No Discussions Allowed: 19th Century Flying Discovery

  • Thread starter aviator
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Flying
In summary, the new guidelines for posting on the Physics Forum prevent any breakthrough ideas from being discussed, which is disappointing because this is the most visited physics forum on the internet.
  • #1
aviator
60
0
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
aviator said:
breakthroughs will not be made thanks to this phorums since any breaktrough idea is not allowed here thanks to the new guidelines
WOW! I never realized that PF had that much power over scientific research.
and i consider this sad since this is the most visited physics forum in the net

One the reasons this site enjoys the popularity it does is the very guidelines of which you speak.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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
 
  • #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:
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
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.
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.
 
  • #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?
 
  • #8
Janus said:
WOW! I never realized that PF had that much power over scientific research.

:smile: 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!

One the reasons this site enjoys the popularity it does is the very guidelines of which you speak.

:approve:
 
  • #9
aviator said:
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?

I know Galileo, and you're no Galileo.

Zz.
 
  • #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 shouldn't the kinetic energy be kept?

wouldn this mean that linear speed would be transformed into spin?
 
  • #11
aviator said:
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?

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:
  • #12
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #14
aviator said:
i complain because i miss the old theory development forum
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.
 
  • #15
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:
  • #16
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.
 
  • #17
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:
  • #18
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

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?
 
  • #19
zoobyshoe said:
The problem with a flying machine may not be the physics, but the engineering.
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...
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.
...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:
aviator said:
if this forum was the 16th century then where would fit galileo and giordano bruno?
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:
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.[emphasis added]
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
This is the eternal struggle of anybody of authority: to balance the prevention of chaos against the stifling of innovation.
 
  • #21
Moonbear said:
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.
That's something that irked me when I was writing—there's no such thing as a new idea. 'Forbidden Planet' is 'The Tempest', 'West Side Story' is 'Romeo and Juliet', and both of those 'originals' are probably reruns of something even older. Science at least has the advantage that whatever we come up with in our imaginations is testable. It weeds out the useless ideas and encourages pursuit of the good ones. (This is a point of particular appreciation on my part; I have a hell of a lot of ideas, but no education. This is a tremendous resource, not only for the knowledge imparted, but mainly for the professional yet approachable way in which the experts present it. I mean, really, how often can you be razzing a biology professor about her bra one minute, and the next get into a discussion about selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors?)
 
  • #22
Danger said:
Science at least has the advantage that whatever we come up with in our imaginations is testable.
To me, one of the coolest things about science is scientists' ability to surprise even themselves. Much of QM, for example was actually once thought to never be testable. Much of the early controversy was because of that pessimism. And yet, new aspects of QM are becoming testable as technology progresses. Its exciting.

One of the problems we see with crackpots is that they allow their excitement to get the better of them.
 
  • #23
zoobyshoe said:
This is the eternal struggle of anybody of authority: to balance the prevention of chaos against the stifling of innovation.
You are assuming that there is something innovative being presented which we are stifling. Our assumption is that there is nothing innovative being presented, therefore we stifle nothing.

We may be wrong, perhaps next week someone will unveil a TOE at sciforums... don't hold your breath.
 
  • #24
Integral said:
(IIRC Aviators navtive language is Spanish)
Spanish? I thought in his locked thread he said he was Afghani... Either way, it's pretty obvious that we need a translator.
 
  • #25
Did this aviator guy have a different name? He complains that his arguments were "censored" and continues to whine about it yet i haven't found a post with him having any actual questions except 1 where he shows he understands very little about physics in the first place.
 
  • #26
Integral said:
You are assuming that there is something innovative being presented which we are stifling. Our assumption is that there is nothing innovative being presented, therefore we stifle nothing.
And here's a real kick in the teeth: even there is a chance that the idea could turn out to be right, we'd still "censor" it if it isn't presented scientifically. Is there a risk of missing a true gem? Sure, but history has shown that virtually nothing of value ever comes from unscientific investigation. So (imo) its worth the risk.

On the bright side, I think we're pretty good at smelling the difference between a good idea presented badly and a bad idea presented badly. In the former case, we can help.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
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.
No, I wasn't asserting that new ideas are always declared pseudoscience. My main point was to contradict the notion that PF mentors are always perfectly objective, and would be equally so transplanted back in time to discuss flying machines, or anything. However, you have undercut my tactic of making the then authority figure look silly by accurately pointing out that he probably had a perfectly sound reason for discounting the airplane. His flying ships are still silly, though. Right?
 
  • #28
zoobyshoe said:
His flying ships are still silly, though. Right?
I'm not so sure about that. A lighter-than-air vehicle can be navigated that way, without need of engines. It involves a lot of air current chasing, but it's feasible. As for his specification of particular types of ships, I assume that once they started serious design work they would fall by the wayside.
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
And here's a real kick in the teeth: even there is a chance that the idea could turn out to be right, we'd still "censor" it if it isn't presented scientifically. Is there a risk of missing a true gem? Sure, but history has shown that virtually nothing of value ever comes from unscientific investigation. So (imo) its worth the risk.

Actually, it goes even a step further than that. As much as we all love PF, and as much as we have great members here, this is hardly the place to publish a great scientific breakthrough. It would be pretty arrogant of us to presume that if we overlooked a "true gem," that this would have any impact at all on the field of physics. It's just not what this site is here to do, nor should it. Leave those discussions for scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals. In a way, it would actually be a disservice to the scientific community to allow someone to introduce a valid breakthrough here; if someone were that far beyond all of us in their thinking to have a theory that we'd all reject for lack of understanding on our parts, what function would it serve to publish it here where the "peanut gallery" would rip it apart rather than publish it in an appropriate journal where it would get the attention it deserves?
 
  • #30
zoobyshoe said:
His flying ships are still silly, though. Right?
Not at all - today we call them "gliders" and "parachutes". Well - I know a lot of people think its silly (nuts, even) to jump out of a perfectly good plane or to fly one without an engine, but I enjoy it immensely (though I've only actually done each once). But then, a lot of people consider sailboats themselves to be pointless today - but I enjoy sailing immensely as well.
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
Not at all - today we call them "gliders" and "parachutes".
Come on. Now you're giving him too much credit.

"I would construct actual ships of the air - yachts, schooners, and brigantines - which would tack and sail and gybe before the wind."

He's not talking about the gliders people fly for amusement, but vessels for passengers and cargo moved and maneuvered by wind propulsion. I think it would have turned out like his precast cement homes: just barely viable, and several times more cumbersome than existing methods.
 
  • #32
russ_watters said:
On the bright side, I think we're pretty good at smelling the difference between a good idea presented badly and a bad idea presented badly.
Hmm. I think everyone has blind spots that sometimes prevent recognition of good ideas. When Feynman first explained QED to Niels Bohr and company they did not see one glimmer of good in it, and Bohr responded by giving Feynman a humiliating lecture on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which QED seems to ignore. Einstein, in the same vein, was very upset by most of the propositions of quantum physics. A person can be very bright, educated, and open minded and still fall prey to a blind spot they aren't aware of.
 
  • #33
...Russ...:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #34
investigating about my engine i found about David E. Cowlishaw who has an engine identical in concept to mine but with diferent construction, i believe mine to be able of much more revolutions though, this amazed me quite much

so mine is not new in fact the use of spirals to achieve antigravity started with schauberger who was born in the 1800s

seems there are many interested people in keeping this antigravity secret because according urban legends may lead to free energy

and i just wanted to point out that the way the forum is now won't lead to 0 point energy
 
  • #35
David E. Cowlishaw
http://www.open.org/~davidc/

Funny, he's not too far from here. Well aviator, if anyone discovers a way to tap zero-point energy or to produce anti-gravity, we won't need to read about it at flakey internet sites.
 

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
922
Replies
7
Views
717
Replies
5
Views
600
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
711
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
692
Replies
9
Views
610
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
141
Back
Top