Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: you should read TFA before you post it as support for what you have said.

Again, read TFA before you use it to bolster your bluster
Laughing Yeti — (archived)

No, sorry, you don't get to bluster your way out of this, 'expert'. I repeat, you said:

"Zubrin is just like that astronomer, Simon Newcomb, who proved with mathematics that it was impossible for a heavier then air machine to be built, two weeks after they already did it...."

Simon Newcomb never made such a 'proof', and indeed predicted Flight as an historical inevitability. If you want to actually make your case, post the 'mathematical proof that a heavier then[sic] air is impossible to build'. Since you have no such proof, I assume you are talking out your ass, which is not the typical behavior of someone who is ascribed the mantle of 'Expert'.

If you have a problem with me using the very same piece you used to support yourself to show where you are wrong, then I suggest you pay closer attention to what you post. Its pretty clear that the other source piece from Newcomb you just now posted also does not substantiate your claim, nor does the second hand source.

As for your snide remarks concerning my ability to perform basic research, Newcomb is standard fare in History of Science studies, an area I'm quite acquainted with- though (unlike you) I would not so easily claim to be an 'Expert'. The so-called 'mathematical proof' that is attributed to Newcomb about the 'impossibility of flight' is more the academic equivalent of an urban legend based off of selectively quoting his critiques of specific proposals of heavier-than-air airships (steam engines, steel construction, moving wings, etc).

Was Newcomb wrong in some of his critiques? Absolutely! Most science and scientists are 'wrong' in an historical scale, incomplete, bounded in contemporary context or in some way subject to improvement or revision. Thats why its called science!.

The point that I'm trying to demonstrate to you, which I have no doubt will fall on the ears of your 'expertise', is that history and science is very rarely dominated by these apocryphal tales of black-and-white that you make it out to be.

Let me quote out a specific line from one of the references you yourself have supplied...

"The experience of the past leads us to believe that the progress of the twentieth century will be along lines that no one can anticipate, and will lead to results which, if a prophet could describe, might strike us as more surprising than the airship."

Now, lets contrast that fantastically insightful comment to your 'expert' bluster here. Which has more value and more insight..... Hmmm......

Yeti

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (132 posts)