Philosophy Now Forum

OK. I've a philosophy conundrum which I'd appreciate any views. I'm a pilot and I've proposed a new explanation for how planes fly. If I'm correct, then I've re-written the theory of flight. I've just had an article accepted to be published in an aviation journal. But I'm not an engineer .....

It's strange, but there's currently no scientific proof for any theory of flight. What us pilots are taught at flying school (Venturii effect and Bernoulli's principles), NASA disproved years ago.

Anyway, I proposed that planes fly for the same reason that birds fly and boats float - Archimedes principle buoyancy. I got to this solution via philosophy. But I need to check if this reasoning is sound:
- Gravity applies to all objects, stationary and moving.
- Buoyancy is a product of gravity.
- Therefore buoyancy applies to all stationary and moving objects. ie Planes. No one has has proved (or disproved) if buoyancy applies to moving objects.

It sounds simple, but countless aviation engineers and university professors claim that this is wrong, without providing a decent argument.

Hence, please let me know if you see fault in this argument !!!

If you want the technical details, I've done a bunch of videos on this on youtube, just search "how planes fly buoyancy" and look for my channel (N Landell).

Biggles wrote:Anyway, I proposed that planes fly for the same reason that birds fly and boats float - Archimedes principle buoyancy. I got to this solution via philosophy. But I need to check if this reasoning is sound:
- Gravity applies to all objects, stationary and moving.
- Buoyancy is a product of gravity.
- Therefore buoyancy applies to all stationary and moving objects. ie Planes. No one has has proved (or disproved) if buoyancy applies to moving objects.

Buoyancy is more a product of acceleration and pressure than gravity. The difference is moot. There is not a local way to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

Buoyancy does apply to aircraft, and is why they tend to fall if unpowered. With the exception of lighter-than-air craft such as blimps, airplanes do not buoy themselves up. A boat floats because it is lower density that the water in which it rests.

How did philosophy help with this solution?

Biggles wrote:OK. I've a philosophy conundrum which I'd appreciate any views. I'm a pilot and I've proposed a new explanation for how planes fly. If I'm correct, then I've re-written the theory of flight. I've just had an article accepted to be published in an aviation journal. But I'm not an engineer .....

It's strange, but there's currently no scientific proof for any theory of flight. What us pilots are taught at flying school (Venturii effect and Bernoulli's principles), NASA disproved years ago.

Anyway, I proposed that planes fly for the same reason that birds fly and boats float - Archimedes principle buoyancy..

You obviously have not the slightest idea of what Archimedes Principle means.
Aeroplanes flout that law for the simple reason that they are "Heavier than air". That is to say that the density of a plane is greater than air.
Ships float because, although they are made of steel, the average weight by volume means it is lighter than water.

Airships, and balloons work for the same reason; the hydrogen or helium; or the hot air is lighter (less dense than the air around them).

Planes, however rely on their movement and shape of the wing which creates a low pressure area above the wing providing lift.


As the air has further to travel over the wing, rather than under it means that there is a pressure differential. Far from never being proven it has been demonstrated again and again.

Biggles said:

"- Therefore buoyancy applies to all stationary and moving objects. ie Planes. No one has has proved (or disproved) if buoyancy applies to moving objects."

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that buoyancy applies to all moving objects, yet you're saying no one has proven buoyancy applies to moving objects which is contradictory.

PhilX