SETI Institute chief offers his views on UFOs and alien visitors

[Golden Duck]

43 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I am sure this is a great argument.

Thr evidence suggests you are relying on apocrphya again.

I know it is not in you to prove me wrong.  Your faith is enough for you.

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Thr evidence suggests you are relying on apocrphya again.

I know it is not in you to prove me wrong.  Your faith is enough for you.

You are already proven wrong.

Remember what you said?

Part of your post

"Kelvin didn't state flight was impossible.  You are wrong again.  You and I are probably uncertain whatvyou posted"

 

But a simple Google search reveals

"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning.."

https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

Happy to remind you what you said.

Edited July 26 by MrAnderson

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

You are already proven wrong.

Remember what you said?

Part of your post

"Kelvin didn't state flight was impossible.  You are wrong again.  You and I are probably uncertain whatvyou posted"

 

But a simple Google search reveals

"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning.."

https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

Happy to remind you what you said.

You fail to find the original source again.  

I'll remind you what I said.

Read very carefully.  The Australian Institute of Physics was founded in 1963.  That raises the apprehension that the AIP is not the original source for a statement purported to be said in 1895.

Everyone in the audience can see this but you Zetorian.  But you do willfully ignore things that affect your worldview. 

[MrAnderson]

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You fail to find the original source again.  

I'll remind you what I said.

Read very carefully.  The Australian Institute of Physics was founded in 1963.  That raises the apprehension that the AIP is not the original source for a statement purported to be said in 1895.

Everyone in the audience can see this but you Zetorian.  But you do willfully ignore things that affect your worldview. 

Don't call me rity other names please. If you have any questions and doubts about the original sources and believe thst Wikipedia or scienceworld.wolfram haven't reported things accurately then you should direct their concerns to them. So far there is no objection online apart from yours. Why is it can you tell me?

[Golden Duck]

35 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Don't call me rity other names please. If you have any questions and doubts about the original sources and believe thst Wikipedia or scienceworld.wolfram haven't reported things accurately then you should direct their concerns to them. So far there is no objection online apart from yours. Why is it can you tell me?

More obfuscation from Zetorian.  You can change your name bit not your behaviour. 

Every challenge that has been put to you have fled.

Your lies are boring. 

[MrAnderson]

23 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

More obfuscation from Zetorian.  You can change your name bit not your behaviour. 

Every challenge that has been put to you have fled.

Your lies are boring. 

Wikipedia and scienceworld.wolfram are lying? If you wish to doubt and question them on the topic then take the matter to them. You will need a little more than your personal opinion.

What challenge? The burden of proof is on you.

"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning."

 

I know it's not great for your arguments but at least next time you can make a simple Google search.

 

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Wikipedia and scienceworld.wolfram are lying? If you wish to doubt and question them on the topic then take the matter to them. You will need a little more than your personal opinion.

What challenge? The burden of proof is on you.

"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning."

 

I know it's not great for your arguments but at least next time you can make a simple Google search.

 

It's obvious they are not quoting the original source.  You can't change facts.

An organisation founded in 1963 can't be the source of a statement from 1895.  You know how time works right?

I've repeatedly asked you questions, which you simply arent capable of answering.

[Dejarma]

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I've repeatedly asked you questions, which you simply arent capable of answering.

he's probably a politician in real life

[MrAnderson]

40 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's obvious they are not quoting the original source.  You can't change facts.

An organisation founded in 1963 can't be the source of a statement from 1895.  You know how time works right?

I've repeatedly asked you questions, which you simply arent capable of answering.

Your argument is not convincing. And a history book written in 2024 cannot be the original source of an event that took place 200 years ago. There should be no history books after all because they are not the original sources of information no matter their references and sources of information.

So, are you still claiming that Wikipedia and scienceworld.wolfram are not accurate in their pages on this subject?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Machines_Which_Do_Not_Fly

"By the beginning of the twentieth century, popular opinion regarded air travel as impossible.[2][3] Contemporary engineers and scientists were also pessimistic about flight. Notable critics included Simon Newcomb, Lord Kelvin, and the chief engineer of the US Navy, George W. Melville, the latter of whom described flying machines as "wholly unwarranted, if not absurd".[4] After five years of preparations, aviation pioneer Samuel Langley was ready to test out his Aerodrome on October 7, 1903. Piloted by Charles Manly, the aircraft failed to fly and dropped into the Potomac River immediately after launch"

 

 

https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning."

 

Edited July 27 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

25 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

he's probably a politician in real life

No, I am a physicist as I told you.

[MrAnderson]

@Golden Duck

https://thinking-about-science.com/2017/08/25/17-33-lord-kelvin-and-flying-machines/

Quote

However, in 1895, Kelvin confidently stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible

I think it's clear thst if you have some many sources that describe the exact same event it's very likely they are true.

Are all these sources inaccurate?

[Dejarma]

13 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

No, I am a physicist as I told you.

oh right & you expect everyone to believe that? we can all be who we want in here mate= prove it

I work for the NSA as a paid debunker in places like this- do you believe me?

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Your argument is not convincing. And a history book written in 2024 cannot be the original source of an event that took place 200 years ago. There should be no history books after all because they are not the original sources of information no matter their references and sources of information.

So, are you still claiming that Wikipedia and scienceworld.wolfram are not accurate in their pages on this subject?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Machines_Which_Do_Not_Fly

"By the beginning of the twentieth century, popular opinion regarded air travel as impossible.[2][3] Contemporary engineers and scientists were also pessimistic about flight. Notable critics included Simon Newcomb, Lord Kelvin, and the chief engineer of the US Navy, George W. Melville, the latter of whom described flying machines as "wholly unwarranted, if not absurd".[4] After five years of preparations, aviation pioneer Samuel Langley was ready to test out his Aerodrome on October 7, 1903. Piloted by Charles Manly, the aircraft failed to fly and dropped into the Potomac River immediately after launch"

 

 

https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning."

 

You're like a bottomless well of specious reasoning. A history book has references that you can trace back to an original source.

You just go for what you want to hear.

BTW, when are you going to admit you don't have the ability to answer my simple questions?

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

@Golden Duck

https://thinking-about-science.com/2017/08/25/17-33-lord-kelvin-and-flying-machines/

I think it's clear thst if you have some many sources that describe the exact same event it's very likely they are true.

Are all these sources inaccurate?

You appear to be suffering an impairment with your comprehension.

This latest article doesn't site its source. 

If none of these garbage sources can reveal the original context, then yes they are probably inaccurate, because they are relying on an apocryphal meme.

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

oh right & you expect everyone to believe that? we can all be who we want in here mate= prove it

I work for the NSA as a paid debunker in places like this- do you believe me?

You can believe what you want. Is that the whole point of these conversations? You are free to do what you want.

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

You appear to be suffering an impairment with your comprehension.

This latest article doesn't site its source. 

If none of these garbage sources can reveal the original context, then yes they are probably inaccurate, because they are relying on an apocryphal meme.

Does it have to? When this is well known and is considered historically accurate. Otherwise what you're telling me is that every source on the internet is garbage because of this reason.

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

You're like a bottomless well of specious reasoning. A history book has references that you can trace back to an original source.

You just go for what you want to hear.

BTW, when are you going to admit you don't have the ability to answer my simple questions?

The Wikipedia and scienceworld.wolfram has references too. They don't come reference free. And there are many references. I am sure their references are not random and this isn't a conspiracy against the people of the planet earth to manipulate them to beliece that Lord Kelvin said what he said.

You need some convincing arguments.

"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning."

 

The burden of proof is on you. If you think these links contain inaccurate information go ahead and prove it.

Edited July 27 by MrAnderson

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

Does it have to? When this is well known and is considered historically accurate. Otherwise what you're telling me is that every source on the internet is garbage because of this reason.

You are simply making things up.

History show that kites were used thousands of years before 1895.  Gliding was practiced decades before 1895.  The theories of flight had been developes years before 1895.

Kelvin's 1896 statement was response to decline an invitation to an Aeronautical Society.

The 1895 statement is not considered historical at all.  There just as many saying sources across the internet saying it is a misquote.

To use the 18th statement honestly, you need to find the origianal source and the original context.

Did Kelvin ever discuss flight with Cayley?  It's entirely plausible that Kelvin was agreeing with Cayley and saying "Without lightweight engines sustained flight is impossible."

Now Zetorian, I predict that you will confirm you are Zetorian bybreplying in the manner Zetorian gained theyre infamy.  You will, because you are embarrassed again, dismiss logic and reasonable arguments and reply with specious reasoning, an appeal to numbers and beg the question.

You certainly are a catfish that has never had their drivel tested at any level academically.

[MrAnderson]

@Golden Duck

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

3. Heavier-than-air flight.

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. 

Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple’s Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight? 

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: “It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body"

I am sure the new scientist just as scienceworld.wolfram and Wikipedia are not pushing a conspiracy theory online. All these articles prove you wrong and not only talk about Lord Kelvin but New Scientist says that the number of scirnrists snf engineers who thought that heavier than air flight is impossible is too large to count. They prove @astrobeingewrong who said the only person on the planet who thought was impossible is Kelvin.

 

[MrAnderson]

11 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You are simply making things up.

History show that kites were used thousands of years before 1895.  Gliding was practiced decades before 1895.  The theories of flight had been developes years before 1895.

Kelvin's 1896 statement was response to decline an invitation to an Aeronautical Society.

The 1895 statement is not considered historical at all.  There just as many saying sources across the internet saying it is a misquote.

To use the 18th statement honestly, you need to find the origianal source and the original context.

Did Kelvin ever discuss flight with Cayley?  It's entirely plausible that Kelvin was agreeing with Cayley and saying "Without lightweight engines sustained flight is impossible."

Now Zetorian, I predict that you will confirm you are Zetorian bybreplying in the manner Zetorian gained theyre infamy.  You will, because you are embarrassed again, dismiss logic and reasonable arguments and reply with specious reasoning, an appeal to numbers and beg the question.

You certainly are a catfish that has never had their drivel tested at any level academically.

See new scientist article which also proves you and others wrong for once more. Don't tell me they produce 'garbage' articles.

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. "

 

Unless you have some very good evidence none of the above happened you are just wasting your time and sound very strange with the attempts to give your own version of history.

I have provided so many sources and you are just going about your hypothesis with nothing much other than speculation and what you ve heard online. I suppose your 'sources' and not 'garbage' like the new scientist for example and scienceworld.wolfram (that I have provided).

Edited July 27 by MrAnderson

[Golden Duck]

2 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

@Golden Duck

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

3. Heavier-than-air flight.

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. 

Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple’s Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight? 

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: “It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body"

I am sure the new scientist just as scienceworld.wolfram and Wikipedia are not pushing a conspiracy theory online. All these articles prove you wrong and not only talk about Lord Kelvin but New Scientist says that the number of scirnrists snf engineers who thought that heavier than air flight is impossible is too large to count. They prove @astrobeingewrong who said the only person on the planet who thought was impossible is Kelvin.

 

As predicted you answered in the manner of Zetorian.

The easiest way to prove me wrong is cough up the original source.  Until then the 1895 statement is apocrypha.  We have the full context of the 1896 statment.  It's reasonable that Kelvim had little faith in the development of lightweight engines.

A reasonable person would doubt that Kelvin would make a statement of only one line.  I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, that's a creation from your own motivated reasoning.  I'm conjecturing that an apocryphal statement is given the opportunity to confuse the gullible because of lazy research of a journalist.

If you could produce the original source, you would have.  All you have managed is to produce articles quoting apocrypha.

Also you haven't been able to answer how big an object is that subtends 2 degrees of angle.

Two challenges you cant fulfil.

Now reply again im the manner of Zetorian.  Let us build a database of yoir foolishness.

[MrAnderson]

18 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

As predicted you answered in the manner of Zetorian.

The easiest way to prove me wrong is cough up the original source.  Until then the 1895 statement is apocrypha.  We have the full context of the 1896 statment.  It's reasonable that Kelvim had little faith in the development of lightweight engines.

A reasonable person would doubt that Kelvin would make a statement of only one line.  I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, that's a creation from your own motivated reasoning.  I'm conjecturing that an apocryphal statement is given the opportunity to confuse the gullible because of lazy research of a journalist.

If you could produce the original source, you would have.  All you have managed is to produce articles quoting apocrypha.

Also you haven't been able to answer how big an object is that subtends 2 degrees of angle.

Two challenges you cant fulfil.

Now reply again im the manner of Zetorian.  Let us build a database of yoir foolishness.

Don't call me with other names please. What happened? Are you unable to answer the articles I posted? A reasonable person will admit he is eating insisting that Kelvin didn't say what he is reported to have said by all sources that have been posted.

What apocrypha and nonsense are you talking about? You are trying to deny what had been reported and regarded as a historical event by all sources. You want to see this again?

 

 

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. 

Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple’s Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight? 

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: “It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body"

There is nobody who denies except you. Unless you have some evidence he didn't say what he is regarded to have said then you are in perpetual cycle of denial.

 

Edited July 28 by MrAnderson

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

Don't call me with other names please. What happened? Are you unable to answer the articles I posted? A reasonable person will admit he is eating insisting that Kelvin didn't say what he is reported to have said by all sources that have been posted.

What apocrypha and nonsense are you talking about? You are trying to deny what had been reported and regarded as a historical event by all sources. You want to see this again?

 

 

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. 

Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple’s Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight? 

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: “It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body"

There is nobody who denies except you. Unless you have some evidence he didn't say what he is regarded to have said then you are in perpetual cycle of denial.

 

The fact is you are quoting an apocryphal meme.  None of the articles you have provided, can cite the 1895 statement.  The all fail at  iting their sources.

Post the original source and we can see the context.  Until then all you are doing is presenting a meme, and hoping others are as wilfully gullible as you.

[ChrLzs]

Ooops, realised I was responding to something already dealt with.

Edited July 28 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

Offtopic, unless this thread suddenly changed to the life and times and misattributions of William Thompson..aka Baron / Lord Kelvin.

WTH does an unevidenced, contextless, misquoted historical opinion have on the topic of this thread?

In fact what does any historical opinion have to do with anything?