Scientists and Engineers Who Thought Heavier Than Air Flying Machines Were Impossible

[schlitt]

Do we have man made flight machines today? Yes.

How was this brought about?

Was it brought about by religious belief? – No.
Was it brought about by woo. The continuing belief even in the face of no evidence? – No.
Was it brought about by the skeptical scientific method? – Yes, this was achieved through experimentation and evidence.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that you are making a point against science by pointing out the faulty perceptions of a select few.

As has been pointed out by many others, there is a difference in stating something is ultimately impossible, and stating you feel it is beyond current human capability. Anyone who saw a bird flying knew that flying was possible, whether they had the foresight to predict the means by which mankind could achieve this is another matter.

 

[mhaze]

Do we have man made flight machines today? Yes.

How was this brought about?

Was it brought about by religious belief? – No.
Was it brought about by woo. The continuing belief even in the face of no evidence? – No.
Was it brought about by the skeptical scientific method? – Yes, this was achieved through experimentation and evidence.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that you are making a point against science by pointing out the faulty perceptions of a select few.

As has been pointed out by many others, there is a difference in stating something is ultimately impossible, and stating you feel it is beyond current human capability. Anyone who saw a bird flying knew that flying was possible, whether they had the foresight to predict the means by which mankind could achieve this is another matter.

Worth noting is that Jules Verne predicted helicopters but not aircraft.

 

[Corsair 115]

No evidence of any active propulsion there. A flight of 30 feet or 3x wingspan can't be said to be powered flight when launched with kinetic energy.

One could use a similar argument against the Wright brothers' flight. They did launch their craft into a fairly stiff wind, which is the practical equivalent of giving it a running start.

After all, one of the reasons they chose Kitty Hawk to test their designs was precisely because the place had good winds.

 

[Mojo]

So, that leaves Lord Kelvin's alleged 1895 quote that "heavier than air flying machines are impossible."

He was wrong about radio as well. And the age of the Earth.

 

[Dragoonster]

Now that I've debunked the Lord Kelvin thing, I have to consider someone else?

You haven't debunked anything. Your "debunking" consists of the following:

Lord Kelvin observering that 3/5 components of flight (in his estimation) were acheived. That leaves 2/5 that weren't, which he may have thought were impossible to acheive/were impossible. I could posit that 3/5 components of pis were acheived, does that mean I belive it exists?

And that Lord Kelvin is "smart". Well, Aristotle was "smart", I wonder what his thoughts on ligher-than-air crafts were? Were they valid if he was "smart"? What happens when two competing theories of "smart" people collide?

 

[mhaze]

One could use a similar argument against the Wright brothers' flight. They did launch their craft into a fairly stiff wind, which is the practical equivalent of giving it a running start.

After all, one of the reasons they chose Kitty Hawk to test their designs was precisely because the place had good winds.

Aircraft take off into the wind today too, but notice I did caIl them aircraft?

Thirty feet was just insufficient, as was engine power. IIRC the first flight of the Wright brothers was definitely lame, but it was followed by longer and longer ones in the testing program and a clear pattern of success emerged. Also, the powered flights were the outcome of a long series of manned tests with gliders.

Even today, in testing aircraft, incremental pattern of testing is used. The aircraft may be run down the runway at speeds almost to liftoff, and various things evaluated. Gradually, it is put through more and more of the test process, eventually covering the entire flight envelope.

But to address your question, if all the Wright brothers had to their credit was one 100+ foot powered hop, taking off into a stiff wind, I would not give them credit for "flight".

 

[sol invictus]

You haven't debunked anything. Your "debunking" consists of the following:

Lord Kelvin observering that 3/5 components of flight (in his estimation) were acheived. That leaves 2/5 that weren't, which he may have thought were impossible to acheive/were impossible. I could posit that 3/5 components of pis were acheived, does that mean I belive it exists?

According to that source the other two had already been achieved, as you would know were you capable of basic reading comprehension.

None of that proves that Lord Kelvin didn't say that, or if he did what the context was. People say lots of strange things. But I'm going to trust the account given in a history of aviation written shortly after the fact over some anonymous and illiterate internet troll 113 years later.

That's just me, though.

 

[Rodney]

You are sadly mistaken if you think that you are making a point against science by pointing out the faulty perceptions of a select few.

My quarrel is not with science, but members of the scientific establishment who overestimate what they know.

 

[Jimbo07]

My quarrel is not with science, but members of the scientific establishment who overestimate what they know.

That goes for anybody in any discipline. In relation to their specific disciplines (and cosmology bugs me on this forum), do you have the qualifications to state what they do and do not know?

 

[slyjoe]

My quarrel is not with science, but members of the scientific establishment who overestimate what they know.

Interesting way to phrase it. In my mind this displays a bias.

Why not say "...but members of the scientific establishment who underestimate what may be possible."

And this happens all the time, and why would you have a quarrel with it?

As Sol said, So What?

 

[Mojo]

My quarrel is not with science, but members of the scientific establishment who overestimate what they know.

Interesting way to phrase it. In my mind this displays a bias.

Why not say "...but members of the scientific establishment who underestimate what may be possible."

And this happens all the time, and why would you have a quarrel with it?

Edgar Cayce.

 

[slyjoe]

Edgar Cayce.

Huh?

 

[Mojo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77284

 

[Rodney]

Interesting way to phrase it. In my mind this displays a bias.

Why not say "...but members of the scientific establishment who underestimate what may be possible."

And this happens all the time, and why would you have a quarrel with it?

As Sol said, So What?

What concerns me is the arrogant mindset that has historically led so many members of the scientific establishment to argue that something is impossible because it doesn't fit with the current paradigm.

 

[Jimbo07]

What concerns me is the arrogant mindset that has historically led so many members of the scientific establishment to argue that something is impossible because it doesn't fit with the current paradigm.

i) How do quotes taken out of context demonstrate this?

ii) Why should it concern you, anyway?

ETA: Seriously, if some curmudgeonly professor said something against your thing, especially if you were on the verge of doing it, it might inspire you to say, "Oh yeah? Well, I'll show you!" The trick is in the showing...

 

[Rodney]

That goes for anybody in any discipline. In relation to their specific disciplines (and cosmology bugs me on this forum), do you have the qualifications to state what they do and do not know?

I don't understand your question. If a member of the scientific establishment says that something is impossible or is a waste of time and then it occurs and revolutionizes the world, pretty obviously that person overestimated what (s)he knew.

 

[sackett]

I haven't plowed this thread systematically -- aw hell, I just skimmed -- but has anyone mentioned Hiram Maxim? He flew in 1894. Wiki on his name and you can get to a paragraph on his flying machine experiments. "...3.5 tons, with a 110' wingspan... powered by two compound 360 horsepower steam engines driving two propellers." Those propellers were the largest made until the B-29!

Much more on the Maxim machine exists in the literature, including his own Artificial and Natural Flight. My father owned a first edition copy, and I remember delving into it as a kid.

 

[sol invictus]

I haven't plowed this thread systematically -- aw hell, I just skimmed -- but has anyone mentioned Hiram Maxim? He flew in 1894. Wiki on his name and you can get to a paragraph on his flying machine experiments. "...3.5 tons, with a 110' wingspan... powered by two compound 360 horsepower steam engines driving two propellers." Those propellors were the largest made until the B-29!

Much more on the Maxim machine exists in the literature, including his own Artificial and Natural Flight. My father owned a first edition copy, and I remember delving into it as a kid.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3611249#post3611249

 

[Rodney]

i) How do quotes taken out of context demonstrate this?

I've documented that the quotations from Simon Newcomb, the New York Times, and Scientific American were not taken out of context. Hopefully, we'll resolve the Lord Kelvin quote at some point.

ii) Why should it concern you, anyway?

Because that type of thinking can retard progress.

ETA: Seriously, if some curmudgeonly professor said something against your thing, especially if you were on the verge of doing it, it might inspire you to say, "Oh yeah? Well, I'll show you!" The trick is in the showing...

I agree that, happily, there are generally newcomers that don't accept the conventional wisdom at face value. Still, progress can and has been retarded in many fields due to the arrogance of the scientific establishment.

 

[Jimbo07]

I've documented that the quotations from Simon Newcomb, the New York Times, and Scientific American were not taken out of context. Hopefully, we'll resolve the Lord Kelvin quote at some point.

They were certainly taken out of the context of having a lasting impact on scientific endeavour. I already gave an example of how engineers make comments like this, are not out of context at the time, but certainly don't have a lasting impact... even on their own work!

Because that type of thinking can retard progress.

How so?

Still, progress can and has been retarded in many fields due to the arrogance of the scientific establishment.

Such as?