Is curvature the force of levity?

[rwjefferson]

Is curvature the force of levity?

 

dogma dictates curvature is force and holes are dense

 

def: levity

upwards force

syn: lift

 

welcome to my wormhole.002

The curved upper surface constricts the flow of air more than the flatter lower surface' date=' causing the air above the wing to speed up more than the air below. [/quote']

 

thus dogma clearly dictates

Curvature is not just the reaction to force.

Flat planes cannot wing upside up much less upside down.

Only curved wings can fly upside up; curved wings cannot fly upside down.

Rockets cannot fly in outer space.

 

Dogma does not over rule the precedence of self evident observation.

 

Can you name a shape that cannot be induced to produce lift?

No; you can't.

 

just sayin'

rw

[Greg H.]

Is curvature the force of levity?

 

 

 

def: levity

upwards force

syn: lift

 

welcome to my wormhole.002

 

 

thus dogma clearly dictates

Curvature is not just the reaction to force.

Flat planes cannot wing upside up much less upside down.

Only curved wings can fly upside up; curved wings cannot fly upside down.

Rockets cannot fly in outer space.

 

Dogma does not over rule the precedence of self evident observation.

 

Can you name a shape that cannot be induced to produce lift?

No; you can't.

 

just sayin'

rw

 

You do realize this made absolutely no sense at all, right?

 

And why are you on about dogma again?

[Aethelwulf]

 

just sayin'

rw

 

I loved this part.

[rwjefferson]

You do realize this made absolutely no sense at all, right?

 

And why are you on about dogma again?

It is my passion to stand against dogma.

 

What makes no sense is how otherwise intelligent people will swallow obvious fallacies because Authority tells them so.

 

If a wing lifts because the upper surface is curved;

How does an airplane fly upside down?

 

The curvature of a wing does not determine whether it produces lift.

How is it you do not know this?

 

ron

[Greg H.]

It is my passion to stand against dogma.

 

What makes no sense is how otherwise intelligent people will swallow obvious fallacies because Authority tells them so.

 

If a wing lifts because the upper surface is curved;

How does an airplane fly upside down?

 

The curvature of a wing does not determine whether it produces lift.

How is it you do not know this?

 

ron

 

First, redefining terms because you want to is a good way to make people not take you seriously. Levity in no way means lift, despite your tossing that into the OP.

 

Second, read: Incorrect Lift Theory

 

 

[swansont]

It is my passion to stand against dogma.

 

But you are not standing against dogma. You are standing against a strawman, which is trivially easy to do. It does make for some nice false bravado, though.

[rigney]

It is my passion to stand against dogma.

 

What makes no sense is how otherwise intelligent people will swallow obvious fallacies because Authority tells them so.

 

If a wing lifts because the upper surface is curved;

How does an airplane fly upside down?

 

The curvature of a wing does not determine whether it produces lift.

How is it you do not know this?

ron

 

 

This link defines lift pretty well.

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Upside-Down.html?c=y&page=1

[rwjefferson]

you only prove I am right

 

First, redefining terms because you want to is a good way to make people not take you seriously. Levity in no way means lift, despite your tossing that into the OP.

Second, read: Incorrect Lift Theory

 

tilting at dogma.101

First, I long ago gleaned your own cite even rigney's.

Second, it is relatively easy to insult and cite and silence. It is a slight more difficult to explain lift in your own few best words.

Third, people marked like you need to upgrade their dictionary. Levity has shared the same meaning as lift since long before your first edition. Look for an up~grade that clearly states even definitions evolve over infinite time.

Forth, I am the OP and author of this particular thread. I will reserve the right to employ the spellings and words and definitions and punctuations that best convey what I see. Please feel free to do the same.

 

welcome to my wormhole.003

http://web.MIT.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html

In heavier-than-air craft, lift is created by the flow of air over an airfoil. The shape of an airfoil causes air to flow faster on top than on bottom. The fast flowing air decreases the surrounding air pressure.

 

What makes no sense at least for me; is how the otherwise intelligent brains at the Massachusetts ∫ing Institute of Technology have not a clue what causes a wing to levitate.

The curvature of the wing does not make air flow faster over. Air flowing faster over is not the force that lifts a plane.

 

bang~entropy

A wing presses downwards on the relative headwind; fluent baryonic matter presses back upwards. Inertial pressure differential creates lower pressure over a wing; lower pressure over forces acceleration over as per Bernoulli.

 

bernoulli.101

def: bernoulli

higher velocity over means lower pressure over and vice versa

 

A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline.

Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom?

 

ItS

peace

rw

[Moontanman]

If you apply enough HP a brick will fly, what is your point?

[rwjefferson]

A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline.

Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom?

What is your answer?

 

ItS

peace

rw

[Moontanman]

A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline.

Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom?

What is your answer?

 

ItS

peace

rw

 

Has to be the top side, the bottom side is on contact with the ground and would impede air flow... btw it's not the curvature of the wing it's the angle of attack...

[uncool]

Forth, I am the OP and author of this particular thread. I will reserve the right to employ the spellings and words and definitions and punctuations that best convey what I see. Please feel free to do the same.

"There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'"

 

In other words, no, you don't get to redefine common scientific words. Otherwise, your entire OP could mean "Purple invisible kumquat unicorn Supernatural blah."

=Uncool-

[Bill Angel]

Here is a more accepted meaning of the term levity:

 

lev·i·ty/ˈlevətē/Noun:Humor or frivolity, esp. the treatment of a serious matter with humor or in a manner lacking due respect.

 

I like THIS definition of levity. I believe that efforts to explore the connection between science and THIS meaning of levity have proved to be more fruitful at this science discussion forum. Check out the threads in the Lounge on zombies and the Higgs boson.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Bill Angel

[Greg H.]

you only prove I am right

Right about....what exactly? Completing your thoughts helps people understand you.

 

Second, it is relatively easy to insult and cite and silence. It is a slight more difficult to explain lift in your own few best words.

First, if I insulted you, it was unintentional, and I most certainly apologize.

Secondly, lift is the upward force applied on an object as it moves through the air. It is not, however, necessary for the surface to be curved in any fashion, as evidenced by the vast number of aircraft with symmetrical wings that manage to fly just fine.

 

I suspect (and maybe a physicist can confirm this for us) that the curved shape may make the lift more efficient, but it's not necessary at all. As Moontanman said, I can make a brick fly if I strap a rocket to it.

 

Third, people marked like you need to upgrade their dictionary. Levity has shared the same meaning as lift since long before your first edition. Look for an up~grade that clearly states even definitions evolve over infinite time.

I am well aware of how language changes over time. However, the closest definition I could even find for what you are espousing was an archaic definition that equates levity with the lightness of an object. A light object certainly requires less lift to fly, but being light does not cause flight. I stand by my correction of your terms.

 

Forth, I am the OP and author of this particular thread. I will reserve the right to employ the spellings and words and definitions and punctuations that best convey what I see. Please feel free to do the same.

Communication requires that you present your message in a way that gives it the best chance of being understood. Unless, of course, you're just engaging in sophistry, in which case, by all means, carry on gibbering word salad all over the place.

 

What makes no sense at least for me; is how the otherwise intelligent brains at the Massachusetts ∫ing Institute of Technology have not a clue what causes a wing to levitate.

Wings don't levitate. They are lifted by the motion of the medium they are moving through in a lateral direction across their surfaces. If wings levitated, planes wouldn't need engines to fly.

 

A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline.

Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom?

Neither. Except for the patch in contact with the ground, it would flow the same speed across the entire surface. This is why balls rolling down inclines do not spontaneously take flight.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

I see several problems here. You provided a few quotes but no links, so the context of the statements lack context. It could very well be that they are correct in the scenario in which they were given, but those additional constraints have been omitted. Or they could be wrong. We have no way of knowing.

 

 

tilting at dogma.101

First, I long ago gleaned your own cite even rigney's.

Second, it is relatively easy to insult and cite and silence. It is a slight more difficult to explain lift in your own few best words.

 

I don't see where anyone has insulted you.

 

Third, people marked like you need to upgrade their dictionary. Levity has shared the same meaning as lift since long before your first edition. Look for an up~grade that clearly states even definitions evolve over infinite time.

Forth, I am the OP and author of this particular thread. I will reserve the right to employ the spellings and words and definitions and punctuations that best convey what I see. Please feel free to do the same.

 

No, not so much. I think that people should not feel free to be using non-standard definitions. Many terms in science have fairly precise definitions. dogma has a definition, too. You should familiarize yourself with it.

 

welcome to my wormhole.003

http://web.MIT.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html

 

 

What makes no sense at least for me; is how the otherwise intelligent brains at the Massachusetts ∫ing Institute of Technology have not a clue what causes a wing to levitate.

The curvature of the wing does not make air flow faster over. Air flowing faster over is not the force that lifts a plane.

 

Where do they identify air flowing faster as a force? Certainly not in the quoted piece. Also, maybe it's a good idea not to insult a group of people in a post where you complain about insults.

[rigney]

It is my passion to stand against dogma.

 

What makes no sense is how otherwise intelligent people will swallow obvious fallacies because Authority tells them so.

 

If a wing lifts because the upper surface is curved;

How does an airplane fly upside down?

 

The curvature of a wing does not determine whether it produces lift.

How is it you do not know this?

 

ron

If you have ever fooled around with simple model planes, you'll note the main wings, usually a flat piece of balsa; is tilted slightly upward from back to front through the body of the plane. Air flowing into the wing front to back is restricted by this angle, thus creating pressure against the underside, while air flowing over the top actually creates something of a vacuum; depending on the angle. Other than acrobatic planes and rockets, the rest fly uphill to some degree. Edited July 11, 2012 by rigney

[rwjefferson]

you are already forgiven....at least by me

 

def: anti-

a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words ( anticline ); used freely in combination with elements of any origin ( antibody; antifreeze; antiknock; antilepton ).

 

def: levity

-- opposed to gravity

 

look this up in your funk and wagnall's

def: levity

the force that opposes gravity

syns: antigravity, buoyancy, lift, laughing out loud

newton.bernoulli.buddha.et al

 

there is no free lift

def (: anti-lift

compression, drag, downer, gravitation, entropy,)

 

did you hear a squeal

Has to be the top side, the bottom side is on contact with the ground and would impede air flow... btw it's not the curvature of the wing it's the angle of attack...

 

There is no initial movement over ground to impede where the rubber meets the road. Rolling means spin velocity equals forward velocity.

V-V=0 toward the bottom side and VxV over the top.

 

Humor me...pretend top spin means the top side attacks the relative headwind faster than the bottom round; backspin is synonymous with anti-topspin.

 

A shiny sphere rolls at high speed across a slippery horizontal boundary.

Does bernoulli predict lower pressure over shiny fast rolling balls?

 

No cites please. Use your own good words concisely.

 

btw it's not the angle of attack...it's the angle of departure

 

peace

ron