Surely you understand you were being challenged on the existence of an established theoretical solution, not on the existence of a literal link to Wikipedia specifically?
Not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but in case you are:
The internet, including this forum, is chock-full of people making useless comments like "well I like it" or "it works for me", just asserting their views or experiences while advancing no argument and offering no discussion.
The post you just replied to is not doing that.
The poster you replied to is taking the time to describe and explain his experiences and their implications. He's contributed a lot more to the conversation than you have, and doesn't deserve sarcasm.
I wish the parent had taken the time and effort to actually make his point, instead of leaving an easily misunderstood, single-word non-comment in the hope of some easy fake internet points. This is how forums degrade.
At a quick first read, this came across as not much more than just a list of lesser-known siblings of famous classical mythological figures. The author mentions Jung and sibling rivalries in one sentence at the end, but doesn't really go anywhere with this idea. Is there any point here that I missed? I kind of get the vibe that an author with writers' block and a deadline spent about half an hour squeezing a classical dictionary to get something just passable as an essay.
You're trying to explain current Japanese demographics with a weird rant about WW2 without mentioning the subsequent economic miracle and population growth? The population of Japan was not far off doubling from 1945 to 2010, and in case you somehow haven't noticed, they became a major first-world economy, eclipsing many many nations which were not nuked.
80 years is really quite a long time. Germany also bounced back rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century to become a major industrial power.
So many internet know-it-alls thinking they'll disprove the entire article all at once with their one-sentence intellectual zinger, and then we'll all bow down and praise them for their great cleverness. I despair of internet forums - some have better culture for a while, but as far as I've seen, Dunning-Kruger always wins in the end.
Right. I've seen some zoos that already have a little "farm" section showing off some local heritage livestock breeds. I'd expect that sort of thing to take right off if it started to look like there was real risk of extinctions.
I'm afraid it is most evident that you do not see. Forget trying to guess what I might or might not think about aerodynamics. Just see if you can follow the following recap of the conversation:
1) anvandare says aeroplanes can fly upside down. This is an argument AGAINST a putative person who argues that lift is entirely a function of aerofoil shape, ignoring angle of attack. In advancing this argument, anvandare implies that he DOES understand and contend that angle of attack is significant.
2) You say something unclear about "effective change of shape", apparently attempting to rebut anvandare, who, remember, contends that angle of attack is significant.
3) I say that what you said about "effective change of shape" is unclear, meaning I am rebutting you, meaning I agree with anvandare that angle of attack is significant.
4) You form the impression that I believe angle of attack is not significant, and tell me that if I believe angle of attack is not significant, then I am wrong.
Can you see where you have gone wrong there?
Having written all this, I'm come to the point of actually becoming quite concerned about your neurological state. If you've had a recent head injury or you're old enough that Alzheimers is a possibility, you need medical advice - you've failed to follow the simple thread of a conversation.
It is a lazy gotcha attempt. It is a lazy attempt at gotcha-ing someone who believes angle of attack ISN'T important. Unless you think a plane flying upside-down is somehow evidence AGAINST the importance of angle-of-attack?
Again: this entire pointless misunderstanding has arisen because you didn't see - apparently STILL HAVEN'T SEEN - which side of the debate the comment you replied to is arguing for.
> If you are asserting that the angle of attack does not affect the lift, you are wrong.
I am certainly not asserting that, and I'm baffled how you could have formed the impression that I was.
You appeared to be attempting to rebut an argument in favour of the significance of angle of attack. We have another pointless internet misunderstanding on our hands.
Different values of "we" going on here. "We" know how heavier-than-air flight works in the sense that it is known to science. "We" in the comments don't know, because most of us here have at most a Bachelor's in physics, and it takes more than that to really grok aerodynamics, but everyone (including me) can't resist the temptation to show off what partial knowledge they have from that undergrad fluid dynamics class.
The fact that the second "we" doesn't really know aerodynamics, and is going to waste man-days chasing its own half-understandings round in circles in the comments, doesn't contradict that fact that the first "we" does understand aerodynamics. Planes aren't staying in the sky by accident, nor even just by the survivorship of trial-and-error engineering.
I'm not immediately convinced that "effectively changing the shape" is a coherent idea. The lift effect either crucially depends on the actual, unchanging shape of the aerofoil or it doesn't. Flying upside-down proves that it doesn't. Maybe all we're disproving is a straw-man of a "Bernoulli-ist" position, but we're disproving it all right.
EDIT: trying to think what you might mean by "effectively changing the shape". Do you just mean that an upside-down aerofoil is a reflection of the aerofoil the right way up? Because that's the entire point of the argument you seem to be trying to rebut.
Look to the straw man in your own eye.