557@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEDEF7F.7E7B31E5@mediaone.net> <3AEE46F7.12E64920@mediaone.net> <1103_988728794@GANDALF> <3AEEF3A9.F1C8A782@mediaone.net> <1104_988764931@GANDALF> <3AF84FCE.FE628ED@mediaone.net> <3AF9285E.4462457@mediaone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 327 Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:54:45 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net Organization: Road Runner To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > > In talk.atheism, George Hammond > > wrote > on Wed, 09 May 2001 11:13:26 GMT > <3AF9285E.4462457@mediaone.net>: > >The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > >> > >> In talk.atheism, George Hammond > >> > >> wrote > >> on Tue, 08 May 2001 19:49:34 GMT > >> <3AF84FCE.FE628ED@mediaone.net>: > >> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> > Its the simple properties of eigenvectors. EV's are orthogonal > >> >> >> > ("right angles") and by simple scaling could be made to be > >> >> >> > "equal" in magnitude hence "cubic" in however many dimensions. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [Hammond] > >> >> >> Wrong again amateur guesser. You'll really have to guess harder. > >> >> >> the 13-symmetry axes of a cube are NOT ORTHOGONAL for chrissakes. > >> >> >> neither are the 13-eigenvectors of Psychometry.... they are rotated > >> >> >> to "oblique simple structure" using maximum hyperplane count. > >> >> >> You don't know what you're talking about... PCA, Rotation, > >> >> >> Simple Structure, Hyperplane Count, etc. etc. are mathematical > >> >> >> physics subjects light years beyond your grade school education. > >> >> >> get outta here. > >> >> > > >> >> >If this is supposed to convince people that you have a serious > >> >> >scientific argument then I have to disappoint you. Such behavior > >> >> >of ad hominem is not very scientific nor very Christian. > >> >> >IMHO of course. > >> >> > >> >> However, his argument -- or maybe it's Dave's -- stripped of > >> >> ad homs, with respect to cube symmetry is in fact correct; > >> >> one set, for example, goes through two face centers (3); another > >> >> through two edge centers (6); still another through opposite > >> >> corners (4). Take any two of different classes and you'll > >> >> find that they don't meet at right angles. (Two of the same class, > >> >> at least for faces and edges, will meet at right angles, if one gives > >> >> it thought. The corners, I'm not sure about.) > > > >[Hammond] > >Only the 3-normals are at right angles. The body diagonals > >are at 109-degrees. The face diagonals at 45. > > As I read it, you were referring to the symmetry axes being > at 90 degrees with each other, as opposed to a (somewhat arbitrary) > axis which just happens to be parallel to the body-centric axes. > Hence, my conclusion. [Hammond] Due to the enormous terrestrial asymmetry imposed on the 3-space axes, the 3 human body axes become permanently "aligned" with the terrestrial axes. generally speaking all vertebrates have the longitudinal (spinal) axis parallel to the Earths surface, and the Left-right axis is also in the plane of the Earth (dogs, horses, fish, birds, etc.). the vertebrate the moves "longitudinally" forward along the spinal axis, with the mouth at the front. The legs project from the ventral side. Please don't post a pedantic reply that man stands upright, we all know Man has learned to balance on his hind legs. Makes no difference to neuropsychological history or geometry. > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> How that observation proves (or disproves!) God, or relates > >> >> to "the 13-eigenvectors of Psychometry", I've no idea. First > >> >> I've heard of Psychometry, in fact. > > > >[Hammond] > >Turns out the 3 "normals" are not exactly normal, just like > >Einstein showed that the corner of your living room is > >not exactly "3-normals"... because of the curvature of space > >caused by gravity. In psychometric space that curvature > >of the normals of the cube is easily measurable by Factor > >Analysis, and turns out to be "God" instead of Gravity. > >Thus a direct 2-decimal point measurement of God his self. > > I was thinking in an ideal 3-dimensional mathematically flat > (Euclidean) space; the slight warpature induced by the > 9.81 m/sec^2 acceleration is normally not included in > such calculations. :-) As for God...I'm drawing no conclusions > from your report at this time (since I've yet to see it) -- but see below, > where I critique your given Website. > [Hammond] the gravity involved here is not believed to be Terrestrial Gravity, it is a constant and too weak. the most plausible candidate is Penrose's "quantum Brain Gravity". point is, you don't even have to mention Gravity to show that it is a scientific proof of God. that's just the frosting on the cake, and a ripe avenue for future research. snip > > BTW, here's something new for your consideration: > > > >9 MAY 2001 > > > >FROM: > > > >GEORGE HAMMOND, M.S. Physics > >email: ghammond@mediaone.net > >website: > >http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html > > > > > > > >TO: > > > >Scientists in the Third-World, including particularly > >Moslem, Hindu, and Buddhist scientists. > > > >SUBJECT: > > > >A recent report of the discovery of a hard science proof > >of God from the fields of Psychometry and Relativity > >and it's probable impact on social conditions in > >the Third World. > > [snip for brevity] > > >I am hopeful that you will be able > >to spare a few minutes to read the one page FAQ on this discovery > >located at: > > > >http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/georgefile.html > > > >and determine if you are in possession of any scientific expertise > >that may be of help in confirming this discovery. Note that > >no research or experimentation is necessary.. it is simply a > >matter of finding a scientist or scientists who have the necessary > >interdisciplinary expertise to render a judgment on the matter. > > > > Finally, be sure to visit my main website at: > > > >http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html > > > >for further documentation of the details of this discovery and > >copies of my published papers. > > > >God speed, may Allah be with you, and Shalom, > >George Hammond, M.S., Physics/Psychology/Divinity > > The above Web paper is, at best, an interesting hypothesis as to how > physics and pyschology interrelate; one part in particular stands out: > > The body has 3 structural axes and this causes the brain to have > 3 structural axes (Figure 2). The fact that the brain has 3 > structural axes causes Psychology to have 3 structural dimensions. > In fact, when you take into account that the brain is a time > varying system, you get 4 structural dimensions known to > Psychometry as E,N,P,g (g = IQ). Therefore we see that the > X,Y,Z,t of ordinary space-time are the direct physical cause of > the four principle dimensions of Psychology, > > The terms E,N,P,g are defined (IMO, very vaguely) as Extroversion, > Neuroticism, Psychoticism, and Intelligence. Might as well use > only a yardstick three times, along with a pocket watch, to measure > an intricate artwork, a rollercoaster, or a tree, > then reproducing the measured item exactly. [Hammond] Naw... you don't know enough about it. names like "neuroticism, Psychoticism, Extraversion" don't mean any more than names like "Charm, Strangeness, Color, Flavor, Spin etc. etc.) in Quantum Particle physics. Point is, there is some definitely measurable, replipacable, accurately known eigenvector which constantly appears in the data. What you call it, or name it, is actually irrelevant. A hard science theory of Particle Physics in the latter case, and a hard scientific theory of God in the former case, still results. > > I find this, at best, highly simplistic. The state-of-the-art model > of the brain (AFAIK!) may be likened to a gigantic switching network, > not limited to 3 dimensions (it merely happens to be the case that the > axon/dendrites of the brain are embedded in a more or less very > slightly curved 3+time-space). [*] More interesting metrics using > *this* hypothesis might include time-to-neighbor-switch and > number-of-neighboring-switches, not mere physical dimensions. [Hammond] Hey dude... everything looks impossibly complicated to amateurs... that's why powerful professional scientist like Einstein and myself exist.... to explain how simple it really all is if you're qualified to understand it. > > Other claims include the assertion that we are all physically stunted > in our growth, along with all other animals (this is true, to a > degree, although I'm not yet sure how it relates). A TIME story > is linked; the reproduced story (TIME, October 14, 1996) is > in an inconvenient form, scanned images: > > http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time.htm > > A quick scan of TIME indicates that the official link appears to be: > > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1996/dom/961014/covereu.html > > which indicates that the scanned image is in fact the European edition > (the US one describes the Woman of the Year, Lori Lucas). This may > in part explain my non-rememberance of this particular story; > my Time subscription has since lapsed. [Hammond] the time citation i used is taken from a website by the principle researcher mentioned in the article. The "Secular Trend' is one of the most researched topics in modern history. just type in "secular trend" into your Internet search engine and 50 bazillion published papers, books and research reports by the U.N., WHO, UNICEF, bazillions of Universities etc. will instantly come up and you can read all about it... you will even find a length article in the encyclopedia Brittanica on it. it's old hat. recently it has been detected in IQ and is known as the Flynn Effect, also in any search engine. > > A link to "Factor Analysis" takes us to "ILLU4.jpg", a diagram which > shows a cube, a flat square, and a two-block model identified as > "Gray's (1991a) model", all interlaced with various axes. This > is not all that illuminating to me personally, any more than a > line graph with many flat segments is an explanation of the > discipline of linear programming (if I'm remembering the name > correctly; the idea is to maximize a quantity, given constraints, > represented by the flat lines; note that more than 2 dimensions > are usable). The diagram itself appears to be a scanned picture, > as opposed to something generated by a tool such as xfig or Visio. > [Hammond] this is only the tip of the iceberg, all this stuff is old hat and common knowledge in the field of Facto Analysis and psychometry and has been for 50 years. See any elementary textbook such as Thurstone 1947, or Cattell 1973. > Note also that IQ, as commonly understood by this layperson, is > characterized by (estimated mental age) / (chronological age); > the estimation being done by a more or less standard test (the > Stanford-Binet Intelligence Quotient test being the more or > less de facto -- or perhaps outdated de facto -- standard in > that particular area). I'm not sure what "IQ" refers to in the > above page, however, and the other terms are similarly vague. > [Hammond] You're retailing 30 year old common knowledge. today IQ is known scientifically as "psychometric g", and again your search engine will turn up 100 bazillion journals, research papers, textbooks, institutes, researchers etc. etc. on the subject. > For those who are interested, the above paper also provides the following > references: > > Reference: > > HAMMOND G.E. (1994) The Cartesian Theory, New Ideas In Psychology, > Vol. 12(2), pp. 153-167, Pergamon Press, London & N.Y. > HAMMOND G.E. (2000) The Scientific Proof of God, HPpub, Boston > (in press, available December, 2001) > HAMMOND G.E. (1986) The Origin of the Cross, HPpub, Boston > (out of print, see my website for review) > > I'm not sure what is considered "peer-reviewed literature" in > the scientific fields (I can cite such examples as JAMA, > the Journal of the American Medical Association, as being such literature, > but is hardly the only one). However, this appears to be merely > published. [Hammond} HAMMOND G.E. (1994) The Cartesian Theory, New Ideas In Psychology, Vol. 12(2), pp. 153-167, Pergamon Press, London & N.Y. this is a standard, highly respected, internationally prestigious peer reviewed academic journal. > > I'm not a qualified scientist, of course, but it does not appear that > the above constitutes a sufficiently rigorous proof for the existence > and/or interaction of an almighty Deity, from a scientific standpoint. [Hammond] EXACTLY THE POINT: you are not a qualified scientist. > > This is merely my review, of course; other scientists, laypersons, > and other such peers are of course free to conclude as they wish. :-) [Hammond] Goes w/o saying naturally. > > [.sigsnip] > > [*] I believe it was Minkowski who postulated that the fourth coordinate > is imaginary; physicists speculate that there are as many as 11 or > 14 dimensions, most of them very strangely twisted at the > subatomic level. Considerations such as these may or may not be > important at the merely cellular level, however -- I for one > do not know. > -- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- .