Hyper Dimensional Design

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dutch said:
All questions you are referring to in this post were already answered in this thread.
Click to expand...
You keep saying you are serious but then undermine yourself at every opportunity by spending more time avoiding answering than anything else, with the possible current exception of disingenuous claims of intent.


I have mentioned several times here that I will ignore repeated questions that are already dealt with in this thread . You know that.
Click to expand...
It's a very convenient excuse, especially when we disagree that you have provided an answer.


Calling me one monumental barbaric liar is as low as it can get.
Click to expand...
You must lead a very sheltered life.
 
Your numbers that you post would be correct if the equation included the proper "degrees per day statement in the equation. It doesn't. Yet the numbers are based on its being there. There's not too many conclusions that can be drawn from that situation.
Click to expand...

It is plain obvious that the calculation is about a geometrically determined spot as expressed in Earth days. You've quoted it from the initial calculation in the HDDesign material, which has been logged realtime.
You stated that the calculation is wrong and gave another number of days that would be correct.

It appears that your number of days is incorrect but you still insist that I am wrong. Why is that?
 
1. "ESP" - the mystical beyond is beaming the numbers directly to your brain without your having to understand them. Yeah.
Click to expand...

says someone who is using incorrect data and thinks that he can ridicule me based on his own errors.
 
2. Someone else is doing the math for you but is unaware that you have the statment wrong.
Click to expand...

The calculations are valid and you were wrong. Simple.

I prefer to do the calculations myself, we have just seen here what happens when others think to know it better and refuse to admit that they are wrong.
 
3. Someone else prepared an Excel spreadsheet for you a long time ago. You're blindly plugging in the numbers without being aware of the underlying equations, functions and statements in the sheet. But because you don't understand the statement and its function you invert days and degrees. Your previous post makes that very clear.
Click to expand...

again, my calculations are correct. you are wrong
 
However, it is all moot. I was bored with the Dutch topic years ago, I'm still bored with it and you have demonstrated that you will likely never cooperate with the regular members here or on any other site. Why one bothers to go to a discussion forum and refuses to discuss is beyond me. What's the point?
Click to expand...

apparently self-critisism is not in your book. I can understand that you are bored and I also understand that you can make an error, but that doesn't mean that you have to insist in it. I do cooperate and I try to have a decent conversation here. The way you threat me is biased.



In some circumstances people will give a shout out, "Get a room!" In this case the shout out should be, "Get a blog!" I mean that, Dutch - get a blog. It is yours, there's no implied relationship of discussing anything and people can still read your thoughts if they choose to do so.
 
Paul said:
I think is simply down to Dutch's inability to articulate his ideas: he should simply have said "I want to know the equivalent in days of a specific segment of 1 orbit" and written degrees/360 * 365.
Click to expand...

everything in HDDesign is logged realitime and not rewritten afterwards.

Its plain clear what I was determining with this specific calculation.

no doubt about that

If you really had thought about the subject yourself, you would have found out that Darby was wrong
 
Wolrab said:
That has been answered in this thread on page one, five years ago. It is your responsibility to not read the answers.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it is explained on page one how this specific calculation is wrong?
 
How old do you think Mount St. Helens is? And how fast do you think the North American plate is moving?

If we take reasonably generous figures of 5cm/y for 40000 years the movement is 2km.
Click to expand...

Old enough to have 'moved' due to continental drift
 
Paul said:
Could you be more specific, otherwise we could be here all day.
Click to expand...

we are talking about this specific calculation expressed in Earth days, of which Darby claims is incorrect.

So explain why this calculation is wrong ( and as a result, why Darby's calculation is right )
 
Dutch said:
everything in HDDesign is logged realitime and not rewritten afterwards.
Click to expand...
So the answer is "I'm just incompetent, but never wrong"?


Its plain clear what I was determining with this specific calculation.
Click to expand...
Not the way you wrote it.


no doubt about that
Click to expand...
Yes doubt about that.


If you really had thought about the subject yourself, you would have found out that Darby was wrong
Click to expand...
If you'd actually read my reply you would have understood my answer.
 
Dutch said:
we are talking about this specific calculation expressed in Earth days, of which Darby claims is incorrect.
Click to expand...
I believe Darby was confused by the incompetent way you presented what should have been a simple calculation.


So explain why this calculation is wrong ( and as a result, why Darby's calculation is right )
Click to expand...
Again, if you'd read my reply you would have noticed my conclusion.
 
Dutch said:
Daylightstar said:
I will ask you specifically to show the calculations for transforming a hyper dimensional platonic solid into geometrically determined orbital positions of an orbiting planet.
Click to expand...
Which has already been answered in this thread, with a link.
Click to expand...
You just keep repeating this same lie, over and over and over again.
You have not provided those calculations, ever.

Your response is just another installment of the 'it's over there" trick, where no such 'it' exists.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
Daylightstar said:
Another one:

Please 'recalculate' the HD Cube spot near mount St. Helens for us.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6648023&postcount=3815


Previous asking for calculations can be found here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672143&postcount=3950
Click to expand...
Which has also been answered in this thread. I have explained that due to the continental drift, a volcano as a fixed spot on the solid outer crust will 'move' away from its original location. In the case of Mount St. helens it means to the East and to the North. If you reverse this continental drift, mount St helens would 'move' towards the location of current Yellowstone, marking the HD Cube around 45 degrees North latitude.
Click to expand...

No, it has not been answered. You have shown no calculations on the 'HD Cube spot near mount St. Helens'. None.

Just another lie from you, among the many many other lies.
 
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