The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: bullhorn on April 21, 2010, 04:14:31 PM

Title: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: bullhorn on April 21, 2010, 04:14:31 PM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: frozen_berries on April 21, 2010, 05:27:08 PM
Basically the earth is flat because, one (1) raindrop + one (1) raindrop = one (1) raindrop

This all makes sense now. I understand. Thank you.

. + . = o
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2010, 05:51:07 PM
1 gallon of water + 1 gallon of water = 2 gallons of water.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Death-T on April 21, 2010, 06:05:00 PM
I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

1 milliliter of H2O + 1 milliliter of H2O = 2 milliliter of H2O

The fact this entire.... article is based of a extremely poor argument concerning semantics does little to sway my view. In fact.... it has fulfilled my lulz for the day and has added a -1 on the board of human development.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 21, 2010, 06:05:43 PM
I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

1 milliliter of H2O + 1 milliliter of H2O = 2 milliter of H2O
Oh Dear.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Vongeo on April 21, 2010, 06:40:20 PM
I would of perhaps used a different example of real world science.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: EireEngineer on April 21, 2010, 08:10:06 PM
I do love these "All Science is BS" postings that the conspiracy theory types periodically post. Then you ask them how transistors and internal combustion engines etc. could possibly have been developed without the underlying fundamentals being understood. Thanks to science and mathematics I might add.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on April 21, 2010, 10:13:23 PM
I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

1 milliliter of H2O + 1 milliliter of H2O = 2 milliter of H2O

The fact this entire.... article is based of a extremely poor argument concerning semantics does little to sway my view. In fact.... it has fulfilled my lulz for the day and has added a -1 on the board of human development.

You are displaying an awful intellectual laziness by dismissing the amalgamation of raindrops by simple addition, you have missed the point completely, you are still working within the globularist-philosopher paradigm. The operation which my esteemed colleague is referring to is not addition, it is a manner of idempotence, such that 1 + 1 = 1. Your attempt to misappropriate this principle into the language of arithmetic is very misguided.

When we say that 1 + 1 = 1, we are not talking about numerical oneness (which seems to be what you are doing!), and we are not talking about the concept of unity - but rather a kind of radical immanence, such as is given by our signification of raindrops. If you were to add the One of one raindrop to the One of another raindrop, you would be left with a kind of overflowing or an abundance of One-ness - in a sort of UNI-lateral DUAL-ysis, you would be left with more or less the same symbols and terms. And so One and One is One.

I'm not sure how good your French is, but the great iconoclast Fran?ois Laruelle has written extensively on this subject.

Quote from: Fran?ois Laruelle
L'addition idempotente 1+1=1, le propre de l'immanence qui ne change pas, modifie ou ? transforme ? la transcendance qu'elle re?oit et dont elle a besoin pour passer d'idempotente ? g?n?rique et devenir 1+1=11/2.
Full article available here: http://www.onphi.net/lettre-laruelle-enfin-le-fondement-generique-d-une-science-de-la-philosophie-21.html

You should be careful before criticising things which you don't yet properly understand.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: flyingmonkey on April 22, 2010, 04:38:45 AM
But that's wrong, how can 2 individual raindrops at any one point in time also be 1 single raindrop.

You are looking at these raindrops at different periods of time, which invalidates the first observation.


1+1=2 is the first observation of the raindrops, then:

1 is the second observation.

You cannot compare the 2 observations as a single observation.


That's like saying, these 2 monkeys over here, 1+1 = 2, but after a few weeks of breeding 1+1 = 10.

You have to take into account what happens, in this case, the 2 raindrops combined into a single, but their masses combined together which still makes them the same size.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on April 22, 2010, 05:20:35 AM
But that's wrong, how can 2 individual raindrops at any one point in time also be 1 single raindrop.

You are looking at these raindrops at different periods of time, which invalidates the first observation.


1+1=2 is the first observation of the raindrops, then:

1 is the second observation.

You cannot compare the 2 observations as a single observation.


That's like saying, these 2 monkeys over here, 1+1 = 2, but after a few weeks of breeding 1+1 = 10.

You have to take into account what happens, in this case, the 2 raindrops combined into a single, but their masses combined together which still makes them the same size.

Why should we consider combination of this kind as accurately modelled by arithmetical addition? As I've explained perfectly clearly, the One-ness of a raindrop is a kind of radical immanence, so that if you combine One and One you simply have an overflowing One-ness. This is the relationship of idemopotence. So it is with many other Ones.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: flyingmonkey on April 22, 2010, 05:36:35 AM
The fact that if you are making 2 completely different observations at 2 different periods of time, that is 2 completely different models.

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, but if we were to blend them together, does that make it 1 mushed apple again?

Different points = different maths.

Here:

1 + x = 2   x=1 in this

1 + x = 5   x=4 in this

How can x have 2 different values? Because they are 2 completely different equations.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on April 22, 2010, 06:05:42 AM
The fact that if you are making 2 completely different observations at 2 different periods of time, that is 2 completely different models.

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, but if we were to blend them together, does that make it 1 mushed apple again?

If you put the apple blend in a bowl an eggcup for example would the eggcup overflow with One kind of apple? Wouldn't you say that One apple plus One apple Equals overflowing of radical immanence (i.e. overflowing of One apple)?

It seems that you are working from within the confines of classical arithmetic. Don't you see that we have transcended such oversimplifications at this point? You must try and remove your preconceptions about numeracy, which have only been taught to you from a very young age, and see things as they actually are. We have entered the mathematics of idempotence.

Different points = different maths.

Here:

1 + x = 2   x=1 in this

1 + x = 5   x=4 in this

How can x have 2 different values? Because they are 2 completely different equations.

Now hold on, because in your second equation you seem to be telling me that I + X = 5 when in fact it is more like IX. 4 is not the answer, it seems to be your margin of error. Of course the Romans reversed their calculations, so I + X = XI. We have a similar process by which 1 + 1 = 11 (XI is the Roman for the number 11). That is your first equation! So you see that in reality they are exactly the same equation.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: frozen_berries on April 22, 2010, 06:31:57 AM
Quote
For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.

For example if we have one raindrop and we take another raindrop and put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many raindrops we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one raindrop beside the other raindrop, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 raindrops present.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on April 22, 2010, 06:35:26 AM
Quote
For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.

For example if we have one raindrop and we take another raindrop and put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many raindrops we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one raindrop beside the other raindrop, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 raindrops present.

If the raindrops had combined, most of the 100 educated people would say there was one raindrop.

However, our science must be based on true beliefs, not on popular opinion. A million people could say there were two raindrops and be wrong.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: frozen_berries on April 22, 2010, 06:41:12 AM
Quote
For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.

For example if we have one raindrop and we take another raindrop and put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many raindrops we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one raindrop beside the other raindrop, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 raindrops present.

If the raindrops had combined, most of the 100 educated people would say there was one raindrop.

However, our science must be based on true beliefs, not on popular opinion. A million people could say there were two raindrops and be wrong.

If the apples had combined, most of the 100 educated people would say there was one apple.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Rob Valensky on April 22, 2010, 06:48:05 AM
All your posts are irrelevant to RET/FET debate. This thread should be locked/removed.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: frozen_berries on April 22, 2010, 06:53:32 AM
All your posts are irrelevant to RET/FET debate. This thread should be locked/removed.

Agreed. This is all they have left to argue with.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 22, 2010, 07:24:00 AM
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 22, 2010, 07:29:15 AM
I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

1 milliliter of H2O + 1 milliliter of H2O = 2 milliter of H2O

The fact this entire.... article is based of a extremely poor argument concerning semantics does little to sway my view. In fact.... it has fulfilled my lulz for the day and has added a -1 on the board of human development.

You are displaying an awful intellectual laziness by dismissing the amalgamation of raindrops by simple addition, you have missed the point completely, you are still working within the globularist-philosopher paradigm. The operation which my esteemed colleague is referring to is not addition, it is a manner of idempotence, such that 1 + 1 = 1. Your attempt to misappropriate this principle into the language of arithmetic is very misguided.

When we say that 1 + 1 = 1, we are not talking about numerical oneness (which seems to be what you are doing!), and we are not talking about the concept of unity - but rather a kind of radical immanence, such as is given by our signification of raindrops. If you were to add the One of one raindrop to the One of another raindrop, you would be left with a kind of overflowing or an abundance of One-ness - in a sort of UNI-lateral DUAL-ysis, you would be left with more or less the same symbols and terms. And so One and One is One.

I'm not sure how good your French is, but the great iconoclast Fran?ois Laruelle has written extensively on this subject.

Quote from: Fran?ois Laruelle
L'addition idempotente 1+1=1, le propre de l'immanence qui ne change pas, modifie ou ? transforme ? la transcendance qu'elle re?oit et dont elle a besoin pour passer d'idempotente ? g?n?rique et devenir 1+1=11/2.
Full article available here: http://www.onphi.net/lettre-laruelle-enfin-le-fondement-generique-d-une-science-de-la-philosophie-21.html

You should be careful before criticising things which you don't yet properly understand.

James, speaking of not understanding, perhaps you or Bullhorn could explain how idempotence precludes the earth being round.  I seem to have missed that connection.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: dude55 on April 22, 2010, 08:12:44 AM
I think I lost IQ reading that. :|
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 22, 2010, 09:31:19 AM
I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

1 milliliter of H2O + 1 milliliter of H2O = 2 milliter of H2O

The fact this entire.... article is based of a extremely poor argument concerning semantics does little to sway my view. In fact.... it has fulfilled my lulz for the day and has added a -1 on the board of human development.

You are displaying an awful intellectual laziness by dismissing the amalgamation of raindrops by simple addition, you have missed the point completely, you are still working within the globularist-philosopher paradigm. The operation which my esteemed colleague is referring to is not addition, it is a manner of idempotence, such that 1 + 1 = 1. Your attempt to misappropriate this principle into the language of arithmetic is very misguided.

When we say that 1 + 1 = 1, we are not talking about numerical oneness (which seems to be what you are doing!), and we are not talking about the concept of unity - but rather a kind of radical immanence, such as is given by our signification of raindrops. If you were to add the One of one raindrop to the One of another raindrop, you would be left with a kind of overflowing or an abundance of One-ness - in a sort of UNI-lateral DUAL-ysis, you would be left with more or less the same symbols and terms. And so One and One is One.

I'm not sure how good your French is, but the great iconoclast Fran?ois Laruelle has written extensively on this subject.

Quote from: Fran?ois Laruelle
L'addition idempotente 1+1=1, le propre de l'immanence qui ne change pas, modifie ou ? transforme ? la transcendance qu'elle re?oit et dont elle a besoin pour passer d'idempotente ? g?n?rique et devenir 1+1=11/2.
Full article available here: http://www.onphi.net/lettre-laruelle-enfin-le-fondement-generique-d-une-science-de-la-philosophie-21.html

You should be careful before criticising things which you don't yet properly understand.

James, speaking of not understanding, perhaps you or Bullhorn could explain how idempotence precludes the earth being round.  I seem to have missed that connection.
And I would sure like to see the relationship between immanence, (or radical immanence if you prefer) with the shape of the Earth. Please find for us the definition of immanence that is not referred to theology, which must exist but I could not find. Or, maybe the FES is shifting from atheism to theism?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 09:33:48 AM
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 22, 2010, 09:46:35 AM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 22, 2010, 09:49:12 AM
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.
And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

You can say science is an offshoot of philosophy, just as chemistry is an offshoot of alchemy. Having a common origin does not mean anything. The target of philosophy and the target of science are clear and almost distinct, with just a very small intersection.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thermal Detonator on April 22, 2010, 11:09:31 AM
This thread is irrrelevant to its own title and therefore constitutes mass low content. Moderators, take heed.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 11:35:06 AM
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.
And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

You can say science is an offshoot of philosophy, just as chemistry is an offshoot of alchemy. Having a common origin does not mean anything. The target of philosophy and the target of science are clear and almost distinct, with just a very small intersection.

Empiricism, realism, instrumentalism, epistlemology, how we should interpret data and analyze it, Ockham's razor, reductionism, induction, the methodology, assumptions and implications of science is all philosophy and is what constitutes science as what it is.  At every single point there is a philosophical choice that has been made already.  Be careful to realize them and not take them for granted.  Ignoring that they do both have the same "targets" or aims.  There is a paradigm behind and driving science, and this paradigm is philosophical.

As you say their interests intersect.  This is because it is science is a subset of Philosophy.    Squares are rectangles because they share traits with rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.  All science is philosopy, but not all philosophy is science.

Math is a formal science.  Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?

There are several hundred (if not thousand) books on this.  

Heidegger is a good starting point.  Read a few of his books.  A memorable quote off the top of my head is "science is philosophy, whether it knows and wills it- or not."  

A source I could dig up online with minimal effort: Fuller, "Insight into value"  - "Ever science is a philosophy, resting on basic presppositions."

Another: "Science is philosophy applied to a particular problem ; philosophy is science
made universal and complete" Methods of knowledge: an essay in epistemology‎ , Walter Smith

So no.  You don't have to take my word for it.  If one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.


This thread is irrrelevant to its own title and therefore constitutes mass low content. Moderators, take heed.
You have been warned and banned about this in the past.   Are you really this thick?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 11:36:00 AM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: flyingmonkey on April 22, 2010, 01:32:49 PM
Different points = different maths.

Here:

1 + x = 2   x=1 in this

1 + x = 5   x=4 in this

How can x have 2 different values? Because they are 2 completely different equations.

Now hold on, because in your second equation you seem to be telling me that I + X = 5 when in fact it is more like IX. 4 is not the answer, it seems to be your margin of error. Of course the Romans reversed their calculations, so I + X = XI. We have a similar process by which 1 + 1 = 11 (XI is the Roman for the number 11). That is your first equation! So you see that in reality they are exactly the same equation.




Protip: Learn what Algebra is.

That's all I have to say, glad you could make a fool of yourself thinking you could be funny with Roman numerals.



The entire argument is ridiculous, it's is why we measure volume.

1 cup of water + 1 cup of water = 2 cups of water, yet they can be placed in one cup of water still, it's just a bigger cup though.

All you are doing is taking this down to a very small scale and measuring raindrops instead.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Vongeo on April 22, 2010, 01:43:26 PM
This thread is irrrelevant to its own title and therefore constitutes mass low content. Moderators, take heed.
No its quite relevant, because if they prove the point of whatever, they are trying to prove it will prove the other point.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: corleone on April 22, 2010, 02:57:50 PM
This is all about semantics. The meaning of 1+1=2 is the same here and at alpha centauri. "Raindrop" only means something here, inside the human mind. Maths are just perfect. Semantics and language not. We can trust 100% maths as long as we keep it far from philosophy, semantics and subjectiveness. This is pointless. The OP is just a misunderstanding of maths. Don't mix it with semantics. The concept of "raindrop" has nothing to see with maths.

(sorry about my english)
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 03:09:06 PM
This is all about semantics. The meaning of 1+1=2 is the same here and at alpha centauri. "Raindrop" only means something here, inside the human mind. Maths are just perfect. Semantics and language not. We can trust 100% maths as long as we keep it far from philosophy, semantics and subjectiveness. This is pointless. The OP is just a misunderstanding of maths. Don't mix it with semantics. The concept of "raindrop" has nothing to see with maths.

(sorry about my english)
As I pointed out, Math is a subset of philosophy.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: EireEngineer on April 22, 2010, 03:39:46 PM
Except that math can be proven, whereas most of "philosophy" cannot, and requires a tremendous amount of faith.

As for the raindrop twits, if you have one raindrop of 1uL merge with another raindrop of 1uL guess what....you have a single drop with a volume of 2 uL, not an "overflow of oneness" or whatever silly term you want to call it.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 03:50:20 PM
Except that math can be proven, whereas most of "philosophy" cannot, and requires a tremendous amount of faith.
Math is self-contained though.  One could say math is 100% faith as it does not necessarily (only coincidently) have any relation to reality.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 03:55:42 PM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 22, 2010, 04:08:15 PM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 04:15:51 PM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 22, 2010, 04:51:45 PM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
That no one has yet shown how math precludes the earth from being round (the initial premise of this thread).
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 06:40:01 PM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
That no one has yet shown how math precludes the earth from being round (the initial premise of this thread).
Boolean algebra has two values.  You can use the same methods for them.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 22, 2010, 07:11:41 PM
Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.
Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.
Btw,
Hartry Field Science Without Numbers
There's more to math than just numbers.  Ever heard of boolean algebra?
Yes, whats your point?
That no one has yet shown how math precludes the earth from being round (the initial premise of this thread).
Boolean algebra has two values.  You can use the same methods for them.
And that has exactly what to do with the shape of the earth?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 22, 2010, 07:28:58 PM
I guess no one has bothered to point out that the raindrops come together because of cohesive forces?  Apples do not have cohesive force.  Just an observation.

I guess you are right though.  The fact that two different moments in time could have two raindrops or one raindrop means the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 07:38:19 PM
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path. 
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 22, 2010, 07:42:55 PM
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  

You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.  Therefore, I again say:

The Earth must be flat because at one point in time there were two drops and then at another point in time there was one.

Hur dur dur.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 22, 2010, 07:46:34 PM
The grand citadel of the mind, is thrust down below the pain of debate.  For is it not the way of the mind to require sleep.  We live to be but seventy-five, but live less twenty-five.  Where has the though but to vanish in ones dreams. To what use does it use. To what force drains the bastion of the thought.

Oh, great. Thread derailed.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 10:52:19 PM


You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.  Therefore, I again say:

The Earth must be flat because at one point in time there were two drops and then at another point in time there was one.

Hur dur dur.

 It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 22, 2010, 11:05:25 PM
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.
And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

You can say science is an offshoot of philosophy, just as chemistry is an offshoot of alchemy. Having a common origin does not mean anything. The target of philosophy and the target of science are clear and almost distinct, with just a very small intersection.

Empiricism, realism, instrumentalism, epistlemology, how we should interpret data and analyze it, Ockham's razor, reductionism, induction, the methodology, assumptions and implications of science is all philosophy and is what constitutes science as what it is.  At every single point there is a philosophical choice that has been made already.  Be careful to realize them and not take them for granted.  Ignoring that they do both have the same "targets" or aims.  There is a paradigm behind and driving science, and this paradigm is philosophical.

As you say their interests intersect.  This is because it is science is a subset of Philosophy.    Squares are rectangles because they share traits with rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.  All science is philosopy, but not all philosophy is science.

Math is a formal science.  Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?

There are several hundred (if not thousand) books on this.  

Heidegger is a good starting point.  Read a few of his books.  A memorable quote off the top of my head is "science is philosophy, whether it knows and wills it- or not."  

A source I could dig up online with minimal effort: Fuller, "Insight into value"  - "Ever science is a philosophy, resting on basic presppositions."

Another: "Science is philosophy applied to a particular problem ; philosophy is science
made universal and complete" Methods of knowledge: an essay in epistemology? , Walter Smith

So no.  You don't have to take my word for it.  If one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

Philosophers have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines, and try to find the philosophical relevance of science. But most scientists haven't even heard about realism, instrumentalism, epistemology, oneness, immanence, and have only a cursory knowledge that empiricism has to do with the Scientific Method. And guess what? Science has not slowed down because of it.

Lots of knowledge started being theological, then became philosophical and finally ended up being studied by science, just as some knowledge started being alchemy and ended being studied by chemistry. That does not mean that all of science is a part of philosophy, as you try to claim.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 02:18:04 AM
What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

Philosophical concepts like "oneness" have no place in either science or mathematics.
The abstract concept of number, used in maths' Group Theory, has no direct relationship with the apples used to explain to a child the equation 1+1=2, and therefore has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of "when an apple ceases to be an apple", or in this case, "when a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop".
The concept of experimental error has no place in either philosophy or maths.
The concept of truth is clearly defined in maths, heavily studied in philosophy and totally irrelevant and extraneous to science.

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.
Science is a philosophy.
And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

You can say science is an offshoot of philosophy, just as chemistry is an offshoot of alchemy. Having a common origin does not mean anything. The target of philosophy and the target of science are clear and almost distinct, with just a very small intersection.

Empiricism, realism, instrumentalism, epistlemology, how we should interpret data and analyze it, Ockham's razor, reductionism, induction, the methodology, assumptions and implications of science is all philosophy and is what constitutes science as what it is.  At every single point there is a philosophical choice that has been made already.  Be careful to realize them and not take them for granted.  Ignoring that they do both have the same "targets" or aims.  There is a paradigm behind and driving science, and this paradigm is philosophical.

As you say their interests intersect.  This is because it is science is a subset of Philosophy.    Squares are rectangles because they share traits with rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.  All science is philosopy, but not all philosophy is science.

Math is a formal science.  Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?

There are several hundred (if not thousand) books on this.  

Heidegger is a good starting point.  Read a few of his books.  A memorable quote off the top of my head is "science is philosophy, whether it knows and wills it- or not."  

A source I could dig up online with minimal effort: Fuller, "Insight into value"  - "Ever science is a philosophy, resting on basic presppositions."

Another: "Science is philosophy applied to a particular problem ; philosophy is science
made universal and complete" Methods of knowledge: an essay in epistemology? , Walter Smith

So no.  You don't have to take my word for it.  If one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

Philosophers have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines, and try to find the philosophical relevance of science. But most scientists haven't even heard about realism, instrumentalism, epistemology, oneness, immanence, and have only a cursory knowledge that empiricism has to do with the Scientific Method. And guess what? Science has not slowed down because of it.

Lots of knowledge started being theological, then became philosophical and finally ended up being studied by science, just as some knowledge started being alchemy and ended being studied by chemistry. That does not mean that all of science is a part of philosophy, as you try to claim.
Feynman says nothing in that quote of the validity of the philosophy of science.  He talks of its use to scientists.  And you couldn't get a more self admitted biased source against philosophy.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein

"When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." Einstein

And then, of course theres Newton too. And Bohr.  And any number of other scientists that have made far greater contributions than Feynman.  Perhaps you meant "Scientists have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines."  Also, are we to take you at your word that "Science has not slowed down because of it", a seemingly unsupported idea that came to you at a whim?

What most scientists have heard about is irrelevant.   Whether they know about what makes up their philosophical belief system or not has no relevance on whether they are using said belief system.  The usefulness of the study of this belief system is also completely irrelevant. So, Ok, Most scientists are ignorant; fine.  The study of the belief system they hold is perhaps less useful to them.   However, before every experiment, hypothesis, during said experiment, and after scientists make philosophical decisions (whether ignorant of them or not.)  A scientist cannot practice science without philosophy at every single turn.  Like I said, if one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.  I imagine the majority of scientists, if I take you at your word, are in the first two categories.


Also, its not a matter of the roots of science, its a matter of what the aims of science are and what science is at the heart.  These aims fall under philosophy.

Let me ask you, at what point (since you claim it came from philosophy) did science stop being a subset of philosophy, and why?  

Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?


Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Xenu on April 23, 2010, 02:39:50 AM
This thread is great. If two raindrops touch each other, they will become one raindrop. Therefore, the Earth is flat. There's no problem with maths here, only with logic.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 23, 2010, 04:32:32 AM
 It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  

That's what you'll get in response.  However, I still see the title of the thread indicating that there is no way for a round Earth.  This is followed by an explanation of 2 drops vs. 1 drop.

Therefore, raindrops and math at two different points in time yield a flat Earth (since this is a flat Earth site).
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:31:32 AM
Anyone who practises science without an understanding of its epistemological stance inhabits a terrible irony, whereby they seek knowledge by questioning everything except how or why they are seeking it. Such a mindset is typical of modern scientists, who place a totally unjustified faith in the notion of progress, assuming that science is a linear progression, and that technological advancement and human advancement are essentially indistinguishable.


Science is inherently philosophical, being no more than a particularly successful form of epistemology. The fact that most scientists are unaware of this is not a proof against that statement, but rather a criticism of modern science. A cursory glance over the 19th and 20th centuries is enough to prove that the notion of 'scientfic advancement' is utterly bankrupt and totally without meaning. Science needs to return to its philosophical routes, because if the purpose of science is to serve humanity, then the last hundred years or so clearly demonstrate that not all that has been dubbed 'science' has served that purpose.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 23, 2010, 06:32:43 AM
Feynman says nothing in that quote of the validity of the philosophy of science.  He talks of its use to scientists.  And you couldn't get a more self admitted biased source against philosophy.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein

"When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." Einstein

And then, of course theres Newton too. And Bohr.  And any number of other scientists that have made far greater contributions than Feynman.  Perhaps you meant "Scientists have indeed tried to find the relationship between the two disciplines."  Also, are we to take you at your word that "Science has not slowed down because of it", a seemingly unsupported idea that came to you at a whim?

What most scientists have heard about is irrelevant.   Whether they know about what makes up their philosophical belief system or not has no relevance on whether they are using said belief system.  The usefulness of the study of this belief system is also completely irrelevant. So, Ok, Most scientists are ignorant; fine.  The study of the belief system they hold is perhaps less useful to them.   However, before every experiment, hypothesis, during said experiment, and after scientists make philosophical decisions (whether ignorant of them or not.)  A scientist cannot practice science without philosophy at every single turn.  Like I said, if one doesn't think science is a philosophy then one either doesn't know what science is, one doesn't know what philosophy is, or one is too arrogant to admit either.  I imagine the majority of scientists, if I take you at your word, are in the first two categories.


Also, its not a matter of the roots of science, its a matter of what the aims of science are and what science is at the heart.  These aims fall under philosophy.

Let me ask you, at what point (since you claim it came from philosophy) did science stop being a subset of philosophy, and why?  

Should I take it you disagree that Math is a science or that you agree that it is in the realm of philosophy?
Just show me even one recent and important scientific discovery where a philosophical argument other than the Scientific Method was instrumental.

Until sometime around the 19th century some philosophical and/or religious precepts were intermixed with science, so results that favored a philosophical or religious view were preferred.

I also would like to know about any universities that have a required course on philosophy or philosophy of science on any science, maths or engineering curriculum. I suspect they are not many.

So, your question has a simple answer: the relationship between science and philosophy pretty much ended when the Scientific Model was defined and philosophy has not given any more practical answers to science. When a scientist is looking for an answer he is not thinking epistemology, oneness or immanence, he is thinking on models, experiments, observations and theories.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:54:25 AM
I also would like to know about any universities that have a required course on philosophy or philosophy of science on any science, maths or engineering curriculum. I suspect they are not many.


Science is inherently philosophical, being no more than a particularly successful form of epistemology. The fact that most scientists are unaware of this is not a proof against that statement, but rather a criticism of modern science.


So, your question has a simple answer: the relationship between science and philosophy pretty much ended when the Scientific Model was defined and philosophy has not given any more practical answers to science. When a scientist is looking for an answer he is not thinking epistemology, oneness or immanence, he is thinking on models, experiments, observations and theories.


And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 23, 2010, 08:00:54 AM
At the risk of membrating, isn't it amazing how even the mods refuse to stay on topic?  I've asked several times already why math precludes the earth from being round (the premise of the OP), yet all I see from them is an irrelevant philosophical debate.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 23, 2010, 08:39:31 AM
At the risk of membrating, isn't it amazing how even the mods refuse to stay on topic?  I've asked several times already why math precludes the earth from being round (the premise of the OP), yet all I see from them is an irrelevant philosophical debate.

Agreed. Philosophy is all they can argue because they've never taken a scientific approach to proving that the Earth is flat.  They just think of ideas and add them to the wiki without ever testing their theories.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 23, 2010, 11:05:17 AM
I agree also. The very idea of extending "one raindrop plus one raindrop equals one raindrop" into an argument about the shape of the Earth is so futile that there is really no argument at all, for anything.

We can only say that the person that says "1+1=2" and does not understand the context in which he says it is just defiantly ignorant.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 23, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: 004forever on April 23, 2010, 12:48:58 PM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 


You completely fail. 

First of all, even if you prove that the entirety of mathematics is false, that still has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.  The shape of the Earth is constant regardless of mathematics. 

Second, and most importantly, your observation about math is false mostly in your observation and perception.  1+1 = 2, always.  This is never not true.  Your example incorrectly interprets a real world phenomenon. Yes, adding two rain drops together will make one rain drop.  One double sized rain drop.  In this case drop+drop=2drop.  consider it from a molecular level.  Say there are 100 molecules in the two drops involved.  Adding them together makes a rain drop with 200 molecules.  1+1=2 remain true.  Even if you don't believe mathematics is always true, how do you explain that buildings fucking stand up? 

Your post is an addresses Godel's Incompleteness theorem.  The idea that nothing can be completely proven with absolute certainty.  While it's an important thing to keep in mind, it doesn't completely invalidate science.  Not by a long shot.  While nothing can be proven 100% true, we can prove things that are in all likelihood true.  For example, I cannot completely prove that you exist.  Sure, I'm responding to something you've said, and I can probably talk to your friends and family and they will tell me they exist.  But, there is still the remote possiblity that we are all hallucinating or there has been some grand conspiracy to cover up your lack of existence.  While these a certainly possible, it's very unlikely that these situations are true.  Therefore, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that you exist. 
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 02:55:46 PM

Quote
Second, and most importantly, your observation about math is false mostly in your observation and perception.  1+1 = 2, always.  This is never not true.  Your example incorrectly interprets a real world phenomenon. Yes, adding two rain drops together will make one rain drop.  One double sized rain drop.  In this case drop+drop=2drop.  consider it from a molecular level.  Say there are 100 molecules in the two drops involved.  Adding them together makes a rain drop with 200 molecules.  1+1=2 remain true.  Even if you don't believe mathematics is always true, how do you explain that buildings fucking stand up?  
No, there are any number of systems in which 1+1 != 2.  For example, when adding 1 is an identity.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 23, 2010, 03:09:17 PM

Quote
Second, and most importantly, your observation about math is false mostly in your observation and perception.  1+1 = 2, always.  This is never not true.  Your example incorrectly interprets a real world phenomenon. Yes, adding two rain drops together will make one rain drop.  One double sized rain drop.  In this case drop+drop=2drop.  consider it from a molecular level.  Say there are 100 molecules in the two drops involved.  Adding them together makes a rain drop with 200 molecules.  1+1=2 remain true.  Even if you don't believe mathematics is always true, how do you explain that buildings fucking stand up? 
No, there are any number of systems in which 1+1 != 2.  For example, when adding 1 is an identity.
Or in binary math.  Unfortunately none of this has anything at all with the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 03:45:39 PM
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  
The search for knowledge, especially outside or beyond of what is taught, is the first step to seeing the truth of the Earth - or really anything.  I myself first came to be a flatty through a mystical experience, something that at first I was very at odds with.

The topic of the post isn't always the subject.

If we question what is taught, then this leads to greater understanding of the faults that lead to issues in so called "Science."  Thats what I took most out of his post.

Obviously there is no proof in it of a flat or round earth, but it starts us on a path.   We must question the foundations of Science.  Sure, so far its a useful tool, but that could be happenstance, and there is nothing to suggest there is no greater tool that would arise form counter-intuitive methodologies or beliefs.

Thats what I take from the OP, though obviously he takes it further, supposedly with reasons we are yet to know.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 03:49:48 PM
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.
I disagree, but obviously we won't reach anything from continuing this.  You seem to admit that science is philosophy, but have some irrational hatred towards it being called philosophy.

If you'd like an example of a modern day advance in science due to philosophy beyond the scientific method look into the first hand account of the origin of the double helix.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 03:54:07 PM
You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.
I don't see how you can make that assumption.  The topic of this forum hardly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lorddave on April 23, 2010, 03:54:56 PM
You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.
I don't see how you can make that assumption.  The topic of this forum hardly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

It does for the people here.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 03:58:22 PM
You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.
I don't see how you can make that assumption.  The topic of this forum hardly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

It does for the people here.
While that may have been what the OP believes, it certainly wasn't the argument (if it can be called that) that he made. 
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Rob Valensky on April 23, 2010, 04:02:18 PM
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  
The search for knowledge, especially outside or beyond of what is taught, is the first step to seeing the truth of the Earth - or really anything.  I myself first came to be a flatty through a mystical experience, something that at first I was very at odds with.

The topic of the post isn't always the subject.

If we question what is taught, then this leads to greater understanding of the faults that lead to issues in so called "Science."  Thats what I took most out of his post.

Obviously there is no proof in it of a flat or round earth, but it starts us on a path.   We must question the foundations of Science.  Sure, so far its a useful tool, but that could be happenstance, and there is nothing to suggest there is no greater tool that would arise form counter-intuitive methodologies or beliefs.

Thats what I take from the OP, though obviously he takes it further, supposedly with reasons we are yet to know.

I have said this before, but I will repeat it again.

Many of us are skeptics (in general). But skepticism is not disbelief of everything until you obtain absolute proof. There are scales of certainty and granting "acceptance" of theories (scientific theories being the explanatory models that a consensus of the world's experts agree best fit the experimental evidence...and knowing that theories will continue to be tested and refined). Skepticism is a weighing the available evidence (critical thinking) and putting your best foot forward. However, with hyper-skepticism, you'll be stuck forever on the question of whether reality exists or not.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 04:20:21 PM
I have said this before, but I will repeat it again.

Many of us are skeptics (in general). But skepticism is not disbelief of everything until you obtain absolute proof. There are scales of certainty and granting "acceptance" of theories (scientific theories being the explanatory models that a consensus of the world's experts agree best fit the experimental evidence...and knowing that theories will continue to be tested and refined). Skepticism is a weighing the available evidence (critical thinking) and putting your best foot forward. However, with hyper-skepticism, you'll be stuck forever on the question of whether reality exists or not.


Of course.  I never said otherwise.  I widely hold that there is no such thing as "proof" in relation to reality.

However, I will point out there is also blindly following a belief system with no skepticism or mind to why the results matter, how they matter, or the basis of their validity etc.  

Even if said belief is a useful tool, one should know why and how to use it properly.  This blind faith may be fine for those "scientists" (if they can be called that!) that are simply following a trade rather than following a search, but for those who know that science is the pursuit of knowledge in the face of both ignorance and the so-called experts a simple peasant life should not suffice.  Even worse, those that do Search are at a handicap due to the barrage of the proclaimed truths.

Science is a search for truth, be it only physical.  To ignore this is folly.  
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 23, 2010, 04:57:09 PM
However, I will point out there is also blindly following a belief system with no skepticism or mind to why the results matter, how they matter, or the basis of their validity etc. 

I agree that there is such a thing as healthy skepticism, but how much skepticism is too much skepticism?  At what point does skepticism become an irrational refusal to even consider the evidence?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:03:17 PM
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.


If "whether it really is untestable" is a relevant issue, then you're still in the realm of philosophy. The only reason that discussion is happening is because of the empirical nature of science. If science and the scientific method were not based on certain philosophical principles, there would be no need for debate in the first place.


For example, if all the scientific method demanded were that a theory be internally consistent, theories like sting theory would be accepted as scientific, no questions asked. However, because of the scientific method's epistemological emphasis on empirical data, these theories are not accepted by everyone as scientific. The debate arises out of the philosophical nature of science and the scientific method, not because having left the realm of science, we then enter the realm of philosophy. If science were not underpinned by philosophical principles, no debate would occur at all.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 23, 2010, 08:11:05 PM
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.


If "whether it really is untestable" is a relevant issue, then you're still in the realm of philosophy. The only reason that discussion is happening is because of the empirical nature of science. If science and the scientific method were not based on certain philosophical principles, there would be no need for debate in the first place.


For example, if all the scientific method demanded were that a theory be internally consistent, theories like sting theory would be accepted as scientific, no questions asked. However, because of the scientific method's epistemological emphasis on empirical data, these theories are not accepted by everyone as scientific. The debate arises out of the philosophical nature of science and the scientific method, not because having left the realm of science, we then enter the realm of philosophy. If science were not underpinned by philosophical principles, no debate would occur at all.
The question of whether a theory is testable or not is one of mathematics, not philosophy. Since you are by far too poorly prepared to understand String Theory, lets take a simpler example: suppose there are subatomic particles with mass that have a speed of 2c. Those are the tachyon particles with which scifi movies play so much. Whether we can find a way to detect those tachyons or not depends on the mathematical definition of a theoretical sensing method, (possibly followed by the construction of a real sensor), not on the epistemological or realistic or ontological study of tachyons.

You are still proving for me my assertion that the scientific method is the only current relationship between science and philosophy, and yet keep trying to hold on to your misconception of science as a subset of philosophy. Are you going to show any additional relationship between them anytime soon?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 23, 2010, 08:15:39 PM
PS. Any luck finding those universities with required courses on philosophy for mathematicians, engineers or scientists?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 11:00:36 PM
Now, admittedly out of topic,

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.
Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.


If "whether it really is untestable" is a relevant issue, then you're still in the realm of philosophy. The only reason that discussion is happening is because of the empirical nature of science. If science and the scientific method were not based on certain philosophical principles, there would be no need for debate in the first place.


For example, if all the scientific method demanded were that a theory be internally consistent, theories like sting theory would be accepted as scientific, no questions asked. However, because of the scientific method's epistemological emphasis on empirical data, these theories are not accepted by everyone as scientific. The debate arises out of the philosophical nature of science and the scientific method, not because having left the realm of science, we then enter the realm of philosophy. If science were not underpinned by philosophical principles, no debate would occur at all.
The question of whether a theory is testable or not is one of mathematics, not philosophy. Since you are by far too poorly prepared to understand String Theory, lets take a simpler example: suppose there are subatomic particles with mass that have a speed of 2c. Those are the tachyon particles with which scifi movies play so much. Whether we can find a way to detect those tachyons or not depends on the mathematical definition of a theoretical sensing method, (possibly followed by the construction of a real sensor), not on the epistemological or realistic or ontological study of tachyons.

You are still proving for me my assertion that the scientific method is the only current relationship between science and philosophy, and yet keep trying to hold on to your misconception of science as a subset of philosophy. Are you going to show any additional relationship between them anytime soon?
Whether a theory is testable or not does not fall within the realm of mathematics even if you use mathematics as a tool to determine said testability.  

And yes, I had to take a foundations of mathematics course.  Its pretty common for them to be required actually.  Not that it has any relevance what so ever.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: FlyingO123 on April 24, 2010, 01:24:53 AM
On the subject of the OP I don't think he realizes how deep his observation goes, not only does 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop in certain circumstances.

But 2 slices of bread + 1 slice of chesse + 1 spoonfull of pickle (itself made up of 5ml of pickle) = 1 awesome sandwhich. 2 + 1 + 1 = 1 but cut it into squares and it equals 4 sandshiches 1/4 = 4. Make 4 sandwhiches and by the time you've finished preparing the last one you've probably eaten 2 squares from your original sandwhich 4*4 = 14

30 pupils + 1 teacher = 1 class but also so 30 + 1 = 1

30 puplis + 1 teachre = 30 children so 30 + 1 = 30

1 stupid thread + 1 ridiculous forum = 5 minutes of laughter.

Oh my god maths is broken, oh brave new flat world be gentle on me please.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thermal Detonator on April 24, 2010, 05:06:45 AM
On the subject of the OP I don't think he realizes how deep his observation goes, not only does 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop in certain circumstances.

But 2 slices of bread + 1 slice of chesse + 1 spoonfull of pickle (itself made up of 5ml of pickle) = 1 awesome sandwhich. 2 + 1 + 1 = 1 but cut it into squares and it equals 4 sandshiches 1/4 = 4. Make 4 sandwhiches and by the time you've finished preparing the last one you've probably eaten 2 squares from your original sandwhich 4*4 = 14

30 pupils + 1 teacher = 1 class but also so 30 + 1 = 1

30 puplis + 1 teachre = 30 children so 30 + 1 = 30

1 stupid thread + 1 ridiculous forum = 5 minutes of laughter.

Oh my god maths is broken, oh brave new flat world be gentle on me please.

Gentlemen, I present the most sensible comment in this thread so far.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 24, 2010, 06:38:27 AM
PS. Any luck finding those universities with required courses on philosophy for mathematicians, engineers or scientists?

At NKU, philosophy is reserved for those who elect to take it or those who have an urge to stroke their own ego with all the "knowledge" they will obtain from it.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 24, 2010, 07:40:40 AM

Whether a theory is testable or not does not fall within the realm of mathematics even if you use mathematics as a tool to determine said testability.  

And yes, I had to take a foundations of mathematics course.  Its pretty common for them to be required actually.  Not that it has any relevance what so ever.

Your lack of reading skills are amazing even myself. Most university students are required to do foundations of mathematics courses. The question is about philosophy courses.

And the result of whether a theoretical model permits the detection of a certain phenomenon or not is a theorem, not an epistemological argument, not an ontological reasoning. Mathematicians and theoretical physics researchers combine efforts, but the work is all mathematics since there is no room for experimentation.

You have been unable to contribute anything except your repeated claim that physics is a subset of philosophy, and repeating a claim does not make it true. I assume you have nothing else to say, so I am concluding my participation on the thread.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lorddave on April 24, 2010, 09:18:46 AM
PS. Any luck finding those universities with required courses on philosophy for mathematicians, engineers or scientists?

At NKU, philosophy is reserved for those who elect to take it or those who have an urge to stroke their own ego with all the "knowledge" they will obtain from it.

I took Philosophy of Technology at Suny New Paltz.  I enjoyed it simply because it was "read and debate". 
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: divito the truthist on April 24, 2010, 09:57:31 AM
Logic and philisophy should be required, especially based on the some of the arguments around here.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: General Disarray on April 24, 2010, 10:49:18 AM
Hey guys, I just noticed something! You know how when you're looking at rain, and one raindrop hits another, they turn into one raindrop! This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that there is no way for a flat Earth to exist!
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 24, 2010, 10:51:16 AM

Whether a theory is testable or not does not fall within the realm of mathematics even if you use mathematics as a tool to determine said testability.  

And yes, I had to take a foundations of mathematics course.  Its pretty common for them to be required actually.  Not that it has any relevance what so ever.

Your lack of reading skills are amazing even myself. Most university students are required to do foundations of mathematics courses. The question is about philosophy courses.

And the result of whether a theoretical model permits the detection of a certain phenomenon or not is a theorem, not an epistemological argument, not an ontological reasoning. Mathematicians and theoretical physics researchers combine efforts, but the work is all mathematics since there is no room for experimentation.

You have been unable to contribute anything except your repeated claim that physics is a subset of philosophy, and repeating a claim does not make it true. I assume you have nothing else to say, so I am concluding my participation on the thread.
I gave up trying to reason with you.  You are obviously prejudiced against the word philosophy probably because you think of yourself as the next Feynman.  I could bring up more examples of philosophy leading to scientific discovery, or more reasons why you are wrong, but it would fall on deaf ears and my concerns would continue to remain unanswered - as I stated when I withdrew from the conversation earlier.  I simply returned to answer a question you asked out of courtesy.  Go on and continue to refuse to back up any of your statements.  If I didn't know better I'd say you were a Christian Literalist.  As I said earlier, you are set in your views and you are welcome to continue to be an ignorant tradesman.  

Also, Foundations of mathematics is philosophy. But then again, as I stated to no refutation, so is mathematics.  I also had to take an ethics course, another fairly common requirement also in the realm of philosophy.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 24, 2010, 04:10:04 PM
The question of whether a theory is testable or not is one of mathematics, not philosophy.


What the hell are you talking about? It is impossible to gain empirical data from mathematics. Besides, we are not talking about the question, we are talking about the demand. Scientists demand that a theory be testable if it is to be considered scientific. This is done for epistemological reasons related to the empirical nature of science. To state otherwise is to openly flaunt your ignorance of science and philosophy, so I suggest you have a long hard think about this before saying anything so absurd again.


Since you are by far too poorly prepared to understand String Theory, lets take a simpler example: suppose there are subatomic particles with mass that have a speed of 2c. Those are the tachyon particles with which scifi movies play so much. Whether we can find a way to detect those tachyons or not depends on the mathematical definition of a theoretical sensing method, (possibly followed by the construction of a real sensor), not on the epistemological or realistic or ontological study of tachyons.


Yes, but scientists wouldn't care if the theory were testable if were not for the philosophical ideas on which science is based. The demand that a theory be testable is entirely scientific in nature.


You are still proving for me my assertion that the scientific method is the only current relationship between science and philosophy, and yet keep trying to hold on to your misconception of science as a subset of philosophy. Are you going to show any additional relationship between them anytime soon?


Why do we need to show any additional relationship? The scientific method is the essence of science as a field, and in fact defines it. However, since you ask, anyone who gave it more than 6 seconds of arrogant, presumptuous thought would realise that ethics has an enormous influence on modern science, and that what is considered science is constantly constrained and defined by ethical considerations and standards (and by ethical I don't just mean religious).
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 26, 2010, 03:29:37 AM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Rob Valensky on April 26, 2010, 04:11:09 AM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.

Wilmore will never understand what you are talking about. Even if he does, he'll dodge what you say, and share more of his gibberish hypothesis that can never EVER be tested by anyone. He would fit to be one of those people who starts their own religion; surely he could get a couple of gullible victims to join his doctrine.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 26, 2010, 05:34:43 AM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.


What does any of this have to do with the philosophical nature of science? I don't see the slightest connection, and frankly I feel you're creating tangential and essentially semantic arguments largely as a distraction. The distinction between the theoretically testable and the practically testable is totally beside the point. Ultimately, for a theory to be regarded as 'true' (for want of a better word), there must be empirical data supporting it, and that is because scienceis at heart empirical. The debate over string theory, whatever your position, is evidence not only that science is philosophical in nature, but that real physicists are very much aware of that fact.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 26, 2010, 08:27:05 AM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.


What does any of this have to do with the philosophical nature of science? I don't see the slightest connection, and frankly I feel you're creating tangential and essentially semantic arguments largely as a distraction. The distinction between the theoretically testable and the practically testable is totally beside the point. Ultimately, for a theory to be regarded as 'true' (for want of a better word), there must be empirical data supporting it, and that is because scienceis at heart empirical. The debate over string theory, whatever your position, is evidence not only that science is philosophical in nature, but that real physicists are very much aware of that fact.
Finally, you are understanding something! There is almost no relationship between philosophy and science. The tangential you see is science breaking away from philosophy, leaving almost no philosophical arguments to make about science! While there is a common starting point for both disciplines, the target of both disciplines is currently different in almost every case. While a scientist looks for valid, repeatable predictions based on models, philosophy rarely searches for models and repeatability. While mathematics looks for axioms and theorems, philosophy rarely touches mathematical axioms.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 26, 2010, 08:56:29 AM
Finally, you are understanding something! There is almost no relationship between philosophy and science. The tangential you see is science breaking away from philosophy, leaving almost no philosophical arguments to make about science! While there is a common starting point for both disciplines, the target of both disciplines is currently different in almost every case. While a scientist looks for valid, repeatable predictions based on models, philosophy rarely searches for models and repeatability. While mathematics looks for axioms and theorems, philosophy rarely touches mathematical axioms.


I am quite simply at a loss. The bolded section says precisely what I have been saying all along, and how you can make that statement and at the same time claim that "there is almost no relationship between philosophy and science" is beyond me. What you are talking about is the empirical nature of science, and empiricism is a philosophical stance. To state that "philosophy rarely searches for models and repeatability" is a completely absurd statement, and shows that though all along you've been talking down to the rest of us (me especially), you in fact don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


Empiricism is all about models and repeatability, and empiricism is an epistemological (and hence philosophical) theory, and probably the most significant epistemological theory at that. You seem unwilling or unable to recognise that empiricism is a theory of knowledge, and conclude that science isn't philosophical because it is empirical, when in fact that's precisely why it is philosophical!


If science is empirical, then it is also philosophical. You've essentially just stated that science is empirical, so we can therefore conclude that science is philosophical, Q.E.D.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 26, 2010, 10:44:03 AM

I am quite simply at a loss.
Good news! Maybe you are now ready to understand a little bit more!

Now go and try some of that empiricism by yourself, and get some empirical evidence of FET! The scientific method is now your friend, so put him to work for you. You might even like it, now that you have fought for the scientific method for several days now!

Try this simple excercise:
Now that we have confirmation from you that the scientific model is philosophically sound, the results that come from it are also sound.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 11:15:22 AM
You are no longer worth my time, trig.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 26, 2010, 01:27:16 PM
You are no longer worth my time, trig.
Please do not let my deaf ears spoil the learning experience for the other readers of this thread. You know several advancements in Science that came from philosophy (apart from the definition of the Scientific method) but are punishing all the other readers because bad old trig is annoying you. What a disappointment.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 01:36:48 PM
You are no longer worth my time, trig.
Please do not let my deaf ears spoil the learning experience for the other readers of this thread. You know several advancements in Science that came from philosophy (apart from the definition of the Scientific method) but are punishing all the other readers because bad old trig is annoying you. What a disappointment.
I have already stated at least one. The rest of the readers of this thread are not bullheaded enough to ignore what is right in front of them and can likely do their own research.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 26, 2010, 05:15:12 PM

I am quite simply at a loss.
Good news! Maybe you are now ready to understand a little bit more!

Now go and try some of that empiricism by yourself, and get some empirical evidence of FET! The scientific method is now your friend, so put him to work for you. You might even like it, now that you have fought for the scientific method for several days now!

Try this simple excercise:
  • The model: you at least have two maps, so you have a starting point. You know exactly where the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are, because you can buy a telescope and tabulate the information yourself, just like Galileo, Copernicus, even Ptolomey did.
  • The philosophical foundation: already done, you have talked about that for days
  • The mathematical formulas: there you have the tabulated data, and if Galileo Kepler could come up with the formulas, you can.
  • The experiments: just find out if the tabulated data fits your model, or find a model that does.
  • The conclusion: choose the model that fits the data best.
Now that we have confirmation from you that the scientific model is philosophically sound, the results that come from it are also sound.


First of all, since you have given up constesting the philosophical nature of science, I take it you concede the point.


Secondly, I never said the scientific method is philosophically sound, just that it is philosophical. There is a huge distinction between those two statements. You seem to have some bizarre notion that I've been 'defending' the scientific method, presumably because I've been claiming that it is philosophical, and you think that as someone interested in philosophy, that amounts to a defence. Of course, this is where you again show that you simply don't understand the nature or scope of philosophy.


There are a number of competing epistmeological theories; that they are opposed doesn't change the fact that they are all philosophical in nature. My argument that science is philosophical in nature does not constitute a defence of science, it is simply a statement of fact.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Sir Rhetor on April 28, 2010, 09:57:23 PM
Wait, so the guy who started this topic is blaming science for his inability to accurately define what a raindrop is?  If mathematics is incorrect, how come Bill Gates was able to write his OS for him?  It must be witchcraft. ::)
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 29, 2010, 06:59:13 AM

I am quite simply at a loss.
Good news! Maybe you are now ready to understand a little bit more!

Now go and try some of that empiricism by yourself, and get some empirical evidence of FET! The scientific method is now your friend, so put him to work for you. You might even like it, now that you have fought for the scientific method for several days now!

Try this simple excercise:
  • The model: you at least have two maps, so you have a starting point. You know exactly where the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are, because you can buy a telescope and tabulate the information yourself, just like Galileo, Copernicus, even Ptolomey did.
  • The philosophical foundation: already done, you have talked about that for days
  • The mathematical formulas: there you have the tabulated data, and if Galileo Kepler could come up with the formulas, you can.
  • The experiments: just find out if the tabulated data fits your model, or find a model that does.
  • The conclusion: choose the model that fits the data best.
Now that we have confirmation from you that the scientific model is philosophically sound, the results that come from it are also sound.


First of all, since you have given up constesting the philosophical nature of science, I take it you concede the point.


Secondly, I never said the scientific method is philosophically sound, just that it is philosophical. There is a huge distinction between those two statements. You seem to have some bizarre notion that I've been 'defending' the scientific method, presumably because I've been claiming that it is philosophical, and you think that as someone interested in philosophy, that amounts to a defence. Of course, this is where you again show that you simply don't understand the nature or scope of philosophy.


There are a number of competing epistmeological theories; that they are opposed doesn't change the fact that they are all philosophical in nature. My argument that science is philosophical in nature does not constitute a defence of science, it is simply a statement of fact.
That is a very interesting choice of words. Everything is philosophical in nature, just as every living thing is biochemical in nature. That does not mean that the study of any living thing is done with biochemistry or by a biochemist. The same happens with philosophy. A contribution was arguably made by philosophy to science when the scientific method was defined, but they have followed diverging paths since.

Please tell us which are the "number of competing epistemological theories" you are talking about. Scientists like myself are very interested in everything at the very border of our understanding of science, but do not know about any epistemological paths we have not followed and that can compete with what we have got: the scientific method works, we have truckloads of experiments and observations that show it works, and nobody has shown us any alternative path that might lead us to a wealth of scientific knowledge.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 09:26:13 PM
I have found a hole in your rain theory.

Please allow me to elaborate.
In math there is no "simpleness" or "basic" of it. Its always complex. Just broken down.

Take your raindrop theory for example. One raindrop plus another is, ultimately, one raindrop; slightly larger. You have to factor in the size or your theory has nothing to stand on. Mass. Mass is the major part of my theory.

(I'm using 1 as the mass, as its hard to determine the mass of a raindrop)

Now lets say you have one raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Now you have another raindrop, also, with the mass of 1 gram. They merge together, not equaling 1 gram, but 2 grams. It may appear to be a single raindrop but the mass of two raindrops resides within. 1g+1g=2g. When dealing with math, everything MUST match. MUST correspond. Two separate number ones must be exactly the same when doing addition. You cannot have two number ones in the same equation that differ from each others representation. In your theory the number one on the right side of the equal sign is completely different from those on the left. The conclusive raindrop[right] is larger. With the mass of 2 grams. While the previous raindrops[left] have a mass of 1 gram. Therefore the equation is unreliable because the numbers aren't of the same representation. Aside from representation, the equation still doesn't make sense having the mass of two raindrops in one doesn't automatically create a new mass of 1 gram.

Even further, your theory goes into something deeper where it contradicts itself. In math an equation can only prove true, if done backwards the numbers correspond. You suggest 1+1=1(sometimes). Which goes deeper saying that 1 divided by 2 is 1. Which can never prove true. If you have 1 raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Split it in half. Its end result will not be 2 raindrops each with a mass of 1 gram, but 2 raindrops each with a mass of 0.5 grams. But if you stick with the natural equation 1+1=2. The of course 2 divided by 2 equals 1. Meaning a raindrop with the mass of 2 raindrops inside (2 grams) spilt in half will, in fact, equal two raindrops each with the mass of 1 gram.

Point proven.

Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 09:36:47 PM
True, but most FE'ers tend to overextend analogies.  I predict one will come on here and say "That's not always true!  What about the mass defect of sub-atomic particles?  Therefore the earth is flat."  They don't seem to grasp concepts well enough to just get the point being made.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 09:45:56 PM
Haha, very true.
I've noticed that FE'ers presume to think if they can prove one thing wrong, no matter what it is the Eart is flat.

Like they may say "A tomato is in fact a fuit, so the Earth cannot possibly be round."

(I have no input on whether tomatoes are actually vegatables or fruits, because I really don't care. Just putting that out there, in case I get attacked for that remark)

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 09:47:26 PM
I have found a hole in your rain theory.

Please allow me to elaborate.
In math there is no "simpleness" or "basic" of it. Its always complex. Just broken down.

Take your raindrop theory for example. One raindrop plus another is, ultimately, one raindrop; slightly larger. You have to factor in the size or your theory has nothing to stand on. Mass. Mass is the major part of my theory.

(I'm using 1 as the mass, as its hard to determine the mass of a raindrop)

Now lets say you have one raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Now you have another raindrop, also, with the mass of 1 gram. They merge together, not equaling 1 gram, but 2 grams. It may appear to be a single raindrop but the mass of two raindrops resides within. 1g+1g=2g. When dealing with math, everything MUST match. MUST correspond. Two separate number ones must be exactly the same when doing addition. You cannot have two number ones in the same equation that differ from each others representation. In your theory the number one on the right side of the equal sign is completely different from those on the left. The conclusive raindrop[right] is larger. With the mass of 2 grams. While the previous raindrops[left] have a mass of 1 gram. Therefore the equation is unreliable because the numbers aren't of the same representation. Aside from representation, the equation still doesn't make sense having the mass of two raindrops in one doesn't automatically create a new mass of 1 gram.

Even further, your theory goes into something deeper where it contradicts itself. In math an equation can only prove true, if done backwards the numbers correspond. You suggest 1+1=1(sometimes). Which goes deeper saying that 1 divided by 2 is 1. Which can never prove true. If you have 1 raindrop with the mass of 1 gram. Split it in half. Its end result will not be 2 raindrops each with a mass of 1 gram, but 2 raindrops each with a mass of 0.5 grams. But if you stick with the natural equation 1+1=2. The of course 2 divided by 2 equals 1. Meaning a raindrop with the mass of 2 raindrops inside (2 grams) spilt in half will, in fact, equal two raindrops each with the mass of 1 gram.

Point proven.

Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.


Your issue is that you are only relying on basic math.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 09:55:24 PM
My prediction holds true.  Huzzahs are in order!
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 10:22:57 PM
I guess I must quote myself.
Quote
Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.


Quote
Your issue is that you are only relying on basic math.


It was the original poster was only relying on basic math, not I.
You have to in turn go deeper than that. And also think about the mass AND molecular structure of the raindrops as well.

Repeating myself doesn't change this.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:05:49 PM
I guess I must quote myself.
Quote
Ultimately you MUST include all mathematical factors when you theorize. Otherwise holes will be found, like so.
Don't rely on basic math. You need to focus on every factor possible. An outstanding theory I must say. I was really questioning my education until this theory popped into my head. I may be 17 years old. But I have a strong voice and opinion. I respond to things like this as a way to improve my own outlooks and perspectives.


Quote
Your issue is that you are only relying on basic math.


It was the original poster was only relying on basic math, not I.
You have to in turn go deeper than that. And also think about the mass AND molecular structure of the raindrops as well.

Repeating myself doesn't change this.
Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 

1+1=1 when 1 is an additive identity under whatever system you are using as a tool for whatever task you wish to accomplish.  This is true whether it is counting a oneness of a raindrop or creating a mathematical model to represent reality.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 11:19:21 PM
If I have six items, and I add six items, I have exactly twelve items.

Now if I have twelve items and I want to call that "one dozen," I can.  I can't, however, say that 6+6=1.  The definitions I'm using for what the sixes represent (items) is different than the definition for what the one represents (dozens).  We can't go around mixing definitions and we have to be clear in our terms--something you seem surprisingly poor at.

The raindrop example sucks because it doesn't properly define its terms.  When it says 1+1=1, it's using different definitions for the ones on the left (raindrops of a certain size) than it is for the one on the right (a raindrop of a size equal to the sum of the two aforementioned raindrops).  You can make anything seem to equal anything else if you don't define your terms.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on April 30, 2010, 06:29:07 AM
Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 

Or the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on April 30, 2010, 08:09:20 AM

1+1=1 when 1 is an additive identity under whatever system you are using as a tool for whatever task you wish to accomplish.  This is true whether it is counting a oneness of a raindrop or creating a mathematical model to represent reality.
And car plus bus equals car when you define bus to be the additive identity of your personal counting system. Whatever you define becomes true to you as long as you consider your definitions true by definition. See how easy it is to make some cheap philosophical arguments that in the end mean nothing?

Definitions and axioms in mathematics are as simple to make as opening your mouth and blurting out whatever you like. The true work of a mathematician is not making definitions, it is making useful definitions and deriving theorems from them.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Xerox on April 30, 2010, 08:38:08 AM
^^ Your statement will either be twisted around, they will throw more philosophy garbage at you or they will ignore you entirely.  Ah, the fallout of being logical and clear headed...
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: FlyingO123 on April 30, 2010, 08:52:22 AM
What you guys seem to be forgetting is that as Aristotle stated "Man is a political animal and a rational animal" and all this talk is coming from the perspective of political animals, talk of sizes of objects and of raindrops is all political talk, whereas 1+1=1 is a rational concept as prooved by the OP's example.

In ignoring this very duality of Man's nature you are failing to recognize that both sides are right in what they are saying because they are talking as different animals, but that doesn't change the fact that on a rational interpretation the OP's point has prooven beyond doubt that 1+1 can equal 1 and then with this fundamental rational aspect of science so clearly undermined you have no choice but to accept the political conclusion that the world is in fact flat.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: lossforwords21 on April 30, 2010, 09:13:12 AM
Quote
Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 


Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 09:14:16 AM

1+1=1 when 1 is an additive identity under whatever system you are using as a tool for whatever task you wish to accomplish.  This is true whether it is counting a oneness of a raindrop or creating a mathematical model to represent reality.
And car plus bus equals car when you define bus to be the additive identity of your personal counting system. Whatever you define becomes true to you as long as you consider your definitions true by definition. See how easy it is to make some cheap philosophical arguments that in the end mean nothing?

Definitions and axioms in mathematics are as simple to make as opening your mouth and blurting out whatever you like. The true work of a mathematician is not making definitions, it is making useful definitions and deriving theorems from them.
I agree.  However, making useful definitions is not the aim of math.  Math is made for itself and to be self contained.  Its just lucky for engineers that it happens to coincide with reality.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 09:14:57 AM
Quote
Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops.  


Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Math is an abstract set of concepts and definitions that has no necessary bearing on reality.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: lossforwords21 on April 30, 2010, 09:26:46 AM
Quote
Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops.  


Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Math is an abstract set of concepts and definitions that has no necessary bearing on reality.





I never mentioned reality. Reality isn't a term I was referring to in the least. I was strictly speaking about substances. Objects, places, thoughts, ideas. All these are governable, reality isn't. Reality is something we can not describe. Its just a sense of realness, rather than illusion. Mathematics may not be "necessary" but its there. No matter how you look at it, its still there. You FE'ers patronize yourselves. Geez.
[/quote]
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ellipsis on April 30, 2010, 09:47:42 AM
...is making useful definitions and deriving theorems from them.
I agree.  However, making useful definitions is not the aim of math.

"I agree, but you're still wrong."   ::)
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 30, 2010, 03:50:09 PM
That is a very interesting choice of words. Everything is philosophical in nature, just as every living thing is biochemical in nature. That does not mean that the study of any living thing is done with biochemistry or by a biochemist. The same happens with philosophy. A contribution was arguably made by philosophy to science when the scientific method was defined, but they have followed diverging paths since.


No, they haven't. You just don't know anything about philosophy, or its relationship with science, as is now abundently clear. Why don't you try contesting the points I've already made, instead of repeating the same bald assertions.


Please tell us which are the "number of competing epistemological theories" you are talking about. Scientists like myself are very interested in everything at the very border of our understanding of science, but do not know about any epistemological paths we have not followed and that can compete with what we have got: the scientific method works, we have truckloads of experiments and observations that show it works, and nobody has shown us any alternative path that might lead us to a wealth of scientific knowledge.


Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You want me to point you to a non-scientific epistemological method which can "lead [you] to a wealth of scientific knowledge". That demand is a total absurdity.


If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Catchpa on April 30, 2010, 05:03:42 PM
Some definitions in everyday life has evolved beyond mathematics, and the OP's failure to realize so doomed this thread from the very beginning.

The "one raindrop + one raindrop" example does not even equal one raindrop all the time. When do they merge together and become a pool? a river? an ocean?
If the raindrops were big enough to create a pool, then the equation broken down to basic mathematics would become something like.. it can't even be expressed in math! Unless you're going to say that 1+1 can magically transform into something completely different.

This topic has derailed into a bunch of philosophy talk, though you can't really blame anyone. The OP spoke more about philosophy, than of any disproof towards either shape of the earth, even when he mistakenly said that he would.

This should be moved to the forum Philosophy, Religion & Society or even merged with: "Is this my boat?" http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36863.0
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on May 01, 2010, 02:35:46 PM
Quote
Mathematics has nothing to do with mass, molecular structure, or raindrops. 


Wrong. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Mathematics is everywhere you look. Everything has a direct tie to a number, expression, and/or equation.

Typical of a globularist when all else fails to rely on Platonism. It is nothing short of a religion.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: bullhorn on May 01, 2010, 05:09:03 PM
But, it is about the earth bring flat.  It is about the model we have used to calculate a round earth, so it does belong in this place.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 02, 2010, 02:27:29 AM
If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.
You got it, finally! I do not want this discussion to continue. You are at the end of the rope, trying one of the last cheap rhetoric tricks in your bag, and I do not care for the rest of the cheap rhetoric tricks you may try.

The trick is simple: when you run out of useful things to say you come up with "you are too idiotic to see it and I am too intelligent to show it; you google it because I am tired". I might bite and continue the discussion with a lot of sobbing and a page of "I am not stupid" remarks, and you are off the hook.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 02, 2010, 06:11:46 AM
If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.
You got it, finally! I do not want this discussion to continue. You are at the end of the rope, trying one of the last cheap rhetoric tricks in your bag, and I do not care for the rest of the cheap rhetoric tricks you may try.

The trick is simple: when you run out of useful things to say you come up with "you are too idiotic to see it and I am too intelligent to show it; you google it because I am tired". I might bite and continue the discussion with a lot of sobbing and a page of "I am not stupid" remarks, and you are off the hook.


Listen you have repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I am talking about during this discussion, but what's now apparent is that you in fact have little to no knowledge of philosophy or the philosophy of science. To ask for a non-scientifc empistemological model that can provide scientific knowledge is a ridiculous question. To assert that science is empirical in nature, yet not philosophical, is an absurd position. These are fundamental misconceptions about the terms involved, and I don't see why I should have to prove to you that empiricism is an epistemological theory when a simple google/wiki would clear it up for you.


I think it's highly ironic that you are (once again) accusing me of using rhetorical tricks, when you have spent the last couple of pages ignoring my arguments, and instead trying to side-step the issue by raising tangential points of little to no relevance. If you can show that science is not empirical, or that empiricism not a theory of knowledge, or that epistemology is not a field of philosophy, then go ahead. But I think you now realise that you've already lost this argument, which is why you've spent the last page ducking it. That science is philosophical in nature is almost self-evident, and your reluctance to acknowledge this is frankly bizarre.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 02, 2010, 07:29:34 AM
If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by opening two tabs and putting 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' into google, because until you ground yourself in the basics, there really is no point having this discussion.
You got it, finally! I do not want this discussion to continue. You are at the end of the rope, trying one of the last cheap rhetoric tricks in your bag, and I do not care for the rest of the cheap rhetoric tricks you may try.

The trick is simple: when you run out of useful things to say you come up with "you are too idiotic to see it and I am too intelligent to show it; you google it because I am tired". I might bite and continue the discussion with a lot of sobbing and a page of "I am not stupid" remarks, and you are off the hook.


Listen you have repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I am talking about during this discussion, but what's now apparent is that you in fact have little to no knowledge of philosophy or the philosophy of science. To ask for a non-scientifc empistemological model that can provide scientific knowledge is a ridiculous question. To assert that science is empirical in nature, yet not philosophical, is an absurd position. These are fundamental misconceptions about the terms involved, and I don't see why I should have to prove to you that empiricism is an epistemological theory when a simple google/wiki would clear it up for you.


I think it's highly ironic that you are (once again) accusing me of using rhetorical tricks, when you have spent the last couple of pages ignoring my arguments, and instead trying to side-step the issue by raising tangential points of little to no relevance. If you can show that science is not empirical, or that empiricism not a theory of knowledge, or that epistemology is not a field of philosophy, then go ahead. But I think you now realise that you've already lost this argument, which is why you've spent the last page ducking it. That science is philosophical in nature is almost self-evident, and your reluctance to acknowledge this is frankly bizarre.
Just give us some idea of how science is better off with the 100 or 150 years of philosophical studies since the scientific method was first drafted.

The point is simple: the scientists like me accept that science has a specific place in the realm of human knowledge, and that there is not much we can or want to contribute to the ultimate questions of philosophy. We dedicate ourselves to the problems that are amenable to the scientific method and, in some cases, to the theoretical problems that arise from mathematical formulations of models that do not, do do not yet show in experiments and observations. Philosophers, on the other hand, accept that the realm of science has few interesting philosophical implications and dedicate themselves to other targets.

You can still play with words all you like, or show us a research in which an interdisciplinary group of scientists and philosophers work together.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on May 02, 2010, 12:23:36 PM
The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 02, 2010, 01:13:29 PM
The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.
Wow, finally, a straight answer! I have a response for that, but will let your answer there for others to see easily!

Wow, wow, wow! Never thought this would happen!
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on May 02, 2010, 02:06:23 PM
The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.
Wow, finally, a straight answer! I have a response for that, but will let your answer there for others to see easily!

Wow, wow, wow! Never thought this would happen!
I believe I offered one or two other examples previously that were ignored by you.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 02, 2010, 03:02:17 PM
The field of psychology.

Not that your previous arguments and tactics of burying your head in the sand are valid.  But still.  There are glaringly obvious examples to anyone that is willing to put any effort at all.
Wow, finally, a straight answer! I have a response for that, but will let your answer there for others to see easily!

Wow, wow, wow! Never thought this would happen!
I believe I offered one or two other examples previously that were ignored by you.
Which examples?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 03, 2010, 07:31:19 AM
And I thought I had the ball rolling...

Well, since it stopped, it is time to conclude. I must have my head in the sand, since I do not see much philosophy being used in science, apart from the scientific method, which took its current basic form in the end of the nineteenth century. But John Davis must also have his head in the sand, since he cannot come up with much either.

Philosophy studies the sciences, mathematics and other disciplines and uses them in its endeavour to understand knowledge (epistemology), reality (ontology) and especially the human (social philosophy, political philosophy), but the natural sciences do not interact much with philosophy, and the human sciences do so only in a very limited manner.

In the times of the encyclopedists like Diderot all the branches of knowledge were almost merged, and the study of ontology was not clearly distinguishable from the study of chemistry, for example. But those times are over. In the natural sciences the phrase from Feynman, which says something like "philosophy is about as useful to science as ornithology is to birds" says pretty much the whole story. In human sciences there are some places where philosophy gives inspiration in the search for models (which are scarce and not very powerful, yet in some human sciences) but not much more.

Philosophy is important for its own merits, not for what James or John Davis think.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: flyingmonkey on May 03, 2010, 09:43:08 PM
Right, so when you people of FE can count past 2 with joining raindrops, I'll start to listen.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 04, 2010, 03:03:22 AM
Just give us some idea of how science is better off with the 100 or 150 years of philosophical studies since the scientific method was first drafted.


The problem here is that you're constantly assuming that science and philosophy are distinct. My point is that they aren't. Science is a branch of empiricism, which is itself a branch of epistemology and hence a branch of philosophy. Science is philosophy, just a specific and very successful form.


The point is simple: the scientists like me accept that science has a specific place in the realm of human knowledge, and that there is not much we can or want to contribute to the ultimate questions of philosophy. We dedicate ourselves to the problems that are amenable to the scientific method and, in some cases, to the theoretical problems that arise from mathematical formulations of models that do not, do do not yet show in experiments and observations. Philosophers, on the other hand, accept that the realm of science has few interesting philosophical implications and dedicate themselves to other targets.


Again, this paragraph displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is. You say "science has a specific place in the realm of human knowledge, and that there is not much we can or want to contribute to the ultimate questions of philosophy". Philosophy is very much concerned with human knowledge, that's what epistemology is all about. However, there are different fields of philosophy, and different approaches to philosophy. Epistemology is a field, and the scientific method is an approach. The two are not distinct; one is just a subset of the other.


Also, you should note that there is an absolute wealth of writing about the science of philosophy, so don't make such ridiculous generalisations.


You can still play with words all you like, or show us a research in which an interdisciplinary group of scientists and philosophers work together.


Well, as I have already pointed out, there are frequent ethical and epistemological discussions in scientific circles. However, all of this is beside the point, because proving that science is philosophical in nature is really quite easy. Observe:


1) Science is an empirical method.

2) Empiricism is an epistemological theory.

3) Epistemology is a philosophical field.


Therefore, science is philosophical, Q.E.D.


If you want to continue this discussion, start by telling us which of those three points is incorrect, and why.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: bowler on May 04, 2010, 03:42:47 AM
In principle I agree with you, it is a link which I feel is getting lost. Although in the modern parlance I think its a little naive to equate science and scientific method, in my experienceat least. Rightly or wrongly science is a term which is used to describe the physical sciences and biology, and to some extent medicine. The empirical scientific method is applied to a whole number of other fields, although these more often than not stick science on the end to highlight the fact that they are using scientific method (social sciences would be an example). Maybe the term science should be expanded to cover a wider range fo subjects or perhaps more sensibly science should be dropped as a subject name and reserved for the methodology.

Although I havent read the rest of this thread I think we can assuem this is probably the only bit I agree with.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 04, 2010, 01:01:14 PM
Just give us some idea of how science is better off with the 100 or 150 years of philosophical studies since the scientific method was first drafted.


The problem here is that you're constantly assuming that science and philosophy are distinct. My point is that they aren't. Science is a branch of empiricism, which is itself a branch of epistemology and hence a branch of philosophy. Science is philosophy, just a specific and very successful form.


The point is simple: the scientists like me accept that science has a specific place in the realm of human knowledge, and that there is not much we can or want to contribute to the ultimate questions of philosophy. We dedicate ourselves to the problems that are amenable to the scientific method and, in some cases, to the theoretical problems that arise from mathematical formulations of models that do not, do do not yet show in experiments and observations. Philosophers, on the other hand, accept that the realm of science has few interesting philosophical implications and dedicate themselves to other targets.


Again, this paragraph displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is. You say "science has a specific place in the realm of human knowledge, and that there is not much we can or want to contribute to the ultimate questions of philosophy". Philosophy is very much concerned with human knowledge, that's what epistemology is all about. However, there are different fields of philosophy, and different approaches to philosophy. Epistemology is a field, and the scientific method is an approach. The two are not distinct; one is just a subset of the other.


Also, you should note that there is an absolute wealth of writing about the science of philosophy, so don't make such ridiculous generalisations.


You can still play with words all you like, or show us a research in which an interdisciplinary group of scientists and philosophers work together.


Well, as I have already pointed out, there are frequent ethical and epistemological discussions in scientific circles. However, all of this is beside the point, because proving that science is philosophical in nature is really quite easy. Observe:


1) Science is an empirical method.

2) Empiricism is an epistemological theory.

3) Epistemology is a philosophical field.


Therefore, science is philosophical, Q.E.D.


If you want to continue this discussion, start by telling us which of those three points is incorrect, and why.
To continue playing the same game, every field of human knowledge is a branch of Quantum Physics, since everyone, everywhere is interacting with matter or energy, even the philosopher who studies reality (all instances of reality that we know of have matter or energy).

This does not imply that the study of Quantum Mechanics will help a historian understand why a battle was fought.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Deceiver on May 04, 2010, 02:19:42 PM
Pretty certain science has roots in philosophy. Since the time of Aristotle, that philosophy has changed. But it's aways been about discovering truth. What has changed in more modern times however, is that we cannot rely on subjective evidence, and that humans by default are subject to bias -- which is why we labor over seemingly obvious facts -- simple things can be taken as assumptions, so they must be proven beyond doubt before moving onto more complex things... Thus we have the scientific method (descarte formalized this if I remember right <shrug>) We trust our senses less, and rely on mathematical laws and tools more than we ever have. That's probably a gross oversimplification, but in a nutshell, that's what science is about (arguably).

In any case, we could argue semantics until the end of time. What you can't argue however, is against the case that science doesn't have two types of numbers... constants, and numbers with units attached. It's a bit foolish to argue that raindrops are all of a sudden a valid discrete unit. Any raindrop that exists is the combination of innumerable other raindrops, that formed from a single nucleus and slowly accreted more such seeded nuclei. Which is why we use mass and such. There is no ambiguity about what that term means. The OP's raindrop explanation is a useless measurement, even when taken to extreme abstraction! Similar analogies are just as nonsensical! You might as well combine parcels of air! There's no meaning when you ignore objective terms of measurement! Even using solids, such as two apples.. isn't particularly helpful unless we are very uncaring about the specifics of our apples. Only measurements of the same unit can be used as a comparison in any circumstance.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: General Disarray on May 04, 2010, 08:41:47 PM
The study of physics used to be called "natural philosophy".

But that doesn't really have any significance to the topic of the thread, because 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = another bigger raindrop.

Can't believe this is still going...
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Maximohoundoom on May 05, 2010, 05:24:43 AM
I think this topic is giving more support to a round earth than to a flat one. If I understood correctly, the flat earth supporters are trying to prove that science is unreliable. The only reason anyone would do that is because they couldn't use science to show that the world is flat. This is probably the last resort to defend the flat earth hypothesis.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: The Question1 on May 05, 2010, 06:47:53 AM
I missed the part where the earth being round was proven wrong.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: General Disarray on May 05, 2010, 07:20:58 AM
Don't worry, we all did.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 05, 2010, 08:02:40 AM
To continue playing the same game, every field of human knowledge is a branch of Quantum Physics, since everyone, everywhere is interacting with matter or energy, even the philosopher who studies reality (all instances of reality that we know of have matter or energy).

This does not imply that the study of Quantum Mechanics will help a historian understand why a battle was fought.


Not the same thing at all. We're talking about catagories of human thought, i.e. the relationship between concepts. Science is both historically and conceptually linked to philosophy. Other realms of human thought (e.g. music, cinema, sport) have a far more tenuous connection, and are certainly not subsets of philosophy.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 07, 2010, 08:58:49 AM
If I understood correctly, the flat earth supporters are trying to prove that science is unreliable. The only reason anyone would do that is because they couldn't use science to show that the world is flat. This is probably the last resort to defend the flat earth hypothesis.
I agree. While cheap philosophy is harder to separate from good one by the general public, bad science is a lot easier to spot.

Since FE theorists have not been able to make any inroads into real science (that is, with models and predictions based on those models and experiments and observations to test those predictions) they have to find a field where blabber can pass as knowledge. If you claim that science is just a subset of the whole picture so there are effective alternatives to science, you create a space where any speculation can pass as one of those alternatives.

The alternative to science you choose, like Zeteticism, for example, will be compared to science on the cheap philosophy arena, not on the hard evidence and scientific method arena. Four hundred years of accumulated knowledge can then be compared with the first conspiracy theory any paranoid can muster.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: lossforwords21 on May 10, 2010, 06:19:28 AM
Quote
Typical of a globularist when all else fails to rely on Platonism. It is nothing short of a religion.


Ah, religion, eh? Well I can honestly say, I'm not a part of any religion whatsoever. I have my own beliefs. The earth being round is not one of them. The Earth being round, isn't a belief its a fact. I'd like to meet to guy who first thought "Hmm, maybe everyone is lying to us. Maybe the Earth isn't round after all.", and smack him in the face. You "FE'ers" as you call yourself, are simply trying to find a way to seem important. You respond to us like robots, with no feeling or passion. Take a look at the difference in the conversations between the two. We respond like real people people with enthusiasm, not without emotion. It's like you've been completely taken over by conspiracy its ridiculous.

Anyways, I'm not going to continue debates with people of your level. I'm not inferring that your not smart, but face reality. They have programs where you can go into space as a civilian. I suggest at least one person, out of ALL you FE'ers, take that chance. You might have a heart attack when you see the curve of the Earth. But then again, you all are too proud to do even try.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Catchpa on May 10, 2010, 09:16:38 AM
1 raindrop + 1 raindrop is not even = 1 raindrop, as the OP stated. You can't even make the equation because there's not sufficient information.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on May 10, 2010, 05:24:10 PM
Quote
Typical of a globularist when all else fails to rely on Platonism. It is nothing short of a religion.


Ah, religion, eh? Well I can honestly say, I'm not a part of any religion whatsoever. I have my own beliefs. The earth being round is not one of them. The Earth being round, isn't a belief its a fact. I'd like to meet to guy who first thought "Hmm, maybe everyone is lying to us. Maybe the Earth isn't round after all.", and smack him in the face. You "FE'ers" as you call yourself, are simply trying to find a way to seem important. You respond to us like robots, with no feeling or passion. Take a look at the difference in the conversations between the two. We respond like real people people with enthusiasm, not without emotion. It's like you've been completely taken over by conspiracy its ridiculous.


Globularism is a religion.

Anyways, I'm not going to continue debates with people of your level. I'm not inferring that your not smart, but face reality. They have programs where you can go into space as a civilian. I suggest at least one person, out of ALL you FE'ers, take that chance. You might have a heart attack when you see the curve of the Earth. But then again, you all are too proud to do even try.

I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ellipsis on May 10, 2010, 05:26:54 PM
I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.

What James forgets to mention is that the program in question rigorously tested and sought out the most gullible people they could find.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:34:06 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.


I knew a guy who was a gym teacher.  Kept in great shape.  40+ years old, coached sports, exercised daily, ect...

Died of a heart attack on the bleachers while watching his son's game.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 10, 2010, 05:36:51 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.


I knew a guy who was a gym teacher.  Kept in great shape.  40+ years old, coached sports, exercised daily, ect...

Died of a heart attack on the bleachers while watching his son's game.
Was it a night game?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:38:50 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.


I knew a guy who was a gym teacher.  Kept in great shape.  40+ years old, coached sports, exercised daily, ect...

Died of a heart attack on the bleachers while watching his son's game.
Was it a night game?

No, it was daylight, in the spring.  Highschool Baseball.

And don't you start with the whole "The moon rays are harmful" or I'll find you, tie you to a tree, and let you tell me which hurts more: the sun or the moon.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 10, 2010, 05:40:18 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.


I knew a guy who was a gym teacher.  Kept in great shape.  40+ years old, coached sports, exercised daily, ect...

Died of a heart attack on the bleachers while watching his son's game.
Was it a night game?

No, it was daylight, in the spring.  Highschool Baseball.

And don't you start with the whole "The moon rays are harmful" or I'll find you, tie you to a tree, and let you tell me which hurts more: the sun or the moon.
Please do not threaten me with torture.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:43:01 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.


I knew a guy who was a gym teacher.  Kept in great shape.  40+ years old, coached sports, exercised daily, ect...

Died of a heart attack on the bleachers while watching his son's game.
Was it a night game?

No, it was daylight, in the spring.  Highschool Baseball.

And don't you start with the whole "The moon rays are harmful" or I'll find you, tie you to a tree, and let you tell me which hurts more: the sun or the moon.
Please do not threaten me with torture.

And which one would be the torture?  The sun or moon?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: markjo on May 10, 2010, 07:18:55 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence. I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.

Maybe not.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets#.27Double_hoax.27_theory
As the attention to detail in the hoaxed environment became clear, some viewers expressed suspicions - in particular on Channel 4's message board for the programme - that the entire show, including the apparent gullibility and abject ignorance of the Cadets, was in fact a double bluff; all the Cadets were actors and that the real target of "the biggest prank in television history" was the "gullible" viewing public.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Ellipsis on May 10, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
He's making a legitimate point.  What would cause more harm: staying in unprotected sunlight or moonlight?  Gin has done nothing to say what kinds of negative effects could be caused by moonlight apart from saying that they're "dangerous."
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Sliver on May 10, 2010, 07:23:01 PM
I assure you my heart is extremely robust, I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence.
And yet, somehow, you don't own a camera?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Idee Unfixe on May 11, 2010, 02:05:10 AM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why

...

 Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Understood. Raindrops are flat.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Flatearthersarestupid on May 11, 2010, 08:33:23 AM
Ok a few question for the dumbass "flat earthers"

1. Go outside at night, see the moon and other planets that are ROUND, why would earth be the only flat planet?

2. How would a flat earth be possible? What would be on the other side of the flat earth? When i think of it, it seems like a coin with our earth on one side there has to be something on the other side.

3. Go onto google earth. Look at all the satellite immages, you can zoom in and see your house. How would these all be fake???

4. Why in the HELL would all of the worlds governments spend so much money defending some "super secret beyond the ice wall"?

5. Explain the space shuttles lauching into space and the images they send back. They are all fake? All astronauts are lying?

Disprove me dumbasses. I dare you.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: trig on May 11, 2010, 09:49:37 AM
I am often scaling hills and scouring far and wide to obtain information and scientific evidence.

Then it would be easy for you to navigate a few dozen miles in an Eastward or Westward direction, carrying a clock, a telescope or a sextant, maybe a GPS, and keep a good log of the navigational information as you move. I can give you specific instructions so you can make measurements that cancel out Bendy Light, so you can have confidence on the results, be they in favor of a flat or a spherical Earth. You don't even need your physical prowess. A car with an odometer is more than enough.

I suggest you watch this enlightening television programme - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/space-cadets - it demonstrates quite clearly how easy it is to fake a space program even to people who think they are aboard a space ship.

Your selection of evidence is most telling: anyone with half a wit knows that everything about a Reality TV show is only as reliable as the producers of the show. Whether you believe the hoax was played on specifically chosen gullible and ignorant participants, or played on the gullible audience (as markjo's quote says), it can only fool a part of the audience. If it were shown as a real space adventure, people everywhere would have cried foul.

Reality TV shows are targeted towards the gullible that really believe Paris Hilton does not know what a WalMart is, or that a gorgeous multimillionaire will marry an unknown woman whose only credentials are that she is beautiful enough to be selected from a crowd. A perfect conspiracy would have to fool those like me, who do not fall for Reality TV.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on May 12, 2010, 03:20:50 AM
Ok a few question for the dumbass "flat earthers"

1. Go outside at night, see the moon and other planets that are ROUND, why would earth be the only flat planet?

2. How would a flat earth be possible? What would be on the other side of the flat earth? When i think of it, it seems like a coin with our earth on one side there has to be something on the other side.

3. Go onto google earth. Look at all the satellite immages, you can zoom in and see your house. How would these all be fake???

4. Why in the HELL would all of the worlds governments spend so much money defending some "super secret beyond the ice wall"?

5. Explain the space shuttles lauching into space and the images they send back. They are all fake? All astronauts are lying?

Disprove me dumbasses. I dare you.
Stop trolling.  Go find a place where those questions are even moderately relevant.  Everyone wants to disprove the FE's, but stick to the rules.


As for that unbelievably ridiculous "raindrops" equation, consider this: 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop FORMS 1 (bigger) raindrop.  1 (bigger) raindrop = 2(raindrop)
It's not tough to figure out.  Now stop acting like you just found the evidence that everything we've been taught is a lie.  1 + 1 still equals 2, you moron.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Tystar on May 13, 2010, 06:01:55 PM
Ok so you're saying we observe a flat Earth, what I observe is that you're avoiding the actual question at hand saying 2 rain drops coming together =/= a flat earth. I have been in a high flying planes and have personally seen the curvature of the earth. Also how can you enter Asia from two different directions. I want to see real proof.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: James on May 13, 2010, 06:06:58 PM
Ok so you're saying we observe a flat Earth, what I observe is that you're avoiding the actual question at hand saying 2 rain drops coming together =/= a flat earth. I have been in a high flying planes and have personally seen the curvature of the earth. Also how can you enter Asia from two different directions. I want to see real proof.

Well Tystar I believe you should perhaps look at one of our maps, it may answer some of the questions you are having a hard time with!
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: The Question1 on May 13, 2010, 06:07:49 PM
Ok so you're saying we observe a flat Earth, what I observe is that you're avoiding the actual question at hand saying 2 rain drops coming together =/= a flat earth. I have been in a high flying planes and have personally seen the curvature of the earth. Also how can you enter Asia from two different directions. I want to see real proof.
East and West are curved directions.
As in when you are going eastward its in a circle.

If your wondering if that would create larger distances in the southern hemisphere,then you are right.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on May 14, 2010, 03:02:35 AM
All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 04:19:25 PM
All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Damnati on May 17, 2010, 08:00:05 PM
So, the entirety of your argument relies on the 1 + 1 = 1 raindrop analogy. Disproving that invalidates your entire argument. I like a challenge in a debate, but lets get this settled.

Now, lets start with how the analogy starts; two raindrops are falling, side by side. So, we have two separate rain drops. At this point in time, we can say, with certainty, that 1 + 1 = 2. There are two of them, as they are separate, and falling side by side. Now, as they fall, they bump together and, thanks to the properties of water, form together into one rain drop. At this time, if we are to take another observation, there is merely one raindrop. We do not see two separate rain drops, we only see one. Which is as you said.

However, we would not say 1 + 1 = 1. Because, by observation, there is no second 1. There is only the one observed rain drop.

Now, we need to account for where that other rain drop went. We can't simply say it vanished, but the matter of the numerical accuracy still needs to be settled. So, our initial system of measurement must have been poorly chosen, as it doesn't give you a net result of zero (which every equation reaching equilibrium should supply). So, instead of numerically counting the individual drops, we need to quantify them in a different way. Since it's a fluid, we're use milliliters. Now, just to keep numbers simple, lets say the average rain drop is 1 mL. Lets start at the beginning again. We have two rain drops, each consisting of 1 mL of water, falling at the same rate. So it would be 1mL + 1mL = 2mL. Or you can express it 2(1mL) = 2mL. Now, as they fall, they form into 1 rain drop. So, add the fluid volume of the two rain drops, which now equal the single rain drop. We already have done so, twice. The formulas would look identical. These formulas apply for when they are separate and you are determining the total fluid volume of the two individual drops, and they would apply for the moment they are forming together into a single drop. After that moment, observation would only yield that there is a single rain drop, that is 2 mL in volume. It would simply be 2 mL = 2 mL. You can express '2mL' any way you would like, it is the same quantified value.

You should, perhaps, use a better example of Real World Science. It does have some basis. Newtons theory of gravity, for instance, doesn't hold true past the high school level, not taking into account several factors. Yet the current theory of gravity accounts for many more variables than simply distance and volume. This theory is also proving inadequate to explain certain astronomical anomalies (such as a galaxy approximately 8 times the size of our own, which is impossible in our current theories). So, it's being expanded upon again, taking into account even more variables. This is exactly how science works, and how it is meant to work. We explain what we can with what we know, and as we know more, we seek to find ways to explain more.

However, for the mathematical system we are using, the basics hold true. Why do they hold true? Because in order to use the system at all, they have to be true. If you come up with discrepancies such as you had, you simply are using the wrong units, or are neglecting a driving variable. yes, there are mathematical systems where 1 + 1 != 2, but we're talking higher level calculus, which is a completely different mathematical system then what we are using here, and thus, isn't applicable.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 09:05:57 PM
the original post here is sort of like reading Time Cube.
but hey while were at the maths lets have fun!!!

(http://www.sciforums.com/cgi-bin/mimetex.cgi?\zeta%28-1%29%20=%20\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}%20n%20=%20\frac{-1}{12})

yay, we have now "proved" that when you add up points numbers 1-->infinity on earths radius, you get that them to equal -1/12
I now propose -1/12 Earth theory. either that, or calculus must be wrong, so lets toss out the laws of physics
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on May 17, 2010, 09:12:52 PM
All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall
Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 09:19:44 PM
All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall
Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.
source?
well i have one:
http://www.traveltoaustralia.write101.com/antarctica.htm
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on May 18, 2010, 09:54:14 AM
All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall
Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.
source?
well i have one:
http://www.traveltoaustralia.write101.com/antarctica.htm

I have been incorrect about the treaty.  My apologies.

However, none the less, those flights do not go over the Antarctic in any meaningful way.
(http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/site_media/uploads/map.jpg)
Did you even read your own source?

Plus given the Quantus track record of flying in the Antarctic, I still think I'd pass.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: amazed on May 18, 2010, 10:56:38 AM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 


Since we can't trust even that 1+1 is 2, how can we trust that you are sane? The evidence seems to point towards your inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 10:56:45 AM
All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall
Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.
source?
well i have one:
http://www.traveltoaustralia.write101.com/antarctica.htm

I have been incorrect about the treaty.  My apologies.

However, none the less, those flights do not go over the Antarctic in any meaningful way.
(http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/site_media/uploads/map.jpg)
Did you even read your own source?

Plus given the Quantus track record of flying in the Antarctic, I still think I'd pass.

this is one flight. I'm sure others do, will just have to look more.
in the end, this disproves your evidence of International treaty, so its still open
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Damnati on May 18, 2010, 10:59:36 AM
There have been numerous flights over the south pole. A Pan Am 747Sp flew over the south pole in 1977 for Pan Am's 50th anniversary going from Sydney to Recife. And Bob Buck flew a Boeing 707 called "Polar Cat" over the south pole, deviating his course enough to fly directly over the pole, and it is written about in the book "North Star Over My Shoulder" or something like that.

Granted, these are but a couple examples. Though really, there is little need to fly over the south pole. The only times it makes distances shorter is flying from Australia to South America. But the flight is so treacherous due to there being no emergency landing fields and few weather observation centers, that it makes the trip not worth the risks involved. Do you want to risk emergency landings on uneven ice where there are near perpetual white-outs at ground level, and heavy ground winds? It's dangerous, and there is an ice wall (The ice on Antarctica is two miles thick, on average), but not one that's insurmountable, as planes can fly at 30,000 feet, or about 20,000 ft over the ice.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 11:10:19 AM
And at the orginial post.
you assume that the concept of adding raindrops must be addition, as it is in the Real set.

Lets make a new set, that deals with the manipulation of rain drops and call it set Rd.
Rd contains only 0 and 1. 0 meaning no raindrops, 1 meaning a rain drop.
The function of adding rain drops we will symbolize as &. Observation yields that in our set 1&1=1 also that 1&1&1=1
0&1=1
0&0=0
so we can now see that with &,  the result is equal to .5(1+(-1)^(2^(n1+n2+n3...)))
Congradulations op, you just made a new function raindrop merging (&) which takes and set of whole numbers, and yields 1. And said nothing about the invalidity of physics or math
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: amazed on May 18, 2010, 11:23:45 AM
And at the orginial post.
you assume that the concept of adding raindrops must be addition, as it is in the Real set.

Lets make a new set, that deals with the manipulation of rain drops and call it set Rd.
Rd contains only 0 and 1. 0 meaning no raindrops, 1 meaning a rain drop.
The function of adding rain drops we will symbolize as &. Observation yields that in our set 1&1=1 also that 1&1&1=1
0&1=1
0&0=0
so we can now see that with &,  the result is equal to .5(1+(-1)^(2^(n1+n2+n3...)))
Congradulations op, you just made a new function raindrop merging (&) which takes and set of whole numbers, and yields 1. And said nothing about the invalidity of physics or math

no that makes too much sense. here's one that's better.

i let both raindrops fall in my mouth... they have disappeared. 1+1 = 0 and I have disproven that matter cannot disappear. Double victory for the FE'rs.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on May 18, 2010, 01:47:15 PM
You guys are idiots.  The fact that you're debating 1+1 is utterly laughable.

Firstly: 1 + 1 =/= 2.  The raindrop thing is bullshit: 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 2 raindrops, which conveniently form 1 raindrop, which is the mass of two raindrops.

Secondly:  1 + 1 =/= 0.  amazed, that example was stupid.  It's like saying, I put two grapes in my mouth, and suddenly they're gone!  Oooh! Earth is flat!  The grapes don't just 'disappear'.  It gets passed through your digestive system, your body uses the nutrients, usually in the form of energy, and the waste leaves your body.

1 + 1 = 1 = FLAT EARTH is perhaps the stupidest argument for a flat earth I've ever heard.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: amazed on May 18, 2010, 02:17:09 PM
You guys are idiots.  The fact that you're debating 1+1 is utterly laughable.

Firstly: 1 + 1 =/= 2.  The raindrop thing is bullshit: 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 2 raindrops, which conveniently form 1 raindrop, which is the mass of two raindrops.

Secondly:  1 + 1 =/= 0.  amazed, that example was stupid.  It's like saying, I put two grapes in my mouth, and suddenly they're gone!  Oooh! Earth is flat!  The grapes don't just 'disappear'.  It gets passed through your digestive system, your body uses the nutrients, usually in the form of energy, and the waste leaves your body.

1 + 1 = 1 = FLAT EARTH is perhaps the stupidest argument for a flat earth I've ever heard.

lol.. ya it is stupid... dont feel stupid but the whole point of that was to illustrate the faulty nature of the raindrop argument. basically using meaningless superficial examples and analogies to SUGGEST flat-earth theory (not prove mind you since they never take their reasoning that far). There is another group that does things like this, all sorts of religious cults. They often persuade their members by using very superficial examples and analogies that at first might cause some wonder but on further inspection totally fall apart.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on May 18, 2010, 02:20:39 PM
FES = Cult?


Interesting.   ::)
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 04:00:41 PM
You guys are idiots.  The fact that you're debating 1+1 is utterly laughable.

Firstly: 1 + 1 =/= 2.  The raindrop thing is bullshit: 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 2 raindrops, which conveniently form 1 raindrop, which is the mass of two raindrops.

Secondly:  1 + 1 =/= 0.  amazed, that example was stupid.  It's like saying, I put two grapes in my mouth, and suddenly they're gone!  Oooh! Earth is flat!  The grapes don't just 'disappear'.  It gets passed through your digestive system, your body uses the nutrients, usually in the form of energy, and the waste leaves your body.

1 + 1 = 1 = FLAT EARTH is perhaps the stupidest argument for a flat earth I've ever heard.

lol.. ya it is stupid... dont feel stupid but the whole point of that was to illustrate the faulty nature of the raindrop argument. basically using meaningless superficial examples and analogies to SUGGEST flat-earth theory (not prove mind you since they never take their reasoning that far). There is another group that does things like this, all sorts of religious cults. They often persuade their members by using very superficial examples and analogies that at first might cause some wonder but on further inspection totally fall apart.



I thought this place was a cult.
still not sure, but it reminds me of Co$
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Averti on May 18, 2010, 06:39:36 PM
Lets clear up this BS about 1+1=1 raindrop. Since a raindrop is NOT an empirical unit of measure, a "raindrop" cannot be used in any mathematical formula. This analogy is akin to saying (1 group of people+1 group of people= 1 group of people with more people in it). Empirically, an aggregated unit (group of people, raindrop,) is not necessarily valid. If you wanted to truly add raindrops you must measure them via empirical metrics, such as by their mass, or # of molecules.

IE:  rain drops:  1 gram water nodule + 1 gram water nodule = 2 grams resulting water nodule

or  lets say a rain drop has 3,000,000 molecules in it;

3,000,000 molecules of H20 + 3,000,000 molecules of H2O = 6,000,000 molecules of H2O

So please, understand concepts before you fail at disproving them  :-\

PS:

Raindrops are NOT flat. While they are never round they generally take on the appearance of an inverted parachute, this is due to gravity and friction. This observed tendency appears to rule out UA, since if UA was the case, raindrops would be perfectly flat all the time.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 07:50:49 PM
Lets clear up this BS about 1+1=1 raindrop. Since a raindrop is NOT an empirical unit of measure, a "raindrop" cannot be used in any mathematical formula. This analogy is akin to saying (1 group of people+1 group of people= 1 group of people with more people in it). Empirically, an aggregated unit (group of people, raindrop,) is not necessarily valid. If you wanted to truly add raindrops you must measure them via empirical metrics, such as by their mass, or # of molecules.

IE:  rain drops:  1 gram water nodule + 1 gram water nodule = 2 grams resulting water nodule

or  lets say a rain drop has 3,000,000 molecules in it;

3,000,000 molecules of H20 + 3,000,000 molecules of H2O = 6,000,000 molecules of H2O

So please, understand concepts before you fail at disproving them  :-\

PS:

Raindrops are NOT flat. While they are never round they generally take on the appearance of an inverted parachute, this is due to gravity and friction. This observed tendency appears to rule out UA, since if UA was the case, raindrops would be perfectly flat all the time.

why would they be flat in FEH? without gravity, they are weightless. aka, they should be round. now as to why the atmosphere and friction behaves the same way, I have no clue, because at any given moment, a particle should have no forces acting upon it, only its current velocity relative to the stationary paper, no forces act on either. in RET, the particle is accelerating down with upward velocity and the paper is accelerating down with downward velocity AND fast moving particles from above are being accelerated downward to the paper.
makes no sense.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Averti on May 18, 2010, 07:56:15 PM
Simply put, since FE doesn't account for any nuclear (strong/weak) forces or gravity (asside from UA), there would be no consolidated matter and as such no earth at all..... but saying that a raindrop would be flat was in a UA context. Without UA there is no explanation of the earth being solid and not being a mess of unconsolidated atoms (which UA doesn't actually do anyway).
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 08:00:43 PM
Simply put, since FE doesn't account for any nuclear (strong/weak) forces or gravity, there would be not matter and as such no earth at all..... but saying that a raindrop would be flat was in a UA context. Without UA there is no explanation of the earth being solid and not being a mess of unconsolidated atoms (which UA doesn't actually do anyway).

Even if you add the other forces, that still wouldn't explain why the farther you go to the MIDDLE of the core, the more dense it gets.
also without gravity, you have no metal core, so Dynamo theory is out, and you don't have an explanation for the magnetic fields.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Averti on May 18, 2010, 08:06:13 PM
Indeed, doesn't explain Isostacy either.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: amazed on May 19, 2010, 05:35:34 PM
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:10:11 PM
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:14:14 PM
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring


Were you responding to me?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:35:13 PM
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring


Were you responding to me?



yeah i was. I was wondering why you were talking about rain drops or OP's initial post
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:40:16 PM
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring


Were you responding to me?



yeah i was. I was wondering why you were talking about rain drops or OP's initial post

I was mostly responding to you and Averti when you said the raindrops would be round and Averti said they would be flat. I was saying that I disagree with both of you because if the earth was flat and under the influence of UA, raindrops would be no different than they are now. That is the equivalence principle.

I wasn't talking about/to the OP.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 08:22:21 AM
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring


Were you responding to me?



yeah i was. I was wondering why you were talking about rain drops or OP's initial post

I was mostly responding to you and Averti when you said the raindrops would be round and Averti said they would be flat. I was saying that I disagree with both of you because if the earth was flat and under the influence of UA, raindrops would be no different than they are now. That is the equivalence principle.

I wasn't talking about/to the OP.


ok, sorry my b.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on May 24, 2010, 04:17:38 AM
Now I can rest knowing UA is debunked.

So, so far FET fails to explain gravity...

...and what the FE even looks like.  Think  I shoud start a thread about the raindrops?  I'd be curious to see what some idiots come up with for excuses.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: vhu9644 on June 01, 2010, 06:09:52 PM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 


well you fail to realize that 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 2 raindrop's volume.  so math still holds true, as there is 2 raindrops's worth of water in there

Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: The Question1 on June 01, 2010, 07:56:41 PM
I missed the part where philosophy made it impossible for a round earth to exisit.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on June 02, 2010, 02:54:15 AM
I missed the part where philosophy made it impossible for a round earth to exisit.

You missed it because that connection never really existed.

This almost feels like a straw man.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Tech on June 02, 2010, 03:08:45 AM
This thread is full of win. Definitely going to copy and paste the opening post, too funny.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Popeye on June 16, 2010, 08:46:15 PM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 

I guess you guys have really stopped trying.

Dear FE'ers

Quit undermining your beliefs by assuming even more ridiculous standards

Sincerely, everyone else.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:26:47 PM
    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

   When our children are educated in there early years of life, they are taught what we as a society deem is appropriate as a base for lifelong learning.  Subjects taught in early school for example is grammar and mathematics.  An example of an early basic math equation taught in the concept of addition is   1 + 1   it is common knowledge that the answer to that question is 2.  This of course works.  For example if we have one apple and we take another apple and we put them side by side on a flat table and ask 100 educated people how many apples we have on the table, assuming that there is indeed one apple beside the other apple, most of the 100 people would say that there are 2 apples present.  And if we asked those people to write on a piece of paper the equation that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion, most people would write something such as this 1 + 1 = 2   You could of course repeat this experiment with as many controlled groups as you would like and for the most part the documented results would be the same.

   There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2.  If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop.  According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop.  Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together.  What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

  
   Even through I have examined the most basic mathematical equation and showed why under certain circumstances it can fail, it brings us to the most important fact at hand.  If we cannot trust the most basic mathematical equation then how can we trust anything else that modern science dictates.  The entire world runs on a system that in all simplicity can be boiled down to simple mathematics.  What I am trying to show in my documentation is that although most people are fine living in a world composed of a one sided viewpoint. I hope people can understand that by using real world observations they can come to their own conclusions about the world that are usually correct.  You can observe almost everyday why the most basic mathematical theory fails. You can also observe the earth as you look into the horizon.  Remember no matter what anyone tells you, the ONLY place that you can read about a round earth is in scientific documents and literature (Textbooks) The only place you can observe a flat earth well, everywhere.  Science tends to be something that is always changing and from my experience through school, is, that nothing in science can ever be trusted with all certainty. Even if you think what I have shown in the above paragraphs is bull, please remember that it is important to look at everything with a critical mind and a critical viewpoint.  Even if you think it is ridiculous to believe that the earth is flat in today’s world, please remember that it is critical that you as a person examine everything that you think you know because it may surprise you.

Update, Since I last posted this.

    This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
 
 

I guess you guys have really stopped trying.

Dear FE'ers

Quit undermining your beliefs by assuming even more ridiculous standards

Sincerely, everyone else.

This seems to be a consistent theme for some of the Newer FE'ers, like the guy who seems to think that saying the sun is a floodlight not a spotlight is a good response to all arguments. Or like the guy who thinks the fact that earth and land used to have a flat implication in older diction is a solid argument
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 05:20:51 AM
I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

This is the same thing that happens with conpirationists in general.
They bring little details (that have no connection at all) and try to show it as a logical series of arguments.

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 05:31:20 AM
Also, can you develop the underlined sentenece?

   This is more valid today than of days past.  The Earth is becoming known and understood in a deeper sense.  From the great library of Alaxandrea, to the library of the city we live in Knowledge is born and incased in the Iron shelfs of life.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:04:01 AM
I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

This is the same thing that happens with conpirationists in general.
They bring little details (that have no connection at all) and try to show it as a logical series of arguments.

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 06:36:46 AM
I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.
If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.
We're not perfect, as humans.
We always tend to attend the biggest level of perfection, but all we do is to discover flaws.
Math is a true science (it's a french expression translation, I'm not sure if it's the same in English) but it is true just to the point where we discover the next error to correct. It's called development.
In modern science, it is absolutely true. The probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small, but it doesn't mean that the round earth theory is false. Hence the:
That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
This just means that there are more ways as to see things, not that we all are flawed and that the Round Earth theory is false.

But anyway, what's obvious is that the OP is trying to push Cubes into Circles and yelling: it fits.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Atom Man on June 17, 2010, 07:57:00 AM

Raindrops are NOT flat. While they are never round they generally take on the appearance of an inverted parachute, this is due to gravity and friction. This observed tendency appears to rule out UA, since if UA was the case, raindrops would be perfectly flat all the time.

Rain drops are spherical. This observation is independent of whether the earth is flat or round.

One rain drop of given dimensions mass, volume, what have you, is spherical. An identical rain drop of  similar dimensions is also spherical. Lets call them r1 and r2 with the assumption that for all intensive purposes that r1 = r2. Rain drop one interacts with rain drop two to form a larger rain drop
r1 + r2 = r3
r1 + r1 = r3
2r1 = r3
An observation of r3 would likely be spherical. Again independent of any FEH or RET initial assumption. Therefore, I assume that
r1 + r2 + r3... rn = rt (total)
Lets assume that rt is equal to the number of drops of water in the ocean. Under free fall conditions, surface tension etc, all the drops in the ocean would form a spherical shape.

Conclusion, earth is round!
Bo Ya

In essence any solid under its own gravity, tension or other internal force and given enough time can be considered to have liquid like property; will eventually form into a sphere.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 09:35:06 AM
I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

This is the same thing that happens with conpirationists in general.
They bring little details (that have no connection at all) and try to show it as a logical series of arguments.

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.

Unfortunately, 1 + 1 = 2, and the world keeps on spinnin'... so to speak.  His raindrop analogy is, quite honestly, stupid and flawed.  His attempted wordplay did nothing to advance the cause of the FES.

1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 bigger raindrop = 2 time the water of said raindrops

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

This is the same thing that happens with conpirationists in general.
They bring little details (that have no connection at all) and try to show it as a logical series of arguments.

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.

Unfortunately, 1 + 1 = 2, and the world keeps on spinnin'... so to speak.  His raindrop analogy is, quite honestly, stupid and flawed.  His attempted wordplay did nothing to advance the cause of the FES.

1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 bigger raindrop = 2 time the water of said raindrops

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.
While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 09:39:09 AM
While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.

Enlighten me?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:50:38 AM
While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.

Enlighten me?
I believe I've posted it in this thread, but in certain number systems and situations its true.  The example I've used I think was a ring with an additive identity of 1.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 01:23:53 PM
I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

This is the same thing that happens with conpirationists in general.
They bring little details (that have no connection at all) and try to show it as a logical series of arguments.

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.

Unfortunately, 1 + 1 = 2, and the world keeps on spinnin'... so to speak.  His raindrop analogy is, quite honestly, stupid and flawed.  His attempted wordplay did nothing to advance the cause of the FES.

1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 bigger raindrop = 2 time the water of said raindrops

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.
While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.

1+1 cannot be 1 unless 1 is equivalent to 0 in the set:
1+1=1
1+1+(-1)=1+(-1)
1=0
which means that
2*1=2*0
but this means that 2=0
therefore the only set where 1+1=1 is the group where every number is a zero of the group.

This is still dumb, because when we use numbers in science, for the most part we use the complex numbers or the real set.
essentially, the OP has taken a part of number theory where 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but missed the part in class where people use the complex set. in this set 1+1=2 is a fact.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Slemon on June 17, 2010, 01:42:43 PM
This thread is ridiculous. A value makes no sense without a unit: for example, I can say 3. So? What does that number mean? It means there are 3...what?
However, I can add the word 'grams' onto the end, which makes the number mean something 3g.
Then I say 4. 4 kilograms. 4kg and 3g.
If I just take the numbers with no context at all, then I'd get 7. But with the units, I get 4003g. Very different answers, but it doesn't take a genius to see that the latter is correct. Why? Because the units are vital to the equation. The unit is what makes the sum actually worthwhile.

Then we get onto the raindrop analogy. The unit is what? 1 raindrop+1 raindrop. Ah, but what constitutes a raindrop? Water that falls from the sky? Does that make mist a raindrop, or a cloud a raindrop?
Take two lego bricks. Put them together. Does that mean you just have one lego brick? No, because there is a set value for a lego brick: the unit being one dot, or four dots, etc. The truth is 'raindrop' is not a valid unit, for a raindrop has varying sizes. If you take a value for a raindrop as, say, 1ml, then you can get 2.024542656 raindrops as the result, or some such thing. Why? Because a unit of mathematics has a fixed value. The number 1 has the fixed value 1, the number 3 has the fixed value 3, the number 3.1415926535897 has the fixed value 3.1415926535897. The unit here is a numerical value. But when you discuss subjective terms such as raindrop, then anything can be true. Is the whole Ocean just one raindrop? Or is it a compilation of many, many drops? Is a flood caused by only one raindrop?
To revisit the lego example: two bricks. Place them together, and they are one mass, but two bricks.

And besides, what the  :o does this have to do with FET?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 01:57:39 PM
I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

This is the same thing that happens with conpirationists in general.
They bring little details (that have no connection at all) and try to show it as a logical series of arguments.

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.
I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.

Unfortunately, 1 + 1 = 2, and the world keeps on spinnin'... so to speak.  His raindrop analogy is, quite honestly, stupid and flawed.  His attempted wordplay did nothing to advance the cause of the FES.

1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 bigger raindrop = 2 time the water of said raindrops

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.
While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.

1+1 cannot be 1 unless 1 is equivalent to 0 in the set:
1+1=1
1+1+(-1)=1+(-1)
1=0
which means that
2*1=2*0
but this means that 2=0
therefore the only set where 1+1=1 is the group where every number is a zero of the group.

This is still dumb, because when we use numbers in science, for the most part we use the complex numbers or the real set.
essentially, the OP has taken a part of number theory where 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but missed the part in class where people use the complex set. in this set 1+1=2 is a fact.
yes, those are the obvious consequences of what I said.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Reggy on July 09, 2010, 12:56:00 AM
I confess, I didn't read every single post here so just call me an idiot if someone already disproved my points here. First off, 1+1=2 is more accurately written as 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units; old rule from back in kindergarten. Saying 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 big raindrop doesn't mean 1+1=2, because they don't even have the same units. But more importantly, even if there were some great flaw in our schooling system, you're making the most common--and the most ignored--mistake of all: the fallacy of composition. Just because they're wrong about 'x' doesn't mean the entire system is fundamentally flawed, and that every single thing people teach is wrong. And even if you were to ignore what I just said, how does that make the Earth *flat*? Why not pear-shaped like Christopher Colombus thought, or some random nameless shape?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: zork on July 09, 2010, 02:34:42 AM
In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong
I would like to interpret that this way that you just don't understand the basic education and are rebelling against it. You are not in any way open minded. If you would then would you also consider the possibility of round earth and would not took FE for default and start proving all from that assumption. You would not start bending light to get your desired result of flat earth but you would examine your observations and try to see what they mean. Not try to fit your observations in the FE model. This is not open mindedness, this is blind faith to one cause when you bend all things to fit in your FE model.

While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.

Enlighten me?
I believe I've posted it in this thread, but in certain number systems and situations its true.  The example I've used I think was a ring with an additive identity of 1.
"in certain number systems and situations". That means the one after equation mark isn't exactly like the ones before equation mark. You just redefine last one in the process and by doing so you invalidate the equation.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on July 10, 2010, 11:56:40 AM
In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong
I would like to interpret that this way that you just don't understand the basic education and are rebelling against it. You are not in any way open minded. If you would then would you also consider the possibility of round earth and would not took FE for default and start proving all from that assumption. You would not start bending light to get your desired result of flat earth but you would examine your observations and try to see what they mean. Not try to fit your observations in the FE model. This is not open mindedness, this is blind faith to one cause when you bend all things to fit in your FE model.

While I agree with your sentiment, 1+1 sometimes does = 1 in the realm of mathematics.  It is hardly as matter of fact as you state it.

Enlighten me?
I believe I've posted it in this thread, but in certain number systems and situations its true.  The example I've used I think was a ring with an additive identity of 1.
"in certain number systems and situations". That means the one after equation mark isn't exactly like the ones before equation mark. You just redefine last one in the process and by doing so you invalidate the equation.
The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: zork on July 10, 2010, 01:50:49 PM
The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system
Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 02:02:23 PM
The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system
Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.
For example, if I say 1.000000000000 mile per hour + 1.000000000000 mile per hour = 2.000000000000 miles per hour, I'm technically imprecise, right? (The Lorenz Equation applies to adding speeds, right?)

But under the Algebra of Natural Numbers, I can say 1 + 1 = 2, right?
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: zork on July 10, 2010, 02:22:43 PM
The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system
Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.
For example, if I say 1.000000000000 mile per hour + 1.000000000000 mile per hour = 2.000000000000 miles per hour, I'm technically imprecise, right? (The Lorenz Equation applies to adding speeds, right?)

But under the Algebra of Natural Numbers, I can say 1 + 1 = 2, right?
I admit my stupidity and say that I just don't get what you are talking about.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 02:45:24 PM
The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system
Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.
For example, if I say 1.000000000000 mile per hour + 1.000000000000 mile per hour = 2.000000000000 miles per hour, I'm technically imprecise, right? (The Lorenz Equation applies to adding speeds, right?)

But under the Algebra of Natural Numbers, I can say 1 + 1 = 2, right?
I admit my stupidity and say that I just don't get what you are talking about.

Remember that by the Lorenz Transformation explains how velocities must be added to make sure that no two observers in motion measure c differently. The Transform makes the adding of velocity vectors such that .9c + .9c (in the same direction) is still less than 1c. Please Google Lorenz Transformation for a 'lot' of reading.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: zork on July 10, 2010, 02:56:04 PM
Remember that by the Lorenz Transformation explains how velocities must be added to make sure that no two observers in motion measure c differently. The Transform makes the adding of velocity vectors such that .9c + .9c (in the same direction) is still less than 1c. Please Google Lorenz Transformation for a 'lot' of reading.
So you talk about vectors and their addition. There are other rules for vectors and if you add vectors then you say so that others can understand what you do and how you make up your equation and reach to your result. It's not good manner to blurt out that 1+1=1 and not explain anything further.
Title: Re: There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)
Post by: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 06:01:48 PM
Remember that by the Lorenz Transformation explains how velocities must be added to make sure that no two observers in motion measure c differently. The Transform makes the adding of velocity vectors such that .9c + .9c (in the same direction) is still less than 1c. Please Google Lorenz Transformation for a 'lot' of reading.
So you talk about vectors and their addition. There are other rules for vectors and if you add vectors then you say so that others can understand what you do and how you make up your equation and reach to your result. It's not good manner to blurt out that 1+1=1 and not explain anything further.
I'm just trying to help, Remember that I'm not the one who blurted out that "1+1=1", right?