Hyper Dimensional Design

[Reality Check]

Be specific man ( and than they accuse me of 'word salad'). So tell me, why can't I agree with myself? No copy and paste, in your own words please or I will ignore it

Actually, in your own words, Dutch!
I suspect that this is a reference to this gibberish, Dutch:

? under which stone have you been hiding? I don't talk about solid shapes, I talk about platonic solid based geometry originating from 3+ dimensions translated in the 2 dimensional system of orbits, this way determining orbtal positions of planets that are based on this platonic solid geometry. There's no shape however and you can't visualize, only the geometrical correlations remain, detectable as geometrically connected orbital positions

But then you go on about "“Hyper Dimensional Tetrahedron" which certainly can be visualized - it is a tetrahedron !

You do contradict yourself, Dutch. On the one hand this HDDesign fantasy is about imaginary "shapes" that cannot be visualized and then this HDDesign fantasy is about tetrahedrons which are a platonic solid that can be visualized.

You even contradicted yourself in that one post: platonic solids are ... solid shapes !

On the other hand all of these "shapes" are just fantasies in your head so of course they can only be visualized by you .

P.S.

Dutch: Where is your explanation of "HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel" here?
First asked 4th November 2013.
Your assertion that such an explanation exists in this thread looks like a lie, Dutch.

 

[Orphia Nay]

So you do seem to understand a bit about our perception of time. You do agree I hope, that it doesn't matter how it looks like in space qua actual positions in relation to the background, but that I talk about intelligent correlations based on our perceptuion of time only

Yep, there are no planetary forces in action, it's all in Dutch's head.

 

[Daylightstar]

No, the evidence clearly shows it's based on irrational thought and a combination of misperception and misunderstanding of things in the real world.

The intelligent underlying correlations are based on our perception of time, wether you are capable to understand that or not. It doesn't depend on how it actually looks like, it depends on the intelligent correlations based on time itself.
...

No, the intense irrationality emanating from your idiotic idea is quite apparent.

...
You should understand that, you've been here all along and aparently wasted your time. You are not at the required level of thought, although it shouldn't be that difficult if you really try to understand what I mean

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
No, it works differently: you have not provided the required level of evidence.

 

[Daylightstar]

Whatever failure you think you perceive, your irrational idea can not remedy it .....

I see that you don't understand that you've failed

I understand that you have failed to provide meaningful evidence for the validity of your hobby horse.

 

[Hans]

I have yet to see the first convincive agruments against this HDDesign concept though. Your remarks are quite meaningless in that respect, if not totally irrelevant. You can have your LOL if you prefer self-irony

You remain blind to your own blindness....sad but your statement above is partially correct YOU have not provided any 'convincive agruments' FOR HDD and a lot, tons against.

A complete and utter fail

But keep on Dutch it is amusing to watch you fail and flail.

 

[Hans]

Yep, there are no planetary forces in action, it's all in Dutch's head.

Teleurstelling

 

[Daylightstar]

You mean, when you look at 'them' with a mind clouded by irrationality.

There's no doubt about the intelligent correlations that are given, based on our perception of time. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}It's not so much that there is no doubt, it's actually much more like you thinking you having absolute confidence about such an irrational idea.
Nothing actually is given and nothing actually is shown, except of course, intense irrationality.

... If you don't want to see that, that's oke and your choice. ...

No, it's your choice. You fail to show evidence for your irrational idea. Again and again and ......

... But the correlations are there unmistakenly and you can't dismiss them unless you that despite better knowing. ...

Except of that pesky little detail that you have nothing to show for it, after all that time.
Yes, your irrational idea can easily be dismissed, no problem whatsoever.

... The only thing you can have an opinion about, is the math on which it is based. On that, there's no doubt about, ...

You mean, your 'little childrens' arithmetic? Should I laugh, and if so, how hard?
Anyways, I can have an opinion on the lack of evidence for your irrational idea, I can have an opinion on the idiotic absolute confidence towards your irrational idea as displayed in your posts, I can have an opinion on ....oh well, you get the idea.

... so actually you are basing your comments on your lack of understanding which makes you in turn an irrelevant contributor to these issues.

No, as is patently obvious from my posts, I am basing my comments on the lack of evidence for your utter irrational idea.
Among other things .....

So, I'd say my comments are quite relevant ..... and justified.
Look Dutch, if you don't post evidence for your irrational idea, that makes your own posts utterly irrelevant.

Unless of course, they serve to teach the meaning of the word "irrational".

 

[Daylightstar]

... a planet at the same position towards the background of stars. That would be astrology ...

It wouldn't, but it doesn't matter too much since your irrational idea mostly concerns numerology, slightly marinated in a weak sauce of astrology.

... These underlying intelligent correlations only show their face when you look at them based on our perception of time

No, that non existent 'they' don't. Only

... a mind clouded by irrationality.

..... 'sees them'.

Here's reality, Dutch.

 

[Daylightstar]

So please show me why you think so

You're the one needing to show something.

 

[Daylightstar]

Yep, there are no planetary forces in action, it's all in Dutch's head.

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
And it's not exactly a force.

 

[dafydd]

Be specific man ( and than they accuse me of 'word salad'). So tell me, why can't I agree with myself? No copy and paste, in your own words please or I will ignore it

He did tell you. Read his post again and do your very best to understand it.

 

[Daylightstar]

I've posted in this thread 225 times. Others more scientifically-minded have posted a total of over 4,000 times.

It's quite clear you ignore any and every sort of post that has anything negative to say about HDDelusion.

You can't bully me into wasting more time and effort trying to get you to see reason.

I will comment how and when I feel like it.

...
I agree with you that alot of posts in this thread were useless, and most of mine were not. ( this one is for that sake )

Yes Dutch, I agree with you that all of your posts were useless for establishing evidence for your silly irrational hobby horse but excellent reading for learning about the meaning of the word "irrational".

So yes, I agree with that.


Yes.

 

[The Man]

Be specific man ( and than they accuse me of 'word salad'). So tell me, why can't I agree with myself? No copy and paste, in your own words please or I will ignore it

Again, please try harder Dutch.

 

[The Man]

What I mean is that you might be focussed on the same spot as an appearance to how it actually shows to you. For example a planet at the same position towards the background of stars. That would be astrology and that is something completely different tan HDDesign. I talk about orbital positions of memebers in our solar system based on our perception of time, regardless how it looks like if you whatch it with a telescope. Including and especially our own planet Earth. These underlying intelligent correlations only show their face when you look at them based on our perception of time

Nope, you use the sidereal periods of the orbits which is explicitly when that planet is again "at the same position towards the background of stars.". Thank you though for just defining what is is you do as "astrology". Evidently your "perception of time" simply doesn't include what the time periods you do use represent.