Hyper Dimensional Design

[Dutch]

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.

You have done nothing for years. I's not what I would call an honest tactic at all. I have expressed my thoughts about this issue in a pm to you, which I won't share here because unlike you, I think its inappropriate to repost pm material here in the public forum.

You are accusing me of alot of things but I think your attitude towards me is rather disrespectful. What have I done to you to make you think you can deal with it this way?

 

[Paul]

You done very little efforts so far to start an honest debate directly with me. I'm your man.

I know this is an exercise in delusional ego stroking, but you really should look up honest and debate in a dictionary.

 

[Paul]

I have expressed my thoughts about this issue in a pm to you, which I won't share here because unlike you, I think its inappropriate to repost pm material here in the public forum.

Then don't come here telling everyone that you have just sent a pm. If you want it private, keep it that way. Waving your tiny credentials around in public is not clever.

You are accusing me of alot of things but I think your attitude towards me is rather disrespectful. What have I done to you to make you think you can deal with it this way?

Have you ever heard of earning respect?

 

[Dutch]

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?

HDDesign enables to have a sense about specific underlying themes that will find expression during specific moments in our perception of 'future' time and HDdesign places already materialized events into perspective by application of the elements of HDDesign, based on initial intuitive thoughts and synchronicities.

 

[Dutch]

Yes ... buried somewhere in this massive (nearly 5,000) post thread.

You know they are listed as sticky threads on top of the main HDdesign forum. You aren't telling me you have never noticed do you?

Without serious research we will reach nothing.

 

[Dutch]

And therein lies your problem. In addition to knowing nothing of astrology or tarot, you know nothing about how these phenomena work. You don't know about post hoc egro propter hoc, affirming the consequent, remembering the hits and forgetting the misses ... heck, pretty much any of the The Skeptic' Guide to the Universe Top Twenty Logical Fallacies.

With this I meant that intuitive thoughts and synchronicities don't appear at will

 

[Paul]

HDDesign enables to have a sense about specific underlying themes that will find expression during specific moments in our perception of 'future' time and HDdesign places already materialized events into perspective by application of the elements of HDDesign, based on initial intuitive thoughts and synchronicities.

I shall take it from that spectacularly meaningless run of pure drivel that you cannot even begin to explain your ideas coherently.

 

[Paul]

Without serious research we will reach nothing.

Let us know when you do some.

 

[Dutch]

I don't feel I need a new outlook on consciousness: I'm conscious when I'm awake and unconscious when I'm asleep. The reality we live in is governed by randomness and irrrationality, of which HDD is a good example. And when I'm not alive any more, the first, most important, and indeed last thing I will lose is the knowledge that I was ever alive. I was dead for 13.7 billion years before I was born and will be dead for billions and perhaps trillions of years after I'm dead (depending on which version of the ultimate fate of the Universe ends up being correct.)

What a shock it will be.....

 

[Paul]

With this I meant that intuitive thoughts and synchronicities don't appear at will

Yours certainly appear to.

 

[Dutch]

Why don't you understand your own nonsense?

If the error is two days per date, that is cumulative from the start. To know the correct dates you would have to know the start of the timeline and adjust every date for the cumulative effect. Have you done that?

What is this with you? Do you understand that Darby's 'math error' is wrong or not? The HD solids are perfectly determined.


Only if you want to monitor an ongoing HD Tetrahedron pattern you should take steps of 913 days instead of 911 days.

For instance, if you want to monitor and ongoing HD Tetrahedron based pattern of let's say 4 step, than we talk about a timeframe of 3.652 days ( 4* 913) instead of 3.644 ( 4*911 ) with the start and end as peak dates (+/-).

Although I have noticed several times in the past that expected expression of specific underlying themes seemed late, I didn't mentioned it because I consider a difference of let's say 8 days too much. Now it appears that the definition of an ongoing HD Tetrahedron pattern was in fact wrong and should take steps of exactly 2,5 years.

That's why ongoing HD Tetrahedron patterns aren't mentioned on the timelines because I didn't use it anymore.

I agree it isn't smart of me not to mention it earlier as these dates are equally seperated and recurring every 2,5 years in opposite orientation in our perception of time of an Earth orbit


There's no problem with a single HD Tetrahedron though

 

[Dutch]

Apart from the post-diction, cherry picking, deliberate misrepresentation, random data mangling, desperate reaching, blatant lying and plain dumb incompetence, apart from that it's all fine... ish.

decent debate...this will bring us nowhere. Try to contribute with a little bit of level

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have always cooperated on serious requests and I will always do....

Just one example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6670150&postcount=3935

not at all. ask specifically and I will calculate it .

come on, ask it.

^{bolding by Daylightstar}
Asking
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672143&postcount=3950
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6677698&postcount=3966
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6688887&postcount=3974
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6707470&postcount=3994
asking
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6710960&postcount=4004
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6745258&postcount=4029
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6762759&postcount=4036
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6766989&postcount=4047
asking
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6767106&postcount=4051
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6767146&postcount=4053
Asking

So far, nothing. Nothing at all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6706697&postcount=3981

...
.., a positive side effect of this HDDesign 'research' is that it makes you a better person. ...

Dutch: "a positive side effect of this HDDesign 'research' is that it makes you a better person."

You're one monumental barbaric liar, Dutch.

 

[Daylightstar]

Dutch, I would put to you that HDDelusion makes you (all identified negativity coming from you) a repulsively antagonistic individual.

It clearly shows in your conduct towards other people.

 

[Daylightstar]

That's a really stupid lie, and everyone but you knows it.
....

Dutch probably does know, but he 'rationalizes' (lies) it away.

 

[Paul]

What is this with you? Do you understand that Darby's 'math error' is wrong or not? The HD solids are perfectly determined.

I'm not talking about Darby, I'm talking about you and your 913/911 days.

Only if you want to monitor an ongoing HD Tetrahedron pattern you should take steps of 913 days instead of 911 days.

OK, so now we can add changing the number whenever you like to Dutch's List of Dishonest Manipulations that He Says Obey the Magic Invisible Principles of HDD.

For instance, if you want to monitor and ongoing HD Tetrahedron based pattern of let's say 4 step, than we talk about a timeframe of 3.652 days ( 4* 913) instead of 3.644 ( 4*911 ) with the start and end as peak dates (+/-).

What possible justification could you have for that?

Although I have noticed several times in the past that expected expression of specific underlying themes seemed late, I didn't mentioned it because I consider a difference of let's say 8 days too much. Now it appears that the definition of an ongoing HD Tetrahedron pattern was in fact wrong and should take steps of exactly 2,5 years.

You are wrong and you are desperately trying to invent a justification for more blatant numerological dishonesty.

That's why ongoing HD Tetrahedron patterns aren't mentioned on the timelines because I didn't use it anymore.

Is that supposed to suddenly make you right?

I agree it isn't smart of me not to mention it earlier as these dates are equally seperated and recurring every 2,5 years in opposite orientation in our perception of time of an Earth orbit

I'm afraid you've lost me again, can you go back to something that at least resembles coherent English.

There's no problem with a single HD Tetrahedron though

Apart from it not existing.

 

[Paul]

decent debate...this will bring us nowhere. Try to contribute with a little bit of level

As I've said before, when you want to have an honest debate, feel free to start one.

As for level, constant lying and refusal to engage do not engender high expectations.

 

[Daylightstar]

.. HDdesign places already materialized events into perspective ...

Yes, this is called retrofitting.

(Dutch admitting retrofitting)

 

[DarbyII]

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

Sorry, Dutch but I'm not wrong here. I didn't almost have you fooled. You have you absolutely fooled. You don't understand your own equation.

365 days/360 degrees - is read "1.014 days per degree". It tells you the period, in days, required for (in this case) Earth to move along its orbital path such that it subtends an arc of 1 degree, 1.014 days. Multiple that by 360 days and you have 365 "degrees".

It does not, however, tell you how many degrees of arc the Earth's orbit subtends in one day 0.986 degrees per day). That equation requires 360 degrees/365 days - "0.986 degrees per day". Multiply that by 365 days and you have 360 degrees.

Your numbers that you post would be correct if the equation included the proper "degrees per day statement in the equation. It doesn't. Yet the numbers are based on its being there. There's not too many conclusions that can be drawn from that situation. The obvious ones are:

1. "ESP" - the mystical beyond is beaming the numbers directly to your brain without your having to understand them. Yeah.

2. Someone else is doing the math for you but is unaware that you have the statment wrong.

3. Someone else prepared an Excel spreadsheet for you a long time ago. You're blindly plugging in the numbers without being aware of the underlying equations, functions and statements in the sheet. But because you don't understand the statement and its function you invert days and degrees. Your previous post makes that very clear.

However, it is all moot. I was bored with the Dutch topic years ago, I'm still bored with it and you have demonstrated that you will likely never cooperate with the regular members here or on any other site. Why one bothers to go to a discussion forum and refuses to discuss is beyond me. What's the point?

In some circumstances people will give a shout out, "Get a room!" In this case the shout out should be, "Get a blog!" I mean that, Dutch - get a blog. It is yours, there's no implied relationship of discussing anything and people can still read your thoughts if they choose to do so.

 

[Paul]

I think is simply down to Dutch's inability to articulate his ideas: he should simply have said "I want to know the equivalent in days of a specific segment of 1 orbit" and written degrees/360 * 365.