"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...

That's a fallacy Tim.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...

But, even that explanation has been held in question.

http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees

"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.


---------------------------------------
The first aerodynamics of the bumblebee was using fixed wing and not a
moveable wing. So there was a bad engineering study. ;)

On Jul 16, 6:40*am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/16/12 7:38 AM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...

That's a fallacy Tim.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i....

But, *even that explanation has been held in question.

http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees

"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.

The bumblebee drinks a lot of ethanol.

LOL! Could be.

On Jul 16, 10:44*am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...

That's a fallacy Tim.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i....

But, *even that explanation has been held in question.

http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees

"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.

"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html

Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...

That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...

But, even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.

"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html

Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

On Jul 17, 1:13*am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i....
But, *even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much *study data
supporting the unknown *as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. *As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

On 7/17/12 6:57 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...
But, even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.


Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean those
answers lie within the realm of religious superstition.

On Jul 17, 5:57*am, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13*am, thumper wrote:









On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...
But, *even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much *study data
supporting the unknown *as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. *As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

On Jul 17, 6:31*am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 6:57 AM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...
But, *even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much *study data
supporting the unknown *as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. *As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean those
answers lie within the realm of religious superstition.

Like I told "thumper"

'And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can be ) any other explanation. None!'

(I did correct my sentence)

?;^ )

On 7/17/2012 8:45 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:









On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...
But, even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis—that downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Krause is misusing the word science. Science is a tool used by man to
discover the truth and explore the unknown. Although man has learned a
lot God will never let man know everything.

Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:









On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...
But, even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesisthat downward flow induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO.

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

You mean like magic or religious superstition?