-
Hi everyone.
I'm quite new to the flat earth teory and, even if I have difficulties believing it, I want to know more about it.
I watched a lot of documentaries and videos about flat earth proofs etc, but there are some things I have the hardest time figuring out.
important: I am NOT here to judge or call anyone names, I am just a normal person who doesn't know what is true and what is not, so I just would like to understand this theory better so that I can create my own ideas about things.
1) Distance of the sun:
Flat earthers say that the sun is 3000 miles (around 4'800 km) high. What I don't understand is: how can it still be seen high in the sky when seen by the top of mount Everest (which is around 8'800 km high)?
I saw a video about a guy on the top of mount everest (or close to it anyway). He showed that the sun was up higher than him and it radiated a kind of reflection that flat earthers said was proof of the existance of the dome.
Now, even if the dome exists and the sun is reflecting against it, why is it so high up? The man should be higher than 4'800 km at this point in the video, and the sun is still above him. How is this possible?
2) Meteorites:
I saw a documentary which explained that meteorites are objects that float in the waters above the dome and that, sometimes, they come towards earth at such a speed that they break it and fall on earth. That would also be why in the desert scientists found some kind of glass pieces which are not really glass and that are believed by flat earthers to be part of the dome, since the material that consitutites them is stronger than any glass-type of material.
I'm ok with it but my problem is: if these "meteorites" fall through the dome, how come water doesn't come pouring in from the hole they create?
3) The stars:
I'm not going to even start with the "clockwise or counterclockwise in the south or north pole" thing here.
My question is: if the dome is completely full of stars from top to bottom (where it meets the earth), how come when we are in the countries which are closer to the limit of the earth we still see the stars going in a circular pattern and not just passing by? since we are closer to the end of the dome we should just see them go by horizontally, souldn't we?
4) the Moon:
Even after all the documentaries I watch, I still have not figured out what shape the moon is supposed to be. Is it a sphere? Is it a disc?
If it's a disc, how is it possible that some countries see a full moon and others in that same moment don't see a line (since a disc in that position for a country would result in just a line for a country that sees it from another angle)?
And if it's a sphere, how is it possible to have the lunar eclipse? I understood the theory for the solar eclipse, but what about the lunar one? what is the shadow that comes in front of the moon in that occasion?
5) Just, why would they lie to us about the earth's shape?
Usually people would lie about something this big for 4 reasons:
- Religion: (ok, it is possible that they are lying to us so that we stray from the real and only believe, which would be God exists and made the earth and firmament etc).
- Money: even though they would admit the earth is flat they would still get the money for research and everything. why would they use up all the money to fake such a big thing instead of telling the truth and using that money the waste on space things to explore beyond the great ice or whatever they would use it for?
- Power: whether the earth is flat or a sphere, power would still be in the hands of governments and rich people, this wouldn't change if they said the truth.
- Avoid panic: just like the excuse they use in movies to avoid telling people that they found alien life: "to avoid general panic". But what panic would it cause? No panic at all... Normal people would live just the same knowing that the earth is flat and that the governments are the only ones who has access to the part beyond the ice (just like they are the only ones having access to space right now, according to the spherical earth theory).
So, since all of these reasons don't make sense (except maybe the religious reason, but I think it's a bit over-done as a scam just to put down religious beliefs), why would they put up with all these space things if it didn't exist?
I think these are all my questions. Since they are a lot (I understand) I would prefer if you limited your answers only to my precise questions, since I already got an answer to all other I had watching documentaries.
Moreover, I consider this to be a serious site about the flat earth theory and therefore I expect serious answers realted to my questions, which will enlighten me on what I can't seem to figure out.
Thank you to whoever will answer in a precise and polite manner.
-
Hi everyone.
I'm quite new to the flat earth teory and, even if I have difficulties believing it, I want to know more about it.
I watched a lot of documentaries and videos about flat earth proofs etc, but there are some things I have the hardest time figuring out.
important: I am NOT here to judge or call anyone names, I am just a normal person who doesn't know what is true and what is not, so I just would like to understand this theory better so that I can create my own ideas about things.
1) Distance of the sun:
Flat earthers say that the sun is 3000 miles (around 4'800 km) high. What I don't understand is: how can it still be seen high in the sky when seen by the top of mount Everest (which is around 8'800 km high)?
I saw a video about a guy on the top of mount everest (or close to it anyway). He showed that the sun was up higher than him and it radiated a kind of reflection that flat earthers said was proof of the existance of the dome.
Now, even if the dome exists and the sun is reflecting against it, why is it so high up? The man should be higher than 4'800 km at this point in the video, and the sun is still above him. How is this possible?
Everest is not 8800 km high.
It is 8800 METERS above sea level and I think your whole post is affected by this misunderstanding.
2) Meteorites:
I saw a documentary which explained that meteorites are objects that float in the waters above the dome and that, sometimes, they come towards earth at such a speed that they break it and fall on earth. That would also be why in the desert scientists found some kind of glass pieces which are not really glass and that are believed by flat earthers to be part of the dome, since the material that consitutites them is stronger than any glass-type of material.
I'm ok with it but my problem is: if these "meteorites" fall through the dome, how come water doesn't come pouring in from the hole they create?
If the dome exists, it could have self- sealing properties.
3) The stars:
I'm not going to even start with the "clockwise or counterclockwise in the south or north pole" thing here.
My question is: if the dome is completely full of stars from top to bottom (where it meets the earth), how come when we are in the countries which are closer to the limit of the earth we still see the stars going in a circular pattern and not just passing by? since we are closer to the end of the dome we should just see them go by horizontally, souldn't we?
Perhaps you could provide a drawing or visual representation of what you are attempting to communicate.
4) the Moon:
Even after all the documentaries I watch, I still have not figured out what shape the moon is supposed to be. Is it a sphere? Is it a disc?
If it's a disc, how is it possible that some countries see a full moon and others in that same moment don't see a line (since a disc in that position for a country would result in just a line for a country that sees it from another angle)?
And if it's a sphere, how is it possible to have the lunar eclipse? I understood the theory for the solar eclipse, but what about the lunar one? what is the shadow that comes in front of the moon in that occasion?
The Moon could be self-illuminating.
5) Just, why would they lie to us about the earth's shape?
Usually people would lie about something this big for 4 reasons:
- Religion: (ok, it is possible that they are lying to us so that we stray from the real and only believe, which would be God exists and made the earth and firmament etc).
- Money: even though they would admit the earth is flat they would still get the money for research and everything. why would they use up all the money to fake such a big thing instead of telling the truth and using that money the waste on space things to explore beyond the great ice or whatever they would use it for?
- Power: whether the earth is flat or a sphere, power would still be in the hands of governments and rich people, this wouldn't change if they said the truth.
- Avoid panic: just like the excuse they use in movies to avoid telling people that they found alien life: "to avoid general panic". But what panic would it cause? No panic at all... Normal people would live just the same knowing that the earth is flat and that the governments are the only ones who has access to the part beyond the ice (just like they are the only ones having access to space right now, according to the spherical earth theory).
So, since all of these reasons don't make sense (except maybe the religious reason, but I think it's a bit over-done as a scam just to put down religious beliefs), why would they put up with all these space things if it didn't exist?
Is Santa Claus real?
Why do parents lie to their children about Santa Claus?
I think these are all my questions. Since they are a lot (I understand) I would prefer if you limited your answers only to my precise questions, since I already got an answer to all other I had watching documentaries.
Moreover, I consider this to be a serious site about the flat earth theory and therefore I expect serious answers realted to my questions, which will enlighten me on what I can't seem to figure out.
Thank you to whoever will answer in a precise and polite manner.
Have a nice day!
-
1) ok, I failed on this one xD I must have misread, sorry.
2) it could be self-sealing, but at this point we are running on pure imagination.
3) I actually don't know how to explain this better.
4) self-illuminating, still imagination, no science.
5) i don't think that the fact that parents lie about santa claus could be a meaningful metaphor in this case. we are not talking about kids getting presents. we are talking about lots and LOTS of money spent for a supposed scam.
-
1) ok, I failed on this one xD I must have misread, sorry.
Failed what?
Misreading something?
Happens all the time.
2) it could be self-sealing, but at this point we are running on pure imagination.
As is most of the heliocentric, globe earth theory, I would argue.
3) I actually don't know how to explain this better.
Okay.
4) self-illuminating, still imagination, no science.
Actually, my statement here (as was my statement in regard to the self-sealing properties of the dome) is the very first step in the scientific method.
Please read up on this method before you label things I offer in response as lacking or void of
science.
5) i don't think that the fact that parents lie about santa claus could be a meaningful metaphor in this case. we are not talking about kids getting presents. we are talking about lots and LOTS of money spent for a supposed scam.
LOL! Are you kidding me?
LOTS AND LOTS of money!!!
Spent on a supposed scam...
Sounds like CHRISTMAS to ME!!!
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
-
There would be no profit in this big scam...
This video, (Thanks Rab), breaks it down very nicely.
-
There would be no profit in this big scam...
This video, (Thanks Rab), breaks it down very nicely.
That's exactly what I thought. Nobody would profit from it and it would be litterally impossible to make so many people maintain the secret. Great video!
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
A lovely and flowering response, none of which has ever been posted before in the annals of these forums.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
US!
-
There would be no profit in this big scam...
This video, (Thanks Rab), breaks it down very nicely.
That's exactly what I thought. Nobody would profit from it and it would be litterally impossible to make so many people maintain the secret. Great video!
Now that you have your air support and your comfort blanket, I will leave you to your continued faith and return you to your regularly scheduled channels.
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
A lovely and flowering response, none of which has ever been posted before in the annals of these forums.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
US!
Ok, they want to control us. How are they doing it by telling us that the earth is a sphere? How is is a different kind of control than if they told us the earth was flat? What would change in their control over us if they told us the earth is flat?
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
A lovely and flowering response, none of which has ever been posted before in the annals of these forums.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
US!
Ok, they want to control us. How are they doing it by telling us that the earth is a sphere? How is is a different kind of control than if they told us the earth was flat? What would change in their control over us if they told us the earth is flat?
If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
A lovely and flowering response, none of which has ever been posted before in the annals of these forums.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
US!
Ok, they want to control us. How are they doing it by telling us that the earth is a sphere? How is is a different kind of control than if they told us the earth was flat? What would change in their control over us if they told us the earth is flat?
If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?
Ok, all this scam could prove that people are gullable and would believe anything. But this can be proved without spending tons of money in a hoax so big. You also have to carry on that hoax for... I think... ever, since you just can't come up one day saying "hey, it was all fake" because you don't know what to do with it anymore.
They proved that they can convince people of things as great as the earth's shape, but this is completely useless. couldn't they have done that on something that brings actual profit to them? It is a great waste of money to continue with this lie that doesn't bring to anything other than saying "look at those stupid poor people believing in our big and well organized scam. haha". This seems absolutely pointless to me. It doesn't make sense.
-
If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?
You yourself have been convinced that the Earth is flat.
What else have you been convinced of?
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
A lovely and flowering response, none of which has ever been posted before in the annals of these forums.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
US!
Ok, they want to control us. How are they doing it by telling us that the earth is a sphere? How is is a different kind of control than if they told us the earth was flat? What would change in their control over us if they told us the earth is flat?
If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?
Ok, all this scam could prove that people are gullable and would believe anything. But this can be proved without spending tons of money in a hoax so big. You also have to carry on that hoax for... I think... ever, since you just can't come up one day saying "hey, it was all fake" because you don't know what to do with it anymore.
I asked you to answer the question and if you are not going to put any effort into answering the question and writing a legible answer here in response to that question, I see no purpose in continuing the conversation.
You know there are more responses to offer than the very simplistic response you typed.
They proved that they can convince people of things as great as the earth's shape, but this is completely useless. couldn't they have done that on something that brings actual profit to them?
"Actual profit," is loosely defined by you(as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions) and subjectively defined by me (as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions.)
Let's simplify it. I just convinced you of the FACT your significant other is a cheating scoundrel. I made the whole thing up. Spliced photographs and audiotapes, fake affidavits, etc. I spent some significant funds on this project. Trust me, if I could convince you of that I would make some actual profit eventually, but in the immediate what is more short term and powerful?
It is a great waste of money to continue with this lie that doesn't bring to anything other than saying "look at those stupid poor people believing in our big and well organized scam. haha". This seems absolutely pointless to me. It doesn't make sense.
Again, if you are not going to exercise a semblance of "honest and sincere effort," in terms of answering and responding in writing to the questions I pose, I must bid you a good day.
-
"If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?"
Do you want an answer to this question? ok, here it is: "anything". of course they could convince you to believe in anything after making you believe this, but this brings to the other part of what I wrote (I just thought you would read my answer, which is "anything", between my "philosophical lines of discussion"): Why convince you of this instead of something that could give them a profit?
"Actual profit," is loosely defined by you(as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions) and subjectively defined by me (as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions.)"
I don't think you defined your idea of "profit" other than saying that their profit would be to control us but ok:
Definition of "profit" taken by the Oxford Dictionary:
NOUN
1) A financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
2) mass noun. Advantage; benefit.
This is what I meant by "profit", since the word itself implies a meaning which I didn't think I had to explain.
Let's simplify it. I just convinced you of the FACT your significant other is a cheating scoundrel. I made the whole thing up. Spliced photographs and audiotapes, fake affidavits, etc. I spent some significant funds on this project. Trust me, if I could convince you of that I would make some actual profit eventually, but in the immediate what is more short term and powerful?
I don't think the example you made is appropriate. If you would do what you explained it would be out of rage, revenge or just for your hypothetical sick pleasure of ruining someone's life. And your profit in this case would be the satisfaction in seeing my life ruined, whatever your reason for doing it was.
But in the case of the round earth theory, whether long or short term, there is no profit (and I would like to remind you that the meaning of this word is explained just above or in any dictionary). There is nothing other than the satisfaction in knowing that people believed your lie, but we know that rich and powerful people don't care about this.
Again, if you are not going to exercise a semblance of "honest and sincere effort," in terms of answering and responding in writing to the questions I pose, I must bid you a good day.
I hope that I did, now. And now try and answer this: Since you believe this is all a scam, what would be (in your opinion) the - long and/or short term -profit for those who are doing it?
-
How much money do the "space" agencies need to get every year before you consider that profit?
-
2) it could be self-sealing, but at this point we are running on pure imagination.
As is most of the heliocentric, globe earth theory, I would argue.
And you would be wrong.
Most of mainstream science is backed up by mountains of evidence, including Earth orbitting the sun, being a round and rotating about its axis.
Actually, my statement here (as was my statement in regard to the self-sealing properties of the dome) is the very first step in the scientific method.
No, it is closer to the second.
The first step would be making observations. The second is making a hypothesis which should fit these observations. You then test this model. This is the part where FE fails.
Until you do this testing it isn't science.
LOL! Are you kidding me?
LOTS AND LOTS of money!!!
Spent on a supposed scam...
Yes, that's the key part, it is all spent.
Nothing left to profit from.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
You fail to understand the objection.
Pretending Earth is round doesn't help them.
They can still have control if they say Earth is flat.
If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?
That they are gods or the prophets/messengers of God(s) or God's representative on Earth that you should obey, or some nonsense like that.
But that is far more profitable than pretending Earth isn't the shape it is.
Why would they waste their efforts on something like Earth's shape when there are far better things to con you into believing?
The only reason would be if this lie then led into something else, such as those that claim Earth is flat and their religion says that to try to get you to believe their religion.
-
How much money do the "space" agencies need to get every year before you consider that profit?
how about enough to make a decent profit after it is all spread around.
Regardless that still doesn't help your case as they could still get this money if Earth was flat and they said it was, but they would be free to waste far less of it.
Even if they didn't want to put it towards space travel, as it is primarily based upon taxes do you really think you have any control over it?
They don't need Earth to be round to take money from you and pad their own pockets.
-
I back JackBlack (lol, nice play on words xD) on everything. Exactly what I thought and why in my opinion the "round earth is a scam" theory doesn't hold at all (and there also are maaany other not provable facts that they just come up with)
-
I back JackBlack (lol, nice play on words xD) on everything. Exactly what I thought and why in my opinion the "round earth is a scam" theory doesn't hold at all.
Well there you go. You came in to verify what you wanted to verify and seem extremely happy with the answers to your questions.
There you go, your job is done. No conspiracies and those in power love to tell the truth in all matters and we all get to share Earth's spoils that we all partake in being in equal share of....aren't we?
When someone picks your pocket or burgles your home or steals your car or mugs you for your possessions as well as those that sell you fictional overseas properties on the shake of the hand after the gift of the gab is over, then just remember that only the bad people do that and your people in power would never ever sell you anything that wasn't a reality or rob you or tell you lies about anything.
Never ever believe that a football stadium full of fans can't all know what the owner has in store for them or even the people behind the scenes, unless they're on a need to kn ow basis.
As long as you pay your money and feel part of it all then you can tell all and sundry that you're in the know and no way can you be duped.
You carry on believing anything and everything you're told. It'll never change your life because your life will simply change to go with the mainstream flow as it always has and always will.
But when you're sat there wondering why nobody's there to help you when you need it most, it's because those that need it most are waiting for you to help them.
The one's that put you in that situation are those that want you most but only for their own wants as well as needs but are not willing to share the wants.
In life, Polly robs Peter to pay Paul. Peter robs Polly of the stuff that Polly robbed from Peter to pay Paul.
Paul robs Polly and Peter to pay himself and hands back a small portion to each so they're strong enough to be productive enough to rob each other and to keep paying Paul while Paul continues to hand back a small portion each time.
Paule will always paint them a picture of the future and hang it on a string in front of their forward foraging as they try to walk into it yet never get any closer to it.
Can you guess who Paul is?
-
I back JackBlack (lol, nice play on words xD) on everything. Exactly what I thought and why in my opinion the "round earth is a scam" theory doesn't hold at all.
Well there you go. You came in to verify what you wanted to verify and seem extremely happy with the answers to your questions.
There you go, your job is done. No conspiracies and those in power love to tell the truth in all matters and we all get to share Earth's spoils that we all partake in being in equal share of....aren't we?
When someone picks your pocket or burgles your home or steals your car or mugs you for your possessions as well as those that sell you fictional overseas properties on the shake of the hand after the gift of the gab is over, then just remember that only the bad people do that and your people in power would never ever sell you anything that wasn't a reality or rob you or tell you lies about anything.
Never ever believe that a football stadium full of fans can't all know what the owner has in store for them or even the people behind the scenes, unless they're on a need to kn ow basis.
As long as you pay your money and feel part of it all then you can tell all and sundry that you're in the know and no way can you be duped.
You carry on believing anything and everything you're told. It'll never change your life because your life will simply change to go with the mainstream flow as it always has and always will.
But when you're sat there wondering why nobody's there to help you when you need it most, it's because those that need it most are waiting for you to help them.
The one's that put you in that situation are those that want you most but only for their own wants as well as needs but are not willing to share the wants.
In life, Polly robs Peter to pay Paul. Peter robs Polly of the stuff that Polly robbed from Peter to pay Paul.
Paul robs Polly and Peter to pay himself and hands back a small portion to each so they're strong enough to be productive enough to rob each other and to keep paying Paul while Paul continues to hand back a small portion each time.
Paule will always paint them a picture of the future and hang it on a string in front of their forward foraging as they try to walk into it yet never get any closer to it.
Can you guess who Paul is?
First of all, if I choose to believe that the earth is round I don't automatically believe anything that powerful people say (for example, even if I believe that space exists, I still don't believe we went on the moon).
Second of all, I came here to get clear answers from flat earthers that could sustain their theories and fill my voids about this theory. all i'm getting are imagined ideas with absolutely no scientific proof, but theories about round earth can explain everything you ask them about their theory, so where are your basis other than in your desire to go against the "stupid masses" and against the "evil powerful people that lie to us about anything"?
They may lie about some things, but there are some lies that would be too big even for them (such as the space one), since they are rich and powerful, but not omnipotent.
And last but not least, your hour-long post still deviate from my question and therefore proves that you flat earthers only speak because you have a tongue in your mouth (as we would say in my language).
If you want me to believe your theory, at least tell me what would be the benefit (and profit) of all this scam. (and don't say "to control us", because I think it is clear that they would never go through such an effort in time and resources just to control us, thing which they could easily do even if they told us the earth was flat!)
-
Oh, I forgot about the Paul story...
still the same concept of the "to control us" thing. They would do all that, spend all that money and useless effort just to make us produce more because we imagine a greater future?
That sounds a little far-fetched to me anyway, since this would be a scam that you continue to develop just so people produce. But people would produce anyway because everyone wants to get rich and live well and that's what drives them.
And with the time going by, you would have to colonize planets and go far from the solar system, just to keep the thing new and going so that people look at it as a possible thing. But what happens when we will eventually ask to go to space? just like with planes, in a future so developed people will want to go to space and go travel and they would also pay for it (and don't tell me that the bad powerful people won't make it affordable because they won't be able to at a certain point) what will you do then? kill them all? pay for their silence?
All this seems a lot of effort and risk just so that population "produces more envisaging a greater future"
-
your people in power would never ever sell you anything that wasn't a reality or rob you or tell you lies about anything.
And again you ignore the key objection.
They have no reason to pretend Earth is round, and doing so seems to cost them a lot of money.
So why would they do it?
Wouldn't it be easier to just pretend it is something else, like secret military projects which the public can't know about?
-
your people in power would never ever sell you anything that wasn't a reality or rob you or tell you lies about anything.
And again you ignore the key objection.
They have no reason to pretend Earth is round, and doing so seems to cost them a lot of money.
So why would they do it?
Wouldn't it be easier to just pretend it is something else, like secret military projects which the public can't know about?
I agree, and just like we do with area 51, people would still make conspiracies and invent theories about that "secret icy place the government keeps for itself", so they would still
be driven to discovery even though they would never discover anything
-
"If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?"
Do you want an answer to this question? ok, here it is: "anything". of course they could convince you to believe in anything after making you believe this, but this brings to the other part of what I wrote (I just thought you would read my answer, which is "anything", between my "philosophical lines of discussion"): Why convince you of this instead of something that could give them a profit?
"Actual profit," is loosely defined by you(as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions) and subjectively defined by me (as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions.)"
I don't think you defined your idea of "profit" other than saying that their profit would be to control us but ok:
Definition of "profit" taken by the Oxford Dictionary:
NOUN
1) A financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
2) mass noun. Advantage; benefit.
This is what I meant by "profit", since the word itself implies a meaning which I didn't think I had to explain.
An entity, capable of deceiving/compromising your mind to the point of causing you to deny the very nature of the world that surrounds you does indeed have an advantage and does indeed continue to benefit.
Let's simplify it. I just convinced you of the FACT your significant other is a cheating scoundrel. I made the whole thing up. Spliced photographs and audiotapes, fake affidavits, etc. I spent some significant funds on this project. Trust me, if I could convince you of that I would make some actual profit eventually, but in the immediate what is more short term and powerful?
I don't think the example you made is appropriate. If you would do what you explained it would be out of rage, revenge or just for your hypothetical sick pleasure of ruining someone's life. And your profit in this case would be the satisfaction in seeing my life ruined, whatever your reason for doing it was.
But in the case of the round earth theory, whether long or short term, there is no profit (and I would like to remind you that the meaning of this word is explained just above or in any dictionary). There is nothing other than the satisfaction in knowing that people believed your lie, but we know that rich and powerful people don't care about this.
I think my analog was precisely spot on.
And evidently, the term, "weapons of mass destruction," was lost on you. The rich and powerful care a great deal about us and what we believe. That is is why there is 24/7 lie telling broadcast over your TV.
Again, if you are not going to exercise a semblance of "honest and sincere effort," in terms of answering and responding in writing to the questions I pose, I must bid you a good day.
I hope that I did, now. And now try and answer this: Since you believe this is all a scam, what would be (in your opinion) the - long and/or short term -profit for those who are doing it?
Short term? - Control
Long term? - Continued control.
-
"If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?"
Do you want an answer to this question? ok, here it is: "anything". of course they could convince you to believe in anything after making you believe this, but this brings to the other part of what I wrote (I just thought you would read my answer, which is "anything", between my "philosophical lines of discussion"): Why convince you of this instead of something that could give them a profit?
"Actual profit," is loosely defined by you(as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions) and subjectively defined by me (as has been a great deal of other terms within such philosophical discussions.)"
I don't think you defined your idea of "profit" other than saying that their profit would be to control us but ok:
Definition of "profit" taken by the Oxford Dictionary:
NOUN
1) A financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
2) mass noun. Advantage; benefit.
This is what I meant by "profit", since the word itself implies a meaning which I didn't think I had to explain.
An entity, capable of deceiving/compromising your mind to the point of causing you to deny the very nature of the world that surrounds you does indeed have an advantage and does indeed continue to benefit.
Let's simplify it. I just convinced you of the FACT your significant other is a cheating scoundrel. I made the whole thing up. Spliced photographs and audiotapes, fake affidavits, etc. I spent some significant funds on this project. Trust me, if I could convince you of that I would make some actual profit eventually, but in the immediate what is more short term and powerful?
I don't think the example you made is appropriate. If you would do what you explained it would be out of rage, revenge or just for your hypothetical sick pleasure of ruining someone's life. And your profit in this case would be the satisfaction in seeing my life ruined, whatever your reason for doing it was.
But in the case of the round earth theory, whether long or short term, there is no profit (and I would like to remind you that the meaning of this word is explained just above or in any dictionary). There is nothing other than the satisfaction in knowing that people believed your lie, but we know that rich and powerful people don't care about this.
I think my analog was precisely spot on.
And evidently, the term, "weapons of mass destruction," was lost on you. The rich and powerful care a great deal about us and what we believe. That is is why there is 24/7 lie telling broadcast over your TV.
Again, if you are not going to exercise a semblance of "honest and sincere effort," in terms of answering and responding in writing to the questions I pose, I must bid you a good day.
I hope that I did, now. And now try and answer this: Since you believe this is all a scam, what would be (in your opinion) the - long and/or short term -profit for those who are doing it?
Short term? - Control
Long term? - Continued control.
You keep avoiding my point.
I get that they would do this to control us, but how is it any different from controlling us if the earth is flat?
Whether they say it's round or flat, they would still have control over us, over everything. A fantasy of an existing space is just something that costs them too much and doesn't bring to them any more control over us than the one they already have.
-
Short term? - Control
Long term? - Continued control.
You're missing the point. Please explain directly, no questions or implications, how tricking the world's population the Earth is round instead of flat yields any sort of profit or control?
No one doubts that governments lie, and that the wealthy and powerful exploit the poor and weak. What is missing is a motive for this specific lie, which seems about as useful as convincing everyone the core of the Earth is made of pudding.
If there was some hidden benefit of a flat Earth that could be exploited by convincing everyone it was round, I would absolutely believe it was possible for someone to try to tell that lie. But with no material difference one way or the other, it would be a huge investment of time and resources for no gain, and that makes no sense. That investment of time and resources could be (and most likely is) used to tell lies that actually give tangible rewards to the liars.
I just doubt that billionaires and world leaders are as interested in fooling people for years just for the laughs.
-
The deceit keeps everyone down. We learn to see falsehood, and we see the world through that lens. Things are hidden behind curvature, places are able to be put higher than another to give undeserved status, geography and distance and the material become our concerns rather than spiritual growth.
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
Lindsey
-
The deceit keeps everyone down. We learn to see falsehood, and we see the world through that lens. Things are hidden behind curvature, places are able to be put higher than another to give undeserved status, geography and distance and the material become our concerns rather than spiritual growth.
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
Lindsey
I'm sorry but we are not speaking about souls or spiritual things here. We are trying to make an argument based on facts and logic.
The spiritual argument is a whole other discussion.
-
The deceit keeps everyone down. We learn to see falsehood, and we see the world through that lens. Things are hidden behind curvature, places are able to be put higher than another to give undeserved status, geography and distance and the material become our concerns rather than spiritual growth.
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
Lindsey
I'm sorry but we are not speaking about souls or spiritual things here. We are trying to make an argument based on facts and logic.
The spiritual argument is a whole other discussion.
The spirit is part of the world, and the most important part.
Lindsey
-
An entity, capable of deceiving/compromising your mind to the point of causing you to deny the very nature of the world that surrounds you does indeed have an advantage and does indeed continue to benefit.
Again, ignoring the main point.
That would apply before it convinced you the shape of Earth is something that it is not.
It convincing you that Earth is round, does nothing.
So how does it benefit them to pretend Earth is round?
And evidently, the term, "weapons of mass destruction," was lost on you. The rich and powerful care a great deal about us and what we believe. That is is why there is 24/7 lie telling broadcast over your TV.
When it profits them.
They don't just make things up for shits and giggles and get us to believe it, spending considerable resources on doing so.
Weapons of mass destruction gave them an excuse to invade a country, wipe out a dictator, replace it with a puppet government which they can manipulate for things like cheap oil, kept the people they wanted in power, gave them excuses to prop up the military and have all those people making guns and other things for the military get lots of money.
Short term? - Control
Long term? - Continued control.
They already have that without needing to lie about the shape of Earth.
So what is it that lying about the shape of Earth gives them?
-
The deceit keeps everyone down. We learn to see falsehood, and we see the world through that lens. Things are hidden behind curvature, places are able to be put higher than another to give undeserved status, geography and distance and the material become our concerns rather than spiritual growth.
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
Lindsey
I'm sorry but we are not speaking about souls or spiritual things here. We are trying to make an argument based on facts and logic.
The spiritual argument is a whole other discussion.
The spirit is part of the world, and the most important part.
Lindsey
Ok, noted. But it still doesn't answer any of my questions
-
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
No, that is only one course of action, which only delusional paranoid nutters will do.
The rational approach is to examine the available evidence and see what model matches reality.
For example, observing things disappear below the horizon, hidden by the curve of Earth, rather than thinking you are a useless piece of shit that can't even see something as simple as that properly.
You sure seem to like bringing in a lot of negativity with your continued insults that we can't even observe reality.
-
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
No, that is only one course of action, which only delusional paranoid nutters will do.
The rational approach is to examine the available evidence and see what model matches reality.
For example, observing things disappear below the horizon, hidden by the curve of Earth, rather than thinking you are a useless piece of shit that can't even see something as simple as that properly.
You sure seem to like bringing in a lot of negativity with your continued insults that we can't even observe reality.
Joe doesn't advocate negativity, he lets us see the world in the best light. He helps all of us, even you if you wanted it, to grow. Objects will only disappear behind the horizon if you allow the material to get in the way of the spiritual. Almost all of us here have seen what really happens. It's a magical experience.
Lindsey
-
The only recourse is to reject it and to help your soul grow, and by doing that allow yourself to see the world as it really is. Flat, all of us equal, all of us important, and the only status that matters is how much light we hold.
No, that is only one course of action, which only delusional paranoid nutters will do.
The rational approach is to examine the available evidence and see what model matches reality.
For example, observing things disappear below the horizon, hidden by the curve of Earth, rather than thinking you are a useless piece of shit that can't even see something as simple as that properly.
You sure seem to like bringing in a lot of negativity with your continued insults that we can't even observe reality.
Joe doesn't advocate negativity, he lets us see the world in the best light. He helps all of us, even you if you wanted it, to grow. Objects will only disappear behind the horizon if you allow the material to get in the way of the spiritual. Almost all of us here have seen what really happens. It's a magical experience.
Lindsey
Yes, everything could be explained by magic. You are absolutely right.
But this is not what we are talking about. So please stay on the subject or just shut up (and I don't mean to be rude but I already told you once that this is not what we are talking about).
-
Joe doesn't advocate negativity, he lets us see the world in the best light.
See, this is negativity.
You are saying I am basically useless, incapable of seeing the world without his help.
This is insulting.
The basis of numerous religions is negativity like this.
They make you out to be worthless garbage (sometimes worthy of eternal torment), and offers to fix this for you or help you with it.
They fabricate a problem and sell you an equally fabricated "cure".
It is downright insulting to individuals and humanity in general.
He helps all of us, even you if you wanted it, to grow.
Again, more negativity.
I don't need to grow.
Stop acting like I am pathetic and can't see reality.
Objects will only disappear behind the horizon if you allow the material to get in the way of the spiritual.
i.e. allow reality to get in the way of delusional bullshit.
This is effectively admitting Earth is round, and it is only through delusions that you pretend it isn't.
Almost all of us here have seen what really happens. It's a magical experience.
I certainly have seen what really happens.
Earth gets in the way.
I wouldn't call your experience magical.
I would call it delusional.
Now then, do you have anything at all to address the topic at hand?
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself. Your soul is radiant, and can only become more so.
We are all souls, tricked into believing we are bodies. That is the one great lie that causes all of this, and the answer to the question. The material world deceives, the spirit does not. We, each of us, are souls living in a flat world, all of equal status and all valuable. The lie is from those that teach us we are meat, and that tell us our world gives us all different status, that some are higher than others, that it all is round rather than even. It surrounds us with negativity that we must try to free ourselves from.
If you train your spirit like you train your body, you will be able to see this. You are a wonder.
Please, don't call it delusion until you've experienced it.
Lindsey
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself.
You are the one telling me otherwise.
You are saying I am useless and incapable of seeing reality.
You are the one surrounding us with negativity saying we are being deceived and cannot see things for what they are.
Now either the topic at hand (in the OP), or go away.
If you want to continue your negativity do it in your own thread.
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself.
You are the one telling me otherwise.
You are saying I am useless and incapable of seeing reality.
You are the one surrounding us with negativity saying we are being deceived and cannot see things for what they are.
Now either the topic at hand (in the OP), or go away.
If you want to continue your negativity do it in your own thread.
People will see what they want to. It is the same with the topic, and with this. If you are intent on searching for negativity, you will find it even in those that try to help you. If you will be ruled by the material, you will be mislead by it.
The only answer in each case is to grow and see the world as it is, and to see how much better it could be.
Lindsey
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself.
You are the one telling me otherwise.
You are saying I am useless and incapable of seeing reality.
You are the one surrounding us with negativity saying we are being deceived and cannot see things for what they are.
Now either the topic at hand (in the OP), or go away.
If you want to continue your negativity do it in your own thread.
People will see what they want to. It is the same with the topic, and with this. If you are intent on searching for negativity, you will find it even in those that try to help you. If you will be ruled by the material, you will be mislead by it.
The only answer in each case is to grow and see the world as it is, and to see how much better it could be.
Lindsey
Again, deal with the issues raised (directly, not with your garbage) or go away.
The topic most recently was what people have to gain from deceiving others about the shape of Earth.
Perhaps you can address that?
Why are we being deceived about the shape of Earth?
What is there to gain from it?
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself.
You are the one telling me otherwise.
You are saying I am useless and incapable of seeing reality.
You are the one surrounding us with negativity saying we are being deceived and cannot see things for what they are.
Now either the topic at hand (in the OP), or go away.
If you want to continue your negativity do it in your own thread.
People will see what they want to. It is the same with the topic, and with this. If you are intent on searching for negativity, you will find it even in those that try to help you. If you will be ruled by the material, you will be mislead by it.
The only answer in each case is to grow and see the world as it is, and to see how much better it could be.
Lindsey
Again, deal with the issues raised (directly, not with your garbage) or go away.
The topic most recently was what people have to gain from deceiving others about the shape of Earth.
Perhaps you can address that?
Why are we being deceived about the shape of Earth?
What is there to gain from it?
The deception comes from the spiritually unenlightened, telling us what it is they believe. Their motivation is their own flaw, their flaw can be corrected but only if they seek to do so. They do not.
They tell us we are not beings of spirit, they tell us we are not all equal, they tell us to worry about more than our enlightenment. We are deceived as they are by the presence of the evil of humanity, which we all must fight with our own light.
Joe
-
can we get him/her banned? it's really annoying when people just won't stay on the subject. I get it. your spiritual things and everything else. nice.
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself.
You are the one telling me otherwise.
You are saying I am useless and incapable of seeing reality.
You are the one surrounding us with negativity saying we are being deceived and cannot see things for what they are.
Now either the topic at hand (in the OP), or go away.
If you want to continue your negativity do it in your own thread.
People will see what they want to. It is the same with the topic, and with this. If you are intent on searching for negativity, you will find it even in those that try to help you. If you will be ruled by the material, you will be mislead by it.
The only answer in each case is to grow and see the world as it is, and to see how much better it could be.
Lindsey
Again, deal with the issues raised (directly, not with your garbage) or go away.
The topic most recently was what people have to gain from deceiving others about the shape of Earth.
Perhaps you can address that?
Why are we being deceived about the shape of Earth?
What is there to gain from it?
The deception comes from the spiritually unenlightened, telling us what it is they believe. Their motivation is their own flaw, their flaw can be corrected but only if they seek to do so. They do not.
They tell us we are not beings of spirit, they tell us we are not all equal, they tell us to worry about more than our enlightenment. We are deceived as they are by the presence of the evil of humanity, which we all must fight with our own light.
Joe
Who the fuck are you to decide who is "enlightened"?
This is one of the biggest problems I have with this flat earth bullshit... These so called "free thinkers" assume everyone else isn't using their mind, that they are somehow gifted with greater intelligence than an absolute PLETHORA of great minds. Literally, the most intelligent minds on the planet!
I sure as fuck don't need a handful of cultists, posting on a single profile, telling me I'm not "enlightened".
Go drink your Kool-Aid!
-
You are valuable. You are capable of wonders. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself. Your soul is radiant, and can only become more so.
We are all souls, tricked into believing we are bodies. That is the one great lie that causes all of this, and the answer to the question. The material world deceives, the spirit does not. We, each of us, are souls living in a flat world, all of equal status and all valuable. The lie is from those that teach us we are meat, and that tell us our world gives us all different status, that some are higher than others, that it all is round rather than even. It surrounds us with negativity that we must try to free ourselves from.
If you train your spirit like you train your body, you will be able to see this. You are a wonder.
Please, don't call it delusion until you've experienced it.
Lindsey
D1?
-
The deception comes from the spiritually unenlightened, telling us what it is they believe. Their motivation is their own flaw, their flaw can be corrected but only if they seek to do so. They do not.
They tell us we are not beings of spirit, they tell us we are not all equal, they tell us to worry about more than our enlightenment. We are deceived as they are by the presence of the evil of humanity, which we all must fight with our own light.
There you go with the insults and negativity again (and projection as well).
But from this you are indicating that they are not deceiving people. Instead, they are claiming Earth is round and promoting this because that is the way it appears.
That sure seems like it is indicating Earth actually is round.
-
Listen "Lindsey".
I just wanted some answers that could be proved with science. What you are bringing up is a whole other issue, so please just stick to my questions or find another discussion where your arguments are more suitable to the topic.
If you are so enlightened then you should understand this simple request :)
-
Listen "Lindsey".
I just wanted some answers that could be proved with science. What you are bringing up is a whole other issue, so please just stick to my questions or find another discussion where your arguments are more suitable to the topic.
If you are so enlightened then you should understand this simple request :)
Science is not everything, it doesn't allow for the reality of subjective perception. If you were asked to prove that you were happy, what would you do? You could act a certain way, but that can be faked. You could take a brain scan, but how would you prove those lights correspond to how you feel?
Our perception of the world is entirely personal
She answered the question that you asked. If you dislike answers that go beyond the material that is your choice, but please be open to the possibility that there is more to the world.
Joe
-
Listen "Lindsey".
I just wanted some answers that could be proved with science. What you are bringing up is a whole other issue, so please just stick to my questions or find another discussion where your arguments are more suitable to the topic.
If you are so enlightened then you should understand this simple request :)
Science is not everything, it doesn't allow for the reality of subjective perception. If you were asked to prove that you were happy, what would you do? You could act a certain way, but that can be faked. You could take a brain scan, but how would you prove those lights correspond to how you feel?
Our perception of the world is entirely personal
She answered the question that you asked. If you dislike answers that go beyond the material that is your choice, but please be open to the possibility that there is more to the world.
Joe
I am open to other possibilities. But in this exact moment, with this exact post, I was asking for an answer which implied scientifical facts.
Of course there can be something other than science, but my post was (let's say) putting aside anything other than science.
Do you understand now?
-
You keep avoiding my point.
How?
I get that they would do this to control us, but how is it any different from controlling us if the earth is flat?
Whether they say it's round or flat, they would still have control over us, over everything. A fantasy of an existing space is just something that costs them too much and doesn't bring to them any more control over us than the one they already have.
Control established via a lie is evidently much more effective than control established via a trusting/loving/honest relationship.
As a matter of fact, most persons would argue a trusting/loving/honest relationship results in the most freedom for those persons involved in such relationships.
I love my girlfriend. I do not want control over her. I want her to do her own thing and I will do mine.
Look, freemasonry knows exactly what is going on and the craft actually tells you what is going when the meeting adjourns. The meetings always take place on the level.
Any other questions?
-
Any other questions?
Yes. What specific material gain is provided by the specific lie regarding the shape of the world? Please don't answer in broad strokes of what conspiracy can do and control in general. There are hundreds of trillions of lies that could be told, many of which have immediate objective and identifiable returns. Why lie about the shape of the planet? What is there to be gained from that lie in particular.
I guess it's the same question, but since it hasn't been answered yet, I think it's okay to ask again.
-
Science is not everything, it doesn't allow for the reality of subjective perception.
Because it cares about OBJECTIVE REALITY!
If you were asked to prove that you were happy, what would you do?
How about you try discussing the topic at hand, THE SHAPE OF EARTH!
She answered the question that you asked.
No, she completely ignored it.
If you dislike answers that go beyond the material that is your choice, but please be open to the possibility that there is more to the world.
And you need to be open to the highly likely possibility that your spiritual nonsense is just a load of crap which has no bearing on objective reality.
-
You keep avoiding my point.
How?
By repeatedly failing to address the issue.
You are yet to explain how convincing people Earth is round gives them some benefit.
The ability to convince people of a lie (and associated benefits) exists (or doesn't) regardless of if they have convinced people that Earth is round.
So why convince people Earth is round?
Control established via a lie is evidently much more effective than control established via a trusting/loving/honest relationship.
Evidently based on what?
Look at all the monarchies which have based their control on a lie which have lost all (or almost all) of their power.
As a matter of fact, most persons would argue a trusting/loving/honest relationship results in the most freedom for those persons involved in such relationships.
Only because they don't want to control each other.
Any other questions?
Nope, just the same one. Why lie and claim Earth is round? What benefit is there?
Note: this can't be a benefit of lying to people or being able to convince people of a lie. It needs to specifically be about Earth being round.
-
There would be no profit in this big scam...
This video, (Thanks Rab), breaks it down very nicely.
That's exactly what I thought. Nobody would profit from it and it would be litterally impossible to make so many people maintain the secret. Great video!
Only a handful of people have ever been to space to actually confirm. Lots of them are dead, and space agencies receive lots of money to do what they do. I'd keep my mouth shut for 200k USD a year for the rest of my life, I don't know about you.
The fact is that not that many people would actually have to know, and it would be a source of income for those who do know to just keep their mouths shut and continue the sham, so I'm not sure what's so hard to believe.
Oh, and there is no dome.
That should alleviate most of your concerns.
-
There would be no profit in this big scam...
This video, (Thanks Rab), breaks it down very nicely.
That's exactly what I thought. Nobody would profit from it and it would be litterally impossible to make so many people maintain the secret. Great video!
Only a handful of people have ever been to space to actually confirm. Lots of them are dead, and space agencies receive lots of money to do what they do. I'd keep my mouth shut for 200k USD a year for the rest of my life, I don't know about you.
The fact is that not that many people would actually have to know, and it would be a source of income for those who do know to just keep their mouths shut and continue the sham, so I'm not sure what's so hard to believe.
Oh, and there is no dome.
That should alleviate most of your concerns.
In the video it also explains how expensive it would be as a lie even if just a handful of people would know about it. it's not just about keeping them from telling the secret, it's about actually materially build everything that they use to convince us that space exists. that's why I think it's hard to believe.
And the fact that there is no dome, so the sky would have a kind of atmosphere that's "transparent" like the one in the RE theory and it separates us from the waters above? That could be a much nicer hypothesis than the self-sealing dome that someone else suggested. But it still would be hard to explain how it could be able to keep so much water away from earth.
-
You keep avoiding my point.
How?
By repeatedly failing to address the issue.
Fuck off Jack.
You are full of shit.
How about letting the OP answer the fucking question.
You are yet to explain how convincing people Earth is round gives them some benefit.
The ability to convince people of a lie (and associated benefits) exists (or doesn't) regardless of if they have convinced people that Earth is round.
So why convince people Earth is round?
Control established via a lie is evidently much more effective than control established via a trusting/loving/honest relationship.
Evidently based on what?
Look at all the monarchies which have based their control on a lie which have lost all (or almost all) of their power.
We would look at them, except there are none to look at.
As a matter of fact, most persons would argue a trusting/loving/honest relationship results in the most freedom for those persons involved in such relationships.
Only because they don't want to control each other.
Exactly, asshole.
Any other questions?
Nope, just the same one. Why lie and claim Earth is round? What benefit is there?
Note: this can't be a benefit of lying to people or being able to convince people of a lie. It needs to specifically be about Earth being round.
Note:You can't see the fucking forest because of the fucking trees, so like I wrote earlier.
Fuck off.
Shove a compass up your ass while you are at it.
And the fact that there is no dome, so the sky would have a kind of atmosphere that's "transparent" like the one in the RE theory and it separates us from the waters above? That could be a much nicer hypothesis than the self-sealing dome that someone else suggested. But it still would be hard to explain how it could be able to keep so much water away from earth.
You have never in your life encountered a substance that is capable of being pierced and sealing itself off after being pierced?
-
Only a handful of people have ever been to space to actually confirm. Lots of them are dead, and space agencies receive lots of money to do what they do.
Yes, lots of money THAT GETS SPENT!
I'd keep my mouth shut for 200k USD a year for the rest of my life, I don't know about you.
And who is getting this 200k USD a year?
The fact is that not that many people would actually have to know, and it would be a source of income for those who do know to just keep their mouths shut and continue the sham, so I'm not sure what's so hard to believe.
No, loads of people would have to know, enough to make it so the money isn't worth the effort of lying.
-
There would be no profit in this big scam...
This video, (Thanks Rab), breaks it down very nicely.
That's exactly what I thought. Nobody would profit from it and it would be litterally impossible to make so many people maintain the secret. Great video!
Only a handful of people have ever been to space to actually confirm. Lots of them are dead, and space agencies receive lots of money to do what they do. I'd keep my mouth shut for 200k USD a year for the rest of my life, I don't know about you.
The fact is that not that many people would actually have to know, and it would be a source of income for those who do know to just keep their mouths shut and continue the sham, so I'm not sure what's so hard to believe.
Oh, and there is no dome.
That should alleviate most of your concerns.
In the video it also explains how expensive it would be as a lie even if just a handful of people would know about it. it's not just about keeping them from telling the secret, it's about actually materially build everything that they use to convince us that space exists. that's why I think it's hard to believe.
And the fact that there is no dome, so the sky would have a kind of atmosphere that's "transparent" like the one in the RE theory and it separates us from the waters above? That could be a much nicer hypothesis than the self-sealing dome that someone else suggested. But it still would be hard to explain how it could be able to keep so much water away from earth.
They can lie about that too, though. The lunar lander looks like it's made of aluminum foil and cardboard.
There's no "sky water" or "firmament". Modern FET is not religion based.
It's the same as the atmosphere, we just call it the atmoplane.
Only a handful of people have ever been to space to actually confirm. Lots of them are dead, and space agencies receive lots of money to do what they do.
Yes, lots of money THAT GETS SPENT!
I'd keep my mouth shut for 200k USD a year for the rest of my life, I don't know about you.
And who is getting this 200k USD a year?
The fact is that not that many people would actually have to know, and it would be a source of income for those who do know to just keep their mouths shut and continue the sham, so I'm not sure what's so hard to believe.
No, loads of people would have to know, enough to make it so the money isn't worth the effort of lying.
Oh yeah? Spent of what? Are you the head accountant at NASA?
Everyone who's ever been to space is getting it. Probably more.
Loads of people? Please, explain.
-
Oh yeah? Spent of what? Are you the head accountant at NASA?
Why would I need to be the head accountant. They are launching rockets, with lots of fuel and payloads which would be a complete waste of money.
Everyone who's ever been to space is getting it. Probably more.
So not much to spread around.
Loads of people? Please, explain.
Well, you have those high ups which know it all.
You then have the lower people that need to continually fake things from space.
You have trade offs in some area, where you either have all the people working on the fancy stuff you launch into space in on it, or you have them actually construct something which then is never used and probably lost for good wasting loads of money, with similar issues with those setting up the space craft for launch, where they either know or need to put loads of money into it.
Then you have other people not directly tied to NASA, such as meteorologists that use satellite data and the like for weather forecasting, TV and internet companies that use satellites for their purposes, those that install satellite dishes, GPS including the coders some of which is completely open; and so on.
So there are loads of people that need to be in on it.
-
Oh yeah? Spent of what? Are you the head accountant at NASA?
Why would I need to be the head accountant. They are launching rockets, with lots of fuel and payloads which would be a complete waste of money.
Everyone who's ever been to space is getting it. Probably more.
So not much to spread around.
Loads of people? Please, explain.
Well, you have those high ups which know it all.
You then have the lower people that need to continually fake things from space.
You have trade offs in some area, where you either have all the people working on the fancy stuff you launch into space in on it, or you have them actually construct something which then is never used and probably lost for good wasting loads of money, with similar issues with those setting up the space craft for launch, where they either know or need to put loads of money into it.
Then you have other people not directly tied to NASA, such as meteorologists that use satellite data and the like for weather forecasting, TV and internet companies that use satellites for their purposes, those that install satellite dishes, GPS including the coders some of which is completely open; and so on.
So there are loads of people that need to be in on it.
How many rockets do they launch a year? How much does a rocket that doesn't need to go to space cost?
How much does a rocket that does need to go to space cost?
Why would any of the engineers have any idea what actually happens to those things after they "leave the atmosphere"?
Every satellite that gets launched into orbit needs to go through NASA by law.
As for data, does a meteorologist build and send a satellite into space, or do they just get handed a data set? What are you even talking about?
-
so, if the "sky waters" don't exist, where do the asteroids come from? Does "space" still exists outside of the atmoplane?
-
You keep avoiding my point.
You keep missing mine.
I get that they would do this to control us, but how is it any different from controlling us if the earth is flat?
How does one control another if there is truth and love and honesty at the basis of the relationship?
Whether they say it's round or flat, they would still have control over us, over everything.
No, they would not.
A fantasy of an existing space is just something that costs them too much and doesn't bring to them any more control over us than the one they already have.
Did I understand you to write earlier you did not believe man went to the moon?
Oh, before you run off screaming about having a basis in science, just go ahead and consider my answers about the whole control issue as being offered in a sociological/psychological context.
You claimed my answer regarding the dome as having some sort of self-sealing properties was specious.
Actually, there are, known to man, self-sealing materials:
http://www.advancedsciencenews.com/puncture-proof-and-self-sealing-water-tight-materials/ (http://www.advancedsciencenews.com/puncture-proof-and-self-sealing-water-tight-materials/)
So, while I am not claiming this is a factual state of being, I stating it could be a possibility.
-
Every satellite that gets launched into orbit needs to go through NASA by law.
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (generally referred to as FAA/AST or simply AST[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Transportation#cite_note-1)) is the branch of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Federal Aviation Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) that approves any commercial rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket) launch operations—that is, any launches that are not classified as model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket), amateur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_rocketry), or "by and for the government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government)."
-
Every satellite that gets launched into orbit needs to go through NASA by law.
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (generally referred to as FAA/AST or simply AST[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Transportation#cite_note-1)) is the branch of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Federal Aviation Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) that approves any commercial rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket) launch operations—that is, any launches that are not classified as model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket), amateur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_rocketry), or "by and for the government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government)."
Okay, so they have to be cleared by the government at some level. My point was more that you can't just build a satellite and launch it into orbit without going through some governmental authority.
Thanks, though.
-
Every satellite that gets launched into orbit needs to go through NASA by law.
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (generally referred to as FAA/AST or simply AST[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Transportation#cite_note-1)) is the branch of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Federal Aviation Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) that approves any commercial rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket) launch operations—that is, any launches that are not classified as model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket), amateur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_rocketry), or "by and for the government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government)."
Okay, so they have to be cleared by the government at some level. My point was more that you can't just build a satellite and launch it into orbit without going through some governmental authority.
Thanks, though.
So what?
-
So people act like these companies just design build and launch these things themselves. That's not true.
-
So people act like these companies just design build and launch these things themselves. That's not true.
So what?
You can't even build a house on your own land or drive a car on a public road without getting approval from some level of government.
And with satellites going into geostationary orbit, there is only a limited number of "slots" available, so some cooperation is needed.
But in the end, anyone can put a satellite into orbit.
I wonder if Israel, Iran, China or North Korea get approval for surveillance (spy) satellites.
Of course, being classified and/or governments, they are exempt.
-
How many rockets do they launch a year? How much does a rocket that doesn't need to go to space cost?
As I explained, this depends upon what happens and how many people are in on it.
The more people you have in on it, the less it will cost.
If no one is in on it except the high ups, it would cost the exact same as a rocket to go to space.
This is because it would have the exact same payload, with the same amount of fuel and so on.
Why would any of the engineers have any idea what actually happens to those things after they "leave the atmosphere"?
Again, I explained that. They don't necessarily need to. But if they don't, that means the money is wasted on producing something which will serve no purpose.
Every satellite that gets launched into orbit needs to go through NASA by law.
BS.
What law established that?
Preferably provide a law which also requires other countries to obey.
As for data, does a meteorologist build and send a satellite into space, or do they just get handed a data set? What are you even talking about?
For the most part they just get a lot of data. This data needs to be reliable, and if space isn't real, would need to be fabricated.
-
But in the end, anyone can put a satellite into orbit.
And anyone can go out and see them for oneself. There are plenty of online resources to help.
- Space.com (https://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html)
- Sky and Telescope (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/)
- PhotographyBlogger (http://photographyblogger.net/tips-resources-for-photographing-satellites/)
- HobbySpace (http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/)
- BrightHub (http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/58379.aspx)
And there are a LOT of them up there. This diagram shows only geosynchronous satellites and is over six years old, more have launched since:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/id/1/1d/Commercial_Communications_Satellites.png)
-
Whether they say it's round or flat, they would still have control over us, over everything.
No, they would not.
This is what you need to explain.
How do they have more control by convincing us Earth is round?
Oh, before you run off screaming about having a basis in science, just go ahead and consider my answers about the whole control issue as being offered in a sociological/psychological context.
When you can actually provide one.
You need to show how pretending Earth is round (assuming it isn't) gives them something.
You claimed my answer regarding the dome as having some sort of self-sealing properties was specious.
Actually, there are, known to man, self-sealing materials:
Try ploughing a meteorite through one.
Also note that these are typically complex materials which don't form naturally.
-
Try ploughing a meteorite through one.
You would need to find a meteorite and then figure out a way to ramp it up it's speed to that of a meteor to test your ploughing stunt.
-
You would need to find a meteorite and then figure out a way to ramp it up it's speed to that of a meteor to test your ploughing stunt.
So find a chunk of iron (i.e. meteorite) and fire it out of a railgun.
-
You would need to find a meteorite and then figure out a way to ramp it up it's speed to that of a meteor to test your ploughing stunt.
So find a chunk of iron (i.e. meteorite) and fire it out of a railgun.
I would buy a ticket to watch that. Not joking. Awesome machines.
-
Whether they say it's round or flat, they would still have control over us, over everything.
No, they would not.
This is what you need to explain.
How do they have more control by convincing us Earth is round?
God, you are dense.
Do governments have control over the populace?
Answer = yes
What do governments tell us?
Answer = The Earth is an "oblate spheroid."
Then you go on to agree entities engaged in honest/loving/trusting relationships do not seek control over each other, allowing freedom...
WTF!?!
You are fucking mental.
Oh, before you run off screaming about having a basis in science, just go ahead and consider my answers about the whole control issue as being offered in a sociological/psychological context.
When you can actually provide one.
You need to show how pretending Earth is round (assuming it isn't) gives them something.
Failing to see the forest because of the fucking trees, Jack...
Failing to see the forest because of the fucking trees...
Arguing like the fucking little (http://www.shopatnorway.com/images/840075_la_troll_norway.jpg) you are.
You claimed my answer regarding the dome as having some sort of self-sealing properties was specious.
Actually, there are, known to man, self-sealing materials:
Try ploughing a meteorite through one.
Also note that these are typically complex materials which don't form naturally.
So?
-
Whether they say it's round or flat, they would still have control over us, over everything.
No, they would not.
This is what you need to explain.
How do they have more control by convincing us Earth is round?
God, you are dense.
Do governments have control over the populace?
Answer = yes
What do governments tell us?
Answer = The Earth is an "oblate spheroid."
Then you go on to agree entities engaged in honest/loving/trusting relationships do not seek control over each other, allowing freedom...
WTF!?!
You are fucking mental.
Oh, before you run off screaming about having a basis in science, just go ahead and consider my answers about the whole control issue as being offered in a sociological/psychological context.
When you can actually provide one.
You need to show how pretending Earth is round (assuming it isn't) gives them something.
Failing to see the forest because of the fucking trees, Jack...
Failing to see the forest because of the fucking trees...
Arguing like the fucking little (http://www.shopatnorway.com/images/840075_la_troll_norway.jpg) you are.
You claimed my answer regarding the dome as having some sort of self-sealing properties was specious.
Actually, there are, known to man, self-sealing materials:
Try ploughing a meteorite through one.
Also note that these are typically complex materials which don't form naturally.
So?
This is getting annoying.
You keep insulting jackblack but it's you that just can't answer a simple question.
WHAT is the difference between powerful people controlling us by telling us the earth is round or by telling us the earth is flat?
We are at elementary levels here..
We understand you believe that they would have more control with the space lie because that's something really big people would believe.
But WHAT WOULD DIFFER if the earth was flat? HOW would their power be less in this case?
We want examples, hypothesis,...
Please remove your head from your ass and try to read and understand our question!
-
This is getting annoying.
No shit...
You keep insulting jackblack but it's you that just can't answer a simple question.
Do not worry about Jack...he can handle it and gets what he deserves.
WHAT is the difference between powerful people controlling us by telling us the earth is round or by telling us the earth is flat?
Answer = Control vs. No Control.
We are at elementary levels here..
Yeah, and the fact you could not garner the answer from my prior responses informs me you are at a pre-elementary level in regard to the subject.
We understand you believe that they would have more control with the space lie because that's something really big people would believe.
But WHAT WOULD DIFFER if the earth was flat? HOW would their power be less in this case?
We want examples, hypothesis,..
I have provided you with an example, ffs...
Entities engaged in an honest/loving/trusting relationship do not seek control over each other.
That is a perfectly sound, fundamental statement and I offered my personal relationship experience with my sig other as an example.
Do you have an example of two entities engaged in an honest/loving/trusting relationship where control is sought over one or the other?
Please remove your head from your ass and try to read and understand our question!
I have read and understood the question to the best of my ability.
I do not think you will be able to restate the question to engender a different intent or meaning (unless you are going to move the goalposts).
-
God, you are dense.
Nope. That seems to be you.
Do governments have control over the populace?
Answer = yes
What do governments tell us?
Answer = The Earth is an "oblate spheroid."
Would they still have control if they told us Earth was flat?
YES!!!
See, this is what you need to address.
What do they get specifically from telling us Earth is round?
What would they lose if people knew Earth was flat?
Until you address that, your words are empty.
Do you understand that?
Stop just saying they have control and are saying Earth is round or that they could get you to believe a lie.
You need to show exactly what benefit they get from claiming Earth is round.
Do not worry about Jack...he can handle it and gets what he deserves.
If that was the case you would actually answer my questions or admit that you were wrong.
I am yet to get what I deserve from any of your FEers.
Instead you offer the same refuted crap again and again, failing to answer simple questions.
I do not think you will be able to restate the question to engender a different intent or meaning (unless you are going to move the goalposts).
So you admit you have no actual answer and instead can only repeat the same non-answers.
-
God, you are dense.
Nope. That seems to be you.
Do governments have control over the populace?
Answer = yes
What do governments tell us?
Answer = The Earth is an "oblate spheroid."
Would they still have control if they told us Earth was flat?
YES!!!
See, this is what you need to address.
What do they get specifically from telling us Earth is round?
What would they lose if people knew Earth was flat?
Until you address that, your words are empty.
Do you understand that?
Why don't you perform your little "proof by contradiction," exercise and get your own answer?
Jesus...
Governments suddenly come out and write the following: "THE EARTH IS FLAT!"
First of all, you, after hundreds of years of mass conditioning, would need to perform a cranial rectolotomy...
Then, try to deal with the concept of betrayal...
So on...
Stop just saying they have control and are saying Earth is round or that they could get you to believe a lie.
You need to show exactly what benefit they get from claiming Earth is round.
If you do not think control over a populace = a benefit, then you are stupid.
That is exactly what they get.
And like I wrote earlier, if they suddenly became honest, they would lose control.
Do not worry about Jack...he can handle it and gets what he deserves.
If that was the case you would actually answer my questions or admit that you were wrong.
I am yet to get what I deserve from any of your FEers.
Instead you offer the same refuted crap again and again, failing to answer simple questions.
You have failed to pay attention.
You have received the answers.
You are a discredited failure.
I do not think you will be able to restate the question to engender a different intent or meaning (unless you are going to move the goalposts).
So you admit you have no actual answer and instead can only repeat the same non-answers.
I admit you are an abject failure at being human and constitute nothing more than a stain on a bedsheet.
-
By the way, I want to take the time to let everyone know why Jack has such a hard time understanding a loving/honest/trusting relationship.
It would be hard for you too if you grew up needing a pork chop tied around your neck just so the dog would play with you.
So cut Jack a little slack on this one.
-
I admit you are an abject failure at being human and constitute nothing more than a stain on a bedsheet.
Yup, about the Totally Crappy's best argument for a flat earth.
-
By the way, I want to take the time to let everyone know why Jack has such a hard time understanding a loving/honest/trusting relationship.
It would be hard for you too if you grew up needing a pork chop tied around your neck just so the dog would play with you.
So cut Jack a little slack on this one.
I guess you'd know first-paw, since you were the dog! Down Spot!
The Flat Earth Society Society must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to have to roster Totally Crappy on duty to defend the indefensible!
-
By the way, I want to take the time to let everyone know why Jack has such a hard time understanding a loving/honest/trusting relationship.
It would be hard for you too if you grew up needing a pork chop tied around your neck just so the dog would play with you.
So cut Jack a little slack on this one.
I guess you'd know first-paw, since you were the dog! Down Spot!
The Flat Earth Society Society must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to have to roster Totally Crappy on duty to defend the indefensible!
Tis okay Geoff...
Go back to your grog now...
-
WHAT is the difference between powerful people controlling us by telling us the earth is round or by telling us the earth is flat?
Answer = Control vs. No Control.
How does the shape of the world affect the level of control the powerful people have? What is so empowering to the common people about a flat Earth, and what exactly about a sphere concentrates power in the hands of only a few?
If the US government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it wasn't for "control vs. no control". It was to create an excuse to place military forces near oil. That is the material gain. Oil. The lie was for the explicit gain of oil. That's the specific type of answer that we want. What is gained by lying about the shape of the Earth? It's not control, because they already need control to tell the lie. Why a sphere and not a tetrahedron, or a cylinder, or a flat plane? What is so dangerous about the public knowing the world is flat?
-
Also note that these are typically complex materials which don't form naturally.
Oh, I missed this nugget. (pun)
Are you suggesting these typically complex materials arise spontaneously?
Or suggesting these typically complex materials have some mystic origin?
Do you deny they exist?
If not, prey tell, do they form super naturally?
-
WHAT is the difference between powerful people controlling us by telling us the earth is round or by telling us the earth is flat?
Answer = Control vs. No Control.
How does the shape of the world affect the level of control the powerful people have?
It is a test of the nature of people to accept a lie concerning the fundamental reality of the nature that surrounds them.
What is so empowering to the common people about a flat Earth...
You have asked a question about a state of existence not yet realized.
...and what exactly about a sphere concentrates power in the hands of only a few?
The answer is self-evident based on the amount of 24/7 presence here of RE-tards/shills/lackeys in servitude to the global lie.
If When the US government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...
FTFY.
No need to thank me.
...it wasn't for "control vs. no control".
Yes it was.
It was to create an excuse to place military forces near oil. That is the material gain. Oil. The lie was for the explicit gain of oil.
Ancillary gain.
That's the specific type of answer that we want. What is gained by lying about the shape of the Earth? It's not control, because they already need control to tell the lie.
This is simply nonsense.
You ever lie to your parents?
ANSWER = YES
Why did you lie to your parents?
ANSWER = To control your parents in that particular situation.
CONCLUSION = You do not need control to tell a lie...a lie is told TO GAIN CONTROL.
Why a sphere and not a tetrahedron, or a cylinder, or a flat plane? What is so dangerous about the public knowing the world is flat?
Again for the umpteenth time.
"If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?"
Answer = ANYTHING! That person would exercise complete and utter dominance over your thoughts and maintain that control throughout your life.
Why a sphere?
Answer = Because people, when the idea first came about, were familiar with spheres, understanding the concepts...a celestial sphere does actually exist and is depicted in early flat earth models.
What is so dangerous about the public knowing the Earth is flat?
Answer = NO MORE CONTROL.
The answer I provide is true simply based on a truthful answer to the following question:
"How much control is sought between two entities engaged in a trusting/honest/loving relationship?"
ANSWER = ZERO
-
A test of nature to control people through a lie? seriously? Couldn't they just do it in some other way that would be less expensive?
and the parent-children lie analogy you made... do you think it actually fits the problem? telling a lie to your parents to gain control doesn't cost you anything other than a sense of guilt. but international companies telling people the earth is round (with consequent "proofs" of any kind) would cost much more, not just in money but in time, general resources and effort. And they would do all this because such a big lie would definitely prove that people can be controlled? Yeah like that was fundamental. They control us everyday, from small ads to big companies such as banks (and they also profit by it!) and you mean to tell me that the only gain they get from the biggest lie they tell us is control? please! that's just BS.
-
A test of nature to control people through a lie? seriously? Couldn't they just do it in some other way that would be less expensive?
Such as?
and the parent-children lie analogy you made... do you think it actually fits the problem? telling a lie to your parents to gain control doesn't cost you anything other than a sense of guilt.
If that...
...but international companies telling people the earth is round (with consequent "proofs" of any kind) would cost much more, not just in money but in time, general resources and effort.
Once told and accepted, the ruse is actually easier to maintain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)
And they would do all this because such a big lie would definitely prove that people can be controlled? Yeah like that was fundamental. They control us everyday, from small ads to big companies such as banks (and they also profit by it!) and you mean to tell me that the only gain they get from the biggest lie they tell us is control? please! that's just BS.
Sorry.
History tells us otherwise.
-
A test of nature to control people through a lie? seriously? Couldn't they just do it in some other way that would be less expensive?
Such as?
and the parent-children lie analogy you made... do you think it actually fits the problem? telling a lie to your parents to gain control doesn't cost you anything other than a sense of guilt.
If that...
...but international companies telling people the earth is round (with consequent "proofs" of any kind) would cost much more, not just in money but in time, general resources and effort.
Once told and accepted, the ruse is actually easier to maintain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)
And they would do all this because such a big lie would definitely prove that people can be controlled? Yeah like that was fundamental. They control us everyday, from small ads to big companies such as banks (and they also profit by it!) and you mean to tell me that the only gain they get from the biggest lie they tell us is control? please! that's just BS.
Sorry.
History tells us otherwise.
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can write on it and (according to my past experience with it) it can't be listed as a reliable source anywhere.
Second of all, history tells us otherwise? You mean wars and all? of course, much money, time, effort and resources were spent on them to gain control of people or territory l. But there was an actual gain and profit for them! The winning side would get the territory, and therefore all the resources that territory would imply. And also, by gaining more territory you gain control over a greater number of people, and these people will now produce and do things for you that will make you even richer.
So, where does a lie such as the space one gets her profit? do they increase the number of territory they get? no. do they increase the number of people working for them? could be, but the money spent to keep up the lie would still be too low compared to the one you would get in return. does it bring any more resources? no.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
-
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Says you.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
Find that on Wikipedia?
-
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can write on it and (according to my past experience with it) it can't be listed as a reliable source anywhere.
Fine, ignore the word WIKIPEDIA, then migrate to end of the page I provided and read all those other sources.
Really...
Second of all, history tells us otherwise? You mean wars and all? of course, much money, time, effort and resources were spent on them to gain control of people or territory l. But there was an actual gain and profit for them! The winning side would get the territory, and therefore all the resources that territory would imply. And also, by gaining more territory you gain control over a greater number of people, and these people will now produce and do things for you that will make you even richer.
Nothing here I disagree with...
So, where does a lie such as the space one gets her profit? do they increase the number of territory they get? no. do they increase the number of people working for them? could be, but the money spent to keep up the lie would still be too low compared to the one you would get in return. does it bring any more resources? no.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
And this is where you and I (to a point) disagree.
I write: "If an official government declaration was issued tomorrow (THE EARTH IS FLAT!), humanity's initial reactions of shock, disbelief, feelings of betrayal, etc. would destabilize things to a point where total control would be lost. It would not be a question of whether government would be able to re-establish control via brute force. It would be a requirement, one that is not as easy as one would have you believe."
You write: "Pull a gun on many and the tendency is for the many to freeze in fear , even though the many outnumber the amount of rounds available in the chamber."
Hence, the mind seeking control looks to establish the most firm and consistent control through the act of deceit and not force.
Listen, this is a very well studied concept and has been practiced throughout history, with many examples.
Name one failure.
Name one time where deceit was used to influence the masses and power was actually lost by the ruling class.
You cannot.
The whole concept of "the divine right of kings," is based on deceit.
So is the entire global lie.
-
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Says you.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
Find that on Wikipedia?
No it's not me who says it. It's the facts! since wikipedia can be written and edited by anyone it doesn't have a confirmed source to rely on. it could be written by any douchebag so no, I don't take it as a reliable source.
And if you want to defend your opinions stop with your sarcasm (you are fooling no one) and give some arguments that could actually make sense :)
Because if you can't it means that there are no arguments in your favor and therefore the fact that they would lie about the shape of the earth is actually not possible.
-
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can write on it and (according to my past experience with it) it can't be listed as a reliable source anywhere.
Fine, ignore the word WIKIPEDIA, then migrate to end of the page I provided and read all those other sources.
Really...
Second of all, history tells us otherwise? You mean wars and all? of course, much money, time, effort and resources were spent on them to gain control of people or territory l. But there was an actual gain and profit for them! The winning side would get the territory, and therefore all the resources that territory would imply. And also, by gaining more territory you gain control over a greater number of people, and these people will now produce and do things for you that will make you even richer.
Nothing here I disagree with...
So, where does a lie such as the space one gets her profit? do they increase the number of territory they get? no. do they increase the number of people working for them? could be, but the money spent to keep up the lie would still be too low compared to the one you would get in return. does it bring any more resources? no.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
And this is where you and I (to a point) disagree.
I write: "If an official government declaration was issued tomorrow (THE EARTH IS FLAT!), humanity's initial reactions of shock, disbelief, feelings of betrayal, etc. would destabilize things to a point where total control would be lost. It would not be a question of whether government would be able to re-establish control via brute force. It would be a requirement, one that is not as easy as one would have you believe."
You write: "Pull a gun on many and the tendency is for the many to freeze in fear , even though the many outnumber the amount of rounds available in the chamber."
Hence, the mind seeking control looks to establish the most firm and consistent control through the act of deceit and not force.
Listen, this is a very well studied concept and has been practiced throughout history, with many examples.
Name one failure.
Name one time where deceit was used to influence the masses and power was actually lost by the ruling class.
You cannot.
The whole concept of "the divine right of kings," is based on deceit.
So is the entire global lie.
I agree that if they came up now telling the truth (that the earth is flat) there would in fact be panic or whatever, but this doesn't explain why they would tell that lie in the first place. they could just had placed secrecy on the icy end of the world instead of spending so much in this space lie. People would still be controlled (because of all the secrecy and everything) but they would have spent nothing to fake it
-
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Says you.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
Find that on Wikipedia?
No it's not me who says it. It's the facts! since wikipedia can be written and edited by anyone it doesn't have a confirmed source to rely on. it could be written by any douchebag so no, I don't take it as a reliable source.
And if you want to defend your opinions stop with your sarcasm (you are fooling no one) and give some arguments that could actually make sense :)
Because if you can't it means that there are no arguments in your favor and therefore the fact that they would lie about the shape of the earth is actually not possible.
Piss off
-
First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Says you.
THERE IS NO PROFIT other than control masses, which they still could do if they said the earth is flat damn it!
Find that on Wikipedia?
No it's not me who says it. It's the facts! since wikipedia can be written and edited by anyone it doesn't have a confirmed source to rely on. it could be written by any douchebag so no, I don't take it as a reliable source.
And if you want to defend your opinions stop with your sarcasm (you are fooling no one) and give some arguments that could actually make sense :)
Because if you can't it means that there are no arguments in your favor and therefore the fact that they would lie about the shape of the earth is actually not possible.
Piss off
I understand by this answer that I must be talking to a 10-year-old with nothing to do. I'll gladly piss off then.
-
Change your tampon.
-
That's the specific type of answer that we want. What is gained by lying about the shape of the Earth? It's not control, because they already need control to tell the lie.
This is simply nonsense.
You ever lie to your parents?
ANSWER = YES
Why did you lie to your parents?
ANSWER = To control your parents in that particular situation.
CONCLUSION = You do not need control to tell a lie...a lie is told TO GAIN CONTROL.
No, the lie would have been to avoid getting in trouble, or to get them to give me something I wanted. The gain in these instances isn't control, it is either the avoiding of a punishment or actually acquiring something tangible.
Lies don't gain control, they exploit a trust that is already present. If you don't believe me, ask a family member for some money for a fictitious medical procedure, and then make the same request of a stranger. You are more likely to get a yes from the family member. They are more inclined to believe your lie because of the relationship you have and the trust they place in you not to lie to them.
A stranger is much less likely because there is no trust. If the masses of people don't trust the people in power, then a lie this big isn't going to suddenly make that happen. There would already have to be trust in order for a lie this big to be believed.
Why a sphere and not a tetrahedron, or a cylinder, or a flat plane? What is so dangerous about the public knowing the world is flat?
Again for the umpteenth time.
"If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?"
Again for the umpteenth time, that's not an answer, that is a question. It's a broad and vague question that doesn't even come close to answering what is gained by convincing the people the Earth is a sphere instead of something else, or what is lost if the people know the Earth is flat. Just give a plain, direct answer and we can get off this merry-go-round.
What is so dangerous about the public knowing the Earth is flat?
Answer = NO MORE CONTROL.
This is not clear. If the people in power had told us from the beginning the Earth was flat, why would they have lost their control? What was so important about telling this particular lie to get control? Specifically, please.
-
That's the specific type of answer that we want. What is gained by lying about the shape of the Earth? It's not control, because they already need control to tell the lie.
This is simply nonsense.
You ever lie to your parents?
ANSWER = YES
Why did you lie to your parents?
ANSWER = To control your parents in that particular situation.
CONCLUSION = You do not need control to tell a lie...a lie is told TO GAIN CONTROL.
No, the lie would have been to avoid getting in trouble, or to get them to give me something I wanted. The gain in these instances isn't control, it is either the avoiding of a punishment or actually acquiring something tangible.
Nearly every single person reading this post realizes if a child is successful in lying to the parent the child has gained a measure of control over the parent.
You merely write otherwise to be a massive troll or a tremendous douche.
Lies don't gain control, they exploit a trust that is already present. If you don't believe me, ask a family member for some money for a fictitious medical procedure, and then make the same request of a stranger. You are more likely to get a yes from the family member. They are more inclined to believe your lie because of the relationship you have and the trust they place in you not to lie to them.
A stranger is much less likely because there is no trust. If the masses of people don't trust the people in power, then a lie this big isn't going to suddenly make that happen. There would already have to be trust in order for a lie this big to be believed.
Hence, the selling of the lie to the church.
Again for the umpteenth time, that's not an answer, that is a question. It's a broad and vague question that doesn't even come close to answering what is gained by convincing the people the Earth is a sphere instead of something else, or what is lost if the people know the Earth is flat. Just give a plain, direct answer and we can get off this merry-go-round.
Answer the fucking question.
it is not that fucking broad and it does answer your fucking question.
Otherwise, piss the fuck off.
This is not clear. If the people in power had told us from the beginning the Earth was flat, why would they have lost their control?
ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT A STATE OF EXISTENCE NOT YET REALIZED. AND YOU EXPECT ME TO ANSWER IT!?!? What was so important about telling this particular lie to get control? Specifically, please.
I have been very fucking specific, even to most RE-tards.
See, the problem is fucking RE-tards hate losing debates, especially to me and sandokhan.
I have blasted the fucking RE-tards right out of the fucking water in this one.
ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!
-
That's the specific type of answer that we want. What is gained by lying about the shape of the Earth? It's not control, because they already need control to tell the lie.
This is simply nonsense.
You ever lie to your parents?
ANSWER = YES
Why did you lie to your parents?
ANSWER = To control your parents in that particular situation.
CONCLUSION = You do not need control to tell a lie...a lie is told TO GAIN CONTROL.
No, the lie would have been to avoid getting in trouble, or to get them to give me something I wanted. The gain in these instances isn't control, it is either the avoiding of a punishment or actually acquiring something tangible.
Nearly every single person reading this post realizes if a child is successful in lying to the parent the child has gained a measure of control over the parent.
You merely write otherwise to be a massive troll or a tremendous douche.
We aren't talking about whether the child has gained a measure of control, we're talking about the motive. The child isn't lying for the sake of control, they are exercising their control for the sake of gain or avoiding loss. This gain or loss avoidance is the motive.
We've been asking for the motive for pages and you keep dancing around it. Yes, powerful people have control. Yes, this control allows powerful people to tell lies to people. What is the fucking motive for this particular lie. What do they gain? I can't make it any simpler.
Again for the umpteenth time, that's not an answer, that is a question. It's a broad and vague question that doesn't even come close to answering what is gained by convincing the people the Earth is a sphere instead of something else, or what is lost if the people know the Earth is flat. Just give a plain, direct answer and we can get off this merry-go-round.
Answer the fucking question.
it is not that fucking broad and it does answer your fucking question.
I'll actually play along. If a person could convince me of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds me, they could convince me of anything. Happy?
My turn fuckwit. Now that we agree they could convince me of anything, WHY DID THEY CHOOSE TO CONVINCE ME THE EARTH IS A SPHERE INSTEAD OF FLAT? WHAT BENEFIT DOES THIS PARTICULAR LIE GIVE THEM? Your turn to answer the fucking questions.
This is not clear. If the people in power had told us from the beginning the Earth was flat, why would they have lost their control?
ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT A STATE OF EXISTENCE NOT YET REALIZED. AND YOU EXPECT ME TO ANSWER IT!?!?
You said the dangerous part of the public knowing the Earth is flat is NO MORE CONTROL. I'm asking you to explain why that is true. It's your fucking statement that I'm asking you to clarify you ignorant piece of shit.
See, the problem is fucking RE-tards hate losing debates, especially to me and sandokhan.
I have blasted the fucking RE-tards right out of the fucking water in this one.
ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!
I thought you were opposed to "States of existence not yet realized." I've never seen either you or Sandokhan win a debate. All you do is embarrass yourself repeatedly.
-
We aren't talking about whether the child has gained a measure of control, we're talking about the motive. The child isn't lying for the sake of control, they are exercising their control for the sake of gain or avoiding loss. This gain or loss avoidance is the motive.
We've been asking for the motive for pages and you keep dancing around it. Yes, powerful people have control. Yes, this control allows powerful people to tell lies to people. What is the fucking motive for this particular lie. What do they gain? I can't make it any simpler.
At this point, you are being purposefully obtuse.
So be it.
The motive for all lies is to gain control, in some or fashion, upon which more leverage can be further exercised, in order to gain more control. It is never ending.
How fucking hard is this to understand?
I'll actually play along. If a person could convince me of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds me, they could convince me of anything. Happy?
My turn fuckwit. Now that we agree they could convince me of anything, WHY DID THEY CHOOSE TO CONVINCE ME THE EARTH IS A SPHERE INSTEAD OF FLAT?
Because the sphere is the lie.
WHAT BENEFIT DOES THIS PARTICULAR LIE GIVE THEM? Your turn to answer the fucking questions.
Because it is such a big, fat outrageous lie as to be totally fucking devoid of common fucking sense, that those who believe it are capable of being convinced they are fucking geniuses even though they believe something so fucking stupid.
You said the dangerous part of the public knowing the Earth is flat is NO MORE CONTROL. I'm asking you to explain why that is true. It's your fucking statement that I'm asking you to clarify you ignorant piece of shit.
Only an ignorant piece of shit would ask such a stupid fucking question. It is a question ASKING ABOUT A STATE OF EXISTENCE NOT YET REALIZED!
I thought you were opposed to "States of existence not yet realized." I've never seen either you or Sandokhan win a debate. All you do is embarrass yourself repeatedly.
Au contraire mon frer...
Au contraire...
-
We aren't talking about whether the child has gained a measure of control, we're talking about the motive. The child isn't lying for the sake of control, they are exercising their control for the sake of gain or avoiding loss. This gain or loss avoidance is the motive.
We've been asking for the motive for pages and you keep dancing around it. Yes, powerful people have control. Yes, this control allows powerful people to tell lies to people. What is the fucking motive for this particular lie. What do they gain? I can't make it any simpler.
At this point, you are being purposefully obtuse.
So be it.
The motive for all lies is to gain control, in some or fashion, upon which more leverage can be further exercised, in order to gain more control. It is never ending.
How fucking hard is this to understand?
No dipshit, the motive for lies is to gain something. The mechanism of lies is control. When a con man tricks you into giving him your identity, your money, or whatever, the end goal isn't control over you. The end goal is your identity, your money, or whatever. He uses tricks to control you into giving him what he wants. The control is a means to an end, not an end itself.
How fucking hard is this to understand?
I'll actually play along. If a person could convince me of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds me, they could convince me of anything. Happy?
My turn fuckwit. Now that we agree they could convince me of anything, WHY DID THEY CHOOSE TO CONVINCE ME THE EARTH IS A SPHERE INSTEAD OF FLAT?
Because the sphere is the lie.
For fuck's sake, why this lie? I see no apparent gain and I want, so desperately, for you to explain what they get out of it that they couldn't have also gotten from any other lie that ALSO has a material reward at the end.
Why not convince us that a giant monster eats the family of anyone who hasn't given all of their money to the government before they die? Or tell us anything valuable is actually dangerous and should be surrendered to the authorities for our own safety? I can see the gain of money or valuables from these lies, but I don't see any corresponding value in lying about the shape of the Earth. Where is it?
WHAT BENEFIT DOES THIS PARTICULAR LIE GIVE THEM? Your turn to answer the fucking questions.
Because it is such a big, fat outrageous lie as to be totally fucking devoid of common fucking sense, that those who believe it are capable of being convinced they are fucking geniuses even though they believe something so fucking stupid.
To what end? You're talking in circles. Great, they've pulled off the hugest whopper of them all on the entire planet. Now what? Laugh to themselves about how funny it was that everyone believed them? Is that the payoff? Is the superior feeling the limit of their ambition?
You said the dangerous part of the public knowing the Earth is flat is NO MORE CONTROL. I'm asking you to explain why that is true. It's your fucking statement that I'm asking you to clarify you ignorant piece of shit.
Only an ignorant piece of shit would ask such a stupid fucking question. It is a question ASKING ABOUT A STATE OF EXISTENCE NOT YET REALIZED!
I'll rephrase it for you. Why were the powerful people who originated the spherical Earth fable afraid that knowledge of the flat Earth would compromise their power. What were they trying to prevent by convincing everyone the Earth was a sphere. You said they would have had no control if knowledge of the flat Earth was widespread. Why do you think control is dependent on the public perception of the Earth's shape?
-
You say fuck a lot. I stopped reading your angry round-earth rant
-
You say fuck a lot. I stopped reading your angry round-earth rant
I apologize if your sensibilities were offended, but I respond to people in the same tone they use with me. In this case, when totallackey lost his control and started cursing me out, I responded in kind.
Feel free to read my earlier posts in this thread if you would like to see the exact same points without the profanity.
-
You say fuck a lot. I stopped reading your angry round-earth rant
I apologize if your sensibilities were offended, but I respond to people in the same tone they use with me. In this case, when totallackey lost his control and started cursing me out, I responded in kind.
Feel free to read my earlier posts in this thread if you would like to see the exact same points without the profanity.
If you're so easy to mimic other people's moods imagine how easy it would be to brainwash you into believing a round earth theory. There, I said it, and did you a huge favor!
-
I don't think we are ever going anywhere with these people. I already noticed this behavior in many other sites: they just won't directly answer a question and they will just go round and round on things that can kind of make sense, but that if looked deeply into, just make none of it.
-
Many round earthers have this frustration. It goes away once you consider the flat earth theory and discover, for yourself, it is reality.
-
Many round earthers have this frustration. It goes away once you consider the flat earth theory and discover, for yourself, it is reality.
Yeah since you can't explain it just believe like it is. That's the right choice.
Too hard to prove? let's just believe it and that will make it believable
-
Just read the links in my signature and you'll come around pretty quick.
-
How many rockets do they launch a year? How much does a rocket that doesn't need to go to space cost?
As I explained, this depends upon what happens and how many people are in on it.
The more people you have in on it, the less it will cost.
If no one is in on it except the high ups, it would cost the exact same as a rocket to go to space.
This is because it would have the exact same payload, with the same amount of fuel and so on.
Why would any of the engineers have any idea what actually happens to those things after they "leave the atmosphere"?
Again, I explained that. They don't necessarily need to. But if they don't, that means the money is wasted on producing something which will serve no purpose.
Every satellite that gets launched into orbit needs to go through NASA by law.
BS.
What law established that?
Preferably provide a law which also requires other countries to obey.
As for data, does a meteorologist build and send a satellite into space, or do they just get handed a data set? What are you even talking about?
For the most part they just get a lot of data. This data needs to be reliable, and if space isn't real, would need to be fabricated.
I'm going to go on record saying I really hate what you did to my name here. I know you know I don't like him, but come on. As much as you might not agree with me, at least I speak English.
So how much does a regular rocket cost, then? 450 million including salaries? Okay, that leaves 19 billion to work with.
It's not a waste of money. It's insurance for not getting caught. How is that a waste?
As Bullwinkle pointed out, it's not NASA, but there is a small government organization who has to clear all things "going to space".
As for the last part, stratellites.
-
Why don't you perform your little "proof by contradiction," exercise and get your own answer?
Jesus...
Governments suddenly come out and write the following: "THE EARTH IS FLAT!"
Why would they?
You aren't meant to be explaining it from now.
You need to explain why they would lie in the first place.
You can't say they would contradict themselves if they said Earth was flat. You need to say why they would say Earth is round in the first place.
Try again.
If you do not think control over a populace = a benefit, then you are stupid.
If you think telling people Earth is round as opposed to flat magically gives people control, then you are stupid.
You have failed to pay attention.
You have received the answers.
Not to the questions asked.
You repeatedly avoid them because you are unable to provide a rational answer (to the question asked) which aligns with your claim.
You are a discredited failure.
I am yet to be discredited or fail here.
Nearly every single person reading this post realizes if a child is successful in lying to the parent the child has gained a measure of control over the parent.
No, they don't.
The ability to lie and convince their parents of the lie is the control.
A specific lie does not magically mean they have control.
It is the ability, not the lie itself.
Now can you address the question asked?
-
Also note that these are typically complex materials which don't form naturally.
Oh, I missed this nugget. (pun)
Are you suggesting these typically complex materials arise spontaneously?
Or suggesting these typically complex materials have some mystic origin?
Do you deny they exist?
If not, prey tell, do they form super naturally?
I am suggesting they are man made as opposed to naturally occurring.
-
You say fuck a lot. I stopped reading your angry round-earth rant
It seems to be an angry FE rant, bitching about how telling people Earth is round magically gives people control.
Many round earthers have this frustration. It goes away once you consider the flat earth theory and discover, for yourself, it is reality.
No. I have considered FE models, (they aren't theories), and discovered they do not match reality.
Do you mean it goes away when you delude yourself into thinking they are reality?
Just read the links in my signature and you'll come around pretty quick.
Your signature is a single link.
That then has a bunch more links.
Some of which are pure stupidity, like claiming that 9*1/9 (i.e. 0.9 recurring) does not equal 1, or pathetic strawmen.
So that just further confirms my prior conclusions, FEers need to blatantly lie to pretend FE is better than RE.
-
9*1/9 (i.e. 0.9 recurring) does not equal 1
It doesn't
-
I'm going to go on record saying I really hate what you did to my name here. I know you know I don't like him, but come on. As much as you might not agree with me, at least I speak English.
My bad, fixed it now.
So how much does a regular rocket cost, then? 450 million including salaries? Okay, that leaves 19 billion to work with.
That is closer to the target they want with one specific launch vehicle.
The shuttle program had a cost of roughly 1.5 billion per launch.
The cost varies depending on where you want to go.
Low Earth Orbit has a relatively small cost. Geosynchronous (or geostationary) and high earth orbits cost a lot more. Deep space missions cost even more.
Apparently, with SpaceX it costs closer to 200 million per launch to LEO
But that is just the launch itself, of which there are several each year.
You then have other costs such as the payload; and then like I said the cost of fabricating all the data.
It's not a waste of money. It's insurance for not getting caught. How is that a waste?
The only reason they would get caught is for saying Earth is round in the first place.
If they didn't say Earth was round and instead devoted the small portion of the budget to "secret military research" there would be basically no questions asked (and no answers provided) and they wouldn't be able to get caught.
So why lie and say Earth is round?
As for the last part, stratellites.
Won't work.
They would send back pictures of a flat Earth, blowing the whole operation.
You need people fabricating the images.
You then have the costs associated with these secrete stratellite launches and their operation.
Unlike satellites they need fuel to stay up there.
Then there is the issue of geosynchronous ones.
You also need so many of them it isn't funny to replace a single geosynchronous satellite to be able to get the angle right for all the different receivers.
This just adds more and more costs.
-
9*1/9 (i.e. 0.9 recurring) does not equal 1
It doesn't
Really?
So 9*1/9 does not equal 1?
Even though 9*1=9?
That is saying 9/9 does not equal 1.
What do you think it equals then?
What is 9 divided by 9?
-
As Bullwinkle pointed out, it's not NASA, but there is a small government organization who has to clear all things "going to space".
Interesting how the US government tried to intervene and even punished North Korea for wanting to put their own satellite in orbit.
-
9*1/9 (i.e. 0.9 recurring) does not equal 1
It doesn't
Really?
So 9*1/9 does not equal 1?
Even though 9*1=9?
That is saying 9/9 does not equal 1.
What do you think it equals then?
What is 9 divided by 9?
The value is so infinitesimally close to 1 that it appears that way in measurement.
-
The value is so infinitesimally close to 1 that it appears that way in measurement.
No, not infinitesimally close to 1. It is 1. The 2 values are the same. There is no number in between them.
Perhaps this is simpler, what is 1 times 9?
-
The value is so infinitesimally close to 1 that it appears that way in measurement.
No, not infinitesimally close to 1. It is 1. The 2 values are the same. There is no number in between them.
Perhaps this is simpler, what is 1 times 9?
Do you mean 0.999...999 or do you actually mean 1?
-
Do you mean 0.999...999 or do you actually mean 1?
I mean 1.
What is 1 times 9.
-
Do you mean 0.999...999 or do you actually mean 1?
I mean 1.
What is 1 times 9.
Do you mean 8.999...999 or do you actually mean 9?
-
about the self-sealing and self-illuminating things, round-earth teories are always backed by physics theories. and yes, they may be just theories, but with mathematics and calculations, all their theories work, everything that they prove actually gives a mathematic outcome that is right according to their calculation models. Therefore, even if they are just theories, they work all together.
For the flat earth theory I find very little scientific proof that could actually work. All I find are "believe what you see" and "see: the earth is flat out of a plane" or "we can't feel the movement of the earth, therefore it doesn't move" or things like this.
Of course we could believe anything if we just want to believe it, but creating a working method (like physics and mathematics) that anyone smart enough to understand is able to use to demonstrate round-earth theories is not so simple.
And about santa claus... I hope you are kidding. Even if the concept of money put into christmas or the round-earth scam is similar, there is no way someone would lie about something like this just because it's fun to see the happy faces on people... (or whatever you think this "big christmas" of the round-earth could do to humanity). People don't care about other people, especially if they are rich or powerful. They don't care if normal people like us believe in round or flat earth. They would never go through all this effort just to make us believe something that doesn't bring to any outcome (not for them, not for us).
A lovely and flowering response, none of which has ever been posted before in the annals of these forums.
Of course the rich and powerful do not care about us.
That is why millions upon millions of dollars are spent to maintain power over...wait for it...
US!
Ok, they want to control us. How are they doing it by telling us that the earth is a sphere? How is is a different kind of control than if they told us the earth was flat? What would change in their control over us if they told us the earth is flat?
If a person could convince you of something false regarding the very nature of reality that surrounds you, what else could they convince you of?
Doesn't even remotely address the question.
-
Do you mean 8.999...999 or do you actually mean 9?
I mean what do you think 1*9 is?
Do you think it is 8.9999999999 or do you think it is 9?
-
I just want to make sure I'm solving the right problem, so I need to understand which numbers you mean
-
I just want to make sure I'm solving the right problem, so I need to understand which numbers you mean
I have already provided them.
If you think these numbers are not the same, and I have asked you what is 1*9, why ask about other numbers.
If they were not the same number then what you are doing amounts to something like this exchange:
Me: "What is 1*9?"
You: "1 or 57?"
Me: "1"
You: "9 or 32?"
Notice how your questions are just pathetic attempts at stalling??
I have provided the numbers, 1 and 9.
What is the product of 1 and 9?
Can you answer that simple question, or must you continually avoid it because you know you are full of shit?
-
Well if you put it that way (and thank god you finally did), the product is 9. See how easy that was, why ask questions you know the answer to?
-
Well if you put it that way (and thank god you finally did), the product is 9. See how easy that was, why ask questions you know the answer to?
Didn't you claim that 9*1/9 doesn't equal 1??
-
0.999...999 != 1
-
Well if you put it that way (and thank god you finally did), the product is 9. See how easy that was, why ask questions you know the answer to?
Do you agree that multiple and division and inverse functions of each other?
That is if you have a*b=c, then c/b=a?
P.S. again, it was clear what the question was from the start.
I am asking them to step you through your problems.
-
it was clear what the question was from the start.
Well you were talking about the difference of 1 and 0.999...999 so the distinction was important.
-
I have to admit, its almost impossible to parse this globularist barble and I am an expert in mathematics. What exactly are you asking?!
-
I think he's saying he doesn't like my signature
-
it was clear what the question was from the start.
Well you were talking about the difference of 1 and 0.999...999 so the distinction was important.
0.999... != 0.999...999
You are arguing about a finite (but undefined) number of repeating 9s versus an infinite number of repeating 9s.
-
So wait, what happens if you add up 1 + (1+1) + (1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) ...
-
What are you proposing should happen? And why do you feel it's relevant to the discussion?
-
I'm really not sure. I've heard arguments both ways, but if 1+ 0.999...999 = 2, we could end up with a negative number if we add up all those positives. We could expect no less out of globularist math.
-
Again, 0.999...999 is assuming a finite number of 9s, hence the end you have it. That is fundamentally different than 0.999..., which is a truly infinite series of 9s after the decimal point.
-
Either way, if you add them up indefinitely, you'll get a negative number.
All ways
0.9999 != 0.999999....999
0.999999....999 != 0.999999999999... !
0.999999999999... != 1.
-
You aren't adding the 9s.
Edit: hey no fair using the NSA toolkit to edit your post when I was already replying!
-
Ok, so let's call this the Grandi series: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
Now let's look at this series, and let's call it the Narcberry Series:
1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + 7 ...
And finally, the sum of what I said above, and let's call that the Neil Series, or the sum of all natural numbers:
1 + (1+1) + (1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) ...
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ...
So let's take two Narcberries, and we get:
(1 - 2 + 3 - 4... )
+(0 + 1 - 2 + 3... )
----------------------------
1-1+1-1+1-1...
-
You are adding things together. That's not the same as using increasingly more digits beyond the decimal point.
You should call it the John Davis series and the Not Really realNarcberry series. I have nothing to do with the numbers you are adding together.
The boydster series would be 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + ...
And that series goes to 1 as the number of iterations goes to infinity.
-
Now the Grandi series, its 1-1+1-1+1-1+1...
Obviously, this adds up to 1/2 as it oscillates between 1 and 0. You can get deeper on this and consult Grandi, and his many discussers, but this is reasonable. Grandi is 1/2, the average of 1-1+1-1...
Two narcberries is cleary one Grandi from the previous post. So, 2n = 1b; and then b = 1/2, so 2n =1/2 or n = 1/4. A narcberry is clearly 1/4.
So the Neil series is then (1+2+3...)
So, Neil minus a narcberry is then x= (1+2+3..) - 1/4, or x = 4 times a Neil
-
Ok I'll change the names.
-
I'm on board with your current naming conventions.
-
Then we see clearly that:
(1 + 2 + 3 ..) - 1/4 = 4 (1 + 2 + 3 ..)
And then of course -1/12.
-
Now substitute in 1 = 0.999...9999. This leaves you with -1/12 - ( 0.0000...01)
-
Globe math. Just great. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = -1/12.
-
None of what you just went through has anything to do with 0.999... even though I'm sure it was fun for you to type out.
-
Pretty sure it did. You might want to review how you add up 0 + n/10 + n/100 + n/1000...
-
0.999...999 implies a finite series of 9s. See how it ends?
0.999... is an infinite series of 9s.
0.999...999 != 0.999...
One of those goes to one. The other falls short, but you failed to indicate exactly how short because you used poor notation.
-
Globe math. Just great. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = -1/12.
No. That equals 15, silly. Again, you are confusing a finite series with an infinite one.
-
No, I comprehended the notation and reacted accurately.
-
Globe math. Just great. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ...= -1/12.
No. That equals 15, silly. Again, you are confusing a finite series with an infinite one.
So you filled in the dots, eh?
-
Nothing on this page has much to do with proving the shape of the planet. It's clearly spherical using very simple geometry.
-
Well you were talking about the difference of 1 and 0.999...999 so the distinction was important.
Again, if you think 1 is different to 0.9 recurring, the distinction is clear.
If you don't, it makes no difference.
Ether way, all you are doing is stalling.
Now answer the question:
Do you agree that multiple and division and inverse functions of each other?
That is if you have a*b=c, then c/b=a?
-
I have to admit, its almost impossible to parse this globularist barble and I am an expert in mathematics. What exactly are you asking?!
This has nothing to do with the globe. If you were an expert in math you would understand quite simply.
In general, if you have a function f(x), and in inverse function to that, e.g. g(x), then g(f(x))=x.
That is, if you take a number, put it into a function, and then put that result into the inverse function, you get your original number back.
Multiplication and division is a simple example of this.
If you take a function f(x)=b*x, then the inverse function g(x)=x/b.
Thus g(f(x))=f(x)/b=(b*x)/b=x.
You can also get that from the relation I gave, but I will spell it out a bit more:
Assuming "a", "b" and "c" are all finite, non-zero, real numbers; assuming the relation a*b=c holds, then does the relation a=c/b also hold?
Does that make it easy enough for an "expert" like you to understand?
-
Globe math. Just great. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ...= -1/12.
No. That equals 15, silly. Again, you are confusing a finite series with an infinite one.
So you filled in the dots, eh?
That's some disputeone-level bullshit right there. Don't misquote me just because you made a mistake and can't admit it.
-
Now substitute in 1 = 0.999...9999. This leaves you with -1/12 - ( 0.0000...01)
But, 1 ≠ 0.999...9999 no matter how many decimal places you take it to.
So your substitution is invalid - try again!
And you call yourself a mathematician - piffle!
-
Now substitute in 1 = 0.999...9999. This leaves you with -1/12 - ( 0.0000...01)
But, 1 ≠ 0.999...9999 no matter how many decimal places you take it to.
So your substitution is invalid - try again!
And you call yourself a mathematician - piffle!
1 = 0.9999...9999 as much so as 1 = 0.9999999...
Globe math. Just great. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ...= -1/12.
No. That equals 15, silly. Again, you are confusing a finite series with an infinite one.
So you filled in the dots, eh?
That's some disputeone-level bullshit right there. Don't misquote me just because you made a mistake and can't admit it.
Misquote you? I clearly labelled where I inserted the dots.
-
::) You added the dots after, then asked if I had filled them in somehow, when they didn't exist in your original statement.
What number comes between 0.999... and 1?
-
Why is that relevant? There need not be a number between two numbers for them both to be distinct numbers and not equal each other.
-
If there is no number between them, then they are not different, distinct numbers.
The series of repeating 9s needs to be finite (as you no doubt know, as you have been clear to illustrate it with your notation) for there to be a difference.
-
Why is that relevant? There need not be a number between two numbers for them both to be distinct numbers and not equal each other.
9*1 = 9
9/9 = 1
9*1/9 = 1
1/9 = 0.1111....
9*0.1111....=0.999....
0.9999....=1
Can we be done with this stupid tangent now?
-
9*1 = 9
9/9 = 1
9*1/9 = 1
1/9 = 0.1111....
9*0.1111....=0.999....
0.9999....=1
Here's your problem:
9*0.1111... = 0.9999... != 1
-
Ah, so FE math states that 9/9 != 1
Have you met Danang? You guys will get along famously. ;)
-
If there is no number between them, then they are not different, distinct numbers.
The series of repeating 9s needs to be finite (as you no doubt know, as you have been clear to illustrate it with your notation) for there to be a difference.
So let me understand this correctly.
We have 3 numbers a,b and c. If a = b, but b != c, that makes neither a nor c a number, in spite of if a < c !?
-
I just want to make sure I'm solving the right problem, so I need to understand which numbers you mean
I have already provided them.
If you think these numbers are not the same, and I have asked you what is 1*9, why ask about other numbers.
If they were not the same number then what you are doing amounts to something like this exchange:
Me: "What is 1*9?"
You: "1 or 57?"
Me: "1"
You: "9 or 32?"
Notice how your questions are just pathetic attempts at stalling??
I have provided the numbers, 1 and 9.
What is the product of 1 and 9?
Can you answer that simple question, or must you continually avoid it because you know you are full of shit?
I think he's referring to the fact that 1 is easily shown to be equal to .999... in a few steps.
-
He's trying to, at least.
-
If there is no number between them, then they are not different, distinct numbers.
The series of repeating 9s needs to be finite (as you no doubt know, as you have been clear to illustrate it with your notation) for there to be a difference.
So let me understand this correctly.
We have 3 numbers a,b and c. If a = b, but b != c, that makes neither a nor c a number, in spite of if a < c !?
If a < c, then what is c - a? If there is no number between c and a, then c - a = 0 and a = c. If a = c then they are not different numbers.
-
9*1 = 9
9/9 = 1
9*1/9 = 1
1/9 = 0.1111....
9*0.1111....=0.999....
0.9999....=1
Here's your problem:
9*0.1111... = 0.9999... != 1
Except that makes no sense.
9 * 0.1111....= 0.9999... We agree on this.
9* 1/9 = 1 We agree on this.
1/9 = 0.1111.... We agree on this.
If a * b = x
and a * c = y
and b = c
then x = y
Plug the numbers in and see what happens.
-
Plug the numbers in and see what happens.
Every calculator is going to have this rounding error.
-
If there is no number between them, then they are not different, distinct numbers.
The series of repeating 9s needs to be finite (as you no doubt know, as you have been clear to illustrate it with your notation) for there to be a difference.
So let me understand this correctly.
We have 3 numbers a,b and c. If a = b, but b != c, that makes neither a nor c a number, in spite of if a < c !?
Much like before, you are misrepresenting what was stated and creating an argument against a strawman. And I know you know that.
-
Plug the numbers in and see what happens.
Every calculator is going to have this rounding error.
It's not a rounding error and you don't need a calculator. I'll spell it out for you.
If a * b = x a = 9 b= 0.1111.... a * b = 0.9999... 0.9999....= x
and a * c = y a = 9 c = 1/9 a * c = 1 1 = y
and b = c b = c 0.1111...= 1/9
then x = y x = y 0.9999... = 1
No calculator necessary, and no rounding. A simple algebraic substitution and basic arithmetic. Can we finally be done with this? It's not something anyone with an ounce of reasoning should have to question for more than a moment or two.
-
Plug the numbers in and see what happens.
Every calculator is going to have this rounding error.
It's not a rounding error and you don't need a calculator. I'll spell it out for you.
If a * b = x a = 9 b= 0.1111.... a * b = 0.9999... 0.9999....= x
and a * c = y a = 9 c = 1/9 a * c = 1 1 = y
and b = c b = c 0.1111...= 1/9
then x = y x = y 0.9999... = 1
No calculator necessary, and no rounding. A simple algebraic substitution and basic arithmetic. Can we finally be done with this? It's not something anyone with an ounce of reasoning should have to question for more than a moment or two.
This shows nothing. You're just complicating your last, failed, example.
-
Why is that relevant? There need not be a number between two numbers for them both to be distinct numbers and not equal each other.
Yes there is.
The number line is a continuum.
Between any 2 numbers there exists another.
In fact, between any 2 numbers there exists a number in the middle, the average.
If you have the numbers a and b, you can find the average (c) by the formula:
c=(a+b)/2.
If these numbers are the same, the average will be that number, if they are different there will be another number between.
So lets try:
c=(1+0.999...)/2
=1.999.../2
=0.999...
Which was the first number (not one of them as this shows they are the same number).
-
9*1 = 9
9/9 = 1
9*1/9 = 1
1/9 = 0.1111....
9*0.1111....=0.999....
0.9999....=1
Here's your problem:
9*0.1111... = 0.9999... != 1
Nope. No problem there.
The simple fact is 1/9=0.999...
The simple fact is 9*1=9
The simple fact is 9/9=1
The simple fact is 9*1/9=(9*1)/9=9/9=1
The simple fact is 9*1/9=9*(1/9)=9*0.111...=0.999...
Thus the simple fact is 1=0.999...
If you wish to disagree, point out what the error is.
You can't just object to the conclusion as it is based entirely upon the above simple facts.
As such, you need to object to one of them.
Which do you object to?
-
If there is no number between them, then they are not different, distinct numbers.
The series of repeating 9s needs to be finite (as you no doubt know, as you have been clear to illustrate it with your notation) for there to be a difference.
So let me understand this correctly.
We have 3 numbers a,b and c. If a = b, but b != c, that makes neither a nor c a number, in spite of if a < c !?
How is that anything like what he said?
You have 3 numbers, 1, 1 (0.999...) and 2.
1=1, and 1!=2.
a and c are still numbers.
Or did you get confused at distinct numbers?
If a and b are equal, they are not distinct. They both are the same number and thus represent a single distinct number.
-
I stated that pretty poorly. To say:
-- if there is no number between two numbers .: those numbers are equal
Is to say:
-- all numbers are equal, and there are no distinct numbers at all.
I'll have to check whenever I get time to spend in my library, but I believe I can source this with Ludwig Wittgenstein.
-
I stated that pretty poorly. To say:
-- if there is no number between two numbers .: those numbers are equal
Is to say:
-- all numbers are equal, and there are no distinct numbers at all.
I'll have to check whenever I get time to spend in my library, but I believe I can source this with Ludwig Wittgenstein.
You're not making sense. 3 and 4 are between 2 and 5. None of those numbers are equal and they are distinct numbers.
3.11111112 is between 3.11111111 and 3.11111113. They aren't equal and they are distinct numbers.
There is no number between 5 and 5 because they are equal, and not distinct from one another.
-
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.
-
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.
One of the many numbers between them is:
x = 0.000000.....000000015
Does that clear it up for you?
-
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.
One of the many numbers between them is:
x = 0.000000.....000000015
Does that clear it up for you?
That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.
-
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.
One of the many numbers between them is:
x = 0.000000.....000000015
Does that clear it up for you?
That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.
You should probably recheck. Just as a simplified model for clarity and to make sure your understanding of math is adequate to getting the correct answer:
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal 0.1?
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal to 0.2?
-
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.
One of the many numbers between them is:
x = 0.000000.....000000015
Does that clear it up for you?
That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.
You should probably recheck. Just as a simplified model for clarity and to make sure your understanding of math is adequate to getting the correct answer:
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal 0.1?
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal to 0.2?
As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01
-
If I may, the numbers in between 0 and 1 are what's referred to as an uncountable infinity. The integers between 0 and infinity are countably infinite.
As for the other thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...)
-
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them. This then means, as one can easily see, that no numbers exist and all numbers are equal.
One of the many numbers between them is:
x = 0.000000.....000000015
Does that clear it up for you?
That is certainly not between them. That is larger than both of them.
You should probably recheck. Just as a simplified model for clarity and to make sure your understanding of math is adequate to getting the correct answer:
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal 0.1?
Is 0.15 greater than, less than, or equal to 0.2?
As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01
Okay, we'll do it your way.
0.02 > 0.015 > 0.01
Is it provoking smart people to discuss stupid things that gives the rush that drives your trolling, or is it the power trip you get from duping gullible people into believing hogwash that motivates you?
-
I never troll.
This is an incorrect way to discuss this notation.
0.02 > 0.015 > 0.01
we are talking about
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.
Perhaps you aren't understanding the notation? You need to consider the signifcant digits in a way you currently aren't if you wish to talk about 0.9999...999 rather than 0.99999....
-
Maybe it's time to acknowledge using notation like "0.999...999" that narc introduced and JD ran with is useless because it lacks any definition of scale. It's also completely irrelevant when discussing how to address a number like 0.999... because it's comparing a finite series of 9s after the decimal point to an infinite one.
-
If I may, the numbers in between 0 and 1 are what's referred to as an uncountable infinity. The integers between 0 and infinity are countably infinite.
As for the other thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...)
I can't let this happen too often, but I agree with th3rm0m3t3r0. It's a case of when he's right he's very right and . . . . .
-
Maybe it's time to acknowledge using notation like "0.999...999" that narc introduced and JD ran with is useless because it lacks any definition of scale. It's also completely irrelevant when discussing how to address a number like 0.999... because it's comparing a finite series of 9s after the decimal point to an infinite one.
I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...
I feel like my examples have done this much, but we can do it more formally.
Also, bring the Cantor th3rm0m3t3r0, because he was full of bollocks.
-
I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...
No. You are describing a finite number without defining the significant digits, hence the "..." in the middle.
Alternatively, I've been describing a clearly defined term.
You are playing games.
-
I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...
No. You are describing a finite number without defining the significant digits, hence the "..." in the middle.
Alternatively, I've been describing a clearly defined term.
You are playing games.
Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...
-
I'm really not sure. I've heard arguments both ways, but if 1+ 0.999...999 = 2, we could end up with a negative number if we add up all those positives. We could expect no less out of globularist math.
Going right back to here! What on earth has this rubbish got to do with Globe vs. Flat?
Why is there any special Globularist Math and for us poor non-mathematical geniuses
would you please either define or give a reference to the differences between: Flatularist Math and Globularist Math?
Of course, the old monks supposedly wiled away the time debating such things as, "How many angels could dance on the head of a pin?".
Many of your issues seem less relevant to the Flatularist vs Globularist questions than even that!
All you seem to be trying to prove is "what a clever young man your must be". OK I'l grant you that, now get onto something that matters.
How does the question of how smart(-alackey) Flatularists might be or even how dumb Globularist's might be relate to the shape of the earth?
The topic is "Help me understand", yet all you ever do is try to confuse!
-
I can define it discretely, if that is what you are asking. And it certainly is respective of scale as much so as 0.9999...
No. You are describing a finite number without defining the significant digits, hence the "..." in the middle.
Alternatively, I've been describing a clearly defined term.
You are playing games.
Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...
You described a finite, but undefined, amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends.
Again, you are playing games. It's really not worth the effort.
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games, totally irrelevant to the topic, "Help me understand"!
All you are doing is adding confusion and trying to show what a smart fellow you are.
OK, we don't need convincing, "If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"
Now, get onto something relevant to the flat ~ globe question.
-
Does anyone else ignore the centered italic text?
There is no question, the earth is flat as can be. I would attribute our recent popularity to truth.
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
-
Does anyone else ignore the centered italic text?
So sorry, Oh enlightened one. Is this clearer?
All you are doing is adding confusion and trying to show what a smart fellow you are.
OK, we don't need convincing,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"
Now, get onto something relevant to the flat ~ globe question.
There is no question, the earth is flat as can be. I would attribute our recent popularity to truth.
What do you even mean by, "our recent popularity to truth"?
Can the shape of the earth now be determined by popular vote?
What choices are there on this ballot because no two flat earthers seem able to agree on a flat earth model?
You don't even know the shape (continental layout) of your supposed flat earth.
If you simply ask people whether the earth is or is not flat, many would answer loosely, "It looks flat".
But, if you admitted that- no-one really knows what the shape of the countries on the flat earth are,
- intercontinental air routes simple do no fit with your flat earth,
- this flat earth cannot even explain how the sun rises and sets
- there is not even any agreement as to why things fall down!
Would you really be so "popular"?
There is no consistent "Flat Earth Theory".
Instead, there is just a mish-mash of ideas and no agreement, even among flat-earthers, on many vital issues.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let's look at the "generally accepted model".
I think "map", better described as "continental layout" because no-one expects a detail map is extremely important, so look at the "generally accepted map(s):
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_5562_1365350879.png)
John Davis
Secretary Of The Society
| | There is no accurate map of the Earth. We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.
|
The following are maps that various Flat Earth Society members believe to be the true flat earth "continental layout": (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgk7p91e4nr7wg7/Flat%20Earth%20Ice-wall%20map.png?dl=1)
FE Ice Wall Map
North Pole centred AEP | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5110wqptw5dnq1s/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272.png?dl=1)
FE Bipolar Map
(0°, 0°) centred AEP | | (http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5x9b1gq3l18h1u9/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys43mw3xhg6xgor/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1)
Map Southern Hemiplane | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyviizp8ta99mui/Sandokhan%27s%20True%20Flat%20Earth%20Map.png?dl=1)
Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map |
All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.
Of course you will ask, "What is wrong with the Ice-Wall Map?".
The simple facts are that many flat earthers have realised at last that- Antarctica is really an island continent and that there is a real single South Pole.
- That the Southern Stars do really appear the rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole,
a single point due south of everywhere. - The Southern Hemisphere distances, especially for intercontinental airline flights were simply untenable on the old Ice-Wall Map.
The distances on the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map are still not correct, but the errors are spread over both hemispheres and are less noticeable.
But in my opinion the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map introduce more problems than they solve, not the least being the gross distortions of directions.
And is "gravity" caused by: - Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
- Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
- Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
- Simple density as many seem to claim,
- Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
- Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
- İntikam's "atmosphere push".
- And some say simply that "Things have a :D propensity to fall down :D.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
This is an incorrect way to discuss this notation.
0.02 > 0.015 > 0.01
we are talking about
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.
No, we aren't. You are either deliberately fucking around to be an asshole or you are incredibly dense. I believe you are too intelligent to not understand, so I conclude that you're just being a dick. However, you said:
I never troll.
So if you're insisting you're a moron, then I suppose you would know better than anyone else. Whether you're just fucking with us or too stupid for words, though, the point has been proven beyond any reasonable argument, so I'm out.
-
I stated that pretty poorly. To say:
-- if there is no number between two numbers .: those numbers are equal
Is to say:
-- all numbers are equal, and there are no distinct numbers at all.
I'll have to check whenever I get time to spend in my library, but I believe I can source this with Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Nope.
There are infinitely many numbers. You can always find a number between 2 non-equal numbers.
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
There is another number between them:
c = 0.000000.....000000015
Notice how these numbers are not infinitely recurring.
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them.
But there is. These numbers are not infinitely recurring.
You have them terminate.
As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01
Except they were not the numbers you posted.
If you want a more valid comparison you have:
0.015, 0.02 and 0.01.
we are talking about
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.
No you weren't.
You were talking about 0.0, followed by a finite but undisclosed number of 0s (an equal number in all three cases), and then either 1, 2 or 15.
That means we are talking about numbers that can be scaled to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.15.
Perhaps you aren't understanding the notation? You need to consider the signifcant digits
Why would you just consider the significant digits rather than all?
Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...
If you were describing a infinite amount of digits, it would end at ... because that is all there is, you will never get to the point where the number is different.
By showing the ... you are indicating that there are lots of digits removed.
I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends.
An impossibility.
If it is infinite, it can't end.
-
The simple fact is 1/9=0.99999.
If you wish to disagree, point out what the error is.
malnutrition?
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
I stated that pretty poorly. To say:
-- if there is no number between two numbers .: those numbers are equal
Is to say:
-- all numbers are equal, and there are no distinct numbers at all.
I'll have to check whenever I get time to spend in my library, but I believe I can source this with Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Nope.
There are infinitely many numbers. You can always find a number between 2 non-equal numbers.
Ok, so given these two numbers:
a = 0.000000.....00000001 (as our convention seems to allow)
b = 0.000000.....00000002
There is another number between them:
c = 0.000000.....000000015
Notice how these numbers are not infinitely recurring.
This would lead us, given your statements, to believe a=b as there is no number between them.
But there is. These numbers are not infinitely recurring.
You have them terminate.
As far as relevant numbers go, rather than that nonsense you posted,
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01
Except they were not the numbers you posted.
If you want a more valid comparison you have:
0.015, 0.02 and 0.01.
we are talking about
0.15 > 0.02 > 0.01.
No you weren't.
You were talking about 0.0, followed by a finite but undisclosed number of 0s (an equal number in all three cases), and then either 1, 2 or 15.
That means we are talking about numbers that can be scaled to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.15.
Perhaps you aren't understanding the notation? You need to consider the signifcant digits
Why would you just consider the significant digits rather than all?
Why would I describe a finite amount of digits with a ...
If you were describing a infinite amount of digits, it would end at ... because that is all there is, you will never get to the point where the number is different.
By showing the ... you are indicating that there are lots of digits removed.
I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends.
An impossibility.
If it is infinite, it can't end.
JackBlack, please leave this discussion to the adults.
-
Does anyone else ignore the centered italic text?
So sorry, Oh enlightened one. Is this clearer?
All you are doing is adding confusion and trying to show what a smart fellow you are.
OK, we don't need convincing,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"
Now, get onto something relevant to the flat ~ globe question.
There is no question, the earth is flat as can be. I would attribute our recent popularity to truth.
What do you even mean by, "our recent popularity to truth"?
Can the shape of the earth now be determined by popular vote?
What choices are there on this ballot because no two flat earthers seem able to agree on a flat earth model?
You don't even know the shape (continental layout) of your supposed flat earth.
If you simply ask people whether the earth is or is not flat, many would answer loosely, "It looks flat".
But, if you admitted that- no-one really knows what the shape of the countries on the flat earth are,
- intercontinental air routes simple do no fit with your flat earth,
- this flat earth cannot even explain how the sun rises and sets
- there is not even any agreement as to why things fall down!
Would you really be so "popular"?
There is no consistent "Flat Earth Theory".
Instead, there is just a mish-mash of ideas and no agreement, even among flat-earthers, on many vital issues.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let's look at the "generally accepted model".
I think "map", better described as "continental layout" because no-one expects a detail map is extremely important, so look at the "generally accepted map(s):
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_5562_1365350879.png)
John Davis
Secretary Of The Society
| | There is no accurate map of the Earth. We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.
|
The following are maps that various Flat Earth Society members believe to be the true flat earth "continental layout": (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgk7p91e4nr7wg7/Flat%20Earth%20Ice-wall%20map.png?dl=1)
FE Ice Wall Map
North Pole centred AEP | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5110wqptw5dnq1s/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272.png?dl=1)
FE Bipolar Map
(0°, 0°) centred AEP | | (http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5x9b1gq3l18h1u9/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys43mw3xhg6xgor/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1)
Map Southern Hemiplane | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyviizp8ta99mui/Sandokhan%27s%20True%20Flat%20Earth%20Map.png?dl=1)
Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map |
All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.
Of course you will ask, "What is wrong with the Ice-Wall Map?".
The simple facts are that many flat earthers have realised at last that- Antarctica is really an island continent and that there is a real single South Pole.
- That the Southern Stars do really appear the rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole,
a single point due south of everywhere. - The Southern Hemisphere distances, especially for intercontinental airline flights were simply untenable on the old Ice-Wall Map.
The distances on the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map are still not correct, but the errors are spread over both hemispheres and are less noticeable.
But in my opinion the Bi-Polar or Sandokhan's Map introduce more problems than they solve, not the least being the gross distortions of directions.
And is "gravity" caused by: - Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
- Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
- Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
- Simple density as many seem to claim,
- Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
- Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
- İntikam's "atmosphere push".
- And some say simply that "Things have a :D propensity to fall down :D.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no consistent "Flat Earth Theory".
LoL...Conspiracy Theories are made up as they go along. Its generally when they don't have an answer they make up crap. Thats all conspiracy theory really is...But then again you could apply that theory to politics and a bunch of other things as well.
-
Since I am the one who wrote the first post of this conversation I allow myself to stop all your conversations, since I think you are getting quite out of context.
My questions were pretty clear (I think) and I got no answers.
So, since I got particularly curious about my last question on the first post and since I didn't get an answer yet, I'll try again, this time by rephrasing my question:
How does the lie of an existing space influences the degree of power that the "powerful people" have over the population? Why not (for example) tell the world that beyond the icy limits of our magic flat earth the are monsters that are trying to destroy us and the governments need the resources to fight them back? they would still get control over us because they would be keeping us safe and they would still get money for this other scam, without having to spend so much to fake something so big as outer space?
Please try to read my question carefully and answer something other than "to control us/if they can make you believe it what else can they make you believe?"
-
Why would they lie about monsters at the rim? Everyone can look up and see stars, planets, the moon. That makes for a much easier sell than monsters.
"Hey, see that big yellow circle in the sky? We're going on a mission to land on it!"
Or...
"Give me money to protect you from a monster that you've never seen and never will because it lives in a place you can't possibly go!"
-
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Let's say you have 5 bowls, each with 4 apples.
How many apples do you have?
5*4=20.
Guess what? That works in reality.
JackBlack, please leave this discussion to the adults.
But that would mean you aren't allowed here.
But thanks for showing you have no rational response to my argument.
-
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Let's say you have 5 bowls, each with 4 apples.
How many apples do you have?
5*4=20.
5*4=20.
Plus 63 apples still in the bushel = 83
-
Can Danang make us some apple Pi?
-
Can Danang make us some apple Pi?
Yes, but, it will be peach cobbler.
-
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Let's say you have 5 bowls, each with 4 apples.
How many apples do you have?
5*4=20.
Guess what? That works in reality.
1.9999... does not work in reality. You are dismissing 1.999...99923 because it does not work in reality, when 1.999... the series you are claiming = 1.99...999 also does not exist in reality.
To your apple point though, this is an issue many young students struggle with. It is also how many children learn mathematics. Let's talk about it a bit.
So, let us discuss the entirely similar situation: let us put two apples on a table - a sturdy table mind you that would not shake or move the apples or bring in other apples by accident and so on. Now we then put another two apples on the table, and count those now there - we will likely get the result 4. We can perform additional experiments like this, but we are fairly confident here that 'adding' works as we think it does. Yes, the results are consistent, and perhaps even corollary, but this is not the same thing as placing two numbers ones on a table and then two more number ones.
However, if we did the same procedure with sticks, fingers, line and most things this would show us that sums are completely silly. Look at this figure to see 2+2 = 4, which is similar to your argument:
(https://image.ibb.co/g6TLNw/Screen_Shot_2017_12_10_at_4_37_02_PM.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
If this is all we need, as you claim, to show that 2 + 2 = 4 and in your case 5 + 5 + 5 +5 = 20, then this is completely valid reasoning:
(https://image.ibb.co/fAcphw/Screen_Shot_2017_12_10_at_4_37_53_PM.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
2 + 2 + 2 = 4.
Source: Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics; Page 52 MIT Press 198
For similar reasons, your supplied example is not sufficient to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in reality, or that 5 * 4 = 20.
Edit: filling in the dots.
-
I do have to ask, though this won't stop me from loving your movies Jack, if you feel that mathematics works in reality, then why are we continuing to work on advancing mathematics?
-
1.9999... does not work in reality.
So now you restrict your challenge?
It is a result of fractional representation.
1.999... is no different to 2.
They are 1.999... ways to represent the same thing.
The fraction notation of 0.999... is 1, or 9/9
You are dismissing 1.999...99923 because it does not work in reality, when 1.999... the series you are claiming = 1.99...999 also does not exist in reality.
The only person claiming that is you. 1.999... IS NOT THE SAME AS 1.99...999
Notice how the final one terminates?
That means it doesn't go on forever.
That means it is not 1.999...
So, let us discuss the entirely similar situation: let us put two apples on a table - a sturdy table mind you that would not shake or move the apples or bring in other apples by accident and so on. Now we then put another two apples on the table, and count those now there - we will likely get the result 4. We can perform additional experiments like this, but we are fairly confident here that 'adding' works as we think it does. Yes, the results are consistent, and perhaps even corollary, but this is not the same thing as placing two numbers ones on a table and then two more number ones.
Numbers represent things. In this case we have 2 apples, which are represented by the number 2.
We then add more apples, again represented by the number 2.
This gives us 2+2=4.
However, if we did the same procedure with sticks, fingers, line and most things this would show us that sums are completely silly. Look at this figure to see 2+2 = 4, which is similar to your argument:
No, we don't get anything silly out of it.
If this is all we need, as you claim, to show that 2 + 2 = 4 and in your case 5 + 5 + 5 +5 = 20, then this is completely valid reasoning:
(https://image.ibb.co/fAcphw/Screen_Shot_2017_12_10_at_4_37_53_PM.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
2 + 2 + 2 = 4.
Notice how you count two of them twice.
So no, that is nothing like what I am doing.
You have got 2+2, but then 2 extra.
This is not addition.
It is completely invalid reasoning.
Try again.
For similar reasons, your supplied example is not sufficient to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in reality, or that 5 * 4 = 20.
So for similar invalid reasons, i.e. no actual refutation at all.
I do have to ask, though this won't stop me from loving your movies Jack, if you feel that mathematics works in reality, then why are we continuing to work on advancing mathematics?
Just because the math we have works doesn't mean we know everything.
For example, think back to when we didn't have multiplication.
So we have 4 rows of 5.
How many do we have?
Well we have 5 plus 5 plus 5 plus 5.
That isn't all that nice to write out. 4 times 5 would be nicer.
So even though addition works, multiplication is nicer.
-
It occurs to me it may be helpful for you to have read the previous bits introducing this book:
"... But then, what does the peculiar inexorability of mathematics consist in? - Would not the inexorability with which two follows on and three two be a good example? But presumably this means: follows in the series of cardinal numbers; for in a different series something different follows. And isn't this series just defined by this sequence?
"Is that supposed to mean that it is equally correct whichever way a person counts, and that anyone can count as he pleases?"
- We should presumably not call it 'counting' if everyone said the numbers one after the other anyhow; but of course it is not simply question of a name. For what we call 'counting' is an important part of our life's activities. Counting and calculating are not - eg - simply a pastime. Counting (and that means: counting like *this*) is a technique that is employed dailing in the most various operations of our lives. And that is why we learn to count as we do: with endless practice with merciless exactitude; that is why it is inexorably insisted that we shall all say 'two' after 'one', 'three' after 'two' and so on.
But is this counting only a use then; isn't there also some truth corresponding to this sequence?
The truth is that counting has proved to pay.
"Then do you want to say that 'being true' means: being usable (or useful)?"
No, not that; but that it can't be said of the series of natural numbers any more than of our language -- this it is true, but : that is is usable, and above all, it is used."
In as much as propositions are true in mathematics, they are not true descriptions but rules for reaching similar results. Since they are not 'true', I find it hard to believe they 'work in reality' aside from how they do to be useful.
Edit for formatting that admittedly differs from the book but provides readability. He goes on to delve in the deeper arguments here until he eventually reaches point 38 cited above.
-
I find it hard to believe Wittgenstein would be employing 'invalid reasoning' but please share with me why you think its 'invalid.'
-
In as much as propositions are true in mathematics, they are not true descriptions but rules for reaching similar results. Since they are not 'true', I find it hard to believe they 'work in reality' aside from how they do to be useful.
Mathematics is merely a description of reality.
Yes, there are words and symbols which are used, just like everything else.
The same kind of thing applies to fruits, there are numerous fruits such as apples and oranges. These words have been defined to refer to specific fruits.
Other people could hypothetically have them switched and an apple to them is an orange to us, as some people can hypothetically have a different number system where a three to them is a two to us.
But none of this changes the underlying reality which it is describing. It is merely the placeholders we use to describe things.
-
In as much as propositions are true in mathematics, they are not true descriptions but rules for reaching similar results. Since they are not 'true', I find it hard to believe they 'work in reality' aside from how they do to be useful.
Mathematics is merely a description of reality.
Yes, there are words and symbols which are used, just like everything else.
The same kind of thing applies to fruits, there are numerous fruits such as apples and oranges. These words have been defined to refer to specific fruits.
Other people could hypothetically have them switched and an apple to them is an orange to us, as some people can hypothetically have a different number system where a three to them is a two to us.
But none of this changes the underlying reality which it is describing. It is merely the placeholders we use to describe things.
Except it is not describing that underlying reality, except in the way we use it - no more than a poem talking about walking down the path no one goes down reflects an underlying reality. It is only us that gives it a meaning that translates to the real world, and only through use of it as a tool - not a truth. As such, its means for discovering truth or relating truth are also suspect.
To the point though, claiming 1.999....9923 is not valid simply because it does not relate to reality is fallacious. It also fails to show its evidence supporting its original point - that it does not relate to reality. In addition, it ignores very many mathematical nominalists that also happen to be pure mathematicians and their views on the subject.
-
I find it hard to believe Wittgenstein would be employing 'invalid reasoning' but please share with me why you think its 'invalid.'
I find it extraordinary that you refer to Wittgenstein of all people, I would imagine a man famous for his work in Logical atomism in particular, would not be appealing to one such as yourself as it appears to be at odds with our beliefs
-
I will not ignore evidence from a globularist, why would I a logical atonomist?
-
Why would they lie about monsters at the rim? Everyone can look up and see stars, planets, the moon. That makes for a much easier sell than monsters.
"Hey, see that big yellow circle in the sky? We're going on a mission to land on it!"
Or...
"Give me money to protect you from a monster that you've never seen and never will because it lives in a place you can't possibly go!"
first of all, THANK YOU for not ignoring my post like everybody else seems to be doing!
about your answer, it is true that we can see stars etc but be can't see monsters, but the monsters were just an example. What I meant was to create a lie that involved the icy ends of the world and sharing pictures etc with us common people just like they do with the space ones, but in this case it would be less expensive in money, resources and general effort since they would not fake the existence of rockets, satellites etc.
that's what I mean, what does this specific lie about the shape of the earth brings to them? (don't say control over us because this was widely discussed in the first 2-3 pages of this debate)
-
2+2=4
2 oranges + 2 oranges = 4 oranges
2 apples + 2 swarms of bees = 4 what?
Math is like many things. It is a useful tool, but it shouldn't be followed without thought. We all need to step back and think about what is true, and how we understand truth.
Joe
-
And cults.
-
2 apples + 2 swarms of bees = 4 what?
Pre-algebra wasn't your subject, huh?
-
2+2=4
2 oranges + 2 oranges = 4 oranges
2 apples + 2 swarms of bees = 4 what?
Math is like many things. It is a useful tool, but it shouldn't be followed without thought. We all need to step back and think about what is true, and how we understand truth.
Joe
Nailed it.
-
Why would they lie about monsters at the rim? Everyone can look up and see stars, planets, the moon. That makes for a much easier sell than monsters.
"Hey, see that big yellow circle in the sky? We're going on a mission to land on it!"
Or...
"Give me money to protect you from a monster that you've never seen and never will because it lives in a place you can't possibly go!"
first of all, THANK YOU for not ignoring my post like everybody else seems to be doing!
about your answer, it is true that we can see stars etc but be can't see monsters, but the monsters were just an example. What I meant was to create a lie that involved the icy ends of the world and sharing pictures etc with us common people just like they do with the space ones, but in this case it would be less expensive in money, resources and general effort since they would not fake the existence of rockets, satellites etc.
that's what I mean, what does this specific lie about the shape of the earth brings to them? (don't say control over us because this was widely discussed in the first 2-3 pages of this debate)
One possible benefit I could think of would be that one of the ancient fellers that said the Earth was round was wrong, but someone in a position of power realized how that belief could be exploited for personal gain.
Just one idea though off the top of my head. I didn't put much time into it; I'm sure you could poke some holes in it if you really wanted to.
-
Except it is not describing that underlying reality, except in the way we use it - no more than a poem talking about walking down the path no one goes down reflects an underlying reality. It is only us that gives it a meaning that translates to the real world, and only through use of it as a tool - not a truth. As such, its means for discovering truth or relating truth are also suspect.
Just like all words.
To the point though, claiming 1.999....9923 is not valid simply because it does not relate to reality is fallacious.
It isn't valid for several reasons, mainly as it is an infinite series, that ends. That makes no sense at all, and cannot apply to reality.
The only way it makes sense is if the "...." represents some finite number of 9s.
In addition, it ignores very many mathematical nominalists that also happen to be pure mathematicians and their views on the subject.
Such as?
-
Why would they lie about monsters at the rim? Everyone can look up and see stars, planets, the moon. That makes for a much easier sell than monsters.
"Hey, see that big yellow circle in the sky? We're going on a mission to land on it!"
Or...
"Give me money to protect you from a monster that you've never seen and never will because it lives in a place you can't possibly go!"
first of all, THANK YOU for not ignoring my post like everybody else seems to be doing!
about your answer, it is true that we can see stars etc but be can't see monsters, but the monsters were just an example. What I meant was to create a lie that involved the icy ends of the world and sharing pictures etc with us common people just like they do with the space ones, but in this case it would be less expensive in money, resources and general effort since they would not fake the existence of rockets, satellites etc.
that's what I mean, what does this specific lie about the shape of the earth brings to them? (don't say control over us because this was widely discussed in the first 2-3 pages of this debate)
One possible benefit I could think of would be that one of the ancient fellers that said the Earth was round was wrong, but someone in a position of power realized how that belief could be exploited for personal gain.
Just one idea though off the top of my head. I didn't put much time into it; I'm sure you could poke some holes in it if you really wanted to.
That's the best answer I got up until now and I accept it. It could have happened as you said and it would actually make sense.
My only argument would be that now government are in deep trouble keeping up the lie of that greedy fellow, but still it could make sense.
-
2+2=4
2 oranges + 2 oranges = 4 oranges
2 apples + 2 swarms of bees = 4 what?
Math is like many things. It is a useful tool, but it shouldn't be followed without thought. We all need to step back and think about what is true, and how we understand truth.
Yes, you especially.
You have completely misunderstood.
This would be more akin to:
2a+2b.
That does not necessarily equal 4.
It depends entirely upon what you are counting and how you are counting them.
When you have a and b being the same (oranges), you get:
2o+2o=4o.
You can't do that when they are completely different.
-
Except it is not describing that underlying reality, except in the way we use it - no more than a poem talking about walking down the path no one goes down reflects an underlying reality. It is only us that gives it a meaning that translates to the real world, and only through use of it as a tool - not a truth. As such, its means for discovering truth or relating truth are also suspect.
Just like all words.
To the point though, claiming 1.999....9923 is not valid simply because it does not relate to reality is fallacious.
It isn't valid for several reasons, mainly as it is an infinite series, that ends. That makes no sense at all, and cannot apply to reality.
The only way it makes sense is if the "...." represents some finite number of 9s.
In addition, it ignores very many mathematical nominalists that also happen to be pure mathematicians and their views on the subject.
Such as?
"It isn't valid for many reasons, such as the one I already said which was just debunked."
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
How do you define the infinite?
Caleb
-
"It isn't valid for many reasons, such as the one I already said which was just debunked."
Except you are yet to debunk it.
I pointed out why your debunking was wrong. Try again.
-
In as much as propositions are true in mathematics, they are not true descriptions but rules for reaching similar results. Since they are not 'true', I find it hard to believe they 'work in reality' aside from how they do to be useful.
Mathematics is merely a description of reality.
Yes, there are words and symbols which are used, just like everything else.
The same kind of thing applies to fruits, there are numerous fruits such as apples and oranges. These words have been defined to refer to specific fruits.
Other people could hypothetically have them switched and an apple to them is an orange to us, as some people can hypothetically have a different number system where a three to them is a two to us.
But none of this changes the underlying reality which it is describing. It is merely the placeholders we use to describe things.
Except it is not describing that underlying reality, except in the way we use it - no more than a poem talking about walking down the path no one goes down reflects an underlying reality. It is only us that gives it a meaning that translates to the real world, and only through use of it as a tool - not a truth. As such, its means for discovering truth or relating truth are also suspect.
To the point though, claiming 1.999....9923 is not valid simply because it does not relate to reality is fallacious. It also fails to show its evidence supporting its original point - that it does not relate to reality.
Right here. Also, if your criterion is that 1.9999...9923 does not occur in real life, then neither does 1.9999... as mentioned earlier.
-
Right here. Also, if you criterion is that 1.9999...9923 does not occur in real life, then neither does 1.9999... as mentioned earlier.
Again, my criterion is that it makes no sense.
You have an infinite sequence, that ends.
It makes as much sense as a square circle.
Meanwhile a sequence of "9"s which doesn't end does make sense. It just keeps on going as 9, with you never reaching the end.
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
It's obviously invalid because it's self-contradictory. A body of water cannot both be infinite and have something on the other side. Or is your grasp of English as bad as your grasp of reality?
Here, hold this ten pound bowling ball which weighs nine pounds. Then you'll understand.
-
To those that use 2+2=4 as some infallible proof of Math. The answer is still 'it depends'
Working in base 2, 2+2 = 10+10 (as 2 doesn't exist) and so 10+10=100
Working in base 3, 2+2=11
You can even design a kind of Modulo system to say that 2+2=1!
Math is a classic in that you can spin and bend the rules or make any up to suit an argument. It is not definitive. My math can be different to your math and you saying its wrong, doesn't make it so
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
It's obviously invalid because it's self-contradictory. A body of water cannot both be infinite and have something on the other side. Or is your grasp of English as bad as your grasp of reality?
Here, hold this ten pound bowling ball which weighs nine pounds. Then you'll understand.
Are you comfortable saying the universe in infinite? It's not actually infinite, it does have a limit. It just just incomprehensibly large
To a human, a body of water is large, but surmountable. We can measure it.
To an ant that doesn't know the length or perceive an end to it, it could be infinitive
It depends on perception. Infinity is not a number
-
To those that use 2+2=4 as some infallible proof of Math. The answer is still 'it depends'
Yes, it depends on the meaning given to the words and symbols.
Just like all words will have meaning which depends upon the meaning given to them.
When I say "2" I mean two entities as it is understood in a base 10 number systems, and I mean 4 in a similar way.
Your comment regarding base 2 highlights this.
You need to convert it to base 2, so instead of "2" you have "10" and instead of "4" you have "100".
But the meaning still holds.
You have 10+10=100 in base 2.
In base 3 you still have the "2" and "2", but now "4" is 11.
So you have 2+2=11, in base 3.
The meaning is the same. The representation is different.
Math is not special in this regard.
All forms of communication have the same issue.
We use words and symbols to indicate a meaning, and that only works if people use the same meaning.
-
Are you comfortable saying the universe in infinite? It's not actually infinite, it does have a limit. It just just incomprehensibly large
The observable universe is finite. The universe itself may be infinite.
It depends on perception. Infinity is not a number
It is a concept.
Would saying "on the other end of an unbounded line through space" be better?
-
Not going to get involved in the linguistics arguments.
What is sqrt (0.000... 01), if you allow that ... to be an infinite amount of zeros?
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
It's obviously invalid because it's self-contradictory. A body of water cannot both be infinite and have something on the other side. Or is your grasp of English as bad as your grasp of reality?
Here, hold this ten pound bowling ball which weighs nine pounds. Then you'll understand.
Are you comfortable saying the universe in infinite? It's not actually infinite, it does have a limit. It just just incomprehensibly large
To a human, a body of water is large, but surmountable. We can measure it.
To an ant that doesn't know the length or perceive an end to it, it could be infinitive
It depends on perception. Infinity is not a number
I was addressing Davis's crappy dismissal of a metaphor, not the concept of infinity
-
To your apple point though, this is an issue many young students struggle with. It is also how many children learn mathematics. Let's talk about it a bit.
So, let us discuss the entirely similar situation: let us put two apples on a table - a sturdy table mind you that would not shake or move the apples or bring in other apples by accident and so on. Now we then put another two apples on the table, and count those now there - we will likely get the result 4. We can perform additional experiments like this, but we are fairly confident here that 'adding' works as we think it does. Yes, the results are consistent, and perhaps even corollary, but this is not the same thing as placing two numbers ones on a table and then two more number ones.
However, if we did the same procedure with sticks, fingers, line and most things this would show us that sums are completely silly. Look at this figure to see 2+2 = 4, which is similar to your argument:
(https://image.ibb.co/g6TLNw/Screen_Shot_2017_12_10_at_4_37_02_PM.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
If this is all we need, as you claim, to show that 2 + 2 = 4 and in your case 5 + 5 + 5 +5 = 20, then this is completely valid reasoning:
(https://image.ibb.co/fAcphw/Screen_Shot_2017_12_10_at_4_37_53_PM.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
2 + 2 + 2 = 4.
Source: Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics; Page 52 MIT Press 198
For similar reasons, your supplied example is not sufficient to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in reality, or that 5 * 4 = 20.
Edit: filling in the dots.
If you follow the agreed rules for addition then you get 2 + 2 = 4 from the first image, if you use a different rule you get 2 + 2 + 2 = 4.
This shows is that if you have two different definitions, then they might not define the same operation.
The second method is not what is normally called addition.
There a few points you could be making here, it isn't clear what sums being "completely silly" means.
I guess you either mean
1. The definition of sum is unclear, so it is reasonable to think it means something different to "normal". If there is no clear definition then sum can't be uniquely defined, therefore doesn't exist.
2. Different definitions can be given to "+" (which is a symbol we use in communication). "+" has different definitions, so sum has different definitions, so sum can't be uniquely defined, therefore doesn't exist.
or
3. It is silly to say that sum is reality based, as the other definition of sum is as reality based as the first, so you have no reason to chose the first over the second.
-
They seem like they are the same rule. I'm saying its a bad way to equate mathematics with a language of reality as its open to attack by points like this. Whether its 2 + 2 = 4 or 1 + Σ (9/(10^n)) = 1.99999... or 1.999...999 > 1.99999...923
Edit: oopsies!
-
They seem like they are the same rule. I'm saying its a bad way to equate mathematics with a language of reality as its open to attack by points like this. Whether its 2 + 2 = 4 or 1 + Σ (9/(10^n)) = 1.99999... or 1.999...999 > 1.99999...923
Edit: oopsies!
They are similar rules, but I don't see how they are the same, the normal rule only allows you to count each object once, the other does not have this restriction. I guess you could argue, how can you define once.
A programming language on a computer never gets confused between the two definitions. Open up python and type 2+2 and it will always give 4, 2+2+2 will always give 6. So they is a way to describe addition in reality.
"Same rule" must mean something different to normal in this context?
-
They seem like they are the same rule.
They are fundamentally different rules.
If you are referring to addition, in one case you combine two groups and count each member once in the product.
In the other, you count two of them twice.
-
To go back to the original debate, I would say that you are right to say 0.999...896 (where the ... is an infinite number of digits, and will be for the rest of this post) isn't wrong because "it isn't real". If what the notation means is well defined, then they is nothing wrong with it, doesn't need to be in reality.
Real numbers is such an annoying name. They aren't any more real than other numbers. 0.999...896 isn't a member of the real numbers, which are what is normally represented by decimal digits.
It isn't a real because if you look at its sum, 0+0.9+0.99+... +8 * 10 ^ (-infinity?), wait, stop there, what is a power to minus infinity supposed to mean, either it is zero, so the extra digits are redundant (so it would actually be a real number, but the notation would be worthless), or it's an infinitesimal, which are not members of the reals.
You can define a new type of number which 0.999... 896 is a member of, but you can't use these new "longer reals" to prove stuff about the reals unless you first prove a relation between them.
-
They seem like they are the same rule. I'm saying its a bad way to equate mathematics with a language of reality as its open to attack by points like this. Whether its 2 + 2 = 4 or 1 + Σ (9/(10^n)) = 1.99999... or 1.999...999 > 1.99999...923
Edit: oopsies!
They are similar rules, but I don't see how they are the same, the normal rule only allows you to count each object once, the other does not have this restriction. I guess you could argue, how can you define once.
A programming language on a computer never gets confused between the two definitions. Open up python and type 2+2 and it will always give 4, 2+2+2 will always give 6. So they is a way to describe addition in reality.
"Same rule" must mean something different to normal in this context?
Unfortunately, this is not the case; you can make it say really whatever you want:
https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/28786/write-a-program-that-makes-2-2-5
This is actually by design in many languages, especially mathematical ones!
-
Likewise, I could write my own math parser (many perform this task in low level programming courses at uni), and have it say whatever darned thing I choose.
-
I feel they are the same: group the apples into groups, then append the count of each group. I do see your point that the second set is more specific, if it were to reflect addition as we know it.
-
They seem like they are the same rule. I'm saying its a bad way to equate mathematics with a language of reality as its open to attack by points like this. Whether its 2 + 2 = 4 or 1 + Σ (9/(10^n)) = 1.99999... or 1.999...999 > 1.99999...923
Edit: oopsies!
They are similar rules, but I don't see how they are the same, the normal rule only allows you to count each object once, the other does not have this restriction. I guess you could argue, how can you define once.
A programming language on a computer never gets confused between the two definitions. Open up python and type 2+2 and it will always give 4, 2+2+2 will always give 6. So they is a way to describe addition in reality.
"Same rule" must mean something different to normal in this context?
Unfortunately, this is not the case; you can make it say really whatever you want:
https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/28786/write-a-program-that-makes-2-2-5
This is actually by design in many languages, especially mathematical ones!
That java hack is hilarious :D.
Anyway I would say that modifying addition means it is no longer the original addition, so you can get "additions" where 2+2=5, but in that original addition 2+2 will always equal 4.
-
I feel they are the same: group the apples into groups, then append the count of each group. I do see your point that the second set is more specific, if it were to reflect addition as we know it.
They both share the property that they are "grouping the apples into groups, then append the count of each group."
Normal addition extends on that property to "grouping the apples into non-intersecting groups, then append the count of each group."
-
Unfortunately, this is not the case; you can make it say really whatever you want:
Yes, by completely changing the meaning of the words.
For example, you can set up a different number system which would count something like:
1,2,3,5,...
in which case 2+2=5.
You can change the "+" function to be something other than addition, or change the meaning of "2" or "=".
Or you can just ignore all that and output the line "2+2=5" like what a lot of people there did.
That doesn't change what we have meant when we say 2+2=5.
And again, THIS IS NOT SPECIAL TO MATH!
You can do the exact same in English.
For example, I can arbitratily decide that your statement:
"Unfortunately, this is not the case;"
to instead mean something like:
"Yes, you are absolutely correct."
It doesn't actually mean you said that.
Or more to the topic of a flat Earth, you can simply switch the meaning of flat and round, so a flat Earth is one which approximates a globe, while a round Earth is one which has no curvature.
That doesn't mean Earth is actually flat, it just means you are pretending flat means something else.
-
Another victory for FE!
-
Another victory for FE!
Woo
-
1,2,3,5,...
Fibonacci
-
Anyway, 0.9999=1
-
Unfortunately, this is not the case; you can make it say really whatever you want:
Yes, by completely changing the meaning of the words.
For example, you can set up a different number system which would count something like:
1,2,3,5,...
in which case 2+2=5.
You can change the "+" function to be something other than addition, or change the meaning of "2" or "=".
Or you can just ignore all that and output the line "2+2=5" like what a lot of people there did.
That doesn't change what we have meant when we say 2+2=5.
And again, THIS IS NOT SPECIAL TO MATH!
You can do the exact same in English.
For example, I can arbitratily decide that your statement:
"Unfortunately, this is not the case;"
to instead mean something like:
"Yes, you are absolutely correct."
It doesn't actually mean you said that.
Or more to the topic of a flat Earth, you can simply switch the meaning of flat and round, so a flat Earth is one which approximates a globe, while a round Earth is one which has no curvature.
That doesn't mean Earth is actually flat, it just means you are pretending flat means something else.
So you can't supply an examine where math works in the real world?
Can you at least show me a real live point or line?
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
Would you be willing to go to my house if those were the directions to get there?
-
So you can't supply an examine where math works in the real world?
I did. You were unable to refute it.
All you did was try to lie about addition to try and pretend that 2+2, somehow magically allows you to count 2 of the entities twice to end up with 6.
Do you need a more pictographic representation to understand it?
-
I am not playing games. I am not describing a finite and undefined amount of digits by showing the series of 9s ends. I am describe an infinite amount of digits that ends. For example, I could use this notation to say something like 1.999...923.
You are playing games. That's an incredibly abstract way to use that and it doesn't really make much sense. It's like saying, "keep going this straight for an infinite amount of time, then take a right."
This doesn't work in reality.
Why would you have two notations if they do not differ in this way?
Show me any math that works in reality, and I'll give you 100$. I forewarn you that I am a nominalist, so it would not be an easy belief to shake, as it is supported quite well.
Math attempts to describe reality and works quite well in doing so.
Again, what you're saying there is akin to saying, "swim across this infinite body of water, my house is right on the other side."
Which you have yet to show is invalid.
Would you be willing to go to my house if those were the directions to get there?
Reality does not relate to math.
So you can't supply an examine where math works in the real world?
I did. You were unable to refute it.
All you did was try to lie about addition to try and pretend that 2+2, somehow magically allows you to count 2 of the entities twice to end up with 6.
Do you need a more pictographic representation to understand it?
Yeah you are right. My cited example by an expert that almost directly mirrored your example was "pretending that 2+2 magically allows you to count ... to end up with 6." Sounds legit to me.
-
Gosh those book covers must be heavy!
-
Yeah you are right. My cited example by an expert that almost directly mirrored your example was "pretending that 2+2 magically allows you to count ... to end up with 6." Sounds legit to me.
So you just have an appeal to authority which you haven't substantiated?
I have explained the fundamental flaw in that example, and you have been completely unable to defend it.
It is only by changing what addition means that you arrived at 2+2=6, or alternatively, that 2+2+2=4. This was due to you counting 2 of the "X"s twice.
-
To go back to the original debate, I would say that you are right to say 0.999...896 (where the ... is an infinite number of digits, and will be for the rest of this post) isn't wrong because "it isn't real". If what the notation means is well defined, then they is nothing wrong with it, doesn't need to be in reality.
Real numbers is such an annoying name. They aren't any more real than other numbers. 0.999...896 isn't a member of the real numbers, which are what is normally represented by decimal digits.
It isn't a real because if you look at its sum, 0+0.9+0.99+... +8 * 10 ^ (-infinity?), wait, stop there, what is a power to minus infinity supposed to mean, either it is zero, so the extra digits are redundant (so it would actually be a real number, but the notation would be worthless), or it's an infinitesimal, which are not members of the reals.
You can define a new type of number which 0.999... 896 is a member of, but you can't use these new "longer reals" to prove stuff about the reals unless you first prove a relation between them.
This got a bit forgotten, and it's quite relevant to the debate.
Now substitute in 1 = 0.999...9999. This leaves you with -1/12 - ( 0.0000...01)
Trying to interpret 0.0000...01 as a real isn't clear, I assume it means 10^(-infinite), but that's either going to be 0, so there is no problem, or an infinitesimal, but if your subtraction gives you an infinitesimal then you didn't have real numbers in the first place.
-
Yeah you are right. My cited example by an expert that almost directly mirrored your example was "pretending that 2+2 magically allows you to count ... to end up with 6." Sounds legit to me.
So you just have an appeal to authority which you haven't substantiated?
I have explained the fundamental flaw in that example, and you have been completely unable to defend it.
It is only by changing what addition means that you arrived at 2+2=6, or alternatively, that 2+2+2=4. This was due to you counting 2 of the "X"s twice.
Nothing about what you described, or reality, prohibits this action. You didn't defend - you moved the goalpost.
To go back to the original debate, I would say that you are right to say 0.999...896 (where the ... is an infinite number of digits, and will be for the rest of this post) isn't wrong because "it isn't real". If what the notation means is well defined, then they is nothing wrong with it, doesn't need to be in reality.
Real numbers is such an annoying name. They aren't any more real than other numbers. 0.999...896 isn't a member of the real numbers, which are what is normally represented by decimal digits.
It isn't a real because if you look at its sum, 0+0.9+0.99+... +8 * 10 ^ (-infinity?), wait, stop there, what is a power to minus infinity supposed to mean, either it is zero, so the extra digits are redundant (so it would actually be a real number, but the notation would be worthless), or it's an infinitesimal, which are not members of the reals.
You can define a new type of number which 0.999... 896 is a member of, but you can't use these new "longer reals" to prove stuff about the reals unless you first prove a relation between them.
This got a bit forgotten, and it's quite relevant to the debate.
Now substitute in 1 = 0.999...9999. This leaves you with -1/12 - ( 0.0000...01)
Trying to interpret 0.0000...01 as a real isn't clear, I assume it means 10^(-infinite), but that's either going to be 0, so there is no problem, or an infinitesimal, but if your subtraction gives you an infinitesimal then you didn't have real numbers in the first place.
Either way its a negative number. So the sum of all positive integers is negative?! Round earth mathematics folks! That one is straight from a string theory textbook.
-
Yeah you are right. My cited example by an expert that almost directly mirrored your example was "pretending that 2+2 magically allows you to count ... to end up with 6." Sounds legit to me.
So you just have an appeal to authority which you haven't substantiated?
I have explained the fundamental flaw in that example, and you have been completely unable to defend it.
It is only by changing what addition means that you arrived at 2+2=6, or alternatively, that 2+2+2=4. This was due to you counting 2 of the "X"s twice.
Nothing about what you described, or reality, prohibits this action. You didn't defend - you moved the goalpost.
I did show that they are different rules though,
I feel they are the same: group the apples into groups, then append the count of each group. I do see your point that the second set is more specific, if it were to reflect addition as we know it.
They both share the property that they are "grouping the apples into groups, then append the count of each group."
Normal addition extends on that property to "grouping the apples into non-intersecting groups, then append the count of each group."
So if we are talking about what most people mean by addition, that is "grouping the apples into non-intersecting groups, then append the count of each group.", then your grouping doesn't show that 2+2+2=6, as the groups intersect.
To go back to the original debate, I would say that you are right to say 0.999...896 (where the ... is an infinite number of digits, and will be for the rest of this post) isn't wrong because "it isn't real". If what the notation means is well defined, then they is nothing wrong with it, doesn't need to be in reality.
Real numbers is such an annoying name. They aren't any more real than other numbers. 0.999...896 isn't a member of the real numbers, which are what is normally represented by decimal digits.
It isn't a real because if you look at its sum, 0+0.9+0.99+... +8 * 10 ^ (-infinity?), wait, stop there, what is a power to minus infinity supposed to mean, either it is zero, so the extra digits are redundant (so it would actually be a real number, but the notation would be worthless), or it's an infinitesimal, which are not members of the reals.
You can define a new type of number which 0.999... 896 is a member of, but you can't use these new "longer reals" to prove stuff about the reals unless you first prove a relation between them.
This got a bit forgotten, and it's quite relevant to the debate.
Now substitute in 1 = 0.999...9999. This leaves you with -1/12 - ( 0.0000...01)
Trying to interpret 0.0000...01 as a real isn't clear, I assume it means 10^(-infinite), but that's either going to be 0, so there is no problem, or an infinitesimal, but if your subtraction gives you an infinitesimal then you didn't have real numbers in the first place.
Either way its a negative number. So the sum of all positive integers is negative?! Round earth mathematics folks! That one is straight from a string theory textbook.
The debate was about 0.999..., so if the value of 0.999... doesn't effect the result either way, why was this brought up and then argued for the last 5 pages?
I'm unsure what the debate is actually about? You do know that -1/12 isn't the sum of 1+2+3+... right? It is the Ramanujan sum of 1+2+3+..., but not the sum. I can prove that it isn't the sum if you doubt me. Assume for contradiction that the limit of the partial sums is -1/12. xn is the partial sum of the first n positive numbers.
Let epsilon=1/24, then there exists an N such that for all n>N, abs(xn+1/12)<1/24, so xn<-1/24<0, but none of the partial sums are negative, contradiction. So the limit of the partial sums is not -1/12.
And yes, mathematicians sometimes say sum instead of Ramanujan sum, but that should only be done where it is clear from context what they really mean. Unfortunately Numberphile did not make it clear >:(
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
The topic is, "Help me understand" and it seems to me that you are doing your best to confuse everybody for no other purpose than to show what smart fellow John Davis is.
OK, I'll grant that John Davis is a smart fellow, and a self made man who worships none but his maker, so what?
-
Every number you could ever string together can be found in pi somewhere.
-
Every number you could ever string together can be found in pi somewhere.
Including every set of Lotto - $275M MegaMillions Bets winning numbers. What are we waiting for?
Hold it, I feel a new scam coming on.
Sell all the winning numbers for only $1000 each, and send along a nice neat π.
Any takers?
-
Nothing about what you described, or reality, prohibits this action. You didn't defend - you moved the goalpost.
Redefining addition doesn't magically make 2+2+2=4.
You are now simply doing something else.
It is quite simple, you have a table, you place 2 apples on it (the first group), and then you place 2 more apples on it (the second group).
How many apples in total? 4.
This is a simple fact of addition, 2+2=4.
You magically counting two of them twice to pretend it is 2+2+2 doesn't actually make it 2+2+2. It is still just 2+2.
If you want it to be 2+2+2, then put another 2 apples up, then you end up with 6.
-
Every number you could ever string together can be found in pi somewhere.
Do you have any proof of that?
-
Nothing about what you described, or reality, prohibits this action. You didn't defend - you moved the goalpost.
Redefining addition doesn't magically make 2+2+2=4.
You are now simply doing something else.
It is quite simple, you have a table, you place 2 apples on it (the first group), and then you place 2 more apples on it (the second group).
How many apples in total? 4.
This is a simple fact of addition, 2+2=4.
You magically counting two of them twice to pretend it is 2+2+2 doesn't actually make it 2+2+2. It is still just 2+2.
If you want it to be 2+2+2, then put another 2 apples up, then you end up with 6.
Yeah c'mon John, this is a pretty simple concept, even for me. Can you please stop embarrassing yourself and the entire flat earth collective with this. Boots, we need you man!!
-
Every number you could ever string together can be found in pi somewhere.
Do you have any proof of that?
It's infinite. You'll find it somewhere. We have what, calculated it to 5 trillion digits? Pathetic. I'll concede when we get to infinity and there is a combination of numbers that is not in there. Until then (which will be never) I will say that in an infinite string, anything is possible.
-
Every number you could ever string together can be found in pi somewhere.
Do you have any proof of that?
It's infinite. You'll find it somewhere. We have what, calculated it to 5 trillion digits? Pathetic. I'll concede when we get to infinity and there is a combination of numbers that is not in there. Until then (which will be never) I will say that in an infinite string, anything is possible.
You can make an infinite decimal by writing all of the numbers in base 10 one after the other, except you leave out the digit 9, e.g. 0.1234567810111213141516171812021...
This is a non repeating infinite string, but doesn't have every possible number in it.
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
-
It's infinite. You'll find it somewhere. We have what, calculated it to 5 trillion digits? Pathetic. I'll concede when we get to infinity and there is a combination of numbers that is not in there. Until then (which will be never) I will say that in an infinite string, anything is possible.
So no proof.
You can easily have an infinite sequence purely from 1s and 0s which do not repeat.
That would be pi in binary notation.
But that would still be a perfectly valid number in decimal notation, it would not repeat, it would be without end.
Yet no where in it would you even find a 2. The only numbers you would find are 1 and 0 and some combinations made of them.
So what you mean is you are making a baseless claim with nothing to back up up.
People have even made pages to try and find sequences in pi, like this one:
http://www.angio.net/pi/
It couldn't even find "5456846215"
Neither could
http://www.subidiom.com/pi/pi.asp
nor
https://www.dcode.fr/pi-digits
This one:
http://www.subidiom.com/pi/pi.asp
appears to have the most digits of the ones I quickly found.
So feel free to try other combinations.
But first, let me know where:
5456846215
appears.
-
Also you can easily show that 0.999...=1 by the geometric series formula.
-
Nothing about what you described, or reality, prohibits this action. You didn't defend - you moved the goalpost.
Redefining addition doesn't magically make 2+2+2=4.
You are now simply doing something else.
It is quite simple, you have a table, you place 2 apples on it (the first group), and then you place 2 more apples on it (the second group).
How many apples in total? 4.
This is a simple fact of addition, 2+2=4.
You magically counting two of them twice to pretend it is 2+2+2 doesn't actually make it 2+2+2. It is still just 2+2.
If you want it to be 2+2+2, then put another 2 apples up, then you end up with 6.
Yeah c'mon John, this is a pretty simple concept, even for me. Can you please stop embarrassing yourself and the entire flat earth collective with this. Boots, we need you man!!
I didn't redefine it, a poor example was given and not defended.
Arguing with a round earther is like arguing with a wall.
Every number you could ever string together can be found in pi somewhere.
Do you have any proof of that?
It's infinite. You'll find it somewhere. We have what, calculated it to 5 trillion digits? Pathetic. I'll concede when we get to infinity and there is a combination of numbers that is not in there. Until then (which will be never) I will say that in an infinite string, anything is possible.
This is unknown. People expect this to be true, but there is no proof that I know of. It certainly doesn't follow from the expansion of pi being infinite and non-repeating; for example 0.01001000100001000001... is infinite and non-repeating and does not contain every number as a substring.
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Haven't I shown the problem with 1.999...9923 here?
-
I didn't redefine it, a poor example was given and not defended.
No, a good example was given which you didn't want to accept so you felt the need to lie about it.
You get 2 apples and put them on a table. You then get another 2 and put them on the table.
How many are on the table?
2+2=4.
How does the extra 2 come into it?
Arguing with a round earther is like arguing with a wall.
No, it is like arguing as a wall, where you completely ignore what the REer says and just repeat the same refuted crap/lies.
-
<< guff totally irrelevant to your flatularism and our globularism deleted >>
You claim, "Arguing with a round earther is like arguing with a wall."
What on earth have your flatularism and our globularism got to do with all the irrelevant stuff you are posting?
I do assume that if you call us globularists you expect to be called flatularists - it seems logical.
-
<< guff totally irrelevant to your flatularism and our globularism deleted >>
You claim, "Arguing with a round earther is like arguing with a wall."
What on earth have your flatularism and our globularism got to do with all the irrelevant stuff you are posting?
I do assume that if you call us globularists you expect to be called flatularists - it seems logical.
I think it would be flatist.
-
Rabinoz, the way you present my point of view is not fair, and you know you are doing it. While I do enjoy discussing a topic before I reach a decision on it, and weigh in on my community when I do so, your attitude and demeanor has been against reason for quite some time. Want to chat, and get to the bottom of this via skype or google hangouts sometime? This atmosphere is aggressive, and I feel it can be dissolved with a little facetime.
-
And to the bottom of my many digressions too? I get your anger, I just don't find it founded. I'd like to understand.
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968
If the universe turns out to be infinite, that means we're all fractions of infinity, so we are all infinite. WE ARE ALL ALL.
Does that answer your question?
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968
If the universe turns out to be infinite, that means we're all fractions of infinity, so we are all infinite. WE ARE ALL ALL.
Does that answer your question?
We would be infinite fractions of infinity.
Infinity/infinite = indeterminate, so they isn't a problem.
Anyway I would like a response from John Davis.
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968
The name isn't confusing unless you use it inconsistently. It sounds like your concern is that it is not Archimedean. Is this right?
-
Also, we should probably split this math stuff out to the philosophy forums, or at least its own thread. Agreed?
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968
The name isn't confusing unless you use it inconsistently. It sounds like your concern is that it is not Archimedean. Is this right?
I'm unfamiliar with Archimedean in this context.
My concern is that the name "real number" makes it sound like they are somehow more real than other mathematical objects. They is nothing wrong with using number like 1.999...9968, as long as it is given a clear meaning.
So it's wrong to say "you can't use 1.999...9968 because it doesn't exist", but it is currently not fully defined, which it needs to be if it is to be used in a mathematical proof.
-
Also, we should probably split this math stuff out to the philosophy forums, or at least its own thread. Agreed?
Agreed.
-
So its okay to break the rules when it suits you, or convention?
So, show me that 0.999... exists in reality, and I'll concede 1.999...9923 is invalid due to it not being valid for giving directions across a pond.
It's not breaking the rules. When you prove stuff about ramanujan summation you never say it is also true for normal summation, unless you have a proof that it is the case. And a correct mathematician will not go around claiming that ramanujan summation is the same thing as summation, unlike Numberphile did...
You are right that existing in reality has nothing to do with maths. The problem here is getting different mathematical objects confused because they have similar names/notations.
As I said earlier, meaning an infinite number of digits by... either means you are no longer using real numbers, or it's a redundant notation as it adds no information.
0.0000...01 is 10^(-infinity), which depending on what you mean by to the power of -infinity, is either zero (if it is shorthand for a limit) or an infinitesimal(if infinity is a member of your new number system). If it's zero, then the part "after infinity" is redundant, it's just adding 0. If it's an infinitesimal, then you aren't representing a real number.
So 1.999...9923 is either not a real number, or is the same as 1.999... . Either way, is means 1.999...9923 is not a real number between 2 and 1.999..., because it's either equal to 1.999..., or it's not a real number.
Whenever I say real number, I mean a member of the unique complete totally ordered field (up to isomorphism), not that it is a reality number. Thanks of the confusing name René.
Can I get a response for this. Mainly for the point about 1.999...9968
The name isn't confusing unless you use it inconsistently. It sounds like your concern is that it is not Archimedean. Is this right?
I'm unfamiliar with Archimedean in this context.
My concern is that the name "real number" makes it sound like they are somehow more real than other mathematical objects. They is nothing wrong with using number like 1.999...9968, as long as it is given a clear meaning.
So it's wrong to say "you can't use 1.999...9968 because it doesn't exist", but it is currently not fully defined, which it needs to be if it is to be used in a mathematical proof.
I agree with this. I also agree we shouldn't be using the term 'real number' as we are. I feel like we've used it 3 different ways so far aside from the commonly accepted definition of a Real number.
I offered earlier to attempt to define it a bit more discretely; if I have some time past my dev work this weekend I'll attempt to do so in a reasonable way here.