The Mystery Behind Flight Deepens

Doesn't this fit closely with the Electric Universe theory?

From what I understand, the "reason" we can't explain bird's flight is because the numbers don't add up. Now, I haven't dug deep into seeing what calculations they used exactly, but I'm fairly certain gravity will be in there somewhere. What scientists are trying to do is verify flight in pure mathematics. They're taking everything we know is affecting the bird (every force we know will affact the bird during it's flight), and it doesn't add up.


So the way I see it is there are 2 options:

- Our current understanding (and formulas) for nature (gravity and electricity more specifically) are wrong.
- There are, yet to be discovered, forces at work.


In the article, they themselves mention: "As shown by the problematic performance of the current options, a completely new model may be the answer."

Our current model allows for extremely counterintuitive and "super-natural" phenomena (quantum mechanics, action at a distance)and exotic matter that boggles the mind to exist (dark matter to explain the motion of galaxies), yet we mathematically still can't explain how birds fly?

How is not every scientist atleast pondering the idea that somewhere along the line, science strayed from reality (nature). Generations of physisists and mathematicians sitting at a desk building formula upon formula describing nature, completely detached from nature.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: swanne

The answer to your question is and was known for centuries by the Aztec.

Have a look at a picture of one of the 'Aztec golden aircraft'...check the wings out, more specifically the designs inscribed on them...they are vortices..swirls representing the vortices generated by a lifting body, or wing.

I was surprised by the thread.. now Im astounded and going to read as much as I can!

This is all the things I love about ATS!

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I heard that it is a scientific impossibility that the bumble bee is capable of flight. Yet somehow it flies. So who do you believe, the bumble bee or science?

You may find this interesting, seems they sorta figured it out!
Scientist Finally figure out how bees fly

originally posted by: Vechthaan
Doesn't this fit closely with the Electric Universe theory?

No.

How did this business of proving that a bumblebee can't fly originate? Who started the story?

One set of accounts suggests that the story first surfaced in Germany in the 1930s. One evening at dinner, a prominent aerodynamicist happened to be talking to a biologist, who asked about the flight of bees. To answer the biologist's query, the engineer did a quick "back-of-the-napkin" calculation.

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift. That was about all he could do at a dinner party. The detailed calculations had to wait. To the biologist, however, the aerodynamicist's initial failure was sufficient evidence of the superiority of nature to mere engineering.

...

So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee.

Flight of the Bumblebee

I'd say, what was shown is that you should never give engineering approximations to laymen. My policy is to always tell brass/managers that we will look into it and get back to you, because they don't understand what you're telling them anyway, and any chance you give them to misunderstand you, they will. Similarly, you should never let your customer see the concept validation prototype.

originally posted by: colina
Have you got any reference none of them brought a definitive answer to the question: how does the wing of an aeroplane, or that of a bird for that matters, generates lift? And so far wings of areoplanes are developed more with experimental trial and error than anything else.

i dont think that is precisely true..

almost all aircraft design begins with CAD, which includes fluid dynamics.. scale models are used to confirm.. not exactly trial and error.

back in the day it may have been trial and error, but we know more or less enough now about fluid dynamics to predict how changing an aerofoil will affect lift and drag.

a reply to: colina

The way an airfoil works has been understood for a long time. The simple answer is that the curve of the wing forces air over the top of the wing to travel faster. This creates a low pressure area above the wing, and a higher pressure area below the wing, that pushes up on it and lifts the aircraft.

Different shaped wings do different things. The wing of a transport is fatter, to generate more lift, but can't go as fast. The wing of a fighter is as thin as they can make it, to have less drag, so it can go faster.

originally posted by: choos
back in the day it may have been trial and error, but we know more or less enough now about fluid dynamics to predict how changing an aerofoil will affect lift and drag.

Don't I know this. The aero guys used to tie up the university mainframe for days running wing sections.

a reply to: Bedlam

And now we have shape changing wings to make things more fun. And NASA working on a boundary layer engine.

Birds don't fly, they swim.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bedlam

And now we have shape changing wings to make things more fun. And NASA working on a boundary layer engine.

Son of aerospike?

originally posted by: choos

back in the day it may have been trial and error, but we know more or less enough now about fluid dynamics to predict how changing an aerofoil will affect lift and drag.

I've always been impressed by the Wright brothers. Although there's this almost apocryphal vision of them as two good ol' boy bike mechanics sticking an engine on a kite, they were actually very rigorous in terms of design and design validation, using techniques that we still use today. Their wind tunnel - which included surprisingly sophisticated equipment for measuring lift and drag - allowed them to test airfoil designs and correct some of the existing theoretical work relating to flight.

While there was certainly a significant amount of trial and error involved, I think the term really doesn't do justice to what they achieved - or how they went about achieving it.

a reply to: Bedlam

They haven't said a lot about it, but it sounds like it.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I heard that it is a scientific impossibility that the bumble bee is capable of flight. Yet somehow it flies. So who do you believe, the bumble bee or science?

Science actually said that it was impossible for a bumble bee to fly with the theory of a rigid wing. And as it turns out, bees don't have rigid wings.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Exactly correct. They were up on all the latest aeronautical literature and fluid mechanics, and moreover, experimentally tested some of the theories and results published, and found that some were not correct.

And finally they had the deep breakthrough idea that the central problem was not just lift and drag---but critically---dynamical stability, i.e. responses to perturbations. It's obvious now, but hardly so in 1900. Dynamical stability became and remained a core part of aerodynamics to this day.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: swanne

The answer to your question is and was known for centuries by the Aztec.

Have a look at a picture of one of the 'Aztec golden aircraft'...check the wings out, more specifically the designs inscribed on them...they are vortices..swirls representing the vortices generated by a lifting body, or wing.

Sure except that it also looks very much like a few species of catfish found in the same region... and those models where found among piles and piles of others artistically depicting animals... but you know... dont let that stop you claiming something that is definitely not the most likely scenario because you want it to be true

Bumble Bees can fly at up to 30 MPH while carrying 90% of their body-weight in pollen they usually fly in a straight ish line even with a strong crosswind..

a reply to: swanne

That's odd I thought it was well understood, a wing generates lift basically because as it moves through the air, the air flowing over the top surface of the wing is forced to move faster than the air flowing under the bottom surface, which generates lift. If the angle of attack is altered so is the lift to drag relationship, that's why nearly all flying things flare upon landing. Some force is required to keep a wing flying through the air in the first place though, but the more aerodynamic a given wing is the better the glide.
It's more complicated than that in practice but that's the general principal.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: swanne

That's odd I thought it was well understood, a wing generates lift basically because as it moves through the air, the air flowing over the top surface of the wing is forced to move faster than the air flowing under the bottom surface, which generates lift.

That's actually a common misconception. I too thought that was the explanation, but turns out both flows of air exit the wing at the same speed. Makes sense when you think about it though - if the top flow would indeed be faster, the cumulation of the difference of speed would become ludicrous with passing time.

a reply to: surfer_soul

It's partially correct, and is usually referred to as the popular theory when it comes to explaining lift. The air over the wing is faster than the air below it, but it's actually down wash off the wing that lifts it (although that's still an over simplification).