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.