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

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Oh, I don't know.

You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action.

Would you advise pilots to follow their feelings, or their training?



I doubt if they conflict very often. But, let's suppose the pilot of AA Flight 191 on May 25, 1979 had a feeling that there was something wrong with the number one engine and refused to fly until it was thoroughly inspected. Would not that have been a good thing?

Maybe.

But what if his vague apprehension led him to focus on bad landing gear?

Also.

Suppose it was a passenger. Then what?

 

[bruto]

The problem with your analogy, in my opinion, is that the paranormal does not operate in the same manner as other scientific phenomena. Specifically, while I think the paranormal has been amply demonstrated at well above chance levels, results are frequently not positive. On the other hand, once the Wright Brothers made their breakthrough on December 17, 1903, heavier than air flight flight progressed rapidly, with few negative results. However, I do think the time will come when the paranormal will be demonstrated conclusively and the argument will also be over with respect to it.

I get what you're saying, but I still think the two things are fundamentally different, and your own qualification that the paranormal is different from "other" scientific phenomena strikes me as more to my point than yours. The skepticism over flight was not, in any appreciable degree, about whether or not flight had occurred. It was over whether it might occur in the future. To cite the skeptics' error on that prediction is essentially irrelevant to skepticism regarding the evidence of something that is said to be occurring already.

You say that "the paranormal does not operate in the same way as other scientific phenomena." I think the word "other" is out of place there, and that because of this, analogies with the way science has been done, well or badly, in the past, will always come up short.

 

[bruto]

I doubt if they conflict very often. But, let's suppose the pilot of AA Flight 191 on May 25, 1979 had a feeling that there was something wrong with the number one engine and refused to fly until it was thoroughly inspected. Would not that have been a good thing?

But did he? We can suppose anything that isn't actually the case, and say it would be good if it were. I suppose if the pilot had had x-ray vision he could have inspected the engine himself, but he didn't. If the pilot went with his feelings, it would appear he felt as if he ought go ahead and fly the plane, and we know what those feelings were worth, right? If he'd had a different feeling, and if the feeling had panned out, he'd be a hero, but we'd still never know if it was anything more than a lucky hunch. If such feelings didn't pan out any better than chance, then we'd be right back where we started, with an assumption that every engine should be checked before flight just in case, and no particular reason to heed the pilot's vague apprehensions.

 

[Dragoonster]

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.

Yeah, I screwed up.

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.

I'd rather be known as an anonymous and illiterate troll than an anonymous and needlessly beliggerant troll, at least when it comes to first impressions. That's just me, though.

 

[sol invictus]

I'd rather be known as an anonymous and illiterate troll than an anonymous and needlessly beliggerant troll, at least when it comes to first impressions. That's just me, though.

That's unfortunate for you, since you'll now be known as an anonymous, illiterate, AND needlessly belligerent internet troll.

JREF is not a polite forum. It reflects the personality of its namesake rather accurately (in my opinion), and I see nothing wrong with that. The goal is to educate through the debunking of nonsense, and debunking nonsense politely isn't particularly effective.

 

[Rodney]

That information is unreferenced.

Can you give the source for the documentation of Booth's dreams prior to the crash?

Linda

I actually wrote the FAA about this last year, but they said that any records would have been routinely destroyed long ago. However, it's interesting to note that, as of March 2007, both Booth's and Wagner's premonitions were recounted in the Wikipedia article regarding AA Flight 191. See -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2404040&postcount=111 -- I wonder why that material was deleted?

Also, Booth's premonitory dreams were recounted in detail in both Playboy and the Chicago Tribune. The March 1980 Playboy account states that, on the Tuesday prior to the American Airlines crash (Tuesday was May 22, 1979 and the crash occurred on Friday, the 25th), David Booth "called the local office of American Airlines to tell them about his dreams, but no one was available to listen. Then he called the FAA at the Greater Cincinnati Airport and managed to get through to Ray Pinkerton, the assistant manager for airway facilities. Pinkerton listened and took notes that would later verify Booth's account of the dreams . . . [Pinkerton] and his assistant, supervisory electronics technician Paul Williams . . . called the regional FAA office in Atlanta that afternoon and reported all the details of the dream to Jack Barker, public-affairs officer."

 

[Rodney]

I guess conversation has moved on to Jefferson and other things, but Kelvin did say this, in a letter to the Aeronautical Society:

Source

This was before the Wright Brothers did their thing.

Thanks very much. The fact that Kelvin is now documented as having written in December 1896 that he did not have "the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation" certainly lends credence to the idea that, a year earlier, he might well have stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

 

[Rodney]

Suppose it was a passenger. Then what?

Apparently, in the case of Lindsay Wagner, the "what" was that she did not take the doomed flight.

 

[fls]

I actually wrote the FAA about this last year, but they said that any records would have been routinely destroyed long ago. However, it's interesting to note that, as of March 2007, both Booth's and Wagner's premonitions were recounted in the Wikipedia article regarding AA Flight 191. See -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2404040&postcount=111 -- I wonder why that material was deleted?

I just looked at the discussion section. It looks like some people deleted those bits of information because they weren't supported by a reliable source.

It is frustrating that these things lack documentation.

Also, Booth's premonitory dreams were recounted in detail in both Playboy and the Chicago Tribune. The March 1980 Playboy account states that, on the Tuesday prior to the American Airlines crash (Tuesday was May 22, 1979 and the crash occurred on Friday, the 25th), David Booth "called the local office of American Airlines to tell them about his dreams, but no one was available to listen. Then he called the FAA at the Greater Cincinnati Airport and managed to get through to Ray Pinkerton, the assistant manager for airway facilities. Pinkerton listened and took notes that would later verify Booth's account of the dreams . . . [Pinkerton] and his assistant, supervisory electronics technician Paul Williams . . . called the regional FAA office in Atlanta that afternoon and reported all the details of the dream to Jack Barker, public-affairs officer."

This is apparently what Jack Barker said in the Extras feature for the Premonitions film:

it hit me as to how accurate he [i.e. Booth] was; what he dreamed was in fact basically what happened... In the 30 years I was with FAA that was the only time anybody ever called in with any kind of a dream like that, that I'm aware of

It seems more likely that any available documents would have been kept if it was recognized at the time as an usual event (although it is likely that he is including subsequent years with the FAA in that total).

Linda

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks very much. The fact that Kelvin is now documented as having written in December 1896 that he did not have "the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation" certainly lends credence to the idea that, a year earlier, he might well have stated that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

Nonsense. We know (at least based on the source I quoted before) that he was well aware of the existence of flying machines before 1895. As I said before, I suspect he simply didn't believe that steam-powered aircraft were practical.... and he was quite correct.

This whole discussion serves to illustrate quite nicely the weakness of your case.

 

[Correa Neto]

How many "bad feelings", premonitory dreams, etc. about a crash failed to become real?

How many people felt uneasy before a flight or a trip by car/bus/ship/train/[add locomotion method here]? How many of these people boarded? How many quit? How many of these trips ended up safely? How many ended up in a crash?

If I dream about a crash now, and one happens 10 years later, is that a match?

Sorry, but the whole flight 191 thing smells like confirmation bias coupled with sensationalism.

 

[Rodney]

I just looked at the discussion section. It looks like some people deleted those bits of information because they weren't supported by a reliable source.

Depends what you mean by a reliable source. Don't you think Jack Barker is a reliable source to confirm David Booth's dreams? As far as the Lindsay Wagner premonition goes, that warrants further investigation.

It is frustrating that these things lack documentation.

This is apparently what Jack Barker said in the Extras feature for the Premonitions film:

Supportive of Booth, no?

It seems more likely that any available documents would have been kept if it was recognized at the time as an usual event (although it is likely that he is including subsequent years with the FAA in that total).

Linda

I don't think it follows that the FAA would have preserved documents that they were not legally required to preserve. Both Garrette and I have run into this problem in trying to obtain information via FOIA requests.

 

[Rodney]

Nonsense. We know (at least based on the source I quoted before) that he was well aware of the existence of flying machines before 1895. As I said before, I suspect he simply didn't believe that steam-powered aircraft were practical.... and he was quite correct.

So why did Lord Kelvin state in 1896 that he did not have "the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation"?

This whole discussion serves to illustrate quite nicely the weakness of your case.

???

 

[Rodney]

How many "bad feelings", premonitory dreams, etc. about a crash failed to become real?

How many people felt uneasy before a flight or a trip by car/bus/ship/train/[add locomotion method here]? How many of these people boarded? How many quit? How many of these trips ended up safely? How many ended up in a crash?

Do you have any statistics?

If I dream about a crash now, and one happens 10 years later, is that a match?

Depends on the specifics of your dream -- David Booth's dreams were remarkably specific.

Sorry, but the whole flight 191 thing smells like confirmation bias coupled with sensationalism.

It smells pretty accurate to me.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Lord Kelvin was a smart guy, so this quote is certainly taken out of context. At the time he said it there were already man-made gliders, and the existence of flying animals makes it obvious that heavier-than-air flight is possible.

I would guess he was referring to the possibility of steam-powered flight (and if so he was correct). He probably did an estimate of how heavy the engine, fuel, and water would need to be and concluded it wasn't possible. To be sure, we would need to know what came before and after that that phrase, but I'd actually be willing to bet on it.

Kelvin was also pretty sure that X-rays would prove to be a hoax as well. He was indeed a smart guy but even smart people are often wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

So why did Lord Kelvin state in 1896 that he did not have "the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation"?

Presumably because steam-powered flight was impractical. We know he knew it was possible (unless he was senile), but he also thought it wasn't going anywhere (and he was right).

???

You're trying to convince us that scientists have been wrong, or are sometimes overconfident, or... something. Actually it's totally unclear what your point is. What is clear is that, if the best you have are some out of context and quite possible completely correct quotes from more than a century ago said by an old man in his 70s... well, you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone.

 

[Correa Neto]

Do you have any statistics?

Of course not. And how about you? You have them? You have anything solid along this line that may indicate that its valid to spend time and money following such line of research?

Anything other than vague claims and cherry-picked bits of data?

Depends on the specifics of your dream -- David Booth's dreams were remarkably specific.

Define "remakably specific".

Now, consider how many dreams, feelings etc. people have before travelling. Add this to the fact that many people have some fear of flying and confirmation bias, among otehr issues.

Do you really think its is unlikely, implausibe that eventually someone will score a hit?

It smells pretty accurate to me.

Well, it does not to me.

I suggest this discussion to be moved to the proper place, aniway.

 

[mhaze]

....consider how many dreams, feelings etc. people have before travelling. Add this to the fact that many people have some fear of flying and confirmation bias, among otehr issues.

Do you really think its is unlikely, implausibe that eventually someone will score a hit?.

What's interesting, though is that manned flight exists precisely because people did not pay attention to those fears. Further, manned airflight and spaceflight exists because rigorous training in logically thinking out what is correct, including cause and effect - and not going with one's feelings - has created these incredible machines.

Finally, if we listened to everyone's baskets of feelings, all transportation would grind to a halt, because someone, somewhere, would have bad feelings in their little baskets of feelings.

 

[fls]

Depends what you mean by a reliable source. Don't you think Jack Barker is a reliable source to confirm David Booth's dreams?

No, I don't think Jack Barker is a reliable source to confirm the dreams. I think that if he took notes at the time of his conversation with David Booth, or at least took notes before the airplane crash, that those notes could be used as a reliable source. Once the crash has happened, we already know that memory is not reliable as it starts to conflate events.

Supportive of Booth, no?

It only supports what the story has become, it doesn't support what happened to start the story.

I don't think it follows that the FAA would have preserved documents that they were not legally required to preserve. Both Garrette and I have run into this problem in trying to obtain information via FOIA requests.

I would hope that Jack Barker or the other people from the FAA that were mentioned would have kept them. Or that the newspapers would have published the notes. Are there newspaper accounts from before the airplane crash or that published documentation from before the crash? Didn't the Playboy article refer to notes taken by someone in the FAA? What did those notes say?

Linda

 

[robinson]

There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students.

The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated, incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path" theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory. The theory states that airfoils are shaped with the upper surface longer than the bottom. The air molecules (the little colored balls on the figure) have farther to travel over the top of the airfoil than along the bottom. In order to meet up at the trailing edge, the molecules going over the top of the wing must travel faster than the molecules moving under the wing. Because the upper flow is faster, then, from Bernoulli's equation, the pressure is lower. The difference in pressure across the airfoil produces the lift.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

Many people still believe the old, incorrect theories about how a wing produces lift. Even some participating in this topic.