Alternative Theories of Flight Aircrafts

There are difficulties at present both in understanding how man-made aircrafts as well as UFOs fly. The flight of man-made aircrafts is not understood but its problems remain hidden and false caricature of flight is taken as true. As a result, even alternative kinds of flight models are not understood. We need alternative conceptions of flight to demystify both of these.

All current technologies of flight (both terrestrial flights and space or interplanetary flights) are almost exclusively based on classical mechanics. Due to the desire in the scientific community to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, the uses of quantum theory are restricted to microscopic and not macroscopic technologies. Flight is an example of a macroscopic technology. UFOs are well-known examples of macroscopic flight technologies that constantly violate the supposed laws of classical mechanics. But how UFOs operate requires a complete rethink of flight principles.

Current flight models are based on Bernoulli’s Law of fluid mechanics which states that if a fluid flows over the wings of an aircraft, which is a concave surface above and flat surface below, then an upward lift is generated on the wingspan because the air flows faster over the concave surface rather than the flat surface. This law depends only the air being a fluid and not a collection of particles. Fluids have properties of elasticity and viscosity which solids either don’t have or have only minimally (because they are brittle). A fluid behaves like it were just one thing in contrast to solids which behave like they are many separate things. Owing to this, wave theories were applied to fluids in classical mechanics while particle theories were applied to solids.

We have to remember that before quantum theory, hard objects were treated as particles while air and water were treated as fluids. Bernoulli’s Law predates quantum mechanics, so it treats air and water as fluids. It is only after quantum theory that even water and air came to be treated as particles (atoms and molecules). In the post-quantum world, everything is both a wave and a particle and therefore both like a solid and like a fluid. But this difference is ignored in practice while dealing with solids (that are treated like particles) and gases (that are treated like fluids). If we looked at the world with quantum eyes, the particles will be entangled. If we look at the world with classical eyes, the particles are independent and fluids are elastic and viscous.

Bernoulli’s Law depends on the claim that air is a fluid because if air is treated as particles then there is no reason for air particles to flow faster above the wingspan. Air would flow faster above the wingspan only if it were like an elastic and viscous fluid that stretches over the wingspan and does not stretch below the wingspan. Hence, the first problem of classical vs. quantum mechanics appears in the theory itself that assumes that air is a fluid and not a collection of particles, which should have been revised post-quantum theory, but it wasn’t, as the scientific community hopes to reduce quantum world to classical world for macroscopic objects.

Two additional practical problems arise in applying Bernoulli’s Law to flight. First, aircraft keep flying upside down when according to Bernoulli’s Law, they should be pushed downward and fall on the ground. Second, aircraft fly even with flat wings when they should never take off the ground according to Bernoulli’s Law. A law should be true if and only if it is necessary and sufficient. Since aircraft with flat wings can take off the ground, therefore, wing curvature is not necessary for take off. Since aircraft with curved wings fly upside down therefore wing curvature is not sufficient to pull it down. Thereby, wing curvature is neither necessary nor sufficient for flight.

Bernoulli’s Law neither upholds in theory nor in practice. The theory should treat air as particles rather than fluids in which case flight is inexplicable. The practice should prove Bernoulli’s Law by pushing upside aircrafts down and not allow aircraft with flat wings to take off, but neither of these implications are found to be true. Hence, nobody knows why aircraft fly. There is no scientific explanation of flights at present.

Therefore, we have to look for alternative models, and the easiest place to start is quantum theory. However, this requires a reinterpretation of quantum theory to treat each quantum as a property rather than an object. Let’s illustrate this with an example of cutting an apple. The modern scientific idea of atomism is that if we chop an apple into smaller and smaller pieces, then we will eventually get an indivisible piece that will be called an atom. Since this atom is obtained by chopping a bigger object into smaller objects, therefore, each atom is an object. We can contrast this idea of atomism to that in the Vedic system where if we go on chopping an apple, we will initially get small pieces of apple, but as we continue, we will come to a point where we are trying to separate the apple’s taste, touch, smell, sight, and sound. These are properties, not objects. Factually, we cannot separate the taste from smell from color of an apple. If we remove the taste, the color and smell of the apple will also change. Hence, all these properties are mutually entangled and not mutually separable.

Quantum entanglement (or the wave-particle duality) is perplexing if we think of an atom in the classical physical sense of chopping an apple into apple pieces. It is not at all perplexing if we think of chopping an apple as separating its taste, smell, touch, sound, and sight. Apple pieces are classically separable. Apple’s properties are not. Thus, quanta as objects are a problem. Quanta as properties are not a problem.

Factually, a cut apple rots quickly but an uncut apple does not. A cut apple loses its properties of taste, smell, touch, and sight quickly but an uncut apple does not. These things have been explained in physics under the assumption of reductionism of the apple to molecules and atoms. But what if reductionism is false? What if—as ordinary observations reveal—the apple is a whole that binds many properties? In classical physics, if we split a particle, we get two particles. But in real life, if we cut an apple, we don’t get two apples. Therefore, the two pieces of apple are not particles.

The basic property of entanglement is that if we remove some “particles” from an ensemble, then the states of the remaining particles change. That is just like trying to cut an apple into two pieces and changing the taste and smell of the pieces. Quantum mechanics will remain problematic if quanta are objects rather than properties. To solve the problem, we have to say that a quantum is one type-and-value of property. For instance, there can be a quantum of taste, smell, touch, sound, and sight.

All classical properties were assumed to be mutually independent and we could change one property without altering another. Position and momentum of a classical particle were such independent properties. But ordinary sense percepts are not independent. Adding salt to food changes its smell, color, texture, hardness, etc. Modern physics is built on the assumption of independent properties and particles. Quantum theory disproves this assumption and takes down physics itself.

But it also opens to the door to a new way of thinking in which changing one property can alter all other properties. Mass, heaviness, or weight is one such property. It need not be counterbalanced by another force as Bernoulli’s Law tries to. It can also be changed by adding or removing some property quite like adding or removing taste from food will change the smell, shape, color, and texture of the food. Now the world is not an objectively fixed set of properties. Rather, each property can be changed by adding or removing other properties. Something is observed in the presence of a number of other things. Removing those things will alter the observation.

Hence, we don’t have to rely on Bernoulli’s Law to talk about flight. As we have noted, it is both theoretically and practically problematic even in the aircrafts that humans have designed. It is more problematic in the case of UFOs. But a quantum model is not problematic, if we treat quanta as properties and not objects. Then we can increase or decrease an aircraft’s weight—a property—by adding or removing other properties.