doG

I think your understanding of fluid dynamics is insufficient for you to postulate theories on fluid dynamics...

Why is that hard for you to understand? If everyone in the world believed invisible dragons existed it wouldn't make it true. It doesn't matter at all how many believe in something. It lends absolutely zero credibility to the truth of it. Belief based solely on faith is not evidence of anything except mental illness.

I usually just call them a 'tard' It usually draws a query as to what I mean so I get the chance to tell them they were never smart enough after being born stupid to get re-tarded....

Do you have a vested interest in the outcome?

Only if you're making up some new definition for Re.....Feel free to imagine whatever you want.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm......NO! Reynolds numbers are only dependent on the flow, not the shape of any submerged bodies. Turbulence, which is represented by reynolds number, has an effect on drag and that's why the drag coefficient is not a constant.

For me the theist/atheist thing is more of a word game, not philosophy. The dictionary is pretty clear what the word theist means and language is pretty clear at negating things with a not- modifier. It's as simple as theists believe in god and everyone else is not-theist. It is not about the debate that there is or is not any gods, if they are supernatural or not, can we prove it or not, etc.. Believers are theist, everyone else is not. Religion is a separate but related subject that is not dependent on theism at all. Religion is a set of beliefs that one lives by and may or may not be related to one's belief in one or more gods. It is a philosophical debate though because you will find many that claim humanism and buddhism to be godless religions and others that claim they are not religions at all because they are godless. Some definitions simply list religion as 'life under monastic vows' while others define it as a system of life and worship of god. It is not so easily pinned down linguistically as theism is. As an aside I am an agnostic atheist, a 6 on Dawkins scale. In my opinion a claim of 7 requires the ability to prove there cannot be any gods and since I believe such a proof to be impossible I am a 6. I list my religion socially as humanist and adhere to the Affirmations of Humanism in my life. It is a set of beliefs I live by and I consider that religious. I also consider myself a Jeffersonian Christian as a believer and follower in the doctrine of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Like Jefferson I believe there was a man we call Jesus who espoused a humanist philosophy and morals to live by without any belief by me that he was any kind of god. FWIW, I find it more rewarding that letting my life and my decisions being influenced by the rewards or consequences of heaven or hell.

My opinion is much the same but for a different reason. My opinion is rooted in the etymology of the words and what they are intended to mean, not how today's society tries to evolve their meanings. For me the meaning of theism and atheism begins with theism because atheist literally means not-theist linguistically. This implies that the meaning of atheist depends on the meaning of theist thus: One that has an affirmative belief in the existence of a god is a theist. Anything short of that affirmative belief makes one an atheist. That means everyone that lacks and affirmative belief that there is at least one god to those that actively believe there most definitely are no gods are all atheists of varying degrees. For me theism is a binary position, you are either theist or not-theist. I think Dawkins correctly deduces that there is a range of theist and atheist beliefs. There are very strong theists, those with the belief that they know there is a god. These are typically individuals who claim to have met god, talked with god, been talked to by god, etc.. Their gnostic belief increases their theist belief above those theists that think there is a god but man can never know for sure, the agnostic theist. The same is true of atheists which range from agnostic atheists to gnostic atheists. I know you want a fence sitting position but for me there is not one. In my opinion anyone that wants to believe there is a god but honestly doubts there is one is atheist. To qualify as a theist you must have an affirmative belief that there is in fact one or more gods, you must meet the dictionary definition of theist or your are technically not-theist, i.e. atheist. Most people today that want to label themselves as agnostic are actually atheist and don't want to admit it. They say most often that they just don't believe one way or the other but this very fact, that they do not hold a belief in god is what makes them atheist. They want to believe that atheism means those that believe there are no gods but they want to ignore the fact that only a lack of belief in deities is all that's needed to be atheist by definition.

Not at all. that ones subjectivity is questionable does not mean they cannot do science but that the science they do is questionable. As an example I would question the subjective research a creationist might do in evolutionary science versus that of an atheist since I would be of the opinion that the creationist would be more biased in favor of creationism. He/she may well do true scientific research in that vein but for me their work would be more suspect of being performed truely subjectively without bias toward the outcome they desire that would support their belief.

Well then, perhaps you should seek out an imaginary forum to seek out imaginary answers to your imaginary problem. Then again, since it's imaginary you could just make up the answers that you want.

Are you saying you are talking about an imaginary plate? All plates in the real world are 3 dimensional.

That an alleged scientist that claims deities exist even though there is no supporting evidence makes their subjectivity questionable at best. Science is about knowledge, not belief and those that show that they can set aside the quest for knowledge in favor of unsupported beliefs place doubt on their ability to do true science.

First, which one is it? Relative to the x axis or not? First you say it is then you say it's not. Secondly, a submerged plate in a fluid flow still has boundary layer drag even when it is parallel to flow. See Boundary Layer at Thermopedia. Note: The coefficient of drag is referred to as the coefficient of friction in their analysis.

No you didn't. At the lowest Cd in that graph, about 0.1-0.2, reynolds number are around 2 · 105 but at the highest value of Cd, >1.5 at the beginning of the graph, reynolds number is only around 2 · 101. Where Cd drops to it's lowest value on the graph there is significantly more turbulence. The submerged body certainly has reduced boundary layer turbulence but that's not what is graphed. What is graphed is the amount of drag on a body submerged in a flow that is increasingly more turbulent, as depicted by the increase in reynolds numbers. If you want to claim otherwise then you need to cite a credible source that shows less turbulence at values of Re > 20,000 versus Re = 20. My own citation shows flow is turbulent for Re > 4000. You shouldn't need one. Your stated theory from your first post says the drag coefficient is Dcosθ where θ is the angle the plate is tilted relative to the x axis. This is the same as saying that Cd varies from D ·1 to D ·0 as θ varies from 0° to 90°. This implies that the coefficient of drag would approach 0 as the angle of the plate approaches 90° relative to the x axis.

Here you appear to have some misunderstanding of the terms because it looks like you are suggesting that agnostic lies somewhere between theism and atheism, a fence sitting position so to say. This is incorrect. Theism is about the belief in one or more deities. One how has an affirmative belief that one or more deities exist is a theist by definition. Anyone that lacks such a belief is not theist, i.e. atheist since a- is simply a not modifier. By definition someone has an affirmative belief than one or more deities exist making the theist of they are atheist, i.e. not-theist. Gnostic on the other hand is about knowledge, not belief. It is about the belief that certain things, like deities or the supernatural, are/are not within the realm of human knowledge. It is not a point on the axis of theism because it is not about the belief, or lack thereof, in the existence of one or more deities. Those that believe that man can know the absolute truth about things like deities are gnostic and those that believe man cannot know are not-gnostic, i.e. agnostic. Those that believe in the existence of one ore more deities are theist regardless of their belief that man can or cannot know the truth. Those that claim that they know deities exist are gnostic theists because they believe man can know the truth and they believe that there are one or more deities. Those that believe in one or more deities but doubt man's ability to ever know for sure are agnostic theists. Anyone that lacks belief that one or more deities exists is not-theist, i.e. atheist. They need not believe that deities do not exist to be atheist. If they also believe that man could never know the absolute truth then they are agnostic atheists. There are those that claim to know that there are no deities and they are gnostic atheists by definition. In modern times people have tried to apply the agnostic label for those that lack affirmative belief in the existence of deities but its use is incorrect. Those that lack affirmative belief are not-theist and they cannot use agnostic to mean this, that's what atheist means. They are simply afraid of the negative effects that the atheist label carries with it. Here's another relevant post from the past...

To go a step further would be to show some quantity of wars waged by atheists over religious beliefs comparable to those waged by theists over religious beliefs. I think such an accomplishment would redefine 'herculean'...

See the part you're missing is the fact that the scale along the bottom edge of Re is not just the boundary layer flow attached, or unattached, to the body, it is the Re for the total flow condition. I posted a link to the thesis that graph is from and the author clearly states it is the result of a wind tunnel test of oil platform legs. While the boundary layer turbulence attached to the body is reduced the overall turbulence is increasing. I clearly understand that you meant to say "significantly less boundary layer turbulence" but that's not what you said. You simply said "significantly less turbulence" and that does not mean that it only includes boundary layer turbulence. FWIW, hear it is from the Engineering Toolbox: Notice there is no mention of any bodies in or around the flow. Re is independent of any bodies in the flow and turbulence increases with Re, period. That a body submerged in the flow may or may not experience reduced drag as a result of reduced boundary layer turbulence has no effect on the value of Re the graph is plotted as. The scale of Re represents the total Re of the total flow and the corresponding turbulence associated with that flow at that point on the graph, not simply the boundary layer turbulence of a submerged body. Next time you want someone to hear "significantly less boundary layer turbulence" then that's what you need to say, not I said, "significantly less turbulence" but intended you to hear "significantly less boundary layer turbulence".

No I'm not. You clearly said, "significantly less turbulence'. Not significantly less boundary layer turbulence or significantly less wake turbulence or anything else. Your statement clearly infers turbulence, all of it. I clearly understand the different parts of turbulence and I can clearly read what you wrote and it's incorrect. At the minimum value of Cd in that graph the overall turbulence is greater. The graph does not delineate the different layer of turbulence anyhow so you cannot now say that it indicates anything less than overall turbulence which is greater, not significantly less as you asserted. You said what you said, don't try to claim now that you said something else. You made a statement about an illustration that includes all turbulence there's no reason to believe your remark didn't include all turbulence.

They are average measured values. As evidence by your own previous post there can be quite a bit of variability caused by turbulence. Aside from that how well does your theory match these values?

Apply your theory and see how well it matches these measured drag coefficients:

Yes, Cd decreases and increases as Re increases. Synonymously Cd decreases and increases as turbulence increases because turbulence increases as Re increases. I think your theory is insufficient because it does not consider all of the factors that affect drag. The unpredictability of drag is the reason for wind tunnel testing. Yes, Cd decreases and increases as Re increases. Synonymously Cd decreases and increases as turbulence increases because turbulence increases as Re increases. I think your theory is insufficient because it does not consider all of the factors that affect drag. The unpredictability of drag is the reason for wind tunnel testing.

Science is about knowledge, not belief. Science is about the facts, regardless of belief. Scientists do not claim as fact to know that anything exists without proof of existence, testable proof. An individual that proclaims existence based solely on their faith of belief is not a scientist.

Not at all. At the lowest cd in that graph reynolds number is greater than it was for higher values of cd indicating greater turbulence at the minimum value of cd than at the greatest value. Your assertion that the lowest cd was associated with significantly less turbulence is unsupported unless you can show that increasing reynolds numbers indicate reduced turbulence.

The patients claim is just that, a claim, not evidence of actual pain. It gives a reason for the doctor to explore for the truth. FWIW, my own dad went to the doctor to complain of pain he felt in his foot, the one that has been amputated. The doctor explained to him that it was a phantom pain sensation, a known medical condition suffered by amputees. It was a claim of pain, not evidence of one, and the doctor already had evidence to believe the claim because of the known condition associated with amputations based on previous work by other doctors. The doctor could have ordered neurological tests for evidence if he felt he needed them but since that has already been done with other amputees he assumed the claim was valid.

Wow, can't remember your own posts. BTW, the bolding was yours...