Re: symmetry

From: George Hammond (
Date: Sun Aug 19 2001 - 11:11:36 EDT

  • Next message: Tim Ikeda: "Re: VIRUS in attachments from The Troll House"

    I.J.K. wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 05:01:20 GMT, George Hammond
    > <> wrote:
    > >X.X. [edit name; Lucy Masters] wrote:
    > >>
    > >> I wasn't being ENTIRELY silly in my post about four legs and balance
    > >> (although recent postings have pushed me to hilarity). In one of my
    > >> biology classes, my professor did spend a lecture talking rather
    > >> seriously about symmetry in animals and plants and the relationship to
    > >> balance. Mystics look at math and symmetry and see all sorts of meaning
    > >> beyond reason, but I must admit it makes sense to think about balance.
    > >> Unbalanced plants might droop to one side thereby not getting enough
    > >> sunlight and possibly drenching themselves in a puddle. And of course
    > >> an injured mammal can survive with one leg gone, but it is not the ideal
    > >> situation for mating or for catching prey. The starfish is quite a bit
    > >> different as it has a flattened body - thereby gaining its balance by
    > >> dispersing mass.
    > >>
    > >> X.X.
    > >
    > >[Hammond]
    > > As I pointed out to Z.Z., a Starfish is an echinoderm
    > >(Gr. "spiny skin") and all echinoderms have a larval stage which
    > >is as bilaterally symmetric as we are, and has 4 legs. Therefore,
    > >a Starfish is fundamentally a 4-legged animal. The larval stage
    > >swims around, and like fish has two paired legs (fins). The adult
    > >is really a sessile animal and doesn't walk around.
    > I see that your ignorance of echinofderms covers both larval and adult
    > forms.
    > Not only do larval echinoderms not have four legs (they actually have
    > cilia, and not legs at all, legs being a development of later forms
    > that evolved from echinoderms),

      I see your ignorance of what this discussion is even about
    is apparently unbounded. But let me address your complaint
    anyway. Apparently we'll have to waste a few
    minutes on the "radial animal canard".
      First of all, Starfish larvae are BILATERAL, not RADIAL. The one
    I looked at appeared to have paired legs:

    My position is that a Starfish doesn't actually have "legs" it
    has a radially symmetric body- is what it actually has.
     So, more to the point of your argument is the existence of
    RADIAL ANIMALS in the first place, so lets dispense with the
    "radial animal Canard" in one fell swoop.
      As Isaac Asimov puts it:

            "Radial symmetry is a rather primitive
            property. All the phyla but the very simplest
            have BILATERAL SYMMETRY."

              (Isaac Asimov, _Beginnings_, 1989, p.177)

      There are 9 major Animal Phyla, and all of them are Bilaterally
    Symmetric except the lowest 3, sponges and jellyfish. Sponges of
    course have no body plan, and are not even considered "true animals".
    They certainly don't have "legs". Members of the Phylum Cnidaria
    and Phylum Ctenophora (the comb jellies) are the only two animal
    phyla that have radially symmetrical body forms. All the other
    Phyla are BILATERAL, and therefore if they have legs at all, will
    appear in bilateral pairs. Obviously these two radial Phyla represent
    the "lowest" animal forms. They do not have a brain, only primitive
    nervous systems, and actually, do not have legs. The reason for
    this is that they are all aquatic animals, none of them live on
      So, my statement "4 is the minimum number of legs" for an animal
    is still basically correct, since the lowly "radial jellyfish"
    basically don't have legs. Neither does a worm or a snake for
    matter matter, however many animals in the bilateral phyla don't have
    legs either, so obviously the structural rule does not apply to them.
    In fact, I argue that a Starfish does not actually have
    "true legs" any more than any of the "true radial" animals do.
    In fact, Starfish "walk" on small rows of "paired tube feet" which
    run down the middle of each so called "arm" of the Starfish:
    (scroll down for picture of "tube feet")

      At any rate, pedant-factoid objections aside, it remains a fact
    that "4 is the minimum number of legs for all animals". This, as
    I have pointed out is a direct result of the Quadratic (Riemannian)
    Metrical geometry of Real-Space itself. It is hardly due to
    "Darwinian Natural Selection".
      And furthermore, the RELEVANCE of this simple fact, is that
    animals and particularly Humans, have 4-PERSONALITIES for the
    exact same reason that they have 4-legs. Namely, the Cartesian
    Geometry of Real-Space itself cause the 4-lobes of the brain
    in the same way it causes the 4-legs of the body.

    snip... factoid textbook biology stuff

    > > "Legs" are really a property of land animals since their main
    > >function is "standing" locomotion in a high gravity environment.
    > >Sea creatures generally don't have "legs" because they are in a
    > >weightless environment. The only real exception is sea-life that
    > >"swims" extensively, like fish, and there again, you find 2 sets
    > >of paired fins, which again are necessary for "pitch, roll and yaw"
    > >control of the 3-axis animal.
    > Wrongs again, of course. Finned fish have 6 fins.

    Wrong again of course. I said "4 is the minimum number".
    A centipede has 100. Point is, "4 is the minimum" and
    they always must appear in "bilateral pairs"... of course
    you can have any number greater than four.. a centipede
    has 50 bilateral-pairs. fish have 2 major bilateral
    pairs. May have more. It's known that these developed
    into legs of amphibians and then the legs of quadrupeds.

    > You are also
    > contradicting yourself, since you previously claimed that the
    > echinoderata have 4 legs.

    More tiresome colloquy..., answered above.

    > > The upshot is, and I feel sorry for people without the Physics
    > >expertise to understand this, that:
    > >
    > >1. Only a "quadratic space", that is a quadratic metrical space
    > > such as we live in where the Pythagorean Theorem holds true,
    > > will allow a solid object to freely rotate.
    > > (N.B. Riemannian Space)
    > You forgot to support this assumption.

    It needs no support and it's not an assumption. It's a historically
    well known and proven fact of Relativity. You simply don't know about it.
    It was first discovered by Helmholts, reinvestigated by Weyl
    and others in the 1920's and is part of the well known lore
    and legend of Relativity.
      A recent message from the sci.physics.relativity group assures
    me that:

         "This is discussed in an introductory chapter of

          Adler, Bazim, and Schiff, _Introduction_to_General_Relativity_.

         It is attributed to Helmholtz. IIRC they do not give a primary

    > >2. Having thus determined that we must live in a "quadratic space"
    > > we immediately discover that the "cartesian coordinate system"
    > > is the simplest structure that will provide the mechanical
    > > basis for a "machine". This is why the human body is a
    > > 3-Axis orthogonal machine. (The Cross of Christianity BTW
    > > symbolizes this scientific fact).
    > You forgot to support these (4) assumptions.

    Again a well known basic fact of physics.
    I don't have to support any statement that
    is well known to competent people.
      But for your benefit, Real-Space is "orthogonal"
    (meaning that ANY arbitrary coordinate system set
    up in Real (flat) space CAN be reduced to a (global)
    Cartesian (Euclidean) coordinate system).
    Many elementary forms are known, such as Spherical
    coordinates, Cylindrical coordinates and of course
    Cartesian coordinates.
      The point is, a "machine" is simply a mechanically
    realized coordinate system. And obviously the
    simplest one to mechanically realize is the
    "Cartesian" coordinate system. Hence, NATURE has
    applied Occams's Razor, and that's why the Body Plan
    (which means: geometrical SHAPE) of all (multicellular)
    Plants and Animals is in fact "Cartesian". Nature
    certainly wouldn't try to engineer a "Spherically coordinates
    animal" when it can build a "Cartesian coordinates" animal!
      As we see in the sequel, this is WHY the "Cross of
    Christianity" is the symbol of God. It is the
    Cartesian Coordinate System.... or living body plan.
    and this primary fact leads directly to the scientific
    proof of God vis a vis General Relativity (and the Secular
    Trend in braingrowth, which is the "direct biological"
    cause of curvature in Psychometric Space BTW).

    > >3. Having determined that the human body must be "Cartesian"
    > > in SHAPE geometrically, then the next thing we find out is
    > > that Gravity "bends" the axes of this structure (curves
    > > real space).
    > You forgot to support the assumption that there is a relevancy between
    > these statements.

    Don't jump the gun. That's the next statement.
    Please remember you are only capable of "line item
    responses", and an argument may not be sequential.
    Arguments must be refuted by a SUMMARY statement,
    only the most elementary and irrelevant factoid
    arguments can be discussed by line item tete a tete.

    > >4. This results in the "bending" (or curvature) of the vectors
    > > of psychometry space, since it "bends" the Cartesian growth
    > > of the brain. ("brain gravity" does this, quantum gravity
    > > BTW not terrestrial gravity according to Sir Penrose).
    > > This phenomena mediates the celebrated "Secular Trend" in
    > > human growth we've heard so much about (and the Flynn Effect).
    > You forgot to mention the link to your other assumptions.

    I've just just stated the link. And BTW there ARE NO assumptions
    anywhere in the proof.
    Read my website.

    > >5. This "curvature" in Psychometry space is the explanation
    > > (and proof) of "God". Thus we see, that it is GRAVITY which
    > > causes GOD. Einstein's theory it turns out, is the Mathematical-
    > > Physics explanation of God. God bless Al Einstein.
    > You forgot to connect psycometry to physics.

    That has been cited within the discussion group to
    which this was originally posted. This is only
    an FYI-post to the present newsgroup. The "connection"
    is of course the founding principle of the SPOG and
    is discussed at length on my website, and has been published
    in the peer reviewed literature (Hammond 1994), online
    copy available on my website, or in your University

    > >6. This stunning phenomenology has been rigorously proved by
    > > Hammond (1994, 1997).
    > You forgot to post anything relating to the alleged proof.

    It's well known as the "SPOG" and completely and
    elaborately, indeed painstakingly described on my
    website, URL below.

    > >7. The Church can take a much deserved vacation, and a pay raise,
    > > the scientific proof of God (SPOG) has been discovered.
    > You forgot to mention anything about it.

    Apparently you have been driven to enunciate
    a meaningless non sequitur for some reason.
      At any rate, to sum up.. I am merely pointing out that
    the nonexistence of a "3-legged animal" and the universal
    existence of "4-legged animals" certainly is astronomical
    proof of the QUADRATURE STRUCTURE (Cartesian structure) of
    all Life-Forms, pedant-factoids notwithstanding.
      The importance of this is that for the SAME biological
    and axiomatic Physics reason, there are, as Hippocrates
    noticed 2,500 years ago "Four Personalities" of Man.
    (He called them the "Four Humors", turns out he was right,
    at least about the number 4.
      This, Hammond has now discovered, is caused by the
    "4-lobes of the brain" which exist because of the same
    axiomatic reason as the "4-legs of the body".
      Since it turns out that this axiomatic reason is in fact
    the "Metrical Geometry" of space itself, we immediately see
    WHY Real-Space physically causes Psychometry-Space. And
    since Gravity curves Real-Space, it must also curve
    Psychometry Space... and this of course leads us directly
    to the discovery that the curvature of Psychometry Space
    is the mechanical cause of what we have been calling "God"
    for 5,000 years. Light at last!
      It's too bad you have to be a scientist to know that
    there is a God, but, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
    On the other hand, the achievement of supreme and solitary command,
    that and 99 cents, is but sufficient to obtain a single cup of
    coffee. I certainly can appreciate Napoleon's remark to his
    daughter at the dinner table that "He had to conquer the entire
    world just to get her a hamburger".

    > >Perhaps my future biographers and followers will be able to
    > >come up with a simpler heuristic explanation of this for you
    > >using colored illustrations, movies, t.v. etc. But in the meantime
    > >it unfortunately remains very much of a professional scientist's
    > >domain. Therefore, only the very privileged few have access to the
    > >fact that there actually is a "real God". Meanwhile, I'm working on
    > >a popular book for you, which should be out in awhile.

    Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
    news service provider to add  alt.sci.proof-of-god
    George Hammond, M.S. Physics

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 11:03:30 EDT