You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
6

[–] Morbo 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

That's a clickbait title there. The article basically says "there are more than one competing factions of scientists who have differing theories and ideas on how some aspects of flight work". It's not that we don't know why planes stay in the air, it's more that we don't have a 100% verified model that answers all questions about flight. This same thing is true for gravity, quantum physics, the origin of the universe and life itself. We may not have perfect models of any of those things, but we understand them enough to apply them and make use of them. You don't always have to have a full model of things in science in order to understand how to apply it. Flight is one of those things. We're doing fine with it after only about 100 years of doing it.

0
4

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well duh, obviously.

OP IS FAGGOT, after all.

0
3

[–] Morbo 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

OP is indeed a faggot. He made 79 submissions to /v/Canada and 64 submissions to /v/WinnipegJets. He probably voted for Trudeau as well.

0
1

[–] christophoros 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Is that not what the article said?

Obviously there is adequate understanding to apply it, but no complete understanding. We know bees fly but cannot mathematically explain it.

0
2

[–] Morbo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes that is essentially what the article said, but the title (OP didn't write the title, btw) made it sound like we have no understanding of the mechanics of flight at all. We have a great deal of understanding on how lift, drag, aerodynamics and fluid dynamics pertaining to flight works but we lack a 100% mathematical model for it. I took offence to the title because of that fact. It was just too sensational for what the contents actually said.