There is no way a round earth is credible. Please read

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.

1 raindrop plus 1 more raindrop does equal 1 raindrop, but that 1 new raindrop is the combined mass of the two previous raindrops.

say the standard raindrop is 1 gram of water, then the equation is

1 gram water + 1 gram water = 2 grams water, and the mathematics works.

1 raindrop plus 1 raindrop = 1 (bigger) raindrop is not a failing of mathematics, but is because water in a raindrop is a liquid.

I guess I am missing the big picture, however.

But then, yes, science is always changing, this is correct, but only because science is willing to change, if a new theory is 'thought up' which explains why something happens in a better way than the previous theory.  However, some things in science, like the observation that an apple falls to the ground, never change as they are observations or scientific laws.

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

so us Real Earth theorists are closed minded and cannot understand that taught base education is wrong.

1 raindrop plus 1 more raindrop does equal 1 raindrop, but that 1 new raindrop is the combined mass of the two previous raindrops.

say the standard raindrop is 1 gram of water, then the equation is

1 gram water + 1 gram water = 2 grams water, and the mathematics works.

i was going to give an example like that.

While we're at it, you've actually shown us nothing as to why the earth is flat, or not round.  All that has been shown is a flawed example of why basic math might not in all cases be correct.

Your point?

Ahh now I see

 liquid raindrops mix

ergo the earth is flat


Why didn't I think of that before

Ahh now I see

 liquid raindrops mix

ergo the earth is flat


Why didn't I think of that before

This is not the logical progression Bullhorn was going for.

I think he was trying to say more:

1) 1 + 1 = 2 is one of the most basic and fundamental concepts of math and academic thinking in general.

2) Based on observation of raindrops, it is evident that 1 + 1 = 2 is not always true in nature.

3) Because of this evident exception, it can be assumed that many other such exceptions exist.

4) Since natural exceptions to otherwise "fundamental" academic concepts clearly exist, theoretical science cannot be applied as absolute fact to real life situations.

5) Since theoretical science cannot be applied as absolute fact, theoretical science cannot be used to "prove" the earth is round.

you cannot give an actual example of 1 + 1 = 2 not being true, as conservation of energy/mass states that 1 + 1 not equaling 2 is impossible.  plus,  the original poster's example only came out the way it did because the original poster failed to account for the fact that rain is a liquid, and so just said that putting two raindrops together makes one raindrop.  This was not including mass, the net mass, number of water atoms, etc. is the same.

Plus,  if you put 1 raindrop next to another and they do not touch each other, then you will have 2 raindrops.

Could you perhaps give another example, one that is not ignoring variables?

Bullhorn might argue that things like conservation of matter and net number of atoms - things which you or I will likely never personally observe - are flawed principles. That is, after all, the whole point of the post; those things which we are taught our whole lives by conventional science are not to be trusted blindly. He is trying to show that nature defies some scientific princples, and you are trying to rebut his argument by citing other scientific principles.

The argument probably can't go anywhere, it's just food for thought.

I only cite conservation of mass as an extra thing to add to my base arguement that both raindrops are still there, but have just been merged into one as liquids can easily be mixed.  Weighing the raindrops shows that adding the two together has resulted in one raindrop made up of the mass of the two past raindrops.

Scientific principles are not trusted blindly, but trusted because the very reason they are basic principles and laws is because we are sure from research and the fact that we have used this information to build technology.  For example, electrical circuits are based upon ohms law, so we know this law must be true, or else our electricity would not work.

I guess it is just my brain prefering to protect the basis of my entire understanding of the universe, thus instantly seeing that the raindrop example is flawed once mass is taken into account.  But the original poster's mindset, who I assume to be FE, is in a completely different set of physics and laws and a completely different understanding of the universe, and thus looks at it in a different way, putting mathematics directly to the number of raindrops after putting two raindrops together.

"drops" are not an actual measured unit. So yes,
1 rain drop + 1 rain drop = 1 rain drop

But with measured units like cups or mili-liters
1 cup + 1 cup = 2 cups
1 ml + 1 ml = 2 ml

It is 1+1=2 in that case.

1 rain drop + 1 rain drop = 1 rain drop
Is like saying this:
1 puddle + 1 puddle = 1 puddle, it's just bigger.

It doesn't prove anything, just common sence.

"drops" are not an actual measured unit. So yes,
1 rain drop + 1 rain drop = 1 rain drop

This is a pretty strong refutation of your argument against "the education system", bullhorn.

What you are saying would be valid if all raindrops were exactly the same, the way that all inches mean exactly the same thing: a particular distance between two places; and the way that grams always mean a particular mass (relativistic issues aside).

On the other hand, the new "raindrop" is not exactly the same as the old "raindrop".  The notion of a "raindrop" is not a unit because it doesn't refer to a particular amount of anything.  Raindrops can be microscopic -- almost like a fog -- or they can be huge and heavy.

As usual, you are trying to attack established science and mathematics using a faulty argument.  In this case, you are equivocating on the meaning of "one"; first, "one raindrop" means a certain amount of water (in fact, you don't give a guarantee that the two raindrops that combine are the same amount), and later, it means a new amount of water.

It turns out that people who are properly educated about the methods of science and mathematics realize that what you are doing is erroneous, and while they sometimes make the same sorts of mistakes themselves, they are at least open to the possibility of correction.  Are you open to the possibility of correcting your understanding of mathematics and science?

-Erasmus

So 1 rain drop  + 1 rain drop = corrupt education and the earth is flat?

I don't see how rain drops can prove the earth is flat. Round earth is not only back up by science and mathematics, it is also backed up by video, pictures and other evidence.

I thought i read that huge post to see why you thought the earth is flat and not round. I didn't read it to hear about the story of two rain drops cuddling.

Did you ever think that the Flat Earth is an old theory because maybe the math and science behind it have flaws and make the theory wrong?

In my opinion, your argument that 1+1=1 actually works against you not only in the fact that they proved your argument wrong, but when you look ever moreso deeply into it.

1+1 is the oldest known Law of Science.  Math = Science, so its a Law of Science.  Man used to think that the earth were flat, so technically that would make it the oldest theory of the earth itself.  By you saying 1+1=1 on occasion, you prove your own theory of the earth being flat wrong.  Since what we percieve isn't always correct.

Let me reitterate

What we percieve, isn't always correct.

In the end, rather than bullshit about theories, the only way one can achieve anything is by getting off his own ass and doing it himself.

Maybe someone has actually fallen off of the earth, maybe someone has gone to outer space.  Maybe there is a God.  Maybe I'm black?  (well I'm not, but still, its a maybe)

1+1 is the oldest known Law of Science.  Math = Science, so its a Law of Science.  Man used to think that the earth were flat, so technically that would make it the oldest theory of the earth itself.  By you saying 1+1=1 on occasion, you prove your own theory of the earth being flat wrong.  Since what we percieve isn't always correct.

Wow.  I nominate this for "incoherent paragraph of the month".  What's this "math = science" thing?  Also, how does bullhorn prove anything about anything by writing "1 + 1 = 1"?

-Erasmus

Thank you, that was exactly what I was going for.

In my opinion, your argument that 1+1=1 actually works against you not only in the fact that they proved your argument wrong, but when you look ever moreso deeply into it.

1+1 is the oldest known Law of Science.  Math = Science, so its a Law of Science.  Man used to think that the earth were flat, so technically that would make it the oldest theory of the earth itself.  By you saying 1+1=1 on occasion, you prove your own theory of the earth being flat wrong.  Since what we percieve isn't always correct.

Let me reitterate

What we percieve, isn't always correct.

In the end, rather than bullshit about theories, the only way one can achieve anything is by getting off his own ass and doing it himself.

Maybe someone has actually fallen off of the earth, maybe someone has gone to outer space.  Maybe there is a God.  Maybe I'm black?  (well I'm not, but still, its a maybe)

What the Hell??
bullhorn maybe idiotic and incorrec but at least he approaches coherence
An enraged
Cinlef

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.

................wow...............

Ok, let's consider something (it's been noted, but lets consider it anyway).  When you add one raindrop to another raindrop, you get one raindrop.  Therefore, 1+1=1 should be true.  Except that the separate raindrops you started out with ARE NOT THE SAME as the raindrop you end up with.  Let's say V1 is the volume of the first raindrop, V2 is the volume of the second, and V3 is the volume of the final raindrop.  Assuming that V1=V2, we can say V1+V2=2V1.  Then, 2V1=V3, however by the above logic there is no consideration of this.  In the above logic, V1=V2=V3.

What would be a similar fallacy?  500+500=1.  500 meters plus 500 meters equals one kilometer.  Now this is clearly true, however I could argue 500+500=1 by conventional mathematics and not point out that I have different units on each side of the equation.  This is all the above really does.

What would be a similar fallacy?  500+500=1.  500 meters plus 500 meters equals one kilometer.  Now this is clearly true, however I could argue 500+500=1 by conventional mathematics and not point out that I have different units on each side of the equation.  This is all the above really does.

How is that a similar fallacy?

How is that a similar fallacy?

Well I don't see what's so difficult.  You agree that 500 meters plus 500 meters equals one kilometer?  Then 500+500=1.  By the same logic, 1 raindrop plus 1 raindrop equals one raindrop, right?  No.  The problem is that the units are not the same on each side of the equation.  500+500=1 is absurd, but it works because I've expressed the left side in terms of meters and the right side in terms of kilometers, and refused to label them as such.  In the same way, 1+1=1 is completely absurd unless you take into account the units on each side.  On the left side, the units are "raindrops," and on the right side, the units should be "bigger raindrops," however bullhorn made no mention of this.  In order to add any scalar quantities that have units, the units MUST BE THE SAME.  If we assume the two raindrops at the start to be identical, then the resulting raindrop CANNOT be identical to the first, and so even though we say we have raindrops on both sides, the raindrops on the left are not the same as the one on the right.

Essentially what I've done is taken two smaller quantities, added them, and expressed them on a different scale.  Both sides are expressed as distances, but not the same units of distance.  Does that make any sense?

Essentially what I've done is taken two smaller quantities, added them, and expressed them on a different scale.  Both sides are expressed as distances, but not the same units of distance.  Does that make any sense?

Um, yes, I suppose it does.

-Erasmus

Having read your post as advised, the following link came to mind and may perhaps be of some interest to you.  The author of the articles contained therein (Frithjof Schuon) is also quite critical of what passes for science nowadays, though not necessarily from the same angle as yourself:

http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/science-engl.htm

- Dionysios

Im glad we are all seeing the truth

Even if the first post was true (which I think almost everyone in this thread has proven is not), what the hell does this have to do with a round earth not being credible? Combining raindrops has nothing to do with the curvature (or lack thereof depending on your belief) of the earth at all. If you're going to try to make any sense out of your first post, please do it quickly.

hmm i'm bored so i thought i'd say why it happens if two rain drops meet in mid air. The reason is hydrostatics, the water molecules are polar, and will automatically orient itself to to form loose bonds with other water molecules (called hydrogen bonds - it is the reason water is a liquid at room temperature, without it water would be a gas). Therefore when the two water molecules come into contact they will form these hydrogen bonds and therefore become one rain drop.


On another side note talking about rain drops, the shape of the rain drop relies on its physical size. If the rain drop is under 2 mm they are generally perfect spheres (or relatively perfect spheres) - again this relates to hydrongen bonding - above 2 mm to about 5 mm they become "hamburger" shaped, in other words they begin to flatten out. above 5mm they become parachute shaped, two halves of the rain drop begin to separate connected by a thin strip of water, until the size becomes too much and the rain drop sepearates into two diffrent rain drops.

I actually tried to believe that the Earth was flat until I read the evidence, which is dumb and mildly funny. For example, why don't you fall of the Earth is you're on the bottom? Because gravity doesn't pull down it pulls towards its centre. On a flat Earth gravity could not exist, unless of course, the idea of gravity is part of the "conspiracy," your big excuse every time you get prooved wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to earth.google.com download it and see your own home from a bird's eye view (if you live in a city or high detail area). That way you can proove to yourself whether the Earth is round or flat.

I actually tried to believe that the Earth was flat until I read the evidence, which is dumb and mildly funny. For example, why don't you fall of the Earth is you're on the bottom? Because gravity doesn't pull down it pulls towards its centre. On a flat Earth gravity could not exist, unless of course, the idea of gravity is part of the "conspiracy," your big excuse every time you get prooved wrong.

Looks like you've got more reading to do.

Erasmus, what do you mean? If you jump, why do you go back to the ground? It's the force of gravity. It exists. I can feel it right now.

Erasmus, what do you mean? If you jump, why do you go back to the ground? It's the force of gravity. It exists. I can feel it right now.

FEs think that the entire universe is moving upwards at a speed that would create the 9.8 m/s squared gravity that we feel. It's a little crazy, since there is no evidence that this is true. After all- oh wait, I was about to use an example about craft we send into space, but they don't believe that we've gotten there yet. Never mind.

FEs think that the entire universe is moving upwards at a speed that would create the 9.8 m/s squared gravity that we feel. It's a little crazy, since there is no evidence that this is true.

It doesn't matter if it is, because if the entire Universe were moving, the Earth would be moving up under our feet at exactly the same rate, effectively making no change.

Quote

FEs think that the entire universe is moving upwards at a speed that would create the 9.8 m/s squared gravity that we feel. It's a little crazy, since there is no evidence that this is true.

It doesn't matter if it is, because if the entire Universe were moving, the Earth would be moving up under our feet at exactly the same rate, effectively making no change.

Shhh. We're not supposed to know that. The entire of the FEs are to keep conventional science, common sense, and logic out of it. If they don't, they're theory goes caput. So once again, shhh. Don't tell anyone that it wouldn't make any effect, because you will undoubtedly get an even dumber response than the first one.