Daylightstar
Philosopher
Your judgement can, evidently, be dismissed as untrustworthy.
Hyper Dimensional Design
- Thread starter Dutch
- Start date
- Status
Your judgement can, evidently, be dismissed as untrustworthy.
Congrats. Now you know HDD is all about you, which we've been telling you for years. It's all about you because it's all in your mind.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
So you wouldn’t do this if it wasn’t for your amazing ability to simply amaze yourself?
Exactly the point, your simple amazement feeding your evidently equally simple ego.
quod erat demonstrandum
I’d expect that by now it would be indeed difficult for you to ignore. Each of those 'coincidences' giving just another bit of an endorphin rush to keep you hooked. Unfortunately you’re evidently just not smart enough, or simply not willing enough, to understand its significance. It’s time for some cold turkey Dutch or perhaps just find something actually productive to amaze yourself with, but if you just want to continue pretending that your amazement is significant to anyone but you, you are just feeding into that self deluding self-amazing fantasy.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Once again you use neither Platonic solids nor geometry; you simply manipulate dates to obtain whatever 'intuitive' 'coincidences' that happen to strike your fancy.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
What I've noticed is you have stopped even linking to your timelines and summarizing them.
Translation: I need more stuff to happen so I can retrofit it back into my timelines.
If there is no clear set of guidelines and no standard methods, then all you're doing is making it up as you go along. Please explain how that is different from an astrologer or tarot card reader.
As well as randomly dividing things by 2, or multiplying them by 2, and rotational periods, and orbital periods of natural satellites, and weird multidimensional tetrahedrons ... over the last five years you've thrown a lot of stuff into HDD.
There are many ways that you think you see hidden things popping up in our reality. Sadly, that's true for a huge number of delusions.
HDD has in no way illuminated my life. Science, though, has kept me alive these past five years and skepticism has given me a whole new outlook on life.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
It's related to:
23rd November 2010
Due to his multitude of rule 4 MA breaches.
Last edited:
Dutch - address the math errors. It's your math, not mine. All I did was take your equations and run the numbers. It's pretty obvious what happened.
One last chance here for you to make the corrections and admit the error (not that it really matters to anyone one way or the other).
OK folks, here’s what Dutch has done:
First, someone other than Dutch has “run the numbers” for him. If you look back at the “equation” that he has been posting for the past seven or eight years he has inverted the days/year fraction but his bottom line number has been correct. He didn’t get the correct math answer from his stated math. This means that he has either incorrectly copied someone else’s work or he has had someone else run the numbers for him without himself understanding the math. In either case he doesn’t have a clue about what the equation really means (otherwise he would have realized the mistake years ago).
He constantly refers to the orbit of Venus and the “synchronicity” of its orbit and specific location at certain times as being significant. To some degree that is true. Our solar system was formed from one mass of matter. It should come as no surprise that after the accretion disk of matter coalesced into the sun and planets that the angular velocity of the planets orbiting the Sun might have some link to one another. It is also true that if you take Earth and Venus at a point of minor conjunction (a point while looking down on the solar system from Polaris in 2D and see the Earth and Venus aligned in a reasonably straight line with the sun) and allow them to do their solar orbit thing that they will realign in minor conjunction four times before returning to the approximate original minor conjunction. If you allow some large “wiggle room” these conjunctions form a pentagram if you decide to draw your lines accordingly. You can also draw the lines along the circumference and form a five sided, though equally lopsided, figure. No surprise here if you assume that there are five conjunctions spread out over 360 degrees of a circle. The surprise would actually be if they all fell on one point. Now that would be significant because it would violate the known laws of physics (orbital mechanics).
The problem is that Dutch comments that Venus is “in the exact same position” WRT the Earth at some time relative to his predictions. It isn’t. If you happen to have some astronomy software that you can use to plot planetary orbits (I do) and run the model (I have) you discover that Venus doesn’t actually return to the “same” point along the Earth-Venus orbital path. The point of conjunction precesses anti-clockwise about 5 degrees per conjunction, and it varies with each conjunction. Jupiter and Saturn play their parts here. If you run the model for a few hundred years the pentagram completely disappears. There is no pentagram. The same applies to Mercury only more so because of its proximity to the sun, its highly excentric (out of round) orbital path and large (~7 degree) inclination to the plane of the ecliptic. These Venus-Mercury “synchronicities” are only applicable to the current few years. They have nothing to do with long-term history or orbital mechanics.
And as to 19.47 degrees (or as Hoagland has rounded it off to - 19.5 degrees): Dutch’s tetrahedron. A tetrahedron is nothing more than a three sided pyramid with a triangular base. He is so unfamiliar with how to describe his method that it is left for me to do for him.
Forget the tetrahedron (actually an equilateral tetrahedron – something that Dutch has not once referred to because he doesn’t have a basic understanding of the underlying geometry). Take a globe: 19.47 degrees below and above the equator strike a plane parallel to the equator. Inscribe an equilateral triangle on one plane such that the three vertices (“points”) intersect the circumference of the circle at that point on the plane. Do the same on the other 19.47 degree plane but rotate the triangle through 180 degrees so the “top” is pointed in the opposite direction of the other triangle and bisects its base. Big deal. You now have similar equilateral triangles and you can draw nice pictures at the equator using the vertices of both triangles (though there is the problem that the vertices of the +/- 19.47 degree triangles don’t actually reach the circumference of the circle at the equator for some “odd” reason. Are they a bit too small in the top-down projection? Doh!).
It would be nice if the planets and the triangles didn’t have those damned planets Saturn and Jupiter interfering with the predicted points where the planets were supposed to be in order to make the predictions. Unfortunately planets don’t travel in perfect circles, Saturn and Jupiter do have significant gravitational effects on the period and shape of their orbits and with the exception of the Earth they don’t travel in the plane of the ecliptic. Venus, for example, travels at a mean inclination of ~3 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic – and that precise angle depends on just where Saturn and Jupiter are. Even though the position of minor conjunction appears to be somewhat close the the previous conjunction five cycles in the past that's only because one is looking at the situation top-down (looking at the x-y plane). Look at the situation form the "side" perspective (y-z plane) and Venus isn't even near being in the "exact same place". Earth itself doesn't actually travel in the plane of the ecliptic. It wiggles up and down and in and out due to the effects of Saturn and Jupiter (and the moon). The bottom line here is that Dutch “borrowed” this entire thesis from astrology and liberally lifted specifics from Richard Hoagland (as I believe someone here recently alluded to). One glaring problem here is that Dutch is enamoured with pseudo-science jargon "hyper-dimensions" (that is, N dimensions beyond our normal 3D universe) but to make his case he has to limit his perspective to 2D, the x-y plane of the solar system.
The consistently repeated math error was the key. Following certain specific sorts of errors in this situation (or when grading term papers) leads to the conclusion that the poster, or student, has engaged in plagiarism. And, God help me, I’m certainly not standing up for R.C. Hoagland. Dutch copied most of this clap-trap from Hoagland. Hoagland “borrowed” most of this from astrology to make his Marz-Barz case - not to mention money, lots of it (and I have no problem with anyone making an honest buck, operant word being "honest"). Go to any astrology site and see how an astrological chart is drawn. It is based on Ptolemaic astronomy, perfect circles and geocentricity. Somewhere in the past three or four years I believe that we discovered that Earth is not the center of the universe, planets do not travel in perfect circular orbits and orbital mechanics is so complex that we can't actually predict the position of the moon in the future by a single equation. Or was that a bit more than three or four years ago that we discovered all of this? I forget.
Would someone please put this thread to bed. I did on Anomalies. I will admit it. I closed Dutch’s thread on Anomalies.net, started within days of the thread here, and PM’ed Dutch telling him that I would unlock his thread and move it back to the public forum as soon as he decided to openly, honestly and without any smart aleck retorts address your questions here. He’s been TOS’ed on other sites for the same uncooperative tactics. I don’t expect that to happen here and it won’t happen on Anomalies. He can be uncooperative as much as he wants. That’s his choice. Along with choice comes responsibility. Start a dialogue that people put years into and refuse to be a good citizen by answering their honest inquiries and there is a price to pay for irresponsibility. A dialogue of one is not a dialogue (is that called a truism?)
First, someone other than Dutch has “run the numbers” for him. If you look back at the “equation” that he has been posting for the past seven or eight years he has inverted the days/year fraction but his bottom line number has been correct. He didn’t get the correct math answer from his stated math. This means that he has either incorrectly copied someone else’s work or he has had someone else run the numbers for him without himself understanding the math. In either case he doesn’t have a clue about what the equation really means (otherwise he would have realized the mistake years ago).
He constantly refers to the orbit of Venus and the “synchronicity” of its orbit and specific location at certain times as being significant. To some degree that is true. Our solar system was formed from one mass of matter. It should come as no surprise that after the accretion disk of matter coalesced into the sun and planets that the angular velocity of the planets orbiting the Sun might have some link to one another. It is also true that if you take Earth and Venus at a point of minor conjunction (a point while looking down on the solar system from Polaris in 2D and see the Earth and Venus aligned in a reasonably straight line with the sun) and allow them to do their solar orbit thing that they will realign in minor conjunction four times before returning to the approximate original minor conjunction. If you allow some large “wiggle room” these conjunctions form a pentagram if you decide to draw your lines accordingly. You can also draw the lines along the circumference and form a five sided, though equally lopsided, figure. No surprise here if you assume that there are five conjunctions spread out over 360 degrees of a circle. The surprise would actually be if they all fell on one point. Now that would be significant because it would violate the known laws of physics (orbital mechanics).
The problem is that Dutch comments that Venus is “in the exact same position” WRT the Earth at some time relative to his predictions. It isn’t. If you happen to have some astronomy software that you can use to plot planetary orbits (I do) and run the model (I have) you discover that Venus doesn’t actually return to the “same” point along the Earth-Venus orbital path. The point of conjunction precesses anti-clockwise about 5 degrees per conjunction, and it varies with each conjunction. Jupiter and Saturn play their parts here. If you run the model for a few hundred years the pentagram completely disappears. There is no pentagram. The same applies to Mercury only more so because of its proximity to the sun, its highly excentric (out of round) orbital path and large (~7 degree) inclination to the plane of the ecliptic. These Venus-Mercury “synchronicities” are only applicable to the current few years. They have nothing to do with long-term history or orbital mechanics.
And as to 19.47 degrees (or as Hoagland has rounded it off to - 19.5 degrees): Dutch’s tetrahedron. A tetrahedron is nothing more than a three sided pyramid with a triangular base. He is so unfamiliar with how to describe his method that it is left for me to do for him.
Forget the tetrahedron (actually an equilateral tetrahedron – something that Dutch has not once referred to because he doesn’t have a basic understanding of the underlying geometry). Take a globe: 19.47 degrees below and above the equator strike a plane parallel to the equator. Inscribe an equilateral triangle on one plane such that the three vertices (“points”) intersect the circumference of the circle at that point on the plane. Do the same on the other 19.47 degree plane but rotate the triangle through 180 degrees so the “top” is pointed in the opposite direction of the other triangle and bisects its base. Big deal. You now have similar equilateral triangles and you can draw nice pictures at the equator using the vertices of both triangles (though there is the problem that the vertices of the +/- 19.47 degree triangles don’t actually reach the circumference of the circle at the equator for some “odd” reason. Are they a bit too small in the top-down projection? Doh!).
It would be nice if the planets and the triangles didn’t have those damned planets Saturn and Jupiter interfering with the predicted points where the planets were supposed to be in order to make the predictions. Unfortunately planets don’t travel in perfect circles, Saturn and Jupiter do have significant gravitational effects on the period and shape of their orbits and with the exception of the Earth they don’t travel in the plane of the ecliptic. Venus, for example, travels at a mean inclination of ~3 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic – and that precise angle depends on just where Saturn and Jupiter are. Even though the position of minor conjunction appears to be somewhat close the the previous conjunction five cycles in the past that's only because one is looking at the situation top-down (looking at the x-y plane). Look at the situation form the "side" perspective (y-z plane) and Venus isn't even near being in the "exact same place". Earth itself doesn't actually travel in the plane of the ecliptic. It wiggles up and down and in and out due to the effects of Saturn and Jupiter (and the moon). The bottom line here is that Dutch “borrowed” this entire thesis from astrology and liberally lifted specifics from Richard Hoagland (as I believe someone here recently alluded to). One glaring problem here is that Dutch is enamoured with pseudo-science jargon "hyper-dimensions" (that is, N dimensions beyond our normal 3D universe) but to make his case he has to limit his perspective to 2D, the x-y plane of the solar system.
The consistently repeated math error was the key. Following certain specific sorts of errors in this situation (or when grading term papers) leads to the conclusion that the poster, or student, has engaged in plagiarism. And, God help me, I’m certainly not standing up for R.C. Hoagland. Dutch copied most of this clap-trap from Hoagland. Hoagland “borrowed” most of this from astrology to make his Marz-Barz case - not to mention money, lots of it (and I have no problem with anyone making an honest buck, operant word being "honest"). Go to any astrology site and see how an astrological chart is drawn. It is based on Ptolemaic astronomy, perfect circles and geocentricity. Somewhere in the past three or four years I believe that we discovered that Earth is not the center of the universe, planets do not travel in perfect circular orbits and orbital mechanics is so complex that we can't actually predict the position of the moon in the future by a single equation. Or was that a bit more than three or four years ago that we discovered all of this? I forget.
Would someone please put this thread to bed. I did on Anomalies. I will admit it. I closed Dutch’s thread on Anomalies.net, started within days of the thread here, and PM’ed Dutch telling him that I would unlock his thread and move it back to the public forum as soon as he decided to openly, honestly and without any smart aleck retorts address your questions here. He’s been TOS’ed on other sites for the same uncooperative tactics. I don’t expect that to happen here and it won’t happen on Anomalies. He can be uncooperative as much as he wants. That’s his choice. Along with choice comes responsibility. Start a dialogue that people put years into and refuse to be a good citizen by answering their honest inquiries and there is a price to pay for irresponsibility. A dialogue of one is not a dialogue (is that called a truism?)
Last edited:
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
OK. I interpreted that as the moderators being annoyed with Dutch posting large entries from his forum here in toto. But they may have informed him that even linking was considered problematic.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Thanks for your excellent summary of where Dutch got his information from. Also, I'm surprised no one else here saw his elementary math error. Is it possible it was just a typo on Dutch's part?
I think the mods here are loathe to shut down any thread so long as the participants are being civil. To do otherwise smacks of censorship. So we end up with epic threads like this one, as well as Patrick1000's Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga thread.
Last edited:
I believe your first instinct was correct; Dutch just threw a massive hissy fit and used it as an excuse to do even less work than normal while still posting and claiming he was being persecuted.
Great post, Darcy.
Dutch is wrong in so many ways, as this thread proves, and you've just shown us a lot more.
I also don't think the JREF will shut the thread down, because it's not policy in cases such as this. Plus, most of the time, Dutch debunks himself.
Still, I do remember one thread, the legendary "Realistice" thread in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which was shut down. It was basically one guy against a whole heap of debunkers. I may have to find out what the difference between this and that was.
This.
Dutch is wrong in so many ways, as this thread proves, and you've just shown us a lot more.
I also don't think the JREF will shut the thread down, because it's not policy in cases such as this. Plus, most of the time, Dutch debunks himself.
Still, I do remember one thread, the legendary "Realistice" thread in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which was shut down. It was basically one guy against a whole heap of debunkers. I may have to find out what the difference between this and that was.
This.
I've just asked in Forum Management Questions what's the difference between this thread and "Realistice".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231174
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231174
Daylightstar
Philosopher
I can not think of a reason why that would be problematic.
Dutch feels penalized, he's been naughty many times, he was apparently sternly warned and now he's sulking and doesn't want to play at all anymore.
Something like that.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
In that post you talk about a poster debating, but Dutch isn't doing any debating at all.
He is (has been) abusing the forum for a purpose for which it was not intended.
His current posts are entirely meaningless evasions, lies, absurdities etc.
Perhaps the thread is useful as an example of how deep people can sink into their irrational behavior.
Or perhaps the thread, as it is, can serve that purpose and doesn't need to be active anymore.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
As your thread in questions has been closed, I have started a thread in Forum Management Feedback with the issue of the "Hyper Dimensional Design" thread apparently knowingly being placed in the wrong subforum, as Dutch has twice confirmed that his topic really is a psychic exercise here and here.
Attached is the question of whether that thread should not rather be placed in GSaTP, and if not why not.
For reference (see below), Dutch has indicated more than once that he has no problem with this, although the sincerity of those statements could be called into question.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
More glaring than even that, as all of Dutch’s ‘calculations’ are entirely about time, whether it be degrees to days, a date, the sidereal period or whatever it is entirely and exclusively one dimensional. He has yet to demonstrate even a single calculation that involves anything more than just one dimension.
A very nice post though DarbyII.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
How would any additional help be a benefit to Dutch's crutch?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
- Status