*

Offline Keeper of da whey.

  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Do YOU know da whey?
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2018, 08:51:54 PM »
If you're looking for something new, don't look at century old texts.
/:
I know da whey.
You can also

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2018, 11:02:40 PM »
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 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.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2018, 12:54:58 AM »
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 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 non-biased manner?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2018, 02:09:14 AM »
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 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 non-biased 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.

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2018, 04:51:31 AM »
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.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: 2+2
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2018, 05:25:56 AM »
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 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 broke-ass errors

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2018, 05:33:33 AM »
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 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.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2018, 07:21:43 AM »
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 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 non-biased 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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 02:08:51 PM by Boots »
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2018, 01:51:12 PM »
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 broke-ass errors
It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi, which (present discussion notwithstanding) somehow DOES always equal 4.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline ShowmetheProof

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • We are fellow scientists, and should act as such.
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2018, 07:16:04 PM »
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.

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2018, 11:44:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 11:46:13 PM by supaluminus »
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Macarios

Re: 2+2
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2018, 01:05:13 PM »
2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Did you even read the link 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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 08:50:51 PM by Macarios »

Re: 2+2
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2018, 01:35:07 PM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2018, 08:20:51 PM »
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 broke-ass errors
It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi, 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2018, 12:04:43 AM »
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 broke-ass errors
It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi, 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.

Macarios

Re: 2+2
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2018, 12:20:07 AM »
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.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2018, 12:28:39 AM »
This image Tom used to "prove" that pi = 4 was part of a maths puzzle and is taken out of context



The original is here:
https://www.intmath.com/blog/letters/intmath-newsletter-runge-kutta-march-math-webinar-10113

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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2018, 12:41:26 AM »
The image also shows that pi would equal 4 in a quantized universe where space existed as discrete units on a fundamental level.

Macarios

Re: 2+2
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2018, 02:03:47 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 03:15:08 AM by Macarios »

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2018, 02:07:23 AM »
Tom, please stop inserting pseudo-mathematic 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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 02:43:51 AM by JohnAdams1145 »