Hyper Dimensional Design

[Dutch]

There is nothing logical to HDD. If there was, you'd be able to codify it into a set of principles and methods that others could apply.

Orbits are pretty logical, so are the platonic solids and Phi.

Just listen to your intuition instaed of your ego

 

[Dutch]

That is a lie. They manifestly did not change the forum rules. You were asked to do the same thing there that we're doing here: show your work, explain your methods.

You are making a big mistake now.

They changed the forum rules so that I was given a 30 days period to prove this HDDesign right and I was not allowed to talk about it afterwards. After the 30 days period it was DECIDED that HDDesign was debunked.

pathetic

You should be cable of understanding by now that the validity of HDdesign can only be 'proved' by continuous monitoring of reality based on the given elements of Identified indications of hidden underlying Design.

 

[Dutch]

However, I don't know why your account was banned. Perhaps they don't like people who can do nothing but beat the same drum all day.

Thats a really good question

 

[Dutch]

They were expected in very much the same way we can expect winter to follow summer.

You do understand where 'srebrenica' stands for? Think twice before your give an answer

 

[AWPrime]

Orbits are pretty logical, so are the platonic solids and Phi.

Yet, you can't use them.

Just listen to your intuition instaed of your ego

Have you ever considered that your ego is like your intuition, overinflated & out of control?

 

[dafydd]

You do understand where 'srebrenica' stands for? Think twice before your give an answer[/QUOTE

Don't knoiw,don't care

 

[dafydd]

Orbits are pretty logical, so are the platonic solids and Phi.

Just listen to your intuition instaed of your ego

My intuition tells me that your "theory" is a load of bollocks.

 

[Paul]

and your point is?

You are quite capable of discerning the point, being disingenuous will not help.

I only notice those that come to me by synchronicity

I'm not saying this merely to be pedantic, but nothing you mention comes by synchronicity; the sooner you realise that you can't just make up meanings for words as it suits you, the better.

 

[Paul]

really?

Yes, really.

Feel free to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts you claim to use at any time.

 

[Paul]

A teapot is not a fat boy

Yes it is.

 

[Paul]

First: I have never said influencing ( only 'reflecting')

Really?

Then it can't have been you that said this-

As long as I'm present in this 3D reality with available internet this HDDesign research will continue . There will be no specific point to make, this is about indications of intelligent influences on our reality apparently originating from outside our familiar 3D reality. That's an ongoing research which will develop.

 

[Paul]

I have yet to see the first clever remark that proves this HDDesign wrong

The synchronicities speak for themselves, you just lack to recognize it with your ego based rigid perspective of reality. Not meant as an insult, just an observation.

Do you really think comparing yourself with Paul and Paulhoff is giving you a stronger case?

You don't mean to insult, it just happens to come out exactly as if you do.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The difference is that stuff I posted actually has a use. <Remainder of post snipped>

and your point is?

That things are useful only when they are able to be used effectively by other people. And they can be used by other people only when the inventors take the time, energy, and effort to document their methods, showing how certain inputs are processed to produce the desired outputs.

(Strange that astrology and tarot cards would fall into the above definition of "useful." Yet HDD fails even at that.)

 

[Paul]

Orbits are pretty logical, so are the platonic solids and Phi.

I'm glad you think celestial mechanics* is so simple, you can explain the n-body problem to me.

Just listen to your intuition instaed of your ego

It has already been explained why this is a bad idea.

I feel a small excerpt from the introduction to Faster Than the Speed of Light by João Magueijo can illustrate the difference between your intuitions and the speculation used by real scientists-

...especially in cosmology ...my colleagues and I spend a good part of each day trying to puch holes in existing theories and considering speculative new theories that may as well or better accomodate empirical data.

...after arguing and arguing and finally convincing those around you that you are right, you suddenly slap your forehead and realize that some embarrassingly simple flaw mars your speculation, and that you have just been stupidly misleading everyone for the past hour - or vice versa: You have been childishly taken in by someone else's flawed speculation.

*I apologise profusely for previously confusing celestial and orbital mechanics and I shall, of course, throw myself upon the ceremonial IPU momentarily.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I have yet to see the first clever remark that proves this HDDesign wrong

Something as complex as your convoluted system cannot be proven wrong by a single sentence, no more than can astrology be proven wrong with some simple fact. These require an understanding of science (rational thinking) and psychology (logical fallacies) to understand why they are useless endeavours.

The synchronicities speak for themselves, you just lack to recognize it with your ego based rigid perspective of reality. Not meant as an insult, just an observation.

Time and again we have pointed out why we do not believe your "synchronicities" offer any evidence for your fantastical claim, let alone proof. List of the Top Twenty Logical Fallacies. HDD has pretty much all of them covered.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Do you really think comparing yourself with Paul and Paulhoff is giving you a stronger case?

That is a bit of an ad homimen attack, but I would rather be counted among their company.

As well as aggle-rithm, andyandy, Apathia, Art Vandelay, athon, AWPrime, BlackKat, bluecloud, Bodhi Dharma Zen, bokonon, Broes, Buckaroo, calebprime, Cecil, cloudshipsrule, Complexity, Crazycowbob, Cuddles, cyborg, dafydd, dannagain, Davidlpf, dlorde, DrBaltar, DuckTapeFileMan, ~enigma~, e-sabbath, Escuerd, Evilgiraffe, fishkr, Fnord, fuelair, GodMark2, Gravy, Hans, Hokulele, illogical, Jackob irr, Jimbo07, JJM 777, JoeEllison, KingMerv00, Klimax, Langis, LordoftheLeftHand, luchog, MetalPig, Michael Gray, Mister Earl, Molinaro, MortFurd, NeilC, neltana, Neverfly, nzric, OnlyTellsTruths, Oppressed, orange31, orphia nay, pmckean, Polgara, Quinn, quixotecoyote, Radrook, realpaladin, RecoveringYuppy, Richard Masters, robheus, Schneibster, SezMe, shuyun, Sideroxylon, sinclairmcevoy, SomeGuy, sts60, Taffer, T'ai Chi, The Atheist, The Man, Thing, Thomas1016, tkingdoll, tracer, TriangleMan, trvlr2, Viper Daimao, Wolrab, Yahzi, and zosima.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Science also cannot disprove that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars. Yet I know of no scientist who believes that such a teapot exists. Why is that?

A teapot is not a fat boy

That answer does not make any sense. Are you trying to avoid answering the question?

I'll restate it:

• Why is it impossible for science to prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars?
• Despite the fact that it cannot be proven scientifically, why do people (generally) not believe such a teapot exists? (I added "generally" because given the crazy things people believe, there may be a cult of some sort that actually does believe such a thing!)

 

[Blue Mountain]

You are making a big mistake now.

They changed the forum rules so that I was given a 30 days period to prove this HDDesign right and I was not allowed to talk about it afterwards. After the 30 days period it was DECIDED that HDDesign was debunked.

After months of doing exactly what you're doing here, namely avoiding anything like science, they moved it to ATM (Against The Mainstream.) For JREFers not familiar with the BAUT forum, threads in ATM have a 30 day lifespan.

The 30 day rule was created in March 2007 in part because:

People are looking to use BAUT as a marketing platform for their alternative theories. Tell us your idea, that's fine. But we're not going to allow the forum to turn into a marketing vehicle for them. 30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else.

The problem is that the people in group 2 were stretching the patience of the community and using up moderator resources. So we've decided to take this direction.

Actually, Dutch is correct in stating that the rules were changed. But they weren't changed specifically to shut him up. They were changed because people like Dutch, who can't change their mind and won't change the subject, were tying up the limited resources of the BAUT forum.

You should be cable of understanding by now that the validity of HDdesign can only be 'proved' by continuous monitoring of reality based on the given elements of Identified indications of hidden underlying Design.

No. We understand that continuous monitoring of lots and lots of information leads to something called "data mining," which is rife with potential for things like cherry picking the data, argument from final consequences, confusing association with causation, inconsistency, post-hoc ergo propter hoc, and special pleading.

Where have we heard these concepts before?

 

[Dutch]

You do understand where 'srebrenica' stands for? Think twice before your give an answer[/QUOTE

Don't knoiw,don't care

That's exactly why these terrible things are happening

you just don't care

you fail to see your own responibility

you lack to learn by these terrible events that has happened, that are even 'subtle' compared to whats potentially there to give expression

 

[Dutch]

Really?

Then it can't have been you that said this-

I meant that we are expressing it ourselves, originating from outside our 3D reality. At consciousness level we are part of it