Replies

//Whether either theory is more "scientific" does not change the fact that both consist of speculation and conjecture, and it certainly doesn't imply that either exists without an alternative//

I think you have good points, here Rokke. There seems to be some sort of inference or world view revealed with this heavy emphasis in 'scientific' and that a theory 'rises up to it', Agree?

In a way it is all very circular, for what is science but theory, and sometimes the theory is wrong in several areas.

I will give an example I think we both can relate too. And that was the significance of Bernoulli’s principle in the theory of lift.

This was wrong in that Bernoulli’s principle played not near the role projected in lift generation , and was flat out wrong in the suggestion that the air flows meet back up at the trailing edge same time and same airspeed.

I will google the studies for you, but the vortices's say it all.

So one of my points ( and I ask no one to concur) is that ‘science’ can be wrong and yet Man can make advances on theory that does not necessarily reflect reality.

Wolf