From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:43:50 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Sep29.192106.1429@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>          [Aircraft are impossible]  Simon Newcomb, 1901

	   [Jumbo jets accurately described, then dismissed as
	   impossible or incredibly expensive]
>               "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

The second half of this quote is actually quite reasonable,
provided you bear in mind the phrase "present devices".  Basically he
was saying that we needed a few orders of magnitude improvement.  He
was right.

>               "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

This is based on the fallacy that you need to take all your starting
fuel into orbit with you, and the fallacy was pointed out by rocket
scientists at the time.

>               Fortunately, a few SMART inventors and scientists did 
>          NOT take such authoritative pronouncements to be the final 
>          word.

This was very sensible of them.  Science does not treat its famous
scientists like religion treats its prophets.  Scientific truth is
always open to question.  All we ask is some evidence.  The quotes
above were based either on the then-current technology (Pickering's in
particular) or on a major mis-understanding of physics, and refuting
them would not have required the rewriting of physics as then
understood.  The same does not apply to many of the items below.  Also
note that for many things we admit the possiblity but require some
evidence before admiting the truth of these things.

Also remember that an assertion that "<X> is impossible" can be based
on either physics as currently understood (type 1) or on the level of
current technology (type 2).  The examples above were all type 2
assertions.  Today we understand more about the nature of
technological progress, and are more careful about what we assume.

>               Modern orthodox "scientists" are still saying SIMILAR 
>          things AGAINST [a list of things dealt with individually
>          below].

>	   UFO Spacecraft,

No-one I have heard of asserts that UFOs are impossible (although we
do point out that our current understanding of physics makes
interstellar travel difficult).  However there does not seem to be any
real evidence in favour of UFOs.  UFOlogy seems to generate vast
quantities of low grade evidence which somehow never stands up to
careful examination.  So until a flying saucer comes and lands in Hyde
Park I will remain skeptical about their existance.

>	   Gravity Neutralization,

Again, no-one denies that one day we may understand gravity well
enough to control it as we currently control electromagnetic forces.
But at present we do not understand it that well.  Meanwhile people
keep inventing strange arrangements of gyroscopes that are supposed to
become fractionally lighter when spun up.  We do know how to predict
the results of moving objects in a gravitional field quite well, and
there is no way in which a moving mass can get lighter.  (In fact it
gets fractionally heavier, according to Einstein).  Hence antigravity
refutations are a type 1 impossibility assertion.

Can someone who knows more about these beasties send me some info for
the FAQ?

>          Electromagnetic Propulsion

Nothing odd about that: I rode to the departure gate in a maglev train
when I last flew from Stanstead.  Or is this something wierd I haven't
heard about before?  If so, then I suspect the paragraph above on
gravity could be inserted here as well.

Maybe you mean people who say its uneconomic for large scale use.
That is very different from saying it is impossible.

>	    Free-Energy Technologies,

This is another name for perpetual motion.  Much the same comments
apply as for gravity neutralization, except that the laws of
thermodynamics seem even less amenable to loopholes than the laws of
gravity.  Thus they are a type 1 impossibility assertion.

Incidentally, serious physicists have proposed free energy machines
based on quantum fluctuations in empty space.  The only one I know
about is Stephen Hawking's notion of trapping the Hawking Radiation
from a tame black hole.  These things are beyond our current
technology, but they might become possible one day.

>          Biological Transmutations,

What are these?

>	   Hollow Earth Theory,

Are you serious?  There is a colossal weight of evidence against, and
no evidence for.  End of debate (unless you actually have some real
evidence).

>	   Natural Anti-cancer Remedies,

Again, for any given remedy, scientists do not deny the possibility
that it works, they only ask for evidence.  So far non has been
forthcoming.

>          Cold Fusion,

Ditto.  Note that this WAS taken seriously by many scientists around
the world.

>	   Radionic/Psionic Devices, Astrological Influences,

We need a mechanism by which these might work and some evidence that
they actually do work.  So far these have not been provided.


>               "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME."

Yup.  People have been pedalling these things for centuries, and I
guess they will carry on pedalling them for centuries to come.

>                                     Robert E. McElwaine
>                                     B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

Is that Bull Shit in physics and astronomy?  :-)

Seriously, whatever your academic qualifications you seem unable to
distinguish evidence from moonshine.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic