sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Hello, Dutch. I thought I'd check back on this thread just for old times' sake.
- rounding errors in your reckoning made your claimed durations incorrect
- your hypergibble was unable to distinguish meaningful from non-meaningful events
- your astronomical references had no physical meaning
- your reliance on newspaper byline dates meant that your claimed events had no meaning
- your claimed margins of error were arbitrary and meaningless
- etc., etc.
Well, here we are again: space exploration and nuclear power combined - a terrific success. Curiousity landed safely on Mars, and powered by its nuclear generator, is off to a tremendously successful start. Its landing was watched and cheered by crowds gathered at NASA centers, universities, and public spaces like Times Square. I worked on that power system, Dutch, and I am rather proud of that, and I would laugh at your delusional attempts to deny the success and value of such missions, if I didn't feel sorry for you instead.
But, Dutch, you don't have to keep investing yourself in such nonsense. You don't have to obsessively shoehorn after-the-fact headlines into your self-inconsistent "system" to try to pretend it somehow makes useful predictions. You don't have to deny the obvious, such as a decades-long record of flawless performance, and tell us howlers like "it's in the face" that this somehow does not represent success.
In short, you can free yourself from this obsession, realize you made a mistake, and stop wasting time on it. I guarantee everyone here would applaud you for it - it takes a big man to admit he was wrong after such a heavy emotional investment in nonsense. Your choice, Dutch.
It's good that you put "research" in quotes. It's been years now since I demonstrated how:Focus is on the ongoing HDDesign 'research'.
- rounding errors in your reckoning made your claimed durations incorrect
- your hypergibble was unable to distinguish meaningful from non-meaningful events
- your astronomical references had no physical meaning
- your reliance on newspaper byline dates meant that your claimed events had no meaning
- your claimed margins of error were arbitrary and meaningless
- etc., etc.
Shame on you, for latching on to the death of a great man for touting your astronumerological twaddle. It's nothing you predicted. You just seized on an event and shoehorned it into your personal belief system, then pretended it somehow validated your beliefs. It didn't.Quote:
Space legend Neil Armstrong dies
Coinciding with the 'fall' of Lance Armstrong....a strong indication something essential is going on here.....
No, it doesn't. Don't you remember that your rounding errors mean your calculations are completely wrong over such intervals? You can't even do the simple math correctly.I thought the Golden Mean would have to say something about this.....
Neil Armstrong was the first human being that stood on the surface of another element of our solarsystem, on July 21, 1969.
With this first step on the Moon as Phi point and Neil Armstrongs death on August 25, 2012, gives the startdate December 2, 1942.
You are delusional. You still tout this "space/nuclear" thing, even though I pointed out that the combination of the two was extremely successful - every nuclear space system launched by the U.S. has functioned exactly as designed - dozens of generators and hundreds of heater units. When I rubbed your nose in this fact, you desperately tried to re-define the word "successful".It's in the face....
Stay out of space, human consciousness should remain Earthbound and don't mess with nuclear power!!!!
Well, here we are again: space exploration and nuclear power combined - a terrific success. Curiousity landed safely on Mars, and powered by its nuclear generator, is off to a tremendously successful start. Its landing was watched and cheered by crowds gathered at NASA centers, universities, and public spaces like Times Square. I worked on that power system, Dutch, and I am rather proud of that, and I would laugh at your delusional attempts to deny the success and value of such missions, if I didn't feel sorry for you instead.
But, Dutch, you don't have to keep investing yourself in such nonsense. You don't have to obsessively shoehorn after-the-fact headlines into your self-inconsistent "system" to try to pretend it somehow makes useful predictions. You don't have to deny the obvious, such as a decades-long record of flawless performance, and tell us howlers like "it's in the face" that this somehow does not represent success.
In short, you can free yourself from this obsession, realize you made a mistake, and stop wasting time on it. I guarantee everyone here would applaud you for it - it takes a big man to admit he was wrong after such a heavy emotional investment in nonsense. Your choice, Dutch.