Bignose

I am going to back swansont on this. All these ideas are nice in a new-age aesthetic kind of way. There is a certain appeal to seeing the same pattern in music and sound in electromagnetic waves. I get that. It is pretty. But, the universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us. And, unfortunately, when people have actually done these experiments, the results are not pretty in the way you describe. This is what swansont is saying. That the actual experiments don't follow the patterns you say they do. In other words, your 'predictions' of 7 color tones is 100% not found. So, the question really before you is: do you continue to profess a belief in the pretty solution in spite of what the actual data says? Or, do you take some time to mature scientifically, understand the experiments and the results that have been done, and learn to appreciate the results from a new aesthetic? Because, in my mind, science is also very beautiful in its own way, despite not always forming harmonics and resonances to one particular notion of beauty. Getting past this singular notion of beauty will allow you to gain a much deeper understanding of the universe as we know it today.

So, let me make sure I understand correctly. You want to assume a no influx of flux ("velocity across the bay to be 0"), because if you just assume the velocity is zero, you only have a trivial solution. So, it is looking something like a driven cavity. But then you assume that the pressure is zero everywhere, too. With no flux of mass or momentum, and no pressure difference, you will get a trivial solution. You have nothing that drives flow, and the equations -- continuity + N-S -- essentially are telling you that.

You do realize that this responsibility falls on no one else but you, right? No one is under any obligations to find evidence to support your idea but you. Not the 'real physicists'. Not me. Not swansont. Just you, if you want to claim your idea is scientific.

This isn't sufficient, though. You are asking science to be completely democratic, when it profoundly isn't. Science is supremely meritocratic. Science is only interested in ideas that make good predictions. If an idea is started, and it makes predictions that are opposite of already known facts, it is tossed out. There is no value in keeping an idea that is already known to fail in science. Ideas alone have very little value scientifically. Only when the next steps are taken and those ideas are used to make predictions and those predictions are compared to reality -- then the idea has value. The things you cite above have gone through that. They certainly aren't complete. But if sting theory predicted gravity to repel matter and the sky to be polka dotted... it would have been rejected. As it is, it makes a few predictions that do agree. That's why it is still around. If those ideas lead to predictions that aren't seen or can't be found... the idea will be rejected. So, now we're to your idea. The implications of your ideas are things that have not been observed, when they should have been. It would like if in my idea a flea could push a boulder across a field. Is it possible that in all the experiments done to date that we've missed this? It certainly is possible. But it is extraordinarily unlikely, and no one is going to believe it until some good objective evidence can be presented. That's where this thread was at the last time you posted... it was asking you for some extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims. If it really is only you just tinkering, then consider what has been posted as feedback. If you want to take your tinkering to the next step, then you need to address the questions answered. If you are just tinkering for your own sake, then you need to do that someplace that is not a science forum. Because on this science forum, we value discussions that follow the rules of science. And in the rules of science, just tinkering is not valuable. Value comes from actually doing scientifically useful stuff with that tinkering.

1. I don't know what to tell you, then. Learning how to create high quality plots and graphs is an incredibly useful skill. I would do my utmost to learn it. Excel makes somewhat ugly graphs, but at least it makes graphs. I personally like matplotlib. But there are many, many other graphing programs out there. If you ever want to present your ideas like in a article or similar, people are going to want to see graphs. 2. You can't just hand-wave this. You need to demonstrate it. And, the rest of the terms aren't just zero at a=180*, but they must be zero across the entire range of a, per your plot. I just don't see this based on the formulas you've posted. For example, you take about the pressure difference in your formula. An airfoil doesn't make this go to zero, there is a wake behind an airfoil, especially at oblique angles of attack. 3. And speaking of those formulas, you can't just change it willy-nilly. You don't get to just change the functional form from a sum of two cosines to a single sine in your proposed equation because it fits this specific example. And you really don't get to just change the function form without demonstrating how the angle of attack turns into your average angle. Saying 'distributive property' here makes zero sense. Changing the formula to fit a specific case ruins the general nature of the formula. If someone tries to use your work, how are they supposed to know whether to use the sum of two cosines, the single sine, or maybe some other third form? 4. I specifically asked how you fitted the parameters. Did you use sum of squares? Maximum entropy? Some other method? Please report the error due to the fitting. Or if you just wild-ass-guessed it, that's fine, just acknowledge this. NEW 5. Even if you accept that you did match one set of data (which per the above comments I still have my doubts), there is a ton more data out there. You should be actively seeking other data sets to see how well your predictions match. Are you doing this? Just a general comment, that I want to preface by saying it is not personal in any way whatsoever: I am curious if you would share what is your end goal here? Are you trying to get some of this published? Because it is my opinion that there are some significant gaps in knowledge demonstrated. Again, this is not a personal attack, but simply an observation. And if you want some references to improve those knowledge gaps, I would be happy to share some.

1) Why can't you plot these on top of each other? 2) Your CD = a sum of a bunch of terms, Cf among them. The top plot is CD, your plot is Cf. You can't directly compare them unless you show that all the other terms in your sum go directly to zero (which they shouldn't given the equations you've posted for them). 3) In this post you write: Cf=Cf0sin(a) But several posts back you write: Cf=2Dcosθavg-DcosΦavg Obviously these two are different. Why is this? 4) Lastly, I guess just a general comment in that your 'prediction' here really isn't new. Your graph is taken from a 1981 report. The sinusoid shape is pretty clear, and you just fitted your Cf0 parameter. (BTW isn't clear the 1.8 is actually the best fit. There are experimental data points above and below 1.8 at the peak. You need to provide your fitting method (e.g. least squares, minimum entropy, or other etc.); I suspect in this case it was the Mark I eyeball fitting method) Fitting parameters is fine (as I wrote above a great deal of fluid mechanics has been and still is calculated this way), it just isn't novel. 5) it is 'radians' not 'radiants'

Yes. Plot experimental data, the best correlations in the literature, and your correlation. All on the same plot. You should show us that your predictions lie right on top of the experimental data points. This would be the very basic requirements -- demonstrating that your idea actually, you know, works. I want you to show us that it works.

Yep. Those are graphs. But they don't show how well your correlation works. So, I don't see how in any way it answers what I am asking. One more time... I am asking for you to present just how well your correlations work. That is, show me just how useful your formulas are.

Seriously? You gripe at me to read your post twice and yet you can't be bothered to go back and read mine? Ok... I want a plot of measured data from the literature (there are tons!), a plot of some of the best correlations presented in the literature (again, tons of them out there!), and a plot of your correlation. Show us how your correlation matches the experimental data better than the existing correlations. Please include detailed citations. Because you said to get the average angle to "sum over all angles and divide by the number of angles." Well, a sphere has one of every angle as does the airfoil. Therefore by your method the avg of the two are the same, hence you are effectively saying that an airfoil is the same as a sphere. Which it clearly isn't.

So, you have 1 value that is kind of 'close'. For some unspecified Re number. From some uncited source. I guess I'm not really impressed. Any chance we're getting that plot I asked about (that you ignored twice now)? Also, your avergae angle idea as described cannot work. What is the average angle of an airfoil like these? http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/p98a.jpg The average should be exactly the same as a sphere, which it clearly isn't.

Minus or Plus doesn't fix anything. The fact that you are squaring the velocities inside the ()'s means you lose the sign of the velocities. How most people in the literature fixes this is something like (v1 - v2)^2. They square the difference between the two velocities... that way the sign of the two velocities do make a difference in the calculation. And yes, I read the post. All you quoted there are you just throwing out forms of the equations. For example.... Cf=2Dcosθavg-DcosΦavg why? Why cosines? Why 2 in front of the 1st term. How do you calculate θavg? and so on. and so on. Lastly, you really didn't address anything of my biggest complaint... which is all these equations are fine and dandy, but how do they actually compare to data? I can live with ad hoc equations if they work well. For a very long time, an awful lot of practical fluid mechanics was done using ad hoc equations. But those were accepted because they work. So far, you haven't demonstrated a single shred of evidence that your work. Just piles and piles of equations. So, please post a plot of measured data, some of the best correlations in the literature and then your correlation. Show us how well your equations work, please.

That is not what this equation says at all. Velocity as a variable isn't even in this equation. There is a constant velocity, c, but it neither increases nor decreases. It is a constant.

So, this equation can't be right. Because squaring the terms effectively eliminates their sign. In other words your formula here is telling me that the same amount of drag will happen for an object moving 10 mph into a 5 mph wind as an object moving 10 mph with a 5 mph wind. That just isn't right. And really, this entire thread is missing comparisons with the current drag correlations in the literature and comparisons with measurements. All I keep seeing is equations being tossed out, but nothing being done to actually evaluate how good they are. Furthermore, it looks like almost all of them are just being tossed out, with little to no reference to how they were derived. Drag itself can be calculated from first principles upon solving the Navier-Stokes equations. A large number of the correlations published today stem from using a particular solution of the N-S eqns and showing how perturbations in the solution lead to the correlations. Is there anything like that here?

So let's look at the exact quote from your link: In equilibrium or balanced does not necessarily mean no motion. A parachutist that jumps from a plane and hit terminal velocity is also in equilibrium, but obviously is moving quite fast. And the spin being in equilibrium means that the rate of the spin isn't increasing or decreasing. That is, if the plane is making 1 rev in 5 seconds, it will continue to spin at 1 rev in 5 seconds, not change to 1 rev in 4 or 6 seconds. The angular forces are balanced, but obviously there is still angular motion. The bigger point is that I think you try to use this quote to demonstrate that we don't know what lift it, or how to calculate it. But, we do know what lift is. Even in your example, how they teach you to get out of the spin uses the very fact that the plane will create lift. We obviously know enough about lift to instruct pilots to use it to get out of a spin! And yes, 'flow turning' is that elusive 1-line answer to how lift is formed. It just isn't very satisfactory because the next obvious question is 'well, then, what causes the flow to turn?'. And we're back to no 1-line story-book answers available. It's complex. That doesn't mean it isn't known to a high level of accuracy -- because, really, it is. There is a lot of physics that you can say the same thing about -- quantum mechanics being another good example in my mind. Very complicated, but we do know it can make predictions to very high levels of accuracy. That doesn't mean that there isn't more to learn, and that there can't be a 1-line story-book answer that is discovered some day. Obviously, research into the modeling continues. But, again, I don't think it is fair just to toss your hands up and say things like 'no one actually knows how lift works.' Because I just don't think that is right.

I think while it is undeniable that there are extreme members in the Tea Party, the majority of the people at their rallies and such aren't really fascists. Maybe, anarchists to some level in that they are anti-government, but I don't get a sense that the majority of them want thought control.

You do realize that there is a large, large portion of the population that would refuse to live under such conditions, right? Even if it made us more efficient, giving up these basic freedoms can't be worth it. You present a list of serious problems but I don't see how loving under an arbitrary dictatorial government would really help. In my mind, the only real solution is to help mankind mature more quickly to realize that true happiness doesn't come from material goods and hence wealth. Once most of mankind realize this, wealth won't be directly equal to power and the wealthy will use their wealth for the good of all. I feel like your system treats mankind very immaturely. Kind of like 'you kids be good or else Santa won't come' It works for a while, but if it works on your kid when they are 18, you've failed as a parent. What we really ought to strive for isa system where we all willingly help one another, not because we are forced to our because the government gives us credits for saying the right thing, but because we all realize it is just the right thing to do. And really... I don't see how your system is very different from fascism. You are telling us what we have to think after all. I am very dumbfounded that sometime really thinks fascism is a good idea.

I disagree with this, or at least would like it worded differently. The first clause I agree with, 'there is not a law of lift'; In that there is no simple off-the-cuff or even 1 paragraph grade-school level description of how an airplane flies. But I don't agree with 'no one actually knows how lift works" because the models we have of airfoils and the like are incredibly accurate. Yeah, completing those models takes some good knowledge of computational fluid dynamics and the like. Or old school, how to do conformal mappings of non-circle shapes on to a circle and solving the equations there. Sure, a lot of computer and mathematics knowledge will be needed. But considering how accurate those models are, I don't think it is fair to just say that 'no one' knows about lift. It is just that none of these story book explanations are completely right.

let me correct that for you. What scientist of today would dare speak out without evidence... ? None What scientist of today would dare speak out with evidence... ? Damn near every one. Because if a scientist had evidence that their idea was better, they would be incredibly well respected. You may not realize it, but most scientists go into science to discover something new. To find some piece of knowledge that no else knew. I don't know where this 'cash cow' is, or this group of scientists that sit around protecting the holy word of Einstein are. Do you remember the excitement that was shown when there was an initial indication that neutrinos may be able to go faster than the speed of light? That excitement was shown precisely because of how much the group wanted to be to show that Einstein may actually have been wrong! That there was more knowledge that had yet to be learned. If science is all about hushing things up, they sure did a rotten job there. (I suppose you'll tell us that the 'calculation error' they found was the science cabal coming around and fixing the problem, right?) Furthermore, I would that any conscionable scientist would tell you that in reality, we know that relativity is wrong. There, I said it. Please don't that this out of context, because here is the context: we know that the theory of relativity is wrong is so much as we know it is incomplete. It does wonderfully at the scales it is valid for, but you start getting to the very small, and it doesn't work. Quantum mechanics is the same way -- works wonderfully for some scale (the very small) but doesn't work at the very large. I strongly suspect there will be a future theory that combines the two. String Theory has been trying to fulfill that promise for a while, with limited successes. There is also a theory of quantum loop gravity. There are probably others out there too. So, there you have it. We know that the theory of relativity is wrong... in a certain context. What we also know is that when we do experiments that are in its domain of validity, the predictions made by the theory or relativity do a pretty smashing job. I know if you insist on believing some kind of conspiracy theory that that won't mean anything to you. Maybe I just posted that for other future readers, then. But, I do have this tiny sliver of hope that you will read this and understand. Science isn't dogmatically defending theories because they have to. They defend theories because they work. And they will be extremely eager to drop a theory if another one comes along that works even better. Science is very meritocratic -- the theory that works the best wins. That's why some day, when there is an idea that works and bridges both the small scale (the quantum) and the large (relativity)... both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics will be discarded. Because the new theory will work. That's all it takes. A theory has to work better than the others.

LOL. This is a new one to me anyway. This really reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles "Rules?!? We don't need no stinking rules?!?" Yeah, cause those rules haven't gotten us anywhere to date. It's not like there isn't a huge record of the successes and failures of the predictions made by science. And it isn't like anything useful has come out of following those rules. We really ought to go back to no rules. Back when a person could just say the moon was made of green cheese, and we would decide whether they were right or not based on how many of the 3 popes agreed with them. My snake handler and my barber agree, so I really think you're on the right track here. Science anarchy! Att-i-ca! Att-i-ca! Now you're just being deliberately ignorant. Read the ****ing papers. There is evidence. It isn't dogma. You know what IS dogma? Asking us to believe you WITHOUT providing evidence that your predictions are any good.

Oh Gee. If only there was a way to tell this. Hmmmm. This is a puzzler. Oh! I know! Why don't you compare the predictions from your equations with the predictions from GR and compare them to measured results? Then we'll have an abundance of evidence with ones are 'correct'! The good news is that two of those are already done and in the literature (I sure hope I don't need to repeat the sources yet again). So, once again I ask you, what is stopping you? If you are so confident in your equations, you should be supremely confident in your predictions. And even more than that, if your predictions are correct, you'll get yourself a bunch of attention. Not just attention, but probably grant money and resources to help develop your idea further. That's pretty much what you said you were looking for in your first post. So, what really is stopping you? If you need time to do it, that's understandable. But this abject reluctance to try to show us just how good your idea is completely baffles me. I don't get why you aren't leaping at the chances to show your idea is correct. You should be asking us for references to as many experiments as possible so you can show us just how freaking better your predictions are than GR's predictions.

The first link I gave you, the one with the extensive discussion of the comparing how GR's prediction agree really well with measurements, the full text of that paper is free.

Wow, this just took a hugely negative turn. It would have been nice of you to actually read some of the supporting links that have been posted -- again I refer to the paper I posted which demonstrates the pretty excellent agreement between experiment and the predictions made by SR & GR. Which, as swansont posted, has lead to some pretty useful things like GPS. The beginnings of which were discovered in the Hafele–Keating experiment I also have already referred to. In other words, I am starting to have doubts about your expressed desire to have a conversation. Because it really shouldn't have been that hard to at least acknowledge the successes SR & GR have had. It is not impossible that your idea could be even better, but we'll never know until you compare your predictions to these other ones. I do not get this reluctance to compare your calculations to the tried and true published results. Unless you know your predictions will be wrong. In which case, then your tactic would be to lash out instead of actually supporting your position. I hope I am wrong on this last sentence, and I hope you will show us how your calculations compare to the published results. But, I am really having doubts that that will ever happen.

Ok, then, please find the papers written about the Hafele–Keating experiment and show how your equations make predictions that agree better with the experimental results than the predictions from SR & GR. (The experiment is exactly what you are describing with the planes, the experimental results matched very well with the predictions from relativity, and was the basis of the corrections we apply to our GPS systems today that also seem to be working pretty well.)

You keep saying this, yet fail to demonstrate it using the data that is out there. If it is so easy to say that the current theory is wrong, shouldn't it be easy to demonstrate that your idea makes better predictions? Why do you keep ignoring this request?

I know you wrote this facetiously, but in a way, the answer is yes. The history on this is a good case... as better and more detailed observations of the movements of the celestial bodies were gathered, the epicycle model was expanded and expanded to try to match the observations. They were making models of cyles within cycles within cycles to match it. On the other hand, they had the Copernican model that was making predictions that were coming true time and time again. And it was easier to boot. To a very significant extent, it was the continual agreement with prediction and measurement that convinced people. And, yes, the data gathered when while in an 'epicycle' paradigm is still valuable as data gathered. What happened is the Copernican model could accurate match that old data as well as more recently gathered data. This actually is precisely what I was asking you to do above. The data gathered to compare with SR and GR is still valued as data. Unless you have a compelling reason to know it is wrong, you can't just ignore it. That's why I want you to make a comparison with the known data & measurements, the predictions made by GR, and then your predictions. Once again, if you can show your predictions are more accurate, you will make your case far, far stronger. And frankly, your refusal to do these calculations really makes your case weaker. All I am asking you to do is compare apples to apples here. If you truly think your idea is right, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to jump at this opportunity. What is the worst that could happen? That you find our you're wrong? Join the club. Everyone makes mistakes. Finding that mistake early means you can go back and correct it and try again sooner. That good! And the best that can happen is you are shown completely right. This is a no-brainer to me. Either way, you are helped. So, I don't get this reluctance...