Sort-of Updating on George Shollenberger and His Book

So... Remember George Shollenberger? He's the goofball who wrote a book allegedly containing the First Scientific Proof of God, which I dealt with here
and here.

Well, George has been continuing to babble away. He's got his blog - and he continues to comment on a nearly daily basis on Amazon.com's page for his book. In a particularly fascinating update, he speculates about why no one has posted any reviews of his book:

This book has now been on the market for six months. Its rank has oscillated monthly from a low rank to a popular rank. But, it has never been reviewed at Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble. Although I tried to simplify the contents, it seems apparent that the book's unification of Science and Theology has made the book more difficult to understand. More recently, I have come to the conclusion that the absences of reviews are reflecting the awareness of the reader's general acceptance of the book and their awareness of the potential major changes that could affect all humans, many business and industry, all governments, and the behavior of political and justice systems.

So, instead of sharing thoughts about the book through open reviews of the book on the Internet, I conclude that the thoughts of many readers about the book are being secured privately so that individuals and organizations can survive the potential changes. Clearly, the scientific proof of God will affect the whole world. This proof can expect to develop to a single worldwide religion, a virtual one-world government, and the worldwide sharing of natural resources. And, how will each individual handle the modern ideas of resurrection and reincarnation?

I also recognize that atheists are currently selling their best selling books For instance, the books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. are currently bestsellers for the book market for people who do not believe in God. For this reason, the publishers of these books do not want to open up a debate on my book with the best selling atheistic books now. So, any debate between atheists and theists is being delayed until this atheistic market is served. But, as you see in my Amazon.com blog of my book, I am preparing for this debate. With this blogging effort, I expect to reduce the market of atheistic books drastically.

Since the way individuals and organizations might handle this book was not predictable by me, I believe that this book will be compared with science books and scriptures for years.

Via some Pandas Thumb folks, I just heard that there's a free copy of his book available. It's a discard from the library of congress. You see, the way that the LoC works is that they receive a huge number of books every year. Most publishers send the LoC a copy of any book they publish; and virtually all sleezy self-publishing agencies support their false claim to be legit publishers by talking about how their publications are included in the collection of the LoC. So the LoC gets millions of books every year, most of which are garbage. So they periodically go through the slag heap, junking some of the worthless crap to make room for more of the worthless crap that they're receiving every day. Part of the way that they recognize the junk is: if the book is never removed from its shelf during the first year at the library, it goes in the trash.

George's book - the book that that is, according to George, one of the most important things ever published - is being thrown in the trash by the LoC because since they received it, no one has removed it from the shelf. Not once.

The book that's going to single-handedly diminish the market for "pro-atheist" books, that's going to trigger the creation of a single world-wide universal religion, that's going to reinvigorate every major field of study from mathematics to nutrition - has never been looked at since it was received by the Library of Congress, and so they're throwing it into the trash.

I suppose that George can still hope for it to reinvigorate the science of waste disposal.

More like this

Now, it's time for the final chapter in my "visits with old friends" series, which brings us back to the Good Math/Bad Math all-time reader favorite crackpot: Mr. George Shollenberger. Last time I mentioned George, a number of readers commented on the fact that it's cruel to pick on poor George,…
As I mentioned a while back, I was loaned the Library of Congress discard of George Shollenberger's book. Since he's made such a big deal about how unfair I've been bynot reading and considering his argument, I've actually forced myself to read it. (See what I'm willing to do for you, my faithful…
Let's say there's an interesting but somewhat obscure book I'm interested in. Say, Electromagnetic Pulse Propagation in Causal Dielectrics. It's a very technical work about a very specific subject, so the total print run was probably very small. Maybe a few hundred or a thousand or so? I have…
A reader sent me a link to [this amusing blog][blog]. It's by a guy named George Shollenberger, who claims to have devised The First scientific Proof of God (and yes, he always capitalizes it like that). George suffers from some rather serious delusions of grandeur. Here's a quote from his "About…

I believe there is law (United States Code) going back to the establishment of the LoC mandating that a copy of any book published in the United States be furnished. Can't recall the penalty but I know there is some periodic discussion of what constitutes a "book", especially in the current environment of things like e-books.

All libraries have a process of "salvage" whereby they clear out part of the collection to make room for new acquisitions. Two of the measurements used in this decision are the local usage of the book and the national average of usage of the book. What constitutes usage depends on whether the library has open or closed stacks.

It also seem worth noting that Shollenberger's argument that the book sellers don't want discussion on the controversy dragging in his books. My experience with them is that they do not fundamentally care which books sell, only how much cash flow they generate. Since controversy tends to promote sales of otherwise unremarkable books, the argument is at best specious and more likely face saving.

I believe there is law (United States Code) going back to the establishment of the LoC mandating that a copy of any book published in the United States be furnished. Can't recall the penalty but I know there is some periodic discussion of what constitutes a "book", especially in the current environment of things like e-books.

Close--copies are required with an application for copyright registration, but registration is not mandatory.

Your Schadenfreude may be a bit premature. It looks like LC is keeping one copy of Shollenberger's book.

If you go to the Library's catalog (http://catalog.loc.gov) and search for "Shollenberger, George," you'll get a record for "The first scientific proof of God." Go to the MARC record and check the local selection/retention field 925. That field indicates that LC is keeping one shelf copy -- pretty generous for a self-published imprint.

Probably George sent LC two copies, and they decided they needed only one. ("Needed" used here in the loosest possible sense.)

I'm not an LC insider, and there's a pretty good chance I'm wrong about all this ... in which case I'd appreciate being corrected.

By Billy Carson (not verified) on 07 Mar 2007 #permalink

If there is a leading candidate for Errol Morris' next documentary project, Schollenberger has to be it. I know this because Errol has been absolutely silent on this point.

By J. Martin (not verified) on 07 Mar 2007 #permalink

Wow, this guy is just... nuts. What more can be said?

I've been checking in on him pretty frequently and the insanity is increasing. The blog on blogspot I can at least excuse but the constant updates on amazon are what kill me.

It's really pretty funny.

It also seem worth noting that Shollenberger's argument that the book sellers don't want discussion on the controversy dragging in his books. My experience with them is that they do not fundamentally care which books sell, only how much cash flow they generate. Since controversy tends to promote sales of otherwise unremarkable books, the argument is at best specious and more likely face saving.

That's the thing that gets me. If his claims were true (and obviously they aren't) this book would be outselling the Secret. Instead it's relegated to the shitpile where it belongs. If you really want a window into what an increasingly insignificant Old man's thoughts are, go read his ramblings.

I think it's possible that unleashing the hurricane force of Mark C. Chu-Carrol on George just seems a little too harsh. I think we should let George live in peace, as the risk of accretion around his arguments is acceptably small.

He's enjoying his blog, it's fun to read, and he probably just wants some attention. Reading his bio actually makes you feel a little sad:

"...I conducted research for the US Department of Justice on crime and justice. I developed the bulletproof vest for police, forensic sciences for crime laboratories, and community policing for communities. In the late 1980s, I concluded that crime has a root cause."

By J. Martin (not verified) on 08 Mar 2007 #permalink

Actually, I suppose by my own argument George is probably looking for someone to debate with him, so perhaps a complete and detailed rebuttal would be like a birthday gift.

By J. Martin (not verified) on 08 Mar 2007 #permalink

Our mathematicians are still not getting the message of my book. This ignorance is expected because they are impotent with respect to the philodophy of symbolism. So, they spend all of their time in trying to destroy a person's character. That's where the trash of the internet is.

The general nature of my book shows that I could have used many different titles. I chose the proof of God to draw the attention of the failing religions while, at the same time, to send a warring alarm to the increasing number of atheists in the USA.

The deepest generality on which I work in my book and on my blogs is the misuse of symbols in all sciences. For instance, physicists still view the symbols used in their laws of physics as a mystery. This mystery goes away when one learns that God actually exists.

Why did the math persons stop the debates of my blogs at my Googler web above? Perhaps, my blog on march 19, 2007 will explain why my book is difficult to read.

George Shollenberger

Gosh, George, have you ever considered the possibility that you might just be a self-deluded ignoramus?

Y'see, the thing is, when someone with any actual understanding of math, or physics, or linguistics, or semantics, or, well, just about any other field that you claim to have revolutionized - when any of those people actually read the crap that you post on your blog, we tend to come to the conclusion that you're just babbling: you show absolutely no, zip, zero comprehension of much of anything that you're writing about. Your blog reads like the writings of an ignorant, arrogant, semi-literate bozo.

And then, you basically demand that anyone who wants to discuss your ideas with you first pay you for a copy of your book.

Sorry pal, but I work too hard for my money to pay someone for the privilege of reading what all of the evidence suggests is a pile of steaming crap.

As I've said before: if you've really come up with what you say you have - a book that will revolutionize physics, politics, religion, math, theology, linguistics, etc; if you're really done that, and you're withholding it from people so that you can make a buck, then you are one thoroughly evil piece of shit.

Or, as is more likely the case, you're a self-deluded semi-literate moron who just believes that he's come up with a text that does all of those wonderful things. And by choosing to withhold it in order to make some money for yourself - you demonstrate that, well, you're one thoroughly despicable asshole: that you're the kind of person who would stand by and watch people die unnecessary, horrible deaths that you could prevent - because you'd rather see them die than to give up on making some money.

Or, you're a deliberate huckster - you know that you're full of shit. But you hope to deceive people into giving you some money for something that you know is worthless. In which case, you're just an asshole.

So, by your own behavior, you've demonstrated that at best, you're a lying asshole, and at worst, you're either an evil, despicable bastard.

So tell me again, George. Why should I pay you for a copy of your book?

That's awesome. ^_^

By Xanthir, FCD (not verified) on 20 Mar 2007 #permalink

Mark,

I have placed enough material on my book on my Internet web for you to understand my book without buying it. So, there is something you are not telling me about your argument with me.

Next, you can call me anything you want because i know my spirit and does not affect me. I have been around your kind for a long time.

But, you seem to act like some good mathematicians who I worked with in my life. But, they had trouble with talking about subjects other than math. Maybe you are one of these and cannot understand the many fields of thought that I had to deal with to prepare my book.

With respect to atheistic publishers and books, Amazon.com has removed two of my reviews and the third review was issued but not posted. So, don't tell me that an atheistic conspricy does not exist in the USA.

So, don't tell me that an atheistic conspricy does not exist in the USA.

Seriously, people keep talking about this, but I haven't been inducted yet. Nobody's even mentioned it to me yet, and I'm always telling people that I'm godless. I want hats, pomp, and a secret handshake, damnit!

By Xanthir, FCD (not verified) on 20 Mar 2007 #permalink

That's paranoid. If there had been an "atheistic conspricy", we Jews who run the financial institutions and publishing companies would have shut it down long ago. Of course, we Jews also run the world of science (Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman) and Mathematics. I should know. I went to the same high school as Paul Cohen, set theorist, Fields Medal (1966); took two Information Theory courses from Solomon Golomb; have the same last name as Emil Post, logician; am a student of a student of Norbert Wiener, mathematician, Bôcher Prize, National Medal of Science; and I coauthored with Richard Feynman.

See Wikipedia's "List of Jewish American mathematicians."

George:

Give me a break. Your website is an incoherent bunch of babbling that constantly refers back to material from the book that isn't on the site. I'm being generous by assuming (without justification) that your book is more coherent than your website.

And I should point out that you didn't even post that much at first. Even after people like me started pointing out just what an evil asshole you'd have to be to withhold your proof if it really was what you claim it to be, you still refused to share any of it with the world at large because you felt that you had the right to make money off of it. You only started posting bits of the content when it was clear that you weren't going to get any more attention until you did. And the fact remains that you still withhold most of the content as part of an attempt to make money.

You also have a very serious problem with understanding just who and what you are. The world does not revolve around you; you are not one of the most brilliant philosophers in the history of mankind; people are not spending all of the waking hours focusing on what George Shollenberger is doing today, and how they should respond to it.

You are a *dreadful* writer. Your ideas are neither original, nor creative, nor even particularly interesting. In fact, most of the time, they aren't even coherent.

Want to know why your reviews don't get posted? There's no need to invoke some kind of massive atheistic conspiracy centered on silencing the writings of George Shollenberger. Try going back and reading them, and pretend that you aren't the one who wrote them. What you'll see is that they sound like they're written by a petulant 8th grader.

As for your description of me...

It's hard to say just how wrong you are. I'll just point out that I was a philosophy minor in college; philosophically, I'm a follower of Martin Buber and Art Greene; I study Kabbalah for fun (real kabbalah, not the phony cult that Madonnah is part of); I'm an amateur musician who plays
traditional Irish music (despite the fact that I'm Ashkenazi Jew, not Irish). Not exactly the picture of the kind of person who's incapable of discussing anything except math.

Mark,

Let me tell you a short story. In 1993, my left carotid artery became blocked. It damaged the language function of my brain in one day. I tried to write a two-sentence letter. In hours, my clothes were filled with sweat. I could not write. Since our senses might form a unity, I began to play a computerized version of solitaire with the theory that I could unify my senses with my mind using a winning goal. Slowly, I noticed that my average sentence length in a paragraph was decreasing. Eventually, my average sentence length was approaching the average of most excellent writers. After two years, I recovered lots of my language function. My doctor said that I was lucky. I disagreed with my doctor. My mind recovered what could be recovered.

Today, I can think properly but cannot write properly. The connection between ideas and presenting an idea is mor complex than we realize. Many symbols that I used regularly before the brain damage are gone. I also have a problem with the names of people. So, please learn a person before you label the person.

When I signed up with a self-publisher, authorhouse.com, three days later (April 18, 2006) I was in open-heart surgery. My right carotid was also problematic and would have to be fixed by July. Soon after I came home from the open heart surgery, the book's galley was there for my review. Since my heart stopped and I was almost lost during the surgery, getting the book and the proof of God to 'the people' became my only priority. I approved the galley in late June but had no time for my own review or for outside reviews. When one spends more time on thinking about the possibility of death, the person does what must be done. Thus, you know too little about me and even less about the history of what I had to do to get my book to 'the people.'

Since my book could have had a thousand pages, my son thought that I should continue to write on the Internet. I agreed. So, he setup a Google blog for me. As you noticed, I did play with the web until I felt comfortable.

You are a person who has money on your mind on every subject. Money is of no interest to me. If I were interested in money I would open an account with Google and add some ads. Even when i worked, I always became a a teacher on new ideas. I never viewed money as an end. So, again you are wrong about my behavior.

You are not the person who you are trying to describe to me. Does your boss know how you talk to other people on the Internet? If I were your boss, and I was a boss in both hard and soft research for most of my life, you would be looking for another job. I cannot develop research with others the way you interact with me. So, I do not believe that you interact with people easily. During my life (as a Christisn), I met and worked with many Jews. I detected two different groups of Jews. I stayed away from one group because they acted the way you are acting to me.

Although every person babbles, you also babble. This is why you are not a philosopher or a symbolist. And, you do not seem to understand science because you stay away from my positions on today's science.

Have fun with your visits of my work. But, your visits do not impress me at all.I achieved nothing from you. But, I enjoyed this visit because I am learning why high school math has become a serious national problem. I will be speaking on this subject on May 1.

George Shollenberger

Dear George Shollenberger,

I feel compassion for your medical nightmare. Your recovery is heroic.

However, the problem here is neither language, nor antisemitism, nor money. The problem is that you appear to misunderstand what Mathematics and Science are, as well as how the publishing industry works, and what this blog is for.

Mark Chu-Carroll does understand what Mathematics and Science are.

Threatening his job is not likely to convert him, nor his readers, to your obscure cause.

I am sorry for your illness. I wish you better health, and suggest that you occupy your days in meaningful activity with friends and family.

Self-published books and blogging are unlikely to bring you the happiness and dignity that all human beings deserve.

Peace.

George:

I'm sorry you've had a rough time medically. But, quite literally, that's life. If you've read my blog lately, you'll know a bit about what my family has been going through, so I'm more than a little bit familiar with it. And I've had my own very serious, very painful medical problems, which would have led me to die a thoroughly horrible death had I been born a few decades earlier.

But you know what? None of that is any kind of defense for the way that you behave.

You accuse me of being money obsessed. The only reason that money comes into this conversion is because of your behavior. I keep saying this, but you don't seem to be willing to understand it.

You claim to have created a work that will revolutionize the world. You claim that your work has the potential to save countless lives, to relieve untold amounts of human suffering, and to do all sorts of things to improve the lives of every person in the world, both today and in the future.

And having authored such a work - you are the one who decided to put a price tag on it. You claim that your ideas will save peoples lives. What that means is that every day that your ideas aren't being applied, people are dying. And knowing that, you are willing to let people die unless they pay you for a copy of your book. You can say that money was never an end to you - but the truth is right there for anyone to see: given a choice between giving away the ideas that could save peoples lives, and making some money selling those ideas in a book, you chose the path that makes money.

And then of course, just to complete your image as a complete asshole, you bring up a nice little bit of antisemitism. You're the one withholding ideas that you claim can save lives so that you can make a buck - but you bring up the old antisemitic canards to accuse me of being money obsessed. And then you wonder why it is that I'm so hostile towards you?

And as for "Does my boss know that I do this?" - I do this blog on my own time. It has nothing to do with my job. As it happens, I'm in the process of changing jobs; I'm currently on a one-week vacation between the end of my old job, and the first day of my new job.

Both employers - the old one, and the new one, knew/know about this blog and what I write here - and they don't care, because it's separate from my work. Writing Good Math/Bad Math isn't a part of my job, it's my hobby. It has nothing to with them.

George, the simple fact of the matter is that you're an *awful* person - a person who made the deliberate choice to put personal wealth before the good of other people. And that's a disgusting thing. Think about that next time before you bring up your nasty little antisemitic comments: that you are the one who put $$$ ahead of peoples lives.

Dear Jonathan,

I appreciate your effort to mediate the discussion between Mark nd me. But, Mark had no data to make the statements he made about me and my book. How can he be a scientist when he theorizes without sensual data? It seems clear to me that his statements had the purpose of destroying my character and sales of my book. Speech is not as free in the USA as Mark thinks. So, he better be careful or a lawyer might show him that free speech is an illusion.

I have been a researcher in the hard and soft sciences for over 50 years. I achieved high positions is the private and public sectors. Thus, I also have a great annunity and do not require income from books.

I am very serious about my book because I am concerned about the future of people and the USA. Apparently, Mark is unaware about the world level problems and the US problems. My effort to solve some of these problems is not appreciated by him. My family is aware of these problems and supports my effort because they are concerned about my eight grandchildren.

I am serious about the problems I see in the physical sciences, mathematics, and theology. The high school results in math and reading are not good. But, I also see problems in all of the life sciences. This is why I wrote this book and rejected evolutionary theory.

I can see problems in science, which scientists do not see, because I apply the philosophy of symbolism to all sciences. Unfortunately, the philosophy of symbols is too new for most scientists to understand. This is why I teach people on my Google website how to create and use symbols.

On self-publishing books, authorhouse, does a great job for US writers. Books from self-publishers better not be trashed by the Library of Congress (LOC) because a authorhouse writer can pay a fee to get a ISBN number. I believe that Mark's ststements on my LOC books are hopes rather than realities.

Have a nice day,
George Shollenberger

Mark et al,

If you, et al, go to http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/ and read blogs dated April 1 and 2 2007, perhaps my suggestion to restudy mathematics earlier was highly rational. It looks like many problems now exist in the USA. It appears as though Islamic science has just moved ahead of Judeo-Christianity. But, Islamic science fits right into my proof of God and my book.

George Shollenberger

This is starting to feel like an argument between Mark and a crazy street-person. I think it might be time to start walking past this guy with eyes averted.

Mel,

Crazy people do not walk the street long in any nation. I walk freely on the street every day. You and other mathematicians have missed my argument completely. My argument was never between Mark and me. The argument was always between the founders of the USA and today's atheists. Your group never understood this argument and chose to assassinate my character instead. And, you are now continuing the same racist game.

The real argument between me and the field of mathematics was never merely my scientific proof of God. The real argument began in 1776.

In 1776, the founders said that the people of the USA will be a nation under God until God is proven to be false. Since 1776, no American has ever proven that God is false.

After the assassination of Abe Lincoln, atheism began to grow. Today, the atheists are saying that the people of the USA will be a nation without God until God is proven to be true. This saying was always illegal because it violated the founding documents.

However, poofs of God are now appearing. I, and now the Muslim's, have proven scientifically that God is true. However, today's atheists are closing their eyes to these proofs. Are the atheists also goinig to assassinate the character of the Muslim scientists who have also proven that God exists?

Legally, the USA should have never become a nation without God. Soon, the US Supreme Court can be expected to become more sensitive to the atheists and their illegal activities.

Your group has never separated the 'theory of God' (or theology) from the practices of this theory, which are the many religions that exist today. I belong to no religion but am a scientific theologian.

George:

You keep insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. That is manifestly not true - as I've pointed out many times, I'm a religious Jew.

I don't accept your so-called "scientific proof of god" because every bit of it that I've seen has been pure nonsense: stupidly false statements mixed with non-sequiturs and gibberish. It's not a proof - it's a pile of rubbish.

As for America being founded as a nation "under god", remember that the phrase "under god" was pretty much unused in America before it was added to the pledge of allegiance in *1954*. And go back and do some reading about the founders and their religious beliefs - people like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc. You're pretty much as far off base with your historical arguments as you are with your religious ones.

Wow, I see the temptation to respond to him after reading his response directed at me, but in light of his obvious grandiosity, apparent subnormal IQ as seen in his poor general knowledge and weak language skills, and loosening of associations and bizarre ideation, I have the definite feeling that best response to this guy would be to walk on by, assuming you can't get him to take some haldol or something. He's definitely not worth engaging, Mark. You might want to start ignoring him before he fixates on you and turns into your very own stalker.

Mark and mel,

The symbolic language of mathematics does not govern or explain all thoughts in this world. Yet, you two mathematicians take the liberty to use the incompleted symbolic language of mathematics to judge the thoughts in all other fields of thought. The garbage from this website and its icon of evolutionary theory is wasting my time to teach mathematicians something they might not know. Or do mathematicians know everything?

I hate to arrive late to the party, but this is fascinating. Here is an ongoing debate with someone who has overturned more than two millenia of philosophy. You don't find that on talk radio.

I note that George spent some time as engineer in the early days of the manned space program. They must have been mixing something special in the coffee back in those days, because there is another former NASA engineer who can show you how almost the entire history of Americans in space is written in the bible: http://www.ghg.net/woodfill/weeklist.htm. Apparently the Russians and Chinese are working out of some other holy book. I'm guessing that the Indian space program is in the Bhagavad-Gita, but it's been a very long time since I read it, so I'm a little vague on the details.

George, your comment about crazy people not walking around on the streets shows that you're living in a fairly small town. Find the nearest large city and spend a couple of days wandering around downtown, particularly around the first of the month. I guarantee that your opinion of the minimum sanity needed to remain on the loose will be changed.

Xanthir, your membership card in the Great Atheistic Conspiracy is in the mail. Be sure to send in your dues.

As an attorney who works with words and poorly defined, ever changing concepts all day, and who only studies math in my free time, I feel immensely flattered to be called a mathematician. It is flattering but hardly accurate. Calling me a guy who tutors kids in math in his free time because I love it, while wordier, would be more accurate. Damn, I responded! It is harder than I thought. And as a catholic, I'm a little peeved about being called an atheist. Damn, I responded again! I apologize, Mark, there is just something about this whack job that makes it hard not to respond. Thanks for your blog, which brightens an otherwise dull day and always gives me something interesting to think about.

As I thought Mel, the days of the attorney is rather dull. Since you and Mark seem to lile this kind of blogging action so that you can continue to assassinate the character of people, my blogging effort today might fit your strange human pleasures and might even give you memories of your boyhood times. If the shoes fit, put them on.

George:

You continually whine about how I'm "assassinating your character". And yet, all that I've ever done is to take an honest objective look at your writing.

It's not *my* fault that you're understanding of science seems to be inferior to a typical fourth grader; it's not *my* fault that you make ridiculously grand claims for yourself that you can't support; and it's not my fault that you constantly make incredibly foolish errors in your arguments.

But what's particularly telling is that you never respond to any of the substantive points that are made about your arguments or your so-called "proof". You showed up here to point out your recent blog entries about the "Muslim proof of god" - which was so full of errors that it wasn't even funny. And yet - you don't respond to anything that points out your errors.

You just sit back and whine, and make empty criticisms of anyone who points out your mistakes.

How about you try saying something that isn't entirely pointless? Like maybe responding to the fact that you completely, utterly screwed up in your understanding of relativity, or that your erroneous claim that photons go from the sun to the earth in an "instant"?

Mark, I am not whining about character assassination. This is a reality in atheism and exists also in some of your friends. I do now believe that character assassinations are acceptable in your religion or Mel's religion. I am an active person and when I see anything close to crime, I take actions atthe highest levels than I can reach. Character assassinations are approaching the nature of criminal life. So, i expect to help people who agree that character assassinations are evil behaviors.

I will offer my science until someone proves that i am wrong. You have not done that. If you put up your science, I will challenge it if I can. I won't sit and cry if I don't know something and can't make a challenge. I admit my ignorance. But you are trying to compare us so that you can convince readers and your friends that you are Mr. Perfect. I don't believe that you understand the God I understand. To me, all people, including you, are equal. So, don't try to place yourself above me. I have met many people who do believe they are better than others. A librarian is no less important to God than you. Obviously, your Jewish God is not, and never will be, my God.

I have no fear of your attempt to belittle the accomplishments of me and others without knowing them. You are wrong about my discussion about Einstein unless Einstein's special relative and his famous equation have changed without my knowledge. I have used the step functions and impulse functions often in my life., even in the soft sciences. I also used the impulse function and the instant, but only for studies of God. You have probably never used the symbol "instant" perfectly because you are not seeking scientific truths about God. The instant, like absolute freedom, applies only to God

On photon travel from the sun to earth. I think I reported that the Muslim's saythat that the photon arrives from the sun in a fraction of a second. Perhaps, I heard the wrong number because the video was unclear at times. But,I'll check this again. But I know the time duration of the photon is finite, not instant, which applies only to God related functions.

You are saying that the Muslim's made some errors. But this is not funny. Everyone makes errors. Some people hate to admit errors. You might be one of them. I deal with admitting and forgivign errors in my book.

The Muslims are trying to create and report progress. What is wrong with this? Surely they are making errors. But I will not discuss these errors with you because you have discomforted me considerably and thus do not diserve to receive this scientific information. But, the Muslim's did not make an error when they identified the origin of the massless photon and the spiritual world. This was a specific scientific proof of God. My scientific proof of God is generalized and is well beyond the Muslim specific proof of God.

I could not have gained the positions I filled in government and business and industry if I had a four grade ability in science. With this kind of stupid statement, your mind is becoming more confused. Your family should see that you get more rest and more social activities because you have lots of hate in you life..

Hello Mark,

For the first time, I took a deeper look at the content of your blog. Unfortunately, I made a mistake and should have looked earlier. So, you have a PhD. That achievement is no longer as great as it was because US colleges and universities are lost and are not as great as you continue to sell your you PhD. Today, these higher schools of education are no longer 'higher'. They can't even tell the difference betweem the concept of 'religion' and a theory God. And, all sciences are on a terrible path of misery. Even the famous medical handbooks at Harvard are being challenged. Alternative medicine is coming whether you like it or not.

Today, most people are trapped in some kind of cult. You, like the Pope, also belong to the cult of mathematics. In your cult, you are seeing the beauty of mathematics, not the beauty of God and His creation. When the great literary critic, Kenneth Burke, took up his pen to spank the poets for their self-serving poetry, he became a close friend of most poets, dramistst, and engineers.

I looked at some of the subjects that you have examined and judged. Your mathematical skills and the field mathematics in general, will not reach into these subjects and the new fields of thoughts that man is developing. You must allow man to think thoroughly before you judge man. Man has thought about God and religion for a long time. Now, God and religion are becoming a science. Only later did Georg Cantor enter these ancient and modern thoughts to offer some mathematical ideas.

You are misleading man with concepts that you believe are correct, when in fact they are false. In other words, your judgements, if institutionalized, will only enslave people to more political bandits.

As a skeptic, you are misusing the skill you earned. My scientific proof of God and the Muslim proof of God are as good as anything that will come out of the field of mathematics for years.

George:

And once again, you go for the personal insults and arrogant posturing instead of answering any questions or addressing any real points.

As I keep pointing out to you, I'm not an atheist; I'm a religious jew. But you keep pretending that somehow calling me one does something to negate the fact that I'm pointing out legitimate holes and errors in your "proof".

Whether I'm a theist or an atheist is irrelevant. Your opinion of the school that gave me my degree is irrelevant. Your babbling about my supposedly being in a cult is irrelevant.

What is relevant is, specifically, *your arguments*. The ones that *you* have put forward. They're full of stupid mistakes, George. Really stupid mistakes.

How long does it take for light to get from the sun to the earth? You claim "an instant". That's simply wrong, unless you have some incredibly bizzare definition where several hours can be considered an "instant".

Does e=mc2 imply that anything with energy has mass? No. It's a very straightforward equation, and it does *not* say what you claim it does.

How about you actually bother to address those two points, instead of just throwing insults at me?

Actually, the specific error George is making by saying that e=mc2 implies that anything which has energy has mass is an error I find myself slipping into, and which my physics professor specifically warned us to avoid.

In general, in science you can't rearrange the variables. In many cases you can, but in many other cases doing so is a mistake that leads you to errors like concluding that photons must have mass since they have energy. e=mc2 is a one-way relationship in general. As noted, the formulation involving momentum is more robust - a photon *does* have momentum, which is why it can exert pressure. In general, only matter has mass, but waves can still have momentum.

I'm a lay physicist, so I don't fully understand why light bends in a gravity field, but that's a different issue entirely.

By Xanthir, FCD (not verified) on 05 Apr 2007 #permalink

Xanthir:

The reason light bends in a gravity field is actually pretty straightforward (pun intended).

Gravity isn't a "field" that radiates through a flat spacetime. It's an actually warp in spacetime. So spacetime itself is curved. Light travels in the straightest possible line through a warped medium. Since we can't see that space itself is bent, what we see is the appearance of light following a bent course.

George, you are an idiot. You haven't proved anything. You haven't revolutionized anything. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't have much a grip on reality either. Don't try to engage in intelligent discourse. Stop seeking attention. Stop wasting everyone's time. Sorry to be so blunt, but reasoning with you is clearly ineffective given your poor intellect and dubious mental health. Go away.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 05 Apr 2007 #permalink

That was it! The straightest-possible-course thing. I had forgotten that connection.

Man, spacetime topology is weird. I wish I could properly envision higher-dimensional space, so I could really see just how light, travelling in a straight high-D line, appears to be able to curve, even spiral, around strong gravity fields in 3-D. I've never really been able to envision things rotating in more than 2d, though (an inborn thing I think, same as how you can't read maps), so 4d is probably right out. Then again, every once in a while I think I have a grasp on the hypercube...

By Xanthir, FCD (not verified) on 05 Apr 2007 #permalink

If this blog is an example of all US mathematicians, who continue to assassinate the character of those people who have entered their paths of thought, the field of mathematics will be exposed for what it really is. You will not get away with this evilness forever.

George Shollenberger

Exactly what is this "cult" that Mathematcians belong to? And why have I never been invited to join?

All religions begin as cults, but not all cults become religions.

What He said
A. E. Harvey

Richard Bauckham
JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES
The Gospels as eyewitness testimony
538pp. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. $32.
978 0 80283162 0

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2633034,00.html

The Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - present a conundrum that is probably unique in the annals of literary research. On the one hand they display similarities which are sometimes so close that it has been thought impossible they should have occurred had not the author of one had access to at least one of the others (and the reigning but not the only possible hypothesis is that Matthew and Luke both made use of Mark). On the other hand they have differences, mainly of verbal expression but sometimes also of content and arrangement, which generations of scholars, brought up in the tradition of historical criticism, have assumed is due to the use of different sources - so much so that the notion of "source" (Quelle in German) has given rise to the reconstruction of a document ("Q") that is assumed to be the "source" of material that appears in similar form in Matthew and Luke but is absent in Mark. The consequence is that a Gospel writer must be imagined, no longer as a serene recipient of inspiration from on high (as envisaged in so many ancient works of art) but as a sometimes puzzled, sometimes creative, editor, using scissors and paste to weave together several different narratives or "sources", and (according to more recent scholarship) compounding the complexity of his task by introducing theological interpretations of his own....

George:

What exactly is the *evilness* that you're accusing me of?

Is it pointing out that your arguments contain elementary errors?

Is it pointing out that you are ignorant of many of the subjects that you try to talk about?

It it pointing out that you refuse to answer substantive questions with anything other than personal insults?

Come on, I really want to know. What kind of evil am I guilty of?

It's particularly silly in light of your own reprehensible behavior. As I've pointed out before, you're either a fraud trying to sell a bullshit book to make some money; or you really believe your gibberish, in which case you're deliberately withholding information that could save lives in order to make money lessing your book. Either way, I'd say that you've done a pretty good job of setting yourself up as a thoroughly disgraceful person.

Mark,

Evilness is defined two ways. Evilness is defined by the laws of a nation. The second way is defined by the Son of God. The Son of God is God who appeaed in our finite world as Jesus christ. Christ says metaphorically that evil comes from a thing within us and defiles man. i conclude that the within thing is the human mind. Since you are a Jew, you will not agree with the second definition.

Because I am a researcher, I am always seeking truths. So, I am always talking about unknown things. So, i am never sure but am not afrid to make errors. That is the life of a researcher. When I am successful and prove something scientifically, I don't make errors. For instance, my scientific proof of God has no errors and it will take many, many people to prove that I have been wrong. I laugh at your comments on my proof of God because you dont hahe the mental tools that I have developed for my research on the theory of God.

When a moralist like me is asked to judge the potential evilness of another person, I always examine the consistences of the person's mind. On the God subject, I would judge your mental ideas. They are very inconsistent on the sybject of God. So, I would say that you have evils withing you.

My book is modeled after Plato's single book. I went as far as I could in research until my health became problematic. Then, I began to write what I learned in my total research effort. I tried to write the book in a pattern of my own thoughts. To me, 'publish and perish' is a stiky demand on man and actually ruins the development of a person's mind. I have see many lost PHD's. So, be careful to protect your mind against the moneyed interests. Life is shorter than you believe.

I define a cult in my book as a 'magical circle.' This circle has magicians who control the circle with symbolic languages. The magicians of the mathematical cult are the colleges, universities, and publishers. A cult is a mind control mechanism. Those people are able to jump out of magical circles have very open minds.

Ok... Let's see. You judge that I am evil because you claim that you know my mental ideas about God are very inconsistent. How do you claim to know that? I've never talked about my ideas about God or my religion on this blog. Are you a mind-reader? Or do you just interpret *any* criticism of your ideas as being an attack on your idea of God?

And you come up with your own definition of cult, which allows you to assert that any group who disagrees with you is an evil cult that practices mind-control.

I think that as an answer, what you've said can pretty much be reduced to "I'm evil because I don't agree with you" - just expanded with a bunch of non-sequiturs, baseless insults, and unsupported claims.

And I'll point out once again: you *still* can't actually address any of the criticisms of your crackpot buffoonery. Again, you just constantly pile on insults - people are evil, they're members of cults, they're practicing character assassination, etc... And yet, all *you* do is character assassination: flinging insults at people who disagree with you rather than actually addressing the substance of their disagreements.

I'm sorry Mark, if I hurt you because that was not my intention.

But, you might not realize that every person expresses their mind to God continuously. I discuss God/man communications in my book. There I show that God and man do not communicate as we talk to each other. But, God and man do exchange information.

I do not get into the minds of people because we can't. Only God can measure minds, as we can measure our works. I merely know lots about what God wants us to accomplish. Other people also depend on the regularity of consistency of one's spoken or written expressions.

Yes, you and I are both magicians of different cults. I am a magician of the cult of God and Jesus Christ and you seem to be a magician of the cults of mathematics and Darwinism. Since our magics are different, we are different, just as you are a Jew and I am a Christian. I appear to you more like a magician because you have not jumped out of enough magical circles yet.

Your mind seems to be dominated by the cause/effect principle. Thus, I don't 'cause' your evilness because you don't agree with me. Each of us create our own evils. I create some evils and so do you because we are imperfect compared to Jesus Christ. I would never compare a person to me. I am merely trying to tell you that I have ideas about the cult of God and Jesus Christ that you do not yet have. I have these ideas because you have not taken the same path of thought as i took. So, when I say that you don't understand and cannot judge my scientific proof of God, I mean that you do not have the mental tools yet. I tried to teach this kind of stuff to rev. Bigdumbchimp last fall. But he could not grasp my thought at all.

If you want to broaden you mind, as you did to achieve your skills in mathematics, I suggest that you read into the philosophy of symbolism. This will lift you mind above either/or logic. I teach symbolism in my book.

Honestly, George may be on to something here. Everything he's said so far reminds me of a book I read sections of once, Return of the Dove, a biography of Niccola Tesla.

In it, it is revealed how Niccola Tesla was actually a being from another planet, sent here to reveal his knowledge unto the world. And, while his physical body may be dead, his subtle body lives on, guiding his disciples through his continuing work.

And by on to something, I have no idea what, but it's all very familiar.

George:

You continue with the non-sequiturs, blind unsupported assertions, and idiotic insults.

Do you realize that Jews actually believe in God?

Do you realize that you are not the direct representative of God on earth?

Do you realize that you're not some kind of telepath that can read my mind?

You babble endlessly, and do things like call people evil, accuse them of belonging to cults, and making statements about what's going on in other people's minds. Meanwhile,
you ignore the fact that every time you open your mouth, stupid things come out. You've made so many errors, so many inconsistent statements, it's not even funny any more.

You don't know how I think, or how my mind works. You don't know what I believe. Claiming that you do is just demonstrating once again what an arrogant asshole you are: you feel free to attribute anything you want to other people, whether it's defensible or not.

And most importantly, you don't know how stupid you are. It's been pointed out to you more times that I can count that your arguments contain obvious, dumb, trivial errors. And yet, instead of acknowledging that, or responding to that, you just ignore it. You make dumb mistakes; people point them out to you; and you just continue babbling and insult them.

George, the simple fact of the matter is, you're an obnoxious, arrogant, stupid ass. I'm through with this discussion; I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again.

If you want to bother to actually respond to anything that I've said, that's fine; I'm always willing to have a discussion. But I'm not going to continue to waste my time when you just ignore the substance of what I'm saying, and reply with endless bullshit.

Mark, I use a single symbolic language to unify theology and science. No one has done that yet.

Yes, I know that Jews believe in God. But, i don't believe that the Jews know very much about God. But, nor do many Muslims and most Christians know much about God. Without scientific knowledge of God, a person must live completely on faith. I do not think that God likes that human behavior.

Jesus Christ knew that He was God. I have lots of knowledge about God but am not God or God's representative.

I don't read minds. I try to read a person through the person's works.

If all people were trained in the philosophy of symbolism, we would have degrees of evilness and I would not be required to use the word 'evil' and its opposition, 'good.' Our minds are filled with Aristotle's logic. This is why we say good/evil and let it go at that. Our minds are filled with symbolic junk and most people are unaware of this situation.

All peole are members of cults, believe me.

I say things to people the way I see them using the stupid language that our leaders do not perfect. Government is mandated to make a more perfect nation. It does not even know how to measure the variable 'more perfect.'

All people believe in themselves. But, most people are unaware of their own ignorance.

I knew that I went about as far as I can with you and the field of mathematics. Do nothing and suffer as the time passes. i do not care. I inform and that is it. I am not a caretaker or baby sitter.

The field of mathematics is on a non-functional path of thought and will remain there until it finds God. So, continue to have the kind of utilitarian fun you seek for the evolutionists.

George Shollenberger

George, if there is a God, he views you as a tragic mistake. A retarded, arrogant, broken fool. And he probably laughs at you. Except for when you make him cry, which is probably every time you open your mouth.

I challenge you to post 1000 error free words from your book or otherwise right here in this blog. Material without basic spelling and arithmetic mistakes. 1000 words that would persuade anyone that you aren't a fucking idiot. You may use a spell checker, editor, and ask your friends to proofread for you. I'd recommend you enlist the help of a historian and theologian too. Because, frankly, you're a moron.

You claim to have revolutionized everything, to be a brilliant researcher, and to have disproved much of what everyone else knows. You claim to have held down some sort of job that requires minimal skills and a GED. Then I assume you can discuss the basics of, for example, 6th grade math. Before we get to the wonderful complexity that is your genius and the intricacies of what you've rejected, proved, and disproved, why don't you explain the basics to me. In 1000 words educate me. I'll make it easy for you. George, why don't you start by telling me how the surface area of a simple three-dimensional object relates to its volume. If we take a box, and make each side of it twice as big, what will happen to its surface area? What will happen to its volume? Please explain this to me. Then prove it.

Otherwise, piss off.

Hey George, there is a ramp. It is three feet high and runs four feet along the ground. How long is the ramp?

George, there is a circle. It has a radius of 2 feet. What is its circumference?

George, you've got $100. You put it in a savings account, that earns 6% interest compounded annually. After 10 years, how much will you have?

I thought so. You are a fucking idiot.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 06 Apr 2007 #permalink

Response to Anonyymous,

I am afraid that you also do not know your ignorance. I can sense your ignorance with the dirty language you must use to try and win a debate. This seems to be the way life of the mathematicians who are working this website.

My proof of God is where I want it, in my book where its life is developing. You see, the smart ones are purchasing the book only to find that my book has much more than a proof of God. It is a book of means for creating a moral human nation. This US goal might be beyond the ability of you to understand.

Pull and tug, pull and tug. What a boring life you have developed.

George Shollenberger

Re: "no one has done that yet"

Gödel's ontological proof is a formalization of Saint Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.

St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz; this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Although Gödel was religious, he never published his proof because he feared that it would be mistaken as establishing God's existence beyond doubt. Instead, he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz' argument with all assumptions spelled out. He repeatedly showed the argument to friends around 1970; it was published in 1987, nine years after his death. An outline of the proof follows....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

George, by my count that was 116 words, including your name, and you had already made a spelling mistake by the third word. Grading you as generously as possible, you also had six serious grammatical/usage problems. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even spell? Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't solve simple math problems that a child could solve. Let's see if you can even do fourth grade math. Here is a problem for you:

"Travis has a red t-shirt, a green t-shirt, a blue t-shirt and an orange t-shirt. He has green, blue and black jeans. How many different combinations can he wear? Explain how you solved the problem."

Instead of responding with your usual wild claims, why don't you just solve that problem?

That problem shouldn't be hard for a genius who has revolutionized math and science, proved the existence of God, and drafted a blueprint for a more moral nation.
It is a matter of credibility, George. You make a lot of wild claims, which if true, would require you to be very smart. Yet you can't spell, you seem unable to solve math problems that a child could solve, and you communicate very poorly. So people naturally conclude that you are either a liar or a crazy person.

I refrained from cursing for you. Can answer without misspelling for me?

By Anonymous (not verified) on 07 Apr 2007 #permalink

Does Travis put his pants on one leg at a time? Is Travis in a cult? Does God put his pants on one leg at a time? Does God have legs? If so, how many?

Anonymous's quiz is not a simple problem for those unable to focus on elementary combinatorics.

Anonymous:

Never made a spelling and grammar error, did you? Such errors don't bother me because I do not have to hold a job as you do. Wait until you are 78 years old and might experience brain damage, as I did, and have very poor eyesight as a result of being a long range diabetic. When you become 78 years old, I hope the new generations give you the crap that you are trying to give the seniors.

You have no respect for seniors and the accomplishments that they made and give you the life you now enjoy. I would not lower myself to play your kid games. As you will learn, you will become a senior and go through the same as all people do.

In my book, I show that God and man cannot communicate as we do. But, I found that God and man share information. Isn't it nice to know that God cares for you through this information exchange but knows the information that you form in your unusual mind and comes our of your ugly mouth? God knows exactly what you are saying to other people. Ups, I almost forgot that your false evolutionary theory has no God. So, you think you are absolutely free and have free speech. This kind of thinking shows your ignorance. This ignorance is having much more effect on your mind than any spelling or grammar error does.

George Shollenberger

When I become a senior, I hope I don't start making delusional claims about myself and I hope I don't make myself look like as big a fool as you. I hope to just wink at the girls now and then, have more time to play the banjo, and enjoy what life I have left. I don't need to pretend I'm Isaac Newton, St. Aquinas, and Einstein all rolled up into one. I'm content with the little things in life.

I'm sorry, George, but you aren't being picked on because you are a senior. You are being picked on because you claim to be something you aren't and to have done something you haven't.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 07 Apr 2007 #permalink

Hi Jonathan,

It has been many years since I read some of Claude Shannon's work on information theory. I kind of remember that I read his stuff in my electrical handbook, where the good stuff for an engineer was at that time. As a telemetry engineer, I vaguely remember that I had been developing a belief against the unification of 'bit theory; and 'information theory.' However, it would not be long before I would shift my research to the soft sciences of crime and justice.

In the US Justice Department, I went no further with Shannon's informantion theory. But I returned to the subject of information later after I began to conduct research on the field of theology and became interested in unifying science and theology. There , I concluded that God and man cannot communicate as we do with each other becuse a barrier exists between the two distinct worlds, a physical world and a spiritual world. On the subject of information, I learned to test such barriers with either/or logic. I concluded that this barrier is logically real.

So, information exchange became the only connection that I could find to connect the symbols of a spiritual world and the symbols of a physical world. Any scientist who conducts research on the things in the universe, that person will find information from God (see Rom. 1:20). The remaining question became this, 'how does man transfer information to God.' My initial thoughts on the exchange of information from man to God are found in my book. I have been trying to close this information theory over the last year but am not ready to express my thoughts other than saying that there is an information exchange from man to God. I might be able to get it in a 2nd Edition, that is, if i live long enough. My energy seems to be falling, perhaps because i just got over 3-months of 'shingles.'

But, i think that i am close on the God/man information theory.

Thanks for having a sensible dialogue.

George Shollenberger

George:

You are a good-for-nothing hypocrite.

You come here, call people names, accuse people of belonging to cults, call people evil, and generally throw insults every which way.

And then when people respond in kind, you go into a diatribe about how rotten everyone else is because they aren't treating you with an appropriate amount of respest!

You know what *my* parents taught me about respect? No one is entitled to respect. Respect is something that must be earned. The appropriate way to treat someone you don't know is to give them the benefit of the doubt: assume that they'll show you that they deserve respect, and treat them that way until they show you whether or not they actually do.

As my older brother once put it: "Respect must be earned. If someone earns it, they get it. If they don't, then fuck 'em."

You've done a remarkable job of demonstrating that you are not worth a damned bit of respect. You're an arrogant, ignorant, judgemental, insulting, asshole. You've earned every bit of insult that have been directed at you, and more.

"... a barrier exists between the two distinct worlds, a physical world and a spiritual world...."

That seems to be what we call the body-mind dichotomy, or matter-spirit barrier, or by other names, and was central to what Rene Descartes claimed. As a Philosopher, mind you, not in his Mathematics as such.

Romans 1:20 [King James version]: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."

This is a lovely and interesting passage. It is often quoted by Intelligent Design advocates. For example:

"Even without the Spirit of God, without God having fully revealed Himself to a person, it is still possible for him to recognize that a creation demands the existence of a Creator. He can see that an intelligent Designer is necessary rather than the natural world coming into existence by sheer chance. Thus, God says that they are without excuse because they can understand the things that can be known about Him, if they choose to accept it."
[David C. Grabbe]

In the ID interpretation, it seems to say that God transmits information to Man via the Creation itself, with the physical universe "hinting" and a transcendental reality beyond the physical. This was a standard notion in the medieval notion that there are two Books -- the written words of the Bible, and the "Book of Nature" -- namely the physical reality of the starry heavens and Earth.

Mystics stated that these 2 books, or two magesteria, were isomorphic. That is, that they were in some symbolic one-to-one correspondance. The notion was that by sufficiently deep study of the Bible, one could know all that there was to know of Nature -- and vice versa. It seems that Galileo, Kepler, and Newton at least partially believed this in a Mathematical and Scientific sense as well.

"The remaining question became this, 'how does man transfer information to God.'"

This is something of a puzzle, since if "God sees every sparrow fall" them, as John Wesley wrote:

Surely the little affairs of men are far beneath the regard of the great Creator and Governor or the universe! Accordingly,

"He sees with equal eyes, as Lord of all,
A hero perish, or a sparrow fall."

Does he indeed? I cannot think it; because (whatever that fine poet did, or his patron, whom he so deeply despised, and yet grossly flattered) I believe the Bible; wherein the Creator and Governor of the world himself tells me quite the contrary. That he has a tender regard for the brute creatures, I know: He does, in a measure, "take care for oxen:" He "provideth food for the cattle,"as well as "herbs for the use of men." "The lions roaring after their prey, do seek their meat from God." "He openeth his hand, and filleth all things living with plenteousness."

[On Divine Providence
By John Wesley
Sermon 67
1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor]

So omniscient God knows us entirely. Hence why is there any problem in "man transfer[ing] information to God"?

Surely God has no problem with channel capacity, or noise, or signal intensity, or frequency cut-off?

Prayer is considered a special way for "man transfer information to God."

Talmud taught, and Christianity accepted, that a short prayer was just as good as a long prayer. Hence doxology, "The Lor's Prayer" and the like.

hence, in that view of the world, I don't see a problem with information transfer in either direction between Man and God.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Wesley, by the way, continues in this vein to discuss miracles:

21. But it is on supposition that the Governor of the world never deviates from those general laws, that Mr. Pope adds those beautiful lines in full triumph, as having now clearly gained the point: --

Shall burning Etna, if a sage requires,
Forget to thunder, and recall her fires?
On air or sea new motions be imprest,
O blameless Bethel! to relieve thy breast!
When the loose mountain trembles from on high,
Shall gravitation cease, if you go by?
Or some old temple, nodding to its fall,
For Chartres' head reserve the hanging wall?

We answer, If it please God to continue the life of any of his servants, he will suspend that or any other law of nature: The stone shall not fall; the fire shall not burn; the floods shall not flow; or, he will give his angels charge, and in their hands shall they bear him up, through and above all dangers!

I had the honor of knowing Claude Shannon and his wife personally, and had mnay long conversations with him.

I do not know about his religious belieifs. I knew him as a Mathematician, engineer (theoretical), engineer (hands-on, with quite a nice touch), eclectic (rocket-powered frisbees, general theory of juggling) and multimillionaire (having created modern Portfolio theory). By applying his theory to Finance, he grew wealthy. Whcih raises the question for any brilliant theorist: if you're so smart, how come you ain't rich? I apply that measure to myself.

I am poor, ignorant, and stupid. Fortunately, I have a wonder ful family, am well under 60 years old, and still have my health.

What more should I know about Information Theory and God? I'm curious.

Mark,

You deserved from me what you got because you started this kind of dialogue in your first blog on my suggestion to restudy mathematics. So, now you feel what it is like if you treat another human unkindly first. I give back to a person what I got from that person.

I hope our experience corrects your very bad behavior.

Jonathan,

The spiritual/physical barrier is explained by logic. But, the mind/body is explained by functional relations. This is in my book.

Rom.1:20 is Paul's science, which is nothing other than the scientific method. It represents God's Intelligent Design of our world. Thus, one should not worship on Sunday and become bandits for the rest of the week.

God's Intelligence Design means that evolutionaru theory must be false.

My modern creation theory is very different than all former creation theories.

Since my God and universe have no end, no field of knowledge can be completed (Godel).

On the flow of information from man to God, this flow is explained partially by God's ability to measure all minds. This is at least one meaans that God has to intervene in our world without violating the laws of nature.

Your thinking on the flow of information is good. The proof of God's omniscience and omnipotence must still be solved. I speculate on this in my book.

The money thing was always only a means to me. To become wealthy, one must govern other people. The more people in your company the more wealth one accumulates. I don't think human hierarchies in business will last much longer. I thing a functional relation fill God's Intelligent Design. I propose a new US economy in my book.

You will always gain more real friends than a wealthy man will gain.

Now, I must start to prepare a speech to present at the local Torch Club soon.

George Shollenberger

Jonathan,

The spiritual/physical barrier is explained by logic. But, the mind/body is explained by functional relations. This is in my book.

Rom.1:20 is Paul's science, which is nothing other than the scientific method. It represents God's Intelligent Design of our world. Thus, one should not worship on Sunday and become bandits for the rest of the week.

God's Intelligence Design means that evolutionaru theory must be false.

My modern creation theory is very different than all former creation theories.

Since my God and universe have no end, no field of knowledge can be completed (Godel).

On the flow of information from man to God, this flow is explained partially by God's ability to measure all minds. This is at least one meaans that God has to intervene in our world without violating the laws of nature.

Your thinking on the flow of information is good. The proof of God's omniscience and omnipotence must still be solved. I speculate on this in my book.

The money thing was always only a means to me. To become wealthy, one must govern other people. The more people in your company the more wealth one accumulates. I don't think human hierarchies in business will last much longer. I thing a functional relation fill God's Intelligent Design. I propose a new US economy in my book.

You will always gain more real friends than a wealthy man will gain.

Now, I must start to prepare a speech to present at the local Torch Club soon.

George Shollenberger

I think it is pretty clear by now to everyone that George is a complete ass. But there appears to be some possibility that he's brain damaged or suffering an age-related dementia, which greatly reduces his culpability for his behavior. On the chance that he's a broken person rather than just an odious person, I'm going to cut him some slack and not read any more posts regarding him or respond to him in any way.

MCC wrote (far above): 'How long does it take for light to get from the sun to the earth? You claim "an instant". That's simply wrong, unless you have some incredibly bizzare definition where several hours can be considered an "instant".'

However, it only takes light about 8 minutes to reach the Earth from the sun. I assume this was a typo on your part, Mark.

The above posts re light's momentum vs. its mass is facinating and apparently over my head, judging from my remaining confusion. But then, whenever JVP gets involved the concepts seem to quickly spiral out of my mental reach. =)

Stating that mass and energy are essentially the same thing (based on - among other things, Einstein's famous equation) is something I've also often done. Aren't all atoms and all particles composed of even smaller bits of energy? And the smallest bits are themselves fleeting bits of energy. Is my long-held conception of particles of matter being nothing more than tightly whirling bits of energy a flawed concept?

To George, who is now banned from this blogsite: There is no need to "prove" that existence exists, and anything other than the totality of existence/Being is a mere being, not the true omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient "God" (except in a translogical sense in which we are *all* God). You really willing to prostrate yourself before some egomaniacal superbeing?

One more comment: MCC, your particularly harsh manner of calling a spade a spade seems sometimes unnecessary and counterproductive (though also entertaining). It doesn't bother me personally, but many others are likely to be influenced irrationally one way or the other by such sometimes harshness. Please excuse me, but I feel the need to echo some others who've also mentioned this one shortcoming in your blogs and posts. From my outside perspective on your above exchanges with Shollenberger, for instance, you seemed to be just as personally insulting as he was, and from the very beginning or your blog. And this time your vicious crushing of your opponent amounted to essentially kicking an apparently mentally handicapped person (i.e., poor George).

I think your attitude even influenced me to be more harsh toward Neal Adams when I first commented on your blog about Neal's nutty physics ideas, and I later felt the need to apologize to him.