[AATW]

This is adding to my "Tom Bishop is a troll who doesn't really believe any of this nonsense" thesis.
Which is another category in the FE Mindset, although I guess technically they are not really flat earthers at all, just pretending to be for the lolz.

[Tom Bishop]

Appropriately enough, that's a made-up quote. Neither of the Wright brothers is documented saying such a thing outside of Creationist or flat Earth literature.

well, I did find a book about market research that has it. 'as the wright brothers famously said...' But, maybe not so famously. It's probably a paraphrasing of something like this:

At that time there was no flying art in the proper sense of the word, but only a flying problem. Thousands of men had thought about flying machines and a few had even built machines which they called flying machines, but these were guilty of almost everything except flying. Thousands of pages had been written on the so-called science of flying, but for the most part the ideas set forth, like the designs for machines, were mere speculations and probably ninety per cent was false. Consequently those who tried to study the science of aerodynamics knew not what to believe and what not to believe. Things which seemed reasonable were often found to be untrue, and things which seemed unreasonable were sometimes true. Under this condition of affairs students were accustomed to pay little attention to things that they had not personally tested.

It looks like you have already done my work for me. Not only did you find a non-flat earth source for that quote, you did further research showing that the Wright Brothers really did throw out the science.

Good research. Maybe you are arguing on the wrong side.

Yeah, googling that quote proves there is literally no proof they ever said that. A few flat earth and creationist links. Try hard, Bishop. You would never accept this scant evidence from a REer.

Xeno showed that the quote is in a book and that the Wright Brothers really did throw out the science and focused on experience. What more needs to be said?

[JohnAdams1145]

Yes. It goes further than physics, however. Astronomy, Geometry, Physics, many more fields; the foundation of which is all built on a house of cards at a fundamental level.

A "house of cards" that you have demonstrated that you do not understand. You've asserted that the spinning of the Earth would cause a feather at the equator to not fall straight down (wrong, even physics predicts that it'll just fall a bit more slowly). You've asserted some pretty laughable stuff about "perspective." You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of atomic spectra. You don't even understand most of the theory, let alone all of the experiments that were done to validate and derive the theory. Do you think anyone likes special relativity over the simple Galilean motion? Then why is special relativity a thing? It's because of experiments that went against the simple Galilean motion at high speeds.

You don't have nearly enough physics education/knowledge to critique the experiments/theory of physics. I don't, either, but that's why I cite other sources.

This is probably the fifth time I'm suggesting this, but I'll do it again. Tom, download some AP Physics 1 and AP Physics 2 practice questions from the Internet and just try them for yourself like you were actually taking the AP test. You don't have to publish the results, but I want you to realize that your physics knowledge is extremely misguided. You don't understand simple physics at a fundamental level.


Also, there's no need to quibble on the Wright Brothers' quote; while I'm fairly sure that Tom has misrepresented the provenance of the quote, it doesn't matter. Did Lockheed build the F-22 Raptor by tossing out all of the previous science? Seems expensive to hire those engineers. What about the Minuteman III ICBM? What about any of the jets that you fly on today? Do you realize how many engineers, many of whom studied only conventional science and engineering in university, worked on these things?

[xenotolerance]

Looks most like option 2, but I definitely nailed the ghost #4 prediction

Tom if you knew what good research was, you might become a real skeptic.

So, let's look at ability to evaluate evidence: Tom refers to a book about market research as a 'not-flat Earth source for that quote.' It certainly isn't related to flat Earth at all; it also isn't a source for the quote. It doesn't cite the quote, doesn't say where it comes from, when it was said; it gives no ability for a reader to look up what their primary source was. It's equally usable as the flat Earth newsletter: Not at all. But Tom is like "it's a book" and accepts it as good evidence.

oh yeah - it's also not obvious that Tom actually even checked if such a book exists. he just took my word for it

He then describes the extended quote as showing the Wrights 'really did throw out the science.' He doesn't point to which part of the quote he thinks supports this interpretation, and I don't want to assume, but I don't see it. To me the quote suggests there was a lot of incorrect speculation masquerading as aerodynamic science, people trying to look smart and come up with stuff that sounded good in theory but didn't work in practice, and that 'those who tried to study the science of aerodynamics' were doing fundamental experiments, because no one had before. It doesn't support any interpretation that says they threw out capital-s Science or "the science" as a whole.

[totallackey]

Everyone doubting the authenticity of the quote attributed to the Wright Brothers'...

Kindly pony up some paperwork or handwritten calculations concerning "lift," "drag," "gravity," etc. while they were in the midst of the building the plane...

[xenotolerance]

Here.

Transcribed here.

From a presentation:

However, there is another way of flying which requires no artificial motor, and many workers believe that success will first come by this road. I refer to the soaring flight, by which the machine is permanently sustained in the air by the same means that are employed by soaring birds. They spread their wings to the wind, and sail by the hour, with no perceptible exertion beyond that required to balance and steer themselves. What sustains them is not definitely known, though it is almost certain that it is a rising current of air. But whether it be a rising current or something else, it is as well able to support a flying machine as a bird, if man once learns the art of utilizing it. In gliding experiments it has long been known that the rate of vertical descent is very much retarded and the duration of the flight greatly prolonged if a strong wind blows up the face of the hill parallel to its surface. Our machine, when gliding in still air, has a rate of vertical descent of nearly 6 feet per second, while in a wind blowing 26 miles per hour up a steep hill we made glides in which the rate of descent was less than 2 feet per second. And during the larger part of this time, while the machine remained exactly in the rising current, there was no descent at all, but even a slight rise. If the operator had had sufficient skill to keep himself from passing beyond the rising current, he would have been sustained indefinitely at a higher point than that from which he started. The illustration shows one of these very slow glides at a time when the machine was practically at a standstill. The failure to advance more rapidly caused the photographer some trouble in aiming, as you will perceive. In looking at this picture you will readily understand that the excietment of gliding experiments does not entirely cease with the breaking up of camp. In the photographic dark room at home we pass moments of as thrilling interest as any in the field, when the image begins to appear on the plate and it is yet an open quesion whether we have a picture of a flying machine or merely a patch of open sky. These slow glides in rising currents probably hold out greater hope of extensive practice than any other method within man's reach, but they have the disadvantage of requiring rather strong winds or very large supporting surfaces. However, when gliding operators have attained greater skill, they can, with comparative safety, maintain themselves in the air for hours at a time in this way, and thus by constant practice so increase their knowledge and skill that they can rise into the higher air and search out the currents which enable the soaring birds to transport themselves to any desired point by first rising in a circle to a great height and then sailing off at a descending angle. The last illustration shows the machine, alone, flying in a wind of 35 miles per hour on the face of a steep hill 100 feet high. It will be seen that the machine not only pulls upward, but also pulls forward in the direction from which the wind blows, thus overcoming both gravity and the speed of the wind. We tried the same experiment with a man on it, but found danger that the forward pull would become so strong that the men holding the ropes would be dragged from their insecure foothold on the slope of the hill. So this form of experimenting was discontinued after four or five minutes' trial.

In looking over our experiments of the past two years, with models and full-size machines, the following points stand out with clearness:

1. That the lifting power of a large machine, held stationary in a wind at a small distance from the earth, is much less than the Lilienthal table and our own laboratory experiments would lead us to expect. When the machine is moved through the air, as in gliding, the discrepancy seems much less marked.

2. That the ratio of drift to lift in well-shaped surfaces is less at angles of incidence of 5° to 12° than at an angle of 3°.

3. That in arched surfaces the center of pressure at 90° is near the center of the surface, but moves slowly forward as the angle becomes less, till a critical angle, varying with the shape and depth of the curve, is reached, after which it moves rapidly toward the rear till the angle of no lift is found.

4. That with similar conditions large surfaces may be controlled with not much greater difficulty than small ones, if the control is effected by manipulation of the surfaces themselves, rather than by a movement of the body of the operator.

5. That the head resistances of the framing can be brought to a point much below that usually estimated as necessary.

6. That tails, both vertical and horizontal, may with safety be eliminated in gliding and other flying experiments.

7. That a horizontal position of the operator's body may be assumed without excessive danger, and thus the head resstance reduced to about one-fifth that of the upright position.

8. That a pair of superposed or tandem surfaces has less lift in proportion to drift than either surface separately, even after making allowance for weight and head resistance of the connections.

[Curious Squirrel]

Everyone doubting the authenticity of the quote attributed to the Wright Brothers'...

Kindly pony up some paperwork or handwritten calculations concerning "lift," "drag," "gravity," etc. while they were in the midst of the building the plane...

This doesn't seem at all related, but this should help as well when added to xeno's post. Make sure to note the citing of sources for further reading if you wish to find the original paperwork they had. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=following

In particular I'd like to call attention to the last paragraph of page 2:

"In simple terms, flight will be possible whenever there is enough lift to overcome the weight and enough thrust to overcome the drag. When the Wright brothers first became interested in the possibility of flight, they studied the previous experiments and experimenters. In particular, Otto Lilienthal of Germany had experimented with gliders and had developed tables for the lift achieved for many different airfoils. He used the well-established
 formulas for lift and drag [McFarland, 575-576]

[Formulas listed along with explanation of what each part means]


These are the two equations that the Wrights used, and they are the formulas that caused them the most trouble. While surface area and velocity were easy to calculate, the other components of these formulas were the major stumbling blocks to flight. Let us follow Wilbur and Orville's attempts to make sense of these formulas."

[Tom Bishop]

He then describes the extended quote as showing the Wrights 'really did throw out the science.' He doesn't point to which part of the quote he thinks supports this interpretation, and I don't want to assume, but I don't see it. To me the quote suggests there was a lot of incorrect speculation masquerading as aerodynamic science, people trying to look smart and come up with stuff that sounded good in theory but didn't work in practice, and that 'those who tried to study the science of aerodynamics' were doing fundamental experiments, because no one had before. It doesn't support any interpretation that says they threw out capital-s Science or "the science" as a whole.

What you just described sure sounds like throwing out the science to me.

[xenotolerance]

Please elaborate.

[Tom Bishop]

Please elaborate.

Read your original quote:

"Things which seemed reasonable were often found to be untrue, and things which seemed unreasonable were sometimes true. Under this condition of affairs students were accustomed to pay little attention to things that they had not personally tested."

Is says to pay little attention to the supposed science and to focus on experience, that is, things which have been empirically validated.

It definitely does not say to rely on the science when inventing.

[totallackey]

And from the paper you provided, I found the following quote:

"In the winter of 1901-02, the Wrights began to rethink all that they had been through."

It seems there is some modern foundational basis to the idea the Wright Brothers' being a source of the quote provided by Tom.

[xenotolerance]

Okay...?

You brought the Wright brothers up in the first place in response to this:

Technology isn't invented based on the Scientific Method. It is actually invented with a more emperical process closer to to the Zetetic process.

It has to be mindful of the science behind it though.
Planes get off the ground because the science if gravity and lift and drag are well understood and planes are built accordingly.
No-one builds planes based on UA or "Celestial Gravitation".
The fact that airplanes and other technology demonstrably work gives confidence in the underlying science.
...

You seem to be saying that the speculation that came before is 'the science,' and because the Wrights didn't rely on it, airplanes were not invented using the scientific method.

The presentation Wilbur Wright gave makes it obvious he was mindful of the science of lift and drag, of gravity and center of mass. You're also conflating the scientific method, which requires an experiment i.e. empirical knowledge, with bad assumptions. That's dishonest, and incorrect in this case. The previous writers who hadn't built planes were not 'the science.' This whole time you've been arguing from bad definitions, or a false premise.

Even though this whole scientific method discussion is nominally off topic, I think it's displaying many relevant elements of the flat Earth mindset...

I'm getting tired of Tom's shenanigans so I'm quitting the thread. peace y'all

[xenotolerance]

And from the paper you provided, I found the following quote:

"In the winter of 1901-02, the Wrights began to rethink all that they had been through."

It seems there is some modern foundational basis to the idea the Wright Brothers' being a source of the quote provided by Tom.

That's ... not how sourcing a quote works. Of course it's plausible that they said it; it's plausible that anyone could say almost anything. If it's not found in writing, or in a recording, the best evidence is at least one but hopefully more contemporary writings giving it a consistent time and place for context. That the Wright brothers changed their approach is not evidence they said the thing. Thank you for at least trying to do some research though.

[StinkyOne]

Appropriately enough, that's a made-up quote. Neither of the Wright brothers is documented saying such a thing outside of Creationist or flat Earth literature.

well, I did find a book about market research that has it. 'as the wright brothers famously said...' But, maybe not so famously. It's probably a paraphrasing of something like this:

At that time there was no flying art in the proper sense of the word, but only a flying problem. Thousands of men had thought about flying machines and a few had even built machines which they called flying machines, but these were guilty of almost everything except flying. Thousands of pages had been written on the so-called science of flying, but for the most part the ideas set forth, like the designs for machines, were mere speculations and probably ninety per cent was false. Consequently those who tried to study the science of aerodynamics knew not what to believe and what not to believe. Things which seemed reasonable were often found to be untrue, and things which seemed unreasonable were sometimes true. Under this condition of affairs students were accustomed to pay little attention to things that they had not personally tested.

It looks like you have already done my work for me. Not only did you find a non-flat earth source for that quote, you did further research showing that the Wright Brothers really did throw out the science.

Good research. Maybe you are arguing on the wrong side.

Yeah, googling that quote proves there is literally no proof they ever said that. A few flat earth and creationist links. Try hard, Bishop. You would never accept this scant evidence from a REer.

Xeno showed that the quote is in a book and that the Wright Brothers really did throw out the science and focused on experience. What more needs to be said?

A) the quote is not in the link Xeno posted. B) it is in a marketing book. That is only proof that the authors, like you, have heard it somewhere. It doesn't make it true. Also, considering that is the only non-FE or creationist link, I think you are on VERY shaky ground. It is more likely that the author is a FEer or creationist and read the quote on some website.

All that being said, it is pretty irrelevant as a quote. There wouldn't have been much aeronautical science to fall back on back then. lol You think Boeing just goes out and builds a plane without extensive modeling??

[Scroogie]

Yes. It goes further than physics, however. Astronomy, Geometry, Physics, many more fields; the foundation of which is all built on a house of cards at a fundamental level.

At a fundamental level, and one potentially more easily understood by the lay classes, we have technology. Technology is the application of scientific knowledge, or science applied. Technology is what has given us automobiles, trains, airplanes, medical tools, eyeglasses, telescopes, cell phones, televisions, radios and even IPods. All technology is based on the science that went before, its discoveries creating the knowledge which allowed the creation of the products that technology has afforded us.

If the science were flawed, the products of technology would be similarly flawed. They're not. Hence the science upon which they're based is assumed to be sound. It's that simple.

Technology isn't invented based on the Scientific Method. It is actually invented with a more emperical process closer to to the Zetetic process.

Technology was invented? That's news to me. What the "Scientific Method" has to do with technology escapes me as technology isn't a science. It's technology, a distinct and separate entity in the field of human endeavour.

[totallackey]

And from the paper you provided, I found the following quote:

"In the winter of 1901-02, the Wrights began to rethink all that they had been through."

It seems there is some modern foundational basis to the idea the Wright Brothers' being a source of the quote provided by Tom.

That's ... not how sourcing a quote works. Of course it's plausible that they said it; it's plausible that anyone could say almost anything. If it's not found in writing, or in a recording, the best evidence is at least one but hopefully more contemporary writings giving it a consistent time and place for context. That the Wright brothers changed their approach is not evidence they said the thing. Thank you for at least trying to do some research though.

Who wrote anything claiming that I sourced the quote?

You are currently exercising considerable nerve and pompousness even feigning to lecture me on quote sourcing; however,

The first step I would execute in establishing whether or not the quote is appropriately attributed would be to find some written reference indicating predilection or characteristics the person might have even been a possible source of the quotation in question...

See, I would have no trouble believing Winston Churchill stated, "If I was married to you madam, I would drink it!" in response to Nancy Astor's line, "If I were married to you I would poison your drink!" (even though I know Churchill did not originate the line), for it strikes as being in character considering all the other background research I have examined about the man.

Similar to finding someone here offering a post that might attribute a substantive/knowledgeable/intelligent quote to you.

I would really need to perform some in-depth research to adequately source that quote.

[Trolltrolls]

It seems brilliant how Mr. Bishop has distracted all the people in the thread from talking about what may have been a problem for Tom to address to talking about the origins of a quote.
That was in the past, now we have GPS, air flight and lots of other technology that relies upon science. Someone even said the the Wright Brothers did indeed calculate the effect of gravity, centre of mass, etc (This may be wrong, I read someone post this).
The conclusion is that we know that the science we are doing is correct, because the practical outcomes work as expected. Science may or may not be built on a house of cards, but it works and that is all that matters.

[Sydney]

Hi,

You have likely already read the attached articles, however, it gave me a high level understanding and some insight on the Psychology or Thinking of a Flat Earther.

In taking a quote from the attached article called "Flat Earth: What Fuels the Internet's Strangest Conspiracy Theory?" (By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor): "flat-Earth conspiracy theorists may be chasing many of the same needs as believers in other conspiracies: social belonging, the need for meaning and control, and feelings of safety in an uncertain world."

In the second article entitled "Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?" (By Natalie Wolchover and Live Science Staff): Karen Douglas, a psychologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom who studies the psychology of conspiracy theories quotes that : "all conspiracy theories share a basic thrust: They present an alternative theory about an important issue or event, and construct an (often) vague explanation for why someone is covering up that "true" version of events. One of the major points of appeal is that they explain a big event but often without going into details," she said. "A lot of the power lies in the fact that they are vague."

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

For all of you Round / Spherical Earthers out there like myself, you likely won't be able to change the mind of a Flat Earther no matter how much evidence you try to present or how much you want to debate. Psychology helps us to understand in a way that Conspiracy Mindsets can be about the need for social belonging, the need for attention, and/or the need for control and certainty in world that may not make too much sense (to them).

Regards.

https://www.livescience.com/61655-flat-earth-conspiracy-theory.html

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

What does psychology have to do with the Van Allen Belt. What does the opinion of a psychologist have to do with facts, or even arguments that cannot be proven by FE'ers because no one will discuss them with the ones asking the questions and all evidence is locked up? Moreover FE'ers are not backed by trillions of dollars, the MSM, the military, the education system ad nausea and its vast wealth of rewards and punishments for those who comply and dissent.

Moreover, it is professionally disingenuous for a shrink or doctor to perform a diagnosis on someone (much less a large group of people) in which no polls have been conducted (legitimate or otherwise) and no willing human beings (FE'ers) have volunteered for, and subsequently there is no empirical evidence to support such (heretofore) narcissistic tactics (i.e. projecting) by these armchair theorists... and that is exactly what they are doing... theorizing and probably getting a fat check for doing so. Ya think?

[JohnAdams1145]

What does psychology have to do with the Van Allen Belt. What does the opinion of a psychologist have to do with facts, or even arguments that cannot be proven by FE'ers because no one will discuss them with the ones asking the questions and all evidence is locked up? Moreover FE'ers are not backed by trillions of dollars, the MSM, the military, the education system ad nausea and its vast wealth of rewards and punishments for those who comply and dissent.

Moreover, it is professionally disingenuous for a shrink or doctor to perform a diagnosis on someone (much less a large group of people) in which no polls have been conducted (legitimate or otherwise) and no willing human beings (FE'ers) have volunteered for, and subsequently there is no empirical evidence to support such (heretofore) narcissistic tactics (i.e. projecting) by these armchair theorists... and that is exactly what they are doing... theorizing and probably getting a fat check for doing so. Ya think?

Here's a hint. Nobody discusses this stuff (apart from the REs on this forum) because it's a waste of time. There's nothing more to debate. The evidence is overwhelming, and the only reason why you don't think so is because you don't understand the evidence, and have fundamental misunderstandings of basic science. When you have people who haven't even built a simple induction motor or navigation system, and don't even understand Newton's 3 laws telling 99% of scientists that they're all wrong because of X (a word salad of fundamentally wrong nonsense), I think it's not unreasonable to diagnose them with a bit of a mental problem; that being said, I think that natural cognitive biases are responsible, not mental illness.

[Sydney]

What does psychology have to do with the Van Allen Belt. What does the opinion of a psychologist have to do with facts, or even arguments that cannot be proven by FE'ers because no one will discuss them with the ones asking the questions and all evidence is locked up? Moreover FE'ers are not backed by trillions of dollars, the MSM, the military, the education system ad nausea and its vast wealth of rewards and punishments for those who comply and dissent.

Moreover, it is professionally disingenuous for a shrink or doctor to perform a diagnosis on someone (much less a large group of people) in which no polls have been conducted (legitimate or otherwise) and no willing human beings (FE'ers) have volunteered for, and subsequently there is no empirical evidence to support such (heretofore) narcissistic tactics (i.e. projecting) by these armchair theorists... and that is exactly what they are doing... theorizing and probably getting a fat check for doing so. Ya think?

Here's a hint. Nobody discusses this stuff (apart from the REs on this forum) because it's a waste of time. There's nothing more to debate. The evidence is overwhelming, and the only reason why you don't think so is because you don't understand the evidence, and have fundamental misunderstandings of basic science. When you have people who haven't even built a simple induction motor or navigation system, and don't even understand Newton's 3 laws telling 99% of scientists that they're all wrong because of X (a word salad of fundamentally wrong nonsense), I think it's not unreasonable to diagnose them with a bit of a mental problem; that being said, I think that natural cognitive biases are responsible, not mental illness.

You are persistent, aren't you? Perhaps we should all call it a night, yes? I appreciate your zeal, but is it not permissible for people to discuss things on their own forums on the internet without self-appointed champions of the realm trolling and adding nothing more than ad hominems and strawman arguments?

I am interested in both sides of the debate... not being lectured by a cheeky person with no show of regard for free discourse.