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?

On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
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?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.

On 7/17/2012 10:50 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
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?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.


He is not a thinker at all, more of a slug, reacting to each and every
stimuli..

On 7/17/12 11:11 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/17/2012 10:50 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
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?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.


He is not a thinker at all, more of a slug, reacting to each and every
stimuli..



Stop projecting, LittleSnot...it just makes you look even dumber.

If "science" can't prove something or other in the realm of scientific
inquiry, it simply means science has to advance more, as it has for
thousands of years. It doesn't mean what cannot yet be explained
satisfactorily is due to magic or religion.

Scientific inquiry is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Religious
belief is based upon mythology. Zeus, for example, mated many times with
"earth women" and produced demigods. Guess what that myth grew into?

On 7/17/2012 11:25 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 11:11 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/17/2012 10:50 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
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?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.


He is not a thinker at all, more of a slug, reacting to each and every
stimuli..



Stop projecting, LittleSnot...it just makes you look even dumber.

If "science" can't prove something or other in the realm of scientific
inquiry, it simply means science has to advance more, as it has for
thousands of years. It doesn't mean what cannot yet be explained
satisfactorily is due to magic or religion.


Time is running out Ex-man. When will you have all the answers?