Merged Antigravity, engine and experiments with a flying saucer.

[Reality Check]

A delusion that birds use "almost the same principle" as jellyfish to move

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).

 

[abaddon]

[qimg]https://lenr.su/forum/index.php?attachments/t-jpg.1935/[/qimg]
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.

 

[abaddon]

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.

 

[MasterOgon]

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.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

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.

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.

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)

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.

 

[MasterOgon]

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?

 

[Reality Check]

Ignorant delusions about how wings work, e.g. air "receives a charge" insanity

...

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 !

 

[Reality Check]

A massively delusional question about textbook physics

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.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

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?

Because magnetism is not gravity, and vice versa.

Or were you unaware of that fact?

 

[Reality Check]

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
    

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12887187#post12887187

 

[MasterOgon]

Complete nonsense

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

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.

 

[Steve001]

Complete nonsense

Have you considered using a Frisbee? They fly much better than your homemade toy saucer.. See?
https://youtu.be/lgUyW5aGC2U

 

[bruto]

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.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

What flavor was the albatross and does is come with wafers?

 

[Craig4]

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.

 

[curious cat]

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/courses/112104118/lecture-23/23-6_gen_vortices_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 ;-).

 

[MasterOgon]

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/courses/112104118/lecture-23/23-6_gen_vortices_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.

 

[The Man]

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.