ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags aerodynamics , gravity , magnetism

Reply
Old 13th November 2019, 01:05 PM   #121
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,142
Thumbs down A delusion that birds use "almost the same principle" as jellyfish to move

Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Myriad, you're right. But there are still birds using almost the same principle in the air....
14 November 2019 MasterOgon: A delusion that birds use "almost the same principle" as jellyfish to move.

How do jellyfish swim?
The surprising trick jellyfish use to swim
Jellyfish use jet propulsion or row using cilia or undulate.

Birds do not have jets or cilia and do not undulate their wings. Birds flap their wings because aerodynamic lift needs flows of air across the wings. They cup their wings on takeoff and landing because that produces the highest lift (aircraft use wing flaps for the same purpose on takeoff and landing).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 02:53 PM   #122
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,339
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
https://lenr.su/forum/index.php?attachments/t-jpg.1935/
Do not tell me about aerodynamics. It remains at the level of the century before last until now. In accordance with the proposed theory, the pressure difference, leading to the formation of the lifting force of the wing, arises due to the action of the forces of attraction and repulsion of air molecules in the boundary layer. In the picture, the flow around the wing by the boundary layer. Vortices formed behind the wing as a result of the release of thermal energy lead to the movement of air from the upper to the lower, creating a pressure difference. The layer of air indicated in the figure is very thin. It can be seen in a viscous liquid, where its thickness becomes larger.
When a wing crashes into air, squeezing it in front of itself, the distance between the molecules decreases and they repel each other due to their thermal energy. Part is pushed forward and this creates drag. And most of them are pushed up, and scattering forms rarefied air. Further, attraction begins to act between them, and the molecules tend to collapse back. Due to the fact that when they hit the leading edge, they received an impulse leading to the release of repulsive and attractive forces, their energy is greater than that of molecules under the wing. And so they bend around the trailing edge and move there against flight reaching the leading edge, where they are cut off by repelling molecules. Because of this collision, a stream of smoke blowing the wing in the wind tunnel to the last tends to go over the upper part of the wing even if it is moved strongly down. Thus, the forces of attraction act on the wing from above and the forces of repulsion of air molecules from below. Molecules continue to be repelled and attracted like a spring even after they are left behind the wing. This is turbulence. This process occurs rhythmically, and not evenly, as aerodynamics believes. This rhythm is clearly visible in the video with the vaper and is the cause of flutter.
Explain how winglets work, please.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 03:10 PM   #123
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,339
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
14 November 2019 MasterOgon: A delusion that birds use "almost the same principle" as jellyfish to move.

How do jellyfish swim?
The surprising trick jellyfish use to swim
Jellyfish use jet propulsion or row using cilia or undulate.

Birds do not have jets or cilia and do not undulate their wings. Birds flap their wings because aerodynamic lift needs flows of air across the wings. They cup their wings on takeoff and landing because that produces the highest lift (aircraft use wing flaps for the same purpose on takeoff and landing).
The albatross is an interesting example. The reason that they are able to
spend most of their lives aloft is because their wings have evolved to an astonishing level of aerodynamic efficiency.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 09:23 PM   #124
MasterOgon
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 41
I have the impression that most of the people here are competing in eloquence, not understanding what they mean. I am talking about the fact that I discovered a phenomenon that is not described in any source, but they point me to sources in which it is not described. I know very well how the lifting force of the wing is explained. Communicating with aviators, I did not find any contradictions in my theory.

Naturally, the screen theory is not true, since it greatly simplifies. Any theory becomes erroneous when new facts appear. But Bjerkens's experiments perfectly show short-range and long-range action. Balls are attracted due to waves and repel, crashing. Like my ship.

The air is neutral until it hits the front of the wing. Then it receives a charge and polarization occurs.
Winglets work as before. They hold charged air over the wing.
MasterOgon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 09:41 PM   #125
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
I have the impression that most of the people here are competing in eloquence, not understanding what they mean. I am talking about the fact that I discovered a phenomenon that is not described in any source, but they point me to sources in which it is not described. I know very well how the lifting force of the wing is explained. Communicating with aviators, I did not find any contradictions in my theory.
That's because you refuse to acknowledge them.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2019, 10:13 PM   #126
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Naturally, the screen theory is not true, since it greatly simplifies.
No, that is not why the screen theory is not true.

It is not true because there is no such thing as an ether - and especially an ether composed of a flux of particles. As a result it is not too simple; rather, it is, if anything too complex, as it requires the inclusion of a condition (the ether) which creates a fatal inconsistency between the theory and reality.

Quote:
Any theory becomes erroneous when new facts appear.
The facts needed to discredit the screen theory were known at the time. No new facts were discovered.

Quote:
But Bjerkens's experiments perfectly show short-range and long-range action. Balls are attracted due to waves and repel, crashing. Like my ship.
Except that, among other things, there is no evidence to support a 1/r^2 relationship. For that matter, Bjerknes developed the entire series of experiments specifically as analogs for magnetic forces. From the Jan 19, 1882 Nature article which you seem to have read (but not understood)

Quote:
The most extraordinary thing about Prof. Bjerknes' researches is that they are all the result not of haphazard experiment, but of careful and abstruse calculation. In 1865 he began the investigation. By 1875 he had perceived that the calculated motions were such as would have direct analogies with the phenomena of permanent magnets. Toward 1879 he found that these analogies might be extended to the case of magnetic induction.
Claiming that an experiment intended to show behavior analogous to magnetic forces, with both attraction and repulsion, thereby shows an analogy to gravitation (since it produces attraction), and also predicts the existence of antigravity since it produces repulsion), is delusional, and suggests that you desperately need a refresher course in logic. And physics, while you're at it. What it does not do is actually make the case that you claim it does.

Last edited by WhatRoughBeast; 13th November 2019 at 10:16 PM.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 08:53 AM   #127
MasterOgon
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
Claiming that an experiment intended to show behavior analogous to magnetic forces, with both attraction and repulsion, thereby shows an analogy to gravitation (since it produces attraction), and also predicts the existence of antigravity since it produces repulsion), is delusional, and suggests that you desperately need a refresher course in logic. And physics, while you're at it. What it does not do is actually make the case that you claim it does.
why?
MasterOgon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 02:24 PM   #128
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,142
Thumbs down Ignorant delusions about how wings work, e.g. air "receives a charge" insanity

Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
...
15 November 2019 MasterOgon: Ignorant delusions about how wings work, e.g. air "receives a charge" insanity when wings and air are neutral.

Deluded lie of "Bjerkens's experiments" that he thinks showed air molecules having interactions on the scales of wings (meters for large aircraft such as a 747!). This is Vilhelm Bjerknes who did early research on fluid dynamics. Bjerknes' Hydrodynamic Experiments were on "attractions and repulsions produced between pulsating or vibrating bodies immersed in liquid", not wings. Bjerknes' experiments do not have anything to do with MasterOgon's antigravity delusions !

A "Balls are attracted due to waves and repel" gibberish. Balls bounce off each other because they have paths that allow it :eek! A "Like my ship." delusion when all he has is a Frisbee and a water craft.

The usual delusion from ignorant cranks of cherry picking old, possibly outdated research as if over 100 years of science as in this case did not exist !

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2019 at 02:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 02:39 PM   #129
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,142
Exclamation A massively delusional question about textbook physics

Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
why?
15 November 2019 MasterOgon: A massively delusional question about textbook physics - gravity has no charges and so only attracts!

High school students know that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. High school students know that magnetic fields have opposite effects on positive and negative charges. High school students know that gravity only depends on mass which is always "positive" as far as we have been able to detect.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 02:43 PM   #130
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
Claiming that an experiment intended to show behavior analogous to magnetic forces, with both attraction and repulsion, thereby shows an analogy to gravitation (since it produces attraction), and also predicts the existence of antigravity since it produces repulsion), is delusional, and suggests that you desperately need a refresher course in logic. And physics, while you're at it. What it does not do is actually make the case that you claim it does.
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
why?
Because magnetism is not gravity, and vice versa.

Or were you unaware of that fact?
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 02:57 PM   #131
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,142
Exclamation A spate of ignorance, gibberish, delusions and lies from MasterOgon

A spate of ignorance, gibberish, delusions and lies from MasterOgon starting from 22 October 2019. The first couple of pages of posts from MasterOgon.
  1. An aether has been shown not to exist since 1887
  2. Listing old, invalid "theories" of gravity is irrelevant
  3. Those dozens of experiments and other experiments showed that the aether did not exist!
  4. A story about a discovery by Gauss in 1835 is not a valid source
  5. The curvature of spacetime explains gravity and is not "the measurement system"
  6. No evidence that "number of discoveries that do not fit into the theory of relativity" exist.
  7. More important to note is no citation of this discovery by Nikolai Noskov!
  8. History of the atomic model followed by a "vibrating balls", aether, etc. fantasy.
  9. A physically impossible "mechanical model of the hydrogen atom".
  10. Irrelevant "oscillatory motion in homogeneous - liquid and gaseous media" word salad.
  11. An irrelevant non-experiment with ignorant word salad ignoring basic physics.
  12. Word salad about what a particle 1 does when getting a boost.
  13. Word salad about "particles 7" and a shock wave ending with a flying saucer fanatsy.
  14. A fanciful conclusion unrelated to the preceding posts.
  15. An "assumed" fantasy about the aether, atoms, electrons, etc.
  16. Bad irrelevant "greater the mass of the pendulum, the more efficient the movement" physics.
  17. A long and ignorant fantasy about "asymmetric oscillations" and planetary systems.
  18. Deep ignorance about the aether which cannot be viscous.
  19. Cartoons, links and videos are not scientific literature and seem unrelated to Nikolai Noskov.
  20. Nikolay Noskov is very deluded about the Michelson-Morley experiments, etc.
  21. A "But the experiment proving their fallacy will not go anywhere" delusion.
  22. A possible "far as I know, opinions on this experiment are divided" lie.
  23. Irrelevant pseudoscience unrelated to the MM experiments.
  24. Irrelevant gibberish about the curvature of the palm and some insane ignorance.
  25. "Gas and fluid vortex" stupidity about black holes and some insane ignorance.
  26. This seems to be a lie followed by an ignorant delusion. He has posted about the aether he claims to be not a matter!
  27. A ignorant "electromagnetic field has the shape of a torus" delusion
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 10:06 PM   #132
MasterOgon
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 41
Complete nonsense
MasterOgon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 06:39 AM   #133
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Complete nonsense
Well done. Clearly the rest of us are no match for your rapier wit and razor-sharp logic. You have succinctly laid out the most compelling argument you've used so far.

I don't think you've ever been in better form.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 06:48 AM   #134
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Complete nonsense
Have you considered using a Frisbee? They fly much better than your homemade toy saucer.. See?
https://youtu.be/lgUyW5aGC2U
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 09:08 AM   #135
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,806
bruto has a birthday
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The albatross is an interesting example. The reason that they are able to
spend most of their lives aloft is because their wings have evolved to an astonishing level of aerodynamic efficiency.
I just got back from a long trip to the southern hemisphere in which I got to see a lot of albatrosses and got some lecturing about them as well. They are fascinating critters. For those who do not know I will mention that the wandering albatross is at this time at least the largest bird in the world, with a huge wingspan, often in the ten foot range. They are so well designed for aerodynamic efficiency (and for sensing their environment) that they spend their entire lives at sea except when they come ashore to breed. They tend to fly very low, right above the waves even occasionally dipping a wing into the water, taking advantage of the lifting currents produced by the waves themselves. Their wings are evolved to lock horizontally, and they rarely if ever flap them when flying, but instead they bank to catch currents and get lift, and make micro-adjustments to trim. They are so efficient that their heart rate is slower when flying than it is when not flying. Albatross are fascinating to watch anyway (as are other big birds such as giant petrels). They stay aloft with apparent ease not by some physics-defying tricks or magical theorems, but by impressively fine aerodynamics which, though we poor clumsy landlubbers cannot duplicate them, those whose business it is to understand such things can explain.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 08:06 PM   #136
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,037
What flavor was the albatross and does is come with wafers?
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 08:16 PM   #137
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,294
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I just got back from a long trip to the southern hemisphere in which I got to see a lot of albatrosses and got some lecturing about them as well. They are fascinating critters. For those who do not know I will mention that the wandering albatross is at this time at least the largest bird in the world, with a huge wingspan, often in the ten foot range. They are so well designed for aerodynamic efficiency (and for sensing their environment) that they spend their entire lives at sea except when they come ashore to breed. They tend to fly very low, right above the waves even occasionally dipping a wing into the water, taking advantage of the lifting currents produced by the waves themselves. Their wings are evolved to lock horizontally, and they rarely if ever flap them when flying, but instead they bank to catch currents and get lift, and make micro-adjustments to trim. They are so efficient that their heart rate is slower when flying than it is when not flying. Albatross are fascinating to watch anyway (as are other big birds such as giant petrels). They stay aloft with apparent ease not by some physics-defying tricks or magical theorems, but by impressively fine aerodynamics which, though we poor clumsy landlubbers cannot duplicate them, those whose business it is to understand such things can explain.
Thanks. Against all expectations, I learned something in this thread.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 10:36 PM   #138
curious cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
14 November 2019 MasterOgon: Confirms his delusions and ends with ignorance about how wings work.

.......................................

The vortex insanity is another matter. Wings are deigned to minimize turbulence. There is laminar flow across the bottom of the wing (no vortexes) and laminar flow becoming turbulent across the top (vortexes along the top rear of the wing).........................................
The OP is as actually right up to some stage... There are some vortexes that are inseparable parts of the lift generation theory.
https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2...tices_wing.htm
But as we can see, it not as simple as in his creative art and should we start talking about these, we will probably never end ;-).
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 11:37 PM   #139
MasterOgon
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
The OP is as actually right up to some stage... There are some vortexes that are inseparable parts of the lift generation theory.
https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2...tices_wing.htm
But as we can see, it not as simple as in his creative art and should we start talking about these, we will probably never end ;-).
Yes, this is closer to the truth. But there is indicated only one vortex, which in my drawing has a larger size. But you are right - everything is very complicated.
MasterOgon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 07:28 AM   #140
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,169
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Right. This image shows how stalling leads to stall. Vortices change position and now pressurize the upper part of the wing.
Wrong, the Vortices haven't changed position (they are still on the trailing end of the wing). It is the wing that has changed position relative to the direction of motion. What was the "upper part of the wing" is now the trailing part of the wing.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 03:22 PM   #141
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,142
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Complete nonsense
A spate of ignorance, gibberish, delusions and lies from MasterOgon starting from 22 October 2019 is the ignorance, delusions, or some lies about science in your posts.

That is an incomplete list. There are more to be added. If you do not want an ongoing record of posts continuing ignorance, delusion, or lies for the world to see, then do not post them, MasterOgon. Think about what your posts before writing them. Learn about the science you are supposed to be writing about. Back your posts up with that science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th November 2019 at 03:23 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 03:53 PM   #142
curious cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The albatross is an interesting example. The reason that they are able to
spend most of their lives aloft is because their wings have evolved to an astonishing level of aerodynamic efficiency.
The (undeniable and astonishing) aerodynamic efficiency of Albatross' wing is only a part of the story. These smart buggers are cleverly exploiting the wind speed gradient above water gaining energy for an infinite soaring seemingly from nowhere.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/diagram/706...ficient-flight
I think they know much more about aerodynamic than Master Ogon :-).
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 07:16 PM   #143
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,092
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The albatross is an interesting example. The reason that they are able to
spend most of their lives aloft is because their wings have evolved to an astonishing level of aerodynamic efficiency.
They are not so good at that take off and landing thing. Videos of it are a good laugh.

I did see a pair on land in the Galapagos. The were just meeting up and the greeting was interesting to watch.
__________________
45 es un titere
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 01:57 PM   #144
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,339
Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
They are not so good at that take off and landing thing. Videos of it are a good laugh.

I did see a pair on land in the Galapagos. The were just meeting up and the greeting was interesting to watch.
Ha! Yeah, those parts are comically clumsy. But it is not like they have to do it very often. IIRC, they mate for life
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 02:08 PM   #145
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,606
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
I popularize this
You misspelled propagandized

.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 02:36 PM   #146
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,822
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ha! Yeah, those parts are comically clumsy. But it is not like they have to do it very often. IIRC, they mate for life
But surely . . . hopefully . . . more than once.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 07:17 PM   #147
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,806
bruto has a birthday
There's a reason, I guess, why albatross are nicknamed "gooney birds."

In the places I've seen them nesting, though, they often go for windy promontories and cliffs, where it's possible for them to get aloft pretty easily without a lot of fuss, and they do so with some frequency, not having to flap much to get airborne.

This seems to be the case for many colonial birds, which tend to nest on cliffs and peaks. You don't have to do much flapping if jumping off your nest puts you 50 feet above the water.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:06 AM   #148
MasterOgon
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 41
Flying saucer acoustic drive.
https://youtu.be/IyzIT2atqw0
MasterOgon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:32 PM   #149
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,806
bruto has a birthday
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Flying saucer acoustic drive.
https://youtu.be/IyzIT2atqw0
Needs more cowbell.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:43 PM   #150
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,167
Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Flying saucer acoustic drive.
https://youtu.be/IyzIT2atqw0
It would appear that you have reinvented the frisbee, by screwing up the aerodynamics and adding a useless motor. Much like reinventing the wheel, by making it triangular.

The styrofoam thing on the water sort of works, because your rotating weights are rocking it and causing it to "swim" in the water. OTOH, a propeller would be a hell of a lot more efficient. I'm not too impressed with either "invention".

If you imagine either of those demonstrates anything remotely resembling antigravity, you are badly mistaken.

Last edited by CORed; 3rd December 2019 at 02:50 PM.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:51 PM   #151
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,142
Thumbs down A deluded and lying video by maybe MasterOgon

Originally Posted by MasterOgon View Post
Flying saucer acoustic drive.
4 December 2019 MasterOgon : A deluded and lying video by maybe MasterOgon.
Starts with a lying "Anti-gravity Principle" delusion. Insanity of a boat "rowing" in water. Throwing a Frisbee and not very well with a "drive off". Throwing a Frisbee still not very well with a "drive on". Thus a Frisbee is a flying saucer insanity, a delusion that he has shown antigravity working, and a "acoustic drive" delusion !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:58 PM   #152
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,167
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I just got back from a long trip to the southern hemisphere in which I got to see a lot of albatrosses and got some lecturing about them as well. They are fascinating critters. For those who do not know I will mention that the wandering albatross is at this time at least the largest bird in the world, with a huge wingspan, often in the ten foot range. They are so well designed for aerodynamic efficiency (and for sensing their environment) that they spend their entire lives at sea except when they come ashore to breed. They tend to fly very low, right above the waves even occasionally dipping a wing into the water, taking advantage of the lifting currents produced by the waves themselves. Their wings are evolved to lock horizontally, and they rarely if ever flap them when flying, but instead they bank to catch currents and get lift, and make micro-adjustments to trim. They are so efficient that their heart rate is slower when flying than it is when not flying. Albatross are fascinating to watch anyway (as are other big birds such as giant petrels). They stay aloft with apparent ease not by some physics-defying tricks or magical theorems, but by impressively fine aerodynamics which, though we poor clumsy landlubbers cannot duplicate them, those whose business it is to understand such things can explain.
I've never had the pleasure of observing albatrosses. I have, however, watched turkey vultures, who are also phenomenally good gliders. I remember watching one at the rim of the Grand Canyon, using a very light breeze blowing into the rim, gain a couple hundred feet of altitude, without flapping its wings at all; just banking to catch the right air currents.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.