Water Droplets Theory

Don't mind him, he likes to make low-content posts like that.

I disagree. Gotham needs to be able to know when we have demonstrated that RE is wrong and FE is right.

Patrolling the grounds looking for FET Victory is time well spent so in cases like this one that are easy to spot and well deserved it does make us all winners.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 13, 2011, 01:00:16 PM

Don't mind him, he likes to make low-content posts like that.

I disagree. Gotham needs to be able to know when we have demonstrated that RE is wrong and FE is right.

What does water droplet theory have to do with the shape of the earth?

I think that the general tendency for proponents of FET to argue for almost anything (so long as a RET'er will argue against it) weakens their collective credibility, which is the last thing they ought to be doing. Of course, false proponents do it for that very reason, which muddles things.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 13, 2011, 04:23:57 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 13, 2011, 01:00:16 PM

Don't mind him, he likes to make low-content posts like that.

I disagree. Gotham needs to be able to know when we have demonstrated that RE is wrong and FE is right.

What does water droplet theory have to do with the shape of the earth?

If conventional math is wrong, what else they teach you is wrong?

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2011, 05:11:50 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 13, 2011, 04:23:57 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 13, 2011, 01:00:16 PM

Don't mind him, he likes to make low-content posts like that.

I disagree. Gotham needs to be able to know when we have demonstrated that RE is wrong and FE is right.

What does water droplet theory have to do with the shape of the earth?

If conventional math is wrong, what else they teach you is wrong?

The shape of the Earth.

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2011, 05:11:50 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 13, 2011, 04:23:57 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 13, 2011, 01:00:16 PM

Don't mind him, he likes to make low-content posts like that.

I disagree. Gotham needs to be able to know when we have demonstrated that RE is wrong and FE is right.

What does water droplet theory have to do with the shape of the earth?

If conventional math is wrong, what else they teach you is wrong?

What makes you believe that conventional math applies to raindrop theory?

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 13, 2011, 12:32:29 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on March 13, 2011, 07:12:41 AM

Congratulations, you've discovered that addition and division don't always apply to everything.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FLAT EARTH!!!

Wait... the fact that water combines when their surfaces touch and that math does not apply to everything under the sun is conclusive proof that the earth is flat?!?!?!?  Did I miss something?  I fail to see the connection.

I think what Thevoiceofreason is trying to say is that this raindrop example is not purely a mathematical concept and trying to express it as such is erroneous from the start.  But perhaps he can clarify as I don't want to speak for him.

eh close enough. The point is just because something is "combining", doesn't mean its addition in the traditional sense. Just like how matrix multiplication is nothing like regular multiplication, despite the fact that they're both referred to as multiplication

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

Thank goodness! I'm hoping other scientists have been busy discrediting lots of other sciences in the meantime because we're gonna need to get pretty choosey here. 

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

I'm sure that's why Einstein sought out and consulted with mathematicians to help derive formulas for his GR theories... because he thought mathematics was worthless... right...  sorry, not buying it.

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

Yeah I learned all my science from magazines and internet blogs too. There's a difference between discrediting and refining

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

I'm sure that's why Einstein sought out and consulted with mathematicians to help derive formulas for his GR theories... because he thought mathematics was worthless... right...  sorry, not buying it.

I never said that mathematics was worthless. 

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

Yeah I learned all my science from magazines and internet blogs too. There's a difference between discrediting and refining

That's precisely what I'm trying to do with water droplet theory too:

I'm not trying to disprove math here, I'm trying to show how elastic it can be.

Quote from: Oracle on March 15, 2011, 06:16:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

I'm sure that's why Einstein sought out and consulted with mathematicians to help derive formulas for his GR theories... because he thought mathematics was worthless... right...  sorry, not buying it.

I never said that mathematics was worthless. 

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on March 16, 2011, 04:05:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 14, 2011, 09:56:28 AM

Discrediting mathematics is certainly a bold step for FET. After arithmetic is taken care of they should probably go after basic geometry since that continues to be a major inconvenience.

Einstein certainly thought so.  Fortunately he and his peers already discredited basic geometry a century ago, so we don't have to worry about that one.

Yeah I learned all my science from magazines and internet blogs too. There's a difference between discrediting and refining

That's precisely what I'm trying to do with water droplet theory too:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2011, 08:35:23 PM

I'm not trying to disprove math here, I'm trying to show how elastic it can be.

So you're trying to teach people that you must apply math?
I have no idea what that has to do with Science in general, or why this needs to be done.

I don't get it...

Why do FE'ers try to reference Einstein so much... I mean according to FET, Einstein was off his rocker for thinking that planets revolved around the sun and even worse, proving that some of Newton's observations and calculations were off when taking a closer look at the orbital path of Mercury around the sun... which of course if preposterous fro a FE perspective.

Obviously, since Einstein is not a FER, he couldn't possibly be part of the only creditable (FE) scientific community (as recently stated by Crusty) since he was never, and would not ever have been, a member of the International Flat Earth Society.

If Mr. Einstein actually did have support for Newton then he more than likely would have eventually questioned those beliefs.

He is also on a list of scientists currently being researched but yet published that did have some FET leanings.  I think he would have been a member of TFES and would have taken FET more seriously than you think.

Could RE'ers please try not to use the terms 'maths', 'science' and 'logic' as though they are synonymous? Rolling your eyes all the time can get really painful.

Could FE'ers please stop using the term "scientists" as if they are them? Rolling your eyes all the time can be quite painful.

Could FE'ers please try not to use the terms 'dinosaur' and 'bird' as though they are synonymous? Yada, yada.

Could FE'ers please try not to use the terms 'dinosaur' and 'bird' as though they are synonymous? Yada, yada.

They may not be synonymous, but that doesn't change the fact that birds are dinosaurs. After all monkeys are primates, but that doesn't make the two words synonymous.

Could FE'ers please try not to use the terms 'dinosaur' and 'bird' as though they are synonymous? Yada, yada.

I guess birds are "modern day avian dinosaurs".

So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?

So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?

Humans are primates actually.

Quote from: Around And About on March 16, 2011, 09:44:18 PM

So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?

Humans are primates actually.

This. And accordingly, birds are dinosaurs. A simple Google search will bring you to plenty of resources which show that this is the consensus view.

Quote from: sillyrob on March 16, 2011, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 16, 2011, 09:44:18 PM

So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?

Humans are primates actually.

This. And accordingly, birds are dinosaurs. A simple Google search will bring you to plenty of resources which show that this is the consensus view.

This, however, is not true. A quick Google search will bring you to plenty of sites telling you different things. It's either birds are dinosaurs or birds evolved from dinosaurs. Then a couple of hardcore Christian sites telling you all of that is crap.

Quote from: sillyrob on March 16, 2011, 09:49:19 PM

Quote from: Around And About on March 16, 2011, 09:44:18 PM

So, is it fair to say that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, according to you? And humans are a subset of primates?

Humans are primates actually.

This. And accordingly, birds are dinosaurs. A simple Google search will bring you to plenty of resources which show that this is the consensus view.

Ya, in the same way that humans are really just modern day shrews.

And so, I hope that that answers your question, OP. 

The bottom line is (yes I'm still a noob on this site but I'm saying it) conventional math has nothing to do with raindrops, just as raindrops have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop is still two raindrops, however they appear as one. You could then take those two raindrops combined and separate them into 50 smaller raindrops, or 100 smaller raindrops, or if you had the proper instruments you could separate them into each individual water molecule. Then you have 0 raindrops.

Furthermore, if one has two magnets and they are attracted to each other (as magnets tend to be) do you still have two magnets when they are touching? Or do you just have one magnet because it "appears" that way?

Say what you will.

What does stand and is undeniable, is, in certain situations 1 and 1 is 1

This is not about the semantics of mathematical ideas,

it is, about the validity of such models.