GOD GLASSES

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

GOD GLASSES

Copyright: George Hammond 2009

The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for what
is called (e.g. by the Catholic Church) the BEATIFIC VISION.

It is not my intent to give a crash course in Religion
for scientific heathens, but I will mention that the
scientific basis of God and the phenomenon of Beatific
Vision has been discovered, proven and published in the peer
reviewed academic literature by me (Hammond 2003):

http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html

and is now known to be caused by the Secular Trend in human
growth discovered 100 years ago.

Briefly, Secular Trend data shows that no human being is
fully grown, that is, our phenotypic size has never reached
our genotypic size and is only slowly doing so over a long
historical time. Roughly speaking, the average human being
today is about 20% more or less short of full theoretical
growth.

Since our brains are therefore 20% short of full growth,
it is not surprising that we can only see 80% of full normal
reality… hence the term BEATIFIC VISION is used to
describe the reality that we WOULD see is we had the other
20% of our brain which is missing!

WHILE IT MAY BE HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF
YOU ARE AN ATHEIST, THIS PHENOMENON IS THE SCIENTIFIC
EXPLANATION OF “GOD”, “RELIGION”, “HEAVEN”, “MIRACLES” AND
“ANGELS” AND EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF RELIGION
INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY.

Ok, so the Secular Trend growth deficit of the human
brain causes the world (aka reality) to appear BIGGER AND
FASTER than it actually is-- and it is that fact which
brings us around to the subject of EYEGLASSES.

Most people if they are over 40 develop presbyopia
(farsightedness) and have to start wearing eyeglasses. As
you may have noticed these glasses make things look BIGGER.
On the other hand, 15% of people who wear eyeglasses are
actually NEARSIGHTED (myopic), and they have to wear glasses
with negative lenses that actually make the world look
SMALLER.

AHA…!

This tells us immediately that myopic (nearsighted)
people must be a very special breed! For one thing, in the
eternal quest towards finding the Beatific Vision which is
to downsize the world to it’s true size and speed, MYOPICS
already have a leg up on the problem… their glasses just
happen to make the world appear SMALLER!

By the same token, we see that the rest of us who are far
sighted just happen to be the victims of an enormous
historical optical accident… our glasses make the world
appear BIGGER which is moving in exactly the WRONG
DIRECTION vis a vis trying to move us towards the Beatific
Vision.

Anyway, this discovery that myopics wear negative glasses
tells us that myopics are actually one step ahead of the
rest of us insofar as actually being able to see the
Beatific Vision, i.e. actually being able to “see Heaven”.
In that regard, we might actually consider myopics to be
living examples of what religion calls “angels”. As the
scientific proof of God cited above shows, “angels” are
actually human personality types who have above average
growth (small growth deficits) and are generally elected to
leadership roles, many times as public servants. Teddy
Roosevelt was a famous myopic for instance.

This tells us that myopics are very special people
personality wise. And it turns out that I am not the first
one to discover this. Turns out the psychologists have long
been interested in the connection between myopia and
personality and intelligence. Myopics generally score high
on IQ tests and generally they have likeable and even
popular personalities.

According to my theory of course this is caused by the
fact that they develop psychological dominance because they
live in a Gulliver’s Travels type of world where they are
actually surrounded by people who look like midgets…
remember their glasses make everybody look SMALLER than they
actually are.

A Google search of “myopia and personality” immediately
turns up numerous studies, but the one that I think hits the
nail on the head most accurately is one by Swanson:

http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/2/149

and here he finds that myopics make powerful CEO’s who favor
high salaries for top executives and tend to be very
commanding, dominant and authoritative. All of this of
course points towards possession of a psychologically
dominant personality.

Ok… so we have now discovered the ADVANTAGE of wearing
NEGATIVE GLASSES… glasses that make the world look
SAMALLER rather than bigger. And that brings me around to
my own particular case.

I am farsighted, and at age 67 I currently find myself
wearing +2.75 reading glasses nearly all day long. These
glasses have a magnification of about +10%… meaning they
make the world look 10% larger than it actually is. This is
a long way from the Beatific Vision needless to say, and
it’s beginning to bother me. A 6’ man strolling towards me
appears to be 6’ 7" tall… which can be quite intimidating
in some circumstances. Generally speaking 10% magnification
of the world can engender an inferiority complex after
awhile.

So, being a physicist, I got to thinking about a possible
way to make some glasses which would correct my blurry
vision without magnifying the world, and in fact that would
actually MINIFY the world same as myopic glasses. Is this
possible? It turns out it is possible, although not very
convenient or easy.

In the first place, eyeglasses are used to correct
blurred vision. It turns out that the magnification caused
by eyeglasses is entirely ACCIDENTAL. The magnification is
caused by the 15 mm space between your eyes and your
glasses. This is demonstrated by putting on contact lenses
which rest right on the eye and noticing that they
immediately clear up your blurred vision but they produce
VIRTUALLY NO MAGNIFICATION!

This got me to thinking. Suppose a person with 20-20
vision put on positive contact lenses and negative
eyeglasses at the same time. The glasses would cancel out
the contacts so he would maintain clear vision, but since
the glasses magnify while contacts don’t… he would end up
with NEGATIVE MAGNIFICATION the same as myopics have.

In fact, I could do the same thing even though I need
positive correction to begin with. What I could do is go
get fitted for contact lenses to give me clear vision…
then go online and order some of the same contacts but add a
couple of diopters additional strength to the prescription
on the order form, and then buy some negative glasses from
another online source… and voila… I could enjoy the
“Beatific Vision” that the myopic angels already enjoy…
only having suffered with a magnified world for many years,
I could REALLY APPRECIATE IT!

Let me take a second to explain the Physics of all this.
It turns out negative eyeglasses plus positive contact
lenses constitute a “reversed Galilean Telescope”. The
magnification of a Galilean telescope is given by F/f where
F and f are the focal length of the positive objective lens
and f is the focal length of the negative eyepiece.
Substituting d=F-f where d is the distance between the
contacts and the eyeglasses we can write the magnification
F/f as:

m=magnification = F/f = 1/(1-d/F) d in mm

this can be put in terms of diopters D, using D=1000/f as:

magnification = 1/(1-Dd) d in meters

for our setup d=15 mm, and if we use a 6D contact lens, the
magnification will be:

m = 1/(1-.015x6) = 1.1 which is a (minus) 10% magnification
which is about exactly what we looking for.

With this miraculous setup… and bear in mind that I
will probably be the FIRST HUMAN BEING IN HISTORY with
farsighted eyes to actually see what the world looks like to
a myopic, I fully expect to take one small step for me and
one large step for mankind into the BEATIFIC VISION ITSLEF.

Now myopics are already seeing this, but bear in mind
that myopics are born that way and therefore, unlike a
hyperopic like me, they don’t know the difference… that’s
what an angel is, somebody who is born that way and doesn’t
know the difference. As for me, if my scientific theory is
correct, I’m about to be “BORN AGAIN”!

I’ll be sure to keep you posted on developments as I go
forward with this plan. And by the way, since I am
volunteering to be the human guinea pig for this experiment
(I hesitate to say Hamster) and this is a pro bono non
profit, humane effort… if there is anyone out there who is
interested in the outcome and could assist me in defraying
the expenses of the contacts and eyeglass equipment…
please contact me at:

research56621577@hotmail.com

For your effort you will receive a written report of the
outcome of the experiment and credit in any publications I
make on the subject. And God bless you too.

Regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [url]http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3[/url]

=======================================

2

Hi George,

I’m curious with all the effort and information in using scientific methods to supply proof for God, is there anything that would suggest the existence of Jesus which is an incontrovertible part of the Christian religion? I say this because in my mind it’s not just enough to know there is Creator. Knowing of God while not paying homage and giving reverance seems to be a hollow endeavor.

3

Uh-huh…I’ve gotta ask, where’s your ‘masters’ in physics from?

4

[Hammond]
No, you don’t “need to ask”. Reputable scholars post under their real names not a
pseudoanonymous alias. This means that unless they are no account crackpots a
simple Google search will turn up their CV and published papers. My CV and publications
are clearly posted on my website the URL for which was appended to my original post.
Apparently you are too lazy and/or disinterested to check preferring instead to attempt
an off topic colloquy with me. Unfortunately, I have no intention of talking
to you until I know what YOUR professional credentials are.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [url]http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3[/url]

=======================================

5

[Hammond]
No… Newton’s Law of Gravity does not predict the existence of the Solar System, it
only EXPLAINS the existence of the Solar System. Likewise a scientific proof of God does not
predict the existence of Jesus, it only EXPLAINS the existence of Jesus.

The existence of Jesus is both historical and psychological and in both cases it has to do with
one of the most famous statements in the Bible; that “salvation is of the Jews”.

As Hammond’s (2003) publication of the world’s first scientific proof of God shows, the
phenomenon of “God” is caused by the Secular Trend growth deficit of the human body,
particularly the brain. This phenomena shows that some 20% on average of what otherwise
would be normal human reality is actually INVISIBLE because of the growth deficit.

By simply reversing this statement we see that 20% of the average human being is actually
INVISIBLE for the same reason. This invisible man is called “God”.

So the matter of “God” is all about how big your particular growth deficit is, and the
growth deficit varies from person to person. Notably the growth deficit is similar in
appearance to what is known as genetic class. It is hard to tell a person with high genetic class
from a person of lower genetic class but higher growth… biologists call this issue the
NATURE VS. NURTURE issue you have heard so much about. For instance it is
well known that Intelligence goes directly as social class, but it is also well known that
both NATURE and NURTURE have large impacts on Intelligence… so to then, Nature and Nurture
both influence what we commonly call “Class”.

Since “God” is caused by the Secular Trend growth deficit which is NURTURE, we
see immediately that “God” and the “Class Struggle” are intimately biologically connected.

In fact, people who have high genetic class but a large growth deficit may be classified as
having more of “God” inherent in their psychological perception than any other
Nature/Nurture combination. And would you believe it, through an accident of history
an actual RACE OF PEOPLE emerged in history who had exactly that psychological property…
high genetic class but a large growth deficit… and these people are known historically
as the “JEWS”.

This psychological fact emerged historically thousands of years ago, and it is the reason why the Bible (in
fact Jesus himself said) “salvation is of the Jews”.

Ok then, this “explains” who Jesus is, and explains why Jesus is the central exemplar of
Religion. Jesus, being “King of the Jews” is the man in the world who has the highest genetic class
but the lowest physical development of any human in the human race… therefore he has
the most “God” of any other human being… this is why he is euphemistically called the
“Son of God”. This guy has overcome the “WORLD’S BIGGEST PSYCHOLOGICAL DISABILITY”.
If he can forgive the world for their victimization of him… then certainly WE should
be able to forgive the world for it’s victimization us.

Now, legend has it that Jesus actually overcame the growth deficit by religious meditation,
prayer and righteous living… or rather that generations of the same finally delivered a
child without a growth deficit… “God in the flesh” so called. Of course science says this is rather
unlikely, statistically, but nevertheless Jesus must have had a commanding physical presence
(an Elvis Presley or Johnny Cash physical type maybe) to be able to address the enormous crowds
that were following him.

Finally then, Jesus was supposed to represent the final emergence of Mankind from the long slow decrease
of the human growth deficit… the first man over the finish line as it were. This then would be the world’s
FIRST FULLY GROWN HUMAN BEING. God on Earth, the son of God in the flesh. King of the Jews.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [url]http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3[/url]

=======================================

6

Hi George,
That is an interesting perspective you have on Jesus.
While it is true the Jewish people waited for the Messiah to appear, they failed to recognize His coming probably because they expected to see a more exalted presence. You mentioned the existence of Jesus is historical and psychological. Shouldn’t there be the all important spiritual aspect imparted to Him? Jesus wasn’t slated just for the salvation of the Jews, but the whole of the earth.

One thing you didn’t address was my question of paying homage and showing reverence to God, the Creator of our universe. Don’t you think upon recognizing His Omipotence through whatever means, people should show their veneration by giving God praise? In my estimation it would equivocate to finding a large repository of unmined gold, knowing it’s value and not using it (a secular representation, but as close as I can get). Shouldn’t people who find value in God give Him thanks through praise and worship?

7

There is such a thing is crackpots with accounts, too. For example, the ‘Noetic Press’ that sponsors the peer-reviewed journal you published on seems to be an amateurish spinoff of a Christopher Langan project, maybe by someone not intelligent enough to make it into his Mega Foundation. Your other journals are equally shady. Just because it’s peer-reviewed doesn’t mean it’s reputable: how long has it been around, who are your peers, what is the review process, etc?

I did look into your credentials, and I can’t see anything specific. MA. Physicist. Windbag. Ok, made up that last one. Where and when did you graduate? That is the information I cannot find. What is your specialty? ‘Physicist’ is a broad term. And I don’t find Geocities webpages to be acceptable proof of your credentials, anyway.

Now that we’ve established that I did look into it, maybe you can answer my questions. If you refuse, I can only I assume that you are just another crackpot (as you put it) that I’ll do my best to defame. It’s kind of a hobby of mine.

I’ll take a good, rigorous look at your proof of god equation when I get the time. From my initial scans I see a lot of pseudo-science, self-importance (just searching and searching to be important to someone, ugh), and a lack of a fuller understanding of the pieces of greater theories about which you’re talking.

Oh, by the way, I graduated from Penn State (a reputable school) with a degree in mechanical engineering (a very reputable program) which I can verify if you want with a DIPLOMA.

8

[Hammond]
Modern Science (Hammond 2003) has proven that “Spiritual” is just another name for “psychological”.
I have just explained the psychological significance of Jesus… therefore that is the “spiritual”
significance of Jesus. Bear in mind this is not a “perspective” or an “opinion” or a “belief” it is a
direct consequence of the discovery of the world’s first (and only) scientific proof of God which I
have discovered, proven and published in the peer reviewed academic literature:

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:
geocities.com/scientific_proof_o … nd5s1.html

[Hammond]
The awesome societal impact of God is perhaps most remarkably demonstrated by the Holocaust
an event so terrifying, so mystifying and of such historic magnitude that the very word today strikes awe
and terror into the hearts of every adult human being. Nothing save the Atomic Bomb itself commands a
more sober and reverent demeanor among the citizenry of the world.

Because of the Holocaust, the average person has an AWESOME RESPECT for the power of God and religion.
Today no one but a fool or a madman would dare to get up in public and say he doesn’t believe in God
(Richard Dawkins is therefore a fool by the way). If you want to call that fact “homage”, sure go
ahead… but to any responsible person it surely means a “healthy respect for God and Religion”.

Because of the well known power and influence of God, our elected leaders all attend Church, as do
many millions of average people. I of course having discovered and published the world’s first scientific
proof of God know for a PROVEN FACT what God IS and what religion IS therefore I have no need of
what people refer to as “faith” or “trust”. Nor am I an elected public official, therefore of course not, I
haven’t set foot in a church for 50 years and probably never will again except for an occasional funeral or
a wedding.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

9

wrote:

[Hammond]
My CV is plainly posted on my website with names, dates and full details. If you can’t
find it you are incompetent or lazy or both.

It is quite obvious that you have nothing ON TOPIC to say about God or eyeglasses
and are only interested in posting OFF TOPIC AD HOMINEM material.

I would remind you that this is a MODERATED forum with specific rules against posting
OFF TOPIC material, AD HOMINEM ABUSE and/or SLANDER and any such posts can be
reported to the moderator by pushing the “report this post” button on the r.h.s.

10

I would remind you that I’ve been on this message board longer than you and I know how it works.

As far as your credentials, I must be incompetent; it can’t be the maze of Geocities sites that I was trying to navigate through. Show me where it clearly states it because the page that first opens up just says that you’re a physicist and you clearly made the webpage anyway. It doesn’t have to be this hard. You should be proud of your CV, not trying to hide it which you clearly are. Sheesh.

As far as the ad hominem attack goes, I refer you to another topic: groups.google.com/group/sci.phys … d47e225899 . Here’s an excerpt from that thread on a google physics forum:

Now, I don’t consider any of this off-topic because it goes straight to your trustworthiness as a source and you call back on your ‘proof’ in the post, but since you asked, here’s something on topic: your god glasses thing is also full of pseudo-science. Most notably is your equivocation of myopia with myopics seeing other people as smaller. It’s called perspective; they look further away not smaller. You would have to make some argument that our brains have evolved to expect the world around them to be a certain size and, I’m sorry, I just don’t think you’re qualified to make that argument.

Beatific vision indeed…you know you’re basing your ‘proof’ off a theory, right? That’s just a fallacy within a wrong within a dumb.

11

Here’s another great one from Ken:

groups.google.com/group/sci.phys … a9c5c18e0a

I like this Ken guy :laughing:

12

wrote:

[Hammond]

[Hammond]
First… I will not respond to OFF TOPIC or AD HOMINEM material. You have just posted 2 or 3 such posts in a row
including quotes from hecklers on the alt. unmoderated Usenet newsgroups. I don’t think the moderators
appreciate your dragging that kind of behavior onto their forum.

Sooner or later the moderators are going to get after you for violating the rules if you keep it up.

And for chrissakes, my CV is posted at: http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Gehcv.html
right in the middle of my website.

As a graduate physicist I’ve taken several semesters worth of Geometrical Optics… and as a B.S. Mechanical Engineer
I doubt that you have. Ordinary CVS pharmacy off the rack “reading glasses” are legally classified as “magnifying glasses” which
is why they can be sold without a perscription. For you to sit there and tell me that a magnifying glass doesn’t make things
“look bigger” is an absurdity in the face of common experience.

It is also common knowlege (and scientific fact) that myopics wear negative glasses, meaning that unlike common
glasses which magnify things, myopic glasses actually minify things… and “minify” is a standard opthamological term
used in the professional literature to describe negative lenses. So you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Of course negative glasses also make things look farther away, what glasses do is CHANGE ANGULAR MAGNIFICATION,
as anyone who has taken a course in Geometrical Optics already knows.

[Hammond]
Well now you’re venturing into the field of Theology. The “Beatific Vision” is a CANON of the Catholic Church and has been
throughly expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 in the Summa Theologica (Part III). He even relates this to what I call the
“Secular Trend Growth Deficit” in my theory when he describes the relationship of “bodily growth” to the Beatific Vision:

[Hammond]
Here you are listening to St. Thomas Aquinas tell you that, in his opinion, the condition of having the “Beatific vision”
is caused by the restoration of what I call the the human Secular Trend growth deficit.

This was obvious to Saint Thomas in 1274 and it is obvious to Hammond in 2009… the only difference is that
Hammond has actually SCIENTIFICALL PROVED IT and published it in the peer reviewed literature.

All I’m telling you is that the INTELLIGENSIA of the world has known about this fact intuitvely since the time
of the Pyramids the same way I know it… the only difference is that I have PROVED IT scientifically.

13

delete… errata

14

People like you make me hurt.

I’m pretty much done talking to you because you’re a loon and that’s evident now for all to see, but I will say this on magnification and minification because you so want to accuse me of being wrong. This is from almighty wikipedia:

Clearly a magnifying lens is going to let you see something like, say, individual fibers of your shirt with much better resolution than your eye could, which is different from just making it appear closer. I understand that even without my meager half a semester of optics (1.5 credit course at Penn State; the second half of the semester is waves if I remember right). However, I was talking about myopics:

And note the last line of the wiki intro to magnification: “In all cases, the magnification of the image does not change the perspective of the image.”

Enlarging or shrinking an image will not be the dominant impression a person with eyeglasses or contacts will receive. This is because the lens covers all or most of their vision, which is unlike looking through a telescope backwards or forwards where your field of vision is vastly diminished, which is the point I was trying to get across. Their mind will, pardon the phrase, put everything in perspective. A ceiling will still be ten feet tall and an average guy will still be about four feet from touching it with his head. If they flip their glasses up and down real fast the image will just seem futher and closer.

People who wear contacts could try this experiment too but it might be a little more difficult.

I’m done posting in here; if I want to comment on your god ‘proof’ I’ll do it in another thread.

Ciao.

edit: Since you edited your last post before I finished mine, I’ll say one more thing: finally. The webpage I was using was this one webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/ which is what I think you gave me…could be wrong, but I’m gonna pick my battles. Anyway, it’s not impressive. You got a masters in physics and then dropped out before you finished your PhD. You’re pathetic. I’ll talk to you in a few years when I’m an actual doctor.

another edit: Crap, I gotta break my resolution a second time! But this is because this struck me as I was walking away.

Before and after my ellipses was kinda two different thoughts. The theory I was talking about was Einstein’s, not the Beatific Vision, which is crap.

Ok, no mas. I promise.

15

wrote:

[Hammond]
Snip crap.

[Hammond]
Your post is 99% ad hominem name calling and the rest is boring
scientific incompetence based on feverish amateur Google searchs.

This discussion is beyond your intellectual pay scale.
We can only hope you hold to your promise not
to post further ad hominem and off topic material to this
discussion in violation of forum rules.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

16

I’m a bit lost here…

The brain being smaller than it could potentially be causes the world to appear bigger and faster than it otherwise would appear?
Can you explain how this works; how a larger brain equates to slower and smaller perception?

I understand that you might first point to this part:

as the answer, but I don’t see a correlation.

I’m missing something here; higher IQ doesn’t mean their brains are physically larger…or am I completely missing the reading of this?

17

[Hammond]
I greatly appreciate your obviously penetrating command of common sense. How refreshing!

[Hammond]
Physicists call reality: “spacetime”. So what we are talking about here is time slowing down and space
getting smaller. And I have said above, this is caused by a “brain growth deficit”.

Children are the most well known example of a “brain growth deficit”. A 9 year old kid is roughly half grown
since we stop growing at age 18. His “growth deficit” is 50% roughly speaking. This also means his brain is
only (nominally) half grown. His “brain growth deficit” is 50% to a first approximation. As we know intelligence
grows linearly with age because of this until age 18 when it stops. This is why they divide intelligence by age
to get a constant, IQ, for instance.

Ok, it has also been shown in the past few decades that the primary biological correlate of intelligence is
mental speed. Mental speed (in bits/sec) can actually be measured in the laboratory using CRT
screens and button pushing switches connected to millisecond timers, and by measuring your mental
speed in bits/sec they can actually compute your IQ. It’s not as accurate as a full blown IQ test
but it proves that Intelligence is basically mental speed. This of course comes as no surprise since
mentally retarded people have been referred to as “slow” for thousands of years.

It turns out that mental speed actually affects vision… what you can see. This is demonstrated
most dramatically by something called the “motion picture fusion frequency” (PFF). If you crank
up a movie projector at a certain speed the pictures look like they are moving… this is called the
PFF, and for the normal adult Edison discovered 100 years ago that it is about 16 frames/sec, or
“16 Hz”. Believe it or not perceiving whether a picture has changed or not constitutes 1 bit of
information. This proves that the average mental speed of humans is 16 bits/second.

Now, it was also discovered long ago that children have lower PFF’s than adults. In actual experiments
the PFF of a 7 year old is 10 frames/sec and increases to 15 frames/sec at age 18 when he reaches
adulthood. By simple arithmetic then, it is experimentally proven that a 7 year old can only see
10/15 = two thirds of the motion of reality that an adult can see. In that sense, 1/3 of all
motion is “invisible” to a 7 year old because of his “brain growth deficit”. All motion above 10Hz
is simply a “blur” as far as he in concerned. It is invisible.

Likewise, the same thing holds for the size of the world. Nominally speaking a half grown child is
only half the size of an adult. That means that everything in reality looks twice as big to a half
grown child as it does to an adult. This by the way also makes things incomprehensible or unnoticeable
if not invisible. There is a common parlor game in which one is shown photographs of common objects
taken as very high magnification and you are supposed to guess what it is. A sugar cube for instance
looks like a pile of white bricks under high magnification. There is a loss of recognizability. Now
a half grown child sees a world that is twice as big as what an adult sees… and in that sense half
the world is again, invisible.

So, when you add the invisibility caused by reduced mental speed and the invisibility due to reduced
physical size, what you wind up with is the fact that half of reality is invisible to a half grown child
simply because his brain is only half grown.

And that is how a reduced brain due to incomplete growth, makes the world appear
“bigger and faster” than it actually is.

Finally of course, it has been discovered that children are not the only people who have a “growth deficit”.
It turns out that no adult ever actually reaches full growth. All of us have a adult growth deficit, and
the long slow reduction of this adult growth deficit is called the Secular Trend in human growth.
This then, for the same reason as described for children above, causes part of what otherwise would
be normal adult reality, to be invisible. And yes, this invisible world is nothing other
than what the theologians and the Church refers to as Heaven.

Needles to say then, the fully grown person is called “God”. Problem is he doesn’t actually exist in the flesh.
“God” is the unconscious part of the mind which is caused by the ungrown (or partially grown)
complement of our brains. Yes, the ungrown part of the brain is highly psychologically active and
greatly influences human behavior and perception. And it is this phenomenon, which is not only real
and can be measured, and is now theoretically explained, which is the cause of what we
cal God. Hence God exists and is physically real.

Again, I appreciate your question, and I hope this answers your question.

Best regards, George Hammond

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

18

Well, it didn’t really address the physical growth of the human brain in relation to IQ, but as I see it you weren’t talking about it in a literal physical growth system it appears; but more of the age old understanding that the human being doesn’t use it’s full estimated brain capacity.

From this deriving the dynamic of sight as the function of seeing the world closer or farther from the ultimate reality based on one’s IQ.

So if I understand this all correctly, Acumen is the primary key in this system, as it is the primary form of intelligence that allows one to process more information in rapid account; or rather to say, assess more of what is there as processed information of what is visible.
Therefore leaving less to be overlooked or invisible.

What you are suggesting is that what is not seen is simply dismissed because the brain is simply not capable of processing all of the information available for the brain to process, as the sight of what is there is reduced to what the brain can process as being there out of what the eye mechanically picks up as there from the reflection of light and typical human color schemes.

From this, I’m wondering…does this mean that an autistic savant of the visual processing form is more capable of seeing the ultimate reality than any other type of person considering that, even though they have incomplete brain growths as well, their brain is clocking in at a far superior processing rate than the average human being is capable of achieving by sacrificing other facets of the brains neurological functions and synaptic relay infrastructures?
That is to say; such a person is hard-wired to use nearly all of their brain neurologically as nearly only an analysis system.
Their output is greatly sacrificed, so the communication back out of that same brain is nearly impossible to relate what their input is catching in the forms of words, but through practice tests and exercises it is possible to find out what level of visual reality they are seeing and processing by their reactions to complex levels of systems and responses to those systems whereby other more average brains would fail to comprehend all of the fractions of moments and parts of objects that the savant autistic is able to take note of.

As such, even though still on the average of the brain capacity in general, does this form of sacrifice allow the savant autistic to see more of the ultimate reality than the average person, are they no different, or are they less able to see this ultimate reality than the average person?

19

[Hammond]
Wha…??? What do you mean by “it”? Are you referring to my post: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169605#p2100326
which was posted at 1:36 a.m. ?

I notice your post was posted at 2:18 a.m. so perhaps you didn’t read my 1:36 a.m. post which is certainly
ALL ABOUT “growth of the human brain in relation to IQ”.

My post clearly points out that Intelligence increases directly with age in
children BECAUSE their brains are growing by leaps and bounds… HENCE it is known and proven
that “brain growth increases intelligence”.

I am unable to explain your confusion quoted above?

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

20

That part of the problem no longer matters, I follow where you are coming from and explaining what I meant by physical brain growth by comparison to what you are saying would waist time, and is truly semantic difference worthless to split anything about.

On the other hand, what about this part for now: