Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
> necoandjeff wrote:
>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>
>>> necoandjeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (do you want to go over Bernoulli again?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, we could go over it again if you're still having trouble. But
>>>> first I want you to assure me that you have actually performed your
>>>> little paper airfoil experiment and confirmed that it does not
>>>> behave at all the way you suggested it should.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Memory seems to be one of your most serious issues. I told *you*
>>> to do the experiment and I told *you* to make sure you only blow
>>> across the top surface. I also provided a detailed explanation
>>> that it was change in momentum NOT Bernoulli that was responsible
>>> for lift.
>>
>>
>> Looks like you're the one in need of a memory aid, but I have one
>> for you. Here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6vw6o
>>
>
> I was mistaken. Stupidity is your biggest problem. From the link
> you gave me.
>
> Jan 6, 4:06 am
> "Bernoulli principle. The primary advantage of this
> description is that it is easy to understand and has been taught
> for many years. Because of it’s *simplicity*, it is used to
> describe lift in most flight training manuals. The major
> disadvantage is that it relies on the "principle of equal transit
> times" which is *wrong*"
>
> Pilots are obviously not gifted students.
>
> "The third description, which we are advocating here, we will
> call the Physical Description of lift. This description is based
> primarily on Newton’s laws. "
>
> Change of momentum. Seems you didn't respond to that post. I hope
> we won't hear anymore attempts at science from you.

Another complete skirt of the acual issue at hand from Brett. Perhaps you
should consider a career as a lawyer Brett.