3 ms·

Just because they thought it was impossible doesn't mean they actually well reasoned their way using the known physics of the day. All you have are quotes from

by kiba 2y ago

Just because they thought it was impossible doesn't mean they actually well reasoned their way using the known physics of the day. All you have are quotes from people who say it's impossible or that they think the problem is too intractable that it won't be done, not actual papers on why they think it's impossible. The Wright Brothers succeeded, but they also rely on the works of people before them, and observing nature. They were not even the first to achieve powered flight nor the first to study rigorously how the physics of flight works.

somenameforme 2y ago
Yes, they did. For instance here is the source of the first quote from Joseph Le Conte - a paper from 1888 in Popular Science with him elaborating on why a flying machine would be physically impossible. [1] And indeed his article is in response to another trying to argue for the viability of flying machines, failing, but then holding out some "hopium" (to use the term preferred by our antagonistic poster earlier on in this thread) by appealing to the birds, which Le Conte set out to snuff. The other quotes are likely to have similarly rich results. It was a widely discussed, debated, and trialed topic. Everybody wanted flying machines, but centuries of practice, science, research, experience, and evidence had demonstrated they were plainly impossible. Until a couple of bicycle mechanics, of no formal education of note, demonstrated otherwise. [1] - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_34/November_1888/The_Problem_of_a_Flying-Machine https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volum...
- kiba 2y ago
  Fine. But they are still mistaken in their understanding of physics. Ultimately, physics is what determined what is not possible and possible. Also, your source provide a figure of 300-400 pounds to be the limit. So clearly, he didn't actually say it's impossible if someone somehow manages to get under the weight limit. The Wright Flyer actually weigh more than that, around 600 to 750 pounds depending on if you include a person, which is in the right order of magnitude. Nonetheless, the author contradict himself by saying it's impossible.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    A few points here, which I'm just going to put into bullet points rather than stringing together because they're all mostly completely detached. - You are misunderstanding their argument. They put 300-400 pounds at the bare minimum for a human flying machine + human, whereas were arguing that they max weight for flight would likely be in the ~50 pound ballpark. - Can you point to any significant misunderstandings of physics they had? I have quickly skimmed the article multiple time sand have not noticed any. - Physics does not say what is or is not possible in the world, the characteristics of the world do. Atmospheric pressure, material science, and other factors all have to work together favorably to enable flight. The exact same with spaceflight. If our world was just 50% larger at the same density/composition, it would be impossible for current spaceflight technology to work owing to the tyranny of the rocket equation. - The most fundamental point here is probably that science is not the alpha and omega. It's our best guess approximation of how the world works, but science always obeys the world - and not vice versa (though good science does make surprising predictions as a means of demonstrating it's a good approximation). So for instance relativity and quantum mechanics are still extremely accurate given all we know, yet simply do not play well together at all - meaning something is definitely wrong. It's akin to how Newtonian physics works 100% well for nearly everything, yet somehow could not explain the orbit of Mercury. For many decades people thought there was another invisible planet somewhere - heh, dark matter so to speak. Of course it turns out that that "somehow" is because Mercury was close enough to the Sun for observable relativistic factors to start kicking into play and break Newtonian mechanics. As one observes more of the world, and it's seemingly endless oddities, the science changes to keep up.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > But they are still mistaken in their understanding of physics. So are we. We have significant gaps, and we almost certainly hold some incorrect items as factual at the present time. It's why theoretical physicists still have jobs, and likely will for quite some time.

by kiba 2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

Yes, they did. For instance here is the source of the first quote from Joseph Le Conte - a paper from 1888 in Popular Science with him elaborating on why a flying machine would be physically impossible. [1] And indeed his article is in response to another trying to argue for the viability of flying machines, failing, but then holding out some "hopium" (to use the term preferred by our antagonistic poster earlier on in this thread) by appealing to the birds, which Le Conte set out to snuff. The other quotes are likely to have similarly rich results. It was a widely discussed, debated, and trialed topic. Everybody wanted flying machines, but centuries of practice, science, research, experience, and evidence had demonstrated they were plainly impossible. Until a couple of bicycle mechanics, of no formal education of note, demonstrated otherwise. [1] - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_34/November_1888/The_Problem_of_a_Flying-Machine https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volum...

kiba 2y ago
Fine. But they are still mistaken in their understanding of physics. Ultimately, physics is what determined what is not possible and possible. Also, your source provide a figure of 300-400 pounds to be the limit. So clearly, he didn't actually say it's impossible if someone somehow manages to get under the weight limit. The Wright Flyer actually weigh more than that, around 600 to 750 pounds depending on if you include a person, which is in the right order of magnitude. Nonetheless, the author contradict himself by saying it's impossible.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  A few points here, which I'm just going to put into bullet points rather than stringing together because they're all mostly completely detached. - You are misunderstanding their argument. They put 300-400 pounds at the bare minimum for a human flying machine + human, whereas were arguing that they max weight for flight would likely be in the ~50 pound ballpark. - Can you point to any significant misunderstandings of physics they had? I have quickly skimmed the article multiple time sand have not noticed any. - Physics does not say what is or is not possible in the world, the characteristics of the world do. Atmospheric pressure, material science, and other factors all have to work together favorably to enable flight. The exact same with spaceflight. If our world was just 50% larger at the same density/composition, it would be impossible for current spaceflight technology to work owing to the tyranny of the rocket equation. - The most fundamental point here is probably that science is not the alpha and omega. It's our best guess approximation of how the world works, but science always obeys the world - and not vice versa (though good science does make surprising predictions as a means of demonstrating it's a good approximation). So for instance relativity and quantum mechanics are still extremely accurate given all we know, yet simply do not play well together at all - meaning something is definitely wrong. It's akin to how Newtonian physics works 100% well for nearly everything, yet somehow could not explain the orbit of Mercury. For many decades people thought there was another invisible planet somewhere - heh, dark matter so to speak. Of course it turns out that that "somehow" is because Mercury was close enough to the Sun for observable relativistic factors to start kicking into play and break Newtonian mechanics. As one observes more of the world, and it's seemingly endless oddities, the science changes to keep up.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > But they are still mistaken in their understanding of physics. So are we. We have significant gaps, and we almost certainly hold some incorrect items as factual at the present time. It's why theoretical physicists still have jobs, and likely will for quite some time.