No.

Two posts in two days? Man, flight has been pretty convincing science for a while now, and this is coming from somebody who loves a good conspiracy theory. I think if birds were "harnessing electricity" to fly, it wouldn't qualify as a conspiracy either.

edit: and flying squirrels don't achieve lift. I think OP is a troll.

I agree with everything except about squirrels. They do indeed achieve lift, which is the only way to glide. https://asknature.org/strategy/wings-provide-lift-for-gliding/

They don't gain altitude, rather

no but they gain attitude, they are bad-ass.

I like to imagine one gliding right by and stealing another squirrels acorn.

Can't argue with that.

the wings flapping provide forward movement (thrust), the rest is aerodynamics (lift). This is why airplanes work, ultralights, hang gliders, paper airplanes, bugs... You can't push yourself up by flapping up and down, but you can with something like a helicopter blade or a jet that only pushes air downwards. However, something tells me you aren't going to accept that explanation :)

They're angled not flat. They spin and create a constant downforce it's not magic.

no, no it's magic to the unthinking.

Imagine a fan blowing air, now push it over so its face down and crank up the power

Brb making my own helicopter by getting lots of fans and doing this

you could attach them to the bottom of a skateboard, then add a rubber sheet around the edge to make a mini hovercraft.

Oh man that's my weekend sorted right there

Have you ever had one of those wind up rubber band airplanes? No electricity there. I'm not saying it's not possibly a factor, but not necessary.

They dont flap up and down its a much more complex movement than you think

Well, this guy is probably onto something, but what he's missing is that birds harness the charge field to produce lift, just like airplanes. The charge field is the force behind electricity, so I assume that is the explanation for whatever electric charge he finds.

I am going to give that link all the respect that it deserves: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Modern flight has been created by "Pimply-faced highschool boys and/or guys in their 30's? who can't get dates". I mean, seriously...you want to know about how modern flight works and you're going to dismiss they who have figured out how to make incredibly complicated things like Jumbo Jets and helicopters fly, but take seriously a rant that refers to acne and success with women twice in the first paragraph. Best of luck with you understanding of anything on earth, let along the universe, if that is the level your bullshit filter operates at. I wish you nothing but good luck.

That's it? That's your "critique?" This paper tears apart current theories of flight and offers a compelling explanation based on a new theory of physics developed over nearly two decades and all you have to offer is a smug dismissal after reading the first paragraph? Did the wright brothers need an accurate theory of flight to get an airplane off the ground? What makes you think that engineers today have an accurate theory? They can get the job done even if their theories are off.

That's it? That's your "critique?" This paper tears apart current theories of flight and offers a compelling explanation based on a new theory of physics developed over nearly two decades and all you have to offer is a smug dismissal after reading the first paragraph? Did the wright brothers need an accurate theory of flight to get an airplane off the ground? What makes you think that engineers today have an accurate theory? They can get the job done even if their theories are off.

It doesn't tear anything apart. It doesn't even understand the most basic things about the theories it claims to disprove. A new compelling theory of physics, are you kidding me? That paper is childish and idiotic and arrogant. Absolutely worth a smug reply. It's like being told by a two-year old that the moon is made of green cheese and all the scientists who think otherwise are stupid. Um, no. I'm not going to critique that or respond to it seriously.

Because if modern engineers didn't understand how lift works, they wouldn't be able to make the highly-advanced crafts they do. You have to have a highly detailed and working model of flight in order to to do the tests and design required to build a supersonic jet, for example. They don't just throw something together because it seems to work. And there is no debate over the larger concepts at this point -- you can measure what the current model of flight says will happen based on the understanding of lift and then do an experiment and yep, it's bang on. That's how science works. Not pulling asinine theories like charge out of thin air because you think "Since the atmosphere does have mass, there must be a vector up to keep it from falling". Prove via experiment matching your theory or else it's just blather.

Still more dodging and substance-free arguments. Is that all you got? Not very impressive or convincing. You should try harder. You assert he doesn't understand the most basic things, yet you can't even say what that is.

This paper, by the way, is not a description of his theory of physics, although it does draw on it. This paper is his attempt to use his theory to explain flight. See, you misunderstand the difference between math used as a heuristic explanation vs. an actual understanding of the mechanics. Scientists and engineers are great at coming up with equations to describe systems, and they can even use those equations to build great things (through trial and error, of course). But they come up way short when it comes to really understanding the mechanics behind things. As for your claim that he doesn't tear anything apart, then I guessed you skipped the first two pages:

For most of the 20th century...the primary answer to this question [of lift] included Bernoulli's Principle, and the old lift, drag, thrust, and weight vectors.... We had been told that the air above traveled faster than the air below, due to the fact that there was more curvature above, and that this created lift. It was not clear how this created so much lift in the first place, but even that has turned out to be false. Or, the air does travel faster above, but it appears to have nothing to do with the shape of the wing. From the photos, we know that the air above travels so much faster than the air below that they don't even come close to meeting at the back of the wing, which destroys all the old assumptions and equations.

We see this immediately in a recent “One-minute Physics” segment at New Scientist TV. The scientist, Holger Babinsky, admits that the old explanation has been falsified in wind tunnels, but he continues that, "although lift is caused by a pressure change between the top and bottom surfaces, it's due to the change in the shape of the air flow, rather than its speed. 'This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift,' he says.'In this case, the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it's rigged, acting like an aerofoil.'"

First, notice that Babinsky completely overturns more than 200 years of bedrock theory and no one blinks an eye. New Scientist sells it as a One-Minute soundbite, and we are supposed to go on with our business, thinking that the old physics has just been given a minor update.

No problem! It is still a pressure change, so who cares? But also notice that Babinsky hasn't shown us exactly how the shape of the airflow causes lift. He just states it as a fact. One of the commenters does the same thing. James says, “air above the wing moves faster on the top and the pressure is lower over the top because of that.” But neither the speed nor the shape can cause more or less pressure without a mechanism. We have never seen a mechanism.

Here [this diagram] is the closest thing we get. The dots stand for air pressure, we have more dots below, therefore more air pressure, therefore lift. Many problems here, though. One, the diagrammers commonly give the wing an angle of attack in these newer animations, which is cheating. The old diagrams didn't do that. Two, we can turn the wing over and get lift, so we know it isn't the the longer distance on top that is causing the faster flow on top. So what is? Three, this diagram is pushed in another way, as we see by the rising dots even before the air reaches the wing. What makes those green dots in the second division rise before they reach the wing? Four, if the given mechanism worked as we are told, the back of the wing would be lifted more than the front. This diagram suppresses the fact that a change in speed requires a period of acceleration. If the higher speed above is causing the lift, then lift should increase as the speed increases. Since we must have a period of acceleration, the front of the wing would feel less lift than the back. This problem is never addressed. Five, the front of the wing has more weight, which doubles the problem of four. The back of the wing should have more lift and less weight, therefore we should have a strong torque on this wing, forcing the nose of the airplane down very strongly. We don't. Six, pressure changes like this still wouldn't cause a huge vector up. Some vector up would be created, but we have never been shown any clear math that proves the vector is capable of lifting giant planes into the air. The air density, especially at higher altitudes, isn't that great to start with, and the density differentials across a few feet cannot be that great, no matter the thrust. As usual, the equations are just matched to the data. We know that huge vectors up are created, so it must go to air pressure differentials. What else could be causing it?

We should have known that the old equations were compromised long before Babinsky admitted it, since we had known since the early part of the 20th century that planes fly just as well upside down. According to the old math and theory, this shouldn't have been possible. To answer this, current physicists (and others, like Simple Cecil) deflect you into “angle of attack,” which is a truly pathetic dodge. As you will see below, they deflect you into angle of attack even when they aren't explaining inverted wings. But it doesn't answer in either case, because we get lift in both cases without any angle of attack. We get lift even with negative angles of attack, in both cases; otherwise planes would either climb or drop like rocks. Those would be the only two possibilities. As soon as they leveled out or began a shallow descent, they would lose all lift and plummet. But they don't do that. We know that inverted planes can perform shallow descents, which immediately kills the idea of lift being caused by angle of attack. We know that inverted planes can fly on a level. If it were angle of attack that was causing lift, inverted planes could do nothing but climb.

So what basic things, exactly, does he not understand?

Saying I'm "dodging" is vapid. I went right after his method in no uncertain terms and even discussed the essence of the scientific method that he does not use. It's the kind of thing the original author would say. You aren't him, are you?

No, they don't just "come up with equations" and build things through trial and error. They come up with a theory that often involves equations. Then they test it through experiment. Then if those experiments show they were right, later someone will apply them to build something. That is how real scientists understand the "mechanics behind things". No idea why you think the years of textbooks and papers written on the mechanics of flight show a lack of understanding.

I did read that. I mean, right off the bat: "From the photos, we know that the air above travels so much faster than the air below that they don't even come close to meeting at the back of the wing, which destroys all the old assumptions and equations." No, it doesn't. It doesn't destroy anything. It just shows that the author has set up a straw man and doesn't understand modern theories of lift. At. All. He even admits later that this isn't what modern scientists believe but then does some more hand-waving about how they're just changing the story again because they don't know.

Then he quotes a one-minute video and complains that it doesn't give a "mechanism" so therefore "We have never seen a mechanism." Kind of like "Some vector up would be created, but we have never been shown any clear math that proves the vector is capable of lifting giant planes into the air." Ok, so what he's saying is that he hasn't read anything in this vast field of study.

He also doesn't understand why "angle of attack" is important or what it means. I mean..."If it were angle of attack that was causing lift, inverted planes could do nothing but climb." What? Embarrassingly nonsensical.

You keep repeating that he's wrong and that he doesn't understand. But there is no substance to your critique, because you don't explain what he's wrong about and what he doesn't understand. That's vapid. And I have no interest in going around in circles with you. I am not going to continue this dialogue if you can't explain what he's wrong about instead of just continuing with your substance-free hand-waving.

Actually, I made some very specific criticisms about his lack of understanding (e.g. thinking that modern understanding of lift is all about Bernoulli's principle (which is not entirely wrong but is completely outdated), or that angle of attack is not a valid reason for why planes fly upside down. I also provided additional substance by explaining how the scientific process works and how this paper does not follow scientific principles and why whey are important. I also poked fun at why an argument largely based on "I haven't seen these mechanisms/formulas" when they clearly exist if you know anything about the field. If you're expecting a comprehensive physics class in a couple of posts, uhh...sorry...you will actually have to work to fill in those gaps in your knowledge. Might want to do that before you start championing ludicrous theories, but not my job to do anything but poke easy holes in said theories until then.

I mean...c'mon...argue as much as you want against what I have to say but that's a pretty lengthy and comprehensive assault on his logic, understanding, scientific approach, and information. I can absolutely understand why you wouldn't want to continue, but trying to call that hand-waving and vapid and lacking substance (100% ripped off terms from me, incidentally -- what's next, I'm rubber and you're glue?) is a joke. Those are actual arguments. Those are how actual arguments work. Just whining about how they aren't and saying no YOU don't understand with nothing to back it up is not going to get you far in the real world.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. He doesn't say the modern understanding is all about Bernoulli's principle. In fact, he says so in the first couple sentences of the section I pasted. And saying that he's wrong about something without offering even a cursory explanation why is, to use your words, vapid hand-waving. Let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand, if that's even possible at this point.

You made very specific criticisms, but that's not enough. Your "argument" amounts to "he's wrong because he doesn't understand." That's it. That's all you've said so far, albeit in several different ways. You're not even willing (or able) to back up your empty claims with so much as a single link, much less any kind of physics lesson. I guess you think I should just take your say-so on this. That is not how an actual argument works. It might get you far in life if you deal with weak-willed people who are easily swayed by fallacious arguments, but it will get you nowhere here, so please offer up an actual argument or go try your Jedi mind tricks elsewhere.

Ever heard of the burden of proof? Making specific criticisms of a theory that flies in the face of accepted and proven principles is what science is. It's not making "empty claims", it is literally how science works. You share your paper with the scientific community and people try to poke holes in it. I don't have to send you links to explain/argue for alternative explanations. You can go educate yourself -- which I highly recommend you do if you agree that "200 years of bedrock theory" have been recently overturned.

Thank you for conceding this debate. What's next? Let me guess: I can go educate myself on the NIST report on WTC 7 if I want to understand how it could have collapsed due to fires.

Lol...conceding. Here's what happened: I made specific points and you had no reply other than to whine about how doing that wasn't valid because you don't understand the scientific method. So I told you to go learn more about science. Hilarious that you would pat yourself on the back and call that a win.

Actually, I meant educate yourself at least a little bit about physics and/or science if you're going to try to debate them. Pretty obvious you're out of your depth.

The funniest thing about all this is that you think that's what happened here. I retract what I said about your poor reading comprehension skills. Your understanding is not poor, it's completely distorted.

Go learn the first thing about science before you get condescending, child. You've got nothing and really need to go learn more so you can at least argue science instead of sling ad hominems and whine about how all the arguments against your irrational beliefs are unfair. Take an online course or something instead of pretending that you understand the topic and trying to bluster through.

Why do you think I don't know anything about science? You haven't given a single indication that you know anything about it. You don't know me, and you don't know anything about what I know. I have a PhD in a scientific discipline. One of the things I've learned is how to have a substantive discussion and real debate. You should try it sometime, instead of just putting your fingers in your ear and repeating, in all manner of ways, "you're wrong, and I'm right."

Now you're just lying. It's really pretty easy to tell when someone does not have an advanced grasp on something you have studied. What 'scientific discipline' are you pretending to have a PHD in, pray tell?

You keep saying that I'm not arguing fair, but you even admit that I made specific criticisms that you did not address in any way except to say "that's not enough". Bizarre attempt at a tactic.

I said your specific criticisms were vapid, which they were. How am I supposed to respond substantively if your criticism is empty of substance? You say "he doesn't understand." The only other thing I could say is "yes he does."

Yes, you see, you don't believe me. There's no way to know anything about any anonymous person on the internet. That's one reason why you can't rely on an appeal to authority here -- you don't have any authority. And what are your credentials, pray tell? What makes you an expert on this topic?

You keep just saying "your arguments lack substance". That doesn't make it true. This does not lack substance:

"No, they don't just "come up with equations" and build things through trial and error. They come up with a theory that often involves equations. Then they test it through experiment. Then if those experiments show they were right, later someone will apply them to build something. That is how real scientists understand the "mechanics behind things".

That is a direct criticism of your statements that "Scientists and engineers are great at coming up with equations to describe systems, and they can even use those equations to build great things (through trial and error, of course)" and "But they come up way short when it comes to really understanding the mechanics behind things". I quote your very words as I criticize them.

So go ahead, defend yourself. Say something that counters that. Don't just mindlessly and helplessly repeat "you're not saying anything...you're empty of substance...there is no way to respond substantively...blah blah blah..." Of course there is. There is plenty of opportunity to defend yourself there. You just have nothing to say because you don't have a science background and are just trying to defend this pet article of yours with bluster and vague blather.

It's more that someone with an actual science PHD would not have taken the approach or said many of the things that you have said. But even more so -- that attempt you just made to muddy the waters and turn it back on me makes it completely clear that you do not have a PHD of any kind and are therefore a liar and a fraud. I don't think it is necessary to pull rank in most online conversations, but since you ask I have a B.Sc. in Physics and if someone questioned that would not hesitate to confirm that, let alone resort to suggesting that online there is no such thing as authority. Of course there is -- although online it is a simple matter to spout whatever nonsense or claim whatever ridiculous credentials you want, it is not so simple to pass it off or make rational counter-arguments when you encounter someone who has actually studied what are pretending to have extensive knowledge of. But go ahead...dig this embarrassing fantasy of yours a little deeper and just answer my simple question: what do you have a PHD in? There is no reason not to answer if it is true.

"No, they don't just "come up with equations" and build things through trial and error. They come up with a theory that often involves equations. Then they test it through experiment. Then if those experiments show they were right, later someone will apply them to build something. That is how real scientists understand the "mechanics behind things".

That is a direct criticism of your statements that "Scientists and engineers are great at coming up with equations to describe systems, and they can even use those equations to build great things (through trial and error, of course)" and "But they come up way short when it comes to really understanding the mechanics behind things". I quote your very words as I criticize them.

So go ahead, defend yourself. Say something that counters that.

That is literally the only substantive thing you said, and it is basically a restatement of the point I made that you think you are refuting. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The trial and error I referred to was experiments. You have a theory, you try something out (to test it); doesn't work, you refine your theory. The problem I was pointing to is that modern physics thinks "equations" can stand for "theory." It develops equations that are matched to the data from experiments. That is a heuristic theory. Don't get me wrong, heuristics can be extremely useful, and aeronautical engineers are quite good at using heuristic equations to predict many things, including how different materials are likely to respond under different conditions, etc. etc. The problem is that they then let those equations take the place of a true mechanical understanding of the world. But as the paper I linked to showed quite clearly and logically, the current explanations of the mechanics of lift are seriously lacking. You offered no substantive rebuttal to his critique other than to say he was wrong and didn't understand. You failed to offer even a single link to any source that would provide some substance to back up your claim. Instead of substance you want to compare our respective educational credentials as if we're measuring dick size. I'm fully familiar with how the scientific method works. Unlike you, I have been able to free myself from the brainwashing of modern science. But I'll tell you what, you offer a serious, substantive rebuttal to his critiques, and I'll give you my full credentials. Until then, I will not allow you to waste any more of my precious time with your empty verbiage. Good day, sir.

So you have a PHD but you won't even say what it's in until I argue with you some more. Right, that makes sense. You're a liar. No science PHD would ever, ever, say something like this:

"The problem I was pointing to is that modern physics thinks "equations" can stand for "theory." It develops equations that are matched to the data from experiments."

There are both quantitative and qualitative explanations. Scientists do not in any way confuse the two. And taking issues with some old models does not invalidate "hundreds of years of bedrock theory" or support a shift from a well-tested explanation based on fluid dynamics to a wacky "charge" one.

Here's some low-hanging fruit concerning his main arguments for "charge":

"Why does thrust help? Simply because it increases the amount of charge under the object during each second. The only way to increase the charge lift is to increase the charge, but since the charge is constant in each area during each interval, the only way to increase charge is to go into as many different areas during the same interval as you can. In other words, you have to move fast, and you have to move perpendicular to the field."

So lift is created by moving sideways quickly and encountering more "charge". So the shape of the wing doesn't matter, right? There's no reason why a wing shape would encounter more of this force rising out of the earth than a banana shape, or any other shape, as it moved alone perpendicular to the earth. So just move a flat, or banana shaped-wing as quickly and you'll generate the same amount of lift, right? Oops.

Then he goes on:

"This is why it requires much less thrust to get lift moving sideways than to move straight up. If you want to launch a rocket straight up, charge lift won't help you. You were already receiving charge in that area, so moving up won't give you any more charge. But moving sideways will."

Which is really funny...I think he says this because it takes more energy to get a rocket off the ground than a plane? He also seems to think that lift means "getting off the ground". Anyway, obviously the real difference between the two cases is how you are interacting with gravity as no, the direction you are traveling doesn't affect how much lift is generated as a wing travels through air. This is not rocket science, pardon the pun. If direction had an impact in this way, it would pop out in calculations and need to be taken account of in even the most basic results every day. It would be obvious and trivial to measure and you would get a Nobel prize for discovering a new force.

Post like this are why this sub is basically worthless now

you may enjoy this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZy1Aqleno

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. He doesn't say the modern understanding is all about Bernoulli's principle. In fact, he says so in the first couple sentences of the section I pasted. And saying that he's wrong about something without offering even a cursory explanation why is, to use your words, vapid hand-waving. Let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand, if that's even possible at this point.

You made very specific criticisms, but that's not enough. Your "argument" amounts to "he's wrong because he doesn't understand." That's it. That's all you've said so far, albeit in several different ways. You're not even willing (or able) to back up your empty claims with so much as a single link, much less any kind of physics lesson. I guess you think I should just take your say-so on this. That is not how an actual argument works. It might get you far in life if you deal with weak-willed people who are easily swayed by fallacious arguments, but it will get you nowhere here, so please offer up an actual argument or go try your Jedi mind tricks elsewhere.