Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
Did you actually read the cited article? It doesn't seem so because it states:
Adding to the confusion is the fact that accounts of lift exist on two separate levels of abstraction: the technical and the nontechnical. They are complementary rather than contradictory, but they differ in their aims. One exists as a strictly mathematical theory, a realm in which the analysis medium consists of equations, symbols, computer simulations and numbers. There is little, if any, serious disagreement as to what the appropriate equations or their solutions are. The objective of technical mathematical theory is to make accurate predictions and to project results that are useful to aeronautical engineers engaged in the complex business of designing aircraft.
So, no one is arguing about the numerical models.
But by themselves, equations are not explanations, and neither are their solutions. There is a second, nontechnical level of analysis that is intended to provide us with a physical, commonsense explanation of lift. The objective of the nontechnical approach is to give us an intuitive understanding of the actual forces and factors that are at work in holding an airplane aloft. This approach exists not on the level of numbers and equations but rather on the level of concepts and principles that are familiar and intelligible to non-specialists.
That's where the discussion is - and it's one where you routinely dismiss Newtonian concepts in car aero.
Maybe read the article and reflect on it?
|
I did read it. To me it's just esoteric banter, with no actionable information, germane to road vehicles.
It's more 'philosophy' than workaday aerodynamics. And kinda intellectually dishonest, as they're relying on turning Popperian logic on it's head, with no way to prove the hypothetical issue, one way or another. Water 'memory' at the sub-molecular level.
