Hyper Dimensional Design

[DarbyII]

Well then, which publication. Do you have a link?

Day,

I started reading "B.U.M." (of course I had to use translation software) and, well - you're right. It's pretty cranky.

Hub starts off by finding it unfortunate that "gravitational field" can be confused with the current description of gravitation (though it's still a bit vague as to whether he means his ideas about gravitation or the generally accepted definition of gravitation).

It is unfortunate that the name "Gravitational Field" can be confused with the current description of gravitation and I would therefore prefer to introduce the aether field again. Or a generally acceptable name of equal
scope. - Utsveld. An alternative to the (Newtonian) gravitational field that could replaced by "attraction field".

But he has a solution - he PFA's (picks from air) a brand new particle found nowhere in the Standard Model. No particular reason is given and certainly no scientific justification is offered. And he reintroduces the aether model.

Once I got to the axioms of the PFA "Ut" particle

is the smallest particle
is perpendicular (?) (is recht)
dipole has a plus and a minus-end
has smallest mass
has smallest charge
charge= matter = mass
has greatest specific density
is a building block for ALL

again without any substantiation, I'd read far enough. Because the very next section in his theory of gravitation? Yep, you quessed it - triangles and such followed by a crystal lattice that looks a lot like an iron lattice.

Obviously if the "Ut" has charge, is a material particle and has mass it can't possibly have the smallest mass (and I'm only assuming, because he didn't so state, that he means intrinsic rest mass.) Neutrinos have slightly >0 rest mass and photons have 0 rest mass. And how can the particle be the basic building block (apparently an elementary particle) if it has charge (which, overall, is neutral if it has both a positive and negative charge)? It's subject to weak force Beta decay - apparently with equal probability of both Beta+ and Beta- decay and we are left with what? A proton or an antiproton? It is not an elementary particle.

Woo-woo science.

 

[realpaladin]

Just you wait... he will find a way to say that what he describes is actually the Majorana Fermion...

 

[Sideroxylon]

T'wern't nutin'.

Think I can parley this into cash on the ol' woo circuit? I even did it with support from JREF forumites!

Make long and pointless threads on various forums, a website with Amazon links, YouTube videos, a vanity press book and you might be right for beer money.

 

[Dutch]

Darby....it's not about the validity of Hub's theories, but how we've met.

Have you put the thead aleready back online on your forum?

 

[Dutch]

Apparently your need to 'address some things' is not all that strong.

So why don't you find out, coward?

 

[dafydd]

Darby....it's not about the validity of Hub's theories, but how we've met.

Have you put the thead aleready back online on your forum?

It's hard to follow you, bit I thought that you were using his theory to support your HDD invention.

 

[dafydd]

So why don't you find out, coward?

Address them

 

[Dutch]

It's hard to follow you, bit I thought that you were using his theory to support your HDD invention.

The problem with you is, that you like to post much, but that you don't really know what you are talking about, nor do you actually read the related issues before you choose to respond. Hub's story has everything to do with interaction of 'consciousness', the validity of his theories is another thing.

Please try to add some level to your contributions

 

[Dutch]

Address them

You can give your username too if you like

 

[Daylightstar]

Darby....it's not about the validity of Hub's theories, but how we've met.
...

Remember:

And you lied about that.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8178071&postcount=5285

We could refer to that lie as the BUM lie.

...
Have you put the thead aleready back online on your forum?

Remember:

... 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. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

 

[Daylightstar]

So why don't you find out, coward?

... because there are some things I want to address .

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
I'm not certain at all that you really want to.

 

[Daylightstar]

It's hard to follow you, bit I thought that you were using his theory to support your HDD invention.

He clearly did ... try.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Please try to add some level to your contributions

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Translation: Please, uncritically accept and talk about my 'intuitions' as if they are real.

 

[Daylightstar]

... consciousness ...

... 'consciousness', ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
But what's that???? You suddenly have added single quotes around the word "consciousness".

Reminds me of something:

...
But what's that???? You suddenly have added single quotes around the word "recalculate",...

 

[dafydd]

You can give your username too if you like

Dafydd.

 

[DarbyII]

It's hard to follow you, bit I thought that you were using his theory to support your HDD invention.

Spot on, Day. The original reference was that Hub's theory was related to his theory and that Hub's use of the circumstances of their "chance" meeting was somehow a profer of the validity of HDD and/or H.U.B.

If I'm wrong about this and the meeting has nothing to do with proving the validity of either theory then the reference to the meeting within the context of this discussion is irrelevent.

 

[Daylightstar]

... Hub's use of the circumstances of their "chance" meeting was somehow a profer of the validity of HDD and/or H.U.B. ...

Sounds about right.
Dutch's anecdote is an attempt to create a two way implied endorsement.

We can however not establish that this Hub guy actually made any such implied endorsement, we only have Dutch's claims for this.
The only identifiable purpose for Dutch's claims therefore will be to imply support for his own (poor) idea with another (poor) idea.

 

[The Man]

man, look at the comments that are posted here....

In a sense, the story of Hub is about how we wet...

I just wanted to give Hub a platform on HDDesign forum, I've added a Dutch language section especially for him years ago, in which he could explain his ideas and start discussions about it in a decent way....

Unfortunately he's not a puter guy, he just doesn't use a computer at all.

He cannot defend himself here.....

I'm interested in the guy because of his ideas that seem to include consciousness into science...

But that's not the issue here, it is about how we've met.

Ah, still quoting me and deliberately misaddressing your response to some user named “man”, please try harder Dutch.

 

[The Man]

Sounds about right.
Dutch's anecdote is an attempt to create a two way implied endorsement.

We can however not establish that this Hub guy actually made any such implied endorsement, we only have Dutch's claims for this.
The only identifiable purpose for Dutch's claims therefore will be to imply support for his own (poor) idea with another (poor) idea.

Far worse than just that, Daylightstar. Dutch’s position and that of the Hub guy, that his anecdote purportedly concerns, is that consciousness has some intrinsic import to both the nature of reality and its future expression. Yet in his very anecdote neither of them was conscious of why he (Dutch) said what he did (again purportedly). So major fail for both of them as it is specifically the unconscious action (of Dutch) that trips the tale in his anecdote. So it attests to, ironically, a specific lack of consciousness on Dutch’s part (who would have guessed).

 

[dafydd]

Unfortunately he's not a puter guy, he just doesn't use a computer at all.

After reading his book I am not surprised that he cannot use a computer.