Not Vape Related Such a huge fan of this man, just had to share

Skill and practice do not guarantee final results as can be demonstrated by every competition ever held. Now, in a completely controlled lab environment where every variable was accounted for, we should be able to expect the exact same results every time. But that is a completely different story when you have to deal with changing variables such a wind and how you are feeling that particular day. Surely as an experienced archer/shooter you know that different pull strengths and angles may be required in high winds, directional wind, or no wind at all. Your experience and skill may give you a higher chance of hitting your target, but can you guarantee that it will hit that exact same place 10/10 times? 100/100 times? 1000/1000 times? I would be willing to put significant amounts of money against it. Just let me know when I should arrive for my appointment at the range.

The great news is that science doesn't require skill, practice and experience. It accounts for how each variable should be set. It is designed so that you follow the directions and you get the expected results every time. Every single time. Having even one missed expectation completely throws the theory out of the window.

I'll list the questions that I'm quite interested in a response to in order to make it easier:

Should we say that Leonardo da Vinci invented the airplane because of some sketches he drew or should we give the credit to the Wright brothers who actually built something that could fly?
If I claim to invent a time machine but I tell everyone I don't want to share it with the world because of the catastrophic possibilities of such a machine and don't provide any evidence that I have, would you take me at my word?
Is that substantial enough to automatically qualify and give me credit as the inventor?
When you buy VG to make juice, do you automatically trust that every supplier is USP grade or do you ask for their documentation?
What is different between the two?
Isn't the burden of proof on the claimant?
Why is Tesla getting a free pass to be released from the same burden of proof standards that we expect from everyone else?

The parallels that I am drawing were not about religion, but about the defense of two concepts which rely on being able to prove a negative. I can't prove god doesn't exist much like I can't prove Tesla didn't invent the various things he says. I have no physical evidence to show that god doesn't exist and likewise I have no physical evidence to show that Tesla didn't do some of the extraordinary things he says he did.

 

Your experience and skill may give you a higher chance of hitting your target, but can you guarantee that it will hit that exact same place 10/10 times? 100/100 times? 1000/1000 times? I would be willing to put significant amounts of money against it. Just let me know when I should arrive for my appointment at the range.

Can I hit the exact same exact spot every-time? No. Can I put 10 rounds inside the bulls-eye at 100 meters on a standard 100 meter target. Yes. Name the amount. Can I put 100 inside the bulls-eye. I would bet money that I could (not as much as 10 though). 1000, not willing to bet on that one, only because of fatigue.

Before I answer your questions specifically, I would like to note that not all of them are 100% relevant to the conversation about Tesla and some are just rigged for the answer you are looking for.

Should we say that Leonardo da Vinci invented the airplane because of some sketches he drew or should we give the credit to the Wright brothers who actually built something that could fly?
No, da Vinci should not get credit for inventing the airplane, but by your reasoning with Galileo Ferraris the Wright Brothers borrowed information from da Vinci and he should be credited as well.

If I claim to invent a time machine but I tell everyone I don't want to share it with the world because of the catastrophic possibilities of such a machine and don't provide any evidence that I have, would you take me at my word?
Have you shown any aptitude in science at all? Have you made previous ground breaking discoveries or inventions? Have you accomplished things that no one else has been able to? Are you highly regarded among the scientific community? I'm assuming the answers to all these questions are no. So I would have to say that no I would not take your word for it.

Is that substantial enough to automatically qualify and give me credit as the inventor?
No. Loaded question.

When you buy VG to make juice, do you automatically trust that every supplier is USP grade or do you ask for their documentation?
Buy from a reliable known source that has the proper documentation. Again, a loaded question.

What is different between the two?
Nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. Another loaded question.

Isn't the burden of proof on the claimant?
It depends on what standard you want the burden of proof to be. It's a lot easier to prove things now. What would meet the standard of proof you are looking for? Eyewitness accounts don't work for you. The only proof you are willing to accept is a working model. Just because there isn't a working model now doesn't mean there never was one. All we have from some ancient devices and history are eye witness accounts. They are generally accepted by most in the scientific community. Greek Fire has not been disputed to exist but we still don't know how to make it. Roman Concrete is still holding strong after 2,000 years and we don't know how it was made. Modern concrete starts deteriorating after 60 years.

Why is Tesla getting a free pass to be released from the same burden of proof standards that we expect from everyone else?
Tesla isn't getting a free pass. You don't have to believe anything. You can choose to ignore that he ever existed. It makes no difference to you or anyone else. All you have done is criticize the man and say that he stole every idea he ever had. I don't understand why it is such a big deal to you. If that's the way you feel, that's fine. Other's are free to believe what they want. I for one am tired of this. All you are doing at this point is creating drama that doesn't need to exist. You have already made up your mind on the subject but for some reason you feel the need to keep dragging the issue out.

 

I'm simply presenting the other side of the story. Asking critical questions and providing information that gives people the full perspective on a topic is not creating drama. To be fair, we are talking about a man who died more than 70 years ago.

I'm afraid I may have upset you on a personal level, so I'll close it here. Sometimes I can get a bit too engaged in a good discussion. Please accept my apologies for any rudeness on my end.

So how about beer?

 

I'm not upset on a personal level. I just didn't feel like it was a discussion. A discussion involves more that just both sides reiterating their side of an issue, which is what we were doing. We obviously disagree and neither of us were making any statements that were persuasive enough to the other party. When you get to this point there really is no need to continue. Like I said it's not a personal thing but continually attacking the man that I admire on the post that I created was frustrating. I also did not care for statement you made about shooting being "chance". I didn't spend all of the years I dedicated to the sport to leave it to chance. I also did not spend my time in the military playing ping pong. So in the end, am I upset with you? Of course not. Am I a little frustrated? Yeah, but that' life. It's not something I'm going to hold against you or change my opinion of you. You are a great guy and have done great things to help out the vaping community here (especially the DIY group) and for that I applaud you. There are absolutely no hard feelings, we just know there are two things not to discuss when we meet up one day.

 

NO.... cause they where not the first one .. FACT is
Gustave Whitehead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... Gustav Weisskopf was
unfortunatley WikiLies contributes to lots of Lies and Propaganda ... so saying Wikipedia is a credible Source is all wrong in the first place.
(i only know that by accident cause my best friends comes from Leutershausen the same town Gustav Weisskopf Originates from)

**Updated**

Your BS meter goes now +1

**Updated**

A bit Troll (ish)?
Nevermidn i would agree on closing the topic

 

@oil, I was ready to wrap this up, so not sure why you decided to chime in now. However, since it is clear you didn't follow the discussion and just felt like adding in your two cents, let me help draw some distinctions for you.

1. I was not defending the view that Wright brothers were first in flight. I was creating a comparison about someone who had an idea, and someone who materialized that idea. It doesn't really matter if that was the Wright brothers or Gustave. Microwaves or airplanes. This whole discussion had nothing to do with the Wright brothers or Gustave, or who was first in flight, or who had the first machine. Could have been any other invention that someone first had an idea of but someone else materialized it.

2. I'm personally delighted to learn something new and have no particular fondness for retaining bit of old history that is wrong. However, did you actually read your own sources? I did. Even Wikipedia claims that article to be controversial. Did you take someone at their word or just stop at Wikipedia in your research about this "fact?" Scientific American is the one who first published anything about Gustave and flying. So, here is quote from them in 2014, that their original article was taken out of context:

"A sentence fragment from a 1903 article has been used to claim that Whitehead flew a powered airplane: “the aeroplane was made to skim along above the ground.”

But a wider look at the context makes it clear that when Whitehead was “flying” gliders or powered airplanes, the machine was pulled aloft and steered by a man running along the ground and pulling a rope, which is different from successfully flying an airplane. Additionally, some confusion may stem from the word “aeroplane,” which in 1903 could mean an airplane, a glider, a working model airplane, or even just the wings on any of those.

Experiments with Motor-Driven Aeroplanes

[Paragraph 3 talks about Whitehead’s method]
The method of soaring used by Mr. Whitehead consists in running with the aeroplane against the wind, preceded by an assistant who draws it with a rope when it leaves the ground. When sufficient speed is attained, the operator, by tilting the aeroplanes slightly upward, can leave the ground and skim along in the air, as shown in one of the photographs."

The full article may be found here: Scientific American Debunks Claim Gustave Whitehead Was "First in Flight" - Scientific American

So, for the record, you might want to reset my BS meter and check yours.