# Is this an elaborate whoosh? Is geometry a force? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708 "2009-08-25T23:23:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/21 "2009-08-26T17:27:08Z")
An airplane has 4 forces that must be in equal and opposite proportions: Thrust - The force that propels it forward Drag - resistance of the object as it travels through a medium (air) Gravity - The tendency for all objects to fall unceremoneously out of the sky Lift - The force that keeps the airplane from doing so “Geometry” is not a force. The forces of lift and drag, however, are affected by the geometry of the aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![MonkeyMensch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@MonkeyMensch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeyMensch)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/22 "2009-08-26T23:30:19Z")
My first remark would be that the Smithsonian link did a pretty good job of explaining why wings produce lift. My complaint would be that the meat of the matter is left to the second paragraph. Angle of attack is almost everything. They tend to overemphasize (though they blissfully do not mention him) Bernoulli and the idea that curvature is somehow necessary for lift. An airplane in unaccelerated flight has three forces (vectors) that add up to zero. Thrust - The net force of the power plant, be it prop or jet. Gravity - Straight down, proportional to mass. Aerodynamic force - the net integral of the air pressure upon the airframe. There isn’t anything else. The forces on an aircraft are usually broken out to conform to the two dimensions of a rectilinear graph. This helps and hurts at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/23 "2009-08-27T06:51:17Z")
Thanks, **Whack-a-Mole** ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/24 "2009-08-27T07:07:18Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > Can you name the force that causes in verse pressure differential? > > rwj I believe it’s a treadmill. Ladies and gentlemen, I have just ended the thread. Thank you, and please be sure to recycle your 3D glasses, keeping our theaters green… ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/25 "2009-08-28T21:06:36Z")
welcome all > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Master speaks (and as noted above this has been done here): > For debate on this see the link in **DSYoungEsq’s** post above. That’ll keep you busy awhile. Technically, aerodave spoke as science advisor. Evidently not enough fingers were crossed. There is no need to keep any busy awhile. Sometimes truth rings more clearly as few. The post [**DSYoungEsq’s**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6371426&#post6371426) specifically addresses cuts right to the heart of the matter. I could not have said it better myself. > [@njtt](#): > > The [page linked to](http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal109/NEWHTF/HTF511.HTM) by the OP does not say what he/she says it does. It does not contain the word “force,” or even “cause.” I say pages and pages make my point very clearly. > [@](#): > > A wing is shaped and tilted so the air moving over it moves faster than the air moving under it. As air speeds up, its pressure goes down. So the faster-moving air above exerts less pressure on the wing… I say truth embedded between untrue does not necessarily make falsehood true. I will say again as fluently as am able: “A wing is shaped and tilted so inertia in verse fluid mass forces lower pressure above. Lower pressure above in turn forces lift and air moving faster over the wing.” force in verse vortex > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > But I’m also not buying outright the notion that the pressure differential is caused by a force. Would you buy the notion that force is mass in verse acceleration? Would you buy the notion that force is in verse inertial acceleration? Would you buy the notion that force is in verse pressure differential? Would you buy the notion that force by any state or name is still force? Peace rwj ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/26 "2009-08-28T21:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Would you buy the notion that force is mass in verse acceleration? > Would you buy the notion that force is in verse inertial acceleration? > Would you buy the notion that force is in verse pressure differential? No, I wouldn’t buy any of those notions, because I have no idea what verse is supposed to have to do with anything. Unless you meant “inverse”, in which case I wouldn’t buy any of that because it’s just plain wrong. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/27 "2009-08-28T22:31:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > No, I wouldn’t buy any of those notions, because I have no idea what verse is supposed to have to do with anything. Unless you meant “inverse”, in which case I wouldn’t buy any of that because it’s just plain wrong. Would you buy the notion that mass tends toward relative rest? Would you buy the notion that force is proportional to the time rate change of momentum? Would you buy the notion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Would you at least try the notion that even green eggs and ham might be more savory than first appears. Peace rwj I am somehow reminded of another guy that had trouble with his tock of his clock. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/28 "2009-08-28T22:35:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > No, I wouldn’t buy any of those notions, because I have no idea what verse is supposed to have to do with anything. Unless you meant “inverse”, in which case I wouldn’t buy any of that because it’s just plain wrong. Is it just me, or is this thread turning just a _tiny_ bit timecubey? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/29 "2009-08-28T22:43:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Would you buy the notion that mass tends toward relative rest? No, unless there’s some sort of frictional force between them, and even then only on a macro scale. > [@](#): > > Would you buy the notion that force is proportional to the time rate change of momentum? Yes, it’s not only proportional to the time rate of change of momentum; it’s equal to it. That’s the definition of force. > [@](#): > > Would you buy the notion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Yes, if by that you mean Newton’s Third Law, though I’ve never felt that phrasing of it was very useful. I would prefer to say that whenever one body exerts a force on another, the second body also exerts a force on the first, of the same magnitude but opposite direction. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ad7895/32.png) [@Just\_Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/30 "2009-08-28T22:52:45Z")
When I see the subject’s question, “Is geometry a force?” I can’t help but think of a secret cabal of Pythagoreans controlling the world from their secret headquarters below the Flatiron Building. Have you ever noticed that triangles are _everywhere_? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/31 "2009-08-28T23:22:00Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Um, y’all, don’t you recall [the last time that **rwjefferson** got the ball rolling on this issue](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6371426&#post6371426)? True, he wasn’t the OP last time, but his was the significant contribution to wrangling that spanned three years. 😉 Or the threads like [thread=478016]this one[/thread] and [thread=516292]this one[/thread] where he spewed gibberish and insulted other posters who attempted to honestly answer his nonsensical questions. Responding to **rwjefferson** is like hunting the proverbial snark. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/32 "2009-08-29T00:51:58Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > I am somehow reminded of another guy that had trouble with his tock of his clock. I am remnded that you tend to post nonsense a lot in Great Debates. Your “in verse” attempt at a pun has already been carried far beyond whatever negligible humor it might have had and you do yourself no favors when you ignore factual posts to ask meaningless questions. If you continue in this mode, I am going to lock this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/33 "2009-08-29T02:24:27Z")
**rwjefferson,** if I may, what are you simply not buying? What’s your point? What are you getting at? Who or what do you think is misguided? It’s silly to expect you to answer in plain, conversational english, I know. But try and rise to the challenge, for once. ETA: Also, are you quoting Suess, because that’s all they’ll let you read? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/34 "2009-08-30T02:12:33Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > ETA: Also, are you quoting Suess, because that’s all they’ll let you read? Back off. We’re still in GD. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/35 "2009-08-30T05:32:53Z")
Aye aye. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/36 "2009-09-01T21:59:04Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > **movingfinger:** You are the first to show even attempt understanding. > Honest questions deserve honest answers. > > you say inverse; I say in verse > you say an elaborate whoosh; I say entrenchment by dogma A wing attacks air at an angle. Zero angle of attack means zero lift. Positive angle of attack means lifting situation. > [@](#): > > Cambered airfoils–those with the characteristic upward hump that most wings have–can generate lift without any positive AOA at all, or even a slightly negative angle! Except for shape of cambered! Sorry. I do not buy exception; no matter even exclaimed. Mass tends toward relative rest. Pressure tends toward equalize. newton.bernoulli A wing forces down on air; pressure forces wing back and up. > [@rwjefferson](#): > > Can you name the force that causes pressure differential? force is mass acceleration force is inertial differential force is pressure differential No dark force of camber or warp or shape or tilt or other geo metry need apply. peace rwj ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/37 "2009-09-01T22:54:44Z")
Are you arguing with yourself? ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/38 "2009-09-01T23:23:11Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > Are you arguing with yourself? I will agree that there is no reason to further argue or debate against simple truth. I felt this might be a good time for restatement. frustration is not the same as hostility ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708/39 "2009-09-02T04:49:05Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > I will agree that there is no reason to further argue or debate against simple truth. > I felt this might be a good time for restatement. > frustration is not the same as hostility True. However, the frustration of deraling with someone who posts gibberish can lead to hostility. This nonsense is closed. [/Modding] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-an-elaborate-whoosh-is-geometry-a-force/507708.md?page=1)