Hyper Dimensional Design

Status
Not open for further replies.
My prediction keep being proven as correct, and I don't have to resort to obscure numerology to explain it.
 
I have thought twice. I've thought more than that, given the six-or-seven-year time frame this discussion has been going on. You've been told many times that the first step required to test your HDD scientifically is for you to explain the process, from start to finish, and include all math and graphs required.

To date you refuse to do this. Therefore, there has been a progression of exactly zero. I continually predict that not only will you not post your process, but you'll continually refuse to do so. I'm always correct.
 
Last edited:
If other work was done like HDD...

Person 1: "Dude, check this out. The Higgs exists!"
Person 2: "Nice. Are these your results?"
Person 1: "Yeah, totally. The Higgs. Right there."
Person 2: "Sure looks nice, but what method did you use to arrive at this conclusion?"
Person 1: "Method? No, no, look. Right here on the paper. Higgs. Right there."
Person 2: "... right. It's a very nice paper, sure. But you're not telling me how you got here."
Person 1: "Okay, fine. Look, here's another paper from something else I did a different way. And look at that!"
Person 2: "Um..."
Person 1: "Bam. Totally a Higgs."
Person 2: "How about you show me the method you used to get here? I'd love to try to replicate your results."
Person 1: "And check this out!"
Person 2: "Let me guess. Another paper with a Higgs on it."
Person 1: "Damn right!"
Person 2: "... with no details on how you got there."
Person 1: "So?"
Person 2: "The only way we're going to be able to verify your work is if we can replicate your results!"
Person 1: "You don't need to... because..." *shuffling papers*
Person 2: "Let me guess."
Person 1: "Yeap! Fourth paper! And look, right there. Higgs. Totally a Higgs. And... wait, where are you going?"
 
Dutch said:
I have posted a comment on the current timeframe, you can read it here
Click to expand...
To save anyone else the trouble and brainache, that post consists, in order, of: apocalyptic numerology; gibberish; the usual elastically defined mathematics; the depressingly regular and vile conflation of real human tragedy as evidence; repetition of provably false theme with apocalyptic gibberish and new-age nonsense; meaningless vague pseudoquestion; the usual nebulously vague blame and change routine.
 
TheRedWorm said:
I think that using nuclear power in space will mean that humans will learn more about the universe in the next hundred years than we learned in the previous 100,000.
Click to expand...

You'll be pleased that NASA will fly another Mars rover in 2020 using the same design as the successful nuclear (isotope)-powered MSL currently roving Mars..

Meanwhile, the successful nuclear-powered MSL (Curiousity) is exploring "Yellowknife Bay". As I type the featured image for this article shows the MMRTG very nicely.

As a Christmas present, here's a glorious image of Saturn taken by the tremendously successful nuclear-powered Cassini.

And, of course, the amazingly successful nuclear-powered Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft continue their decades-long mission, with the former probing the "magnetic highway" at the edge of interstellar space.

Finally, let's not forget the nuclear-powered probe New Horizons currently hurtling towards its 2015 encounter with Pluto.

Indeed, nuclear power in space has been a marvelous boon for science and our sense of wonder at the real universe around us.
 
Paul said:
To save anyone else the trouble and brainache, that post consists, in order, of: apocalyptic numerology; gibberish; the usual elastically defined mathematics; the depressingly regular and vile conflation of real human tragedy as evidence; repetition of provably false theme with apocalyptic gibberish and new-age nonsense; meaningless vague pseudoquestion; the usual nebulously vague blame and change routine.
Click to expand...

Same ol' same then.
 
sts60 said:
You'll be pleased that NASA will fly another Mars rover in 2020 using the same design as the successful nuclear (isotope)-powered MSL currently roving Mars..

Meanwhile, the successful nuclear-powered MSL (Curiousity) is exploring "Yellowknife Bay". As I type the featured image for this article shows the MMRTG very nicely.

As a Christmas present, here's a glorious image of Saturn taken by the tremendously successful nuclear-powered Cassini.

And, of course, the amazingly successful nuclear-powered Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft continue their decades-long mission, with the former probing the "magnetic highway" at the edge of interstellar space.

Finally, let's not forget the nuclear-powered probe New Horizons currently hurtling towards its 2015 encounter with Pluto.

Indeed, nuclear power in space has been a marvelous boon for science and our sense of wonder at the real universe around us.
Click to expand...

Currently, nuclear power clearly is the way to go in space. Nuclear power in space brings fabulous results.
 
I'm all for cheap space tourism using Orion powered craft. What's a little fallout to be able to see the Earth from space?
 
Let's say a nuclear powered probe did malfunction and then burn up in the atmosphere. I would think the small amount of radioactive materials would be spread out over enough territory as to be negligible.
 
Mister Earl said:
Let's say a nuclear powered probe did malfunction and then burn up in the atmosphere. I would think the small amount of radioactive materials would be spread out over enough territory as to be negligible.
Click to expand...
Two isotope-powered probes did suffer launch accidents in the '60s. In one case, the heat source was designed to burn up and disperse the plutonium metal very widely, diluting it to the point of harmlessness. It did exactly that, as verified by an extensive campaign of environmental sampling - which validated the computer modeling.

Another fell into the ocean off California, and the heat source was recovered intact and re-used.

Apollo 13's heat source (for the ALSEP) reentered along with the Lunar Module to which it was affixed, and deposited its heat source, intact, in the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

The Soviets were more careless using their Earth-orbiting reactor-powered satellites. One scattered core debris across part of Canada, requiring a lot of cleanup. They haven't launched any for decades. Any reactors launched in the future will be inert upon launch and not activated until safely in at least a long-life parking orbit.

Isotope fuel sources were redesigned after the first launch failure mentioned above, despite the entirely successful performance of the heat source, to withstand reentry, using durably-shielded fuel in a very tough ceramic form, and the analyses and tests performed on them are pretty thorough. (The Safety Analysis Report for the Cassini mission occupied a full dozen file boxes.)
 
Thank you, sts60. That's good to know. Gotta love science and engineering! Still waiting on my thorium reactors, though.... *grumbles*

A lot of people forget that there's not a negligble amount of jsut environmental radiation. I've heard potatoes are slightly more radioactive than apples, just for having grown in the ground. I've also been told that the Earth would have cooled and completely solidified by now, if it weren't for the mess of radioactive materials keeping things warm down there.
 
Last edited:
Mister Earl said:
A lot of people forget that there's not a negligble amount of jsut environmental radiation...
Click to expand...

And a huge amount from natural fuels - I'm looking at you, coal - IIRC, about fifty tons of U-235 alone is released into the environment every year from the burning of coal. And a lot more U-238 and lots and lots of your well-loved thorium. A couple-few years ago, Dutch bragged about his hypergibble phi point pi spiral pie a la mode synchronicity about the release of a couple of smoke detectors' worth of electricity from a reactor - and could not understand what I meant when I asked him about the far greater releases from coal plants everyday around the world.

There was a reactor plant in New England that was offered some expensive surplus equipment for their machine shop by a coal-fired power plant. They had to decline the offer because the equipment would be too radioactive to be allowed in the nuclear plant.
 
Dutch said:
some of you really think that HDDesign is nonsens....

It's the biggest truth about our reality.....

I have done enough to try to get you started....

Monday ( December 17, 2012 ) there will be a twin impact on the moon with the Grail probes .....
This twin impacts on December 17, 2012, Deep Impact on comet Temple 1 on July 4, 2005, Chandrayaan's impact on the moon on November 14, 2008, LCROSS / Centaurs impact on the moon on October 9, 2009, Smart-1 at the entering of the Moon orbit on 16 November 2004 and Smart-1 impact on the Moon on september 3, 2006
Are ALL connected intelligently based on the specific underlying HDDesign Pi-based Intelligent Design.
Revealed by synchronicity followed by another synchronicity etc., instantly unveiling the specific Pi based underlying Design, UNDENIABLE intelligently connected.

there are so many more examples of this specific Pi Design in the material ..... but if this is not convincing .... then I really do not know what it takes to get people to open their eyes ....

You're not doing yourselves a favor...nor mankind.
Click to expand...

For certain values of some.
 
Dutch said:
Now we are talking The Man, apparently you are the only one to take serious here.
Now find this expressed with Deep Impact and the lunar Impacts as explained

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well I do thank you for finally addressing your post to me correctly, which simply comes from what people do call me, "Dan The Man". So if you want you (or anyone here) can simply address me as Dan.


" expressed with Deep Impact and the lunar Impacts"? You picked these particular constants and as has been explained may times that 'expression' remains entirely yours. Particularly considering your previous assertion of...

Dutch said:
I never said HDDesign is causing, I just explain to you that when it happened, it happended based on on underlying intelligent Design

Your problem is, that it indeed happened and that the given underlying intelligent correlations are valid and based on a repeatable, simple, Pi based design
Click to expand...

Attempting to indicate no "HDD" causal relation ("I never said HDDesign is causing") while also attempting to assert that specific causal relation ("it happended based on on underlying intelligent Design"). Your assertions aren't even self-consistent. Either way it's not good for you. Either your purported "HDD" isn't causing anything and thus just some numerological association of you own choosing or this "HDD" of yours can determine the motions of planetary bodies, even launch dates and other aspects of space missions not to mention geopolitical events and natural disasters but just can't seem to keep people from doing what you claim that "design" does not want them to do, be in space and use nuclear power. So it is all a just concoction of you own making or your purported designers are just so inept it's no wonder they can't get what you say they want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom