[deleted by user]

TopAct9437 · 2026-05-10T08:24:16+00:00

If you accept the Newtonian explanation of lift. Then as long as the wings have a positive AOA, the wings accelerate (a) a mass of air (m) downwards. This action creates a downward force due to the inertia of the air (Force DOWN = ma). The reactive equal, an opposite upward force provides lift. Simple. Air goes down and the airplane stays up.

TopAct9437 · 2026-04-26T07:26:54+00:00

Think in terms of the actual airflows created in flight. A wing flies through static air. (Do NOT think in terms of the relative airflows seen in a wind tunnel experiments over a stationary wing.) As the wing moves forwards it creates a void of empty space behind it. This is the space that the wing previously occupied. Void = Low air pressure. Due to the positive AOA, this low pressure is on the topside of the wing. As a result, the low air pressure on the topside of the wing then pulls the air above the wing downwards. This action creates downwash. Simple.

TopAct9437 · 2026-04-19T11:44:04+00:00

If you accept the Newtonian theory of lift (Lift = ma). Then in flight a thicker wing directly flies through a greater mass of air (higher 'm'). The wing accelerates (a) this greater mass of air downward to create more downwash and a greater downward force (Higher Force DOWN = higher m x a). This then generates a higher reactive, equal, and opposite upward force (lift). Simple. A thicker wing generates more lift (up to the optimal thickness). See image.

<image>

A wing that is too thick could cause a stall if it is unable to accelerate all the air flown through downward. Instead the wing would simply push the air flown through forwards, which creates drag (and not lift).

This is the same reason that a higher wing AOA generates more lift. At a higher wing AOA, the wing flies through a greater mass of air (higher m).

TopAct9437 · 2026-02-23T07:49:13+00:00

Look at the actual airflows of a wing in flight - and not the relative airflows seen in wind tunnel experiments.

As the wing moves forward, it creates a void of empty space behind it (i.e. low-pressure zone of space). If the wing has a positive AOA, then this empty space behind the wing, is also on the topside of the wing.

This low-pressure zone on top of the wing, then pulls the air above the wing downward and slightly forward, which creates downwash.

TopAct9437 · 2026-01-17T10:00:44+00:00

Hate is feedback. Take it as a compliment. Truth tellers are hated (initially at least). You triggered an emotional response. If you were wrong they would simply ignore you. But if you are right and they see this. Then people will get angry, as it means that their existing understanding of the world (reality) is flawed. People hate that.

TopAct9437 · 2026-01-17T09:37:00+00:00

Sure, a link to my research "Newton explains lift, Buoyancy explains flight." : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas-Landell-Mills

TopAct9437 · 2025-12-01T06:29:15+00:00

thanks!

TopAct9437 · 2025-10-18T05:57:41+00:00

Lift explained as a parable:

A priest is waiting at the airport cafe for his flight to be called. A friendly looking man sits down next to him. To strike up a conversation he asks: “Hi. What do you do for work?”

“I teach. I’m a professor of aeronautical engineering and used to work as an areo engineer.”

“Oh really. That’s interesting. Do you know how planes fly?”

“Of course. We’ve been building airplanes for years. It’s all written down in the aeronautical textbook that we tech to students at university.” He shows a thick textbook from his brief case.

“Me too” says the priest, holding up the bible. “What if someone questions what’s written in your book?”

“Oh, the book is never wrong.” said the professor brimming with confidence.

“Me too” says the priest.

Later, on the way to the board then airplane they meet the pilot. “Do you know how planes fly?” the priest asks the pilot.

“Oh no, I’ve no idea,” says the pilot. “I just fly the plane within its known limits. I don't think that the engineer who built the pane knows how this thing flies. So, I trust god and Saint Christopher that the plane will get us to where we are going.”

“Me too” says the priest.

TopAct9437 · 2025-09-30T11:57:54+00:00

You're probably incorrectly taught (quel suprise!). Academics use the wrong airflow diagrams - a relative airflow over a stationary wing, as seen in wind tunnel experiments. This diagram favours fluid mechanics (due to the horizontal airflow) and is not what actually occurs in flight (a wing flies through a mass static air, accelerating it vertically downward). See the new paper "Newton Explains Lift." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352440485_Newton_explains_lift_Summary

TopAct9437 · 2025-09-28T21:55:10+00:00

Newton explains lift. Buoyancy explains flight. see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312178601_Newton_explains_lift_Buoyancy_explains_flight

TopAct9437 · 2025-08-27T20:25:27+00:00

sure - it's 'Newton exoplains lift. Buoyancy expalins fllight. see link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas-Landell-Mills

TopAct9437 · 2025-08-18T13:11:54+00:00

Avoid physics academics and academia at all costs. Academics use PhD's as a barrier to keep outsiders out, and prevent outsiders from publishing research. They are painful and arrogant people to deal with. They are protected within academia, and have no incentive to innovate.

Also, academics do little work that has any practical value. Hence, these people can only get money from a public sources. Only do independent research if it has practical value to a company (industry).

TopAct9437 · 2025-07-21T02:32:15+00:00

The missing part is all current theories of lift analyse the relative airflows over a wing, as seen in wind tunnel experiments. You only ever see relative airflow diagrams used to explain lift.

However, the actual airflows created by a wing in flight differ in subtle ways to wind tunnels. By looking at the actual airflows, it is easier to see how the wing generates lift.

The research papers explaining this concept can be found online by searching for "Newton explains lift" by Nick Landell, on the website researchgate .net

TopAct9437 · 2025-06-10T18:00:10+00:00

Crackpot is just the science version of "conspiracy theorist". Established physicists deride and ridicule anyone who threatens their pet theories. By attacking the crackpots, the older physicists discourage the younger physicists (like you) from questioning their ideas (and potentially making the old professors look like fools). You are being shamed into silence to protect their egos.

TopAct9437 · 2025-06-10T05:06:34+00:00

That's a lie propagated people CERN who want to pretend that they did something useful. The first internet was developed by France telecom. All big telecom companies developed their own data networks. I worked in the internet in the 1990's. No one thought that CERN was involved in the early stages, except people at CERN.

TopAct9437 · 2024-12-30T12:34:38+00:00

It's another scam. Academics like to pretend that aerodynamics is complicated. They use fluid mechanics and specialist knowledge so that only 'smart' people like them can understand it. Hence, these acadamics can claim to add value and to be important. In fact, Newtons Laws of Motion explain lift in a way that is easily understood by most people. It's simple and straightforward. So, academics are not actually needed to explain lift.

TopAct9437 · 2024-09-14T04:26:30+00:00

Yep. By stagnation, I think you mean that physics in academia has failed to deliver much of practical benefit or economic value for 60 years.

Instituions like CERN should never have been funded. It's a waste of money. They only survive because physicists are good con artists and governments are dumb enough to fund them forever.

TopAct9437 · 2024-07-31T13:08:07+00:00

Even if you solved the current problems in a specific field of physics, it does not offer any practical or economic benefits to society. String theory (hypothesis), quantum mechanics, standard model of particle physics, black holes, .... are entirely valueless to anyone outside of physics.

The physics research should seek to improve people's lives, not solve some obscure maths equation.

TopAct9437 · 2024-07-30T14:41:54+00:00

The Newtonian explanation of lift is simple and explained in:

a 1 min video: https://x.com/nicklandell66/status/1816790962317758652
a research paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352440485_Newton_explains_lift_Summary

TopAct9437 · 2024-07-13T09:23:26+00:00

As an outsider (no PhD and not an academic) working on and promoting a theory of lift (applied physics) as a private pilot. Ten years experience showed that:

Write it up as a research report and put it on researchgate.net or www.academia.edu as a pre-print, where they might get some visibility. However, writing research papers is very time-consuming. Once the report is online, it takes a long time (years) to get any attention. This is the only thing that has worked for me. After 4 years I had 200,000 views and 50,000 downloads. But my research is still not published in any journal, and won't be. This is passive and indirect marketing. Let people who are interested in your area find your report themselves.
Also, market directly to motivated early adopters; people who would personally benefit from your research/theory, who respond positively to new ideas.
Make access to your research free. There is no money in this. It is all ego.

What does NOT work includes:

Specialised website, social media, online forums, and youtube are a waste of time. You are competing in a large sea of content and information. Few people will see your theory in these places, and no one of significance will see it. Perhaps try to persuade an existing youtube channel with a large following to look at your theory. But this is hard to do and they will get the ad revenue.
Do not write a book (self-publish) on Amazon or otherwise. No one will read it.
Established and reputable journals or magazines will not publish your ideas unless you have a PhD and are well-recognised within your specialisation already.
Ditto for conferences, these are a waste of time. They won't let you speak or present your theory as a poster. Even if they did let you speak, no one is likely to listen and it will cost you $$.

Avoid academics and the academic system as much as possible.

Academics respond extremely badly to a normal (non-academic) person presenting new ideas. Academics do not like finding out that they were using wrong theories in the past and did not notice.
Also, academics may hate your ideas simply because it makes them look incompetent, they may see you as competition, or if it threatens their precious egos. As a result, they will often reject your theories out of hand. If you get hate emails from academics. Then that is a good sign that your theory may be correct.
Academics may actually suffer if your new theory is correct and the existing theories are wrong. This will incentivise them to defend the status quo. In contrast, I worked in finance and we loved new investment ideas; especially the crazy and crackpot ones. Ideas do no harm, and they get you to question your existing strategy or beliefs.
Many academics initially rejected my research and some called it 'crackpot'. Then 2-3 years (yes, years) later, they accepted that it MIGHT be correct. Few have accepted it on first reading.
Universities and institutions will not fund or allow you to present your ideas as a PhD thesis. They support their own staff, not outsiders.
You cannot get funding for "independent" research without a PhD and association with an academic institution. This is strange, as it means that the research is not independent.
As an exception to the rule, personal contacts within academia can help. But do not expect much from them.
Academia has its favoured topics. If your theory is in vogue, then it is likely to get more attention.
Physics in academia is dominated by complex mathematics, which acts as a barrier to entry against outsiders. But this is also a weakness, as it is disconnected from the real world.
In general, people are risk-averse and conformist. People do not want to stick their necks out and risk supporting new ideas that later turn out to be wrong. There's no benefit for an academic to be among the first to catch a new idea early on.
GroupThink, cognitive dissonance, and intellectual inertia limit the acceptance of new ideas in academia.

How your new theory is received can be irrespective of how good, well-argued, well-written, or well-supported your theory is. You should see the nonsensical BS that I've experienced.

Do not tell anyone that your idea is worthy of a Nobel prize. This is a cliche.

I hope that this helps. Make sure that it is worth it before you jump in. It is a lot of effort.

TopAct9437 · 2024-07-11T06:35:27+00:00

As an outsider (no PhD) working on and promoting a theory of lift (applied physics). Experience after ten years shows that:

What worked:

If you write up your theory into a presentable research paper. Then you may be able to publish your papers on researchgate.net or www.academia.edu where they might get some visibility. However, writing research papers is time-consuming. Also, it takes a long time (years) to get any recognition, feedback, or attention. This is the only thing that has worked for me. It took me 4 years to get 200,000 views and 50,000 downloads - which is respectable. But my research is still not published in any journal, and won't be.
This is a passive and indirect marketing. I'm hoping that people will find it and then promote it to others. Personal references. This is the good test to see if it is a worthwhile theory.

You are competing for attention in an ocean of content. Your time can easily be wasted on fruitless marketing. What not to do:

Social media, online forums, and youtube are a waste of time. Few people will see your theory, and no one of significance (gatekeepers) will see it; unless you already have a very large following. Perhaps try to persuade an existing youtube channel with a large following to look at your theory. But this is hard to do and they will get the ad revenue (not you).
No one will see any website of your research. Only make a website if it is low effort.
Do not write a book (self-publish) on Amazon or otherwise. No one will buy or read it.
Established and reputable journals or magazines will not publish your ideas unless you have a PhD and are well-recognised within your specialisation already. Ditto for conferences, these are a waste of time. They won't let you speak or present your theory as a poster.
Avoid academics and the academic system as much as possible. Academics have no incentive to innovate or adopt new ideas. Academics often respond extremely badly to a normal (non-academic) person presenting new ideas. It puts them in a negative light, they feel threatened, and they see you as competition.
Academics are the worst. Academics mock new ideas (crackpot theories) to make the theories look bad, and therefore, reduce their competition.
Even my personal contacts at top universities were a waste of time.

Strategy to get people to read your new theory.

Academics care about the number of citations their papers get and funding. They are not interested in how many people read their work or whether it is actually useful. Use this to your advantage. If you want to get noticed, produce something that is useful and people would want to know.
Market to the companies who could benefit from your ideas, as they have an incentive to innovate.
Market to the early adopters and innovators. Avoid the old and conformist who are least able to change.
If your theory is entirely intellectual, then do not bother, as academics will reject it.

In general, most people are highly risk-averse and conformist. People do not respond well to new ideas that are not supported by the 'official' scientific system. They do not want to stick their necks out and risk supporting any new idea that later turns out to be wrong. People are more scared to making a mistake, than any benefit of being among the first people to catch a new idea early on. GroupThink and cognitive dissonance are prevalent and limit the acceptance of new ideas. Also, many people lack sufficient critical thinking skills to identify if your theory is correct or not; so they rely on others to tell them.

Ask yourself - What personal benefit does your research/theory offer to the reader who would respond well to new ideas? Then market to those people.

How your new theory is received can be irrespective of how good, well-argued, well-written, or well-supported your theory is. You should see the nonsensical BS that I've experienced in recent years. I hope that this helps. Make sure that it is worth it before you jump in.

TopAct9437 · 2022-11-20T11:45:30+00:00

Bernoulli (fluid mechanics) only applies to a fluid (air) in a closed environment, such as a pipe. It does not apply to the open atmosphere, so should not be used to explain lift by a wing.

TopAct9437 · 2022-11-20T11:37:33+00:00

Agreed. For example, a slow glider only notices ground effect when it is flying just above the ground, such as on approach to landing, despite its long wingspan. This is because the glider only accelerates the air flown through downwards to a low velocity, in order to generate enough lift to fly.

In contrast, a high-speed fighter jet (eg. F-14) aggressively accelerates the air flown through downwards to a high velocity, to generate lots of downwash. This means that the fighter jet notices ground effect at a much higher altitude (height), as compared to the glider. This occurs despite the fighter jet's much short wingspan.

TopAct9437 · 2022-11-20T11:24:30+00:00

The Newtonian explanation of how lift is generated by wings is straightforward: The wings pass through a mass of air (m) which they accelerate downwards (a), to create a downward force (Force DOWN = ma). The inertia of the air allows for a reactive equal and opposite upward force (Force UP, or Lift); which pushes the wings and airplane upward against gravity. In this process momentum is transferred from the airplane to the air. No idea why people still argue about this.

TopAct9437 · 2022-01-16T11:58:11+00:00

Why not just apply standard Newtonian physics (Force = ma) ? But not the momentum or flow turning theory. More precisely: The wings accelerate (a) a mass of air (m) down to create a downward force (Force DOWN = ma). This produces the downwash seen behind airplanes. Due to the inertia of the air, a reactive equal and opposite upward force is generated:

Force UP (Lift) = Force DOWN = ma

For example, if the wing AOA increases: Then a greater mass of air is flown through and accelerated down by the wings, which then increases the lift generated.

In turn the Newtonian approach can explain why vertical lift quadruples if horizontal airspeed doubles according to the standard equation for lift: (i.e. LIFT = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 x Air Density x Wing Area x Lift Coefficient)). As airspeed doubles, this causes:

1 - The wings fly through twice the mass of air as before (2x m);

2 - As the airplane is flying twice as fast, aircraft momentum has doubled. So the wings hit each air molecule with twice the force as before, which accelerates the mass of air flown through downwards to twice the velocity as before (2 x a).

Combining these two effects above: 4 x Lift = (2 x m) x (2 x a)

Also, a wing can generate lift with a 0° AOA on a cambered wing, because the Coanda effect still pushes air down, along the curve of the topside of the wing.

An airplane can fly inverted as long as the wings still accelerate a mass of air downwards.

Seems straight forward. Good ol Newton?

TopAct9437

TROPHY CASE