-9
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – Terran Swett Jul 23 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The answers on this question might also help you: How does Bernoulli's principle contribute in lifting airplane? $\endgroup$ – Terran Swett Jul 23 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Tanner Swett thank you for the link. I have editted my post. $\endgroup$ – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 at 17:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is a joke right? $\endgroup$ – JZYL Jul 23 at 18:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – quiet flyer Jul 27 at 9:06
0
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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) $\endgroup$ – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 at 18:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Danang Tyasworo Jul 23 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – JustSid Jul 23 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$ – a CVn Jul 23 at 19:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Terran Swett Jul 23 at 19:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.