Hyper Dimensional Design

[Daylightstar]

... I have mentioned several times here that I will ignore repeated questions that are already dealt with in this thread . You know that.

...

The way you 'deal with' questions is not providing a proper answer and then ignore followup questions.
In that specific case, you never showed calculations for which was asked, on your insistence.

...
Calling me one monumental barbaric liar is as low as it can get.

Not really, but that's irrelevant.
I'd be more concerned whether identifying you as one monumental barbaric liar is accurate or not.
It appears quite accurate.

 

[DarbyII]

Dutch,


I'm pretty much done quibbling over what is and what is not valid math. I've made my point and it has been accepted.

Other than that, all of calculations are simply numerology. I happen to be a Christian and come from Western European "stock". No problem and certainly not a religious statement. It goes to what I consider the calendar, the names of the days and months and the numbers assigned to them. I accept, for example, that November 11th, 2001 is 9-11 (2001).

That is a date that you've made hay over for quite some time. But here's the problem. THere's nothing at all fundamental, as far as the universe goes, with the Gregorian calendar. November 11, 2001 might be, well...November 11, 2001...to Western astrogloers and numerologists but it was not "9-11" for instance in Israel. It was 12-23 there. In China it was 7-24.

The Earth, let alone the universe, does not twirl around a calendar invented by a Catholic priest. The Golden Mean Phi is not a fundamental number. It is valid as an approximation only in plane geometry where the plane is flat. Lay out a triangle on the plane of the Earth such that the scope of the construct covers a few kilometers and you will suddenly discover that the sum of the interior angles is somewhat more than 180 degrees.

If you think I'm wrong give it a whirl. Try this one:

Start at the North Pole (and for the sake of the argument we will assume - incorrectly but its not important - that the circumference of both the polar and equatorial Earth distances is 24,000 miles...a "perfect circle"). Lay a straight line running due south to the eqator - 6,000 miles. At the equator turn left and lay out another line 6,000 miles. You now have a right angle 6,000 miles on a side. It looks like we're sarting to construct an isosceles right triangle. So, next turn left 45 degrees and start back in a northerly direction. Go that way for, oh, 8485.25 miles (sqrt (a^2+b^2) = hypotenuse). You should be right back to where you started, right? Plane geometry says that's the case. But that's not where you will end up. You will miss the North Pole by a a few thousand miles.

The lesson? You can't lay out large geometric figures and simply assume that the geometry will fit what we're given in basic middle school geometry. We certainly can't lay out such constructs where the sides are millions of miles in length and make statements like, "And that's EXACTLY xxx days (weeks, years, degrees)!!!!!!" such as you do. The real world does not work that way.

And lest we not forget, I've seen you post astronomical data where you've taken two numbers that are calculated to two decimel points, multiply them together and, again, make a statement, "And that's EXACTLY xxx.xxx!!!"

Hogwash. The original numbers are given to two decimal accuracy. They've been rounded up or down - and there's no problem doing that. But this is not pure math. It is astronomy. Multiply those two numbers together and you'll have a result calculated out to, as you would state, three decimal places. You can't do that - and you especially can't honestly make statements as I gave above. If you multiply two numbers together that have been rounded to two decimal points your result is only accurate to one decimal point, not three. When you multiplied the numbers together you also multipilied the rounding factor by the same amount. I've seen you do that when making a calculation over the course of 2222 days. If you haev a number rounded down to three decimel places the final answer is off by a factor of 2+.

Sorry to rag on and on about the math but you introduced it and have made the "EXACTLY...!!!!!!" statements for a decade. It isn't "exactly" - it is an approximation.

 

[Blue Mountain]

(snip)

Other than that, all of calculations are simply numerology. I happen to be a Christian and come from Western European "stock". No problem and certainly not a religious statement. It goes to what I consider the calendar, the names of the days and months and the numbers assigned to them. I accept, for example, that November 11th, 2001 is 9-11 (2001).
That is a date that you've made hay over for quite some time. But here's the problem. THere's nothing at all fundamental, as far as the universe goes, with the Gregorian calendar. November 11, 2001 might be, well...November 11, 2001...to Western astrogloers and numerologists but it was not "9-11" for instance in Israel. It was 12-23 there. In China it was 7-24....!!!!!!"

(snip)

Errr ... I think you mean September 11, 2011.


Dutch also doesn't understand the idea that expressing things in "Earth days" while at the same time attempting to apply a bit of plane geometry is meaningless due to the differing orbital speeds of the planets.

 

[DarbyII]

Errr ... I think you mean September 11, 2011.


Dutch also doesn't understand the idea that expressing things in "Earth days" while at the same time attempting to apply a bit of plane geometry is meaningless due to the differing orbital speeds of the planets.

DOH! September 11th. Thanks for reading my post for content and accuracy.

 

[Wolrab]

Are you saying that it is explained on page one how this specific calculation is wrong?

Yup. Demolished in post # 33

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2373894&postcount=33
originally posted by Molinaro

But since the earth's orbit is an ellipse and not a circle doesn't that make everything that follows a bunch of bull? Or do you deny that the earth's orbit is an ellipse?

 

[DarbyII]

Dutch,

I mean the following in all sincerity:

You have your beliefs. No one, no matter what they say, will ever change that. That being said, you’ve posted items over the past decade with the intent of changing other people’s opinions about reality. You’ve used calculations, correct or not, to make predictions about future events and from your POV they all seem to come to pass.

The issue might be expressed in your thoughts on Syria. At some point you might say (and have said) – on such-and-such date I predict that something will come up of importance concerning Syria. Sure enough, when that date comes up you find something in the Internet news that you consider significant concerning Syria. You decide that because something that you consider important about Syria comes up on that date that it is proof of your methodology.

What you haven’t done either for us or for yourself, is this:

Take three dice. One die is three sided with the sides numbered 2012, 2013 and 2014. Take a 12-sided die with numbers 1, 2, 3…12. Last take a 31-sided die numbered 1, 2, 3…31. Cast the three die and you come up with a date between 1-1-2012 and 12-31-2014. Then make a prediction that something significant will occur in Syria on that date. When that date comes to pass do a Google for news from Syria. It’s a 100% guarantee that you will find something “significant.” What does it mean? Randomness. Depending on the specific type of data if you run a Z-test, T-test, Chi Square test or any other statistical test you will find that the results are no more significant that randomness.

I’ve actually read your posts. Fancy that.

If we cut away the chaff and cut to the heart of your “method” all that it does is come up with an approximate date “plus or minus 1 day”. That’s all it is – a somewhat complex three-die tossing machine that outputs a date. As you’ve admitted, what is to occur on that date is something that you “feel”, intuition, whatever. Methodologically it has no connection with tetrahydra, squares, lines or LGM’s. It’s just Dutch's opinion. Dutch might be correct, might be deluded or even might be delusional. But whatever it is, as referred to a few days ago, it is likely an ad hoc, propter hoc fallacy because nothing has ever been proferred that proves a nexus between HDD and “Dutch’s feelings”.

 

[Dutch]

Yes, but how far? I'll tell you how far, as reading the answer seems to be a problem for you, approximately 2 kilometres.

The whole initial idea about Mount St. Helens had to do with the 'reversal' of continental drift that would implicate that Yellowstones 'source' would in fact be located at the main HD Cube interference area around 45 degrees North Latitude.

I presumed that the movement of the solid outher crust, and thus an existing volcano, would be to the North and to the West, as far as it concerned with the North American plate. This appears to be incorrect as the North American plate moves to west and to the south:

Yellowstone lies over a hotspot where light, hot, molten mantle rock rises towards the surface. While the Yellowstone hotspot is now under the Yellowstone Plateau, it previously helped create the eastern Snake River Plain (to the west of Yellowstone) through a series of huge volcanic eruptions. Although the hotspot's apparent motion is to the east-northeast, the North American Plate is really moving west-southwest over the stationary hotspot in the Earth's mantle

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

Its clear that Mount St Helens is NOT an this 'hotspot' path, but there are even much better candidates:

The volcanic feature commonly called the Island Park Caldera in the states of Idaho and Wyoming, U.S., is actually two calderas, one nested inside the other.[1] The Island Park Caldera is the older and much larger caldera, with approximate dimensions of 58 miles (93 km) by 40 miles (64 km). Its ashfall is the source of the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff that is found from southern California to the Mississippi River near St. Louis. This supereruption (2500 cubic kilometers) occurred 2.1 Ma and produced 2,500 times as much ash as the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption.
The caldera clearly visible today is the later Henry's Fork Caldera that is the source of the Mesa Falls Tuff. It was formed in an eruption of more than 280 cubic kilometers 1.3 million years ago. The two nested calderas share the same rim on their western sides, but the older Island Park Caldera is much larger and more oval and extends well into Yellowstone Park.[2] The Island Park Caldera is sometimes referred to as the First Phase Yellowstone Caldera or the Huckleberry Ridge Caldera.
To the southwest of the caldera lies the Snake River Plain, which was formed by a succession of older calderas marking the path of the Yellowstone hotspot.

Yellowstone is at aprox 44.57 N, 110.5 W while the Island Park Caldera is located at 44.33N, 111.33 W.

If you reverse the continental drift it becomes clear that both spots ( Island Park & Yellowstone ) have the same source of stationay hotspot located at the HD Cube latitude 45 degrees North.

This implicates, that after Yellostone has blown in the future, a new volcanic area will start to create around 45 degrees North and and unknown degrees West ( probably aprox around 109 W) at that time.

While I was wrong to use mount St.Helens as a marker, Island Park shows that the theory as such is valid and even much better as it comes to 'pinpointing' at the 45 degrees HD Cube latitude.

 

[Dutch]

I believe Darby was confused by the incompetent way you presented what should have been a simple calculation.

If you had thought about Darby's explanation, you would have found out that he was incorrect. Like I did. The problem is that you simply accept Darby's mistake as a valid reason to debunk the material. It only shows again that you don't really try to understand the matter.

 

[Dutch]

You just keep repeating this same lie, over and over and over again.
You have not provided those calculations, ever.

Your response is just another installment of the 'it's over there" trick, where no such 'it' exists.

Yes it has been discussed here, several times even.

 

[Dutch]

Oh yes, you are. You have clearly demonstrated this a multitude of times and you keep on demonstrating this.
Your lies are so thick, they stink.

Period.

facts please

 

[Dutch]

No, it has not been answered. You have shown no calculations on the 'HD Cube spot near mount St. Helens'. None.

Just another lie from you, among the many many other lies.

Yes my friend, the reversed continental drift has been discussed here

 

[Dutch]

Not only have you never provided these calculations, there's no hope you ever will.
Because you can't.

You're lying your way through your delusion.

YES, they are freely avaiable in the HDDesign material and it has been discussed here with references to the material.

Do you really expect me to walk through this thread again? I have done that before after being called a liar, cost me alot of time, provided the link to the specific posts here and hear nothing from it. And still you think you can call me a liar.

 

[Dutch]

I'm pretty much done quibbling over what is and what is not valid math. I've made my point and it has been accepted.

I'm not done

It could be that some here accepted your math, but I don't think it's commonly accepted that planet Earth has a Year of 355 days as your calculations suggest. So..

Is it so hard to admit that the calculations I have provided are valid? I can understand that you've misunderstood me, but we talking about the validity of the calculations. I don't need your apologize, just admit the calculations are valid. Shouldn't be that hard

 

[Dutch]

the rest of Darby's posts will have to wait...busy at work

 

[Paul]

The whole initial idea about Mount St. Helens had to do with the 'reversal' of continental drift that would implicate that Yellowstones 'source' would in fact be located at the main HD Cube interference area around 45 degrees North Latitude.

So you had a totally unsupported idea about something which you proceeded to incorporate into HDD without doing even the most basic of research.

I presumed that the movement of the solid outher crust, and thus an existing volcano

That's why we keep telling you to actually check things properly.

This appears to be incorrect as the North American plate moves to west and to the south:

Making everything you have written on the subject wrong.

Its clear that Mount St Helens is NOT an this 'hotspot' path, but there are even much better candidates:

Riiight, the really genuinely real thing with mount St Helens was total nonsense, but if you guess some more and massage the data 'til it bleeds you might be able to squeeze another geographical feature into the frame.

If you reverse the continental drift it becomes clear that both spots ( Island Park & Yellowstone ) have the same source of stationay hotspot located at the HD Cube latitude 45 degrees North.

I find it hard to believe that even you are trying to claim that they both occupied the same physical space.

This implicates, that after Yellostone has blown in the future, a new volcanic area will start to create around 45 degrees North and and unknown degrees West ( probably aprox around 109 W) at that time.

It does no such thing, it doesn't even imply it.

While I was wrong to use mount St.Helens as a marker, Island Park shows that the theory as such is valid and even much better as it comes to 'pinpointing' at the 45 degrees HD Cube latitude.

Sad and pathetic attempt to salvage a garbage idea by inventing a 'new and better' idea that just happens to use all the same crap as the previous one.

 

[Paul]

If you had thought about Darby's explanation, you would have found out that he was incorrect. Like I did. The problem is that you simply accept Darby's mistake as a valid reason to debunk the material. It only shows again that you don't really try to understand the matter.

Did you notice the part where I advised you to read my answers properly?

 

[Daylightstar]

Yes it has been discussed here, several times even.

Yes my friend, the reversed continental drift has been discussed here

YES, they are freely avaiable in the HDDesign material and it has been discussed here with references to the material.
...

It doesn't matter how much you claim to have discussed anything, what matters is that you never provided the specific calculations I asked for on your insistence.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8074959&postcount=4973

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Do you really expect me to walk through this thread again? I have done that before after being called a liar, cost me alot of time, provided the link to the specific posts here and hear nothing from it. And still you think you can call me a liar.

The 'it's over there" trick, where no such 'it' exists. Again.

facts please

You've been provided facts. You ignore the facts provided, even as they are presented to you right after you commit a lie.
Ignore at your own peril.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
If you reverse the continental drift...

Fantasy is a strange and sometimes wonderful thing.

 

[Daylightstar]

YES, they are freely avaiable in the HDDesign material and it has been discussed here with references to the material.

Do you really expect me to walk through this thread again? I have done that before after being called a liar, cost me alot of time, provided the link to the specific posts here and hear nothing from it. And still you think you can call me a liar.

Yes, I can call you a liar.

Here's an other:

facts please

You did not provide references or a link to the calculations I asked for on your insistence.
Here are all the replies you gave with respect to asking for those calculations:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6706758&postcount=3986

yes, haven't you read the posts about Mount st.Helens and Yellowstone?

I have explained that if you reverse the continental drift on a rotating closed sphere over an extended period of time, that mount St'Helens would be located to the East and to the South of its current position, at one point corresponding with the area of Yellowstone ( currently)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6766872&postcount=4042

I told you I'm not going to reply on issues that have already been addressed here. When I notice that you have actually dealt with the given answers, than you can expect further explanations on specific reuests.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6766962&postcount=4046

are you saying that we haven't discussed the Hd platonic solids before here?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6767076&postcount=4050

youy want me to provide you with the specific posts?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6767127&postcount=4052

Yes, the posts in which it has been explained. Do you want me to provide it to you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6767176&postcount=4054

Its there already, want it?

This rule 4 breach and this rule 4 breach were removed. However, there were no calculations as asked nor were there references to such calculations in those removed breaches of rule 4.

None of the above quoted posts by you contain calculations which were asked for nor references to such calculations. Just infantile dishonesty.

Yes Dutch, you are a liar.