Quote:
Originally Posted by orange4boy
Who's this "we" you keep referring to?
That's a nonsense clickbait title and a misunderstanding of science. Aerodynamicists do know how wings create lift but there is a difference between having explanations of all of the key things but not every tiny detail. There are certainly wrong explanations and the one in the reference you posted is a fallacy. Ed Regis, the author has a PhD in Philosophy who interviewed the director of a museum. They are not primary or even secondary sources.
LOL. You are such a hypocrite. Aerohead posts "wrong information" and you blow a gasket and demand he read the references, claim he is trying to deceive people and demand that he do something about it. You post wrong information and follow up with more wrong information.
As you keep saying:
"So it's all good - but only if it applies to others, not them."
When are you going to live up to the principals you demand others follow?
You don't need to answer this. I'm sure you made a mistake since you have posted before to "run when people mention Bernoulli...". I don't expect anyone to respond honestly in this kind of atmosphere. Of course you will avoid admitting fault. That's only natural. This is the entire point of civility. It allows people to post without fear of attack or of losing face if they make a mistake.
I call for a clean slate.
Cheers.
|
I find your posts rather hard to understand.
I linked to a reference to describe the action of
diffusers - that was the subject of the discussion; how diffusers do or do not work. You read the reference and decided you wanted to talk about
wings - a different subject.
I then linked to an excellent article on how wings are understood to work, in Scientific American no less, and you decided that it was no good.
And now it seems you've decided that you don't really want to talk about wings.
The 'we' are the members of this group - as in, we discussed wings a few weeks ago.