The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Danang on September 26, 2020, 09:11:17 PM

Title: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on September 26, 2020, 09:11:17 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??

PS.
I use "the buck" because I avoid the "F word" ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: JJA on September 27, 2020, 06:44:29 AM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??

PS.
I use "the buck" because I avoid the "F word" ;D ;D ;D



I can build a car with square wheels and it will still work. No need for round wheels! Round wheels are a lie!

See how silly that sounds?

You age getting confused here. It's possible to use new discoveries to improve existing things. It's not a difficult concept.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on September 27, 2020, 07:08:23 AM
You're kinda right in that the usual explanation about the wing's shape and whatnot is a bit flawed. It can indeed work with perfectly flat wings, the reason modern wings have airfoils is more complex. But this has nothing to do with the validity of Bernoulli's principle.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on September 28, 2020, 03:42:16 AM
Like, it's not hard to verify Bernoulli's principle on your own...
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on September 28, 2020, 08:02:50 AM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on September 28, 2020, 11:55:08 AM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.

I see there isn't much different whether the wings is with airfoil or flat.
The source of force for a lift comes from below.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on September 28, 2020, 03:02:30 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.

I see there isn't much different whether the wings is with airfoil or flat.
The source of force for a lift comes from below.
Wouldn't it be more efficient if there was a source of lift above too?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on September 29, 2020, 12:55:16 PM
Like, it's not hard to verify Bernoulli's principle on your own...

Comparing the modern plane's wings, with plane's wings at earliest aeronautics history is certainly easy for everyone.

Thanks to internet era that makes anyone as if had a huge library. Before internet era, nearly all students probably didn't know about flat wings on planes at earliest era of aeronautics.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on September 29, 2020, 01:01:30 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??

PS.
I use "the buck" because I avoid the "F word" ;D ;D ;D



I can build a car with square wheels and it will still work. No need for round wheels! Round wheels are a lie!

See how silly that sounds?

You age getting confused here. It's possible to use new discoveries to improve existing things. It's not a difficult concept.

It's not difficult to ..... debunk Bernoulli's principle.
No real dicovery is based on something that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on September 29, 2020, 01:15:32 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.

I see there isn't much different whether the wings is with airfoil or flat.
The source of force for a lift comes from below.
Wouldn't it be more efficient if there was a source of lift above too?

I wish. But the experiment footage indicates that there is no lift factor coming from above.
The blowing position is higher than the paper. It presses the paper downwards, but the result is, the paper goes up.

The space is under one ATM, a closed system. The dome existence has another strong evidence, i.e. lift mechanism as explained at the experiment footage.
If there was no closed system above us, the plane wouldn't get lift feed back from below.
From below? Another factor must exist 👉 DUD, without which action-reaction mechanism in propleler's blowing would be horizontal only.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on September 29, 2020, 02:13:58 PM
Like, it's not hard to verify Bernoulli's principle on your own...

Comparing the modern plane's wings, with plane's wings at earliest aeronautics history is certainly easy for everyone.

Thanks to internet era that makes anyone as if had a huge library. Before internet era, nearly all students probably didn't know about flat wings on planes at earliest era of aeronautics.

But I already told you that old plane wings don't contradict Bernoulli's principle... It's simply that the usual explanation of how lift works is not very adequate. Again, it's not that older plane wings contradicted Bernoulli. The way these wings worked was that when the wings were slightly tilted upwards, an area of lower pressure was created right above the top of the wing, while the bottom of the wing pushed slightly downwards on the air incident on them. This is similar to the way modern airplanes work (their wings are always installed at an angle to create the effect I described), and the airfoil shape is such that it both maximizes that effect as well as minimizing drag and stress on the wings. Bernoulli's principle does have something to do with all this, but the way it comes into play is more complex. The bottom line is, air does flow faster at the top of the wing, but it isn't just because of the shape of the airfoil, but more because of the slight tilt of the wing.

So the way it works is not according to the naive Bernoulli's principle explanation which only mentions the shape of the airfoil that is sometimes offered, and you are right that the lift is not created by the shape of the wing, and that the same can happen with different shapes of wings. I mean, fighter jets can often fly upside down, which according to the naive explanation wouldn't be possible. But the fact that Bernoulli's principle shouldn't be applied in that naive way to explain the phenomenon without further elaboration doesn't mean that it is wrong. Bernoulli's principle simply states that when you have an increase in the speed of the flow of a fluid, you have a decrease in the static pressure of that fluid. There is the simple Bernoulli equation that we learn at school which only applies to incompressible fluids like liquids, and there is also a more general one that also applies to gasses in some cases, but its action isn't as simple as that.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on September 29, 2020, 02:16:03 PM
I found a wiki article which presents the simplified explanations as well as the reasons they have limitations, as well as the more involved ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on September 29, 2020, 02:21:19 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.
Actually both flat and modern wings generate lift thanks to Bernoulli's principle (as well as some other things), but it's not the shape of the wings that is most important here, but rather the slight upwards tilt.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on September 29, 2020, 03:40:58 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.
Actually both flat and modern wings generate lift thanks to Bernoulli's principle (as well as some other things), but it's not the shape of the wings that is most important here, but rather the slight upwards tilt.
Flat wings rely more on forward thrust to generate lift than aerodynamics.  With enough thrust, you can make a brick generate lift but that doesn't sound terribly efficient to me.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on September 29, 2020, 05:58:10 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.
Actually both flat and modern wings generate lift thanks to Bernoulli's principle (as well as some other things), but it's not the shape of the wings that is most important here, but rather the slight upwards tilt.
Flat wings rely more on forward thrust to generate lift than aerodynamics.  With enough thrust, you can make a brick generate lift but that doesn't sound terribly efficient to me.

With enough thrust you can get a washing machine to fly......

Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on September 29, 2020, 07:33:22 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.
Actually both flat and modern wings generate lift thanks to Bernoulli's principle (as well as some other things), but it's not the shape of the wings that is most important here, but rather the slight upwards tilt.
Flat wings rely more on forward thrust to generate lift than aerodynamics.  With enough thrust, you can make a brick generate lift but that doesn't sound terribly efficient to me.

With enough thrust you can get a washing machine to fly......


Or an out house...
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on September 30, 2020, 12:56:12 AM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle allows you to make better and more efficient wings.
Actually both flat and modern wings generate lift thanks to Bernoulli's principle (as well as some other things), but it's not the shape of the wings that is most important here, but rather the slight upwards tilt.
Flat wings rely more on forward thrust to generate lift than aerodynamics.  With enough thrust, you can make a brick generate lift but that doesn't sound terribly efficient to me.
No they don't. They do pretty much the same thing as modern wings when they are tilted slightly upwards. They create a lower pressure area above the wing. They can still glide without thrust. They're not as efficient as modern wings of course but they both also rely on Bernoulli (it's one component of the force, not all of it).
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sceptimatic on September 30, 2020, 11:39:06 PM
A plane acts like a skimming stone over water.
Anything flying horizontally, must angle wings against that, whether the whole wing is slightly angled or the leading edge of a straight wing curves over and down to an angle  to the rear of the wing.

A plane is just an air speed boat. You're just skimming along.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 01:00:00 AM
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb, 1902

It turns out that Simon Newcomb was correct in his assertions:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 01:34:20 AM
No, airplanes exist.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 01:58:13 AM
Sure, but they use the Schauberger-DePalma effect to fly.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 02:04:38 AM
No. I’ll ask again because last time you ran away. Why do planes need to reach takeoff speed?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 02:22:16 AM
In order for the Schauberger effect to be activated, that's why.

If you want a flying device to take off vertically, you need the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 02:41:02 AM
The effect needs the plane to be moving at the same speed wings would start to work? How convenient. And adding flaps to add more lift is fake?

Where are your 30 Nobel Prizes for this great discovery?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 02:45:07 AM
And gliders that dont even have engines still use this effect?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 02:53:05 AM
Absolutely and positively modern science cannot explain how airplanes (jet aircrafts) fly:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939

Remember, Simon Newcomb was the best mathematician/physicist in North America at the turn of the last century, and his calculations were very precise: "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible".

Now, modern physics agrees with him: no one can explain how airplanes fly.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 03:05:34 AM
And gliders that dont even have engines still use this effect?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 03:08:29 AM
Absolutely and positively modern science cannot explain how airplanes (jet aircrafts) fly:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939

Remember, Simon Newcomb was the best mathematician/physicist in North America at the turn of the last century, and his calculations were very precise: "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible".

Now, modern physics agrees with him: no one can explain how airplanes fly.

The pressure above the wing is lower than below the wing.

When the wings lose lift the plane crashes.




Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 03:34:11 AM
And gliders that dont even have engines still use this effect?

Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 03:36:37 AM
And gliders that dont even have engines still use this effect?



Yup. No magic effects needed. Just wings.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 03:41:47 AM
Fluid mechanics (Bernoulli's theorem) and Newton's third law do not provide a complete explanation for lift.

Something else is missing: torsion physics.

And no one understood torsion physics better than Viktor Schauberger, the inventor of the jet engine.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 03:45:42 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


You need to understand you are wrong.

Planes use wings to fly and glide. They can still glide without power. See the link.

Are you also saying propeller planes do fly with wings?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 03:58:01 AM
Yes, we know about captain Piche's formidable skills as a pilot, using the Airbus330 as a glider. However, in order to glide you need to reach a certain speed, easy enough for a single pilot glider. Fill a Boeing 787 with 300 people, on the ground, and try and glide that aircraft. It won't work.

This is what Newcomb was describing: the laws of physics, as we know them, do not permit a much heavier than air airplane to take off and fly with hundreds of people aboard.

You need torsion physics, the Schauberger effect.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 04:04:56 AM
No. You need thrust and lift.

No magic needed.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 04:11:11 AM
If all you've got is Bernoulli's theorem/Newton's third law, certainly you'll need magic to explain lift on RE.

No can explain how airplanes fly, not even the best engineers at Boeing. Not even one.

Newcomb provided the calculations: it can't be done.

You need torsion physics, the Schauberger effect also to explain lift.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 04:15:47 AM
So why is the force in the upwards direction? How do planes fly upside down?

Your whole argument is based on other people not knowing physics. It’s not based on evidence.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 04:20:20 AM
Cut the crap.

No one knows how airplanes fly.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2020, 06:39:54 AM
And gliders that dont even have engines still use this effect?


That glider is using the engine in the airplane towing it.  I live near a glider field and have seen tow planes pull gliders to altitude many times.  There is nothing magical about it.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on October 01, 2020, 07:25:09 AM
Yes, we know about captain Piche's formidable skills as a pilot, using the Airbus330 as a glider. However, in order to glide you need to reach a certain speed, easy enough for a single pilot glider. Fill a Boeing 787 with 300 people, on the ground, and try and glide that aircraft. It won't work.

This is what Newcomb was describing: the laws of physics, as we know them, do not permit a much heavier than air airplane to take off and fly with hundreds of people aboard.

You need torsion physics, the Schauberger effect.
Yes, you can't make a Boeing 787 full of people glide unless it reaches a certain speed. Which is why it has the engines, to reach that speed...
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2020, 01:49:59 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??
Because Bernoulli's Principle deals with fluid dynamics in general, not airplane wings exclusively.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 01, 2020, 03:56:26 PM
If another lift force comes from air flow (bounch) between the plane & the ground, the plane's gonna take off a little bit. But the plane will fall again when the altitude gets a bit higher. (No air bounch anymore).

The case is, the lift from below works all the time regardless the altitude.

That's how DUD works.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 01, 2020, 04:02:04 PM
Again, the experiment shows that even if the pressure upperneath of the object is  higher than the underneath part, the object will also go up.
Bernoulli principle got debanked.



Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2020, 04:45:20 PM
If another lift force comes from air flow (bounch) between the plane & the ground, the plane's gonna take off a little bit. But the plane will fall again when the altitude gets a bit higher. (No air bounch anymore).

The case is, the lift from below works all the time regardless the altitude.

That's how DUD works.
Actually, it's called ground effect and is fairly well known.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ground_Effect
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2020, 07:00:20 PM
Cut the crap.

No one knows how airplanes fly.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis
First the quotes are opinions from over 100 years ago. They have no relevance today.

Second the paper reads like it is from a philosopher. Clearly people understand lift. Planes like the F-117 and B-2 aren’t just accidents.

Thirdly no one of those quotes or sources agrees with you. Do you even have a source that will clearly say a plane’s lift isn’t from the wings?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2020, 10:03:34 PM
Cut the crap.

Lord Kelvin and Simon Newcomb, two of the best mathematical physicists, applied the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics to the subject matter and found out that an object much heavier than air cannot sustain flight. If ideas from one hundred years ago have no relevance, according to you, then a paper written some 350 years ago, should have no relevance either, right?

This is a proven fact.

Then, you need an additional force to keep the jet airplane in flight, which is derived from torsion physics.

The article proves that no one today, not even the best engineers at Boeing, has any clue as to how lift is produced.

No one has the slightest clue as to how the F-117 (as an example) has lift.

The article proves it.

If you think you know better, please outline the physics: Bernoulli's theorem and Newton's third law are dismissed very quickly when it comes to explaining lift.

All of those papers agree with me: lift cannot be explained by using the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis

One of the best scientific journals, using the most significant sources comes to a very certain final conclusion: no one can explain lift.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on October 02, 2020, 04:08:38 AM
Cut the crap.

Lord Kelvin and Simon Newcomb, two of the best mathematical physicists, applied the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics to the subject matter and found out that an object much heavier than air cannot sustain flight. If ideas from one hundred years ago have no relevance, according to you, then a paper written some 350 years ago, should have no relevance either, right?

This is a proven fact.

Then, you need an additional force to keep the jet airplane in flight, which is derived from torsion physics.

The article proves that no one today, not even the best engineers at Boeing, has any clue as to how lift is produced.

No one has the slightest clue as to how the F-117 (as an example) has lift.

The article proves it.

If you think you know better, please outline the physics: Bernoulli's theorem and Newton's third law are dismissed very quickly when it comes to explaining lift.

All of those papers agree with me: lift cannot be explained by using the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis

One of the best scientific journals, using the most significant sources comes to a very certain final conclusion: no one can explain lift.

I don't think you understand what their conclusions were. It was a matter of practicability. They did not think technology of that era was capable of realising it, not that lift is impossible. Other people disagreed. Turns out they were wrong, and the other people were right. It happens.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on October 02, 2020, 04:15:29 AM
Another quote by Newcomb:

Quote
Quite likely the 20th century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different."

So clearly his objection was that technology of that era couldn't realize flight, which was wrong because he failed to anticipate airfoils, even the rudimentary ones used back then (no, they weren't just using completely flat wings, contrary to what op says), as well as advances in internal combustion engines.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 02, 2020, 06:17:21 AM
Cut the crap.

Lord Kelvin and Simon Newcomb, two of the best mathematical physicists, applied the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics to the subject matter and found out that an object much heavier than air cannot sustain flight.
How did they explain how birds sustain flight?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 03, 2020, 07:27:02 AM
Cut the crap.
Yes cut the crap. It's getting old.

Quote
Lord Kelvin and Simon Newcomb, two of the best mathematical physicists, applied the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics to the subject matter and found out that an object much heavier than air cannot sustain flight. If ideas from one hundred years ago have no relevance, according to you, then a paper written some 350 years ago, should have no relevance either, right?
The wright brothers showed otherwise.
 I'm assuming you mean Principia.  It has it's problems. 

Quote
This is a proven fact.
No facts, only evidence. When will you learn this?

Quote
Then, you need an additional force to keep the jet airplane in flight, which is derived from torsion physics.
No. Lift from wings.

Quote
The article proves that no one today, not even the best engineers at Boeing, has any clue as to how lift is produced.
The article is just one article. It is evidence, not proof.

Quote
No one has the slightest clue as to how the F-117 (as an example) has lift.
Incorrect.

Quote
The article proves it.
Incorrect.

Quote
If you think you know better, please outline the physics: Bernoulli's theorem and Newton's third law are dismissed very quickly when it comes to explaining lift.
Low pressure on top, high pressure on the bottom. That was easy.

Quote
All of those papers agree with me: lift cannot be explained by using the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis

One of the best scientific journals, using the most significant sources comes to a very certain final conclusion: no one can explain lift.
Low pressure on top, high pressure on the bottom. That was easy.


Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Pezevenk on October 04, 2020, 05:48:10 AM
Cut the crap.

Lord Kelvin and Simon Newcomb, two of the best mathematical physicists, applied the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics to the subject matter and found out that an object much heavier than air cannot sustain flight. If ideas from one hundred years ago have no relevance, according to you, then a paper written some 350 years ago, should have no relevance either, right?

This is a proven fact.

Then, you need an additional force to keep the jet airplane in flight, which is derived from torsion physics.

The article proves that no one today, not even the best engineers at Boeing, has any clue as to how lift is produced.

No one has the slightest clue as to how the F-117 (as an example) has lift.

The article proves it.

If you think you know better, please outline the physics: Bernoulli's theorem and Newton's third law are dismissed very quickly when it comes to explaining lift.

All of those papers agree with me: lift cannot be explained by using the known laws of mechanics/fluid mechanics.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis

One of the best scientific journals, using the most significant sources comes to a very certain final conclusion: no one can explain lift.

If you read the article (which is published in a popular science magazine, NOT a scientific journal, and as such aims to be somewhat clickbaity), you'd realize that what the author is actually saying is that none of the usual simple, qualitative and intuitive accounts offer a complete picture as to why lift occurs, since the naive Bernoulli explanation has all sorts of problems, and the 2nd law explanation doesn't fully account for the phenomenon either. But the author DOES say that modeling fluid flow using the Navier-Stokes equations does account for the phenomenon:
Quote
Contemporary scientific approaches to aircraft design are the province of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and the so-called Navier-Stokes equations, which take full account of the actual viscosity of real air. The solutions of those equations and the output of the CFD simulations yield pressure-distribution predictions, airflow patterns and quantitative results that are the basis for today’s highly advanced aircraft designs. Still, they do not by themselves give a physical, qualitative explanation of lift.

So the Navier-Stokes equations which model fluid flow do account for lift, the only issue is that qualitatively explaining such a complex phenomenon is hard, because just showing to someone the Navier-Stokes equations doesn't make them understand what is physically going on very well. But that doesn't mean that the hydrodynamics of air don't completely explain lift, they do.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2020, 12:09:19 AM
But it doesn't.

"Still, they do not by themselves give a physical, qualitative explanation of lift."

Please upgrade your knowledge of the Navier-Stokes equations.

Here are the ether Navier-Stokes equations:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06763.pdf

Physical vacuum is a special superfluid medium

St. Petersburg B. P. Konstantinov Nuclear Physics Institute,
NRC Kurchatov Institute
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences,
University of California, Berkeley


We have a 500 ton behemoth with hundreds of people aboard, which is able to gain lift and fly into the atmosphere.

What causes the lift? It can't be Bernoulli's theorem, Newton's third law, high school bull sessions using low pressure on top of the wings, or the Navier-Stokes equations.

Something is missing: torsion physics.

No airplane could lift itself off the ground on a spherical Earth.

Airplanes can fly only above the flat surface of the Earth using torsion dynamics caused by ether drift flows.

Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 05, 2020, 03:03:44 AM
The same ether drift that holds objects to the earth. This ether is quite self aware.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 05, 2020, 03:19:42 AM
Also when jet engines are in wheeled vehicles ether also knows not to provide lift.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: sokarul on October 06, 2020, 06:43:14 AM
Looks like you didn’t win the Nobel Prize in physics this year. Maybe next year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54420240
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: JJA on October 08, 2020, 12:38:40 PM
No need for airplane's wings to be shaped like usual airplane's wings.

Flat wings are also okay. Even that was the case for earliest airplanes ~ at the beginning of 20st century.

Why the buck did Bernoulli's Principle showed up afterwards??

PS.
I use "the buck" because I avoid the "F word" ;D ;D ;D



I can build a car with square wheels and it will still work. No need for round wheels! Round wheels are a lie!

See how silly that sounds?

You age getting confused here. It's possible to use new discoveries to improve existing things. It's not a difficult concept.

It's not difficult to ..... debunk Bernoulli's principle.
No real dicovery is based on something that doesn't exist.

If it's so easy then just create an experiment, record it and publish it and become famous.

Make a youtube video showing how you disprove Bernoulli's Principle.

Otherwise, it's your word against a large amount of evidence and experiments.  And we all know how much THAT is worth.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 09, 2020, 05:39:22 PM
Like, it's not hard to verify Bernoulli's principle on your own...

Comparing the modern plane's wings, with plane's wings at earliest aeronautics history is certainly easy for everyone.

Thanks to internet era that makes anyone as if had a huge library. Before internet era, nearly all students probably didn't know about flat wings on planes at earliest era of aeronautics.

But I already told you that old plane wings don't contradict Bernoulli's principle... It's simply that the usual explanation of how lift works is not very adequate. Again, it's not that older plane wings contradicted Bernoulli. The way these wings worked was that when the wings were slightly tilted upwards, an area of lower pressure was created right above the top of the wing, while the bottom of the wing pushed slightly downwards on the air incident on them. This is similar to the way modern airplanes work (their wings are always installed at an angle to create the effect I described), and the airfoil shape is such that it both maximizes that effect as well as minimizing drag and stress on the wings. Bernoulli's principle does have something to do with all this, but the way it comes into play is more complex. The bottom line is, air does flow faster at the top of the wing, but it isn't just because of the shape of the airfoil, but more because of the slight tilt of the wing.

So the way it works is not according to the naive Bernoulli's principle explanation which only mentions the shape of the airfoil that is sometimes offered, and you are right that the lift is not created by the shape of the wing, and that the same can happen with different shapes of wings. I mean, fighter jets can often fly upside down, which according to the naive explanation wouldn't be possible. But the fact that Bernoulli's principle shouldn't be applied in that naive way to explain the phenomenon without further elaboration doesn't mean that it is wrong. Bernoulli's principle simply states that when you have an increase in the speed of the flow of a fluid, you have a decrease in the static pressure of that fluid. There is the simple Bernoulli equation that we learn at school which only applies to incompressible fluids like liquids, and there is also a more general one that also applies to gasses in some cases, but its action isn't as simple as that.

If Bernoulli's principle is reviewed independently, or not necessarilly put into the explanation about 'lift', it's fine.
My main concern is definite: Bernoulli principle is not a must to build a fuctional air vehicle.

About the tilted wings, if that is the case, isn't this system gonna urge the pilot to 'dip' the plane all the time due to natural adding of altitude and 'hiking' path? Moreover if the speed is high. To me tilted wings system is not necessary.

Passengers need convenience with the plane going horizontal, not tilt up.
Even the plane's design has a similar issue, i.e. the cockpit part will always be lighter than the rest parts of the plane, not to mention those parts have more burden with passegers and luggage.

Again, my focus so far is not the Bernoulli's principle itself, except in its connection with aeronautic designing.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 09, 2020, 05:46:38 PM
A plane acts like a skimming stone over water.
Anything flying horizontally, must angle wings against that, whether the whole wing is slightly angled or the leading edge of a straight wing curves over and down to an angle  to the rear of the wing.

A plane is just an air speed boat. You're just skimming along.

It takes a closed system with uniform atm to realize a lift. It will fullfil the mechanism of action - reaction at propellers for thrust.
The thrust itself, or moving condition is the requirement for air hit from underneath of the plane. The more speed the more volume/mass of air hit upwards.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 09, 2020, 05:51:30 PM
If another lift force comes from air flow (bounch) between the plane & the ground, the plane's gonna take off a little bit. But the plane will fall again when the altitude gets a bit higher. (No air bounch anymore).

The case is, the lift from below works all the time regardless the altitude.

That's how DUD works.
Actually, it's called ground effect and is fairly well known.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ground_Effect

Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back. That's what would be the case if gravity existed.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 09, 2020, 05:57:44 PM
If it's so easy then just create an experiment, record it and publish it and become famous.

Make a youtube video showing how you disprove Bernoulli's Principle.

Otherwise, it's your word against a large amount of evidence and experiments.  And we all know how much THAT is worth.

I have uploaded some of such videos on Youtube. Unfortunately it's in Bahasa Indonesia.

Famous? Is it a pleasure thing? I have no idea. But many famous people said it's like living in a jail.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 09, 2020, 06:05:32 PM
"it's your word against a large amount of evidence and experiments"

>> What about a comet which is more like a space vehicle than just a rock moving by sun gravity?

Majority is mostly wrong.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 09, 2020, 06:09:31 PM
Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back.
Yes, that's why it's called "ground" effect.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 09, 2020, 10:01:33 PM
Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back.
Yes, that's why it's called "ground" effect.

Then what causes a lift?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 09, 2020, 11:53:20 PM

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900



What the fuck is that thing with feathers in the sky?
— Erg Klnkn, 17000 BC
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 10, 2020, 08:18:36 AM
Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back.
Yes, that's why it's called "ground" effect.

Then what causes a lift?
Lower pressure above the airfoil and higher pressure below the airfoil.  Ground effect is a zone where the high pressure below the airfoil is enhanced meaning that a smaller airfoil is needed to generate lift.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 11, 2020, 10:13:26 PM
Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back.
Yes, that's why it's called "ground" effect.

Then what causes a lift?
Lower pressure above the airfoil and higher pressure below the airfoil.  Ground effect is a zone where the high pressure below the airfoil is enhanced meaning that a smaller airfoil is needed to generate lift.

Is that all? Any other new theory perhaps?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Stash on October 11, 2020, 11:32:33 PM
Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back.
Yes, that's why it's called "ground" effect.

Then what causes a lift?
Lower pressure above the airfoil and higher pressure below the airfoil.  Ground effect is a zone where the high pressure below the airfoil is enhanced meaning that a smaller airfoil is needed to generate lift.

Is that all? Any other new theory perhaps?

Yep, that's all. No other new theories.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: MouseWalker on October 11, 2020, 11:51:53 PM
Cut the crap.

No one knows how airplanes fly.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis
but thy do.
First flight  December 17, 1903, any quote before that is meaningless ; what are these objects that keep flying over my head on a daily basis; either going up or coming down. They have wings and jet engines just a hint.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 12, 2020, 06:29:08 AM
Ground effect ain't exist anymore when the plane's altitude is getting a bit higher. It will land back.
Yes, that's why it's called "ground" effect.

Then what causes a lift?
Lower pressure above the airfoil and higher pressure below the airfoil.  Ground effect is a zone where the high pressure below the airfoil is enhanced meaning that a smaller airfoil is needed to generate lift.

Is that all? Any other new theory perhaps?
Isn't that enough?  What more do you need?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 19, 2020, 02:31:41 AM
"Isn't that enough?  What more do you need?"

>> No more. At least I already know that Bernoulli's principle is still 'valid' for some people, especially in aeronautics.

That's supposed to not happen, because aeronautics actually need not Bernoulli principle.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2020, 01:18:32 PM
Bernoulli's principle applies to fluid dynamics.  Air is a fluid.  Sounds like Bernoulli's principle apples to aeronautics, whether they "need" it or not.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 20, 2020, 12:33:53 PM
If something can fall, that is not necessarily connected to gravity.

If something can fly, that is not necessarily connected to Bernoulli's principle.

I personally still don't get what Bernoulli's principle means.
The explanation is like most other subjects in physics: confusing.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: JJA on October 20, 2020, 12:45:51 PM
That's supposed to not happen, because aeronautics actually need not Bernoulli principle.

I personally still don't get what Bernoulli's principle means.
The explanation is like most other subjects in physics: confusing.

If you don't understand it or how it works, how do you know it's not needed?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2020, 01:19:36 PM
I personally still don't get what Bernoulli's principle means.
The explanation is like most other subjects in physics: confusing.
Don't you think that you should have figured out what Bernoulli's principle means before starting a thread dismissing it?

Maybe this will help:
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 20, 2020, 04:38:05 PM
There are 12 versions of lift theory.
Even some years ago NASA has debunked such mainstream theory that has been taught at schools as well as pilot training centers.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 20, 2020, 04:42:16 PM
That's supposed to not happen, because aeronautics actually need not Bernoulli principle.

I personally still don't get what Bernoulli's principle means.
The explanation is like most other subjects in physics: confusing.

If you don't understand it or how it works, how do you know it's not needed?

👉 if you don't need a broom for playing golf, why using a broom?
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: Danang on October 20, 2020, 04:46:58 PM
I personally still don't get what Bernoulli's principle means.
The explanation is like most other subjects in physics: confusing.
Don't you think that you should have figured out what Bernoulli's principle means before starting a thread dismissing it?

Maybe this will help:


The experiment contain evidence. But it needs a careful diagnose to interprete it.
I don't think the pressure on upperneath of the paper is lesser than the underneath of the paper. The blowing its itself is a pressure, the bigger one.
Title: Re: Bernoulli's Principle is only an Empty Claim
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2020, 05:14:39 PM
The experiment contain evidence. But it needs a careful diagnose to interprete it.
I don't think the pressure on upperneath of the paper is lesser than the underneath of the paper. The blowing its itself is a pressure, the bigger one.
Then why don't you make your own wind tunnel and conduct your own investigation?