Redefining the impossible

[pozorvlak]

In the comments on my last post, I mentioned that My favourite example of spectacular theorem failure is flight: in a perfectly inviscid fluid, it's impossible (no viscosity means no starting vortex which means no circulation around the wing), but it is possible in a fluid with viscosity > 0, no matter how small.
It's a rather beautiful result, I

Comments

[susannahf]

I'm a great fan of redefining success ;)
Right now, success is finishing my DPhil before my funding runs out. Failing that, success will be redefined as not being a student when I'm 30...
Annoyingly, that would only give me an extra 5 months.

[half_of_monty]

I am approaching with glee the possibility of still being a student when I'm 30.

I do not consider 'arranging career so that one can spend up to a decade being, or pretending to be, a graduate student' to be a definition of 'success'. Oh no.

[half_of_monty]

I like. Cheers.

[necaris]

Use a rocket to get up to sufficient speed for ramjet ignition?

That's awesome about the wasp, though.

[pozorvlak]

D'oh! So obvious when you put it like that.

In related news, the idea of a rocket-and-ramjet powered airship is rocking my world :-)

[green_jedi]

Correct on the jet engine assumption - they wouldn't work in a fully inviscid fluid. But I love necaris's idea of a rocket - that would work! Rocket powered airships ftw :)

[ext_186259]

Sure if you can't win change the game.