There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)

I missed the part where philosophy made it impossible for a round earth to exisit.

You missed it because that connection never really existed.

This almost feels like a straw man.

This thread is full of win. Definitely going to copy and paste the opening post, too funny.

    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

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

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

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

Update, Since I last posted this.

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

I guess you guys have really stopped trying.

Dear FE'ers

Quit undermining your beliefs by assuming even more ridiculous standards

Sincerely, everyone else.

Quote from: bullhorn on April 21, 2010, 04:14:31 PM

    I think it is time that we take a serious look at the issues as to why the theory for a round earth is flawed and the reasons behind it.  From the basic mathematical equations taught in educational institutions, to the complex library of false figures and records that circulate in the academic world.  For those of you who are new to the forum it is necessary to understand the difference between an educated person that believes in a round earth, and an educated person that believes in a flat one.  Both have reasons as to why they believe in one-theory vs the other.  Although both (people) are educated, one is educated on a belief that is founded in deception and fabrication and the other is educated in what can be called “real world science” I will show in this document why even the most basic mathematical equation as taught in school fails under scrutiny and why because of this, the theory for a round earth fails as well.

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

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

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

Update, Since I last posted this.

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

I guess you guys have really stopped trying.

Dear FE'ers

Quit undermining your beliefs by assuming even more ridiculous standards

Sincerely, everyone else.

This seems to be a consistent theme for some of the Newer FE'ers, like the guy who seems to think that saying the sun is a floodlight not a spotlight is a good response to all arguments. Or like the guy who thinks the fact that earth and land used to have a flat implication in older diction is a solid argument

I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

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

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

Also, can you develop the underlined sentenece?

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

I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

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

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

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

I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.
If one goes with what the OP was saying, as I understand it.

We're not perfect, as humans.
We always tend to attend the biggest level of perfection, but all we do is to discover flaws.
Math is a true science (it's a french expression translation, I'm not sure if it's the same in English) but it is true just to the point where we discover the next error to correct. It's called development.
In modern science, it is absolutely true. The probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small, but it doesn't mean that the round earth theory is false. Hence the:

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

This just means that there are more ways as to see things, not that we all are flawed and that the Round Earth theory is false.

But anyway, what's obvious is that the OP is trying to push Cubes into Circles and yelling: it fits.

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

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

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

Conclusion, earth is round!
Bo Ya

In essence any solid under its own gravity, tension or other internal force and given enough time can be considered to have liquid like property; will eventually form into a sphere.

Quote from: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 05:20:51 AM

I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

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

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

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

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

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

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:04:01 AM

Quote from: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 05:20:51 AM

I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

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

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

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

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

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

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.

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

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

Enlighten me?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:36:58 AM

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

Enlighten me?

I believe I've posted it in this thread, but in certain number systems and situations its true.  The example I've used I think was a ring with an additive identity of 1.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 09:35:06 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:04:01 AM

Quote from: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 05:20:51 AM

I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

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

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

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

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

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

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.

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

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

This is still dumb, because when we use numbers in science, for the most part we use the complex numbers or the real set.
essentially, the OP has taken a part of number theory where 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but missed the part in class where people use the complex set. in this set 1+1=2 is a fact.

This thread is ridiculous. A value makes no sense without a unit: for example, I can say 3. So? What does that number mean? It means there are 3...what?
However, I can add the word 'grams' onto the end, which makes the number mean something 3g.
Then I say 4. 4 kilograms. 4kg and 3g.
If I just take the numbers with no context at all, then I'd get 7. But with the units, I get 4003g. Very different answers, but it doesn't take a genius to see that the latter is correct. Why? Because the units are vital to the equation. The unit is what makes the sum actually worthwhile.

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

And besides, what the  does this have to do with FET?

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 09:35:06 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 06:04:01 AM

Quote from: Homespun-Bleach on June 17, 2010, 05:20:51 AM

I also would like to add a point.
Let's assume that we are close-minded to the point that we can't accept that One raindrop + One raindrop =  One raindrop (Even if it's actually two raindrops blended into a bigger raindrop), let's assume that.
How does that make the Round Earth theory false?

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

That we refuse to accept this pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus the Island's volcano smoke doesn't equal One False Round Earth theory, it just equals a pseudo-equation of "oneness" plus Island's Volcano smoke.

I imagine the assumption is that if math is false (due to 1+1=1) then anything that comes from or uses math are tainted fruits and may not be valid.  If this is the case, the probability that we would randomly stumble upon the correct answer is very small.

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

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

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

1 + 1 = 2.  If bullhorn can't figure that out... well, I wonder how he does his taxes, I guess.

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

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

This is still dumb, because when we use numbers in science, for the most part we use the complex numbers or the real set.
essentially, the OP has taken a part of number theory where 1+1 doesn't equal 2, but missed the part in class where people use the complex set. in this set 1+1=2 is a fact.

yes, those are the obvious consequences of what I said.

I confess, I didn't read every single post here so just call me an idiot if someone already disproved my points here. First off, 1+1=2 is more accurately written as 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units; old rule from back in kindergarten. Saying 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 big raindrop doesn't mean 1+1=2, because they don't even have the same units. But more importantly, even if there were some great flaw in our schooling system, you're making the most common--and the most ignored--mistake of all: the fallacy of composition. Just because they're wrong about 'x' doesn't mean the entire system is fundamentally flawed, and that every single thing people teach is wrong. And even if you were to ignore what I just said, how does that make the Earth *flat*? Why not pear-shaped like Christopher Colombus thought, or some random nameless shape?

In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong

I would like to interpret that this way that you just don't understand the basic education and are rebelling against it. You are not in any way open minded. If you would then would you also consider the possibility of round earth and would not took FE for default and start proving all from that assumption. You would not start bending light to get your desired result of flat earth but you would examine your observations and try to see what they mean. Not try to fit your observations in the FE model. This is not open mindedness, this is blind faith to one cause when you bend all things to fit in your FE model.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 09:39:09 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:36:58 AM

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

Enlighten me?

I believe I've posted it in this thread, but in certain number systems and situations its true.  The example I've used I think was a ring with an additive identity of 1.

"in certain number systems and situations". That means the one after equation mark isn't exactly like the ones before equation mark. You just redefine last one in the process and by doing so you invalidate the equation.

Quote from: bullhorn on April 21, 2010, 04:14:31 PM

In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong

I would like to interpret that this way that you just don't understand the basic education and are rebelling against it. You are not in any way open minded. If you would then would you also consider the possibility of round earth and would not took FE for default and start proving all from that assumption. You would not start bending light to get your desired result of flat earth but you would examine your observations and try to see what they mean. Not try to fit your observations in the FE model. This is not open mindedness, this is blind faith to one cause when you bend all things to fit in your FE model.

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:50:38 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 17, 2010, 09:39:09 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:36:58 AM

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

Enlighten me?

I believe I've posted it in this thread, but in certain number systems and situations its true.  The example I've used I think was a ring with an additive identity of 1.

"in certain number systems and situations". That means the one after equation mark isn't exactly like the ones before equation mark. You just redefine last one in the process and by doing so you invalidate the equation.

The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system

The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system

Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on July 10, 2010, 11:56:40 AM

The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system

Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.

For example, if I say 1.000000000000 mile per hour + 1.000000000000 mile per hour = 2.000000000000 miles per hour, I'm technically imprecise, right? (The Lorenz Equation applies to adding speeds, right?)

But under the Algebra of Natural Numbers, I can say 1 + 1 = 2, right?

Quote from: zork on July 10, 2010, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on July 10, 2010, 11:56:40 AM

The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system

Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.

For example, if I say 1.000000000000 mile per hour + 1.000000000000 mile per hour = 2.000000000000 miles per hour, I'm technically imprecise, right? (The Lorenz Equation applies to adding speeds, right?)

But under the Algebra of Natural Numbers, I can say 1 + 1 = 2, right?

I admit my stupidity and say that I just don't get what you are talking about.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 02:02:23 PM

Quote from: zork on July 10, 2010, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on July 10, 2010, 11:56:40 AM

The equation is only true in some systems.
In ths alternative system, addition isn't the same as it is in our normal system

Then you redefine the addition to be something else. In short, you redefine all things. In mathematical sense where you define one to be natural number and the other one also natural number and addition is method to combine collection of items to larger collection, there you can't get 1+1=1 . In my opinion you just can't say that 1+1=1 but you must explain your definitions also.

For example, if I say 1.000000000000 mile per hour + 1.000000000000 mile per hour = 2.000000000000 miles per hour, I'm technically imprecise, right? (The Lorenz Equation applies to adding speeds, right?)

But under the Algebra of Natural Numbers, I can say 1 + 1 = 2, right?

I admit my stupidity and say that I just don't get what you are talking about.

Remember that by the Lorenz Transformation explains how velocities must be added to make sure that no two observers in motion measure c differently. The Transform makes the adding of velocity vectors such that .9c + .9c (in the same direction) is still less than 1c. Please Google Lorenz Transformation for a 'lot' of reading.

Remember that by the Lorenz Transformation explains how velocities must be added to make sure that no two observers in motion measure c differently. The Transform makes the adding of velocity vectors such that .9c + .9c (in the same direction) is still less than 1c. Please Google Lorenz Transformation for a 'lot' of reading.

So you talk about vectors and their addition. There are other rules for vectors and if you add vectors then you say so that others can understand what you do and how you make up your equation and reach to your result. It's not good manner to blurt out that 1+1=1 and not explain anything further.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 02:45:24 PM

Remember that by the Lorenz Transformation explains how velocities must be added to make sure that no two observers in motion measure c differently. The Transform makes the adding of velocity vectors such that .9c + .9c (in the same direction) is still less than 1c. Please Google Lorenz Transformation for a 'lot' of reading.

So you talk about vectors and their addition. There are other rules for vectors and if you add vectors then you say so that others can understand what you do and how you make up your equation and reach to your result. It's not good manner to blurt out that 1+1=1 and not explain anything further.

I'm just trying to help, Remember that I'm not the one who blurted out that "1+1=1", right?