On May 29, 10:00*am, Kevin Horner wrote:
On May 28, 11:07 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

But as I stated, while I was not sure that I was right, the others
were sure that I was wrong.

No, but are certain that the others are wrong when they say you are
wrong. Your certainty about that implies that you (subconsciously) think
you are right. I don't believe you when you say "I was not sure I was
right" because you argue from a position of certainty, not uncertainty.
If you were uncertain, you would be *much* more open-minded and willing
to listen. This is the real reason you cannot get into a deep
discussion: you won't listen to people who don't agree with your
assertions.

I was more than willing to read explanations of how backwash causes
lift (and I still am). The problem is that most of the responses were
lacking in explanations based on scientific foundations. Saying "It's
true because it has always been true" does not count, IMO.

You play the "I'm an electrical engineer and I know calculus" card well,
but it is not enough to disprove the theory of lift.

Agreed, 100%. Many of the conflicting theories of lift were put forth
by people much skilled in these areas. I only say that to say that I
am readying and willing to hear details.

One person, I think Tina, gave a very vague explanation...too vague to
serve as an exposition. I was hoping for an explanation that would at
least past the standards of high school physics. Where are the forces
on the wing, and what elements generate those forces, in detail.

The explanation does not have to be complete, meaning, I do not expect
a full CFD exposition. A high school student who only knows basic
Newtonian physics and nothing about CFD, assuming s/he understands how
the lift is being generated, would be able to say where the particles
(air), the material (wing), and how the particles impart force on the
wing, and vice versa. Saying that there is lift because something
moves downward and therefore something must move upward is not an
example of Newton's theory of reciprocity. It's far too vague.

Discussion about backwash and lift? To what end? Has anyone made you
aware that flying machines have successfully been invented already?

Well, two reasons:

1. It is problably the centerpiece of any theory involving flight,
making it interesting in its own right.
2. If backwash does _not_ cause lift, then there might be something
else, and if there is something else (a bit if), there might be
opportunity for new types of aircraft, the kind that FAA has been
begging for for last 10 years.

You want to discuss how the experts in lift theory must be wrong because
lift is inconsistently explained by different sources. To get a
discussion going, you will need to find a newsgroup filled with people
who are also non-experts that want to talk about how the experts must be
wrong. Good luck in finding it.

My suspicion derives from my own basic knowledge of physics. Again, if
someone decided to explain, I would be all ears.

As for the experts, if two experts conflict each other, who am I to
say which of them is wrong? And if there is conflict, they cannot both
be right.

-Le Chaud Lapin-