Re: Hammond's TESTABLE SPOG PREDICTION

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:32:52 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:

>
>"TMG" <> wrote in message
>news:e9qdnVRux7SRU9feRVn-...
>>
>> TMG wrote:
>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> It is a TESTABLE prediciton.
>>>>
>>>> thousands of people have asked me to post a
>>>> TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
>>>> Proof of God)
>>>>
>>>> Well, here it is, I predict that:
>>>>
>>>> IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
>>>> WHICH IS VISIBLE TO AN ADULT, BUT
>>>> WILL BE INVISBLE TO A KID.
>>>>
>>>> that is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
>>>> such a thing has NEVER been done before!
>>>
>>>
>>> And IT CAN'T BE DONE. Your prediction fails. The SPOG is scientifically
>>> falsified.
>>>
>>> If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
>
>i hate to have to point out the obvious, especially if it defends 'spog'...
>but the way he made that 'prediction' it is impossible to prove it false.
>of course you may also never be able to prove it true either, but you
>definately can't prove it false.


[Hammond]
Whaddaru talking about?

You make the 10 second video clip (as described below and posted
MANY TIMES), and then you assemble 10 adults (all over age 1
and 10 children ages 5-8 years old to watch it (simultaneously... all
20 of them)... on a single t.v. set.

Then you ask the kids... did you see the movie?... answer: "No...
it just looked like a blank screen".

Then you ask the adults... did you see the movie?....answer: " YES...
it was a movie of the Kentucky Derby and horse #77 won
the race".

OK.... that's PROOF POSITIVE.... what the hell are you
talking about "impossible to prove".... you're a screwball.


--------------original post-----------------------
[Hammond]
It is a TESTABLE prediciton.

thousands of people have asked me to post a
TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
Proof of God)

Well, here it is, I predict that:

IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
WHICH IS VISIBLE TO AN ADULT, BUT
WILL BE INVISBLE TO A KID.

that is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
such a thing has NEVER been done before!

[Hammond]
.... here's how the video is to be made:

In fact, it is known (Riedel 1966) that a
1/15 of a second flash CAN be seen by and adult, but
not by the kid..... in fact you have to increase the
lenght of the flash to 1/10 of a second before the kid can
see it.

This is why the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of adults
is known to be 15 frames/sec, but for a 7 year old it
is known to be 10 frames/second (Riedel 1966).

OK... this tells you that if you make a "movie" out of
a series of brief flashes (1 or 2 video frames) which
are too short to be Seen by a kid, but long enough to be
seen by an adult.... voila...you have made a (crude)
movie that is VISBLE to an adult, but is INVISIBLE
to a child.


For instance, using ordinary 30 frames/second video,
I predict that the following video clip will be a movie
that will be VISIBLE to an adult, and INVISIBE to a
kid of 5 years old:


01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14| ...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|... |...|...|-------repeat10times------>

(NOTE: this is 1-second of a standard video, to make
the movie clip simply repeat it ten times to make a 10
second vido clip)

NOTE:

----->|...|<------ = 1/30 of a second (one frame)

----->|19|20|<----- = 1/15 of a second (2 frames)

----->|...|...|...|...|<------ = 1/7.5 of a second (4 frames)

The numbered frames are frames from an actual REAL MOVIE video, while
the |...| frames are BLANK (light gray) frames.

Remember, 2 frames is 2(1/30) = 1/15 of a second, so the ADULT
should see the numbered frames. The 4 repeated |...| frames take
1/7.5 seconds, so the kid can see those, but he cannot see the double
numbered frames.

So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
kid............ and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
which less fully GROWN people CAN'T SEE.


[Hammond]
SO.... I have just made a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG... and
anyone is free to get out his video editor on his desktop computer
and TEST IT. Until then,

PUT Up OR SHUT UP!


========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

"George Hammond" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:32:52 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"TMG" <> wrote in message
>>news:e9qdnVRux7SRU9feRVn-...
>>>
>>> TMG wrote:
>>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>> It is a TESTABLE prediciton.
>>>>>
>>>>> thousands of people have asked me to post a
>>>>> TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
>>>>> Proof of God)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, here it is, I predict that:
>>>>>
>>>>> IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
>>>>> WHICH IS VISIBLE TO AN ADULT, BUT
>>>>> WILL BE INVISBLE TO A KID.
>>>>>
>>>>> that is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
>>>>> such a thing has NEVER been done before!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And IT CAN'T BE DONE. Your prediction fails. The SPOG is scientifically
>>>> falsified.
>>>>
>>>> If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
>>
>>i hate to have to point out the obvious, especially if it defends
>>'spog'...
>>but the way he made that 'prediction' it is impossible to prove it false.
>>of course you may also never be able to prove it true either, but you
>>definately can't prove it false.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Whaddaru talking about?

<rant snipped>

READ WHAT I SAID! I AM SUPPORTING YOU(darn it)! i said that the statement
you made is 'impossible to prove false', which means that it is impossible
to to prove it can't be done, which means that even though i don't know how
to do it there is no way i could prove that someone somewhere somehow
couldn't do it.

Dave

"Dave" <> wrote in message
news:ZuWdnaxAeKKXKdbeRVn-...
>
> "George Hammond" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:32:52 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:
>> [Hammond]
>> Whaddaru talking about?
>
> <rant snipped>
>
> READ WHAT I SAID! I AM SUPPORTING YOU(darn it)! i said that the
> statement you made is 'impossible to prove false', which means that it is
> impossible to to prove it can't be done, which means that even though i
> don't know how to do it there is no way i could prove that someone
> somewhere somehow couldn't do it.
>

Hammond rarely reads posts. He is a great believer in the one way traffic of
information. That way he doesn't hear all the people telling him how he is
so very, very wrong.

T Wake