Hyper Dimensional Design

[Daylightstar]

You clearly have never studied the ET Corn Gods.

Yeah, not so much. Which caused me to ask the question but not limited to the ET Corn Gods.

 

[DarbyII]

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.

Blue,

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them and do take them into consideration.

What I did with Dutch's thread on Anomalies was not done quickly or without a lot of thought. As a Mod and Admin I warned him years ago that his trollish answers to valid questions both on my forum and others that I wa aware of was unacceptable and that eventually it would involve some sort of consequence on Anomalies. At the time(s) that I made the remarks to him I really didn't have a strong hand to play. Any possible action that I might have taken then would have had little or no motivational consequence insofar as to motivate him to play the game fairly with forum members and at least attempt to answer their questions sans smart-assed one liner non-answer retorts instead of honest answers...even if no one agreed with his answers.

Instead, I waited...and watched.

JREF is a different sort of animal from the vast majority of BBS forums. The very nature of the forum requires rational discussion, logical thought and logical argument. No one requires that the "bottom line" be acceptable. If someone can logically argue the case for Zombie Apololypse so be it. It is the methodology that is important on JREF. Seeking out logical falacy is what the forum is about.

Dutch continued here, for several years, what he has done on many forums elsewhere: post a series of rambling pseudo-scientific missives that include undefined jargon. When asked to fill in the details he steadfastly refuses to cooperate with the members' honestly posed questions.

"I shall sell no wine before its time" is a famous line from Orson Wells, in his latter years, when he got into the TV ad business. So goes my waiting for the right time. To pull Dutch's thread off the public forum (without in any way altering it - and I will not) into the thread archive now instead of years ago is a substantive consequence for misbehavior. All that I have asked of him is that he openly and honestly engage the members here in debate, answer their questions and othrwise be a cooperative citizen. I've told him that how he handles the debate is for him to decide and that convincing me or anyone else of the validity of his claims is not a part of the deal. Be a good citizen and the thread reappears. Continue with trollish behavior and there are consequences.

Be that as it may. I understand and appreciate that the tactic may not conform to what JREF would do. But I did warn him and I did wait for the opportune time.

Game's on - ball's in his court.

 

[Dutch]

See, you also claimed that Wolrab's effort does not make exact predictions.
The same claim you make for yourself.

Ergo, you're claiming that Wolrab's predictions are as non exact as yours.

I claim that exact predictions aren't possible, unless you are 'seeing' the exact future. I have never claimed to do so, HDDesign is about expressions of specific underlying themes at specific moments in our perception of time. If Wolrab is able to make exact predictions he should be on primetime tv.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I claim that exact predictions aren't possible, unless you are 'seeing' the exact future. I have never claimed to do so, HDDesign is about expressions of specific underlying themes at specific moments in our perception of time. If Wolrab is able to make exact predictions he should be on primetime tv.

Can you make predictions better than anyone's estimations of what may be future events? If so what evidence have you got for such a claim?

 

[Daylightstar]

I claim that exact predictions aren't possible,...

First of all, your effort doesn´t make exact predictions. Secondly, HDDesign is NOT about exact predictions

Acording to you, it's ALL about non-exact predictions. Wolrab's predictions also do not cover every single describable aspect , nor could they.
And yet, Wolrab is more specific and accurate than you.

So you're claiming that Wolrab's predictions are as non exact as yours?
Strange, Wolrab's predictions are clearly superior to yours.

And as we know, your predictions are .... well....let's say .... spelled differently.

... HDDesign is about expressions of specific underlying themes at specific moments in our perception of time....

In reality, in general terms, it really does appear as a flaw of a mind (brain).

 

[Dutch]

The proposed dates are wrong because the math is wrong.

The equation is supposed to be: Date +/- 1 day = (90 degrees - 19.47 degrees) * orbital degrees transited per day

Thus the equation, using his numbers should be:

Date +/- 1 = (90-19.47) * (360/365) = 69.56

In his equation he used days per degree (365/360) instead of degrees per day (360/365) and in his example came up with 71.5 days instead of 69.56 days. He got the wrong result in every case. He arrived at the point along the orbital path two days earlier than his calculation shows. Plus or, especially minus, and he's off by up to three days.

You've almost fooled me here.

YOU are wrong, I have been right all the time

There are more days in a year than degrees

In your math :
(90-19.47) * (360/365) = 69.56 days
(270+19.47) * (360/365) = 285.50 days

I total: 355,06 days.

In my math :

(90-19.47) * ( 365/360 )= 71,51
(270+19.47) * (365/360)=293,49

In total : 365 days, which matches with the planet I live on.

 

[Dutch]

Why would the dates still fit?

Every date after the first is now wrong and the further from the start you get, the greater the error.


Only because you say it is, there is no evidence to show us that you didn't just make it up to fit with your untested nonsense.


You seem to be having trouble with your own system: if it's not 911 that throws out the stupid 9/11 numerology immediately, while claiming you can use any point on the timeline that you like as the beginning is just stupid. Especially after all the spiral stuff you keep using.


Only the first one, as you would notice if you read your own next line.

As you can see in my previous post I have been right all the time and Darby's efforts are based on nonsense.

The timeframe between 2 interections area's of the HD Tetrahedron are of course 2 and a half year apart or 913 days

Although the 911 days timeframe is within the +/- 1 day timeframe around these dates, you have to use 913 days instead of 911 days if you are monitoring an ongoing patterns. There's where the discrepancy occurs over time, a discrepancy I have noticed by observation repeatedly.

 

[Dutch]

Congratulations on your basic maths skills.


About what, and how is it simple?

correction, Darby wasn't right at all

 

[Dutch]

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.

Oh man, even if you would experience a thousand of instant 'coincidences' while working with this stuff, you would still think it's just a coincidence.

That's the limitation you should get rid off, for your own sake

 

[Dutch]

Once again you use neither Platonic solids nor geometry; you simply manipulate dates to obtain whatever 'intuitive' 'coincidences' that happen to strike your fancy.

Nope, the determined HD platonic solid based dates are valid, aswell as the orbital periods and Pi + Phi.
There's no manipulation of dates whatsoever

 

[Dutch]

What I've noticed is you have stopped even linking to your timelines and summarizing them.

You know where to find the timelines, the links for 2012 have been given.

 

[Dutch]

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.

I know nothing about astrology or tarot.


HDDesign comes as it comes

 

[Dutch]

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.

Yes? any new outlook on consciousness itself, the reality we live in and what happens when you're not ''alive" anymore?

 

[Dutch]

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).

Its pretty obvious by now that YOU were wrong and that I have been right all the time

 

[Dutch]

DarbyII:

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).

I think you are big enough to apologize, you have to admit that you were wrong

 

[Dutch]

DarbyII:

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).

As you should know by now, the corralations used in HDDesign are in fact based on our perception of TIME, not how it actually 'looks' like in 3D.

The geometrical correlations are translated into our perception of time

 

[Dutch]

DarbyII:

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.

I know what a Tetrahedron is, you just can't wrap your mind around what I mean with a Hyper Dimensional Tetrahedron as expressed in our perception of time, which is based on the same geometry.

I think you have reason enough to be less denigrating

 

[Dutch]

DarbyII:

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!).

Not once referred to?

http://hddesign.forumup.nl/viewtopic.php?p=949&mforum=hddesign#949

 

[Dutch]

DarbyII:

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.

again DarbyII, HDDesign is based on our perception of time.

You do understand the difference between assumed physical appearances on rotating elements based on Hyper Dimensional Physics and the application of this same geometry on our perception of time as used in HDDesign?

 

[Dutch]

DarbyII:

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.

Which, unfortunately for you, isn't an error at all. As far as I know, HDdesign is the only materialusing Platonic Solid Geometry as expressed in our perception of time. Plagiarism? I thought Plato was the big man, not RCH.