Discovery of a Scientific Proof of God

[George Hammond]

DISCOVERY OF A SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

George Hammond, M.S. Physics

This story begins with my accidental discovery of the long sought
for STRUCTURAL MODEL OF PERSONALITY in Psychology
(Hammond 1994, for an online copy of this published paper see):
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

With the advent of computers in the 1960's the
factorization of large (100x100) matrices became feasible.
Researchers in Psychometrics soon discovered that for some
unknown reason there were always the same 4 eigenvectors
in every Pearson correlation matrix of Personality data... but
no one could figure out why. It seemed to be more of a Physics
problem than a Psychology problem. And yes, finally an
unsuspecting physicist named George Hammond accidentally
wandered into this arcane field and promptly discovered the
reason why!

Up until a few years ago I used to receive handwritten
letters from Prof. Raymond B. Cattell the world's foremost
Psychometric Factor Analyst. Then 93 and living in Hawaii
he used to berate me for not doing "good science" by having
failed to read all 50 of his books and 750 papers. The gum
on the envelopes was lapped so many times the paper shrunk
and his scrawling hand was so illegible I scarcely dared to
argue with him. He is however one of the few great men that
ever recognized me. Too there was Prof. Hans Eysenck 80
then the worlds most famous living psychologist and a year
before his death with whom I sat on the dais in Montreal
as an invited speaker and when I proffered a copy of my
paper coolly remarked "I've read it". He did generously
refer to me as "Dr. Hammond" in his 30 minute speech
following mine knowing full well that I am not a doctor of
anything but it was an egalitarian gesture that I will not
soon forget.

It seems that any scientific candidate qualified to look
into a scientific proof of God is inevitably over 80 years
of age and this has been so from the beginning. Even the
celebrated Prof. Julian Jaynes of Princeton whom I talked to
died within months of hanging up the phone and could do
nothing to assist me. This historic discovery then, perhaps
like Mendel's Peas has been signed, sealed and delivered
only to find that there is no one capable of understanding
it! But enough of futile complaining and back to the story.

With the advent of the universally used SPSS computer
program, which you're probably familiar with, thousands of
researchers began Factoring Personality correlation
matrices. The SPSS has a built in "Varimax" oblique
rotation algorithm and is very reliable. To make a long
story short, what we now know is that in any large
psychometric matrix there are 30 "1st Order Factors". These
have been named and measured by Cattell. After rotation to
Simple Structure this 30x30 matrix yields 13 "2nd Order
Factors". I discovered that these 13 are Cubically
intercorrelated being the 13 symmetry axes of a common Cube
(ibid Hammond 1994). This is a truly astonishing result which
any competent scientist can clearly see must point to the
physical origin of the eigenvectors... and therein lies the
discovery of the Structural Model of Personality, the object
of 2500 years of research ever since Hippocrates the Father
of Medicine said there was such a thing!

Rotating the 13-2nd Orders to Simple Structure and
Factoring the 13x13 matrix we get 4-3rd Order Factors, and
finally after rotating and Factoring the 4x4 we get a SINGLE
FINAL FACTOR.... the supreme Factor in the entire realm of
Psychology. Again of course, the psychologists have no
idea what is causing this final Factor... and again it was
yours truly who discovered and published the explanation of
this single 4th order Factor in 2003. It turns out that the
Final Factor is nothing other than the first known
scientific measurement and proof of the existence of the
"God of the Bible", so called. My 2003 paper is the
publication of the world's first bona fide Scientific Proof
of God! ( An online copy of this peer published paper is posted at):
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html

Incidentally, besides discovering that The Structural
Model is composed of the 13 symmetry axes of a cube, I was
also first to discover the final 4th-Order Factor. Cattell
had published the 4-3rd Orders in 1975 at the height of his
career but said that Factorization to the 4th-Order needed
more data to insure accuracy. Little did he know of course
that the single 4th-Order is God! That discovery
awaited my research (ibid Hammond 2003). At the time I didn't
have a computer large enough to run the SPSS but I persuaded
Dr. Paul Barrett in London, Hans Eysenck's former laboratory
director to run the 4x4 through SPSS and sure enough the
single 4th-Order Factor emerged-- the world's first actual
scientific measurement of God had been achieved!

Now you might rightly ask "how do you know this 4th-Order
Factor is God" and it sounds like it is a complicated
matter, but it turns out it is not. Even to a casual
scientific observer the demonstration is simple,
straightforward and overwhelming.

To begin with it is simple to show that the 13 Cubic
2nd-Order Factors (Personality Types so called) are simply
the celebrated Greek Dodekatheon- the 12 Olympian gods.
These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
painted on the tomb walls in ancient Egypt. It is also
well known that the Romans adopted the 12 Olympian Greek
gods and renamed them with Latin names. It turns out
(Hammond 2003) that this 13 axis Cube comes from the cubic
cleavage of the brain itself a part of basic body geometry.
The axial Cartesian geometry of the body, which comes from
the binary Cartesian cleavage of the egg itself, is why we
have 4 limbs and 4 major brain lobes and which turns out to
be why there are 4-3rd order Psychometric Factors, or
Personality types, known today as the canonical 4-Gospel
personalities of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In short the scientific proof of God I have discovered explains
the entire history of Religion from Paganism to Christianity as
the progressive discovery of higher and higher Orders of Factors
in the Factor hierarchy culminating in the discovery of the single
supreme God of Monotheism. All of which "gods" today are the
subject of routine experimental measurement to 3 significant
figures. This ranges from the 30 (1st-Order) demigods of
Hinduism through the 12 (2nd-Order) Olympian gods to the
4 (3rd-Order) gods of Christianity Mt,Mk,Lk,Jn to the single
supreme (4th-Order) God of Monotheism!

Demonstrating that the single 4th-Order is "God" consists
of the simple demonstration that this factor is caused by a
"brain growth deficit" due to the well known Secular Trend
in human growth. The well known properties of this brain
growth deficit compellingly and completely explain every
known phenomena ever attributed to "God"; why there is an
invisible world, why God is an invisible Man, what Eternal
Life is, why Creation occurred only thousands of years ago,
why there are miracles, why the Cross is the Cartesian
Coordinate system etc... the list includes every central item
in Religion and is all reported in my published paper
(Hammond 2003).

Finally we come to the creme de la creme of the theory,
the discovery that the phenomena of "God" is entirely
explained by the fact that "subjective" spacetime is actually
CURVED. In fact that this Factor Analytic proof shows that:

GOD = G_uv = % BGD (brain growth deficit)

where G_uv is the elementary Einstein Curvature Tensor. It
turns out that the same equation that describes the
curvature of "objective" spacetime (Gravity) also describes
the curvature of "subjective" spacetime (God). The
difference is that there is a different "source term" on the
r.h.s. of the two equations. "Braingrowth" takes the place
of "mass density" in Einstein's Field equation!

All of this is simply demonstrated by the fact that the
"oblique" matrices of Factor Analysis are in fact identical
to the "curved" matrices of (linearized) Gravity in
Relativity. Einstein it turns out not only discovered the
equation which describes Gravity, he also discovered the
equation which mathematically describes God! Although he
went to his grave without knowing this, anecdotal stories
indicate that he probably suspected a connection.

In conclusion then, there can be scant doubt that the world's
first scientific proof of God has been discovered, proven
and published.

All of which brings us to the burning question of the day
"What is a scientific proof of God worth?". What good is
it? After all, the majority of the world's population
already believes in God, even if they don't know what it is.
It is true that there is a widespread atheism in modern
academia, but so what, nobody pays attention to them. And
it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
the present conflict between Islam and Christianity. And it
certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
year struggle of Israel. It certainly is a scientific
vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
Christianity.

But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement, due to
the BGD (brain growth deficit). This is easily measured by
the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
possibility that it might be possible to program this
equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
people to "see Heaven". Not only could you see Heaven, but
by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would virtually
replace psychotherapy overnight. If you needed a
personality change virtual reality programmed with these
equations could actually show you what your new personality
would look like, sound like and what your "new reality"
would look like. Why for heaven's sake; the power of God
actually issuing forth from a computer!
================================================
WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
================================================

[Liteninbolt]

George Hammond, one thing you may have to understand about I Love Philosophy, every post you make here may be challenged or agreed to in some manner. It's very likely you may not like the responses that are made to them. There are some astute people here, but the subject you propose may not be one they have interest in.

Personally, I wish I understood a little better what your post is decribing so as to discuss it with you. There may be scientific proof for the existence of God, but if the knowledge isn't obtainable by laymen, then it would help if the one's who comprehend that proof attempt to make it assayable for those who want to know. For me, it boils down to faith and my personal experiences of God's Wonder's. In my opinion it's not enough to just know about God, but to feel His Love in my heart. So, if you could expound on your original post to help us get a stronger grasp on your original thoughts.

[George Hammond]

[Hammond]
Dear Lightninballs,
Unfortunately this is not an amateur discussion.

This essay is intended as a heads up FYI for the benetif of
professionals who may need to know.

George Hammond, one thing you may have to understand about I Love Philosophy, every post you make here may be challenged or agreed to in some manner. It's very likely you may not like the responses that are made to them.

[Hammond]
Anything that will get by the moderator is ok with me... unfortunately
the moderator has already had to remove several offending off-topic and/or
ad hominem posts from this thread, at my request.

There are some astute people here, but the subject you propose may not be one they have interest in.

[Hammond]
If they're not interested, hopefully they will abstain from posting.

Personally, I wish I understood a little better what your post is decribing so as to discuss it with you. There may be scientific proof for the existence of God, but if the knowledge isn't obtainable by laymen, then it would help if the one's who comprehend that proof attempt to make it assayable for those who want to know. .... <snip>....... So, if you could expound on your original post to help us get a stronger grasp on your original thoughts.

[Hammond]
I'm not a tutor. If you're an amateur,
you'll have to wait for my book:

THE
SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD

which will be released next year.

[Magsj]

[Hammond]
Dear Lightninballs,
Unfortunately this is not an amateur discussion.

[Hammond]
Anything that will get by the moderator is ok with me... unfortunately
the moderator has already had to remove several offending off-topic and/or
ad hominem posts from this thread, at my request.

'He' is a moderator - did you not do your home-work before posting on the site...?

A polite response to any off-topic replies usually does the trick, George, as posters are pretty cool here, and we have an avid array of religion board posters who would probably relish discussing the topic at hand.

[Faust]

I think I have found the scientific proof that George's stay here is quite limited. behave yourself, or we'll be forced to use our scientifically proven thread zapper thingie.

[Liteninbolt]

Dear George Hammond,

First of all, as Magsj pointed out to you, I am a moderator here, second my intent to my post was an attempt to be civil in hopes that you might understand the inner workings of I Love Philosophy and that your experience will be a positive one. You must mind your P's and Q's so as to be a valued member of this site.

As a final note, I showed respect is displaying your name correctly as 'George Hammond'. I am not offended by you referring to my name here as 'Liteninballs', so if you would like to shorten it to say 'Lite', that would be perfectly fine. Oh, and please heed Faust's admonition, his patience is great, but he will not put up with tomfoolery.

[Dr Armitage]

Has anyone actually read the paper he posted? He seems to be making a very basic mistake in that it seems to me that he is confusing models and reality. Also, The idea that certain personality traits are influenced by neuronal connections in certain directions seems to be a bit simplistic (if I misunderstood, I'm sorry, but it seems to be saying that if more of your neurons connect the neurons above them you will be further along one personality axis, and if more connect to neurons beside or in front of or behind them you will be further along others. If that's not what it says, then I'm not sure how the three dimensional spatial ideas relate to the structure of the brain.)

Also, assuming the theory is correct, the jump to it proving monotheism seems a bit far-fetched, and if it does prove monotheism, what says it doesn't prove Islam or Judaism rather than Christianity.

I know this is probably the most offensive thing that I can say to a researcher, but he sounds like a more eloquent version of the timecube guy.

[George Hammond]

Dear Dr. Armitage,
I find it interesting that you are concerned with the discovery of a scientific
proof of God. That certainly gives us an estimate of your intellectual credentials,
in and of itself. Congratulations.
You use the world "simplistic" in your critisism of the theory. As I see it your
difficulty seems to be that you appear to vastly underestimate
how simplistic the theory actually is. Remember that ALL historically significant scientific
discoveries are extremly "simplistic" and the scientific proof of God is no exception
to that rule.
I'm sorry that I don't have time to tutor people who are interested so I can only
suggest that you read my website, particularly the first 4 large print illustrated pages
located at:

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

Other than that I'm afraid that you will have to await the release of my upcoming
book:

The
Scientific
Proof of God

With best wishes,
George Hammond, M.S. Physics (1967)

[Dr Armitage]

I've been reading your site, and honestly, I think I'm going to have to go with Dr. Isham on this. The best thing you have is an analogy. As for "god in the flesh" being a human with a brain growth deficit of zero: what happens if you have a mouse with a brain growth deficit of zero? Is it god in the flesh? Why is the human max potential god in the flesh, rather god in the flesh being the max potential of something lesser or greater than humans?

I also notice that your site is not being hosted by a university. It is on free web hosting. I would think a groundbreaking theory that was irrefutable and unquestionable would garner a little more support, and not be cast aside to the street corner(the one where the crazies rant and rave) of the web. Hell, timecube guy has his own webpage.

Not to say that a good website makes something true or that a bad website makes something untrue, but it seems like if the academic community took you seriously, you would have something a little more prestigious than a geocities page. Also, I'm fairly certain that children see the world as bigger than adults do because they are so small in relation to it.

And you seem to claim that a human with a brain growth of zero could see all of reality, but you still have to deal with the problem of gathering sense data.

I'm sorry I have to resort to picking out problems I have with the theory at random, but there are just so many that I don't know where to start.

[George Hammond]

Dear "Dr Armitage",
Your comments seem too eagerly argumentative, significantly ad hominem
and woefully uninformed for me to consider yours a serious professional
inquiry.

I also notice that you are a pseudoanonymous poster with apparently
no academic credentials or posted CV.

Such serendipitious amateur commentray is dime a dozen all over
Usenet and I've listened to miles of it ad nauseum. Basically you
don't know what you're talking about and have apparently no
professional expertise which would indicatre there is any promise
of you contributing anything worthwhile to the matter.

Of course I appreciate your curiosity, but that isn't worth much
forensically speaking. Chris isham by the way doesn't have a clue
as to what God is, and your remarks indicate neither do you.

Thankfully this is a moderated discussion group and in closing
I would politely remind you with all due respect that contributers
are protected from ad hominem abuse by the moderatoring staff.

Regards, Hammond

[Impenitent]

Dear "Dr Armitage",
Your comments seem too eagerly argumentative, significantly ad hominem
and woefully uninformed for me to consider yours a serious professional
inquiry.

I also notice that you are a pseudoanonymous poster with apparently
no academic credentials or posted CV.

Such serendipitious amateur commentray is dime a dozen all over
Usenet and I've listened to miles of it ad nauseum. Basically you
don't know what you're talking about and have apparently no
professional expertise which would indicatre there is any promise
of you contributing anything worthwhile to the matter.

Of course I appreciate your curiosity, but that isn't worth much
forensically speaking. Chris isham by the way doesn't have a clue
as to what God is, and your remarks indicate neither do you.

Thankfully this is a moderated discussion group and in closing
I would politely remind you with all due respect that contributers
are protected from ad hominem abuse by the moderatoring staff.

Regards, Hammond

"...Basically you
don't know what you're talking about and have apparently no
professional expertise which would indicatre there is any promise
of you contributing anything worthwhile to the matter."

this is a perfect example of ad hominem abuse...

consider it your second strike

-Imp

[Peter Kropotkin]

IMP and Faust, I for one think we could wait a minute.
If mr. Hammond is serious, than perhaps we should discuss his theories.

H: Up until a few years ago I used to receive handwritten
letters from Prof. Raymond B. Cattell the world's foremost
Psychometric Factor Analyst. Then 93 and living in Hawaii
he used to berate me for not doing "good science" by having
failed to read all 50 of his books and 750 papers. The gum
on the envelopes was lapped so many times the paper shrunk
and his scrawling hand was so illegible I scarcely dared to
argue with him. He is however one of the few great men that
ever recognized me. Too there was Prof. Hans Eysenck 80
then the worlds most famous living psychologist and a year
before his death with whom I sat on the dais in Montreal
as an invited speaker and when I proffered a copy of my
paper coolly remarked "I've read it". He did generously
refer to me as "Dr. Hammond" in his 30 minute speech
following mine knowing full well that I am not a doctor of
anything but it was an egalitarian gesture that I will not
soon forget.

K: let us start with, Psychometric Factor Analyst.
He is an psychologist who studies personalities,
he was studying personalities to get to how behavior worked?
The 16 factors of his was personalities traits, nothing more.
He was using those 16 personalities traits to analyze behavior.
It had nothing to do with God in any, way shape or form."

H: It seems that any scientific candidate qualified to look
into a scientific proof of God is inevitably over 80 years
of age and this has been so from the beginning. Even the
celebrated Prof. Julian Jaynes of Princeton whom I talked to
died within months of hanging up the phone and could do
nothing to assist me. This historic discovery then, perhaps
like Mendel's Peas has been signed, sealed and delivered
only to find that there is no one capable of understanding
it! But enough of futile complaining and back to the story.

K: how does this tie into behaviors study?

H: With the advent of the universally used SPSS computer
program, which you're probably familiar with, thousands of
researchers began Factoring Personality correlation
matrices. The SPSS has a built in "Varimax" oblique
rotation algorithm and is very reliable. To make a long
story short, what we now know is that in any large
psychometric matrix there are 30 "1st Order Factors". These
have been named and measured by Cattell. After rotation to
Simple Structure this 30x30 matrix yields 13 "2nd Order
Factors". I discovered that these 13 are Cubically
intercorrelated being the 13 symmetry axes of a common Cube
(ibid Hammond 1994). This is a truly astonishing result which
any competent scientist can clearly see must point to the
physical origin of the eigenvectors... and therein lies the
discovery of the Structural Model of Personality, the object
of 2500 years of research ever since Hippocrates the Father
of Medicine said there was such a thing!

K: eigenvectors are simply a mathimatical term used to study differential equations
and liner algebra. Yyour use of cubically intercorrelated has no meaning whatsoever in this context.
A common cube? WTF does this mean?

H: Rotating the 13-2nd Orders to Simple Structure and
Factoring the 13x13 matrix we get 4-3rd Order Factors, and
finally after rotating and

K: rotating the 13.... that is what eigenvector means and the rest of the sentence makes no sense.

H: Factoring the 4x4 we get a SINGLE
FINAL FACTOR.... the supreme Factor in the entire realm of
Psychology. Again of course, the psychologists have no
idea what is causing this final Factor... and again it was
yours truly who discovered and published the explanation of
this single 4th order Factor in 2003. It turns out that the
Final Factor is nothing other than the first known
scientific measurement and proof of the existence of the
"God of the Bible", so called. My 2003 paper is the
publication of the world's first bona fide Scientific Proof
of God! ( An online copy of this peer published paper is posted at):
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_o ... nd5s1.html

K: these factors you talk about are personality, behavior traits, nothing more.
How this leads to GOD is beyond me. In the research I did, I found nothing about any
single factor nor did I find anything about an "4th order factor in 2003."

H: Incidentally, besides discovering that The Structural
Model is composed of the 13 symmetry axes of a cube, I was
also first to discover the final 4th-Order Factor.

K: I am fairly sure this sentence doesn't mean a thing.
because what is the connection between a structural model (which you still haven't defined)
and the 13 symmentry axes of a cube!

Cattell
had published the 4-3rd Orders in 1975 at the height of his
career but said that Factorization to the 4th-Order needed
more data to insure accuracy. Little did he know of course
that the single 4th-Order is God!

K: and you have yet to show us how a personality trait becomes god.

That discovery
awaited my research (ibid Hammond 2003). At the time I didn't
have a computer large enough to run the SPSS but I persuaded
Dr. Paul Barrett in London, Hans Eysenck's former laboratory
director to run the 4x4 through SPSS and sure enough the
single 4th-Order Factor emerged-- the world's first actual
scientific measurement of God had been achieved!

K: I suggest we contact Mr barrett and confirm this.

H: Now you might rightly ask "how do you know this 4th-Order
Factor is God" and it sounds like it is a complicated
matter, but it turns out it is not. Even to a casual
scientific observer the demonstration is simple,
straightforward and overwhelming.

H: To begin with it is simple to show that the 13 Cubic
2nd-Order Factors (Personality Types so called) are simply
the celebrated Greek Dodekatheon- the 12 Olympian gods.
These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
painted on the tomb walls in ancient Egypt. It is also
well known that the Romans adopted the 12 Olympian Greek
gods and renamed them with Latin names. It turns out
(Hammond 2003) that this 13 axis Cube comes from the cubic
cleavage of the brain itself a part of basic body geometry.
The axial Cartesian geometry of the body, which comes from
the binary Cartesian cleavage of the egg itself, is why we
have 4 limbs and 4 major brain lobes and which turns out to
be why there are 4-3rd order Psychometric Factors, or
Personality types, known today as the canonical 4-Gospel
personalities of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

K: you simply have taken Jewish mysticism and tried to spin it sciencetifically.
Most people use three's to do the same thing, thus 666 is the sign of the devil
type of thing.

H: In short the scientific proof of God I have discovered explains
the entire history of Religion from Paganism to Christianity as
the progressive discovery of higher and higher Orders of Factors
in the Factor hierarchy culminating in the discovery of the single
supreme God of Monotheism. All of which "gods" today are the
subject of routine experimental measurement to 3 significant
figures. This ranges from the 30 (1st-Order) demigods of
Hinduism through the 12 (2nd-Order) Olympian gods to the
4 (3rd-Order) gods of Christianity Mt,Mk,Lk,Jn to the single
supreme (4th-Order) God of Monotheism!

K: you have done nothing of the sort because the 30 factors you speak of, is personalities traits
which simply cannot lead us to some sort of discover of religions because they are personality traits.
I cannot emphasise this enough. The factors you speak of and cattall spoke of is personality traits.

H: Demonstrating that the single 4th-Order is "God" consists
of the simple demonstration that this factor is caused by a
"brain growth deficit" due to the well known Secular Trend
in human growth. The well known properties of this brain
growth deficit compellingly and completely explain every
known phenomena ever attributed to "God"; why there is an
invisible world, why God is an invisible Man, what Eternal
Life is, why Creation occurred only thousands of years ago,
why there are miracles, why the Cross is the Cartesian
Coordinate system etc... the list includes every central item
in Religion and is all reported in my published paper
(Hammond 2003).

K:" brain growth deficit" due to "well known" secular trend in human growth.
I am sure a more random grouping of words could occur but I don't see how.
brain growth deficit" google that one and came up with add, but not much else.
this secular trend in human growth is nothing more than diet changes people
growth. Not much of a surprise there, but a connection? You have to work harder than
you are right now.

H: Finally we come to the creme de la creme of the theory,
the discovery that the phenomena of "God" is entirely
explained by the fact that "subjective" spacetime is actually
CURVED. In fact that this Factor Analytic proof shows that:
GOD = G_uv = % BGD (brain growth deficit)

K: We have traveled a really, really long way from your original point which
is behavior, personality traits in the beginning without there being much, well actually,
no connection of any kind to spacetime and god.

H: where G_uv is the elementary Einstein Curvature Tensor. It
turns out that the same equation that describes the
curvature of "objective" spacetime (Gravity) also describes
the curvature of "subjective" spacetime (God). The
difference is that there is a different "source term" on the
r.h.s. of the two equations. "Braingrowth" takes the place
of "mass density" in Einstein's Field equation!

K: I spent quite a while trying to understand this paragraph,
the problem was without the two equations, subjective and
objective "spacetime" your sentence lacks scientific prove.
Thus leaving us with a gobblegook last two sentences which don't seem to have
any meaning whatsoever.

H: All of this is simply demonstrated by the fact that the
"oblique" matrices of Factor Analysis are in fact identical
to the "curved" matrices of (linearized) Gravity in
Relativity. Einstein it turns out not only discovered the
equation which describes Gravity, he also discovered the
equation which mathematically describes God! Although he
went to his grave without knowing this, anecdotal stories
indicate that he probably suspected a connection.

K: still leaving us the problem of how did we get from
personality traits to gravity and Einstein and god.

H: In conclusion then, there can be scant doubt that the world's
first scientific proof of God has been discovered, proven
and published.

K: Bold, brave and not right. You haven't even made a simply connection
proving your point, little less the more complicated points.

H: All of which brings us to the burning question of the day
"What is a scientific proof of God worth?". What good is
it? After all, the majority of the world's population
already believes in God, even if they don't know what it is.
It is true that there is a widespread atheism in modern
academia, but so what, nobody pays attention to them. And
it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
the present conflict between Islam and Christianity. And it
certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
year struggle of Israel. It certainly is a scientific
vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
Christianity.

K: You have to somehow make the connection between
behavior and god and you haven't.

H: But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement, due to
the BGD (brain growth deficit). This is easily measured by
the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
possibility that it might be possible to program this
equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
people to "see Heaven". Not only could you see Heaven, but
by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would virtually
replace psychotherapy overnight. If you needed a
personality change virtual reality programmed with these
equations could actually show you what your new personality
would look like, sound like and what your "new reality"
would look like. Why for heaven's sake; the power of God
actually issuing forth from a computer!
================================================

K: in conclusion, you have thrown in, well more correctly dragged in
quite a few different idea's without connecting them. You began as your thesis
the idea of personality traits to understand behavior and turned that simple idea
into some mess about god and spacetime.

Kropotkin

[Magsj]

I've been enjoying the evolution of this thread too, but that is not to say that Mr Hammond can take advantage of the moderating system in-order to prohibit critique on his essay...

[Peter Kropotkin]

What I have done is paragraph to paragraph critiqued Hammonds work.
The ball is in his court as to what he does or doesn't do.
You can react based on his reaction. I took his points seriously
and tried to respond seriously. Let us wait and see.

Kropotkin

[Faust]

Very entertaining, Peter.

[Dr Armitage]

Mr Hammond,
You do make a few good points, I did get a bit emotional, and forget myself. I should have lessend the ad hominem a bit, but I think my points still remain valid. I apologize for comparing you to timecube guy, you are obviously less deluded than he is.

I do, however, have a bit of a bone to pick with you.

Dear "Dr Armitage",
Your comments seem too eagerly argumentative, significantly ad hominem
and woefully uninformed for me to consider yours a serious professional
inquiry.

This is a nonprofessional website. If you could get your ideas published in a peer reviewed journal you could expect professional inquiry. All I have to work with is my amatuer knowledge, and I'm pretty sure that goes for most people on this board.

I also notice that you are a pseudoanonymous poster with apparently
no academic credentials or posted CV.

This is also true. It is the nature of the board. If you want to speak to me more in person, I am private messenging you my phone number when I'm done posting this message. As for the name, I specifically state in my signature that I am not actually a doctor.

Such serendipitious amateur commentray is dime a dozen all over
Usenet and I've listened to miles of it ad nauseum. Basically you
don't know what you're talking about and have apparently no
professional expertise which would indicatre there is any promise
of you contributing anything worthwhile to the matter.

Once again, one has to wonder why you have to take your arguments to Usenet rather than a professional journal

Of course I appreciate your curiosity, but that isn't worth much
forensically speaking. Chris isham by the way doesn't have a clue
as to what God is, and your remarks indicate neither do you.

What were you saying about ad hominem?

He is a professional, who happens to disagree with you, so maybe In my disagreement I'm not such a simpleton after all.

Thankfully this is a moderated discussion group and in closing
I would politely remind you with all due respect that contributers
are protected from ad hominem abuse by the moderatoring staff.

True, and I apologize for the ad hominem attacks I threw in there. Like I said, I was a bit emotional. It's people making unsubstantiated claims and claiming them as science that upsets me. It is part of the reason the country is in the state that it is today (think about the success of creation science). As I said, I would be more than happy to discuss your "Proof" with you in a more interactive medium, so call me when you get the chance

-Nicholas Moore

[Dr Armitage]

Moderators,

I apologize if I have overstepped my bounds. If you want me to abandon this thread, I will not protest. I did resort to ad hominem attacks, and I apologize for it. I fully realize that I am a bit of an interloper, and far from an established member of this community, and I will respectfully abide by your decision concerning my participation.

[George Hammond]

Dear Dr. Armitage,
I have read your comments to the moderators and my sense of guilt moves
me to fess up to an attitude problem of my own.

The problem originates of course in the fact that a "scientific proof of God"
is by it's very nature a politically explosive topic should it ever be taken seriously.
Therefore we must expect most readers to opt for the obviously safe posture
of simply not treating it seriously. This fact then accounts for my thin skinned
attitude.

Despite the fact that I am a physicist by training let me point out here that
Philosophy has been a wholly unexpected friend to me. When I discovered
the Structural Model in Psychology, 20 journals turned it down, including
the late and great Hans Eysenck himself, simply because such a historic
claim was unbelieveable and produced considerable academic envy.

At that juncture, a philosopher, of all things, one Professor
Richard Kitchener chairman of the Philosophy Department at
Colorado State University unexpectedly came to my rescue. After
prevailing with the reviewers of New Ideas In Psychology to reconsider their
opinions and allowing me to answer in full thier preliminary objections,
the review became unanimous for publication... largly because of his
insight and outstanding judgement, to say nothing of simple moral courage.

That was in 1994, and at that point I suddenly realized what a
pivitol role Philosophy was destined to play in this scenario.
Three years later I discovered the Scientific Proof of God and
published it in an obscure science-religion journal mainly to
secure my priorities rather than hoping anyone would notice
it.

The point is this. I have since discovered that no authority in Physics,
Psychology, or Theology will touch the matter with a ten foot pole
because of it's politically explosive nature. It turns out that the
ONLY people who are permitted to say anything about a scientific
proof of God without creating a political firestorm, is the
Philosophy Department!

Therefore, it is my hope that future posters to this thread would
try to realize Philosophy's special "diplomatic immunity" in this regard,
and realize that the discovery is a very serious matter socially,
that this is a competent scientific work, and that Philosophers
have a very special license to take the matter seriously and that
in the end, the Philosophy Department is destined to play a key role
in the historic reconciliation of Religion and Science caused by the discovery
of the world's first scientific proof of God, to say nothing of it's impact
on world Religion.

In the meantime Dr. Armitage, yes I am grateful for your on topic
content and concern and I do admire your mature and socially responsible
attitude.
Regards,
George Hammond

[Peter Kropotkin]

Helllllllooooooooo, I still have a paragraph by paragraph critique of hammonds "work".

I would certainly hope he gets off his fracking high horse and answers me
because as far as I can tell, his work isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Kropotkin

[George Hammond]

Dear Mssr. Kropotkin,

I appreciate very highly the on topic substance of your post and
I have made the following brief replies to your commentary.


H: Up until a few years ago I used to receive handwritten
letters from Prof. Raymond B. Cattell the world's foremost
Psychometric Factor Analyst. Then 93 and living in Hawaii
he used to berate me for not doing "good science" by having
failed to read all 50 of his books and 750 papers. The gum
on the envelopes was lapped so many times the paper shrunk
and his scrawling hand was so illegible I scarcely dared to
argue with him. He is however one of the few great men that
ever recognized me. Too there was Prof. Hans Eysenck 80
then the worlds most famous living psychologist and a year
before his death with whom I sat on the dais in Montreal
as an invited speaker and when I proffered a copy of my
paper coolly remarked "I've read it". He did generously
refer to me as "Dr. Hammond" in his 30 minute speech
following mine knowing full well that I am not a doctor of
anything but it was an egalitarian gesture that I will not
soon forget.

K: let us start with, Psychometric Factor Analyst.
He is an psychologist who studies personalities,
he was studying personalities to get to how behavior worked?
The 16 factors of his was personalities traits, nothing more.
He was using those 16 personalities traits to analyze behavior.
It had nothing to do with God in any, way shape or form."

[Hammond]
---Raymond B. Cattell published 750 papers and 50 books in a career
spanning more than 70 years and was internationally famous.
---The "16 PF" is only the tip of the iceberg of his work. He also did many years of
work on 2nd-Order and 3rd-Order Personality eigenvectors.
---While the 1st-Order factors (factors=eigenvectors) are personality traits
the 2nd-Order factors are personality types.
---Cattell never mentioned the word "God" and I never said he did, but that
certainly doesn't mean that there isn't a relation between personality types
and the ancient "gods". Fact is my (peer published) research clearly shows
there is.... the "gods" are nothing more than personality types!


H: It seems that any scientific candidate qualified to look
into a scientific proof of God is inevitably over 80 years
of age and this has been so from the beginning. Even the
celebrated Prof. Julian Jaynes of Princeton whom I talked to
died within months of hanging up the phone and could do
nothing to assist me. This historic discovery then, perhaps
like Mendel's Peas has been signed, sealed and delivered
only to find that there is no one capable of understanding
it! But enough of futile complaining and back to the story.

K: how does this tie into behaviors study?

[Hammond]
Never said it did.

H: With the advent of the universally used SPSS computer
program, which you're probably familiar with, thousands of
researchers began Factoring Personality correlation
matrices. The SPSS has a built in "Varimax" oblique
rotation algorithm and is very reliable. To make a long
story short, what we now know is that in any large
psychometric matrix there are 30 "1st Order Factors". These
have been named and measured by Cattell. After rotation to
Simple Structure this 30x30 matrix yields 13 "2nd Order
Factors". I discovered that these 13 are Cubically
intercorrelated being the 13 symmetry axes of a common Cube
(ibid Hammond 1994). This is a truly astonishing result which
any competent scientist can clearly see must point to the
physical origin of the eigenvectors... and therein lies the
discovery of the Structural Model of Personality, the object
of 2500 years of research ever since Hippocrates the Father
of Medicine said there was such a thing!

K: eigenvectors are simply a mathimatical term used to study differential equations
and liner algebra. Yyour use of cubically intercorrelated has no meaning whatsoever in this context.
A common cube? WTF does this mean?

[Hammond]
---You appear to be unaware that a correlation coefficient is the
cosine of an angle... to wit if two variates are correlated .707
that means that they can be represented by two vectors lying
at 45-degrees to one another since cos(45)=.707.
---this is the key to why the 13x13 intercorrelation matrix of the
2nd-Order Personalitry types forms a CUBE. If you take the
arcosine of the correlations in the (known experimental) 13x13
matrix those angles turn out to form a cube, including specifically
the 13 rotational symmetry axes of a cube (3 normals, 4 body diagonals,
6 face diagonals=13 axes).
---Obviously this happenstance cannot be an accident! It must have some
neuroanatomical origin, and it does! turns out the entire brain itself is
CUBIC, and that is what causes the 13 2nd Order Personality types, and hence
the 12 Olympian gods of ancient religion.


H: Rotating the 13-2nd Orders to Simple Structure and
Factoring the 13x13 matrix we get 4-3rd Order Factors, and
finally after rotating and

K: rotating the 13.... that is what eigenvector means and the rest of the sentence makes no sense.

[Hammond]
---You say it makes no sense but that is because you have no expertise
in Factor analysis.
---"Eigenvectors" are by mathematical definiton always orthogonal. However
Factor Analysis long ago discovered that the eigenvectors have to be
"rotated to Simple Structure" using a least mean square best fit
procedure (Thurstone). Today the SPSS statistical package used by
hundreds of thousands of scientists every day has a built in algorythm
which automatically rotates the factors.
---Once the eigenvectors have been rotated to Simple Structure (which usually
indicates some underlying symmetry phenomenon), then the new oblique matrix
can be refactored to yield a new round of "higher order" factors. All of this
is standard testbook procedure which is executed on thousands of computers
by scientists in laboratories all over the world every day.


H: Factoring the 4x4 we get a SINGLE
FINAL FACTOR.... the supreme Factor in the entire realm of
Psychology. Again of course, the psychologists have no
idea what is causing this final Factor... and again it was
yours truly who discovered and published the explanation of
this single 4th order Factor in 2003. It turns out that the
Final Factor is nothing other than the first known
scientific measurement and proof of the existence of the
"God of the Bible", so called. My 2003 paper is the
publication of the world's first bona fide Scientific Proof
of God! ( An online copy of this peer published paper is posted at):
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_o ... nd5s1.html

K: these factors you talk about are personality, behavior traits, nothing more.

[Hammond]
---Never said they weren't. What do you think a "god" is? A "god" is a
personality type and this has been recognized for thousands of
years ever since the Egyptians used animal headed gods to represent
the different personality types (falcon, alligator, cat, ibis, beetle,
hippo, etc) much the same as we use Porky Pig, Mickey Mouse and
Donald Duck as "personality types" today. Fact is, Mickey Mouse would
have been considered a "god" in ancient pagan religion.
---Of course today, Hammond has discovered WHY there were always
12 of them (Gr. Dodekatheon), and that is because the come from
the cubic structure of the brain and a cube has 13 symmetry axes, hence
13 personaity types and 13 "gods".

How this leads to GOD is beyond me.

[Hammond]
I don't doubt it.

In the research I did, I found nothing about any
single factor nor did I find anything about an "4th order factor in 2003."

[Hammond]
You won't find it in a book. This is an ORIGINAL discovery
made by me, and I have published it in the peer reviewed
literature to secure my prioritiy in the discovery.

H: Incidentally, besides discovering that The Structural
Model is composed of the 13 symmetry axes of a cube, I was
also first to discover the final 4th-Order Factor.

K: I am fairly sure this sentence doesn't mean a thing.

[Hammond]
Wrong. It means exactly what it says.

because what is the connection between a structural model (which you still haven't defined)
and the 13 symmentry axes of a cube!

[Hammond]
Explained above.

Cattell
had published the 4-3rd Orders in 1975 at the height of his
career but said that Factorization to the 4th-Order needed
more data to insure accuracy. Little did he know of course
that the single 4th-Order is God!

K: and you have yet to show us how a personality trait becomes god.

[Hammond]
---It is clear how a personalty "type" can become a "god", just like we
could consider Mickey Mouse to be a "god". In fact people
commonly refer to famous movie personalites as "gods", such
as Marylin Monroe, Humphrey Bogart, etc., etc.

That discovery
awaited my research (ibid Hammond 2003). At the time I didn't
have a computer large enough to run the SPSS but I persuaded
Dr. Paul Barrett in London, Hans Eysenck's former laboratory
director to run the 4x4 through SPSS and sure enough the
single 4th-Order Factor emerged-- the world's first actual
scientific measurement of God had been achieved!

K: I suggest we contact Mr barrett and confirm this.

[Hammond]
Go right ahead. He moderates a psychometry discussion
Listserv called IDANET and you will find a record of our
conversations and a record of said discovery event posted
there, and in fact I still have the hard copy of the orininal print out he
emailed me from London.


H: Now you might rightly ask "how do you know this 4th-Order
Factor is God" and it sounds like it is a complicated
matter, but it turns out it is not. Even to a casual
scientific observer the demonstration is simple,
straightforward and overwhelming.

H: To begin with it is simple to show that the 13 Cubic
2nd-Order Factors (Personality Types so called) are simply
the celebrated Greek Dodekatheon- the 12 Olympian gods.
These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
painted on the tomb walls in ancient Egypt. It is also
well known that the Romans adopted the 12 Olympian Greek
gods and renamed them with Latin names. It turns out
(Hammond 2003) that this 13 axis Cube comes from the cubic
cleavage of the brain itself a part of basic body geometry.
The axial Cartesian geometry of the body, which comes from
the binary Cartesian cleavage of the egg itself, is why we
have 4 limbs and 4 major brain lobes and which turns out to
be why there are 4-3rd order Psychometric Factors, or
Personality types, known today as the canonical 4-Gospel
personalities of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

K: you simply have taken Jewish mysticism and tried to spin it sciencetifically.
Most people use three's to do the same thing, thus 666 is the sign of the devil
type of thing.

[Hammond]
This is an unsupported assertion. Referring to the Bible as
"Jewish Mysticism" is clearly a perjorative statement
given that the worlds biggest religion, Christianity is
based on it.


H: In short the scientific proof of God I have discovered explains
the entire history of Religion from Paganism to Christianity as
the progressive discovery of higher and higher Orders of Factors
in the Factor hierarchy culminating in the discovery of the single
supreme God of Monotheism. All of which "gods" today are the
subject of routine experimental measurement to 3 significant
figures. This ranges from the 30 (1st-Order) demigods of
Hinduism through the 12 (2nd-Order) Olympian gods to the
4 (3rd-Order) gods of Christianity Mt,Mk,Lk,Jn to the single
supreme (4th-Order) God of Monotheism!

K: you have done nothing of the sort because the 30 factors you speak of, is personalities traits
which simply cannot lead us to some sort of discover of religions because they are personality traits.
I cannot emphasise this enough. The factors you speak of and cattall spoke of is personality traits.

[Hammond]
The "gods" of the anicnet religions WERE simply "personality types".

H: Demonstrating that the single 4th-Order is "God" consists
of the simple demonstration that this factor is caused by a
"brain growth deficit" due to the well known Secular Trend
in human growth. The well known properties of this brain
growth deficit compellingly and completely explain every
known phenomena ever attributed to "God"; why there is an
invisible world, why God is an invisible Man, what Eternal
Life is, why Creation occurred only thousands of years ago,
why there are miracles, why the Cross is the Cartesian
Coordinate system etc... the list includes every central item
in Religion and is all reported in my published paper
(Hammond 2003).

K:" brain growth deficit" due to "well known" secular trend in human growth.
I am sure a more random grouping of words could occur but I don't see how.
brain growth deficit" google that one and came up with add, but not much else.
this secular trend in human growth is nothing more than diet changes people
growth. Not much of a surprise there, but a connection? You have to work harder than
you are right now.

[Hammond]
---Na, your comments are very superficial and uninformed. The Secular Trend in human
growth is one of the most well established facts known to modern Auxology.
---For instance a modern man cannot even fit into a medieval suit of
armor because of it.
---Sure it is caused by the ever increasing standard of living, you don't need
to be a geius to figure that out. But the point is, if Medieval people were 10%
smaller than us, how much smaller are we than the people of 3,000 ad?
--- Pick a number, say the average peson is 20% short of full "genotypic"
growth, obviously this means that 20% of his brain is missing!
---This missing part of the brain cause 20% of the world to be "invislbe"
to us, and this invisible world is known as "heaven". Intelligent people figured
this out thousand so fo years ago, and they didin't ne "Auxology" to give
them the clue!


H: Finally we come to the creme de la creme of the theory,
the discovery that the phenomena of "God" is entirely
explained by the fact that "subjective" spacetime is actually
CURVED. In fact that this Factor Analytic proof shows that:
GOD = G_uv = % BGD (brain growth deficit)

K: We have traveled a really, really long way from your original point which
is behavior, personality traits in the beginning without there being much, well actually,
no connection of any kind to spacetime and god.

H: where G_uv is the elementary Einstein Curvature Tensor. It
turns out that the same equation that describes the
curvature of "objective" spacetime (Gravity) also describes
the curvature of "subjective" spacetime (God). The
difference is that there is a different "source term" on the
r.h.s. of the two equations. "Braingrowth" takes the place
of "mass density" in Einstein's Field equation!

K: I spent quite a while trying to understand this paragraph,

[Hammond]
You can't understand it without some knowlege of Physics.

the problem was without the two equations, subjective and
objective "spacetime" your sentence lacks scientific prove.
Thus leaving us with a gobblegook last two sentences which don't seem to have
any meaning whatsoever.

[Hammond]
Na, the proble is the lacunae in your scientific education.

H: All of this is simply demonstrated by the fact that the
"oblique" matrices of Factor Analysis are in fact identical
to the "curved" matrices of (linearized) Gravity in
Relativity. Einstein it turns out not only discovered the
equation which describes Gravity, he also discovered the
equation which mathematically describes God! Although he
went to his grave without knowing this, anecdotal stories
indicate that he probably suspected a connection.

K: still leaving us the problem of how did we get from
personality traits to gravity and Einstein and god.

[Hammond]
Simple Physics, as Shelock Holmes would say.


H: In conclusion then, there can be scant doubt that the world's
first scientific proof of God has been discovered, proven
and published.

K: Bold, brave and not right. You haven't even made a simply connection
proving your point, little less the more complicated points.

H: All of which brings us to the burning question of the day
"What is a scientific proof of God worth?". What good is
it? After all, the majority of the world's population
already believes in God, even if they don't know what it is.
It is true that there is a widespread atheism in modern
academia, but so what, nobody pays attention to them. And
it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
the present conflict between Islam and Christianity. And it
certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
year struggle of Israel. It certainly is a scientific
vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
Christianity.

K: You have to somehow make the connection between
behavior and god and you haven't.

H: But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement, due to
the BGD (brain growth deficit). This is easily measured by
the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
possibility that it might be possible to program this
equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
people to "see Heaven". Not only could you see Heaven, but
by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would virtually
replace psychotherapy overnight. If you needed a
personality change virtual reality programmed with these
equations could actually show you what your new personality
would look like, sound like and what your "new reality"
would look like. Why for heaven's sake; the power of God
actually issuing forth from a computer!
================================================

K: in conclusion, you have thrown in, well more correctly dragged in
quite a few different idea's without connecting them. You began as your thesis
the idea of personality traits to understand behavior and turned that simple idea
into some mess about god and spacetime.

[Hammond]
---I think if you had any strong motivation to do so you would come
to a much better and more positive understanding of the theory than you
have demonstrated here.
---On the matter of motivation I must remark on the obviously Russian
origin of your name and would simply point out the seriousness
of this matter by reminding you of the immense tradegy that occured
in the Pale Settlement in Western Russia 60 years ago.
---I am a great admirer of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its recent
remergence in Russia. There is no doubt whatsoever that the discovery
of a scientific proof of God will unify not only the various branches of Christianity
but also the entire body of world religion, and this unification behind the
neutral influence of Science will insure that never again will the forces
of evil be able to used Religion to create a world war or a genocide.

--- With that I will leave off, but not before I make one last plea for
seriousness and cautious academic decorum in discussing this matter.

Hammond

Kropotkin

===================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
Casey Bennetto mp3 God=G_uv folk song:
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
==================================

[Peter Kropotkin]

Kropotkin: let us start with, Psychometric Factor Analyst.
He is an psychologist who studies personalities,
he was studying personalities to get to how behavior worked?
The 16 factors of his was personalities traits, nothing more.
He was using those 16 personalities traits to analyze behavior.
It had nothing to do with God in any, way shape or form."

[Hammond]
---Raymond B. Cattell published 750 papers and 50 books in a career
spanning more than 70 years and was internationally famous.
---The "16 PF" is only the tip of the iceberg of his work. He also did many years of
work on 2nd-Order and 3rd-Order Personality eigenvectors.
---While the 1st-Order factors (factors=eigenvectors) are personality traits
the 2nd-Order factors are personality types.
---Cattell never mentioned the word "God" and I never said he did, but that
certainly doesn't mean that there isn't a relation between personality types
and the ancient "gods". Fact is my (peer published) research clearly shows
there is.... the "gods" are nothing more than personality types!


K: OK, now were cooking. YOUR very own subject line says: Discovery of a scientific proof of God
and yet you have said that GOD is nothing more than personality types! Now you mention ancient 'gods"
especially. So are the ancient gods just personality types and modern "gods" something different?

H: With the advent of the universally used SPSS computer
program, which you're probably familiar with, thousands of
researchers began Factoring Personality correlation
matrices. The SPSS has a built in "Varimax" oblique
rotation algorithm and is very reliable. To make a long
story short, what we now know is that in any large
psychometric matrix there are 30 "1st Order Factors". These
have been named and measured by Cattell. After rotation to
Simple Structure this 30x30 matrix yields 13 "2nd Order
Factors". I discovered that these 13 are Cubically
intercorrelated being the 13 symmetry axes of a common Cube
(ibid Hammond 1994). This is a truly astonishing result which
any competent scientist can clearly see must point to the
physical origin of the eigenvectors... and therein lies the
discovery of the Structural Model of Personality, the object
of 2500 years of research ever since Hippocrates the Father
of Medicine said there was such a thing!

K: eigenvectors are simply a mathimatical term used to study differential equations
and liner algebra. Yyour use of cubically intercorrelated has no meaning whatsoever in this context.
A common cube? WTF does this mean?

[Hammond]
---You appear to be unaware that a correlation coefficient is the
cosine of an angle... to wit if two variates are correlated .707
that means that they can be represented by two vectors lying
at 45-degrees to one another since cos(45)=.707.
---this is the key to why the 13x13 intercorrelation matrix of the
2nd-Order Personalitry types forms a CUBE. If you take the
arcosine of the correlations in the (known experimental) 13x13
matrix those angles turn out to form a cube, including specifically
the 13 rotational symmetry axes of a cube (3 normals, 4 body diagonals,
6 face diagonals=13 axes).
---Obviously this happenstance cannot be an accident! It must have some
neuroanatomical origin, and it does! turns out the entire brain itself is
CUBIC, and that is what causes the 13 2nd Order Personality types, and hence
the 12 Olympian gods of ancient religion.

Wikepedia: cube[1] is a three-dimensional solid object bounded by six square faces, facets or sides, with three meeting at each vertex. The cube can also be called a regular hexahedron and is one of the five Platonic solids. It is a special kind of square prism, of rectangular parallelepiped and of trigonal trapezohedron. The cube is dual to the octahedron. It has cubical symmetry (also called octahedral symmetry). A cube is the three-dimensional case of the more general concept of a hypercube.

K: now I always do my research: Wikepedia: Neuroanatomy is the study of the anatomical organization of the brain. In vertebrate animals, the routes that the myriad nerves take from the brain to the rest of the body (or "periphery"), and the internal structure of the brain in particular, are both extremely elaborate. As a result, the study of neuroanatomy has developed into a discipline in itself, although it also represents a specialization within neuroscience. The delineation of distinct structures and regions of the brain has figured centrally in investigating how it works. For example, much of what neuroscientists have learned comes from observing how damage or "lesions" to specific brain areas affects behavior or other neural functions.

K: From what I can tell, you claim the brain is a cube or cube shape and this comes from neuroanatomy and this brain shape causes the 12 personality
types which in turn cause us to create god? However according to cattell's very research, there are 16 factors, not 12 or 13.

Descriptors of Low Range Primary Factor Descriptors of High Range
Impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, detached, formal, aloof (Schizothymia) Warmth
(A) Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easy-going, participating, likes people (Affectothymia)
Concrete thinking, lower general mental capacity, less intelligent, unable to handle abstract problems (Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reasoning
(B) Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright, higher general mental capacity, fast learner (Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity)
Reactive emotionally, changeable, affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset (Lower Ego Strength) Emotional Stability
(C) Emotionally stable, adaptive, mature, faces reality calmly (Higher Ego Strength)
Deferential, cooperative, avoids conflict, submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile, accommodating (Submissiveness) Dominance
(E) Dominant, forceful, assertive, aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy (Dominance)
Serious, restrained, prudent, taciturn, introspective, silent (Desurgency) Liveliness
(F) Lively, animated, spontaneous, enthusiastic, happy go lucky, cheerful, expressive, impulsive (Surgency)
Expedient, nonconforming, disregards rules, self indulgent (Low Super Ego Strength) Rule-Consciousness
(G) Rule-conscious, dutiful, conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule bound (High Super Ego Strength)
Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated (Threctia) Social Boldness
(H) Socially bold, venturesome, thick skinned, uninhibited (Parmia)
Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough (Harria) Sensitivity
(I) Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender minded, intuitive, refined (Premsia)
Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy (Alaxia) Vigilance
(L) Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, distrustful, oppositional (Protension)
Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution oriented, steady, conventional (Praxernia) Abstractedness
(M) Abstract, imaginative, absent minded, impractical, absorbed in ideas (Autia)
Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious, involved (Artlessness) Privateness
(N) Private, discreet, nondisclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute, diplomatic (Shrewdness)
Self-Assured, unworried, complacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self satisfied (Untroubled) Apprehension
(O) Apprehensive, self doubting, worried, guilt prone, insecure, worrying, self blaming (Guilt Proneness)
Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas (Conservatism) Openness to Change
(Q1) Open to change, experimental, liberal, analytical, critical, free thinking, flexibility (Radicalism)
Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower dependent (Group Adherence) Self-Reliance
(Q2) Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self sufficient (Self-Sufficiency)
Tolerates disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, self-conflict, impulsive, careless of social rules, uncontrolled (Low Integration) Perfectionism
(Q3) Perfectionistic, organized, compulsive, self-disciplined, socially precise, exacting will power, control, self-sentimental (High Self-Concept Control)
Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, patient, composed low drive (Low Ergic Tension) Tension
(Q4) Tense, high energy, impatient, driven, frustrated, over wrought, time driven. (High Ergic Tension)
Primary Factors and Descriptors in Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model (Adapted From Conn & Rieke, 1994).

Friday referred to these 16 factors as primary factors.

K: you got a problem. How you get 12 factors from 16 is an issue.

H: Factoring the 4x4 we get a SINGLE
FINAL FACTOR.... the supreme Factor in the entire realm of
Psychology. Again of course, the psychologists have no
idea what is causing this final Factor... and again it was
yours truly who discovered and published the explanation of
this single 4th order Factor in 2003. It turns out that the
Final Factor is nothing other than the first known
scientific measurement and proof of the existence of the
"God of the Bible", so called. My 2003 paper is the
publication of the world's first bona fide Scientific Proof
of God! ( An online copy of this peer published paper is posted at):
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_o ... nd5s1.html

K: OK, what you are saying is this, we have various personality traits in common,
if you reduce them, you get 1 personality trait from everybody and this one personality
trait is .....GOD?

[Hammond]
---Never said they weren't. What do you think a "god" is? A "god" is a
personality type and this has been recognized for thousands of
years ever since the Egyptians used animal headed gods to represent
the different personality types (falcon, alligator, cat, ibis, beetle,
hippo, etc) much the same as we use Porky Pig, Mickey Mouse and
Donald Duck as "personality types" today. Fact is, Mickey Mouse would
have been considered a "god" in ancient pagan religion.
---Of course today, Hammond has discovered WHY there were always
12 of them (Gr. Dodekatheon), and that is because the come from
the cubic structure of the brain and a cube has 13 symmetry axes, hence
13 personaity types and 13 "gods".

K: and yet cattell himself only counted 16 traits, not 13. How did you get 13? the only way is to
fit the evidence to match your thesis and your thesis was for 13 personality traits and cattell's 16 didn't
cut it, so you "lost" 3 traits that weren't convenient for you.

[Hammond]
---It is clear how a personalty "type" can become a "god", just like we
could consider Mickey Mouse to be a "god". In fact people
commonly refer to famous movie personalites as "gods", such
as Marylin Monroe, Humphrey Bogart, etc., etc.

K: only in france is mickey mouse considered a god and they love jerry lewis which
shows us that they have zero taste in GOD in france.

H: Now you might rightly ask "how do you know this 4th-Order
Factor is God" and it sounds like it is a complicated
matter, but it turns out it is not. Even to a casual
scientific observer the demonstration is simple,
straightforward and overwhelming.
To begin with it is simple to show that the 13 Cubic
2nd-Order Factors (Personality Types so called) are simply
the celebrated Greek Dodekatheon- the 12 Olympian gods.
These 12 (or 13 actually) also appear in the famous Egyptian
Pantheon as the legendary 12 animal headed gods that we see
painted on the tomb walls in ancient Egypt. It is also
well known that the Romans adopted the 12 Olympian Greek
gods and renamed them with Latin names. It turns out
(Hammond 2003) that this 13 axis Cube comes from the cubic
cleavage of the brain itself a part of basic body geometry.
The axial Cartesian geometry of the body, which comes from
the binary Cartesian cleavage of the egg itself, is why we
have 4 limbs and 4 major brain lobes and which turns out to
be why there are 4-3rd order Psychometric Factors, or
Personality types, known today as the canonical 4-Gospel
personalities of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

K: you simply have taken Jewish mysticism and tried to spin it scientifically.
Most people use three's to do the same thing, thus 666 is the sign of the devil
type of thing.

H: This is an unsupported assertion. Referring to the Bible as
"Jewish Mysticism" is clearly a perjorative statement
given that the worlds biggest religion, Christianity is
based on it.

K: No, I got it right, you rigged the evidence to fit your thesis and spun some sort of
mysticism off of cubes, personality types and alleged science.

H: In short the scientific proof of God I have discovered explains
the entire history of Religion from Paganism to Christianity as
the progressive discovery of higher and higher Orders of Factors
in the Factor hierarchy culminating in the discovery of the single
supreme God of Monotheism. All of which "gods" today are the
subject of routine experimental measurement to 3 significant
figures. This ranges from the 30 (1st-Order) demigods of
Hinduism through the 12 (2nd-Order) Olympian gods to the
4 (3rd-Order) gods of Christianity Mt,Mk,Lk,Jn to the single
supreme (4th-Order) God of Monotheism!

K: What is the ONE personality trait everyone has?

K: you have done nothing of the sort because the 30 factors you speak of, is personalities traits
which simply cannot lead us to some sort of discover of religions because they are personality traits.
I cannot emphasise this enough. The factors you speak of and cattall spoke of is personality traits.

[Hammond]
The "gods" of the anicnet religions WERE simply "personality types".

K: but that leaves unsaid what about now? Are the present days gods simply personality types?
You have left a whole lot unsaid including the fact that every religion completely denies your statement.
To say to a christian for example, your god is simply a personality type, hell I am atheist, and I wouldn't even
say that to a christian. And that is the second problem, with your analysis, how do you explain atheist?

H: Demonstrating that the single 4th-Order is "God" consists
of the simple demonstration that this factor is caused by a
"brain growth deficit" due to the well known Secular Trend
in human growth. The well known properties of this brain
growth deficit compellingly and completely explain every
known phenomena ever attributed to "God"; why there is an
invisible world, why God is an invisible Man, what Eternal
Life is, why Creation occurred only thousands of years ago,
why there are miracles, why the Cross is the Cartesian
Coordinate system etc... the list includes every central item
in Religion and is all reported in my published paper
(Hammond 2003).

K:" brain growth deficit" due to "well known" secular trend in human growth.
I am sure a more random grouping of words could occur but I don't see how.
brain growth deficit" google that one and came up with add, but not much else.
this secular trend in human growth is nothing more than diet changes people
growth. Not much of a surprise there, but a connection? You have to work harder than
you are right now.

[Hammond]
---Na, your comments are very superficial and uninformed. The Secular Trend in human
growth is one of the most well established facts known to modern Auxology.
---For instance a modern man cannot even fit into a medieval suit of
armor because of it.
---Sure it is caused by the ever increasing standard of living, you don't need
to be a geius to figure that out. But the point is, if Medieval people were 10%
smaller than us, how much smaller are we than the people of 3,000 ad?
--- Pick a number, say the average peson is 20% short of full "genotypic"
growth, obviously this means that 20% of his brain is missing!
---This missing part of the brain cause 20% of the world to be "invislbe"
to us, and this invisible world is known as "heaven". Intelligent people figured
this out thousand so fo years ago, and they didin't ne "Auxology" to give
them the clue!

K: First of all, were medieval people 10% smaller than us? You have to make some scientific connection between size
historically and I don't think you can. For example, it is estimated that the average Roman soldier was between 5'6 and 5'11.
I am 5'8, so I would fall into the norm of a Roman soldier and that was 2000 years ago. So your thesis immediately runs into trouble.
You have to make some connection between height of the past and the height of today. You have to prove that we are somehow missing
20% of the brain. How would you prove that body size? I have already shown I am the same height as Roman soldiers.

H: Finally we come to the creme de la creme of the theory,
the discovery that the phenomena of "God" is entirely
explained by the fact that "subjective" spacetime is actually
CURVED. In fact that this Factor Analytic proof shows that:
GOD = G_uv = % BGD (brain growth deficit)

K: you gotta show us that there is such a thing as brain growth deficit.

H: where G_uv is the elementary Einstein Curvature Tensor. It
turns out that the same equation that describes the
curvature of "objective" spacetime (Gravity) also describes
the curvature of "subjective" spacetime (God). The
difference is that there is a different "source term" on the
r.h.s. of the two equations. "Braingrowth" takes the place
of "mass density" in Einstein's Field equation!

K: I spent quite a while trying to understand this paragraph,

[Hammond]
You can't understand it without some knowlege of Physics.

K: I have some knowlege of physics. the problem was without without the two equations
of the subjective and objective spacetime, your statement doesn't mean crap.
Show us the two equations.

[Hammond]
Na, the proble is the lacunae in your scientific education.

K: Lacunae yourself pal. You have some serious errors here and
my eduction didn't do it, yours did.

H: All of this is simply demonstrated by the fact that the
"oblique" matrices of Factor Analysis are in fact identical
to the "curved" matrices of (linearized) Gravity in
Relativity. Einstein it turns out not only discovered the
equation which describes Gravity, he also discovered the
equation which mathematically describes God! Although he
went to his grave without knowing this, anecdotal stories
indicate that he probably suspected a connection.

K: again without the equations, this means nothing.

H: In conclusion then, there can be scant doubt that the world's
first scientific proof of God has been discovered, proven
and published.
All of which brings us to the burning question of the day
"What is a scientific proof of God worth?". What good is
it? After all, the majority of the world's population
already believes in God, even if they don't know what it is.
It is true that there is a widespread atheism in modern
academia, but so what, nobody pays attention to them. And
it's true that the American discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God might have some political impact on
the present conflict between Islam and Christianity. And it
certainly represents a historical vindication of the 2,000
year struggle of Israel. It certainly is a scientific
vindication of the Catholic Church, indeed of all of
Christianity.

K: so far you don't have jack, you have different idea's, cubes, personalities, brain shapes,
and through some mysticism have somehow connected them except for the fact even the details
don't connect, like cattell's had 16 personality traits, not 12 or 13 which you have stated.


H: But these are fairly intangible matters... is there any
practical meaning to this discovery. Well, yes there is. It
turns out that this discovery identifies the direct cause of
the "invisible world" of Religion as being due to the
reduced Fourier cutoff frequency of visible movement, due to
the BGD (brain growth deficit). This is easily measured by
the motion Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) which has been
known for 100 years. This raises the distinct technical
possibility that it might be possible to program this
equation into "virtual reality" computers and actually allow
people to "see Heaven". Not only could you see Heaven, but
by the same methods you could see yourself at various stages
of (theoretical) growth. Such a device would virtually
replace psychotherapy overnight. If you needed a
personality change virtual reality programmed with these
equations could actually show you what your new personality
would look like, sound like and what your "new reality"
would look like. Why for heaven's sake; the power of God
actually issuing forth from a computer!

K: You still haven't shown us this brain growth decifiet and you haven't proven about this
so called how one personality trait which is god can create heaven? How does personality
traits create pysical matter? You mentioned even Mickey mouse can be considered a god,
ok, so how does this translate into the creation of heaven into a creation of a physical space
or physical matter?

[Hammond]
---I think if you had any strong motivation to do so you would come
to a much better and more positive understanding of the theory than you
have demonstrated here.
---On the matter of motivation I must remark on the obviously Russian
origin of your name and would simply point out the seriousness
of this matter by reminding you of the immense tradegy that occured
in the Pale Settlement in Western Russia 60 years ago.
---I am a great admirer of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its recent
remergence in Russia. There is no doubt whatsoever that the discovery
of a scientific proof of God will unify not only the various branches of Christianity
but also the entire body of world religion, and this unification behind the
neutral influence of Science will insure that never again will the forces
of evil be able to used Religion to create a world war or a genocide.

K: as with most people, I have adapted a nom de guerre. I am actually Irish-american, 3rd generation removed.
I just like Kropotkin's viewpoint on so many things.

Kropotkin

[George Hammond]

Dear <Kropotkin>,

In my previous post I pointed out in some detail your blatant technical errors
all of which clearly demonstrate your lack of professional competence.

Moreover your use of abusive language such as "WTF", "crap", "gobblegook",
"nonsense", etc. to refer to my academically peer reviewed and published
papers does not reflect a level of intellectual debate that can be taken seriously.

Moreover, all of the questions you have asked in either post are clearly addressed
and fully answered in my published papers, copies of which are posted on my
website for your reading convenience and obviously you have not sufficient interest
to even read them.:

_____________________________________________________

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
_____________________________________________________

These facts IMHO render it pointless to continue a discussion with you.

I realize that as an atheist the discovery of a scientific proof of God marks
the abysmal and total denouement of your belief system; I can only say
however that is your problem, not mine.

Regards, Hammond

[Rouzbeh]

I'm an engineering student and if this piece of jumbled nonsense passes for "peer reviewed" and "published" (hint hint, the internet doesn't count!), then I have no clue what's happening to the world outside British universities. PK raised some viable criticism and you've simply refused to respond. So far as I'm aware, that's not how scientific debate goes. And PK hasn't been disrespectful, only acted in proportion to the size of the nonsense you've posted. But oh well. I shall hope to attend one of your lectures in London soon...oh wait...

[Peter Kropotkin]

George Hammond: In my previous post I pointed out in some detail your blatant technical errors
all of which clearly demonstrate your lack of professional competence.

K: I can at least tell that cattells 16 personalities factors analysis
is a different number that your 12 or 13 depending on which number you chose to use.
I can count which apparently you can't, my competence extends to counting.

H: Moreover your use of abusive language such as "WTF", "crap", "gobblegook",
"nonsense", etc. to refer to my academically peer reviewed and published
papers does not reflect a level of intellectual debate that can be taken seriously.

K: you don't want to defend your thesis which tells me you don't care enough to defend your thesis.
If you don't defend your thesis, than my criticism becomes valid.

H: Moreover, all of the questions you have asked in either post are clearly addressed
and fully answered in my published papers, copies of which are posted on my
website for your reading convenience and obviously you have not sufficient interest
to even read them.:
These facts IMHO render it pointless to continue a discussion with you.

K: If I took your position, I too would abandon the field. Apparently there are several questions,
you cannot answer, so bailing is clearly your only option.

H: I realize that as an atheist the discovery of a scientific proof of God marks
the abysmal and total denouement of your belief system; I can only say
however that is your problem, not mine.

K: I have a quite clear and open belief system and one part of my
belief system is Mickey mouse is just a mouse, not a god.
You haven't prove your thesis thus a "abysmal and total denouement of my belief system"
hasn't happened yet. I must point out I am willing to discuss theology to the end of time without
giving up at the slightest hint of trouble. But hay, that is how I roll, I fight for what I believe if I truly
believe in it.

Kropotkin

[George Hammond]

Dear <Kropotkin>

In view of your repeating falsehoods I am compelled to again point out your errors:


George Hammond: In my previous post I pointed out in some detail your blatant technical errors
all of which clearly demonstrate your lack of professional competence.

K: I can at least tell that cattells 16 personalities factors analysis
is a different number that your 12 or 13 depending on which number you chose to use.
I can count which apparently you can't, my competence extends to counting.

[Hammond]
False. Cattell's "16PF" are 1st-Order eigenvectors and are therefore personality TRAITS,
not personality TYPES.

It is Cattell's 2nd-Order factors that are personality TYPES and there are 13 of them and
they are shown by me to be cubically intercorrelated, an astounding scientific discovery,
and furthermore easily discovered to be the "gods" of the ancient Egypto-Greco-Roman pantheon as
I have demonstrated in my published scientific proof of God.

You don't know the difference between 1st and 2nd Order Factors, because apparently have not
even bothered to actually READ the published paper you are supposed to be criticizing:

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html

Unknown to you it is well known that there are 12-13 measured 2nd-Order Factors,
and in fact 1st-Order factors are of little interest to personality research while virtually ALL
of personality research (the quest for the Structural Model) is focused strictly on
the (13) 2nd-Order Factors.

So it is not a question of your not being able to count, it is a case of your not being able to read!

<snip>

H: I realize that as an atheist the discovery of a scientific proof of God marks
the abysmal and total denouement of your belief system; I can only say
however that is your problem, not mine.

K: I must point out I am willing to discuss theology to the end of time without
giving up at the slightest hint of trouble.

[Hammond]
You will have to be far more serious, responsible, and polite if you want to discuss
(scientific) Theology with me. It may be acceptable for someone your age to be flippant
but for a dedicated and peer published scholar my age who has an intimate knowledge
of religious and social history, including the Holocaust; such casual public discourse
is not appropriate.

If you can't conduct a serious and cautious inquiry, I won't respond to you.
On the other hand, I am not here attempting in any way to minimize the value
of your energy, enthusiasm and precocious interest in the SPoG.

As a matter of fact, it is my prediction that it not will be Physics or Theology who will
be the first to recognize the discovery of a scientific proof of God, that in fact it is more
likely to be the Atheists for the simple reason that Physics and Theology authorities are
deeply entrenched and committed to preserving the status quo, while atheists are generally an
out-group who are vigorously searching for the truth. And very many of them are scientifically
competent.

Hammond

Kropotkin