From: jdporter@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:40:53 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct6.175025.1578@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> 
>           
>           
>                                  UN-wise Quotes
> 
>                The following three quotations of past "scientists" were 
>           supplied to a "Theoretical Mechanics" class at UW-EC: 
>     
Why the quotation marks? They were scientists,

>                "The demonstration that no possible combination of known 
>           substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of 
>           force, can be united in a practical machine by which man 
>           shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer 
>           as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any 
>           physical fact to be."  Simon Newcomb, 1901 
>       
>                "The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying 
>           machines speeding across the Atlantic and carrying 
>           innumerable passengers in a way analogous to our modern 
>           steamships...  It seems safe to say that such ideas must be 
>           wholly visionary, and even if a machine could get across with 
>           one or two passengers the expense would be prohibitive to any 
>           but the capitalist who could own his own yacht. 
>                "Another popular fallacy is to expect enormous speed to 
>           be obtained.  It must be remembered that the resistance of 
>           the air increases as the square of the speed and the work as 
>           the cube... If with 30 h.p. we can now attain a speed of 40 
>           m.p.h., then in order to reach a speed of 100 m.p.h. we must 
>           use a motor capable of 470 h.p.... it is clear that with our 
>           present devices there is no hope of competing for racing 
>           speed with either our locomotives or our automobiles."  
>           William H. Pickering, 1905 
>     
>                "This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example 
>           of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will 
>           carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments.  Let 
>           us critically examine the proposal.  For a projectile 
>           entirely to escape the gravitation of the earth, it needs a 
>           velocity of 7 miles a second.  The thermal energy of a gramme 
>           at this speed is 15,180 calories...  The energy of our most 
>           violent explosive - nitroglycerine - is less than 1,500 
>           calories per gramme.  Consequently, even had the explosive 
>           nothing to carry, it has only one-tenth of the energy 
>           necessary to escape the earth...  Hence the proposition 
>           appears to be basically impossible..."  A.W. Bickerton, 1926 
> 
>
The points have already been made that these were people speaking about the
technology available at their own time.
     
>                Fortunately, a few SMART inventors and scientists did 
>           NOT take such authoritative pronouncements to be the final 
>           word. 

This is frankly tinkering with the truth --- you neglect to emntion that the
events in question generally took place when wholly new technologies had been
developed.  The first aeroplanes could NOT fly very large distances at all, and 
you shoudl replace the word smart.  The innovations in question had nbot been
made at the time that these remarks were uttered.

>     
>     
>                Modern orthodox "scientists" are still saying SIMILAR 
>           things AGAINST UFO Spacecraft, Gravity Neutralization, 
>           Electromagnetic Propulsion, Free-Energy Technologies, 
>           Biological Transmutations, Hollow Earth Theory, Natural Anti-
>           cancer Remedies, Cold Fusion, Radionic/Psionic Devices, 
>           Astrological Influences, etc., ETC.. 
>
The fact that some people have denounced something as being impossible GIVEN
THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT, and have been proven wrong by later
developments which they could not at their time know of is totally irrelevant
to your argument here.  You are saying that because some scientists have been
wrong, then all must be.

Let us be frank, when anybody ever produces any evidence at all for the lunatic
ideas that you espouse then you might get a belief.  If you actually stop
trying to insult all people who insist on evidence before belief, and get
around to presenting some evidence that can be tested THEN you might get some
response.

After all, take the hollow earth rubbish that you mention --- the reason nobody
believes in that (sorry, nobody with anything inside their cranium :-) ) is
that it has been experimentally disproven, i.e. there ARE no holes at the poles
of this planet.  As for the other things, youi provide evidence that is
suceptible only of the explanation that they are true and I'll believe you. 
Until then I suggest that you cease pretending to be a scientist and take to
religion instead (I notice indeed that you are now infesting
talk.religion.newage with your trash) as it is obviously your forte.

     
>                "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME." 
>     
> 
Indeed, as your postings to this news group prove.

> 
>                UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of these 
>           quotes, WITH my comments, is ENCOURAGED. 
> 
>
Frankly I can't think why, unless you think that spreading about your own
unwise comments will persuade us not to believe a word you say (as if we need
persuading anyway) 
 
>                                      Robert E. McElwaine
>                                      B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
> 
>     
Julian Porter
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories