Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:1191561472.221396.70520
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 5, 12:03 am, Ron wrote:
I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's
posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will
admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly.
The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build
a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design
that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it
flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable
theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories.

Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form
exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these
characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be
seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be
done. 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.
Ron Kelley

Thanks Ron.

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. I saw
your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are
not.

Except we both know that isn't what you are doing.


Bertie

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.

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, 10:30 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.


Yeh, right.


Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

Fair enough. Just understand then that on occasion somebody comes in here
claiming that their physics trumps established, documented science, and
usually these people don't actually fly airplanes.

Of course, actually flying airplanes is only relevant because 1) this is a
"piloting" newsgroup and 2) lots of people come out on the internet claiming
to prove or disprove everything, such as 9/11 conspiracies, but they have
nothing to show for it.

Somebody else posted a link to the SR-71 Blackbird flight manual. I
daresay, the people who developed that understood aviation a whole hell of a
lot better than most engineers, and so whatever science they used to derive
that design (and the P-38, and the U-2) is good enough for me. To suggest
that the likes of Kelly Johnson's understanding of aerodynamics is flawed in
a pilot's forum is going to be met with hostility by many here. Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
previoulsy challenged aviation here.

-c

Gatt writes:

Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
previoulsy challenged aviation here.

I have never seen anyone challenge aviation here. I have seen people refuse
to be intimidated by the yelping alpha dogs and playground bullies, but that's
quite different.

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