PDA

View Full Version : Visions of year 2000 from 1899 - 1910 (France)



Buttercup
2012-Sep-11, 06:02 PM
Don't know why this is just now being shown online (unless I missed it 12 years ago).

What artists then thought "today" would look like (with lots of "technology"):

http://tinyurl.com/9xg6btz

They sure didn't foresee string bikinis, multi-piercings and tattoos. :p

Yes, I do dress the way women are depicted. Not. ;)

Ara Pacis
2012-Sep-11, 06:50 PM
I couldn't get past #9 because of yahoo server problems, I think. I like the motorized skates and wonder why we don't have something like that common. The firefighters with wings is just silly, Isaac Newton was around well before 1900 to explain why.

Buttercup
2012-Sep-11, 07:01 PM
The firefighters with wings is just silly, Isaac Newton was around well before 1900 to explain why.

Totally! :rolleyes:

The last was very amusing as well. Sure, in 2000 I was always going to see horses presented on county fair stages. :) The Internet and etc.? Bah! :hand: Lol!

schlaugh
2012-Sep-11, 07:21 PM
Unfortunately Number 12 came true far earlier than 2000. Some I don't get. What's up with the horse?

Paul Beardsley
2012-Sep-11, 07:51 PM
The firefighters with wings is just silly, Isaac Newton was around well before 1900 to explain why.

There is no action-and-reaction with a hose. Water is passing through it, not being thrown out of it.

I found the horse one amusing, but then I generally do find horses amusing.

LotusExcelle
2012-Sep-11, 08:07 PM
Don't know why this is just now being shown online (unless I missed it 12 years ago).

What artists then thought "today" would look like (with lots of "technology"):

http://tinyurl.com/9xg6btz

They sure didn't foresee string bikinis, multi-piercings and tattoos. :p

Yes, I do dress the way women are depicted. Not. ;)

Tattoos and piercings go quite a bit further back that the 20th century.

Solfe
2012-Sep-11, 08:37 PM
I can't believe they nailed the first one... drunken croquet feels exactly how they pictured it in 1899. :)

Ara Pacis
2012-Sep-11, 09:32 PM
There is no action-and-reaction with a hose. Water is passing through it, not being thrown out of it.

Nope, water rocket is rocket-like. The Mythbusters saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP53h5yrE48) and confirmed it.

jfribrg
2012-Sep-12, 12:27 AM
Newton was around well before 1900 to explain why.

These were artists, not scientists.

Maybe we should do a similar set of post cards and then stay around long enough to see how many come true. I'll draw the one that depicts a personal fusion furnace in every basement. Last report was that it was about 30 years from reality, which is the same estimate that was given 50 years ago.

SkepticJ
2012-Sep-12, 04:50 AM
I like the motorized skates and wonder why we don't have something like that common.

Power-to-weight ratios.

I have seen motorized skates, and they required wearing a lawnmower-style engine as a backpack to power the skates.

Modern electric motors with the right gearing could do it, but batteries still have horrible energy storage for their mass. So you're wearing a heavy battery on your back.

Rollerblades work great as-is, and they require muscle use, which is a real plus where calories are easy to come by.

A Segway is pretty close to powered skates, though.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Sep-12, 06:07 AM
Nope, water rocket is rocket-like. The Mythbusters saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP53h5yrE48) and confirmed it.

In the video, the reaction comes from the sharp angled turn in the hoses. Clearly the water is bouncing off the corners. You wouldn't get lift with more-or-less straight hoses.

Jens
2012-Sep-12, 08:02 AM
Maybe we should do a similar set of post cards and then stay around long enough to see how many come true.

I'd be we'd be way off as well. It's funny that the fashion is so different, so it makes you think a bit about the fashion that we use in SF movies today. Chances are we'll be way off the mark.

ravens_cry
2012-Sep-12, 08:36 AM
I'd be we'd be way off as well. It's funny that the fashion is so different, so it makes you think a bit about the fashion that we use in SF movies today. Chances are we'll be way off the mark.
Since, these days at least, it tends toward 'Right now, but with *maybe* some small differences" I don't doubt it will look as dated as the miniskirts and 60's hair of Original Series Star Trek.
Molecular Gastronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_gastronomy) used comparable equipment to number seven..

NEOWatcher
2012-Sep-12, 12:46 PM
A Segway is pretty close to powered skates, though.
Electric Scooters (http://scootersupport.com/xtremeelectric.htm#X010) are even closer.


What's with the spindly legs on that electric train?

jfribrg
2012-Sep-12, 01:35 PM
Electric Scooters (http://scootersupport.com/xtremeelectric.htm#X010) are even closer.
These have been available since the '50's (http://home.roadrunner.com/~tuco/looney/acme/rocketp.html)

Ivan Viehoff
2012-Sep-12, 02:37 PM
Yes, I do dress the way women are depicted. Not. ;)
I suspect the artists were somewhat restricted by the conventions of the time as to what they could depict, even if they did suspect taboos such as showing female leg might be overcome. But this would really be very difficult for them to get right.

Some modern writers have gone, perhaps, too far in proposing that further taboos might be overcome in this direction. For example a book written in 1976 by Ursula le Guin, "The word for world is forest", describes a future world where "nipple-peeps" would be in fashion. (I hope I'm remembering correctly that this is the book where I read it, my memory is not 100% on such things.) She set it several centuries into the future, so we (who are alive now) will never know, but I don't see any movement on that taboo from 1976 to today, regardless of the popularity of topless bathing on beaches in quite a few countries. (19th century France arguably had its own exceptions too; Zola's novel Germinal indicates that French working women might go topless in mixed company when undertaking heavy labour in hot conditions, in that book in the mines. And in general France was a lot more permissive than Britain at this time - the translator/publisher Vizetelly got prosecuted when he published his translation of Zola's La Terre in Britain - subsequently he bowdlerised his translations: and re-translating Zola properly is still an on-going project - be sure to get a modern translation if ever you read Zola in English.)

Looking further at those pictures, I see Heston Blumenthal, the man who uses liquid nitrogen and vacuum apparatus in the kitchen, pre-figured in #7.

#10 predicts precision agriculture, although the actual modern incarnation still has the man operating the machinery locally on the ground, using satellite positioning systems for locational precision, rather than standing to the side controlling a robot by line of sight.

Several others show things which did in fact come to happen fairly soon after the time of the drawings, but which we have now moved beyond - electro-mechanical sound apparatus, now superseded by electronic; airships now superseded by fixed wing aircraft. Clearly microelectronics and satellite positioning are innovations not commonly imagined in those times.

Buttercup
2012-Sep-12, 02:58 PM
I suspect the artists were somewhat restricted by the conventions of the time as to what they could depict, even if they did suspect taboos such as showing female leg might be overcome. But this would really be very difficult for them to get right.

Oh definitely. :)

They might have considered rising hemlines (to mid-shin)...but back then, a glimpse of ankle was scandalous; only a tart would flash her ankle at a man.

Wonder what they DID want to draw, but couldn't.

BioSci
2012-Sep-12, 04:43 PM
In the video, the reaction comes from the sharp angled turn in the hoses. Clearly the water is bouncing off the corners. You wouldn't get lift with more-or-less straight hoses.

You should check out fire hose training ... using a fire hose - angles are not the issue - requires considerable effort to resist the "rocket" forces from the expelled water. Firemen are trained to use special bracing stances and multiple firemen to hold a hose.

Perhaps you are thinking of a simple pipe without a restricting nozzle - a fire hose nozzle restricts the flow of water - forcing the water to accelerate as it leaves the hose and thereby producing a very significant back force on the person holding the hose!

starcanuck64
2012-Sep-12, 05:10 PM
You should check out fire hose training ... using a fire hose - angles are not the issue - requires considerable effort to resist the "rocket" forces from the expelled water. Firemen are trained to use special bracing stances and multiple firemen to hold a hose.

Perhaps you are thinking of a simple pipe without a restricting nozzle - a fire hose nozzle restricts the flow of water - forcing the water to accelerate as it leaves the hose and thereby producing a very significant back force on the person holding the hose!

Yup, and when your team members bail you can be thrown around like a rag doll by a high capacity fire hose, there's a huge amount of thrust behind them and it's easy to lose your grip.

SkepticJ
2012-Sep-12, 05:52 PM
What's with the spindly legs on that electric train?

I was thinking the same thing.

The answer is it was done by an artist. It's supposed to look cool.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Sep-12, 09:03 PM
You should check out fire hose training ... using a fire hose - angles are not the issue - requires considerable effort to resist the "rocket" forces from the expelled water. Firemen are trained to use special bracing stances and multiple firemen to hold a hose.

Perhaps you are thinking of a simple pipe without a restricting nozzle - a fire hose nozzle restricts the flow of water - forcing the water to accelerate as it leaves the hose and thereby producing a very significant back force on the person holding the hose!

I accept that hoses behave as you describe, but I really don't see how it can be Newtonian in the rocket sense.

If water is expelled from a water tank (for example) then I can see how the action of the expulsion results in a reaction on the tank. But a hose placed between the tank and the point of emission is not throwing the water - not even if it does have a restricting nozzle.

I would genuinely like to understand this. The only explanation I can think of offhand is that there's a reaction when the water jet hits a solid object such as a wall or the ground.

LotusExcelle
2012-Sep-12, 09:09 PM
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6940037_fire-recoil-water-turned-on_.html
does that help?

BioSci
2012-Sep-12, 10:10 PM
I accept that hoses behave as you describe, but I really don't see how it can be Newtonian in the rocket sense.

If water is expelled from a water tank (for example) then I can see how the action of the expulsion results in a reaction on the tank. But a hose placed between the tank and the point of emission is not throwing the water - not even if it does have a restricting nozzle.

I would genuinely like to understand this. The only explanation I can think of offhand is that there's a reaction when the water jet hits a solid object such as a wall or the ground.

What you are forgetting is that the water inside the hose is at a high pressure (because the nozzle restricts its flow rate and it is from a high pressure source or pumper engine) and is leaving through a small (smaller than the hose) outlet. Classic jet action. The water in the hose is moving much slower through the hose than when it exits the nozzle (as the high pressure is released and accelerates the water).
Any "feedback" from the water jet hitting a solid object is not involved in the jet force felt by the holder of the hose (unless the wall is within a few centimeters of the nozzle :)).

You can test this effect by using a garden hose - if you use a hose without a nozzle - you will feel only very slight pushback from hose when water is rushing through the hose - but if you attach a nozzle and use allow the pressure in the hose to increase, then when the nozzle is opened you will feel a strong jet action from your hose. A high capacity fire hose is orders of magnitude stronger with higher pressure and higher rates of water flow and distance - hold on tight!

Romanus
2012-Sep-13, 09:31 AM
I loved those. :) Then again, I've always loved reading about past predictions of the future (for instance, the way the year 2000 was depicted in the 50s), because they tell us a lot about our limits as prognosticators.

I think what I liked best about them was the assumption that people would dress the same way, as well as the fact that the technology depicted was merely updated belle epoque technology, not *new* technology. I suspect our own predictions of 2100 will look similarly quaint, however haughty we feel looking at these old cards.

KaiYeves
2012-Sep-15, 02:04 AM
Underwater lawn sports (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/49158-golf-with-fishies-instead-of-birdies), videoconferencing, electric heaters, molecular gastronomy, mechanized agriculture, aerial warfare and transportation... not too shabby!

SkepticJ
2012-Sep-15, 06:58 AM
Since, these days at least, it tends toward 'Right now, but with *maybe* some small differences" I don't doubt it will look as dated as the miniskirts and 60's hair of Original Series Star Trek.

Depends on the gender. Men have dressed basically the same since at least the 1920s. The hair is just cut and combed a little different from decade to decade.
In casual dress, the similarity goes back even further. How long have blue-collar men worn shirts and pants/shorts while working? Centuries, at least.

There's no sense to fashion, so why waste time prognosticating on it?

ravens_cry
2012-Sep-15, 08:10 AM
Depends on the gender. Men have dressed basically the same since at least the 1920s. The hair is just cut and combed a little different from decade to decade.
In casual dress, the similarity goes back even further. How long have blue-collar men worn shirts and pants/shorts while working? Centuries, at least.

There's no sense to fashion, so why waste time prognosticating on it?
True, but there has been changes. You don't see vests and poor boy caps on blue coller workers generally these days. Practicalities enforce certain modes, but even then there has been changes.
Woman's fashion especially has changed hugely in the past 100 years for all social standings and activities.
If I am creating a world, I consider it a challenge to create clothes that like someone would wear, while at the same time been measurably distinct from our own.

novaderrik
2012-Sep-15, 01:49 PM
that sky tennis looks pretty entertaining.. to watch..

and i could make a joke about the French air force one .. an easy joke.. but i won't..

SkepticJ
2012-Sep-15, 03:05 PM
True, but there has been changes. You don't see vests and poor boy caps on blue coller workers generally these days. Practicalities enforce certain modes, but even then there has been changes.

Baseball caps are essentially the same.

I didn't say identical, of course there have been changes, even if only in materials. We can print pictures on shirts now. We have shoes made of artificial rubber and cloth. Basically the same, though. If a Titanic shipwright was transported to now, no heads would turn to gawk at his zany clothes.

The disappearance of the vest makes sense to me. What practical purpose do they serve? Get rid of them.


Woman's fashion especially has changed hugely in the past 100 years for all social standings and activities.

That's why I said it depends on the gender. Women's fashion changes by the decade, by the year in some circles*.

*I'd make fun of fashion shows, but the target is too easy.

Ara Pacis
2012-Sep-15, 06:58 PM
Baseball caps are essentially the same. Similar to some flatcap designs (some don't have bills). They also resemble berets, especially if worn backwards.


I didn't say identical, of course there have been changes, even if only in materials. We can print pictures on shirts now. We have shoes made of artificial rubber and cloth. Basically the same, though. If a Titanic shipwright was transported to now, no heads would turn to gawk at his zany clothes. People might think he's steampunk or something.


The disappearance of the vest makes sense to me. What practical purpose do they serve? Get rid of them. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waistcoat) suggests it was used for pocket-watches and to hide suspenders, and was originally based on Persian clothes.

ravens_cry
2012-Sep-15, 07:13 PM
We might then see them coming back, with watches seen less use with people using their cell phones instead.
Now if that ain't a case of using high tech for a low tech use.

Noclevername
2012-Sep-16, 02:08 AM
I see now that the second picture is of a videophone; and here I thought it was the 19th century version of "Girls Gone Wild". ;)

ravens_cry
2012-Sep-16, 02:16 AM
I see now that the second picture is of a videophone; and here I thought it was the 19th century version of "Girls Gone Wild". ;)
Or as it was known then, "Case Histories of Hysterical Nudity Presented for Educational Purposes to the Public Benefit".:D

Ara Pacis
2012-Sep-16, 05:40 AM
Or as it was known then, "Case Histories of Hysterical Nudity Presented for Educational Purposes to the Public Benefit".:D

Webcams, GGW, is there a difference? :o

ravens_cry
2012-Sep-16, 05:45 AM
Webcams, GGW, is there a difference? :o
I guess it depends on who is manning the camera.:p

Paul Beardsley
2012-Sep-16, 07:26 AM
What you are forgetting is that the water inside the hose is at a high pressure (because the nozzle restricts its flow rate and it is from a high pressure source or pumper engine) and is leaving through a small (smaller than the hose) outlet. Classic jet action. The water in the hose is moving much slower through the hose than when it exits the nozzle (as the high pressure is released and accelerates the water).
Any "feedback" from the water jet hitting a solid object is not involved in the jet force felt by the holder of the hose (unless the wall is within a few centimeters of the nozzle :)).

You can test this effect by using a garden hose - if you use a hose without a nozzle - you will feel only very slight pushback from hose when water is rushing through the hose - but if you attach a nozzle and use allow the pressure in the hose to increase, then when the nozzle is opened you will feel a strong jet action from your hose. A high capacity fire hose is orders of magnitude stronger with higher pressure and higher rates of water flow and distance - hold on tight!

Okay, I've been trying for the last few days to conceptualise this. Clearly the rate of movement of the volume (and mass) of the water is the same inside the hose and as it leaves the hose. Is the momentum of the jet leaving the hose much higher than the momentum of the water inside the hose? Probably yes - and I can probably work out the maths.

Thanks for the explanation. It's almost clear in my head now. I just need another week or two to ponder.

Ara Pacis
2012-Sep-18, 07:24 AM
Power-to-weight ratios.

I have seen motorized skates, and they required wearing a lawnmower-style engine as a backpack to power the skates.

Modern electric motors with the right gearing could do it, but batteries still have horrible energy storage for their mass. So you're wearing a heavy battery on your back.

Rollerblades work great as-is, and they require muscle use, which is a real plus where calories are easy to come by.

A Segway is pretty close to powered skates, though.

Looks like it's getting closer, according to this article on a battery-powered skateboard (http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/34840/could+this+tiny+electric+vehicle+change+transporta tion+forever/).

Perhaps the battery for skates would be better integrated into the boot, either underneath in the sole or between or above the insole, instead of worn on the back.

Noclevername
2012-Sep-21, 12:48 AM
http://paleo-future.blogspot.com/2007/04/postcards-showing-year-2000-circa-1900.html

More postcards from the turn of the previous century, with similar predictive accuracy.

publiusr
2012-Sep-22, 07:17 PM
On page 14 of the Sept 3/10 double issue of Av Week, we see the Commentary "New Dreamer for a new Space Age" has a write up on what folks thought the year 2000 would look like.