The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Rekt on February 13, 2017, 02:50:34 PM

Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?

Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?
The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.

The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.
I think they point to the plethora of photographic, video and eyewitness evidence of the Earth being round; at least that is what I would do.

The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.
I think they point to the plethora of photographic, video and eyewitness evidence of the Earth being round; at least that is what I would do.
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle. No research for their own selves. That is why the study of the earth by ancient civilizations should be considered. They did not have an easy authority to appeal to. They had to actually study the matter afresh if they wanted to know anything.

When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.
You will have to take my word for it. Over ten years, between this site and the other one, no astronomer has ever done anything to prove his position other than link us to space pictures or quote ancient astronomers who believed that the earth was a globe.

No modern astronomer uses the modeling of Aristotle. Aristotle may have gotten the shape of the earth right but the predictive capability of his model was was not very accurate.

No modern astronomer uses the modeling of Aristotle. Aristotle may have gotten the shape of the earth right but the predictive capability of his model was was not very accurate.
Modern astronomers do use the proofs of Aristotle to show that the earth is round. They go into the sinking ship effect, the lunar eclipse, and declining stars, most usually without reading any of the Flat Earth books or literature beforehand.
Nothing really original comes out of them. That is why we have to resort to looking at the work of ancient astronomers who conducted investigation without all of the dogma and authority appeals to burden them.

Modern astronomers they do use the proofs of Aristotle to show that the earth is round. They go into the sinking ship effect, the lunar eclipse, and declining stars, most usually without reading any of the Flat Earth books or literature beforehand.
Nothing really original comes out of them. That is why we have to resort to looking at the work of ancient astronomers who conducted investigation without all of the dogma and authority appeals to burden them.
This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted.
In your mind, yes.
But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic.
Modern astronomers have looked at the Earth through orbital telescopes, satellites and space probes. Your denial of space flight does not change this.
This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
No, this is why we need you to get out there and sight the ISS with a good enough telescope to see that it is a manmade object and then do some triangulation to verify it's altitude and consequently it's velocity. You could do yourself one better and get some contacts in the southern hemisphere to plot the course of the ISS across the sky and then plot the results on a globe, or your bipolar projection and see which model the data matches best with. From that information you will be able to dispel the misapprehension you are labouring under about the shape of the Earth and can stop impugning the credibility of people with knowledge you lack.

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
Yeah, I feel that the government has really pulled the wool over our eyes on this one. 2+2 is obviously fish, your millennia old proof can't dispute my cold hard observations.

When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.
You will have to take my word for it.
Nope, that's never been good enough for you, it's not good enough for me. And why should it be? You're just some random stranger on the internet, what good is your word?

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.
You will have to take my word for it.
Nope, that's never been good enough for you, it's not good enough for me. And why should it be? You're just some random stranger on the internet, what good is your word?
If you don't want to take my word for it, you are free to search through the last 10 years of messages between this site and the other site until you find the posts you are looking for.

Has Astronomy ever been anything more than the fixation on a star and counting how many times it blinks? I'm not totally sure we have anything much better than the Ancients had as far as accomplishing that.

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.
My post was about the value of two plus two.
The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

My post was about the value of two plus two.
Perhaps you should consider staying on topic, then?

My post was about the value of two plus two.
staying on topic
Yes. Thanks.

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.
My post was about the value of two plus two.
The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.
The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.
See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).

This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.
My post was about the value of two plus two.
The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.
The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.
See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
Sure. But that entirely evades the point as I'm sure you know.
According to the "same old proofs" when you have two objects and you add two more you will have four objects. We've all been duped into believing this since grade school. If we would start using some different proofs we would realize that two objects plus two more objects does not equal four objects.

I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.
Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

Your source showed how two plus two didn't always equal four depending on how the numbers were used. That is why, in the following post I specified.
So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?

So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
No. For that analogy to work, you'd have to redefine a globe to mean something else than what you currently mean.
That said, if you did accept that condition, then sure, the Earth could be a "globe".

So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
No. For that analogy to work, you'd have to redefine a globe to mean something else than what you currently mean.
That said, if you did accept that condition, then sure, the Earth could be a "globe".
But he's saying that 2+2 can equal four (globe earth) but that it can also equal something else (flat earth) depending on how you use the numbers. To rule out the globe earth you must also rule out 4 as a possible correct answer to 2+2.

I saw a similar conversation regarding math on the other site so I pasted a post from this tread over there. For interest sake, I thought I would post Alien's response ( I don't know if I'm breaking any rules but if so I apologize in advance):
1+1=2
now go ahead and declare it to be refutable.
Enter Tom Bishop:
The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.
See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
tim bishop is also wrong. 2+2 will always equal 4 and never vary. A different measuring scale eg a different base will still come up with 4 and only the symbol for 4 will vary. It remains an axiomatic truth that does not vary. Even if a society does not use integers (not that any actually do) the axiom is still 2.0+2.0=4.0
One rather obvious feature of FEers is to try and convince people that objective truth ie axioms, do not exist while they remain the foundations of pretty much everything. The existence of a force that holds us to the ground is axiomatic  unless you are a FEer who create a variety of alternate mechanisms trying to avoid any possible existence of a force.
I think some People gran FEers far too much leniency in their baseless abrogation of basic scientific and social principles.

"AlienHunter" clearly did not understand the link. A proof like 10 + 10 = 20 is not valid in all situations. It is highly dependant on underlying assumptions of the model involved. It is not a universal proof that 20 is twice as much as 10.
http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html
The change in heat between 0^{o}C and 10^{o}C is the same as between 10^{o}C and 20^{o}C. But watch out! 20^{o}C is not twice as hot as 10^{o}C! Why? Interval scales have arbitrary zeros (just because we decided to call it zero).

I am Muslim and honestly, all verses of the Quran about Earth proves that Earth is flat. The Quran is in total sync with the Bible on this.
Plus extra information about Creation from my own understanding of the verses of the Quran
1. Earth was created before the creation of the 7 heavens (skies)
2. Probably, Day and Night was created before Sun and Moon
3. Earth has corners (Atraf)
4. Earth is very big, its usually gets compared with the 7 skies (heavens)
5. God Created Earth and designed all things on it in 4 days while Heavens in 2 days
The above is from my understanding of many verses of the Quran, other Muslims might have different opinion though

I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.
Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.
This is wrong from a mathematical perspective. If I define for myself certain axioms about the numbering system (let's stick to the whole numbers 0,1,2,3,...). 2+2 is always equal to 4. Let's abridge those: 1+number before = that number, standard field axioms, etc. It follows as a logical consequence from the axioms. There is no wiggle room on this. It may be true that once you attach units or other meaning to them (such as 2 degrees C), then 2 degrees C + 2 degrees C is not equal to 4 degrees C, but that doesn't imply that 2+2 is not 4. It is always 4. Mathematics does not contradict itself and there is no argument from authority in modern mathematics. You need to prove it.

I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.
Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.
This is wrong from a mathematical perspective. If I define for myself certain axioms about the numbering system (let's stick to the whole numbers 0,1,2,3,...). 2+2 is always equal to 4. Let's abridge those: 1+number before = that number, standard field axioms, etc. It follows as a logical consequence from the axioms. There is no wiggle room on this. It may be true that once you attach units or other meaning to them (such as 2 degrees C), then 2 degrees C + 2 degrees C is not equal to 4 degrees C, but that doesn't imply that 2+2 is not 4. It is always 4. Mathematics does not contradict itself and there is no argument from authority in modern mathematics. You need to prove it.
Its only valid according to certain axioms. Under different axioms, the result is different. Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.

We had a discussion about this 2+2 != 4 idea in another thread:
What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.
2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html).
All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid.
the writer is a psychology PhD, explaining that 40 on a given test scale for, say, hydrophobia, is not necessarily twice as hydrophobic as a 20 is. ...
Here is an excellent paper on the universality of 2 + 2 = 4. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/)
I admit, I cannot conceive of a "situation" that would make 2 + 2 = 4 false. (There are redefinitions, but those are not "situations", and then you're no longer talking about 2, 4, =, or +.) But that doesn't make my belief unconditional. I find it quite easy to imagine a situation which would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3.
Suppose I got up one morning, and took out two earplugs, and set them down next to two other earplugs on my nighttable, and noticed that there were now three earplugs, without any earplugs having appeared or disappeared—in contrast to my stored memory that 2 + 2 was supposed to equal 4. Moreover, when I visualized the process in my own mind, it seemed that making XX and XX come out to XXXX required an extra X to appear from nowhere, and was, moreover, inconsistent with other arithmetic I visualized, since subtracting XX from XXX left XX, but subtracting XX from XXXX left XXX. This would conflict with my stored memory that 3  2 = 1, but memory would be absurd in the face of physical and mental confirmation that XXX  XX = XX.
...
What would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3, in other words, is exactly the same kind of evidence that currently convinces me that 2 + 2 = 4: The evidential crossfire of physical observation, mental visualization, and social agreement.
...
It is observed from counting that 2 + 2 = 4. Whenever counting works, 2 + 2 = 4 is true; i.e., for anything you can count, 2 of the thing and 2 more of the thing is the same as 4 of the thing. If you can't count it, then the very terms of 2 + 2 = 4 don't make sense, but it doesn't somehow mean 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.
Expanding on my previous example, you can't count hydrophobia. There is no quantifiable measure in nature of 'how much hydrophobia.' So when psychiatrists form a test to figure out how hydrophobic someone is, they contrive a scale based on some indicators that they can observe and measure, and it results in arbitrarily scaled numbers. Even though this results in a number, it is still not countable, so saying 20 hydrophobic + 20 hydrophobic = 40 hydrophobic doesn't make any sense; '20 hydrophobic' is literally not a thing that can exist. This is the whole point of the paper you keep linking to, and you are badly misrepresenting it by insisting that it supports an idea that 2 + 2 = 4 is not universally true.
ANYWAY the whole 2+2 thing is like, all the way off topic! I think there was something about new vs old proofs, right? Astronomers only use the same old proofs, we were told.
This is incorrect. I think this particular one is only a few years old: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/isshdevpayload (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/isshdevpayload)

I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.
Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.
This is wrong from a mathematical perspective. If I define for myself certain axioms about the numbering system (let's stick to the whole numbers 0,1,2,3,...). 2+2 is always equal to 4. Let's abridge those: 1+number before = that number, standard field axioms, etc. It follows as a logical consequence from the axioms. There is no wiggle room on this. It may be true that once you attach units or other meaning to them (such as 2 degrees C), then 2 degrees C + 2 degrees C is not equal to 4 degrees C, but that doesn't imply that 2+2 is not 4. It is always 4. Mathematics does not contradict itself and there is no argument from authority in modern mathematics. You need to prove it.
Its only valid according to certain axioms. Under different axioms, the result is different. Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.
Yeah, axioms that are either (1) not selfconsistent or (2) practically not used at all. Of course you can take 2+2 does not equal 4 as an axiom, but then 2 and 4 don't mean the same thing that EVERYONE TAKES THEM TO BE  NUMBERS (maybe they're characters in some alphabet). Given the current definitions of 2 and 4 (which imply assuming the standard axioms, as that's how we define our "numbers"), they are always equal to 4. In summary, if 2 and 4 are what pretty much everyone takes them to mean, then 2+2=4.

If two meant carrot and four meant racecar then two plus two would not equal four. (It might possibly equal rabbits tho, in some situations.)
Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.

If two meant carrot and four meant racecar then two plus two would not equal four. (It might possibly equal rabbits tho, in some situations.)
Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.
2 can't mean carrot. It means 2. If it meant anything else, it wouldn't be 2. Because it's a number, not a symbol or a word. Your argument is nonsensical. 2+2 = 4 is universal.

If two meant carrot and four meant racecar then two plus two would not equal four. (It might possibly equal rabbits tho, in some situations.)
Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.
2 can't mean carrot. It means 2. If it meant anything else, it wouldn't be 2. Because it's a number, not a symbol or a word. Your argument is nonsensical. 2+2 = 4 is universal.
Ok. You got me! lol

Do your attempts at figuring out the (welldocumented) ideas of syntax and semantics in propositional logic have anything to do with references to the Flat Earth in the Qur'an?
Can we please have a split?

The offtopic debate from FEIR has been split and moved here for now.

The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.
[/quote]
Technology and basic mechanics develop and we are able to use them to make scientific discoveries... This progression in human civilization was used by these astronomers to discover the universe.
Aristotle and many other 'ancients' spent lifetimes and countless months of research studying how exactly the earth is spherical. Does the FES completely disregard their work as being futile?
1 + 1 =2 1 + 1 = 2
'ancients' + 'a fresh start'= FE Astronomers + Technology = RE
2 + 2 = ? have we not discovered 4? are we so biased as to shun opportunities for human growth?

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.

If you're looking for something new, don't look at century old texts.
/:

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided? These should be very basic and simple concepts. Your preference for those axioms, and your blind appeal to the authority of math, which you apparently don't even understand, just really speaks of what we have to deal with on a daily basis here.

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided? These should be very basic and simple concepts. Your preference for those axioms, and your blind appeal to the authority of math, which you apparently don't even understand, just really speaks of what we have to deal with on a daily basis here.
Unless you're attempting to claim that your FE operates using numbers on a nominal or ordinal scale, I fail to see how this has any relevance. If it does, then how do you quantify or express anything about it in a nonbiased manner?

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided? These should be very basic and simple concepts. Your preference for those axioms, and your blind appeal to the authority of math, which you apparently don't even understand, just really speaks of what we have to deal with on a daily basis here.
Unless you're attempting to claim that your FE operates using numbers on a nominal or ordinal scale, I fail to see how this has any relevance. If it does, then how do you quantify or express anything about it in a nonbiased manner?
This thread was split off from a topic which considered looking at the studies of ancient civilizations in the east for research on the earth's shape. RE'ers responded that it would be ridiculous that Eastern Philosophers could come up with conclusions that are different than Western Philosophers; it would be like coming up with a different answer to 2 + 2. This discussion branched off of that, showing that there are a lot of things we can conclude differently if we reconsider the axioms.

Sorry Tom for not acknowledging the link you posted. 2+2 does equal 4 when it comes to things with a plus sign. We do not add social security numbers or temperatures and if we put the plus sign in there it misleads people. We can even argue that if we are using a base 3 numbering system, then 2+2=11. I hope I never said that you do not understand Rowbotham. I do have several Ph.D. level math courses, systems of differential equations and stuff like that. It hurts me a bit to be told I do not understand math.
The ancients watched the skies which led to the geocentric system of the complex systems of spheres within spheres, which pretty much matched how heavenly bodies appeared with the planets and their retrograde motion and all that. Watching the skies it is difficult to tell if we orbit the sun or if the sun orbits us. We cannot really blame the ancients for not knowing we orbit the sun. But none of the people that watched the skies that I am aware of came up with a system where the stars and planets and sun and moon circled a flat earth. Even Helios jumped on a chariot at ground level and rode it over the sky and went behind the mountains and slept on the ground at night to reappear the next day. He did not fly around constantly. When Ra flew through the sky he would then go into the underground (drop below the horizon) and scurry on a boat on an underground river and then reappear rising up out of the ground to continue his new daily journey. Ra did not fly around in circles always above the horizon.
Anyway, math is based upon axioms. We could change the axioms, I suppose, to invent a new system but the axioms we have give us the results that are useful. If we have 10 apples we can give 2 each to 5 kids. We could make up a bunch of silly rules but it does not help feed the kids.

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided? These should be very basic and simple concepts. Your preference for those axioms, and your blind appeal to the authority of math, which you apparently don't even understand, just really speaks of what we have to deal with on a daily basis here.
Are you not seeing the explanations of why that paper does not mean what you think it means? You have no standing to say Did you even read it tho, and act like peeps don't get it. You are not right about 2+2. It is universal that 2+2=4. The symbols are not universal, and the words are not universal, but counting and addition are not open to interpretation.
And honestly, I'm confused about why this even appears in your repertoire. Something about reexamining axioms? How about reexamining Rowbotham's perspective and its brokeass errors

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided? These should be very basic and simple concepts. Your preference for those axioms, and your blind appeal to the authority of math, which you apparently don't even understand, just really speaks of what we have to deal with on a daily basis here.
I probably understand that link far better than you do. You seem to think there's no difference between the number 2 representing the concept of 2 and the measurement 2 degrees C or 2 J or 2 N or 2nd place. Obviously, if you took any introductory physics course, you would know the difference. Just because 2 + 2 = 4 does not mean that someone who scores 4 on a psychological test (say, for intelligence) is twice as intelligent as someone who scores a 2; the + operator in this case does not necessarily correspond with intelligence. Seeing that you don't even understand the intricacies of basic math and physics, it's quite laughable to see you try to draw distinctions between "gravitation" and "gravity" or "stellar fusion" and "nuclear fusion"; you are in no position to do so.

So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed? Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers. The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over? Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided? These should be very basic and simple concepts. Your preference for those axioms, and your blind appeal to the authority of math, which you apparently don't even understand, just really speaks of what we have to deal with on a daily basis here.
Unless you're attempting to claim that your FE operates using numbers on a nominal or ordinal scale, I fail to see how this has any relevance. If it does, then how do you quantify or express anything about it in a nonbiased manner?
This thread was split off from a topic which considered looking at the studies of ancient civilizations in the east for research on the earth's shape. RE'ers responded that it would be ridiculous that Eastern Philosophers could come up with conclusions that are different than Western Philosophers; it would be like coming up with a different answer to 2 + 2. This discussion branched off of that, showing that there are a lot of things we can conclude differently if we reconsider the axioms.
The topic of 2+2 came up because you were claiming scientists kept coming up with the wrong answers because they kept using the same old proofs.
The whole point of the 2+2 argument was to point out that there is nothing necessarily wrong with the same old proofs. 2+2=4 is probably one of the oldest proofs in existence and it still holds today, despite your attempts to muddy the waters with references to information that really has no bearing on the point being made to begin with.

Are you not seeing the explanations of why that paper does not mean what you think it means?....You are not right about 2+2. It is universal that 2+2=4....And honestly, I'm confused about why this even appears in your repertoire. Something about reexamining axioms? How about reexamining Rowbotham's perspective and its brokeass errors
It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg89634#msg89634), which (present discussion notwithstanding) somehow DOES always equal 4.

The thing is that your argument works better for the RE than the FE. Because it may have been a long time ago when we said that the RE was right, but before that what was the old proof that was proven wrong? The FE.

Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?
The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.
Do you think the ancient astronomers figured everything out on their own, or is it reasonable to assume that every succeeding generation built on the generation that came before it?
Thousands of years ago, ancient astronomers were deferring to their contemporary equivalent of Aristotle, I promise you. Once you learn about what the past has to teach you, THEN you dedicate your life to the present and the future.
Astronomers today do the same thing, you apparently just have a chip on your shoulder about who they choose to hang their hat on with respect to what has already been established in nature.

2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html) I provided?
I did.
The article talks about Nominal, Ordinal, Interval and Ratio scales.
Using last two scales, Interval and Ratio, 2 + 2 IS 4.
Using first two scales, Nominal and Ordinal, addition operation. "+" is not defined on those two scales.
(Just as you don't have defined operation of addition on set of lemmings, even if they stand in line and you name them using combinations of digits.)
Statement using "+" can not be associated with (applied to) Nominal or Ordinal scales. Therefore, Nominal or Ordinal scales can't be used to prove that 2+2 is something other than 4.
Maybe there's some other universal set of values with defined "+" operation, where 2+2 is something new?
(But here I would like to point out that in general use operation "+" is defined on set of values, not on set of numbers.)
EDIT: Found it:
"When 50 milliliters of water are added to 50 milliliters of alcohol, the volume of the two mixed together is only about 96 or 97 milliliters.
When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space. Water and ethanol mix to form a solution."
So, 2 ml of water + 2 ml of alcohol gives 3.84 to 3.88 ml of solution. Not 4 ml.

To slightly misquote The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, for his next trick Tom will prove that black = white and then get killed on the next zebra crossing*
*  might not work in the US, not sure if you guys have zebra crossings.
I'm not sure how a debate about whether 2+2 = 4 advances either FE or RE thinking, this sounds like more of a candidate for the philosophy section of the forum.

Are you not seeing the explanations of why that paper does not mean what you think it means?....You are not right about 2+2. It is universal that 2+2=4....And honestly, I'm confused about why this even appears in your repertoire. Something about reexamining axioms? How about reexamining Rowbotham's perspective and its brokeass errors
It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg89634#msg89634), which (present discussion notwithstanding) somehow DOES always equal 4.
Oh no. I can't believe that he has hijacked what usually is an interesting exercise to make some geometry students scratch their heads into actually believing that pi = 4. It's easy to see why his reasoning is wrong (and that he should REALLY take my suggestion of trying a few AP Physics 1 and Calculus AB practice exams  see how much he knows on the most basic level). Using his logic, I can prove that the perimeter of any square is infinite. Just zig and zag each side and every time triple the number of zigs and zags and halve their height. Wow! Infinite perimeter!
Obviously, the proof is wrong because while the sequence of shapes he presents have areas that converge to the true area of the circle, their perimeters do not (and he has not proven that they do; just because shapes look the same does not mean that they are the same). If you zoom in on the shapes that he presents, you can always see the jagged perpendicular angles, while if you zoom in on a circle, it looks like a straight line (I know that's hard for FE people to grasp, but I think Tom conceded this a while ago). The reason why polygonal approximation of a circle to find its circumference works is because if you zoom in on the polygons, they also look like a straight line.

Are you not seeing the explanations of why that paper does not mean what you think it means?....You are not right about 2+2. It is universal that 2+2=4....And honestly, I'm confused about why this even appears in your repertoire. Something about reexamining axioms? How about reexamining Rowbotham's perspective and its brokeass errors
It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg89634#msg89634), which (present discussion notwithstanding) somehow DOES always equal 4.
Oh no. I can't believe that he has hijacked what usually is an interesting exercise to make some geometry students scratch their heads into actually believing that pi = 4. It's easy to see why his reasoning is wrong (and that he should REALLY take my suggestion of trying a few AP Physics 1 and Calculus AB practice exams  see how much he knows on the most basic level). Using his logic, I can prove that the perimeter of any square is infinite. Just zig and zag each side and every time triple the number of zigs and zags and halve their height. Wow! Infinite perimeter!
Obviously, the proof is wrong because while the sequence of shapes he presents have areas that converge to the true area of the circle, their perimeters do not (and he has not proven that they do; just because shapes look the same does not mean that they are the same). If you zoom in on the shapes that he presents, you can always see the jagged perpendicular angles, while if you zoom in on a circle, it looks like a straight line (I know that's hard for FE people to grasp, but I think Tom conceded this a while ago). The reason why polygonal approximation of a circle to find its circumference works is because if you zoom in on the polygons, they also look like a straight line.
The reasoning is not wrong. The value of pi depends on the concept of the perfect circle. If a perfect circle cannot exist, because space and time have fundamental and discrete units (quantized rather than continuous), then pi is incorrect.
This is another example where you guys are blindly assuming axioms (that we live in a continuous universe) and coming to conclusions based on those axioms, unwilling to consider other possibilities. A sign of a closed mind.

The reasoning is not wrong. The value of pi depends on the concept of the perfect circle. If a perfect circle cannot exist, because space and time have fundamental and discrete units (quantized rather than continuous), then pi is incorrect.
This is another example where you guys are blindly assuming axioms (that we live in a continuous universe) and coming to conclusions based on those axioms, unwilling to consider other possibilities. A sign of a closed mind.
"In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input
or index approaches some value. Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis
in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals."
Even if our Universe is quantized, Pi will still be the same, because it is mathematical value to which experimental and calculated values approach.
You can limit number of sides of polygon virtually wherever you want (as long as it is reasonably high), the sequence will still APPROACH the "correct value of Pi".
Number of polygons is still infinite.
How come?
Well, you are aware that the "infinite" is not a number. It is statement that the value is "higher than imaginable".
Our inability to imagine it will not change its consequences.
So, even if the Universe is quantized, in our limited view it acts like it wasnt.
Functions and sequaences are still approaching the same limits.

This image Tom used to "prove" that pi = 4 was part of a maths puzzle and is taken out of context
(http://www.intmath.com/blog/wpcontent/images/2015/03/piis4c.png)
The original is here:
https://www.intmath.com/blog/letters/intmathnewsletterrungekuttamarchmathwebinar10113
It is not really intended to demonstrate that pi=4, more an interesting demonstration of how if you do maths wrong it leads you to the wrong conclusions.
You could do the same with a field 100 yards by 100 yards. Take the diagonal but then state that you could represent the diagonal as a series of smaller and smaller "steps".
Ergo the length of the diagonal is 200. But it isn't 200. Pythagorus tells us it's the 141.42, you can do a real world experiment to prove that and to prove pi does not equal 4.
The solution to the maths puzzle (or my thoughts given my admittedly relatively basic maths ability) is that the above diagram implies that lines can only be horizontal or vertical. That obviously isn't true. A circle can be approximated by an 'n' sided regular polygon, the higher n is the better approximation it will be.
In the real world things are not only oriented horizontally or vertically.

The image also shows that pi would equal 4 in a quantized universe where space existed as discrete units on a fundamental level.

The image also shows that pi would equal 4 in a quantized universe where space existed as discrete units on a fundamental level.
First thing you see in school is polygon INSIDE circle.
Then you see that external and internal polygon approach the same value.
In "squared Unverse" we would have proof that those polygons don't approach the same value, because internal polygon is always smaller.
Now we need explanation why would Pi exist without circle, and why would circle exist without diagonals and angles.
And if circle existed, how would you calculate its area? Radius(?) squared, times what?

Tom, please stop inserting pseudomathematic gobbeldygook in your answer. You are 100% wrong. As I said before, your proof method is invalid because it leads to obvious contradiction. You seem to not understand that things can look like they have the same shape, but vastly different length. Just imagine folding a fishing line once and comparing to half a fishing line. Same shape, not the same length. Just because the area looks the same does not mean the perimeter is. I can prove that pi = 5 by repeating your junk exercise with a pentagon and some weirder angles. I can also prove that the perimeter of a square is infinite by doing your same garbage exercise.
The fact remains that you don't understand the basic concept of perimeter / circumference (how in the world do you claim to understand physics? If you want to prove it to me, show me those test results!). If I take a really long, thin string and lay it out in what looks like a small circle (but in which it zigs and zags to use up the extra string), can you really say the length of the string is the perimeter of the circle? You've got to be kidding me. This is literally what you are asserting. Please, as I've said many times before, stop trying to muddy the waters with your obvious lack of mathematical understanding.
It's one thing to try to prove the Earth is flat. It's another to say that pi = 4 and that 2+2 \neq 4 What in the world are you thinking?
By the way, if I make progressively larger circles by swinging a rock tied to the end of a string, I find that the circumference of the orbit is approximately equal to 3.14159265358979... times the diameter. So that's your junk proof gone. Now stop it.
To address Macarios:
Pi can be defined without invoking a circle; it can be defined as the sum of certain infinite series and we can still get useful results, like e^(pi i) = 1 by defining e^x also as the sum of a certain infinite series. Nowhere do we need to invoke a circle's circumference or area.
As long as there is a metric tensor, we can derive things like length and then simply define a circle to be the set of all points that are some distance away.

Tom, please stop inserting pseudomathematic gobbeldygook in your answer.
Why should he stop?
If you compare it with court (like Flat Earthers always do) Flat Earth is not about facts and figures, it is about belief.
"Global conspiracy" is "prosecution", and "righteous minority" is "defendant".
And defendant has every right to defend, including right to lie.
To find the truth is the job for prosecution.
But it goes both ways.
If you are Flat Earther and attack Globe Earth model that works, you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, Globe Model is not just based on few academic theories, but on the fact that it is the only model where all observations and measurements accumulated for millennia fit together.
Flat Earthers are stuck in desire to find "one final proof that Earth is flat", which is impossible.
Every single local fact from Globe Model COULD be shown as according behavior of Flat Model too.
But ALL TOGETHER facts fit in SINGLE Globe Model, and those other interpretations of those facts require different Flat Models for different subsets of facts.
And there's Space and Space Exploration.
They must constantly deny it and for every new achievement create new ways to discredit it.
For example, direct measurement of Moon distance, whether using amateur radio or radar, is very hard to deny.
Even harder since Apollo missions installed reflectors used now for laser measurements of Moon distance by terrestrial observatories.
McDonald's observatory has Laser Ranging Station, Apache Point another, and I don't know if there's more.
Venus distance was also measured by radar, when Venus was at position of maximum elongation.
(It is position in Venus orbit where angle between VenusSun line and VenusEarth line is 90 degrees.
When you measure distance to Venus by radar, and angle between Venus and Sun from Earth,
you can calculate Sun distance from both, Earth and Venus.)
.

None of it is pseudomathematics. You guys are just unaware of the fact that all of mathematics, down to the simplest proof, is only correct if a set of axioms it depends upon is correct.

The image also shows that pi would equal 4 in a quantized universe where space existed as discrete units on a fundamental level.
It looks like you have a clear test then for whether the universe is continuous or not. Space is continuous

i've posted this before, but i'm gonna toss it in here since it's now actually appropriate for the thread i'm posting in instead of my usual thread derailment. and i like math arguments. obviously.
here's an easy way to demonstrate why this proof is unsound. let's try see if we can approximate the length of a line segment with sine waves of increasingly smaller amplitudes.
consider the following sine function, y=4sinx, and let's restrict the domain from x=0 to x=6.28.
(http://i.imgur.com/xBFZ45K.png?1)
it's obvious just from looking at the graph that the length of the sine wave is greater than the length of the domain (6.28 units). and, mathdoingrobots confirm that the length of that line is ~17.628 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?lk=3&i=arc+length+of+y%3D4sin(x)+from+x%3D0+to+2pi). it's also obvious that if we want to approximate the length of the domain, then we must decrease the amplitude.
next we're going to add more sine functions to the graph. the pi=4 proof demands that the perimeter of the square remain constant by changing its shape in a specific way. likewise, we're going to keep the length of the sine wave constant while we decrease its amplitude. the only way to do that is to increase its period proportionally. in other words, if we decrease the amplitude by half, then we must increase the period by half. if i'm not making sense, just check out the following graph. this is y=4sinx, y=2sin(2x), y=sin(4x), y=.5sin(8x), all from x=0 to x=6.28
(http://i.imgur.com/oZSNsL7.png?1)
if you plug all those formulae into the mathwizardrobot, it will confirm that they all have the same length, ~17.628. but now we have a problem. as you can see, we can keep iterating and the sine wave will get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller until it appears to be approximating the length the line, but since ~17.628 != 6.28, we know that it never does.
in fact, this notion of keeping the length of the sine wave constant by only letting amplitude vary inversely proportional to period is exactly what your proof does. just look at the corners. each time they "fold" the perimeter in the corners, they're doing it in a specific way that keeps the length the same, halves the amplitude, and doubles the period. graphing the absolute values of the same sine functions from before illustrates this. each iteration, starting with purple, has half the amplitude and double the period of the previous iteration, but their lengths are all the same. it might appear that they would approximate the length of a line as the amplitude approaches zero, but it never does, and they never do.
(http://i.imgur.com/I57kZHX.png?1)

EDIT: Found it:
"When 50 milliliters of water are added to 50 milliliters of alcohol, the volume of the two mixed together is only about 96 or 97 milliliters.
When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space. Water and ethanol mix to form a solution."
So, 2 ml of water + 2 ml of alcohol gives 3.84 to 3.88 ml of solution. Not 4 ml.
So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.
I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.

totallackey,
I don't appreciate your arrogant "drop the mic" attitude; it's especially damaging and annoying when you're so obviously wrong. Nobody owes him an apology. He's extremely misguided. Pi is also not equal to 4 just because he doesn't understand the difference between perimeter and area. First, you clearly don't understand the fundamental nature of mathematics. 2 mL means something COMPLETELY different than 2. This is not to mention that it's mathematically invalid to say 2 mL water + 2 mL alcohol = 3.88 mL solution. Equality is not defined that way by the axioms of mathematics; sure, in normal conversation we say many things are "equal" to each other, but you're abusing the notation here. That science experiment does not produce an equation. Please go back to school.
The fact that you actually had to conduct research to figure out that the volumes don't add up speaks to your unjustified arrogance (DunningKruger) and lack of knowledge. I can come up with the same experiment in my head  dissolve salt in water; wow volumes don't add up so math is bullshit.
No scientific law says that the volumes must add up. None. No scientific law says that "+" is the proper operator that describes this situation. I could apply the same argument to say that you're stupid: "you = 1 person and 1 person = 1 stupid person." Since transitivity holds, "you = a stupid person." Do you see how your abuse of mathematical notation is an artifact of a simple, delusional mind?
Mathematics DEFINES the numbers to mean what we intuitively think they mean, at least on a simple level. AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THESE DEFINITIONS, 2 + 2 MUST EQUAL 4. Why is it so hard to understand?

i've posted this before, but i'm gonna toss it in here since it's now actually appropriate for the thread i'm posting in instead of my usual thread derailment. and i like math arguments. obviously.
in fact, this notion of keeping the length of the sine wave constant by only letting amplitude vary inversely proportional to period is exactly what your proof does. just look at the corners. each time they "fold" the perimeter in the corners, they're doing it in a specific way that keeps the length the same, halves the amplitude, and doubles the period. graphing the absolute values of the same sine functions from before illustrates this. each iteration, starting with purple, has half the amplitude and double the period of the previous iteration, but their lengths are all the same. it might appear that they would approximate the length of a line as the amplitude approaches zero, but it never does, and they never do.
Oh no. No no no! Yes, you're correct. Yes, it's an interesting mathematical exercise. Unfortunately, your interpretation of it  the logic of saying that you can't use this method, is very different from what Tom Bishop will say it is. He'll say "WOW  I knew we shouldn't have trusted those mathematicians! The length of a line is obviously ... by my proof here <reproduces your proof>" When something leads to obvious contradiction, you don't try to handwave the contradiction away or assert that it is actually not a contradiction; you try to fix that "something" that led there.

totallackey,
I don't appreciate your arrogant "drop the mic" attitude;
NGAS about what you appreciate or what you do appreciate.
..it's especially damaging and annoying when you're so obviously wrong correct.
FTFY.
No need to thank me.
Nobody owes him an apology.
Yeah, they do.
He's extremely misguided. Pi is also not equal to 4 just because he doesn't understand the difference between perimeter and area. First, you clearly don't understand the fundamental nature of mathematics. 2 mL means something COMPLETELY different than 2. This is not to mention that it's mathematically invalid to say 2 mL water + 2 mL alcohol = 3.88 mL solution. Equality is not defined that way by the axioms of mathematics; sure, in normal conversation we say many things are "equal" to each other, but you're abusing the notation here. That science experiment does not produce an equation. Please go back to school.
A bunch of BS text, just to bury the example demonstrating Tom was right in a last one real world example...2 ml of one solution + 2 ml of another solution =/= 4 ml of a solution.
The fact that you actually had to conduct research to figure out that the volumes don't add up speaks to your unjustified arrogance (DunningKruger) and lack of knowledge.
1)I do not think Macarios appreciates the fact you tossing him in the DunningKruger pile...
2)by the way, you bandy "DunningKruger effect," about like you own the copy write on it or something...I think it more likely you are just some arrogant ass that discovered the term during a period of deep self exploration prior to taking up residence here in these forums...
or I can come up with the same experiment in my head  dissolve salt in water; wow volumes don't add up so math is bullshit.
No, math is real.
And Macarios found an example where 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
No scientific law says that the volumes must add up. None. No scientific law says that "+" is the proper operator that describes this situation. I could apply the same argument to say that you're stupid: "you = 1 person and 1 person = 1 stupid person." Since transitivity holds, "you = a stupid person." Do you see how your abuse of mathematical notation is an artifact of a simple, delusional mind?
Same goes for you.
I could say that you and your buttbuddy = 2, but you and that other csucker over there do not equal buttbuddies.
Or that you regularly engage in some of necrophiliac/bestiality ritual with dead donkeys; yet, after the 4th time of being witnessed the fourth was found missing the next day...so it turns out, the 4th time we, by necessity, the first two times add up to 2 and the third and 4th time still only add to one, because there is no confirmation the 4th donkey is dead.
Mathematics DEFINES the numbers to mean what we intuitively think they mean...
In and of itself, no it does not.
...at least on a simple level. AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THESE DEFINITIONS, 2 + 2 MUST EQUAL 4. Why is it so hard to understand?
Definitions provided prior to the act, yes.

So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.
I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.
Transport yourself all the way back to caveman culture. Little language exists other than grunts. But there was still math. If you found four pieces of fruit, you knew that you and your cavemate could each have two. Or, maybe you take three because you're hungrier, and your mate gets one. No matter how you slice it, it always adds up to four when calculating the representational number of these objects.
How about those grunts? Let's say a caveman grunts twice. Then he takes a few minutes and grunts twice again. How many grunts has he uttered? Would there be any possible situation that it would not be four?
What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the "example" about "2+2=/=4" has the part that some of you missed.
"When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space."
Mass of solution remains equal to sum of masses of components.
Number of molecules remain the same.
Packing molecules better is like packing gravel between rocks.
Example is similar to mixing gasses: "2 liters of nitrogen and 2 liters of oxygen can all together fit into 1 liter container".
Or: "soft sponge 30 ft high on top of another soft sponge 20 ft high will not make stack of 50 ft, because lower parts of sponge stack will squish under the weight, especially if sponges are wet".
Does it mean 20+30=/=50 ?
No.
It doesn't disprove the math. Only questions the usage.

It also ignores the factors that determine volume. Like density in this case.

What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.
Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.
Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.
The insistance on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.

So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.
I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.
Transport yourself all the way back to caveman culture. Little language exists other than grunts. But there was still math. If you found four pieces of fruit, you knew that you and your cavemate could each have two. Or, maybe you take three because you're hungrier, and your mate gets one. No matter how you slice it, it always adds up to four when calculating the representational number of these objects.
How about those grunts? Let's say a caveman grunts twice. Then he takes a few minutes and grunts twice again. How many grunts has he uttered? Would there be any possible situation that it would not be four?
What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the "example" about "2+2=/=4" has the part that some of you missed.
"When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space."
Mass of solution remains equal to sum of masses of components.
Number of molecules remain the same.
Packing molecules better is like packing gravel between rocks.
Example is similar to mixing gasses: "2 liters of nitrogen and 2 liters of oxygen can all together fit into 1 liter container".
Or: "soft sponge 30 ft high on top of another soft sponge 20 ft high will not make stack of 50 ft, because lower parts of sponge stack will squish under the weight, especially if sponges are wet".
Does it mean 20+30=/=50 ?
No.
It doesn't disprove the math. Only questions the usage.
It also ignores the factors that determine volume. Like density in this case.
Look, let everyone agree that there is 2 ml here and there is 2 ml there.
Let everyone agree that 2 ml of stuff can be added (+) to the 2 ml of stuff over here, without the combined stuff blowing up.
Let everyone agree that in particular cases there will not be a 4 ml outcome regardless of cause.
Seems to me Tom was right, whether or not he was right in terms of nominal, ordinal, or any other case.

totallackey,
You're stupid. I'll put it that way. I honestly don't care if someone knows nothing about math, but you're something else. You stubbornly insist (thanks to your enormous ego and DunningKruger) that you're right when you are so obviously wrong that it borders silliness. You probably can't even pass high school calculus at this point. You can't seem to recognize the stupidly obvious fact (that any fourthgrader can see with some time) that when we say "plus" or "in addition to" in English we can mean something different than "+" as used in mathematics. Your example is about as asinine as it gets. Can I say that two 1 ohm resistors in parallel have a resistance of 0.5 ohm and therefore 1+1=0.5? Keep spouting your garbage, but I doubt you'd take $0.50 in place of $2.00.
Macarios tried to explain to you that your usage of "+" and "=" was mathematically incorrect. Of course in the whole space of your delusion, you paid absolutely no attention and just coughed up the same idea that adding two things together somehow means that their volumes have to add up and that somehow disproves that 2+2 = 4. If I define a new operator like the matrixvector product and try to apply it to mixing masses together and measuring the total mass, does that prove that my definition is contradictory? I think not.
The fact that you cannot process such simple distinction (between mathematics and a mathematical model) and yet still believe that you know anything (like the flatness of the Earth or how stars work) is mindboggling.

What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.
Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.
Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.
The insistance on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.
Arithmetic predates Peano’s Axioms by thousands of years. What you said is absurd on its face.

What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.
Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.
Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.
The insistence on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.
Tom, I have to admit that you've surprised me. What you've said is right! (Surprising, since you've also said 2+2 is not 4 and that pi = 4)
Arithmetic works only in a situation where those axioms are true. You are correct. This is why it is fallacious to say that just because 2 mL salt + 2 mL water is not 4 mL of salt water, 2+2 is not equal to 4. Arithmetic doesn't apply here! This is a situation where arithmetic does not apply. Therefore, even though we know that arithmetic would be wrong if it applied in this situation, that point is moot because it doesn't apply. What does this tell us? It tells us that we can't just say that 2 mL something + 2 mL something else = 4 mL something+something else just justifying it off arithmetic.
And of course, you're right. Calling a mathematical model "absolute fact" is very wrong. Mathematical models make predictions assuming that their assumptions hold. However, if you agree with all of the assumptions made by the mathematical model (ex. Newton's 3 Laws) then you cannot disagree with the conclusions (ex. momentum is conserved), so long as the model is mathematically valid. That does not mean, however, that a mathematical model necessarily has any bearing with the real world (ex. modeling the Earth as a pyramid or modeling liquids as rigid bodies).
I'll introduce an example:
If you agree that distances add in a straight line and that certain distances between points A, B, C, and D are d_{1}, d_{2}, d_{3}, ..., and it turns out through geometric derivation, you find that these distances are inconsistent with being on a flat Earth, you cannot say that "mathematics doesn't apply here" because you agreed with the assumptions, and mathematics logically concluded something. Mathematics is essentially a large bunch of unbroken logical chains, so if you satisfy X, then you can automatically conclude Y.

Those axioms do not apply in all situations.
Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.
At least you validate that this axiom is sometimes true. Little victories!

At least you validate that this axiom is sometimes true. Little victories!
So, if this axiom is sometimes true, is it also scientifically 'sometimes true' that the earth is round?

So, if this axiom is sometimes true, is it also scientifically 'sometimes true' that the earth is round?
There is a big difference between someone who believes: "it is scientifically impossible that the world is round", versus believing: "it scientifically possible that the world is round, but I believe it is flat".

@jayjay  Just so you know, there is an option to modify your post when you want to come back later and add on to it. This is also the preferred “netiquette” here.

Tom, you would do well to listen to yourself. Do some reading and use this as opportunity to learn about how math relates to the real world.
Peano's work specifically proves that 2+2=4 whenever the successor function, i.e. counting, works. Macario's example of the water and alcohol solution is on point: Volume of a liquid is not strictly countable, being subject to constantly changing physical states of pressure and temperature, so 2ml + 2ml is not something that makes sense. Atomic nuclei are, generally, countable, as nuclear reactions can be ignored in many cases. In this case, 2g + 2g does make sense, strictly because what you are adding is countable. Indeed, that the math doesn't make sense for mixing liquids or stacking sponges is a clue that there's more going on! A chance to dig deeper and learn something... an opportunity a thinker like you must cherish.
If you have a situation where counting does not apply, it follows that 2+2 if the uncountable may not result in 4. Oh shit, better claim that math is broken? See the absurdities in this thread like, throwing this out there, eyebrow + stoicism = Pixar. The symbols + and = don't mean the same thing here as they do in 2+2=4. When semiotics and symbolic reasoning come in, formal logic and math take a seat. Pineapple + pepperoni = tasty pizza is not math, but I can use the symbols to communicate anyway. If you attempt an inversion, and find that 2 pineapple deliciousness + 2 pepperoni deliciousness = 3.78 pizza deliciousness... take it as opportunity to learn.

I could say *childish vulgarity removed*
Or that you regularly engage in some *more childish vulgarity*
You could do that. Or you could follow the rules (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0). In particular:
Rule 1. No personal attacks. Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post.

Arithmetic is based on Peano's Axioms. Its not a universal truth. Those axioms do not apply in all situations.
Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.
The insistance on calling a mathematical model an "absolute fact" is pretty typical for the quality of posters we get here. Use this as an opportunity for research and self improvement.
(For those who need it, Peano's Axioms were explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms))
This bring us to simple question:
Are here on Earth distances and angles natural numbers?
Earth is measured many times using distances and angles.
Triangulation works that way.
It gave the shape to be globe.
If one can prove that distances and angles aren't natural numbers, than direct measuring can't prove anything.
Not globe, not flat, not concave.
Was that the goal here?
To discredit and abandon knowledge and revert mankind back to belief?
That way science would be reduced back to pure religious dogma, and we are back to another Dark Ages.

Tom, I have to admit that you've surprised me. What you've said is right! (Surprising, since you've also said 2+2 is not 4 and that pi = 4)
Wait, I thought 2+2 = pi?
I'm confused now.

I could say that you and your buttbuddy = 2, but you and that other csucker over there do not equal buttbuddies.
Or that you regularly engage in some of necrophiliac/bestiality ritual with dead donkeys; yet, after the 4th time of being witnessed the fourth was found missing the next day...so it turns out, the 4th time we, by necessity, the first two times add up to 2 and the third and 4th time still only add to one, because there is no confirmation the 4th donkey is dead.
Mathematics DEFINES the numbers to mean what we intuitively think they mean...
In and of itself, no it does not.
One more warning to lay off personal attacks, then a vacation.

I could say that (children could be on here), but you and that other (children could be on here) over there do not equal
(children could be on here).
Yeah, I'm not going to include any of this so I've deleted it for being all disgusting, gross, and weird. totallackey is either evil or disturbed for posting this.
Mathematics DEFINES the numbers to mean what we intuitively think they mean...
In and of itself, no it does not.
I love how a discussion about the answer of a fairly, sorry, I meant extremely simple mathematical problem involving kindergartenlevel addition can have all this vulgarity on TFES.