Hyper Dimensional Design

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seven or eight years ago I told Dutch what precisely he'd have to do to test his HDD scientifically. And for seven or eight years he has studiously not done that. He has no intention whatsoever proving whether or not HDD is real. I'm quite sure it's because he knows this is nonsense. It's nothing more than numerology with a different veneer.

He has other intentions for posting here. Rational discussion about the plausibility of HDD is not and never has been one.
 
Mister Earl said:
Seven or eight years ago I told Dutch what precisely he'd have to do to test his HDD scientifically. And for seven or eight years he has studiously not done that. He has no intention whatsoever proving whether or not HDD is real. I'm quite sure it's because he knows this is nonsense. It's nothing more than numerology with a different veneer.

He has other intentions for posting here. Rational discussion about the plausibility of HDD is not and never has been one.
Click to expand...

Dutch is a slave of his delusion. He has to carry on posting his nonsense, else his delusion that never lived will die.

His sad situation is that he can not break out of it.
No matter how many times he yells ooohh aaahh confirmation, while pointing at yesterday's news he wasn't able to predict.
He's locked in.
 
Last edited:
Dutch: What does "HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel" mean

Dutch said:
That's a nice timing of posting, on HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel ( I assume I don't have to explain that to you because you pretent to know what you are talking about ) I couldn't emphasize it better than you did.
Click to expand...
"HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel" is gibberish so you have to explain your gibberish, Dutch :eek:!
Dutch:
What does "HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel" mean?
First asked 29 October 2013 - 0 days and counting.
​
And to emphasize it just for you, Dutch (:D): Dutch's failed HDD fantasies and other fantasies!
 
Dutch said:
Ladee wasn't even launched back in december 2012 when I posted this anticipation on the timeline Q3 2013.
Click to expand...
Was "HDDesign is not about predictions" a lie, Dutch?
Because an "anticipation" implies an prediction.

Writing an "anticipation" in December 2012 that Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (launched September 7, 2013) would be impacted on the Moon is insanely ridiculous because that was the plan for LADEE probably since its inception in February 2008. It was public knowledge that LADEE would impact the Moon and even the date was known.

As for the lunar missions and your fantasies, Dutch:

Reality Check said:
As I said you are wrong, Dutch:
  • There are no "moon impact missions". There are spacecraft that are studying the Moon.
    Several missions ended and will end with impact with the Moon.
  • Pi is not 4 :eek: !
  • The timeline is only in your imagination, Dutch.
And unable to read, Dutch :jaw-dropp.

Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (launched September 7, 2013). Still in orbit (launched 12 September 2013, nominal 100 day mission).




Some missions that have impacted on the Moon starting with the three actual impacts in your list, Dutch
  1. Chandrayaan-1 (launched 22 October 2008 ). Impacted the Moon at 14 November 2008 at the south pole.
  2. The LCROSS mission had a Centaur rocket stage.
    The LCROSS spacecraft observed the impact of its spent Centaur stage on the Moon. "Centaur impacted successfully on October 9, 2009, at 11:31 UTC".
  3. SMART-1 (launched September 27, 2003). "SMART-1 impacted the Moon's surface as planned, on September 3, 2006 at 05:42:22 UTC ... ESA estimated that impact occurred at 34°24′S 46°12′W".
  4. The first of the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory spacecraft that were impacted on December 17, 2012.
  5. The second of the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory spacecraft that were impacted on December 17, 2012.
  6. ETA: the Lunar Prospector on July 31, 1999.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mister Earl said:
Seven or eight years ago I told Dutch what precisely he'd have to do to test his HDD scientifically. And for seven or eight years he has studiously not done that. He has no intention whatsoever proving whether or not HDD is real. I'm quite sure it's because he knows this is nonsense. It's nothing more than numerology with a different veneer.

He has other intentions for posting here. Rational discussion about the plausibility of HDD is not and never has been one.
Click to expand...

Intuitive insights and synchronicities doesn't happen at will, I've told you several times before.
What you want to do, is forcing me to do specific predictions that can be tested repeatedly in a scientific way, but HDDesign isn't even about exact predictions.
We can't set up a test like this, you should understand this.
Statistics is also science.

You should ask yourselves the question how it is possible that so much pre-determined underlying themes find indeed expression.

And I'm not even talking about the hidden intelligent correlations that show their face instantly after the fact.

I only talk here about 'confirmations' of pre-determined themes, because I'm well aware that you will dismiss the correlations that are recognized after the fact. ( although they are equally valid, but you will dismiss them )
 
Reality Check said:
"HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel" is gibberish so you have to explain your gibberish, Dutch :eek:!
Dutch:
What does "HD Tetrahedron at macrolevel" mean?
First asked 29 October 2013 - 0 days and counting.
​
Click to expand...

Just read this thread from the beginning and you will find it, it hass been explained several times so.

I would expect you do your research before you think you are able to do your reality check
 
Reality Check said:
Was "HDDesign is not about predictions" a lie, Dutch?
Because an "anticipation" implies an prediction.

Writing an "anticipation" in December 2012 that Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (launched September 7, 2013) would be impacted on the Moon is insanely ridiculous because that was the plan for LADEE probably since its inception in February 2008. It was public knowledge that LADEE would impact the Moon and even the date was known.

As for the lunar missions and your fantasies, Dutch:
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the difference between a space probe entering lunar orbit and an actual lunar impact.

Either you can't or don't actually read, or you are deliberately misinterpreting my words. Or maybe you just aren't smart enough.

The intelligent pre-determined timeframe that was put on the timeline was based on Smart-1 entering lunar orbit at the start and Ladee apparently entering lunar entry at the anticipated end of this timeframe. With 2 actual lunar impacts as determined on Pi-HDdesign.

Since you seem to know when LADEE will impact the moon, I would really like to know that date because she's still out there and as far as I know it is unclear when she will finish her mission an will impact the moon.

It's ridiculous even that I take the time to write an answer to you
 
Dutch said:
I only talk here about 'confirmations' of pre-determined themes, because I'm well aware that you will dismiss the correlations that are recognized after the fact. ( although they are equally valid, but you will dismiss them )
Click to expand...

Old news is old news.
 
Dutch said:
Either you can't or don't actually read, or you are deliberately misinterpreting my words. Or maybe you just aren't smart enough.
Click to expand...

You don't have any evidence to support your old news HDD crackpottery, so you turn to insults. A typical woo tactic.
 
dafydd said:
No need to ask. It is not possible, HDD is your fantasy.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with the given underlying intelligent correlations, in a sence that they are mathematically wrong?

Do you disagree with the fact that there are expectations posted on the future timelines that are based on these very same principles?
 
Dutch said:
Do you disagree with the given underlying intelligent correlations, in a sence that they are mathematically wrong?

Do you disagree with the fact that there are expectations posted on the future timelines that are based on these very same principles?
Click to expand...

Your mathematical mistakes have been pointed out to you many times. Name some of these expectations. How can I agree if I don't know what they are? No links, just tell me here.
 
dafydd said:
Old news is old news.
Click to expand...

Posting an 'expectation' in december 2012 based on a lunar impact probe entering lunar orbit and finfing another lunar impact probe entering lunar orbit on the anticipated future timeframe doesn't sound old new to me.

It had yet to occur back in 2012, materializing 9 months later, so what about old news? It's future 'news' :-)
 
dafydd said:
Your mathematical mistakes have been pointed out to you many times. Name some of these expectations. How can I agree if I don't know what they are? No links, just tell me here.
Click to expand...

Mathematical mistakes?
 
Dutch said:
Posting an 'expectation' in december 2012 based on a lunar impact probe entering lunar orbit and finfing another lunar impact probe entering lunar orbit on the anticipated future timeframe doesn't sound old new to me.

It had yet to occur back in 2012, materializing 9 months later, so what about old news? It's future 'news' :-)
Click to expand...

A lunar probe launched by NASA impacts the Moon? So what? And? Where did you expect it to impact? Mars?
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Your mathematical mistakes have been pointed out to you many times. Name some of these expectations. How can I agree if I don't know what they are? No links, just tell me here.
Click to expand...

let's start with the latest one, the 4 lunar impact probes. There are many more examples, even in this thread here at JREF, but because you seem to be short of memory and that you seem to dismiss all other examples of this very same Pi based Design that has been discussed here in this thread, we will focus on the latest one, right?
 
dafydd said:
A lunar probe launched by NASA impacts the Moon? So what? And?
Click to expand...

expressing the very same underlying Design with 3 other lunar impact probes as has been dismissed by you earlier. This time this very same underlying Design was expected and posted well in advance.

Respond based on facts please and with a bit of sincere intention
 
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