Things that could have been invented earlier

[Morrígan]

The conical bullet. That could have advanced the understanding of human neuroscience as well.

You know, I have read that although Kevlar is pretty good at keeping bullets away, it's no match for a well-shot arrow. But I don't know if anybody's capitalized on this yet...

The is only true for lead bullets. A bullet with a steel core should be able to penetrate the body armor.

Arrows travel with lower energies (I'm not sure how their momentum compares to a bullet) but hunting tips are intended to produce a large wound, which is what makes them deadly. But there are many type of bullet and many types of arrow.

[Curan Roshac]

You're also forgetting the ceramic trauma plate which military-grade body armor has, unlike the civilian vests which are just plain Kevlar.

Bowmen (especially crossbowmen) are great for covert operations since they are by nature silent weapons and compared to muskets, boast a greater rate of fire. However, they were phased out of european arsenals for a reason: armored cavalry. A musket can take a man off his horse much better than a longbow or even an arbelest crossbow, especially after the advent of the non-barrel plugging bayonet.

[Morrígan]

You're also forgetting the ceramic trauma plate which military-grade body armor has, unlike the civilian vests which are just plain Kevlar.

Right. I'm not sure how well even rounds with penetrators do against ceramic plates, since the plates are probably almost as hard as the penetrators themselves. At least, with the 5.56mm or 7.62mm cartridges deployed by the assault rifles of the world.

Speaking of something that might have been developed earlier: the paper cartridge. Forget loading powder and wadding by hand...

Or was the cartridge basically impossible to build with black powder because of the need for percussion caps?

[Chuma]

What about all that stuff that hasn't been invented yet, but could totally be here by now?

... Like ?

How should I know?

Doesn't that sort of answer your own question?

What system could produce more and better archers than the system of Western Europe? 1492 was only 77 years after Agincourt.

You have a point there, it was kind of the golden age of archers. But still, a system with a better developed economy would be able to afford even more archers.

It's possible that standing armies being introduced into Europe earlier could have maintained bowmen corps into the nineteenth century - Wellington lamented their absence in the Napoleonic wars. But they would by then only have been an elite corps, and probably not worth the money

What exactly was the status of the archers? From what I've heard, the longbowmen required a lifetime of training. How could they be so well trained if it wasn't a standing army?

You know, I have read that although Kevlar is pretty good at keeping bullets away, it's no match for a well-shot arrow.

That's interesting. On the other hand, a suit of armour could stop an arrow, but I don't think it would be much use against a bullet.

Apparently an arrow travels at about 100 m/s, and apparently the point of a silencer is to slow down a bullet to less than the speed of sound, which is just over 1000 m/s, and I imagine the arrow might be slightly heavier than the bullet; from that I conclude that the momentum of the bullet is probably about 10 times bigger. Beyond that I can't really tell.

But enough self-derailment...
I have also considered things that haven't been invented yet, such as gauss rifles. (Okay, maybe invented, but not developed to practical use.)
Someone suggested lasers could have been invented much earlier, also an interesting idea.
And one major thing would be if one could come up with a serious alternative to electricity. I guess there's the whole steampunk thing, but steam just seems so awkward somehow.

[Morrígan]

Apparently an arrow travels at about 100 m/s, and apparently the point of a silencer is to slow down a bullet to less than the speed of sound, which is just over 1000 m/s, and I imagine the arrow might be slightly heavier than the bullet; from that I conclude that the momentum of the bullet is probably about 10 times bigger. Beyond that I can't really tell.

Actually, the purpose of a suppressor is to capture the high pressure gasses which propel the bullet, absorbing their energy, so that the pressure wave is weaker / the sound is reduced. Supersonic bullets will remain supersonic.
This is a problem because even though you can suppress the gunshot itself, the bullet will still generate a sonic-boom as it travels down-range. This is why many guns fitted with a suppressor will also chamber subsonic munitions.

[sirdanilot]

Couldn't hot air balloons be invented earlier? I assume they could make a large airtight cloth (or otherwise leather, though a bit expensive), light a fire and let a basket go up. If the culture would somehow overcome its fears it could be a relatively easy step to hot air balloon flights.

These would obviously not be very useful in warfare (archers shooting holes in the balloon...) but could perhaps serve purpose in trading, discovery missions etc. they could be used to raid barbarian peoples though as a surprise attack.

A nation with access to sulfur could perhaps use this very early to produce primitive bombs (more like burning than exploding). I don't think it's very feasible to invent gunpowder very early, though it is possible.

I think we should focus more on 'what was invented, but never exploited to its fullest'. An example is the blimp/hot air balloon, but also some telegraphy that was used in the 19th and 20th century. Very complex typewriters etc...

[Mbwa]

Ooh hot air balloons is a good idea. Maybe war wouldn't suit them, but they could be used for a variety of other things.

[bulbaquil]

Apparently an arrow travels at about 100 m/s, and apparently the point of a silencer is to slow down a bullet to less than the speed of sound, which is just over 1000 m/s, and I imagine the arrow might be slightly heavier than the bullet; from that I conclude that the momentum of the bullet is probably about 10 times bigger. Beyond that I can't really tell.

The speed of sound is really more like 300 m/s... you're probably thinking km/h.

[Atom]

I think a lot of things could have been invented earlier, but weren't for as others have said above a combination of reasons. However at the same time I don't think that the way our technology developed is the only way. I mean, look at the differences in the way that ancient societies developed metallurgy; with Middle East societies using a lot of forging, and the Chinese mastery of casting, or the (highly divergent) Incan metallurgy, with it's focus on luster and metallic purity.

[vampireshark]

I read something hypothesizing that James Maxwell may have been able to have develop the theory of relativity if he hadn't died at such a young age, but... I don't remember what it was, and who knows if it would've come to fruition.

[Koffiegast]

What about all that stuff that hasn't been invented yet, but could totally be here by now?

... Like ?

Like genetic research, cloning, stem cell research and such.

Why? Tons of advanced countries with developed science teams have some stupid morality and 'god didn't meant this to be'-argument going, preventing from crucial and necessary research from being done. Luckily there are a few countries that allow it, but we would have been much further if many more allowed it. Maybe we could have had the technology to fully regrown a limb by now...

[Pthagnar]

Why? Tons of advanced countries with developed science teams have some stupid morality and 'god didn't meant this to be'-argument going, preventing from crucial and necessary research from being done. Luckily there are a few countries that allow it, but we would have been much further if many more allowed it. Maybe we could have had the technology to fully regrown a limb by now...

That is not very likely. You are grossly overstating how much morality is squelching research into biology. For "tons of advanced countries", you mean "the USA" and by "crucial and necessary research" you mean "research into foetal stem cells". A lot of good science was done in other places, particularly with non-foetal stem cells. While of course it was wrong for Bush to declare this particular branch off limits, and while of course certain results were out there and not found as a result, they are not terribly significant.

Regarding cloning, you do not achieve much in cloning a human that you do not get in cloning, say, a rhesus monkey. And that at much less moral hazard, particularly in the long and awkward working-out-the-bugs stage that we are in at the moment: organs keep failing. sometimes the lungs, sometimes the kidneys, and nobody is entirely sure why...

[Chuma]

The speed of sound is really more like 300 m/s... you're probably thinking km/h.

Aah! You're right. *bangs head against wall*

I read something hypothesizing that James Maxwell may have been able to have develop the theory of relativity if he hadn't died at such a young age

Doesn't seem too unlikely. Altho that would have been less than 25 years before Einstein did it.
I've read an interesting article describing how Linnaeus almost discovered evolution, but backed off because the church told him to.

There are probably a lot of things in science/philosophy that could have been invented earlier. For example set theory, which is after all easy to teach kids in primary school but still was only invented in the 1870s, Wiki says. But maybe such abstract things are less relevant to the subject at hand.

[sirdanilot]

Oh how cool would Roman legions be in hot air balloons, throwing burning sulfur onto the barbarian Gauls...


I am digressing.

I heard somewhere that if the burning down of a certain library (Alexandria? Somewhere in Babylonia? I don't remember) hadn't happened, we would have been in the modern age somewhere around the 1700s. Although I think that is a huge overstatement, I'd be interested if anyone here knows what I am talking about? Since it's really a vague memory for me.
The great library of.... it's at the tip of my tongue....

EDIT: Oh yeah, it's the great library of Alexandria. I was right after all.

[sangi39]

I read something hypothesizing that James Maxwell may have been able to have develop the theory of relativity if he hadn't died at such a young age, but... I don't remember what it was, and who knows if it would've come to fruition.

I remember reading a similar thing. It could have been something by Stephen Hawking (Universe in a Nutshell or Brief History of Time) which are the only two thngs that I can associate with that statement from a vague recollection that I read it while at work during high school.

[LinguistCat]

I heard somewhere that if the burning down of a certain library (Alexandria? Somewhere in Babylonia? I don't remember) hadn't happened, we would have been in the modern age somewhere around the 1700s.

I think that, in the case it hadn't been burnt down, we would have had some extra advances we'd have kept, but more likely, we'd also have resources or at least stories of cultures we know little or nothing about now. It would have been better from a cultural or linguistic standpoint. Maybe that would have spurred some more inventions, but I think the overall effect would be increased knowledge of earlier peoples.

[brandrinn]

What about all that stuff that hasn't been invented yet, but could totally be here by now?

... Like ?

How should I know?

Doesn't that sort of answer your own question?

*sigh*

[bulbaquil]

I think that, in the case it hadn't been burnt down, we would have had some extra advances we'd have kept, but more likely, we'd also have resources or at least stories of cultures we know little or nothing about now. It would have been better from a cultural or linguistic standpoint. Maybe that would have spurred some more inventions, but I think the overall effect would be increased knowledge of earlier peoples.

I'm of the opinion that, if time travel into the past is possible and we somehow manage it, one of the most generous gifts it could provide would be knowledge of what lies within that library.

[sangi39]

I read something hypothesizing that James Maxwell may have been able to have develop the theory of relativity if he hadn't died at such a young age, but... I don't remember what it was, and who knows if it would've come to fruition.

I remember reading a similar thing. It could have been something by Stephen Hawking (Universe in a Nutshell or Brief History of Time) which are the only two thngs that I can associate with that statement from a vague recollection that I read it while at work during high school.

Found where it's from accidentally this evening. It's from Michio Kaku's "Physics of the Impossible", the section dealing with the possibilities of invisibility.

[Xonen]

Couldn't hot air balloons be invented earlier?

In theory, yes. A balloon made using ancient technology has in fact been tested; see here.

Once again, however, we might run into the problem that, even if the means are technically available, people aren't going to use them if they lack the theoretical understanding to know what they could be used for. It's not exactly immediately obvious that you can actually lift human-sized objects to the sky with nothing but hot air - and it's rather unlikely people would start complicated experiments on harnessing a force they don't even know to exist.

[the duke of nuke]

It's possible that standing armies being introduced into Europe earlier could have maintained bowmen corps into the nineteenth century - Wellington lamented their absence in the Napoleonic wars. But they would by then only have been an elite corps, and probably not worth the money

What exactly was the status of the archers? From what I've heard, the longbowmen required a lifetime of training. How could they be so well trained if it wasn't a standing army?

In the case of the British longbowmen, they were commoners (although I'm not sure of the details; I think most were freemen, i.e. not serfs). The high standard of archery was maintained by legal measures, such as banning all other sports on Sundays, banning crossbows, building archery butts... and so on.

Interestingly this held back British development of handgunnery for a while, since handguns were legally grouped with crossbows and were repeatedly banned by the Tudor governments.

[Abi]

Just look at Da Vinci's work for ideas about what could have been invented earlier. Several of his inventions would have indeed worked (there are many T.V. shows produced that have actually built stuff from his blueprints) around his time: tanks, multi-round cannons, gliding machines, parachutes, primitive robots, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iHoZHJTdd0

[Salmoneus]

I heard somewhere that if the burning down of a certain library (Alexandria? Somewhere in Babylonia? I don't remember) hadn't happened, we would have been in the modern age somewhere around the 1700s.

I think that, in the case it hadn't been burnt down, we would have had some extra advances we'd have kept, but more likely, we'd also have resources or at least stories of cultures we know little or nothing about now. It would have been better from a cultural or linguistic standpoint. Maybe that would have spurred some more inventions, but I think the overall effect would be increased knowledge of earlier peoples.

I think the effect would have been massive. Sure, there'd still have been a dark age... but coming out of it would have been so much easier. In our timeline, Newton and Leibniz both independently struggled to create calculus - wouldn't things have happened quicker if they'd had access to the manuscripts where Archimedes did it already, which in our timeline were only rediscovered as palimpsests much later? Or would it have held us back - if we'd had Greek-style geometrical calculus all along, would we have developed algebra and formal notation as quickly as we did?

[Chuma]

The high standard of archery was maintained by legal measures, such as banning all other sports on Sundays

That's pretty amazing. Their military advantage was based on sport? Maybe we should try that. Let's ban all sports on sundays except... Halo? That'll be useful in case aliens attack. We'd be fat, tho.

it's rather unlikely people would start complicated experiments on harnessing a force they don't even know to exist.

I don't know, somehow it seems to happen repeatedly in history. There are all sorts of things that I have no idea how they first came up with. Such as the aforementioned gunpowder.
"Hey, let's try mixing sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate! Oh look, it burns rapidly - let's put it in a cylindrical container and use it to propel various objects at people we don't like!"
I sure wouldn't have thought of that.

Or would it have held us back

That is an interesting thought. Case in point:

In this famous picture (which funnily enough is apparently from 1492) we see Pythagoras demonstrating how to get musical notes in various ways, using the same number sequence - strings with different tension, pipes of different length, and so on. The wavelength is proportional to these numbers, said Pythagoras, and people believed it, and many still do. But as it turns out, all except one of the demonstrations are wrong - the numbers should increase quadratically, not linearly, to produce the right wavelength.

But now I'm sort of derailing myself again.

Ships. What about those? In my specific scenario, ships would play an important part. What sort of ships could the fictional slightly-more-advanced people have invented?
Steam ships, I guess, but that's boring. Ironclads? I'm not sure what's so great about them - does the metal stop a cannonball?

[Miekko]

In this famous picture (which funnily enough is apparently from 1492) we see Pythagoras demonstrating how to get musical notes in various ways, using the same number sequence - strings with different tension, pipes of different length, and so on. The wavelength is proportional to these numbers, said Pythagoras, and people believed it, and many still do. But as it turns out, all except one of the demonstrations are wrong - the numbers should increase quadratically, not linearly, to produce the right wavelength.

What?
I think your understanding of music is off? 9/8, 4/3, etc are all recognized intervals, which can be reached from that. Quadratical increase - well, sort of, but not that much of it. Doublings do produce octaves. But uhm, we get a stacked interval by multiplying them together, yes, but nothing in that picture shows anything that contradicts that in any manner.

(and the number of pitches is relatively low there - a pythagorean scale is like
1/1 9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 243/128 anyway, but the full lack of any factor of five suggests pythagorean tuning anyway - 5-limit JI would give 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 or somesuch))