Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
ease up on the ad hominem attacks.

Not for people who don't understand the physics and dread admitting
it. For them, personal attacks are about the only option.




I undertand physics quite well, and obviously much better than you ,
fjukkwit.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.

You're an idiot.l



Bertie

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Tina

Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far different
than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics, but
i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
I'm seeing.

OK, I had to look at LCL's other posting history.

MX is a failed computer programmer. Does that explain the other
"groups"?

It's hard to change one's writing style.

MX and LCL use the same phrases and argument progression.

1) "I've got all the answers"
2) "Like most people, especially those who have spent their lives
studying a subject, you are confused"
3) "Here's a quote that, when taken out of context, says I'm right"
4) "Here's a stupid and irrelevant question for you"
5) "Do your own research to support my claims"
6) "You're picking on me because I'm smarter than all of you and you
don't like it"

That pretty much sums up every exchange with MX and also the recent
appearance of LCL.

Dollars to donuts they're the same idiot.




I agree. This is clasic sockpuppetry, Tina. Fascinating phenomenon you
really aren;t going to get a better view of than in usenet.


Keep watching, it gts better.

Bertie

"Gatt" wrote

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.

Bingo. As I said, even without proof, it is obvious.

Anyone else notice that the increase of the chad's posts were directly
inversely proportional to MX's?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
--
Jim in NC

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
are not experts.

It's best not to worry too much about credentials or hearsay.

Then we
have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia, who
could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

Jeppesen probably depends on credentials, like so many other entities and
people. It's easier to go by credentials than to test actual qualifications.
If someone has fancy credentials, he may get the job, even if he doesn't
actually know the answers.

Now I could have gone to some university in the U.S., Germany, France,
and found someone with stratospheric credentials in aero-astro, but
after seeing one expert say that the other is wrong, and then seeing
an incorrect application of Newton's law (yes I still believe it's
incorrect), I had to put on the brakes.

Lift is bizarre because it's easy to use and very reliable and practical, and
the overall principle is easy to understand correctly, but it's very difficult
to analyze in detail. But that is true of many things in the physical world:
the more closely you look at them, the more confusing they become.

In any field of research, there is mind and hand. For artists in the
field, there are those who have a proclivity to use hand more than
mind, and there are those who have a proclivity to use mind more than
hand. In any case, there are typically multiple paths to discovery,
one major path relying heavily on the imagination, the other path
relying on experimentation. Typically there is a combination. Based
on the small amount of the field of aerodynamcis I have seen so far,
and the disputes and inconsistencies, I would not be surprised if
there is an enormous amount of money being spent on experimentation.
Granted, experimentation is very necessary to validate (or invalidate)
what was conceived, but in many fields, there are researchers who
adopt the brute force approach, not completely, but much more than
someone who, lacking $100's of millions in funding would.

Not understanding aerodynamics doesn't prevent you from developing elaborate
computer models, it just prevents you from developing models that produce
accurate answers. Just running something through a computer doesn't validate
it.

A lot of J. D. Anderson.

Everyone has his favorite "experts."

I guess the most important thing I learned from this experiences is
that, if it is true that the field of aerodynamics is fully-cooked,
the experts need to tell everyone else so that they stop printing (as
late as 2006) erroneous information in textbooks about the very
basics.

There are still many mysteries in aerodynamics, as in so many other areas of
physical reality. It seems unlikely that human beings could have gone for
thousands of years understanding almost nothing of the subject and then
suddenly could have progressed to omniscience in a single century.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than mere
hours you will find on these forums.
Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can make
claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate competence, not
to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen in this venue.


So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences, but
make few claims.

You , OTOH...



Bertie

I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a counter
statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
mere hours you will find on these forums.
Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen
in this venue.


So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences,
but make few claims.

You , OTOH...



Bertie

I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.




Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
mere hours you will find on these forums.
Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen
in this venue.

So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences,
but make few claims.

You , OTOH...



Bertie
I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.




Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello?


Bertie

You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
this guy :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
are not experts.

It's best not to worry too much about credentials or hearsay.

Then we
have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia,
who could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen
book and what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

Jeppesen probably depends on credentials,


Actualy, they rely on pilots, which you are not.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
mere hours you will find on these forums.
Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a
dozen
in this venue.

So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate
experiences,
but make few claims.

You , OTOH...



Bertie
I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.




Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello?


Bertie

You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
this guy :-))

I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/

Bertie