Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

If this was the 19th century how could flying be discovered if no discussions allowed

  1. May 1, 2005 #1
    breakthroughs will not be made thanks to this phorums since any breaktrough idea is not allowed here thanks to the new guidelines

    and i consider this sad since this is the most visited physics forum in the net
    :yuck:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 1, 2005 #2

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    WOW! I never realised that PF had that much power over scientific research.
    One the reasons this site enjoys the popularity it does is the very guidelines of which you speak.
     
  4. May 1, 2005 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Flying didn't break any known laws of physics in the 19th century. So had PF existed then, it would have been a perfectly reasonable line of discussion - provided, of course, that the discussion remained inside the realm of science.
     
  5. May 1, 2005 #4

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Stop telling us how disgusted you are with the conditions here. If you don't like this site, don't visit. It's as simple as that
     
  6. May 1, 2005 #5
    ..but this is not the 19th century. And breakthroughs that match EXISTING postulates will be welcome. (then again, people who know of such things shouldn't post their theories here, because of possible plagerism).

    :devil:
     
  7. May 1, 2005 #6
    The problem with a flying machine may not be the physics, but the engineering. Let's yield the floor to a prominent 19th century authority on engineering and invention. (Listen up people, this guy has worked miracles, and if anyone can invent a flying machine, he can.):

    "We must abandon both the balloon and the airplane, neither will work. I would construct actual ships of the air - yachts, schooners, and brigantines - which would tack and sail and gybe before the wind. A balloon cannot carry an engine strong enough to drive it against the wind, and neither can an aeroplane."

    Thomas Alva Edison, Interview in New York World, Nov. 1895

    That about clinches it for me. You guys can discuss any non-sail driven flying machine to your heart's content, since the notion doesn't break any known laws of physics, but please do it in the theory development forum.
     
  8. May 1, 2005 #7
    i complain because i miss the old theory development forum

    if this forum was the 16th century then where would fit galileo and giordano bruno?
     
  9. May 1, 2005 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: Hey, better call Greg right away and let him know he should be charging by the page to publish here! We must be rivaling the top journals if this is the place to first publish breakthroughs in the field!

    :approve:
     
  10. May 1, 2005 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I know Galileo, and you're no Galileo.

    Zz.
     
  11. May 1, 2005 #10
    i just have new ideas and i feel bad about their not fitting here since they are totally physics related

    for example if i have an object turning in a 100 m radius orbit at 100 m/s and i make the radius become 0 shouldnt the kinetic energy be kept?

    wouldn this mean that linear speed would be transformed into spin?
     
  12. May 1, 2005 #11
    They would be in a excellent position, as there is no inquisition to scream heresy at them, and are stating relevant scientific theories with a strong mathematical bassis and experimental evidence*

    Unlike you.

    *Although, the tower of pisa story wasn't done by galileo himself, if i recall correctly.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2005
  13. May 1, 2005 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Galileo understood the accepted theories of the time, he even taught them early in his career. He found contradictions between those theories and new observations, but the key is that he fully understood the existing theories first.
     
  14. May 1, 2005 #13
    Not to advocate this guy but you should always remember that within your brain lie the same instincts behind Nazism and the Spanish inquisition. Nobody is exempt from that. We have new theories and we now think we are more enlightened, but so did interrogators in the Spanish inquisition. "Well, this time we're right." That's as may be but never forget that the instinct is the same.

    Again, not to support this guy. But it always helps to see all sides of an issue.
     
  15. May 1, 2005 #14
    Theory Development is gone? In that case, this being the 19th century, and Edison our greatest living authority on The Possible, I don't think there should be any discussion of any flying machines at PF.
     
  16. May 1, 2005 #15

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This has been discussed many times. The old TD forum was a resource sink. Moderators had to spend an inordinately large amount of time attempting to debunk the nonsense posted. While there is some value in that it became clear that many who had limited knowledge of physics were uncertain as to which side of the discussion was correct. It also became clear that most crackpots were not here to learn, but to preach. So no matter what was said they NEVER changed their tune. The mentors were all in agreement that the TD forum was a waste of our time. We have closed it rather then leave it unmoderated.

    As for aviators problem. I do not think that he has yet been able to express the details sufficiently well in English for any of us to be able to understand his problem. From what I can see and understand there is nothing of special interest occurring. It is a straight forward situation which should be covered in a 3rd year physics course. Perhaps Clausius2 would be willing to open a direct channel of communication with him to avoid the necessity of translating to english. (IIRC Aviators navtive language is Spanish)
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2005
  17. May 1, 2005 #16

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This is an internet forum. That's all it is. It is not a social institution. It has no control over what can or cannot be researched in science, nor does it hold any sway over what can be discussed in the public media. This is a privately owned website and the owner has the right to control what ends up on his website. Period.
     
  18. May 1, 2005 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I see this as a two fold problem. First, we have limited means to moderate the discussions here. There is no end to crackpot theories that would flood this forum if left to run wild, so there is no way that all theories or ideas can be addressed in great depth - there just aren't and can never be enough people. Not to mention that the nonsense can test everyone's patience. In spite of my own constant push for fringe subjects, I feel it too. In fact, something else to remember is that people in science have heard many of these ideas, many times before. There are not really that many new ideas running around. So even though the person who conceives of an idea is thinking something completely new for them, a quick dismissal by a scientist could mean that he or she is way, way, way ahead of you. So, due to all of the above, choices had to be made. We want this to be a place for education first. This means that we have a responsibility first to ensure that the discussions conform to the accepted norms and standards of science.

    The other part of the problem is that voiced in this thread: Truly new and inspired ideas can mistakenly be seen as crackpot and worthless. So how do we allow a forum for new ideas? Well, we do. I moderate it. I won't protect anyone from the wrath of reason, but I do allow fringe discussions and theories to be posted; esp where good science and logic is applied. Also, in spite of great consternation at times, Greg and the staff has allowed the S&D forum to continue as I see fit. All things considered, I think PF has gone out of its way to provide the opportunity for fringe discussions and new ideas.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2005
  19. May 1, 2005 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, I can share a great anecdote related to that. Just this week, we had a seminar speaker who started off by telling a story from when he was still a grad student (he's fairly accomplished at this stage, so this happened a while ago). He had been working on his project and observed something he never heard of happening before, and was so excited at his new discovery. He ran off to his mentor telling him about this fantastic finding of his, to which his mentor responded, "Have you read the literature?" He didn't let this thwart him and replied, "No, but I will now since I have to write up the introduction to the paper that I'm going to publish this in." So, he ran off to the library and started his lit search. Much to his surprise, he came across a paper published back near the turn of the century describing this finding. He then explained that not only had it been described so long ago, but the experiment had been done better with just the simple methods available at the time.

    He told this story as a reminder to the students in the audience that lit searches shouldn't stop with the articles indexed in PubMed, and he sees this as a detriment to science that much of the older literature is being forgotten because you actually have to go to libraries and search through dusty old volumes to find it, something students aren't often enough reminded to do.

    Anyway, yes, unless you have pored over the literature extensively, it's easy to think you have something truly new that overlooks something that has been known for a long time by those who have taken the time to study it.

    Certainly from the example presented here, aviator hasn't presented anything new. The best I can understand his example, he's just described something that figure skaters use on a daily basis when they do spins (that may have even been an example used in high school physics to make the concept more "applicable" to the "real world" for us students). It also seems to ignore the energy change to get from the 100 m radius to the 0 m radius as the object spirals inward. It's been a while, but isn't that the sort of stuff you learn in first year physics?
     
  20. May 1, 2005 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Specifically, power to weight ratio. Until the invention of the internal combustion engine, people tried to power planes with steam engines. And in that context, Edison was right (he was, after all, a steam power expert). Regardless....
    ...none of that affects my point in any way. Actually, since its an engineering problem, discussion would belong in the engineering forum, not in the general physics forums. Study of the nuances of the aerodynamics (some of which had been figured out, some of which had not), could go either in the engineering or physics forums.

    Nice to have you back though. :biggrin:
    Well, Galileo would probably go in the general physics forum unless we opened up a "Galilean Physics forum", seeing as how he kinda invented what we now call "classical physics".

    Once again, where you (and zooby) have it wrong is that the newness of the idea isn't what makes something pseudoscience, its the method of investigation. Heck, you would have liked the 1600s (and PF wouldn't have done well) - since science was in its infancy, very few people did any of it. But it was a booming time for all sorts of crackpots - alchemy was big back then. I hear bloodletting was a hot topic... :rolleyes: Ivan put it quite well:
     
  21. May 1, 2005 #20
    This is the eternal struggle of any body of authority: to balance the prevention of chaos against the stifling of innovation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: If this was the 19th century how could flying be discovered if no discussions allowed
  1. How UFOs fly? (Replies: 23)

Loading...