Slashdot Mirror
Feather-based Jacobean Space Chariot
simonmsh writes "The article Cromwell's moonshot: how one Jacobean scientist tried to kick off the space race describes 17th century plans to build a space chariot out of springs, feathers and gunpowder. The design was based on the idea that gravity disappeared at an altitude of 20 miles, which was called into question by Hooke ? and Boyle ? 's work.
It sounds like the plot of a Neal Stephenson book." Said book, and its sequels are phenomenal.
That's funny, I could have sworn gravity dissapeared within 3 inches of our receptionist's breasts...
Although I think getting within 20 miles of them is a longshot...
I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
"In space we wouldn't need to eat because the reason why we need to eat on Earth is that the pull of gravity pulls food through our bodies and constantly empties our stomachs," Professor Chapman explained.
:-)
Quotes like this remind you of a child trying to divine where all the food they eat goes. I remember thinking at 3 or 4 years old that there must be some sort of containers inside us to hold the food forever. Then I considered the volume of food we eat and just couldn't fathom what was happening to it. It didn't quite connect that the food might get processed then *ahem* ejected.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Give me a big enough spring, and I can move Rubin Studdard into low earth orbit.
I wonder if macgyver could have done better...
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
According to legend the Chinese sent a man up around 1500AD.
He didn't come back, but that's the way with pioneers
--
US$10, really
The difference, I think, is that our technology does what it's supposed to do. I mean, I look at an abacus or slide rule and I don't think, "Oh, hah hah, those silly pre-computer people, what cute toys they had!" I think, "Wow, that's a really elegant solution to a difficult problem ... but I'm glad I don't have to use that thing." Our cars and trains and ships and planes do move us around; our computers do crunch numbers; our space technology did (and hopefully someday will again) get us to the Moon. There's a difference between doing the best you can with what you've got, and flights of fancy.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
According to ancient Indian texts, the people had flying machines which were called "Vimanas." The ancient Indian epic describes a Vimana as a double-deck, circular aircraft with portholes and a dome, much as we would imagine a flying saucer.
It flew with the "speed of the wind" and gave forth a "melodious sound." There were at least four different types of Vimanas; some saucer shaped, others like long cylinders ("cigar shaped airships"). The ancient Indian texts on Vimanas are so numerous, it would take volumes to relate what they had to say. The ancient Indians, who manufactured these ships themselves, wrote entire flight manuals on the control of the various types of Vimanas, many of which are still in existence, and some have even been translated into English.
The Samara Sutradhara is a scientific treatise dealing with every possible angle of air travel in a Vimana. There are 230 stanzas dealing with the construction, take-off, cruising for thousand of miles, normal and forced landings, and even possible collisions with birds. In 1875, the Vaimanika Sastra, a fourth century B.C. text written by Bharadvajy the Wise, using even older texts as his source, was rediscovered in a temple in India. It dealt with the operation of Vimanas and included information on the steering, precautions for long flights, protection of the airships from storms and lightening and how to switch the drive to "solar energy" from a free energy source which sounds like "anti-gravity."
The Vaimanika Sastra (or Vymaanika-Shaastra) has eight chapters with diagrams, describing three types of aircraft, including apparatuses that could neither catch on fire nor break. It also mentions 31 essential parts of these vehicles and 16 materials from which they are constructed, which absorb light and heat; for which reason they were considered suitable for the construction of Vimanas. This document has been translated into English and is available by writing the publisher: VYMAANIDASHAASTRA AERONAUTICS by Maharishi Bharadwaaja, translated into English and edited, printed and published by Mr. G. R. Josyer, Mysore, India, 1979 (sorry, no street address). Mr. Josyer is the director of the International Academy of Sanskrit Investigation located in Mysore.
Sources: Ancient flying machines (Contains diagrams/details).
Wikipedia reference to the term-Vimanas
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Dr. John Wilkins, the Jacobean scientist in question, was quite an interesting chap really.
For example, with his book, A Discourse concerning a New Planet, he tried to popularise the view of the universe according to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. He attempted to explain in the book that the Moon is not purely a shiny, cut out disc but rather it is a world with a landscape like that of the Earth.
Fairly radical stuff for the time, though admittedly he did publish the book annonymously.
For more info, try this or this
It sounds like the plot of a Neal Stephenson book.
Hmm... Also reminds me of the plot of a Jules Verne book - one that predates Stephenson by a number of years.
A few hundred years earlier, it would have been much easier. One only had to board a ship and sail to the edge of the earth. Since it was flat, they would have been able to sail to the edge and merely jump off into space. Unfortunately, space travelers at the time had no way to return, so it was very difficult to sell tickets to rich kings.
Our technology and science, though it may be primitive to someone in the future, will never be looked back on with the same feelings as this crap.
By actually using the concepts of the scientific method (experimentation etc), we come up with things that are true (as far as we can measure them) rather than stories we make up that sound good.
"Gravity is what requires us to eat, it pulls the food out of our bodies"... The fact that this explanation was considered shows that the concept of digestion wasn't understood. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that this theory is easily tested, by laying down or standing on your head for a day and seeing if you get hungry.
Newton's model of physics has been shown to be "wrong", but we don't fault him for that, he drew proper conclusions from the available data.