Miscellaneous desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 12[edit]

Sources on Tolkien's Lindon and Himring[edit]

I wanted to write separate articles about Himring and Lindon Tolkien, but I couldn’t find independent authoritative sources on them - could you tell me if there are such sources? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources used in the article Geography of Middle-earth might contain further information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Himring and Lindon are mentioned in our Beleriand article, to which Himring redirects (Lindon (Middle-earth) redirects to Geography of Middle-earth). It's probably worth mentioning that we used to have many articles about places and people of Middle-earth (Himring is one; I'm not sure about Lindon) that have subsequently been merged or redirected to more-general articles after discussions. I doubt that a stand-alone article about either would last long today. Deor (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-scientific revolution thinkers[edit]

Various historians have covered this topic, but thinking changes over time, so I'm curious what people think today. Out of all of the known pre-scientific and pre-Enlightenment figures, which one came closest to pulling on the thread of scientific knowledge and unraveling deep insights into reality for their time if they had only stuck with their line of inquiry? Obviously, most of these historical people were stuck in their own paradigms of their time and place, just as we all are, but some are able to look a bit farther than others, not just by standing on the shoulders of giants, but by investigating things others wouldn't dream of doing. Which of these people from the distant past saw farther than others, and if they had lived long enough or pursued their studies, might have led to a scientific revolution far earlier than occurred? Assuming of course, people would have believed what they discovered. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientific Revolution came emerged over centuries. Some of the key factors to make it possible were by definition generational. For example, one of the very late developments was the creation of a professionalized institutional structure of science such that students learned from masters, masters corresponded freely and professionally (and didn't simply burn all their notes when they died), and standards of the trade could emerge. The importance of institutionalization alone in making modern science possible should not be understated. (I cannot recall where I read mostly on this point in particular.) Also, as science itself by most technical definitions is tends to be largely about a shared methodology, then the Revolution has to largely consist of people working together such that there are people to share that methodology with (and thus to agree on a common technical code). SamuelRiv (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm aware of that and all the history, as I've studied it (and I alluded to the history you described by quoting Newton). If you read my question again, you'll see that I'm asking a fairly specific kind of question that historians (like Frances Yates and others) have touched upon in their work, but since history changes as we accumulate more knowledge over time, I'm asking about recent evaluations of pre-scientific revolution thinkers, particularly in terms of newer information we've discovered about them. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that before any conversation like this can develop you need to specify dates for "pre-scientific" and "pre-Enlightenment". The latter is probably easier, but even then varies by country. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if one visionary person living longer and/or achieving more could have effected a Scientific Revolution sooner. I posit no, because of the importance of institutionalization and professionalization to science, and because the phenomenon of modern science is largely/mostly/fundamentally structural and social (notwithstanding the methodology and epistemology of any particular science itself). The closest that one person can do, perhaps, is to professionalize and institutionalize a society in general -- so one could perhaps say that the individuals establishing the Imperial examinations and schools in China (namely the Han emperors and Dong Zhongshu) are individuals who, had they done something similar in Western Europe at the dawn of the 16th century, could have maybe supercharged the incoming Scientific Revolution. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked, and it's always interesting to see how people interpret my questions. Thanks for your answer. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forget where I read this, probably either Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea or Change Is The Only Constant by Ben Orlin, but Archimedes came as close as is possible to discovering calculus without doing so. I don't know the implications that would've had, but it seems like a decent starting point. 71.112.180.130 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that you are correct, and the current consensus points to Archimedes. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes's cattle problem, which may or may not be by Archimedes, concerns polynomial equations with integer solutions. A. would not have been able to solve the problem dues to the enormous numbers involved, but he probably knew how to do it using continued fractions. MinorProphet (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When & what is this plane crash?[edit]

On this. Not sure if the plane crash was large jet or small aircraft, or a regional jet or even a turboprop? On 0:39. —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 10:39? They give the name of the guy who crashed or disappeared or whatever, and lo and behold, he has a wikipedia article: Steve Fossett. In that article, there's a section Steve Fossett#Death, which has all the details on his disappearance. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was 0:39. It was in a Chinese place. If you go on 00:39. —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 2:39. --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, apologies for the mistake. What was it? When? Would it be this one? —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the video said Heizhu Valley, 1950, didn't it (that segment starts at 2:27)? Googling for that only leads to weird websites on paranormal phenomena or urban myths. Nothing serious jumped out at me. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It mentioned about a “an airplane disappeared under circumstances no one can know” Was the story real or fake? —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respond urgently ASAP because no one replied IN A WHILE! Do you know the plane crash? Let me know! (it might have a Mayday episode) —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as stated over on ents you need to chill out, that kind of comment is not going to make you any friends around here. --Viennese Waltz 17:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earthman, it is sometimes hard to follow your mode of speech. What are these ents you speak of? --142.112.220.136 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe our Terpsichorian colleague is referring to the Entertainments Reference Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --Viennese Waltz 21:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this isn't Fangorn Forest?!? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

"A while" being less than 24 hours. What's the urgency? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's hardly enough information to go on. A location and a decade (The 50s). What we can say is the 50s were the very start of jet airliners, with only the de Havilland Comet, Tupolev Tu-104 and the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Convair 880 coming into service. Various of those articles list crashes, so you can check if any were in China. You may be looking for a much smaller private or military aeroplane. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that this was made up for the video. In this article the Heizhu Valley is called "China's Bermuda" with "unsolved mysteries" that include disappearances and deaths, but there is no mention of disappearing aircraft, so if the claim has a basis of truth, the incident was apparently not notable. (The article linked to is by China Daily and has a notice "Copyright © 2003 Ministry of Culture, P.R.China", so it is not just a random web page.) --Lambiam 09:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of hits claiming that an unknown aircraft with an unknown number of people crashed for an unknown reason without a trace at an unknown time in 1950. They all use each other as a resource to support the claim. Therefore, it is highly likely that this is a made up event that is assumed true only because so many websites are repeating it. My personal issue is that in 1950, crashes with less than 20 people are wll known and recorded with detail. This unknown plane has an unknown number of people, claimed to be somewhere more than 100. So, if over 100 people died, it would be notable, not an "unknown" factroid. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Newspapers.com, I find no references at all to "Heizhu Valley" in 1950, nor any other year for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking feasibility. The CAAC took over in 1949, having full control of all flights in China by 1950. No foreign aircraft were allowed to fly over or land in China. So, this could not be a foreign aircraft. It had to be a domestic flight. In the 50s, all domestic aircraft were very small. In 63, they purchased the first planes we consider modern passenger planes. They could carry 70 to 80 passengers. It wasn't until the 70s that a plane with over 100 passengers existed in China. Even then, it really didn't exist because only a few high ranking military and government officials could fly. What we consider passenger flight now didn't take place until the 80s. So, this flight was not only unknown in many ways. It is also an airline that couldn't exist in an aircraft that couldn't exist carrying passengers that couldn't exist. The only proof it existed is a bunch of websites all copying one another. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the story is a hoax, it could be a challenge to figure out when and where it originated. (Let's just hope it wasn't Wikipedia.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]