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

    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.
 
 

Basically the earth is flat because, one (1) raindrop + one (1) raindrop = one (1) raindrop

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

. + . = o

1 gallon of water + 1 gallon of water = 2 gallons of water.

I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

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

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

I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

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

Oh Dear.

I would of perhaps used a different example of real world science.

I do love these "All Science is BS" postings that the conspiracy theory types periodically post. Then you ask them how transistors and internal combustion engines etc. could possibly have been developed without the underlying fundamentals being understood. Thanks to science and mathematics I might add.

I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

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

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

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

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

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

L'addition idempotente 1+1=1, le propre de l'immanence qui ne change pas, modifie ou ? transforme ? la transcendance qu'elle re?oit et dont elle a besoin pour passer d'idempotente ? g?n?rique et devenir 1+1=11/2.

Full article available here: http://www.onphi.net/lettre-laruelle-enfin-le-fondement-generique-d-une-science-de-la-philosophie-21.html

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

But that's wrong, how can 2 individual raindrops at any one point in time also be 1 single raindrop.

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


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

1 is the second observation.

You cannot compare the 2 observations as a single observation.


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

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

But that's wrong, how can 2 individual raindrops at any one point in time also be 1 single raindrop.

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


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

1 is the second observation.

You cannot compare the 2 observations as a single observation.


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

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

Why should we consider combination of this kind as accurately modelled by arithmetical addition? As I've explained perfectly clearly, the One-ness of a raindrop is a kind of radical immanence, so that if you combine One and One you simply have an overflowing One-ness. This is the relationship of idemopotence. So it is with many other Ones.

The fact that if you are making 2 completely different observations at 2 different periods of time, that is 2 completely different models.

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

Different points = different maths.

Here:

1 + x = 2   x=1 in this

1 + x = 5   x=4 in this

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

The fact that if you are making 2 completely different observations at 2 different periods of time, that is 2 completely different models.

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

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

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

Different points = different maths.

Here:

1 + x = 2   x=1 in this

1 + x = 5   x=4 in this

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Quote from: frozen_berries on April 22, 2010, 06:31:57 AM

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

All your posts are irrelevant to RET/FET debate. This thread should be locked/removed.

All your posts are irrelevant to RET/FET debate. This thread should be locked/removed.

Agreed. This is all they have left to argue with.

What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

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

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.

Quote from: Death-T on April 21, 2010, 06:05:00 PM

I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Fran?ois Laruelle

L'addition idempotente 1+1=1, le propre de l'immanence qui ne change pas, modifie ou ? transforme ? la transcendance qu'elle re?oit et dont elle a besoin pour passer d'idempotente ? g?n?rique et devenir 1+1=11/2.

Full article available here: http://www.onphi.net/lettre-laruelle-enfin-le-fondement-generique-d-une-science-de-la-philosophie-21.html

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

James, speaking of not understanding, perhaps you or Bullhorn could explain how idempotence precludes the earth being round.  I seem to have missed that connection.

I think I lost IQ reading that. :|

Quote from: James on April 21, 2010, 10:13:23 PM

Quote from: Death-T on April 21, 2010, 06:05:00 PM

I feel.... as though something has been stolen from me by reading this. Does this person have no grasp of such things as mass?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Fran?ois Laruelle

L'addition idempotente 1+1=1, le propre de l'immanence qui ne change pas, modifie ou ? transforme ? la transcendance qu'elle re?oit et dont elle a besoin pour passer d'idempotente ? g?n?rique et devenir 1+1=11/2.

Full article available here: http://www.onphi.net/lettre-laruelle-enfin-le-fondement-generique-d-une-science-de-la-philosophie-21.html

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

James, speaking of not understanding, perhaps you or Bullhorn could explain how idempotence precludes the earth being round.  I seem to have missed that connection.

And I would sure like to see the relationship between immanence, (or radical immanence if you prefer) with the shape of the Earth. Please find for us the definition of immanence that is not referred to theology, which must exist but I could not find. Or, maybe the FES is shifting from atheism to theism?

What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

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

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.

Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.

Quote from: trig on April 22, 2010, 07:24:00 AM

What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

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

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.

Science is a philosophy.

And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

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

This thread is irrrelevant to its own title and therefore constitutes mass low content. Moderators, take heed.

Quote from: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 09:33:48 AM

Quote from: trig on April 22, 2010, 07:24:00 AM

What all the FE believers in this thread do not want to understand is that maths, philosophy and science are three separate disciplines, and they cannot be intermixed any way we want.

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

And so we can continue forever explaining the differences between the three disciplines. If you want to mix them you should be prepared to explain why the mix is valid or else be shown how ignorant you are, like the OP's author, for example.

Science is a philosophy.

And we only need your word for that claim, of course. Or, maybe you have any kind of justification for your claim, other than it sounds nice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread is irrrelevant to its own title and therefore constitutes mass low content. Moderators, take heed.

You have been warned and banned about this in the past.   Are you really this thick?

Quote from: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 09:33:48 AM

Science is a philosophy.  Math exists only within itself and has no real relation to Science and is a construct of philosophy.

Hmmm...  And I always thought that math was the language of science.

Science can be done without math.  I forget who it was who showed us this, but if you really care I'd be happy to dig up the reference.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 22, 2010, 05:36:35 AM

Different points = different maths.

Here:

1 + x = 2   x=1 in this

1 + x = 5   x=4 in this

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

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

Protip: Learn what Algebra is.

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



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

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

All you are doing is taking this down to a very small scale and measuring raindrops instead.

This thread is irrrelevant to its own title and therefore constitutes mass low content. Moderators, take heed.

No its quite relevant, because if they prove the point of whatever, they are trying to prove it will prove the other point.

This is all about semantics. The meaning of 1+1=2 is the same here and at alpha centauri. "Raindrop" only means something here, inside the human mind. Maths are just perfect. Semantics and language not. We can trust 100% maths as long as we keep it far from philosophy, semantics and subjectiveness. This is pointless. The OP is just a misunderstanding of maths. Don't mix it with semantics. The concept of "raindrop" has nothing to see with maths.

(sorry about my english)