|
Dear
readers,
I
am very privileged to be able to present two preprints,
one full length, and one shortened to journal length:
Isaac Newton’s falsely dismissed theory of inertially caused pressure resistance Newton’s theory vs. d’Alembert’s paradox, each correct within differing conditions not knowable in the 18th century. 42 pages, 20,571 words. And
Isaac
Newton's theory of inertially caused pressure
resistance, reinstated
Flow separations and instability drag as the mechanisms of Newton’s theory and the theory’s defeat by d’Alembert’s paradox, each correct within conditions only differentiated in the 19th century. An amusingly convoluted history. 14 pages, 5474 words (plus endnotes). This is a shortened version of the above aimed at journal publication. Authored by Philip Randolph Patten. What an opportunity, to salvage a prescient theory from 1687. Newton certainly deserves it. Article links:
Feedback: I’m eager to receive feedback of all sorts,
including general comments, suggested edits, theoretical and
historical corrections or additions. I’d much rather make
corrections before the paper is cast in stone, that is,
published in a journal. Feedback may be sent to Philip
Randolph Patten at amphioxus.philip@gmail.com.
Please feel free to send the article links to persons in the scientific or media community. - Philip Randolph Patten Licensing: Copyright is held by the author, Philip Randolph Patten, who retains all publication rights. Link via ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6767-8287 Versions of B2Streamlines preprint articles are ordered by date [year month day] and then title, e.g., 20200825NewtonDrag.pdf Older preprint versions of these articles: |