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

All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall

So, the entirety of your argument relies on the 1 + 1 = 1 raindrop analogy. Disproving that invalidates your entire argument. I like a challenge in a debate, but lets get this settled.

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

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

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

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

However, for the mathematical system we are using, the basics hold true. Why do they hold true? Because in order to use the system at all, they have to be true. If you come up with discrepancies such as you had, you simply are using the wrong units, or are neglecting a driving variable. yes, there are mathematical systems where 1 + 1 != 2, but we're talking higher level calculus, which is a completely different mathematical system then what we are using here, and thus, isn't applicable.

the original post here is sort of like reading Time Cube.
but hey while were at the maths lets have fun!!!



yay, we have now "proved" that when you add up points numbers 1-->infinity on earths radius, you get that them to equal -1/12
I now propose -1/12 Earth theory. either that, or calculus must be wrong, so lets toss out the laws of physics

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 14, 2010, 03:02:35 AM

All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall

Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 04:19:25 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 14, 2010, 03:02:35 AM

All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall

Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.

source?
well i have one:
http://www.traveltoaustralia.write101.com/antarctica.htm

Quote from: John Davis on May 17, 2010, 09:12:52 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 04:19:25 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 14, 2010, 03:02:35 AM

All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall

Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.

source?
well i have one:
http://www.traveltoaustralia.write101.com/antarctica.htm

I have been incorrect about the treaty.  My apologies.

However, none the less, those flights do not go over the Antarctic in any meaningful way.

Did you even read your own source?

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

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

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

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

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

Update, Since I last posted this.

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

Since we can't trust even that 1+1 is 2, how can we trust that you are sane? The evidence seems to point towards your inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 09:19:44 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 17, 2010, 09:12:52 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 04:19:25 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 14, 2010, 03:02:35 AM

All your FE maps are seriously flawed.  See "Flight Times", etc.

better yet see flying over Antarctica
you'll notice a lack of ice wall

Unfortunately I can't see flying over Antarctica because it is forbidden by international treaty.

source?
well i have one:
http://www.traveltoaustralia.write101.com/antarctica.htm

I have been incorrect about the treaty.  My apologies.

However, none the less, those flights do not go over the Antarctic in any meaningful way.

Did you even read your own source?

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

this is one flight. I'm sure others do, will just have to look more.
in the end, this disproves your evidence of International treaty, so its still open

There have been numerous flights over the south pole. A Pan Am 747Sp flew over the south pole in 1977 for Pan Am's 50th anniversary going from Sydney to Recife. And Bob Buck flew a Boeing 707 called "Polar Cat" over the south pole, deviating his course enough to fly directly over the pole, and it is written about in the book "North Star Over My Shoulder" or something like that.

Granted, these are but a couple examples. Though really, there is little need to fly over the south pole. The only times it makes distances shorter is flying from Australia to South America. But the flight is so treacherous due to there being no emergency landing fields and few weather observation centers, that it makes the trip not worth the risks involved. Do you want to risk emergency landings on uneven ice where there are near perpetual white-outs at ground level, and heavy ground winds? It's dangerous, and there is an ice wall (The ice on Antarctica is two miles thick, on average), but not one that's insurmountable, as planes can fly at 30,000 feet, or about 20,000 ft over the ice.

And at the orginial post.
you assume that the concept of adding raindrops must be addition, as it is in the Real set.

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

And at the orginial post.
you assume that the concept of adding raindrops must be addition, as it is in the Real set.

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

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

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

You guys are idiots.  The fact that you're debating 1+1 is utterly laughable.

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

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

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

You guys are idiots.  The fact that you're debating 1+1 is utterly laughable.

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

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

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

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

FES = Cult?


Interesting.   

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 18, 2010, 01:47:15 PM

You guys are idiots.  The fact that you're debating 1+1 is utterly laughable.

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

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

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

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

I thought this place was a cult.
still not sure, but it reminds me of Co$

Lets clear up this BS about 1+1=1 raindrop. Since a raindrop is NOT an empirical unit of measure, a "raindrop" cannot be used in any mathematical formula. This analogy is akin to saying (1 group of people+1 group of people= 1 group of people with more people in it). Empirically, an aggregated unit (group of people, raindrop,) is not necessarily valid. If you wanted to truly add raindrops you must measure them via empirical metrics, such as by their mass, or # of molecules.

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

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

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

So please, understand concepts before you fail at disproving them 

PS:

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

Lets clear up this BS about 1+1=1 raindrop. Since a raindrop is NOT an empirical unit of measure, a "raindrop" cannot be used in any mathematical formula. This analogy is akin to saying (1 group of people+1 group of people= 1 group of people with more people in it). Empirically, an aggregated unit (group of people, raindrop,) is not necessarily valid. If you wanted to truly add raindrops you must measure them via empirical metrics, such as by their mass, or # of molecules.

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

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

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

So please, understand concepts before you fail at disproving them 

PS:

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

why would they be flat in FEH? without gravity, they are weightless. aka, they should be round. now as to why the atmosphere and friction behaves the same way, I have no clue, because at any given moment, a particle should have no forces acting upon it, only its current velocity relative to the stationary paper, no forces act on either. in RET, the particle is accelerating down with upward velocity and the paper is accelerating down with downward velocity AND fast moving particles from above are being accelerated downward to the paper.
makes no sense.

Simply put, since FE doesn't account for any nuclear (strong/weak) forces or gravity (asside from UA), there would be no consolidated matter and as such no earth at all..... but saying that a raindrop would be flat was in a UA context. Without UA there is no explanation of the earth being solid and not being a mess of unconsolidated atoms (which UA doesn't actually do anyway).

Simply put, since FE doesn't account for any nuclear (strong/weak) forces or gravity, there would be not matter and as such no earth at all..... but saying that a raindrop would be flat was in a UA context. Without UA there is no explanation of the earth being solid and not being a mess of unconsolidated atoms (which UA doesn't actually do anyway).

Even if you add the other forces, that still wouldn't explain why the farther you go to the MIDDLE of the core, the more dense it gets.
also without gravity, you have no metal core, so Dynamo theory is out, and you don't have an explanation for the magnetic fields.

Indeed, doesn't explain Isostacy either.

Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

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

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 05:35:34 PM

Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

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

Were you responding to me?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:10:11 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 05:35:34 PM

Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

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

Were you responding to me?

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

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:14:14 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:10:11 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 05:35:34 PM

Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

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

Were you responding to me?

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

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

I wasn't talking about/to the OP.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 10:14:14 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:10:11 PM

Quote from: amazed on May 19, 2010, 05:35:34 PM

Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.

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

Were you responding to me?

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

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

I wasn't talking about/to the OP.

ok, sorry my b.

Now I can rest knowing UA is debunked.

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

...and what the FE even looks like.  Think  I shoud start a thread about the raindrops?  I'd be curious to see what some idiots come up with for excuses.

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

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

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

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

Update, Since I last posted this.

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

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

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