Few points where I Would like to enter the discussion, on the side of Marco Ciocca, which is describing very well all the atmo theories. Atmonaughty says “Take for example the first image which has little arrows to indicate where the relative wind is coming from. well this doesn’t make any real sense to me because there is no 'wind' as such, just air in a neutral state. No big hair drier in front of the atmonauts angled at 45 degrees.” On whatever aerodynamic book or website , the relative wind is parallel and opposite to the trajectory. And in our case the trajectory is not the one of the vertical gravity, but the diagonal one. Atmonaughty says also: “surely the descent rate of both atmonauts and trackers is considerably greater than the forward speed and therefore more air pressure would be generated from below…” This is wrong, in many occasion, for example during the Airshows we perform, for a vertical distance of 2.500 mt, an horizontal distance of 4.000 mt: almost the double. Fedkin say “If you want ill pull up the NASA maths from facebook and we can dispute the hard data because we are being a bit broad brush here.” Yes but please not just a copy and paste of the aerodynamics text and formulation from the Nasa website, like you did on facebook, maybe something more related, for example it would be great to have those studies commissioned by Nasa to speed skydiver on the impossibility of skydivers to generate lift, that you talked about. In the meantime I had a quick search on that website you mentioned and couldn’t find those studies, but find this : Physics and skydiving The air that the skydiver is falling into pushes back, slowing him/her down. What changes the picture is that the skydiver's body is not shaped like a bowling ball (we assume...) but appears to the air more like an airfoil, wing of an airplane. In the neutral "box" position with arms and legs extended to the sides and head slightly down, a skydiver falls straight down in a stable position with the air slipping by evenly on all sides. Raise one arm or leg and more air gets deflected out that side and the body moves the other way. Move your arms back a little and flatten the legs and you slide forward. Controlled turns and slides happen with combinations of these movements. The physics involved is now more related to flying than falling….. Dott. Jeff George –NASA astrophysicist Fedkin/Piers Roberts you quote in dozen of post the Nasa research where Nasa concludes that the human being can’t generate lift, but I just read one of the Nasa document that I quickly find on line and it's clear now the value of your statement. The professor uses terms as ”airfoil, wing of an airplane, slide forward , the physics involved is now more related to flying than falling”… So all the quote that Fedking is making to the Nasa site , I would say are a bit … imprecise and arrogant. Also fedking says "in terms of lift- are you going upwards? no you are not... " So you mean that also a glider, or a plane with engine failure , they don't generate lift and therefore are not able to fly? I disagree. I'll copy and paste from the same Nasa website what it's said about gliders (plane with no angine): In order for a glider to fly, it must generate lift to oppose its weight. To generate lift, a glider must move through the air. But the motion of a glider through the air also generates drag. In a powered aircraft, the thrust from the engine opposes drag. But a glider has no engine to generate thrust. With the drag unopposed, a glider quickly slows down until it can no longer generate enough lift to oppose the weight. So how does a glider generate the velocity needed for flight? The simple answer is that a glider trades altitude for velocity. It trades the potential energy difference from a higher altitude to a lower altitude to produce kinetic energy, which means velocity. Gliders are always descending relative to the air in which they are flying. Honestly I am annoyed by Piers/fedking arrogance, that talks like a phisic professor but unfortunately says a lot of incorrect things. And also regarding Andy Newel, aka Atmonaughty , you post your question as if you wanted to open a debate on whether lift can be generated or not, but your attitude , followed by your friend Piers, is more like a personal conclusion using words as “surely, doesn’t make any sense, misleading, false conviction , etc” . You could have used a more humble way of asking a confront, such as asking why the no fly zone in that sketch, or about the little arrow describing the relative wind, instead of making your one way proclaim. For sure what I’m still waiting from you are the pictures of you flying in the atmo angles before 1999 (as you affirm …. Do you remember ?) and anyway Marco Ciocca is right when he says that just because you’ve made few jumps with Marco doesn’t mean you understand all the theories aspects. Ridiculous also to create this fake account after disappearing from facebook without answering and post what you were asked, and come and try to destabilize atmonauti also on this platform…great. And last, yes we have made a theory of human body lift using notion of aerodynamics, so Piers your statement : “It a bit like comparing apples to CD players” , is out of any comprehension, and is not helping a constructive debate.
