really, an 852 foot hop
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
Don't forget the manned part
WHAT JUST HAPPENED
What looks like Elroch's comment disappeared (just before my manned comment)
TenGolf-TPOT wrote:
What looks like Elroch's comment disappeared (just before my manned comment)
Sorry. I was going to edit it, but I rewrote it. I have included a response to your relevant "manned" comment as well.
There are good reasons why a hop off a ramp was not counted as the first successful flight. A road would have worked just as well unless the craft fell after it left the end of the ramp. A vehicle that falls off the end of a ramp and then continues a little before reaching the ground is a power assisted glider unless it can fly horizontally without slowing down.
In truth, you can drop a paper airplane off a ramp and approximate horizontal flight. It's the speed from falling that gives it lift until it fades over time. This is not powered flight. Taking off from flat ground shows the flight is truly powered.
And of course model airplanes don't count either. Manned flight is what we are talking about.
Elroch, was that your comment that disappeared?
TenGolf-TPOT wrote:
Elroch, was that your comment that disappeared?
Yes, it responded to an earlier comment, but it was better to replace with a new post in light of the whole discusssion (rather than having one post that ignored part of it and a second one that didn't).
While I disagree with @Optimissed that the Wrights are wrongly credited, he does draw attention to the key things that made their achievement crucial.
1. It was manned. Models can be smaller and lighter and don't need any payload (they can be all aerofoil and engine)
2. The flight was the result of the power rather than being assisted by it. Whatever Felix de Temple achieved (no video is available for obvious reasons!) it is clear he could not take off from a flat surface, and near certain his craft could not maintain horizontal flight at all.
Elroch wrote:
It's not "what the majority believes" that matters. The majority probably believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in 1903. The Wright brothers disagreed because of their CALCULATIONS and EXPERIMENTS.
Regarding all these matters - pretty much anything to do with calculation or experimentation - you seem foolish and incompetent. There is no real shame in that - the shame is being arrogant enough to ignore all the competence of others, some of whom are very good indeed at these things, like the difference between a GM with a 3200 blitz rating versus someone who literally does not know the rules of chess.
When it comes to scientific discussions, you are literally as incompetent as that person who does not know the rules of chess .
Only your arrogance justifies me being this blunt about it.
If you think that is not correct, tell me one thing you can do that can objectively show that you have any relevant understanding, in the way that understanding can be demonstrated by scientists and engineers.
The problem is that you don't even understand what that means.
Various comments to that.
The fact that the majority accepts something doesn't mean its invalid.
Often they accept it because its the best that the current science can come up with at the time.
As to whoever thinking that real science is 'pseudoscience' after already conceding about others supporting the real science - understanding and knowing the facts and the math and the evidence much better than that person so thinking - that's kind of self-contradictory by that person.
What would motivate that person to do that?
And does whoever achieve their aims by accusing all of science as being 'pseudoscience'?
There's an irony here as to people who are skeptics of some science - rejecting whoever who rejects all science.
Most people rejecting climate science and evolution science - continue to accept the round shape of the world and the fact that it moves in multiple ways.
--------------
And flat-earthism supposedly runs at about 2% of the world population on average these days.
But it is thought that many people responding to surveys may be saying they believe in it - as a joke.
But there are many more who say they 'aren't sure'.
If its 2% then that would be about 160 million people.
But its over 2 billion people who reject evoluton science apparently.
--------
But back in the days of Copernicus and Galileo - it was geocentrism that was big - not flat-earthism.
Nowadays - most of the geocentrists are apparently also flat-earthers.
But - most flat earthers do apparently agree that Australia exists.
But - some australian flat-earthers try to convince their counterparts in the US - that Australia does exist!
This isn't meant to mock anybody.
Its about what happens.
shorter: to me - its about how hard it would be to fake particular things.
New Zealanders apparently joke sometimes that Australia doesn't exist.
But how are you going to fake all those plane flights from aussie-land?
How many people would you have to pay off?
Greg Norman was pretending to be from Australia?
Sydney Australia is actually in the Carribean?
Its similiar with flat-earthism. Gosh a lot of people must have been paid off!
Why would I want to "take back" my hang-gliding post/Howard Hughes & The Hercules playerafar.!
furthermore - by definition -
science/scientists Apply the Scientific Method -
pseudoscience/pseudoscientists Exclude the Scientific Method -
It's as simple as that !
I can post Michio Kaku - a famous theoretical physicist - saying the exact same thing -
"we do not use the scientific method"
at any rate - we are & have been at an impasse -
attempting to argue the observable & sensible vs the unobservable & nonsensible --------------------------------------- is futile !
I'll ask you on the behalf of the entire scientific community - Do you still believe in flat earthism and geocentrism based on your previous claims, or do you take back your statements?
I believe the earth is an "electromagnetic realm" of some kind/design - stationary & level.
"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge..........".-------------------
Nikola Tesla?!
Nikola Tesla never actually said that.
In fact, he referred to Earth as round, even calling it an oblate spheroid in a 1916 interview, which is an even better approximation than a sphere.
Your quote comes from a 2016 Facebook post. The first part, where your quote is found, was written by Darrell Fox, not Nikola Tesla.
ahhhh
such as?
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
You can do your own research on it Elroch?
Yes, not only can I, I have, and you have not provided any information to support your eccentric claims, which suggests that you have some problem "doing your own research".
It refers to this rubbish. Elroch is often wrong. There is no need always to take the bait and provide proofs. Sometimes it's better not to, as here.