1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:49:42 AM »Quote
Planes fly because of the shape of their wings and Bernoulli's principle.
Nope.
Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888
I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895
I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896
The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb, 1902
Simon Newcomb, directed the American Nautical Almanac Office, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, founder and first president of the American Astronomical Society, vice-president of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p167y1977-78.pdf
The Outlook for the Flying Machine
It turns out that Simon Newcomb was correct in his assertions.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view
Scientific American, February 2020
No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air
By Ed Regis
http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf
Addendum January 18, 2020: Scientific American just published an article admitting that “no one can explain why planes stay in the air”. They should say “no one promoted by the mainstream” can explain it, since I just did above. But despite that obvious omission, it is incredible they would be admitting this in 2020, confirming many of the points I make above, as if they had read this paper and were doing their best to respond to it without mentioning it. Because I think that is precisely what is going on. But although I think that is true, I still find it incredible they would admit to their own ignorance this late in the game. They don't completely admit it, and the author Ed Regis makes some weak stabs at promoting old theories, as well as promoting Doug McLean. But it is all sort of half-hearted and desperate, and Regis doesn't even try very hard to disguise that. He starts by admitting that John Anderson, curator of aerodynamics at the Air and Space Museum, can't explain lift, and has said so in print. Anderson hedged in his 2003 interview in the New York Times, confessing there was no agreement on the subject. Bernoulli's Theorem from 1738 is still the go-to explanation for a majority in academia, but it is admitted that fails to answer all questions. Regis includes the least of these questions in his “But...” insert, admitting that the curved upper surface theory has been disproved. He does not admit that Bernoulli's “lift” vector is unsupported by even the least shred of mechanics, being nothing more than a word. A naming standing for an explanation.
The scathing and devastating analysis by M. Mathis reveals that the explanations put forth by modern science regarding the flight of airplanes, are completely false.
But not even M. Mathis can deliver the correct explanation.
There is only one physicist who was ever able to explain why airplanes stay in flight. He even invented the jet engine: Viktor Schauberger.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376 (V. Schauberger effect, jet engine levitation, part I)