Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages.

Those who engage rapidly in personal attacks are the most active
posters, but are not necessarily representative. Personal attacks are
very easy to construct and thus can be launched very quickly.
Rational argument or debate is much more difficult.




Actualy, with you , either would be impossible.

You have the one redeeming feature of being a reliable target, though. A
bit like a Whack A Mole


Bertie

"Ron" wrote in message
...

However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've
seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.

The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

Additionally, there's a difference between coming in and posting out of the
box versus coming in and suggesting that all the textbooks are wrong. If he
wants less vitriol he'll approach our common understanding of aerodynamic
science with a little more respect when among our own community.

-c

On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Oct 5, 10:30 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:

The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.

Correction:

Several years ago due to problems with email, I used a different
alias. But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same.

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and
approach the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make
reference to something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.



Snort!


Bertie

"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong and how
upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

-c

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
Airport" circa August 10.

The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he quoted a
NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
"Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything. That's
why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "

I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably don't
need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight Simulator
pilot on the newsgroup.

-c

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:02:48 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
.. .

However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've
seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.

The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

Additionally, there's a difference between coming in and posting out of the
box versus coming in and suggesting that all the textbooks are wrong. If he
wants less vitriol he'll approach our common understanding of aerodynamic
science with a little more respect when among our own community.

-c


I've monitored this group for several years and contributed a little
now and then. I don't recall a previous post on this subject, but
then I don't read every post either, so it may have slipped past me.
If I've responded to a troll I apologize to the group. However, based
on his OP, he doesn't sound like a troll... he sounds like he
genuinely has some questions on the established theory of flight and
has suggested alternatives by his rudimentary experiments. I thought
the OP was meant to stimulate discussion. It seems it has, along with
some of the aforementioned vitriol.

I'm not sure claiming some of the textbooks are wrong isn't true.
Certainly NASA thinks so. I don't think they are *all* wrong, but
clearly some have misused the theories on why airplanes fly. I guess
we could kick this around for years and not come to agreement. After
all, the argument has been going on since the Wright brothers.

Ron

Gatt writes:

I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.

Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
the aerodynamic principles in books ...

But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare exceptions,
and even then they did not design them).

About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
have flown an airplane.

Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one (successfully) would.