Re: AAT: I just rediscovered my news filter

David L Burkhead (
17 Oct 1995 13:11:54 GMT

In article <45ttvr$> writes:
>David Froehlich <> wrote:
>>From my (admitedly biased) standpoint, it is not that evidence has not
>>been used to show the AAS is impossible (how about implausible, that is
>>probably a better word), but that the evidence has not been accepted by
>>the AAS faithful.
>Well, without wishing to offend you, biomechanicists can prove that it is
>impossible for bumblebees to fly, which is all I really meant by the
>earlier comments about objections ringing true. I accept it's an
>implausible idea, but so is a lot of quantum mechanics. The game isn't
>over by a long way yet.

Well, I see the hoary old urban legend about bumblebee flight has
been trotted out again. My best friend in the whole world is an
aeronautical engineer and happens to know something about that
particular tale. It seems that the person _doing_ the proof ignored
much of what was known even at the time it was done, things like how
Reynold's number changes aerodynamic characteristics of small bodies,
the differences between steady and unsteady airflow over aerodynamic
surfaces, and the clap-fling-ring method of generating lift. This
ignoring of what _is_ known in order to "prove" that something is
impossilbe is more of an AAH theme than in it's opponents.

And as for a lot of quantum mechanics being "implausible" (when
you don't know anything about it), "counterintuitive" is a better
term, but that's beside the point. It _does_ make both quantitive and
qualitive testable predictions, things that can be checked either in
the lab or in the field, something we seek in vain for from AAH.

David L. Burkhead

Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine

Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831