Hyper Dimensional Design

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Mountain said:
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.)
Click to expand...

well, this isn't astrology or tarot, neither is it scientific research

I see no reason why you shouldn't notice these synchronicities while working with this material. You just dismiss the possibility that it could be real, based on your rigid and limited perception of reality
 
I'm glad you think celestial mechanics* is so simple, you can explain the n-body problem to me.
Click to expand...

as simple that even you know when to celebrate your birthsday
 
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.
Click to expand...

the 'coincidences' and synchronicities are clear enough. You just can't believe it could be true. Thats the current situation.

Only a continued 'research ' could change your mind
 
That answer does not make any sense. Are you trying to avoid answering the question?
Click to expand...

because you can't compare an imaginary teapot in space with the actual use of nuclear weapons!
 
Blue,

It should be clear that you can't prove this concept in 30 days because you have to 'prove' it with indirect observations over an extended period of time.

Nevertheless I have chosen a 30 days period that seemed signifigant.

After this 30 days I was not allowed to talk about HDdesign or its implications.

with the result that I was banned

soon after these expected 'srebrenica expressions' happened and I couldn't discuss this at BAUT anymore.

easy way out for those who DECIDED that HDDesign was debunked

Its a shame
 
Pucking babble doesn't proof anything Dutch. In my opinion you should just go back to your own forum and stay there until you have a defined method with all the necessary calculations.
 
Dutch said:
dafydd said:
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
Click to expand...
And what did we do 65 millions years ago to cause an asteroid to hit the Earth and cause the extinction of dinosaurs (except for the birds) and other species extinction, and all the other stuff that happened for 4.3 billion years before we got here.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
 
Dutch said:
dafydd said:
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
Click to expand...

'potentially there to give expression',that has no meaning.I don't care because there is nothing to care about,your whole scheme is a fantasy. Antwoord in Nederlands,maar ik denk dat het weining verschil zal maken,het is kul in een heel grote pak in welke taal dan ook.
Click to expand...
 
Dutch said:
well, this isn't astrology or tarot, neither is it scientific research
Click to expand...
By synchronicity, it came to me some time ago ...

... that HDD is a combination of astrology and numerology.

If what you're doing is not science, why did you put this thread into Science, Mathematics, and Technology?

And if you consistently put research inside quotation marks, does that indicate you're not really doing research, either?

I see no reason why you shouldn't notice these synchronicities while working with this material. You just dismiss the possibility that it could be real, based on your rigid and limited perception of reality
Click to expand...
As humans, we recognize patterns all the time. Critical thinking teaches us that not all patterns are important, or even significant. That is to say, many times we think we see patterns when none exist.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
because you can't compare an imaginary teapot in space with the actual use of nuclear weapons!
Click to expand...
I notice you completely failed to understand why I started talking about teapots.

To recap,
Dutch said:
Our current scientific understanding and proven facts about our reality, doesn't rule out the existence of a multi- dimensional reality and the possibility that consciousness itself is part of this.
Click to expand...

To which I said,
Blue Mountain said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now, despite the fact that science can't rule out the existence of a teapot in orbit, why don't any scientists believe such a teapot exists?
 
Dutch said:
the 'coincidences' and synchronicities are clear enough. You just can't believe it could be true. Thats the current situation.

Only a continued 'research ' could change your mind
Click to expand...
Dutch, I'll try to lay this out step by step (a concept you do not seem to be familiar with.)
  • As skeptics, we usually do not unilaterally reject any new concepts that come along
  • Because we tentatively accept any thesis that comes along, it is useful to have a "quick list" of things to check a new idea against to see if it requires further study. Without such a list, we'd spend our entire lives chasing all sorts of hare-brained ideas.
  • The red flags of woo is such a useful quick list
  • We did a quick comparison of HDD against the red flags of woo list and discovered it hit most of the points
  • Thus, we quickly determined your thesis did not provide anything useful
  • You protested our rejection was premature and insisted that there was something useful to HDD
  • Therefore we pulled out a second and more comprehensive tool for investigating claims, the list of logical fallacies
  • A detailed comparison of HDD against the list of logical fallacies shows that HDD exhibits almost every feature on that list
  • Therefore, based on a more detailed analysis of HDD, we are confident in our rejection of it
 
Last edited:
I have translated the post above.Now Dutch,here are our objections.

Als skeptics, verwerpen wij gewoonlijk unilateraal geen concepten.
* Omdat wij voorlopig om het even welke thesis
goedkeuren die zich voordoet, is het nuttig om een " te hebben;
snelle list" van dingen om te controleren een nieuw idee tegen
om te zien of vereist het verdere studie. Zonder zulk een
lijst, brengen ons volledig leven door
achtervolgend alle soorten van zotte ideeën.
* De rode vlaggen van 'woo' is zulk een nuttige snelle lijst.
* Wij deden een snelle vergelijking van HDD tegen de rode
vlaggen van nastreven lijst en ontdekten het de meeste punten raakte.
* Zo, bepaalden wij snel uw thesis nuttig om het even wat niet
verstrekte.
* U protesteerde onze verwerping voorbarig was en
erop aandrong dat er iets nuttig aan HDD waren.
* Daarom trokken wij een tweede en uitvoeriger hulpmiddel
om eisen, de lijst van terug logische denkfouten te onderzoeken.
* Een gedetailleerde vergelijking van HDD tegen de lijst van
logische denkfouten toont aan dat HDD bijna elke eigenschap op die
lijst tentoonstelt.
* Daarom, gebaseerd op een meer gedetailleerde analyse
van HDD, zijn wij zeker in onze verwerping van HDD.
 
Blue Mountain said:
I notice you completely failed to understand why I started talking about teapots.

To recap,


To which I said,

Now, despite the fact that science can't rule out the existence of a teapot in orbit, why don't any scientists believe such a teapot exists?
Click to expand...

I think that the problem here is that Dutch doesn't catch the nuances of the English langauge.
 
dafydd said:
I think that the problem here is that Dutch doesn't catch the nuances of the English langauge.
Click to expand...
If that's the problem, he only has to tell us and the native English speakers here can simplify their language.
 
dafydd said:
I think that the problem here is that Dutch doesn't catch the nuances of the English langauge.
Click to expand...
Thanks for translating my post into Dutch. It's appreciated.

I haven't really made a conscious effort to simplify my English here, because Dutch's posting indicated to me he understands the language rather well. "In your face" and "OMG" are definitely English expressions and he uses them appropriately, so I assumed his command of English is actually pretty good.
 
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