Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 7:45=A0pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > > > Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their
n=
ame.
> > > > Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
> > > > some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift.
?Wh=
ich
> > > > of these do we believe?
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > Only arm chair physicists disagree.
> > There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
> > premier educators in aviation.
>
> And probably a couple of particle physicists as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to
g=
et a
> > > > > > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than
b=
asic
> > > > > > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
>
> > > > > Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that
actua=
lly
> > > > > exists.
> > > > That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.
>
> > > Which is why:
>
> > > Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> > > gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> > > Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> > > craft.
> > So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
> > rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
> > Newtonian physics is a settled issue?
>
> Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> craft.

Are you 100% certain of this?

-Le Chaud Lapin-