Hyper Dimensional Design

[The Atheist]

Ya gotta hand it to Dutch for being consistent.

He's got the same garbage here, here, here, here, (needs registration, but the same stuff's there), here and here, amongst others....

Yep, his time on PCs is limited alright. But by the number of sites. Oh god, look at the time! It's 11:11. OMG! It's all TRUE!

 

[Taffer]

Technically, the observer will note that the "glass sides" of this object are broken when the "inner cube" passes through them. The alternative, however, is to break the edges by bringing the "inner cube" out through an edge or a vertex.

That makes it much easier to visualise.

 

[Taffer]

Ya gotta hand it to Dutch for being consistent.

He's got the same garbage here, here, here, here, (needs registration, but the same stuff's there), here and here, amongst others....

Yep, his time on PCs is limited alright. But by the number of sites. Oh god, look at the time! It's 11:11. OMG! It's all TRUE!

It's True!

 

[fuelair]

That would be TROLL!

DFTT!

 

[Art Vandelay]

Formally a hypercube of dimension d is a connected topology of 2^d nodes with each node having d neighbours such that each neighbour is unique.

Unique? You mean nonadjacent to the other neighbors? It appears that, in graph theory terms, you are allowing a hypercube to be any triangle-free, connected, k-regular graph with 2^k vertices.

This seems like a very broad definition which would admit different graphs, with the same k, which are not isomorphic, but which satisfy the definition. Do you disagree?

 

[athon]

If only there was some way to tap the energy some people put into absolute nonsense such as this. Surely such illogical pattern searching has a use that mankind could benefit from?

ETA2: Has anyone here read "Diaspora" by Greg Egan? Firstly, it's awsome. Secondly, it goes into weird, higher dimensions. This is something I've never been able to visualise.

That book hurt my head. The stepping into 5-th dimension universes...I tried so hard to picture it, and the best I could manage was have a cubist-like 3 dimensional image in my head. I just couldn't do it.

The best I ever had it explained to me was to imagine an ant crawling alone a telephone line. I forget how that is relevant now. But it was a cool analogy when I heard it.

Athon

 

[Taffer]

That book hurt my head. The stepping into 5-th dimension universes...I tried so hard to picture it, and the best I could manage was have a cubist-like 3 dimensional image in my head. I just couldn't do it.

Nor I. Up until that point, though, the book was, IMHO, really freaking cool. My favourite hard sci-fi by far. Followed closely by "Revelation Space" and the double novellas "Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days", and pretty much anything else by Alastair Reynolds, who is awsome.

 

[cyborg]

Unique? You mean nonadjacent to the other neighbors?

No, such that no neighbour is the same as a neighbour you already have, that is you will have d edges to d neighbours.

This seems like a very broad definition which would admit different graphs, with the same k, which are not isomorphic, but which satisfy the definition. Do you disagree?

Yes. For k < 3.

Isomorphism isn't really a big deal for my use of the hypercube however - effectively a different Gray code ordering is just as valid for the nodes since it is only the connectivity, rather than the shape, that interests me.

 

[The Atheist]

That would be TROLL!

DFTT!

TROLL + =

 

[Art Vandelay]

No, such that no neighbour is the same as a neighbour you already have, that is you will have d edges to d neighbours.

You mean, no double edges? (And presumably, loops are right out.) So it's just a k-regular connected simple graph with 2^k vertices? That's a really broad category.

 

[cyborg]

You mean, no double edges? (And presumably, loops are right out.) So it's just a k-regular connected simple graph with 2^k vertices? That's a really broad category.

Ok.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

you forgot The Bad Astronomy(BAUT) forum.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45908

they tried to debunk old Dutch, but would he listen?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Ya gotta hand it to Dutch for being consistent.

He's got the same garbage here, here, here, here, (needs registration, but the same stuff's there), here and here, amongst others....

Yep, his time on PCs is limited alright. But by the number of sites. Oh god, look at the time! It's 11:11. OMG! It's all TRUE!

you forgot The Bad Astronomy(BAUT) forum.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45908

they tried to debunk old Dutch, but would he listen?

Yep. Dutch also (re)posts his stuff at another (invitation-only) forum where I'm a member.

If you want to blame someone for the 'troll', blame me. I mentioned Dutch in a thread in the CT forum, and used him as an example of a pseudo-Einstein. He must do regular searches for his name or HDD, because he found my post, in the same way as he found the thread I started at BAUT.

I wonder in how many other forums I have to mention him before his 'work' posting in forums and avoiding creating a testable method reaches critical mass?

 

[~enigma~]

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?

I wonder if he takes Kepler's laws of planetary motion into account? Particularly the second one.

Dutch, you ran away from the conspiracy forum with your tail firmly tucked between your legs. You trying to make it 2-0?

 

[Dutch]

I wonder if he takes Kepler's laws of planetary motion into account? Particularly the second one.

The platonic solids originate from another dimension and onlt geometry unveils their existence, marked by high imopact event in our reality. The shape of the orbit isn't important because the solids don't have a 3D shape. The geometrical intersection area's on a 360 degrees orbit do correspond with our system of dates.

Dutch, you ran away from the conspiracy forum with your tail firmly tucked between your legs. You trying to make it 2-0?

I didn't ran away, I have a normal life so I spend my time at home with wife and kidds. Also, i have a normal job to do so I'm not always able to post much

 

[Dutch]

Ya gotta hand it to Dutch for being consistent.

He's got the same garbage here, here, here, here, (needs registration, but the same stuff's there), here and here, amongst others....

Yep, his time on PCs is limited alright. But by the number of sites. Oh god, look at the time! It's 11:11. OMG! It's all TRUE!

The HDdesign threads on other forums are listed on the HDDesign forum, I think there are more than 20. I prefer to use forums to discuss this stuff

 

[Dutch]

you forgot The Bad Astronomy(BAUT) forum.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45908

they tried to debunk old Dutch, but would he listen?

You are right, they tried. I think there are some nice examples in that thread that show these 'synchronicities'. This stuff needs time in order to see if it makes sense

 

[Orphia Nay]

The platonic solids originate from another dimension

Do you have evidence for this?

and onlt geometry unveils their existence, marked by high imopact event in our reality. The shape of the orbit isn't important because the solids don't have a 3D shape.

You are right, they tried. I think there are some nice examples in that thread that show these 'synchronicities'. This stuff needs time in order to see if it makes sense

This stuff doesn't make sense now. Exactly!!

So why pursue it?

 

[Dutch]

So why pursue it?

Because these HD dates will continue to show events at macrolevel that will be anticipated on

 

[Molinaro]

So Dutch, why is it that you equate Jan 1st with a 0 degree orientation of the earth's orbit?

What basis do you have for deciding on one orientation over another as you orient your geometric solid and line it up to pick your dates?

Explain how you've taken something arbitrary like the point in the earth's orbit that we call Jan 1st and turned it into something absolute?