Hyper Dimensional Design

[The Man]

The Man will look it up for us in this thread, repost it and than we talk

You’ve guessed wrong again.

Yes, the geometrical interference points of the HD platonic solids are known and can be expressed with specific numbers of rotations on an orbit of a planet, regardless what shape the orbit actually has or how it lokks like towards the background stars

This is your claim, if you don’t care to demonstrate its accuracy yourself what makes you think it would be incumbent upon anyone to “look it up” for you? Again quite frankly you have never demonstrated that any of your calculations involve more than just one dimension.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Again quite frankly you have never demonstrated that any of your calculations involve more than just one dimension.

Don't they at least involve two? After all, an orbit inscribes an ellipse (which I doubt Dutch takes into account!). The only one-dimensional objects I can think of off-hand are the point and the line.

 

[Hans]

Ah the Dutch's 'forever' thread continues. Howdy Dutch.

I know Dutch from a number of other forums where he posts the same stuff, provides no evidence and gets testy if you ask.

I stop by every once in awhile to see what other people have been attrached to this intellectual black hole and Uncle Remus Tar Baby for skeptics.

Flee you fools! People have been questiong Dutch for years and gotten nowhere. Do you really think you'll shut him up? LOL

Yep 3 1/2 years on this thread alone and on other forum's I think he is nearing 6 year of posting the same inane stuff.

Good day all

 

[The Man]

Don't they at least involve two? After all, an orbit inscribes an ellipse (which I doubt Dutch takes into account!). The only one-dimensional objects I can think of off-hand are the point and the line.

Yes a ellipse would require at least two dimensions to specify some given point along that ellipse. Since a circle however has a constant radius only an angular position (one dimension) is required to specify a point on a circle. In fact Dutch specifically ignores the shape of the orbit (circular or elliptical) as he notes himself.

... regardless what shape the orbit actually has ...

The number of dimensions of a given space or object are informally defined as the number of co-ordinates required to specify some point within that space.

Other references to dimension have more formal definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension




All Dutch actually deals with is just dates, so it is in fact simply a line Blue Mountain, with the past at one end and the future at another. Again exemplified by the fact that Dutch only requires and uses one ordinate to specify some given point along his ‘timelines’. Also Dutch does not actually use the orbits or orbital positions he simply uses the sidereal period which is a measure of time (one dimension) for the planet to make a complete orbit relative to the stars.

 

[Dutch]

To be honest I find this response a little rude.
My request did not pertain to how you feel about The Man or how you experience The Man's posts.

SO, lets forget about that now.

Again, I respectfully request that you provide full documentation of an example of said transformation/translation.

Many thanks again.

Well, what exactly is not sufficiant in the answer already given in this thread?

or haven't you still read it?

 

[Dutch]

Don't they at least involve two? After all, an orbit inscribes an ellipse (which I doubt Dutch takes into account!). The only one-dimensional objects I can think of off-hand are the point and the line.

I do take it into account and I have explained why the actual SHAPE of an orbit is irrelevant.

If you really want to talk, show me at least you´ve done your homework.

 

[Paul]

Two more posts attempting to divert attention from the complete lack of answers.

 

[Dutch]

sleep well Paul



focus on Earth´s orbital position of the Venus Transits of our times, around June 7 coming up.
http://hddesign.forumup.nl/viewtopic.php?t=401&mforum=hddesign
login ´reader´ password ´reader´
´preemptive´

 

[Paul]

And another one.

 

[Daylightstar]

Well, what exactly is not sufficiant in the answer already given in this thread?

or haven't you still read it?

That is correct.
If:
full documentation of an example of such a transformation/translation
is indeed in this thread,
Then:
please provide a postcount where said full documentation appears.

Alternatively, please provide a keyword with which that specific post can be located.

Your help in gaining understanding of your theory will be much appreciated.

Many thanks again.

 

[Blue Mountain]

All Dutch actually deals with is just dates, so it is in fact simply a line Blue Mountain, with the past at one end and the future at another. Again exemplified by the fact that Dutch only requires and uses one ordinate to specify some given point along his ‘timelines’. Also Dutch does not actually use the orbits or orbital positions he simply uses the sidereal period which is a measure of time (one dimension) for the planet to make a complete orbit relative to the stars.

Well-stated. I agree, overall Dutch's analysis is one-dimensional.

 

[The Man]

I do take it into account and I have explained why the actual SHAPE of an orbit is irrelevant.

If you really want to talk, show me at least you´ve done your homework.

No Dutch since you consider "the actual SHAPE of an orbit is irrelevant" that means you specifically do not take that "SHAPE of an orbit" "into account". Again this makes your notions entirely one dimensional. If you really want to talk about more than one dimension at least do some homework, in more than one dimension, first.

 

[Paul]

focus on Earth´s orbital position of the Venus Transits of our times, around June 7 coming up.

Anything important happened yet? All I see on your forum is a lot of the usual reposting of news and speculation.

 

[Mister Earl]

Anything important happened yet? All I see on your forum is a lot of the usual reposting of news and speculation.

No, just the usual word salad / blather / refusal to provide proof, evidence, or even answer legitimate questions. Maybe I should ping the mods to see if they'd lock this thread. It has no purpose.

 

[Daylightstar]

So, Dutch, where's the full documentation of an example of said transformation/translation?

Or ... where you uuhm ... let's say ... less than truthful when you said it was in this thread and that you knew how to do such a thing? I guess you were.

How does it feel Dutch, when you have to be dishonest and cowardly about your claims?
Do you have a lovely psychological mechanism for not feeling anything about it at all?

 

[Orphia Nay]

No, just the usual word salad / blather / refusal to provide proof, evidence, or even answer legitimate questions. Maybe I should ping the mods to see if they'd lock this thread. It has no purpose.

Yep.

Even on a woo forum, where woos post their "synchronicities etc", Dutch rarely acknowledges them, and merely continues his spamming.

See here: http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10814

That topic's been going for 5 years now. Let Dutch use some other server's space for his drivel.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Mods have a tendency not to close a thread unless it goes severely off the rails or the poster is banned. Aside from from being tiresome and predictable, the worst Dutch has done is possibly breaching Rule 4 ("Do not post large amounts of material available from other sites"—in this case, his own).

He doesn't even breach Rule 6 ("No spamming or flooding") due to the phrase in that rule that says "in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum". His posts are tedious, repetitive, and long-winded, but they aren't disruptive so I don't see them as being actionable.

The JREF doesn't have a "put up or shut up" rule like BAUT has, so we can't sanction him that way either. So unless Dutch has a major meltdown and starts sending threatening PMs to the moderators, I think we're stuck with his drivel for as long as he's interested in it.

 

[dafydd]

Don't respond and he may leave us in peace.

 

[Dutch]

That is correct.
If:
full documentation of an example of such a transformation/translation
is indeed in this thread,
Then:
please provide a postcount where said full documentation appears.

Alternatively, please provide a keyword with which that specific post can be located.

Your help in gaining understanding of your theory will be much appreciated.

Many thanks again.

Try "Hyper dimensional Tetrahedron"

 

[Dutch]

No, just the usual word salad / blather / refusal to provide proof, evidence, or even answer legitimate questions. Maybe I should ping the mods to see if they'd lock this thread. It has no purpose.

That would be easy for you

If you refer to an answer that I have already given and ask additional explanation you will receive an answer.

If you ask something that hasn't been previously discussed I will always answer it