Re: In praise of curiosity

I was just reading NewScientist and came across a story that reminded me of some of the "contrary to current scientific thinking" discussion that took place in this thread.

I won't recount the story as you can read it here for yourselves, but it looks like we are going to have one of those rare opportunities to see if new ideas (albeit based upon old wisdom) proove themselves better than current scientific wisdom.

With my extremely limited physics I have no way to conclude who is right, but if I had to bet (or rather, if I could get someone to give me decent odds:), I'd have to go for Gold purely on the basis of the Crookes radiometer evidence.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.

Comment on Re: In praise of curiosity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: In praise of curiosity
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Aug 02, 2003 at 12:48 UTC

You'd lose that bet I'm afraid.

While there haven't been any solar sails used for propulsion the effect has been measured in the lab (way back in 1901). In fact it's something that has to be taken into account in existing interplanetary flights. The light pressure on solar panels, etc. is enough to have a measurable effect.

Crook's radiometer isn't an example of light pressure. This has been known since 1879 (see this comprehensive explanation for more info). I am more than mildly surprised that Gold is in ignorance of this since I was told about this in school!

[reply]


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks