-10

Even the earliest airplanes did not apply Bernoulli principle. The wings were flat, and it worked. An honest engineer admitted that 'take off' is a mystery. Is there alternatives for Bernoulli principle? To me Universal Acceleration under Flat Earth model is the one and only convincing concept to explain flying phenomena. It fits reality and experiment. Throw a flat, circular objects horizontally, the more speed the more altitude. The ascending air hit the underneath parth of the object.

Danang Tyasworo
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
    Welcome to Stack Exchange! Have you read the answers to "How do wings generate lift"? If not, I recommend reading through those, and those may answer your question. If you have already read those, can you be more specific about which part you'd still like to understand? – Tanner Swett Jul 23 '19 at 17:29
  • 1
    The answers on this question might also help you: How does Bernoulli's principle contribute in lifting airplane? – Tanner Swett Jul 23 '19 at 17:31
  • @Tanner Swett thank you for the link. I have editted my post. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 17:43
  • A simple overview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF22LM8AbII – Invariant Jul 23 '19 at 18:07
  • 7
    This is a joke right? – JZYL Jul 23 '19 at 18:36
  • Again, to fly, with just flat wings, it works. The point is not at the wings shape. It's the Wings Area and the entire underneath of the airplane's body. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 18:41
  • If the joke has evidences, it's not a joke. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 18:44
  • The early wings weren't flat, they were just thin. They still had camber. They were more or less going by bird airfoils in the early going. In the end though, the way it works is, you're an air molecule sitting there minding your own business, then a wing comes along, lifts you a bit, then shoves you down much harder (or more correctly, induces you to move down by the changes in pressure), trying to keep itself from falling, and you find yourself lower than before. The work done to move you there is lift. – John K Jul 23 '19 at 21:45
  • @Danang Tyasworo with enough power no wing is needed at all (rocket). Flat objects will fly. The wing makes them easier to fly. So the bird does not need a rocket to fly. Much can be learned from them. – Robert DiGiovanni Jul 24 '19 at 01:33
  • @DanangTyasworo Universal acceleration is a ridiculous model that violates the very existence of an atmosphere that we experience. The fact that static pressure is higher towards the ground, and the fact that there is such a thing as static air with zero dynamic pressure, are evidence enough that this model is garbage. – JZYL Jul 24 '19 at 01:57
  • @Jimmy Hmmmm. I think that the universal acceleration hypothesis is false, of course, but I don't think that the reason you gave for its falsehood is correct. In any case, the comments on this question aren't the place to discuss that; if you're interested in discussing it, please take a look at what I just sent to the chat channel: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/12036/the-hangar – Tanner Swett Jul 24 '19 at 03:21
  • Yes I've noticed the same happens when I just stretch out my arms. The ascending air hits the undersides and I go zooming up! – quiet flyer Jul 27 '19 at 01:01
  • @quiet flyer You reminded me something I did in my chilhood: streching out my arms out of the car's window. Regardless it's an arm or anything else with any shape, flat or round, there is gonna be zoom up effect. Speed gives force upwards by the ascending air. The more speed the more air drive up force. Even when you speed a car, there will be a bit 'flying' sensation (the real one). When the car decreases the speed, the weight will get back to normal. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 27 '19 at 08:54
  • @Tanner Swett So sorry, that chat channel requires 18 reputation so I couldn't join the chat. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 27 '19 at 08:58
  • 1
    This just makes no sense. Let's say we have a huge enclosed elevator rising at 100 mph. If we drop a parachute or throw a paper airplane within the elevator, does it take longer for it to hit the floor of the elevator than when the elevator is at rest? No. Now say the elevator is ACCELERATING upwards. Now it takes LESS time for the parachute or paper airplane to reach the floor of the elevator than in the other two conditions, because apparent gravity is increased. So your supposed observations wouldn't support your theory even if they were actually accurate observations. – quiet flyer Jul 27 '19 at 09:06
  • @quietflyer I think the tools for experiment should be the real one. Please give me a video link. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 28 '19 at 02:13
  • Earth is the real experiment. Due to earth's rotation around sun, the ground has an upward velocity of thousands of miles per at most locations near sunrise, and a similar downward velocity at most locations near sunset, yet we see no unusual changes in the sink rate of a gliding aircraft. As for effects of acceleration, it is obvious from nasa "vomet comit" experiments that things float with zero downward acceleration relative to room when room is accelerating earthward sufficiently fast enough-- coversely we know from basic math that – quiet flyer Jul 28 '19 at 02:53
  • Conversely we know from basic math that an increase in apparent gravity due to upward acceleration of a container will increase both the airspeed and the sink rate of a glider flying within that container. – quiet flyer Jul 28 '19 at 02:58

1 Answers1

0

I'm not sure that I completely understand what you're asking, but I'll try to answer your question as you've written it, and we can go from there.

What makes an airplane fly?

That question has been answered pretty thoroughly here: How do wings generate lift?

Is Bernoulli's principle still reliable?

Yes, it's a law of physics that explains experimental results very well.

Are there alternatives to Bernoulli's principle?

It depends on what you mean by "alternatives."

Are there alternative explanations that can be used in addition to Bernoulli's principle? Yes, those are explained at "How do wings generate lift?"

Are there any alternative laws which might be true instead of Bernoulli's principle? No, experimental results show that Bernoulli's principle is the correct description of what it describes.

Finally, you didn't ask a question about this, but I'll respond anyway:

To me Universal Acceleration under Flat Earth model is the one and only convincing concept to explain flying phenomena.

For posterity, "universal acceleration" is the hypothesis that there is no gravity; instead, the ground is accelerating upwards at $1\ g$.

For people on the ground and for aircraft, universal acceleration and gravity make almost exactly the same predictions, so it can be difficult to tell which hypothesis is correct. Whether you're on the ground or aboard an aircraft, it's essentially impossible to perform an experiment which would give different results depending on which of the two hypotheses is true.

In particular, standing on the ground and throwing a Frisbee won't tell you anything about whether the apparent force of gravity is caused by gravitation or by universal acceleration.

Tanner Swett
  • 5,771
  • 1
  • 31
  • 58
  • If the airplane goes up vertically, there will be no 'take off effect'. The airplane will just go straight up. If the wings be regarded as the factor of lift, how come the 'light' wings can bear tons of weights? – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 18:32
  • @DanangTyasworo airplanes don’t tens to go up vertically. And there is no “take off edfect”, the wing produces lift and that’s either enough to climb, stay level or descent. And yes, the wing carries most of the weight of the rest of the plane. I’ll be honest, given your profile description and the way you are asking I think you are trying to “trap” us with a question that can’t be explained so you can get validation for your flat earth ideas. – JustSid Jul 23 '19 at 18:40
  • @DanangTyasworo "If the airplane goes up vertically, there will be no 'take off effect'." - What do you mean by "take off effect"? I've never heard that term before, so I don't know what that means. "How come the 'light' wings can bear tons of weights?" - Well, why wouldn't they be able to bear tons of weight? I don't understand the question. – Tanner Swett Jul 23 '19 at 18:43
  • 1
    @Justsid "We are watching you" or such is out of context. This is a scientific forum. Stick to the topic, not politics.(even tough you have editted your post, this post is still relevant) – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 18:49
  • This makes no sense. If the ground is accelerating and not the air, then pressure will no longer obey the hydrostatic equation. Super easy way to debunk... – JZYL Jul 23 '19 at 18:50
  • @Jimmy Either the ground and the air all accelerate. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 18:54
  • @Jimmy I'm not sure what you're saying. If the ground were accelerating, then it would push on the air, causing the air to accelerate as well, thereby causing the atmosphere to satisfy the hydrostatic equation. – Tanner Swett Jul 23 '19 at 18:55
  • @danangtyasworo no, still violates the observation from hydrostatics. If they accelerate upward, then we will see pressure inversion and not the standard atmosphere. – JZYL Jul 23 '19 at 18:59
  • 1
    @Tanner Switt, take off effect = climb. The lighter wings would be broken if lifting up the airplane's body, and passengers etc. So sorry I didn't go to physics school. Just an enthusiast. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 '19 at 19:00
  • @tannerswett no, the reason hydrostatics exist is because air is experiencing a constant acceleration. If only the ground us accelerating, then hydrostatics is bunk. – JZYL Jul 23 '19 at 19:00
  • 1
    @DanangTyasworo I realize that it was highly off key and I’d like to apologize. It was pretty immature on my part, hence why I edited that part out. – JustSid Jul 23 '19 at 19:00
  • 1
    @DanangTyasworo "If the airplane goes up vertically, there will be no 'take off effect'." "take off effect = climb" If an object (airplane or otherwise) which is moving vertically is not either climbing (as in: increasing its height above a reference level, such as the mean sea level) or descending (which is not the usual thing to do around takeoff, though it does happen on occasion), then what is it doing? – user Jul 23 '19 at 19:02
  • 4
    @DanangTyasworo "The lighter wings would be broken if lifting up the airplane's body, and passengers etc." - No, wings are more than strong enough to support the airplane's weight. This is sometimes tested by flipping an airplane upside down and loading the wings up with sandbags; the weight that the wings can support is much greater than the weight of the airplane. – Tanner Swett Jul 23 '19 at 19:04
  • @Tanner Swett "wings are more than strong enough to support the airplane's weight" Unfortunately, I still can't convince it. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 27 '19 at 08:59
  • @JustSid That's okay. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 27 '19 at 09:01
  • @a CVn if an aircrat/militery jet goes up vertically and there is no any curved trajectory because there is no force from horizontal directions. The force comes only from below. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 27 '19 at 09:04
  • @Jimmy The force comes from the universal acceleration. It even doesn't make sense to claim lift phenomenon under gravity theory. The force is not downwards, it's upwards. Gravity never been proven, even when you stand, walk and run smoothly, without any difficulty, that means you've debunk gravity. The ground has no magnet effect. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 27 '19 at 10:00
  • 2
    @Danang Well, I don't know what to tell you. If you ask me a question, and I give you the answer, and you say "Unfortunately, I still can't convince it," then I don't know what else I can tell you that would be useful to you. – Tanner Swett Jul 27 '19 at 14:04
  • @TannerSwett Just saying: nowadays the education system and things related to it, are full of scams. We can't obtain the truth easily by just reading books or watching videos. We must heavily struggle to figure out anything in the world. – Danang Tyasworo Jul 28 '19 at 02:00
  • @DanangTyasworo -- see https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/67049/would-all-these-three-things-have-the-exact-same-effect-on-the-observed-flight-b – quiet flyer Jul 28 '19 at 14:23