Flat-Earth was debunked decades ago. How people can still believe its a thing after EVERYTHING we've discovered...
Oh... and apparently according to one guy, the reason you can go "around the world" is because space-time stops at the edge of the Earth and if you cross it, it drops you on the opposite side like in Pac-Man.
I mean WTF?! That basically says the extent of the universe is just our planet!
It was actually debunked centuries before Columbus due to ships disappearing over the horizon. What Columbus was trying to prove was not that the Earth was round, but that the Earth was smaller than what the philosophers thought to be the size of the Earth. Columbus thought the Earth was small enough for ships to have enough supplies to get to India while Portugal had the math to prove that any trip to India would end in disaster due to a lack of supplies. Luckily, Columbus encountered America or else it would have been another voyage that ended in disaster.
"Flat Earth" was poo-pooed by Aristotle around the 3rd century BC, and finally disproved about 240 BC by Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who also determined the size of the planet to a fair degree of precision for the time (his figure was about 25,000 miles). Columbus was in fact wrong; he thought the planet was only around 5000 miles around, and far Cathay barely over the western horizon. (Good thing for him there was a continent he was unaware of in the middle of the Ocean Sea, or he'd have died in the middle of nowhere.) No idea how there can be a community of people who think there's some massive hoax to make us all "believe in" round Earth - what would be the point? Who profits?
And again, Smoke, it's not a matter of leaving Earth - the laws of physics are constants throughout the universe (okay, except for edge cases like the event horizon of a supermassive, rapidly rotating black hole), and without negative energy, you can't make a closed timelike curve and go backwards in time. It's not engineering, it's implicit in the same laws that keep the Sun burning and your cells metabolizing.
"Flat Earth" was poo-pooed by Aristotle around the 3rd century BC, and finally disproved about 240 BC by Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who also determined the size of the planet to a fair degree of precision for the time (his figure was about 25,000 miles). Columbus was in fact wrong; he thought the planet was only around 5000 miles around, and far Cathay barely over the western horizon. (Good thing for him there was a continent he was unaware of in the middle of the Ocean Sea, or he'd have died in the middle of nowhere.) No idea how there can be a community of people who think there's some massive hoax to make us all "believe in" round Earth - what would be the point? Who profits?
And again, Smoke, it's not a matter of leaving Earth - the laws of physics are constants throughout the universe (okay, except for edge cases like the event horizon of a supermassive, rapidly rotating black hole), and without negative energy, you can't make a closed timelike curve and go backwards in time. It's not engineering, it's implicit in the same laws that keep the Sun burning and your cells metabolizing.
And one day, someone is gonna do it. Someone's gonna make a time trip, and also someone is gonna break light speed.
They laughed and ridiculed the Wright brothers even after the first flight happened.
When something amazing, deemed impossible by the establishment, they will wrap themselves in a bubble, inside an enigma, inside a freezer and totally unfazed because their life goes on regardless.
"Flat Earth" was poo-pooed by Aristotle around the 3rd century BC, and finally disproved about 240 BC by Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who also determined the size of the planet to a fair degree of precision for the time (his figure was about 25,000 miles). Columbus was in fact wrong; he thought the planet was only around 5000 miles around, and far Cathay barely over the western horizon. (Good thing for him there was a continent he was unaware of in the middle of the Ocean Sea, or he'd have died in the middle of nowhere.) No idea how there can be a community of people who think there's some massive hoax to make us all "believe in" round Earth - what would be the point? Who profits?
And again, Smoke, it's not a matter of leaving Earth - the laws of physics are constants throughout the universe (okay, except for edge cases like the event horizon of a supermassive, rapidly rotating black hole), and without negative energy, you can't make a closed timelike curve and go backwards in time. It's not engineering, it's implicit in the same laws that keep the Sun burning and your cells metabolizing.
And one day, someone is gonna do it. Someone's gonna make a time trip, and also someone is gonna break light speed.
They laughed and ridiculed the Wright brothers even after the first flight happened.
When something amazing, deemed impossible by the establishment, they will wrap themselves in a bubble, inside an enigma, inside a freezer and totally unfazed because their life goes on regardless.
And science is all about disproving theories. Some evidence comes along and destroys all our theories, then we create new theories that fits the new evidence and it eventually might have to be thrown out like what Quantum Mechanics did with Newtonian Mechanics. So until someone makes a time trip or breaks the light barrier, then we use our current theories.
Smoke, check your histories - not someone's collection of Washington-Irving-style folk tales, but actual contemporaneous accounts. No one was "ridiculing" the Wright brothers. As has already been mentioned, we knew heavier-than-air flight was possible, because we could see birds doing it every single day. Or do you think that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio independently invented the necessary lifting-body shape of aircraft wings? They were the first to manage to apply one of those newfangled internal-combustion engines to the problem, that's all - probably because their background was as mechanics, rather than theoreticians or engineers. Other efforts at the time seem to have focused on engines of the builder's own design, while the Wrights used an existing internal-combustion engine to power their craft.
Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible.
The purpose of the Kelvin movies is to NOT doing things like TOS.
The purpose of the Kelvin movies is so that JJ Abrams could make the Star Trek movie he wanted without being limited to canon. The Kelvin movies are closer to TOS than any other Star Trek series. There is more action in 2 hours of Star Trek 2009 than the entire first season of TNG and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
And that was the only one I liked, keep JJ away from directing those.
+1
Well, I did like Into Darkness, but not that much. It was fun, it was better than 2009 (yes, that's how low the bar is set), but it wasn't exactly good. Beyond was like someone actually made an effort to make a good Star Trek Film. Something unheard of since Star Trek: Insurrection!
For me, the worst Star Trek movie ever made is The Motionless Picture.
What's that you think I'm a vile heretic? meh. It has a laundry list of things people criticize the recent star trek productions for.
1: The visual style of everything changes, just because. Especially the costumes, which look STUPID. This is not to say that the costuming doesn't have any good points, but it's overall the worst of any Star Trek film. Oh and they made a new Enterprise and didn't even try to make it look like the original. They glossed it over with throw away line about how Scotty had personally spent a year or so rebuilding it. To be fair, I did like the look better than the original Enterprise, but it's still unrecognizable as the same ship.
2: the story was recycled and boring. As has been said many times before, both the major plot point had been done in TOS episodes. The new characters were pretty much the only novel aspect.... and most of them die. Granted this was done for dramatic effect and to push the story forwards, but in the end you have mostly just the classic cast left. Also the drama of Ilia dying is spoiled by the fact that were mainly learn about her from hearing Decker talk.
3: It had really cool special effects.... which when in use were the center of attention. It did this rather awkward thing were you either had people doing plot stuff, or you were staring at special effects. there wasn't much mixture between them.
But yeah, overall I like the 2009 movie better, both as a film, and as Star Trek.
Bravo, sir.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Smoke, check your histories - not someone's collection of Washington-Irving-style folk tales, but actual contemporaneous accounts. No one was "ridiculing" the Wright brothers. As has already been mentioned, we knew heavier-than-air flight was possible, because we could see birds doing it every single day. Or do you think that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio independently invented the necessary lifting-body shape of aircraft wings? They were the first to manage to apply one of those newfangled internal-combustion engines to the problem, that's all - probably because their background was as mechanics, rather than theoreticians or engineers. Other efforts at the time seem to have focused on engines of the builder's own design, while the Wrights used an existing internal-combustion engine to power their craft.
Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible.
Believe it or not, the Wright brothers weren't even the first to manage a powered heavier-than-air craft: a Frenchman, Clement Ader, is recorded as successfully testing a small, unmanned steam-powered plane back in 1886, and others were already trying out petrolum-fueled engines by 1903. The Wrights were just the first people to A, figure out airplane control surfaces so they could steer the thing more easily, and B, make a confirmed manned powered flight. (And even that's a little debated: there was a German-American immigrant, Gustave Whitehead, who claimed to have successfully tested a monoplane in Fairfield, CT in 1901, and was actually taken seriously in a 2013 article in Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)
So yeah, any claims that manned powered flight was impossible prior to the Kill Devil Hills tests were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
As for time travel, I believe the late Dr. Hawking pointed out that if it was possible, we should have been inundated with tourists from the future a long time ago.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Smoke, check your histories - not someone's collection of Washington-Irving-style folk tales, but actual contemporaneous accounts. No one was "ridiculing" the Wright brothers. As has already been mentioned, we knew heavier-than-air flight was possible, because we could see birds doing it every single day. Or do you think that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio independently invented the necessary lifting-body shape of aircraft wings? They were the first to manage to apply one of those newfangled internal-combustion engines to the problem, that's all - probably because their background was as mechanics, rather than theoreticians or engineers. Other efforts at the time seem to have focused on engines of the builder's own design, while the Wrights used an existing internal-combustion engine to power their craft.
Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible.
There was the issue of flight involving objects far heavier than birds. So just because 10 kg birds can fly doesn't mean a 300 kg airplane or even a 600,000 kg airplane can fly just based off of the observation of birds. If it is on a planet with a weaker atmosphere than Earth with a similar gravity, then conventional air flight might not be possible, but 1 kg birds could fly.
Then there is the issues of technologies like nuclear energy, lasers, modern computers, etc. No amount of natural observations would be able to show that it is possible to destroy a city with a 5,000 kg bomb or that extremely complex calculations that took days or even weeks to do by hand could be done with a machine that fits in your pocket in seconds.
Whether time travel and FTL are impossible is not something we can say with 100% certainty. All we can say is that it is currently impossible with our understanding of the universe. Someone like Cochrane might come along and prove that FTL is possible by creating the Phoenix.
Smoke, check your histories - not someone's collection of Washington-Irving-style folk tales, but actual contemporaneous accounts. No one was "ridiculing" the Wright brothers. As has already been mentioned, we knew heavier-than-air flight was possible, because we could see birds doing it every single day. Or do you think that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio independently invented the necessary lifting-body shape of aircraft wings? They were the first to manage to apply one of those newfangled internal-combustion engines to the problem, that's all - probably because their background was as mechanics, rather than theoreticians or engineers. Other efforts at the time seem to have focused on engines of the builder's own design, while the Wrights used an existing internal-combustion engine to power their craft.
Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible.
Believe it or not, the Wright brothers weren't even the first to manage a powered heavier-than-air craft: a Frenchman, Clement Ader, is recorded as successfully testing a small, unmanned steam-powered plane back in 1886, and others were already trying out petrolum-fueled engines by 1903. The Wrights were just the first people to A, figure out airplane control surfaces so they could steer the thing more easily, and B, make a confirmed manned powered flight. (And even that's a little debated: there was a German-American immigrant, Gustave Whitehead, who claimed to have successfully tested a monoplane in Fairfield, CT in 1901, and was actually taken seriously in a 2013 article in Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)
So yeah, any claims that manned powered flight was impossible prior to the Kill Devil Hills tests were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
As for time travel, I believe the late Dr. Hawking pointed out that if it was possible, we should have been inundated with tourists from the future a long time ago.
Ader doesn't get credit because his "flight" was about eight inches off the ground. Whitehead, on the other hand, was shown to have paid off the only alleged witness to his flight, which is why he generally isn't credited.
Ader doesn't get credit because his "flight" was about eight inches off the ground. Whitehead, on the other hand, was shown to have paid off the only alleged witness to his flight, which is why he generally isn't credited.
According to who? You or everyone else?
The Avion was the first ever aircraft in known existence and the the flight of 8 inches? details on the day suggested bad weather which skewed the results anyway. There was no way to know what it would of accomplished in better weather. The fact is that Clement's vehicle did take off and showed the first glimpses into self propelled flight. With or without your approval it makes little difference as it was the first success even if it was a very minor one.
I hope this isn't a roundabout form of Jingoism.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
And this has nothing to do with "jingoism", and everything to do with accuracy - something that's been tossed to the proverbial winds quite a lot lately. Facts are facts, irrespective of how you or I feel about them, and the fact is that Ader's attempt is not generally counted as the first powered flight because it barely cleared the ground, and may have had more to do with ground effects (like a Soviet-era ekranoplan) than any lift generated by the aircraft itself.
> @patrickngo said:
> azrael605 wrote: »
> Enrico Fermi contributed far more to the atomic sciences than Curie.
>
> of course h e did, but he was also working a bit later. (Curie was working in the 1890s, Fermi a few decades after).
>
> the point being, atomic sciences, including radioactivity, was and is a natural phenomena...with predictable, experimentally proven, outcomes.
Curie's "contribution" has been drastically overestimated over the years.
Marie Curie fits into the "woman scientist" mold, thus people who want to talk about those gravitate to her. (Why people want to single out woman scientists is best left for a different discussion) So she gets talked about a lot often by people who don't really have any idea how important her contributions were.
There's also Niven's Law of Time Travel: In any continuum that allows time travel and changing the past, time travel will never be invented. The concept is that if the past can be changed, eventually things will get so messed up that someone will decide the only way to straighten it out is to prevent time travel from being invented, and will kill the inventor before he/she can complete the work. (Not unlike the ultimate solution to the issues presented in VOY: "Year of Hell", pts 1 & 2.)
> @jonsills said: > There's also Niven's Law of Time Travel: In any continuum that allows time travel and changing the past, time travel will never be invented. The concept is that if the past can be changed, eventually things will get so messed up that someone will decide the only way to straighten it out is to prevent time travel from being invented, and will kill the inventor before he/she can complete the work. (Not unlike the ultimate solution to the issues presented in VOY: "Year of Hell", pts 1 & 2.)
There are SO many reasons I wish Larry Niven would have had a bigger role in Star Trek than just a few episodes of The Animated Series.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
> @starswordc said: > jonsills wrote: » > > Smoke, check your histories - not someone's collection of Washington-Irving-style folk tales, but actual contemporaneous accounts. No one was "ridiculing" the Wright brothers. As has already been mentioned, we knew heavier-than-air flight was possible, because we could see birds doing it every single day. Or do you think that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio independently invented the necessary lifting-body shape of aircraft wings? They were the first to manage to apply one of those newfangled internal-combustion engines to the problem, that's all - probably because their background was as mechanics, rather than theoreticians or engineers. Other efforts at the time seem to have focused on engines of the builder's own design, while the Wrights used an existing internal-combustion engine to power their craft. > > Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible. > > > > > > > Believe it or not, the Wright brothers weren't even the first to manage a powered heavier-than-air craft: a Frenchman, Clement Ader, is recorded as successfully testing a small, unmanned steam-powered plane back in 1886, and others were already trying out petrolum-fueled engines by 1903. The Wrights were just the first people to A, figure out airplane control surfaces so they could steer the thing more easily, and B, make a confirmed manned powered flight. (And even that's a little debated: there was a German-American immigrant, Gustave Whitehead, who claimed to have successfully tested a monoplane in Fairfield, CT in 1901, and was actually taken seriously in a 2013 article in Jane's All the World's Aircraft.) > > So yeah, any claims that manned powered flight was impossible prior to the Kill Devil Hills tests were just as idiotic back then as they are now. > > > > As for time travel, I believe the late Dr. Hawking pointed out that if it was possible, we should have been inundated with tourists from the future a long time ago.
Unless they have some sort of Temporal Prime Directive that provents them from interfering in the past incase of disasterous consequences, or we’ve just never caught any.
Are you familiar with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory? It notes that the process of observing subnuclear interactions changes them; the more information you gather about the behavior of a particular particle, the more interactions you've had with it that change its future behavior.
It turns out that the general principle applies to observation of any chaotic system - and few systems are so chaotic as humanity; sociologists take a version of the Uncertainty Principle into account whenever they attempt to understand new cultures. The mere presence of time travelers would warp human history just by existing, no matter how they tried not to interfere, and that's assuming they have good information on the period they're observing. On the other hand, most people from, say, our era who tried to go back to do something as innocent as watching Shakespeare's players at the Old Globe would betray their nature the first time they spoke (the language used in Will's plays was supposed to sound "old-fashioned" to the ears of an Elizabethan audience - try talking that way in the street, and you'll likely be locked up or worse!). For an example of what time travelers might well be like, check out the "Hob" storyline in Dresden Codak, particularly this page.
> @marty123#3757 said: > Unless they have some sort of Temporal Prime Directive that provents them from interfering in the past incase of disasterous consequences, or we’ve just never caught any.
Are you kidding me? We can't even keep ordinary NON-time-traveling tourists from leaving trash everywhere.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
> @starswordc said: > > @marty123#3757 said: > > Unless they have some sort of Temporal Prime Directive that provents them from interfering in the past incase of disasterous consequences, or we’ve just never caught any. > > Are you kidding me? We can't even keep ordinary NON-time-traveling tourists from leaving trash everywhere.
How do you know they haven’t already TRIBBLE up the timeline?
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,687Community Moderator
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
This thread has totally gone off the topic. /Thread
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Comments
It was actually debunked centuries before Columbus due to ships disappearing over the horizon. What Columbus was trying to prove was not that the Earth was round, but that the Earth was smaller than what the philosophers thought to be the size of the Earth. Columbus thought the Earth was small enough for ships to have enough supplies to get to India while Portugal had the math to prove that any trip to India would end in disaster due to a lack of supplies. Luckily, Columbus encountered America or else it would have been another voyage that ended in disaster.
And again, Smoke, it's not a matter of leaving Earth - the laws of physics are constants throughout the universe (okay, except for edge cases like the event horizon of a supermassive, rapidly rotating black hole), and without negative energy, you can't make a closed timelike curve and go backwards in time. It's not engineering, it's implicit in the same laws that keep the Sun burning and your cells metabolizing.
And one day, someone is gonna do it. Someone's gonna make a time trip, and also someone is gonna break light speed.
They laughed and ridiculed the Wright brothers even after the first flight happened.
When something amazing, deemed impossible by the establishment, they will wrap themselves in a bubble, inside an enigma, inside a freezer and totally unfazed because their life goes on regardless.
And science is all about disproving theories. Some evidence comes along and destroys all our theories, then we create new theories that fits the new evidence and it eventually might have to be thrown out like what Quantum Mechanics did with Newtonian Mechanics. So until someone makes a time trip or breaks the light barrier, then we use our current theories.
Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible.
Bravo, sir.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Believe it or not, the Wright brothers weren't even the first to manage a powered heavier-than-air craft: a Frenchman, Clement Ader, is recorded as successfully testing a small, unmanned steam-powered plane back in 1886, and others were already trying out petrolum-fueled engines by 1903. The Wrights were just the first people to A, figure out airplane control surfaces so they could steer the thing more easily, and B, make a confirmed manned powered flight. (And even that's a little debated: there was a German-American immigrant, Gustave Whitehead, who claimed to have successfully tested a monoplane in Fairfield, CT in 1901, and was actually taken seriously in a 2013 article in Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)
So yeah, any claims that manned powered flight was impossible prior to the Kill Devil Hills tests were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
As for time travel, I believe the late Dr. Hawking pointed out that if it was possible, we should have been inundated with tourists from the future a long time ago.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
There was the issue of flight involving objects far heavier than birds. So just because 10 kg birds can fly doesn't mean a 300 kg airplane or even a 600,000 kg airplane can fly just based off of the observation of birds. If it is on a planet with a weaker atmosphere than Earth with a similar gravity, then conventional air flight might not be possible, but 1 kg birds could fly.
Then there is the issues of technologies like nuclear energy, lasers, modern computers, etc. No amount of natural observations would be able to show that it is possible to destroy a city with a 5,000 kg bomb or that extremely complex calculations that took days or even weeks to do by hand could be done with a machine that fits in your pocket in seconds.
Whether time travel and FTL are impossible is not something we can say with 100% certainty. All we can say is that it is currently impossible with our understanding of the universe. Someone like Cochrane might come along and prove that FTL is possible by creating the Phoenix.
According to who? You or everyone else?
The Avion was the first ever aircraft in known existence and the the flight of 8 inches? details on the day suggested bad weather which skewed the results anyway. There was no way to know what it would of accomplished in better weather. The fact is that Clement's vehicle did take off and showed the first glimpses into self propelled flight. With or without your approval it makes little difference as it was the first success even if it was a very minor one.
I hope this isn't a roundabout form of Jingoism.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
And this has nothing to do with "jingoism", and everything to do with accuracy - something that's been tossed to the proverbial winds quite a lot lately. Facts are facts, irrespective of how you or I feel about them, and the fact is that Ader's attempt is not generally counted as the first powered flight because it barely cleared the ground, and may have had more to do with ground effects (like a Soviet-era ekranoplan) than any lift generated by the aircraft itself.
My character Tsin'xing
> There's also Niven's Law of Time Travel: In any continuum that allows time travel and changing the past, time travel will never be invented. The concept is that if the past can be changed, eventually things will get so messed up that someone will decide the only way to straighten it out is to prevent time travel from being invented, and will kill the inventor before he/she can complete the work. (Not unlike the ultimate solution to the issues presented in VOY: "Year of Hell", pts 1 & 2.)
There are SO many reasons I wish Larry Niven would have had a bigger role in Star Trek than just a few episodes of The Animated Series.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
> jonsills wrote: »
>
> Smoke, check your histories - not someone's collection of Washington-Irving-style folk tales, but actual contemporaneous accounts. No one was "ridiculing" the Wright brothers. As has already been mentioned, we knew heavier-than-air flight was possible, because we could see birds doing it every single day. Or do you think that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio independently invented the necessary lifting-body shape of aircraft wings? They were the first to manage to apply one of those newfangled internal-combustion engines to the problem, that's all - probably because their background was as mechanics, rather than theoreticians or engineers. Other efforts at the time seem to have focused on engines of the builder's own design, while the Wrights used an existing internal-combustion engine to power their craft.
>
> Your claim is akin to pointing at one rather silly, quickly-debunked editorial in the New York Times in 1920 regarding Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, and claiming this meant nobody believed interplanetary flight was even possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Believe it or not, the Wright brothers weren't even the first to manage a powered heavier-than-air craft: a Frenchman, Clement Ader, is recorded as successfully testing a small, unmanned steam-powered plane back in 1886, and others were already trying out petrolum-fueled engines by 1903. The Wrights were just the first people to A, figure out airplane control surfaces so they could steer the thing more easily, and B, make a confirmed manned powered flight. (And even that's a little debated: there was a German-American immigrant, Gustave Whitehead, who claimed to have successfully tested a monoplane in Fairfield, CT in 1901, and was actually taken seriously in a 2013 article in Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)
>
> So yeah, any claims that manned powered flight was impossible prior to the Kill Devil Hills tests were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
>
>
>
> As for time travel, I believe the late Dr. Hawking pointed out that if it was possible, we should have been inundated with tourists from the future a long time ago.
Unless they have some sort of Temporal Prime Directive that provents them from interfering in the past incase of disasterous consequences, or we’ve just never caught any.
It turns out that the general principle applies to observation of any chaotic system - and few systems are so chaotic as humanity; sociologists take a version of the Uncertainty Principle into account whenever they attempt to understand new cultures. The mere presence of time travelers would warp human history just by existing, no matter how they tried not to interfere, and that's assuming they have good information on the period they're observing. On the other hand, most people from, say, our era who tried to go back to do something as innocent as watching Shakespeare's players at the Old Globe would betray their nature the first time they spoke (the language used in Will's plays was supposed to sound "old-fashioned" to the ears of an Elizabethan audience - try talking that way in the street, and you'll likely be locked up or worse!). For an example of what time travelers might well be like, check out the "Hob" storyline in Dresden Codak, particularly this page.
> Unless they have some sort of Temporal Prime Directive that provents them from interfering in the past incase of disasterous consequences, or we’ve just never caught any.
Are you kidding me? We can't even keep ordinary NON-time-traveling tourists from leaving trash everywhere.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
> > @marty123#3757 said:
> > Unless they have some sort of Temporal Prime Directive that provents them from interfering in the past incase of disasterous consequences, or we’ve just never caught any.
>
> Are you kidding me? We can't even keep ordinary NON-time-traveling tourists from leaving trash everywhere.
How do you know they haven’t already TRIBBLE up the timeline?
WE wouldn't because it is our time period. Unless you're fromt the future too and know how things should have turned out...
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch