Funny you call math a "language", because the definition of a language is something that is used as a medium to communicate something else. I'm curious why you think everyone here is adversed to math. I don't think I've seen anyone in this discussion claim math was not an important, if not downright pivotal, part of understanding aerodynamics and aerodynamic performance.
Aerodynamics thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
Funny you call math a "language", because the definition of a language is something that is used as a medium to communicate something else. I'm curious why you think everyone here is adversed to math. I don't think I've seen anyone in this discussion claim math was not an important, if not downright pivotal, part of understanding aerodynamics and aerodynamic performance.
Any model is not the reality, that is why they are called models, they are abstraction of reality that can be modified and may lack some aspects of reality.
A math model is the same, it is not the reality, but a human abstraction of what is reality, for such a reason F=ma can be represented in different ways, you can represent it also like a differential equation; or a vector can use trigonometry or linear algebra.
While they represent the reality and explain real facts, reality is all what exists, thus no theory can explain everything and all theories and models can have mistakes.
Experimentation is to get extra data to modify the model and test the model, but that is very different to say that experimentation shows math is useless.
To put it in the original context, in order to get the total lift of a configuration you will use math, the experimentation will be to validate the original model, there are enough formulas and methods to know the lift an aircraft will generate, plus aircraft testing is not only aerodynamics, but also structural resistance and more things like avionics, hydraulics and much more.
But here the discussion is sterile because is just pure speculation regarding which configuration is better without considering what matters is the total lift coefficient of the aircraft.
the gang defending their pride, guys the troll is repeating himself, come on guys we are right, ( i need my gang to be right support me guys) what a loser
So...math is everything, but it's not reality. Amusing
Look buddy, we would love, LOVE it if we could get hard data. You should see what this place is like when someone actually posts a study related to whatever design that's relevant to the discussion. We even once had a discussion about the feasibility of doing a CFD. Until then, we work with what we've got. If you've got more, feel free to share. Right now though you're simply accusing others of not having the right credentials, and when they answer your skepticism, accusing them of appeal to authority. You accuse others of bragging when you bring with you the obnoxious attitude of a braggart. You, sir, are right now doing the exact thing you claim other people are doing, which is "stupid and sterile" and in a worse fashion. In fact, as unspecific and imperfect the discussion prior to your ranting was, it was far better than what you have brought to the table. You are, in this case and time, the very source of the "stupid and sterile" in this forum. If you want to walk the walk instead of talk the talk, help the discussion along by actually doing what you preach, which is bringing math and hard data into the discussion, if you can. Heck, feel free to throw in other aerodynamic concepts and arguments even if you don't have numbers on you (at least it would enrich the number of things we'd have to consider). You weren't doing too bad for yourself before you decided to go with personal attacks and throw this discussion into a tailspin. It would be nice if you could go back to focusing on informative posts and rising to requests for better or more relevant information. Otherwise, kindly stop talking.
Last edited:
vesicles
Colonel
Your view of modeling is completely wrong. A model is not a representation for reality. Not at all! It is an interpretation of a certain phenomenon. An interpretation! No one expects a model to be an actual fact, or to represent facts. It is an interpretation. A model has two goals: 1) to replicate a known phenomenon/event; 2) to predict an outcome for an event that has not happened yet. It's goal is NOT to represent reality. If you tell your professor that you want your model to represent reality, they will laugh you out of the classroom. That is not what a model is for.
Take the model of an atom. We have a small sphere of nucleus with a whole bunch of even smaller spheres of electrons going around it. This has been he model for an atom for centuries. However is this the reality? No one knows. And I mean that. No one at this point knows what an atom actually looks like. The sphere and orbit model stands because it can still serve it's goal: to predict. It's not a reality by any stretch of imagination. Now some people believe subatomic particles are string-like, not spheres and not orbits. Is the string theory THE reality? NO! It is a model that can potentially serve as a way to interpret phenomenon and to predict outcome. It is not an attempt to replicate reality.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Whatever dude. Vesicles has already pointed out the many places where you're just wrong.
Models do not replicate irreal things, they are made to represent reality, a part of reality thus a phenomenon/event, since reality is all, you can not represent reality in its totality it is like trying to represent infinity or the 5th or 7th dimensions using 2D drawings
However here we started everything because mister Latenalzy says no one can know the lift an aircraft generates, and i say yes you can, there are formulas to do it and there are graphs that show trends in airfoil design to know the coefficient of lift needed for the airfoil and thus complete the formula.
Then mister air force brat says we need wind tunnel and you jump in saying you need experimentation.
pretty much using the correct formula you can get a very accurate model of the lift on the jet, is not alchemy but math, but Engineer and thunder chief argue the lift measure is if it has canards or not, which is pretty stupid, since as thunderchief said the best fighter is the one with lower wing loading
Last edited:
then stop science since you are chasing smoke all your theories then are a waste of time