We will NEVER see this - A Short Rant on Petroleum

BTW, an example of a machine that rises to the level of "almost perpetual" in my eyes is a wind-powered motor. We have windmills that generate electricity. That electricity can be used to power things. Wind is almost unlimited in quantity. We should never run out of wind.

So....lets look at wind. Or Solar rays. Or something else that we don't even know exists yet. But lets not make fun of people or companies that propose an idea until we see it fail. Might find out that the "rocks on one side of the gear" thing works pretty well. Then we can find out how/why it works, and then change our laws to match the new findings.

The way Science is supposed to work.
 
SkyHog said:
Because they work. I can observe them working, and I can obvserve how they work.

Yet, you'll note that there is still debate over what causes flight to be possible....is it Bernoulli's Principle? Newton's Third Law? Combination of Both? Or maybe something else....
QUOTE]


No. The only debate is among those that don't understand the math. (And those who believe bogus stories and blame Bernoulli for them. )

Bernoulli's equation is simply a special case of Newtons laws applied to a perfect gas flowing along a streamline.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
BTW, an example of a machine that rises to the level of "almost perpetual" in my eyes is a wind-powered motor. We have windmills that generate electricity. That electricity can be used to power things. Wind is almost unlimited in quantity. We should never run out of wind.

So....lets look at wind. Or Solar rays. Or something else that we don't even know exists yet. But lets not make fun of people or companies that propose an idea until we see it fail. Might find out that the "rocks on one side of the gear" thing works pretty well. Then we can find out how/why it works, and then change our laws to match the new findings.

The way Science is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

Actually, science works by taking an idea and subjecting it to experiment. If that idea holds up, it is accepted until such time as there is evidence to contradict the idea, and further experiment and measurement falsify the idea.

CoM and CoE have both stood the test of every single experiment that have been thrown at them. If you have evidence of them being false, present it. Your reward for such will most certainly include a trip to Sweden to pick up the Nobel Prize for Physics. Until then, they are entirely valid laws of nature.

Oh, and windmills are yet another example of secondary-solar power (along with everything else except for nuclear). Energy is continually added to the Earth's atmosphere by the Sun, heating areas unevenly, causing pressure differentials. These pressure differentials cause energy to move, entirely in accord with thermodynamics, in an attempt to reach an equilibrium.
 
JeffDG said:
... Oh, and windmills are yet another example of secondary-solar power (along with everything else except for nuclear)...
Click to expand...
And uranium is produced inside stars.

As Carl Sagan used to say: "We are star stuff!"
-harry
 
"Yet, you'll note that there is still debate over what causes flight to be possible....is it Bernoulli's Principle? Newton's Third Law? Combination of Both? Or maybe something else...."

And, "No. The only debate is among those that don't understand the math. (And those who believe bogus stories and blame Bernoulli for them. )

Bernoulli's equation is simply a special case of Newtons laws applied to a perfect gas flowing along a streamline."

No, no, no!! It ain't neither Barnyoulee or Nootin! It be that famous 'Murrican scientist, Dr. Benjamin Franklin!!

Y'ain't got no Franklin in yore back pocket, y'ain't flyin'!! :idea::goofy::D

Actually, I suggest Messrs. Bernoulli and Newton work as a team, depending on the type of airfoil, angle of attack, and other factors... But that's just me, and I ain't no scientist. :wink2:
 
jshawley said:
"Yet, you'll note that there is still debate over what causes flight to be possible....is it Bernoulli's Principle? Newton's Third Law? Combination of Both? Or maybe something else...."

And, "No. The only debate is among those that don't understand the math. (And those who believe bogus stories and blame Bernoulli for them. )

Bernoulli's equation is simply a special case of Newtons laws applied to a perfect gas flowing along a streamline."

No, no, no!! It ain't neither Barnyoulee or Nootin! It be that famous 'Murrican scientist, Dr. Benjamin Franklin!!

Y'ain't got no Franklin in yore back pocket, y'ain't flyin'!! :idea::goofy::D

Actually, I suggest Messrs. Bernoulli and Newton work as a team, depending on the type of airfoil, angle of attack, and other factors... But that's just me, and I ain't no scientist. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Bernoulli's equations do a decent job of explaining the pressure distribution based on the velocity changes (except in the boundary region). Newtons convenient approximations for objects of ordinary mass moving at ordinary speed explain the forces from a different angle. Pretty much they both work.

A good book on the subject is "Introduction to Flight" by John D. Anderson, Jr. - the current edition will set you back three figures, but you can buy the older editions for 10 or 20 bucks. Actually an interesting read with only minimal calculus and a lot of history mixed in - Bernoulli's equations were actually developed by Euler...
 
SkyHog said:
Because they work. I can observe them working, and I can obvserve how they work.

Yet, you'll note that there is still debate over what causes flight to be possible....is it Bernoulli's Principle? Newton's Third Law? Combination of Both? Or maybe something else....

That is science. I'm sorry, but getting hurt because someone might suggest we have a small detail wrong that leads to large consequences is when science stops being science and starts being faith.
Click to expand...
Huh? When did you get hurt? The examples you mentioned didn't help your case as I understood them.

If you found a hole in conservation of Mass/Energy, write it up- like Jeff said, there's a nice prize in Sweden waiting for you if you get it to work. As an example that science isn't the religion you claim it is, there is still work being done in "cold fusion". Although much of the original work was found to be erroneous, there are still enough questions that there are still people working in the field (as of 2 years ago, the last American Chemical Society meeting I attended). I also know of a case where a scientist claimed ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be treated with antibiotics. He got some grief over it, but other scientists tested the theory and found it correct. I guarantee that several scientists are looking for a failure of conservation of mass/energy since the person finding one would go into the history books.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Because they work. I can observe them working, and I can obvserve how they work.
Click to expand...

How does that differ from what scientists do?

Yet, you'll note that there is still debate over what causes flight to be possible....is it Bernoulli's Principle? Newton's Third Law? Combination of Both? Or maybe something else....
Click to expand...

I don't see how the presence of debate justifies equating science with religion.

That is science. I'm sorry, but getting hurt because someone might suggest we have a small detail wrong that leads to large consequences is when science stops being science and starts being faith.
Click to expand...

"Hurt"? :confused:

My view that any scientist who doesn't enjoy debating about science is probably in the wrong profession.

I have faith in the scientific method for the same reason that you are willing to get in aircraft: I've seen it work and I can observe how it works.
 
SkyHog said:
BTW, an example of a machine that rises to the level of "almost perpetual" in my eyes is a wind-powered motor. We have windmills that generate electricity. That electricity can be used to power things. Wind is almost unlimited in quantity. We should never run out of wind.

So....lets look at wind. Or Solar rays. Or something else that we don't even know exists yet. But lets not make fun of people or companies that propose an idea until we see it fail. Might find out that the "rocks on one side of the gear" thing works pretty well. Then we can find out how/why it works, and then change our laws to match the new findings.

The way Science is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

I think the problem comes when you consider the fact that trying out new ideas costs money. Funders of new product ideas understandably want to direct their dollars to where they think there is the best chance of getting a useful result, and historically that has been on projects that make use of theories that have already been experimentally confirmed.

There IS funding for basic research, so it's not as if discovery of new laws of physics is being shut out.
 
dmccormack said:
Both are based upon assumptions.

("presuppositions" in more learned circles)
Click to expand...

The difference is that scientists' assumptions are tentative, until someone can design and perform experiments to find out if the assumptions are correct. Do theologians perform experiments to determine if their religion is correct?

For example, there was a time when scientists thought there must be an entity known as aether, to act as a medium for light. The reason scientists no longer believe in the aether is the Michelson-Morley experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
 
Palmpilot said:
The difference is that scientists' assumptions are tentative, until someone can design and perform experiments to find out if the assumptions are correct. Do theologians perform experiments to determine if their religion is correct?

For example, there was a time when scientists thought there must be an entity known as aether, to act as a medium for light. The reason scientists no longer believe in the aether is the Michelson-Morley experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Click to expand...

Tentative, and circumstantial.
 
dmccormack said:
Tentative, and circumstantial.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your point is escaping me. Can you spell it out a little more? What's tentative and circumstantial, and why do you think so? :confused:
 
This is awesome!! Einstein disproved on an internet forum??!!!! I would have expected Stephen Hawking or someone to do it.:confused:
 
mantakos said:
And uranium is produced inside stars.

As Carl Sagan used to say: "We are star stuff!"
-harry
Click to expand...

Not in our present star it isn't! Nor will it ever be created inside our sun.

And I challenge Sagan. 60% of the human body is water, and 2/3 of that is hydrogen. Also a significant portion of other materials (proteins, carbohydrates, fats, etc.) are also hydrogen...sugar for example is almost half hydrogen.

Hydrogen is primordial, and not created in any star...it's all leftovers from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
Not in our present star it isn't! Nor will it ever be created inside our sun.... 60% of the human body is water, and 2/3 of that is hydrogen...
Click to expand...
Yes, not all stars are our star and we are only partially composed of "star stuff". Exceptions apply, your mileage may vary.
-harry
 
I thought we are stardust. We are golden. :dunno:

Hmm. Whatever. Back to the garden.
 
dmccormack said:
By your own admission scientists challenge and disprove previous theories.
Click to expand...

That's not an admission; it's an assertion. And it provides further evidence of the difference between science and religion.

What conclusion do you derive from it?

I DID say that scientific theories can never be proven, or did you miss that?
 
Palmpilot said:
That's not an admission; it's an assertion. And it provides further evidence of the difference between science and religion.

What conclusion do you derive from it?

I DID say that scientific theories can never be proven, or did you miss that?
Click to expand...


I'm agreeing with you.

Sadly, the "common" understanding is that Science = "Facts", while Religion <> facts.
 
dmccormack said:
I'm agreeing with you.

Sadly, the "common" understanding is that Science = "Facts", while Religion <> facts.
Click to expand...

There is certainly a lot of misunderstanding about science.

When an experiment produces a reproducible result, that is a fact. The inferences we draw from those facts, and the theories that we devise to explain them, are not.

A book I read once said that the purpose of a theory is to suggest new experiments.

That having been said, my decision on whether to get in an aircraft is going to be based on science, not religion. If the great mass of experimental data (i.e., facts) supports the theory that this aircraft will fly, then I figure I'm good to go.
 
Palmpilot said:
There is certainly a lot of misunderstanding about science.

When an experiment produces a reproducible result, that is a fact. The inferences we draw from those facts, and the theories that we devise to explain them, are not.

A book I read once said that the purpose of a theory is to suggest new experiments.

That having been said, my decision on whether to get in an aircraft is going to be based on science, not religion. If the great mass of experimental data (i.e., facts) supports the theory that this aircraft will fly, then I figure I'm good to go.
Click to expand...


There is still "faith" involved in every flight. There is no way any person can validate beforehand all the variables inherent in a single flight.
 
dmccormack said:
There is still "faith" involved in every flight. There is no way any person can validate beforehand all the variables inherent in a single flight.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there is no faith involved in relying on the fruits of science. We have to play the odds. There is a huge amount of experimental data to confirm the theories that the fuel consumption tables in the POH are based on, but I still check the fuel gauges once in a while, in case something unexpected happens. However, the chances that my fuel planning will go wrong because of an undiscovered law of physics are very small, based on the large anount of data that confirm the existing ones.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not saying there is no faith involved in relying on the fruits of science. We have to play the odds. There is a huge amount of experimental data to confirm the theories that the fuel consumption tables in the POH are based on, but I still check the fuel gauges once in a while, in case something unexpected happens. However, the chances that my fuel planning will go wrong because of an undiscovered law of physics are very small, based on the large anount of data that confirm the existing ones.
Click to expand...

Fuel you have control over. The hairline crack in the connecting rod...?
 
dmccormack said:
Fuel you have control over. The hairline crack in the connecting rod...?
Click to expand...

... is something we also have control over - albiet perhaps not directly. We (the total group, including manufacturers, supervisors, engineers, testing facilities, etc) look at metallurgy, failure cycles, stress levels, operating environments etc etc and "predict" a certain lifetime for a certain part based on it's expected operating conditions and manufacturing methods. It's not exactly rolling the dice, but it's not a guarantee either. We either accept the current product with it's current MTBF, or we don't. If you don't like the odds of the connecting rod failing, then start a manufacturing plant, tighten the procedures up until you are happy with the MTBF, and fly with those.

(No, not you specifically, don't go there...just sayin')
 
airguy said:
... is something we also have control over - albiet perhaps not directly. We (the total group, including manufacturers, supervisors, engineers, testing facilities, etc) look at metallurgy, failure cycles, stress levels, operating environments etc etc and "predict" a certain lifetime for a certain part based on it's expected operating conditions and manufacturing methods. It's not exactly rolling the dice, but it's not a guarantee either. We either accept the current product with it's current MTBF, or we don't. If you don't like the odds of the connecting rod failing, then start a manufacturing plant, tighten the procedures up until you are happy with the MTBF, and fly with those.

(No, not you specifically, don't go there...just sayin')
Click to expand...


Sorry, but airplanes with 10 hours TTAF/TTSMOH have crashed.

Every day we undertake many, many activities on faith, based on past experience, testimony of others, and assumptions based on second-hand knowledge.
 
dmccormack said:
Fuel you have control over. The hairline crack in the connecting rod...?
Click to expand...

I don't have faith that mechanical equipment will never break. In fact, I have faith that it will occasionally break, because science, and in particular the scientific data of mechanical failures (which one can read about in the Nall Reports, for example) tells me so.

I do have faith that mechanical failures in terrestrial aircraft are extremely unlikely to lead to the discovery of new laws of physics! But again, it's a type of faith that is based on a large mass of data, and that seems to me to be a different type of faith than religious faith, which does not necessarily have any connection to data.
 
dmccormack said:
Sorry, but airplanes with 10 hours TTAF/TTSMOH have crashed.

Every day we undertake many, many activities on faith, based on past experience, testimony of others, and assumptions based on second-hand knowledge.
Click to expand...
Mean Time Between Failure

Failures will happen on both sides of that mean time - but if you improve that number then the failures on the low side will improve as well. You'll never eliminate failures, you decrease them. You decide what an acceptable failure rate is and target that. You can do better, but it will cost a lot more.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't have faith that mechanical equipment will never break. In fact, I have faith that it will occasionally break, because science, and in particular the scientific data of mechanical failures (which one can read about in the Nall Reports, for example) tells me so.

I do have faith that mechanical failures in terrestrial aircraft are extremely unlikely to lead to the discovery of new laws of physics! But again, it's a type of faith that is based on a large mass of data, and that seems to me to be a different type of faith than religious faith, which does not necessarily have any connection to data.
Click to expand...


Not so. I can offer contradictory statements but then will be guilty of religious discussion, which is SZ.
 
jesse said:
Mean Time Between Failure

Failures will happen on both sides of that mean time - but if you improve that number then the failures on the low side will improve as well. You'll never eliminate failures, you decrease them. You decide what an acceptable failure rate is and target that. You can do better, but it will cost a lot more.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know what MTBF is (I led the development of a suite of programs to capture failure data from MAC addresses on DDG-class vessels and report back to shore facility for preventative and predictive maintenance).


My point is there is no assurance with MTBF -- only another data point for calculating risk.
 
dmccormack said:
Not so. I can offer contradictory statements but then will be guilty of religious discussion, which is SZ.
Click to expand...

Oops - I assumed this was already in the SZ.

Please note that I am not saying that data never plays a role in religion, just that it doesn't NECESSARILY play a role. I do acknowledge that the effect that religion has on a person's life can be considered a type of data, for example.

When I went to Sunday school, nobody said, "Here's what we believe, and here is the experimental data that support those beliefs."

I can't think of any science class I have ever taken that did NOT have statements like that.

Just to be clear, are you disputing the idea that science and religion are different?
 
Last edited:
I never noticed that. Thanks for the tip.
 
Kepler? Newton? Einstein?? Idiots!!!

I could explain why, but I'm tied up with my cold fusion experiments. I'll get back to you guys once I'm done.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Kepler? Newton? Einstein?? Idiots!!!

I could explain why, but I'm tied up with my cold fusion experiments. I'll get back to you guys once I'm done.
Click to expand...

perpetual-motion-machine.gif
 
Palmpilot said:
When I went to Sunday school, nobody said, "Here's what we believe, and here is the experimental data that support those beliefs."

I can't think of any science class I have ever taken that did NOT have statements like that.

Just to be clear, are you disputing the idea that science and religion are different?
Click to expand...

They are different, but share the same requirement for assumptions based on data that may or may not be directly observable.

It's a shame that no one in Sunday School was able to provide rational data to support various assertions, but it can be done. The difference is that a rational view eventually requires the believer to say, "And from here, we only have revelation/faith/assumption/hope/trust/etc..."

Far too often those that claim to be "scientific" fail to admit the host of presuppositions that undergird their certainties.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Huh? When did you get hurt? The examples you mentioned didn't help your case as I understood them.

If you found a hole in conservation of Mass/Energy, write it up- like Jeff said, there's a nice prize in Sweden waiting for you if you get it to work. As an example that science isn't the religion you claim it is, there is still work being done in "cold fusion". Although much of the original work was found to be erroneous, there are still enough questions that there are still people working in the field (as of 2 years ago, the last American Chemical Society meeting I attended). I also know of a case where a scientist claimed ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be treated with antibiotics. He got some grief over it, but other scientists tested the theory and found it correct. I guarantee that several scientists are looking for a failure of conservation of mass/energy since the person finding one would go into the history books.
Click to expand...

My uncle after suffering from ulcers over 30 years also found that to be correct after being treated with said antibiotics.
 
SkyHog said:
BTW, an example of a machine that rises to the level of "almost perpetual" in my eyes is a wind-powered motor. We have windmills that generate electricity. That electricity can be used to power things. Wind is almost unlimited in quantity. We should never run out of wind.

So....lets look at wind. Or Solar rays. Or something else that we don't even know exists yet. But lets not make fun of people or companies that propose an idea until we see it fail. Might find out that the "rocks on one side of the gear" thing works pretty well. Then we can find out how/why it works, and then change our laws to match the new findings.

The way Science is supposed to work.
Click to expand...


How is any of that "almost perpetual"? There is a constant input of energy and the output of energy is less than the input due to losses in things like friction which contrary to your previous statements ARE definable and calculable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top