Our article New Theory of Flight (presented in detail on The Secret of Flight) submitted to AIAA Journal has been declined by associate editor Gregory Blaisdell with the following message to the authors:
- Your paper is unusual in that it challenges our existing understanding of aerodynamics.
Yes, our article does challenge the existing theory by offering massive evidence of a new theory explaining the miracle of flight showing in particular that the existing theory is incorrect.
The present case can be studied as a school example of Kuhn's analysis of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions with anything challenging the "normal science" of the "existing understanding" or ruling paradigm, being viewed as "unusual".
What AIAA says is that the paradigm of AIAA cannot be challenged. But science which cannot be challenged is dead science, and defending dead science is not possible in the long run.
The ruling paradigm of AIAA cannot be challenged because the founding fathers of this paradigm (Kutta, Zhukovsky and Prandtl) took the understanding of their theory along into the grave. And science only understood by dead scientists is dead science.
The present case can be studied as a school example of Kuhn's analysis of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions with anything challenging the "normal science" of the "existing understanding" or ruling paradigm, being viewed as "unusual".
What AIAA says is that the paradigm of AIAA cannot be challenged. But science which cannot be challenged is dead science, and defending dead science is not possible in the long run.
The ruling paradigm of AIAA cannot be challenged because the founding fathers of this paradigm (Kutta, Zhukovsky and Prandtl) took the understanding of their theory along into the grave. And science only understood by dead scientists is dead science.
Inlägg
Please write their full answer, not only one sentence.
SvaraRaderaAnders
To be able to make useful calculations on a phenomenon, one needs to begin with having a clear mental picture of what is happening.
SvaraRaderaYour theory seems infinitely better in this respect than the the old theories.
Hope you get the credit you deserve one day.
D
Is that the whole message?
SvaraRaderaNothing from the reviewers?
It will come.
SvaraRaderaVery good, you get the point!
SvaraRaderaI await consent from the other authors to make the referee reports public.
SvaraRadera