Australian Politics Forum - Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62417
Here
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #45 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:02pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:54pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 5:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

No, The difference is that the white races moved and lived in the north for long enough that there was a pigment change. There is no argument for a biological superiority based on colour either way. The difference was driven by environment not biology or development. It is the same race developed at the same time. We were likely all darker in the beginning, I don't know what shade.

Whiteness may be a darwinian effect.

Ummm - you could probably argue that the Chinese are the furthest from the apes.
They seem to do better at Universities on average compared with everyone else.

No all the same

How come the Chinese and Japanese are so smart?

Ya canna Han a man a grander spanner than a drive to education. Their kids are not allowed to fail whereas ours are told it doesn't matter, you're just as good and anyway Math is a racist social construct.

When I was at Uni the Chinese students were getting obviously much higher grades
and that was despite their language handicap. Embarrassed

"Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man." -- Whoever said it...

Intensive rote learning doesn't help a 7yo much but when his/her knowledge base grows, there is ingrained info ready to be accessed. We gave up on that I think back in the '70s and then there was the change in the early '80s to help advance females in the math/science type subjects, ultimately only achieving that goal by bringing boys grades down.

Just some old Greek guy called Aristotle who realised that the 1st 7 years of a child’s life represented a crucial formative stage of development. And he was right.

It is also culturally variable, it was likely true at a time when 10 year olds were considered to be adults.

Where we currently have people acting as adolescent till over 30 it may be a different story.

Back to top

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17767
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #46 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:04pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 11:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 10:08am:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 9:53am:

AusGeoff wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 9:17am:

The Australian aborigines invented the returning
boomerang, or rotating wing, 50,000 years ago.

Such a command of complex aerodynamics and
physics certainly puts the numerous racists here
on the back foot.

What a load of utter garbage.

My 6 year old can make awesome paper aeroplanes.
Do you think he has a complex command of aerodynamics and
physics?

He is constructing what you showed him, 50,000 years ago he didn't even have paper. At that point your forbearers may have resembled a cockroach if this evolution theory is correct. It would make sense.

They worked out shaving different surfaces on a stick caused lift.
Do you really think that equals a complex command of aerodynamics and physics?

The first step that everyone else has built on.

You're an idiot of the first order.
There's a direct line from kites and sails to aeronautical wings.
Ever sailed? A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

You should probably stick with unsupported insults as it looks more stupid than normal when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

The theory between flight and sail does use the same theory but the bent surface aspect that is common to both flight and boomerangs is not used in sailing.

The bent sail and spinnaker are used downwind not using the air travel principal across a dissimilar length path just the following wind. Sailing up wind uses a tight flat sail. Up wind while using the same principal relies on a completely different mechanism, the movable angle of the sail not the shape of a fixed wing.

Of course it is. The whole principle is based on the high/low pressure generated. Ships/yachts are not blown but sucked(someone wanna cum in there?). It's not just applicable to aerodynamics but fluid dynamics also and fluid dynamic math is used to make sails.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22010
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #47 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:06pm

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 5:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

No, The difference is that the white races moved and lived in the north for long enough that there was a pigment change. There is no argument for a biological superiority based on colour either way. The difference was driven by environment not biology or development. It is the same race developed at the same time. We were likely all darker in the beginning, I don't know what shade.

Whiteness may be a darwinian effect.

Ummm - you could probably argue that the Chinese are the furthest from the apes.
They seem to do better at Universities on average compared with everyone else.

No all the same

How come the Chinese and Japanese are so smart?

Ya canna Han a man a grander spanner than a drive to education. Their kids are not allowed to fail whereas ours are told it doesn't matter, you're just as good and anyway Math is a racist social construct.

When I was at Uni the Chinese students were getting obviously much higher grades
and that was despite their language handicap. Embarrassed

"Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man." -- Whoever said it...

Intensive rote learning doesn't help a 7yo much but when his/her knowledge base grows, there is ingrained info ready to be accessed. We gave up on that I think back in the '70s and then there was the change in the early '80s to help advance females in the math/science type subjects, ultimately only achieving that goal by bringing boys grades down.

All humans have intrinsically the same potential, but something I've heard neuroscientists speak about briefly, and for obvious reasons it's not something they want to dwell on because it's political suicide... Intelligence is heritable we know that but in may not be in the genes, but in the way certain brain pathways are stronger among individuals and cultures and that can be passed down.

An example. Take a culture like abos who don't exactly have advanced mathematics, it may be it will just take multiple generations to grow that and pass it down to their kids. It doesn't mean any individual abo can't be good at maths, but as a group they lag behind.

Abos being hunter gatherers would have needed a good memory to source food locations, and also having no written language they'd remember oral traditions.

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22010
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #48 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:11pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 11:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 10:08am:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 9:53am:

AusGeoff wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 9:17am:

The Australian aborigines invented the returning
boomerang, or rotating wing, 50,000 years ago.

Such a command of complex aerodynamics and
physics certainly puts the numerous racists here
on the back foot.

What a load of utter garbage.

My 6 year old can make awesome paper aeroplanes.
Do you think he has a complex command of aerodynamics and
physics?

He is constructing what you showed him, 50,000 years ago he didn't even have paper. At that point your forbearers may have resembled a cockroach if this evolution theory is correct. It would make sense.

They worked out shaving different surfaces on a stick caused lift.
Do you really think that equals a complex command of aerodynamics and physics?

The first step that everyone else has built on.

You're an idiot of the first order.
There's a direct line from kites and sails to aeronautical wings.
Ever sailed? A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

You should probably stick with unsupported insults as it looks more stupid than normal when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

The theory between flight and sail does use the same theory but the bent surface aspect that is common to both flight and boomerangs is not used in sailing.

The bent sail and spinnaker are used downwind not using the air travel principal across a dissimilar length path just the following wind. Sailing up wind uses a tight flat sail. Up wind while using the same principal relies on a completely different mechanism, the movable angle of the sail not the shape of a fixed wing.

As Set said above, you get a total fail. If the boat is moving up wind, it's doing so using LIFT caused by the sail disrupting the air and causing high/low pressure areas in the same way an airplane wing does.

Just because it's moving on the water and not up like a plane is irrelevant.

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #49 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:13pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:00pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:34pm:

"Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man." -- Whoever said it...

Intensive rote learning doesn't help a 7yo much but when his/her knowledge base grows, there is ingrained info ready to be accessed. We gave up on that I think back in the '70s and then there was the change in the early '80s to help advance females in the math/science type subjects, ultimately only achieving that goal by bringing boys grades down.

Frank wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:47pm:

They value education.

Africans, Aborigines, Islanders who value education and apply themselves would be as 'smart'.

East Asians, Indians or Europeans who do not value education are as thick as mince - look at John Smiff or Arrsie or greatdividedparrot or ravin' ducky.

I doubt all that.
I would say that intelligence and ability to learn difficult concepts
is derived directly from good genetics.

Research has proven that BOTH nature AND nurture are involved.

And believe it or not ...nurture plays a far more decisive role.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 123136
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #50 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:20pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:13pm:

Research has proven that BOTH nature AND nurture are involved.

And believe it or not ...nurture plays a far more decisive role.

It would be nice if that was true but I think stupid people
are handicapped by their genetics.
They'll never be smart.
The only job they'll ever get is scraping off plates in a cafeteria or cleaning out toilets.
I feel so sorry for them -
imagine if it was me or you?

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62417
Here
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #51 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:20pm

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:04pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

You're an idiot of the first order.
There's a direct line from kites and sails to aeronautical wings.
Ever sailed? A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

You should probably stick with unsupported insults as it looks more stupid than normal when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

The theory between flight and sail does use the same theory but the bent surface aspect that is common to both flight and boomerangs is not used in sailing.

The bent sail and spinnaker are used downwind not using the air travel principal across a dissimilar length path just the following wind. Sailing up wind uses a tight flat sail. Up wind while using the same principal relies on a completely different mechanism, the movable angle of the sail not the shape of a fixed wing.

Of course it is. The whole principle is based on the high/low pressure generated. Ships/yachts are not blown but sucked(someone wanna cum in there?). It's not just applicable to aerodynamics but fluid dynamics also and fluid dynamic math is used to make sails.

Except for the bit you got wrong you are correct. The part I left out is the action of the keel which is more similar to flight but not sure it was used in ancient sailing. Keels seem to go back about 800 years and may have been designed just for weight. Most of what you said is agreeing with what I had said.

The following wind does indeed push the boat the others do not.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62417
Here
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #52 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:22pm

Frank wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

No, The difference is that the white races moved and lived in the north for long enough that there was a pigment change. There is no argument for a biological superiority based on colour either way. The difference was driven by environment not biology or development. It is the same race developed at the same time. We were likely all darker in the beginning, I don't know what shade.

Whiteness may be a darwinian effect.

Ummm - you could probably argue that the Chinese are the furthest from the apes.
They seem to do better at Universities on average compared with everyone else.

No all the same

How come the Chinese and Japanese are so smart?

They value education.

Africans, Aborigines, Islanders who value education and apply themselves would be as 'smart'.

East Asians, Indians or Europeans who do not value education are as thick as mince - look at John Smiff or Arrsie or greatdividedparrot or ravin' ducky.

Dear Mr Furta - You should avoid talking about inteligence it is a game you cannot win.

Back to top

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17767
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #53 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:22pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:20pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:13pm:

Research has proven that BOTH nature AND nurture are involved.

And believe it or not ...nurture plays a far more decisive role.

It would be nice if that was true but I think stupid people
are handicapped by their genetics.
They'll never be smart.
The only job they'll ever get is scraping off plates in a cafeteria or cleaning out toilets.
I feel so sorry for them -
imagine if it was me or you?

I think it's more their culture that handicaps them.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 123136
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #54 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:26pm

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:22pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:20pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:13pm:

Research has proven that BOTH nature AND nurture are involved.

And believe it or not ...nurture plays a far more decisive role.

It would be nice if that was true but I think stupid people
are handicapped by their genetics.
They'll never be smart.
The only job they'll ever get is scraping off plates in a cafeteria or cleaning out toilets.
I feel so sorry for them -
imagine if it was me or you?

I think it's more their culture that handicaps them.

nah - it's breeding.

that's why you breed fast race horses or stupid sheep and cattle.

Back to top

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17767
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #55 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:27pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:04pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

You're an idiot of the first order.
There's a direct line from kites and sails to aeronautical wings.
Ever sailed? A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

You should probably stick with unsupported insults as it looks more stupid than normal when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

The theory between flight and sail does use the same theory but the bent surface aspect that is common to both flight and boomerangs is not used in sailing.

The bent sail and spinnaker are used downwind not using the air travel principal across a dissimilar length path just the following wind. Sailing up wind uses a tight flat sail. Up wind while using the same principal relies on a completely different mechanism, the movable angle of the sail not the shape of a fixed wing.

Of course it is. The whole principle is based on the high/low pressure generated. Ships/yachts are not blown but sucked(someone wanna cum in there?). It's not just applicable to aerodynamics but fluid dynamics also and fluid dynamic math is used to make sails.

Except for the bit you got wrong you are correct. The part I left out is the action of the keel which is more similar to flight but not sure it was used in ancient sailing. Keels seem to go back about 800 years and may have been designed just for weight.

Wrong again, the keel is to stop/slow/retard the boats sideways movement relative to the suck and where you want to go. It's more like the tail fin of a plane, not a wing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62417
Here
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #56 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:33pm

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 11:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 10:08am:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 9:53am:

AusGeoff wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 9:17am:

The Australian aborigines invented the returning
boomerang, or rotating wing, 50,000 years ago.

Such a command of complex aerodynamics and
physics certainly puts the numerous racists here
on the back foot.

What a load of utter garbage.

My 6 year old can make awesome paper aeroplanes.
Do you think he has a complex command of aerodynamics and
physics?

He is constructing what you showed him, 50,000 years ago he didn't even have paper. At that point your forbearers may have resembled a cockroach if this evolution theory is correct. It would make sense.

They worked out shaving different surfaces on a stick caused lift.
Do you really think that equals a complex command of aerodynamics and physics?

The first step that everyone else has built on.

You're an idiot of the first order.
There's a direct line from kites and sails to aeronautical wings.
Ever sailed? A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

You should probably stick with unsupported insults as it looks more stupid than normal when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

The theory between flight and sail does use the same theory but the bent surface aspect that is common to both flight and boomerangs is not used in sailing.

The bent sail and spinnaker are used downwind not using the air travel principal across a dissimilar length path just the following wind. Sailing up wind uses a tight flat sail. Up wind while using the same principal relies on a completely different mechanism, the movable angle of the sail not the shape of a fixed wing.

As Set said above, you get a total fail. If the boat is moving up wind, it's doing so using LIFT caused by the sail disrupting the air and causing high/low pressure areas in the same way an airplane wing does.

Just because it's moving on the water and not up like a plane is irrelevant.

Quote:

LIFT caused by the sail disrupting the air and causing high/low pressure areas in the same way an airplane wing does.

The lift is indeed the same as a wing but the mechanism is different. It does not have a fixed wing it uses the movable angle of the sail to create the lift, it does not use air traveling slower over a bent surface to create the uplift or side lift it uses the leading edge and protected shadow of the sail to create side lift - low pressure or lift. The effect is the same but the mechanics are different.

Back to top

IP Logged

JC Denton

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 5520
Gender: female

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #57 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:33pm

out of africa has been old news for a while now

the current up to date thinking supports the notion of multi-regional emergence

there is a common ancestor with africans there is actually no population group alive today that has that ancestry. even the bushmen of southern africa are differentiated – it is even possible that our most common ancestor today migrated back into africa from the middle east

the population groups that did emerge out of africa then went on to conquer and inter-breed with other human and related population groups that had already spread around the world, such as neanderthals, north and south denvosians, while in africa it is is possible sub-saharan africans intermingled with at least two other now extinct and unknown population groups

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53519
At my desk.

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #58 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:37pm

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:24pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:10pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 3:59pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 3:31pm:

Quote:

A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

The one that acts as a wing is a fairly recent invention I think.

Are you thinking of rigid sails?
Even a square rig can go up wind.
Boats have been going upwind for a few thousand years. If a boat can sail upwind its using lift to do so.

I'm pretty sure you can do that with a flat piece of plywood on roller skates. You don't need to invoke an aeronautical wing to explain is.

If a flat piece of plywood on roller skates can go up wind, it's acting is the same way as an aeronautical wing

No it isn't. It's just vector addition. Only aborigines could solve ordinary differential equations 5000 years ago.

Frank wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 4:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

No, The difference is that the white races moved and lived in the north for long enough that there was a pigment change. There is no argument for a biological superiority based on colour either way. The difference was driven by environment not biology or development. It is the same race developed at the same time. We were likely all darker in the beginning, I don't know what shade.

Whiteness may be a darwinian effect.

Ummm - you could probably argue that the Chinese are the furthest from the apes.
They seem to do better at Universities on average compared with everyone else.

No all the same

How come the Chinese and Japanese are so smart?

They value education.

Africans, Aborigines, Islanders who value education and apply themselves would be as 'smart'.

East Asians, Indians or Europeans who do not value education are as thick as mince - look at John Smiff or Arrsie or greatdividedparrot or ravin' ducky.

The Chinese education system is still about 100 years behind most western countries. All they can do is rote learning and copying western ideas. Until the CCP starts to vale independent thought, it's schools won't either. The Japanese are entirely different.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62417
Here
Gender: male

Re: Maybe we didn't evolve from darkies?
Reply #59 - Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:44pm

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:04pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 12:46pm:

You're an idiot of the first order.
There's a direct line from kites and sails to aeronautical wings.
Ever sailed? A sail is exactly the same as an aeronautical wing, in use for at least 5 thousand years before a boomerang was sighted.

You should probably stick with unsupported insults as it looks more stupid than normal when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

The theory between flight and sail does use the same theory but the bent surface aspect that is common to both flight and boomerangs is not used in sailing.

The bent sail and spinnaker are used downwind not using the air travel principal across a dissimilar length path just the following wind. Sailing up wind uses a tight flat sail. Up wind while using the same principal relies on a completely different mechanism, the movable angle of the sail not the shape of a fixed wing.

Of course it is. The whole principle is based on the high/low pressure generated. Ships/yachts are not blown but sucked(someone wanna cum in there?). It's not just applicable to aerodynamics but fluid dynamics also and fluid dynamic math is used to make sails.

Except for the bit you got wrong you are correct. The part I left out is the action of the keel which is more similar to flight but not sure it was used in ancient sailing. Keels seem to go back about 800 years and may have been designed just for weight.

Wrong again, the keel is to stop/slow/retard the boats sideways movement relative to the suck and where you want to go. It's more like the tail fin of a plane, not a wing.

Quote:

stop/slow/retard the boats sideways movement relative to the suck

Yes. If you consider the keel to be a downward extension of the sail but which is fixed and solid like a wing. You have water going across the keel much like air across the sail. The stabilizing effect comes from the cross current forming a stabilizing pull action away from the excess course of the wind generated pull action. We are not really a long way away in what we are saying. I don't have a complete understanding here either.

In short a wind action skewing the boat right will generate a water current from the right at the keel influencing the boat to the left. Balancing the boats direction.

I would consider the rudder more like the tail fin.

Back to top

IP Logged