RE: Substitute for Ether
Greg,
Imagine you're in Italy and some guy comes along and claims that a heavier object does NOT fall faster than a lighter one. When this fellow dropped those cannonballs off of that funny looking tower, everyone was amazed. Many were perplexed, frightened and dumbfounded. Their entire perception about how the world worked came crashing down around their ears. Scared witless, they went to their classical Greek science texts and were relieved to find that it was STILL true, that "heavier objects DO fall faster". Satisfied that the world order was maintained by their illusions, that the stuff they so fervently believed, was "STILL IN THE BOOKS", they went to bed confident that the sun revolved around the earth and that it and THEY were at the center of the universe.
The history of science and technology is littered with pessimistic naysayers. Because it wasn't already being done, it was impossible. If it wasn't already being done, it wasn't needed.
Orville and Wilbur who? Back at the turn of the previous century, it was speculated that the patent office might need to be closed. It was declared by men of notable education that everything had already been invented. Such hubris.
What if I declared that I felt that a 1.2 CID engine could be designed that had high torque, delivered 2.2 HP, weighed 38 ounces, had nearly zero vibration and ran with such high efficiency and low emissions that the exhaust was cool to the touch and no muffler was needed. I think it's possible if you just work hard enough at it and forget everything you think you know about engines.
But now, tell me why it can't be done.