Goose flying upside down is simply showing off, say experts

https://wgme.com/news/offbeat/goose-flying-upside-down-is-simply-showing-off-say-experts

by MaysonL • 5 years ago

228 117 5 years ago

wgme.com

sorokod• 5 years ago

Cue the conversation on how wing works.

SonicScrub7• 5 years ago

One of my favourite pointless internet arguments! I usually just point to this link and walk away:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explai...

Answer: because a surface of a certain geometry produces a force perpendicular to fluid flow as per the Navier-Stokes equations. But that's not a good explanation to give a room full 2nd graders, therefore your pet-explanation will have to make a compromise somewhere. You are all equally right and wrong at the same time. Unless you say "equal transit theory". Then you are just wrong.

nas2• 5 years ago

That sounds like the problem of explaining how magnetism works. Engineers and scientists understand very well how airfoils generate lift. It is not some kind of mystery like the article implies.

It is true that most of the popular simplified explanations are incorrect. Flat plate airfoils generate lift if they have positive angles of attack. Airplanes can fly upside down. At fractional mach numbers, pressure above and below the wings is essentially equal.

If you are not flying near the speed of light, Newton's laws apply. So, if you want simple explanation, the wing deflects air downwards and that pushes the airplane up. If you put your hand outside the car window at an angle, you will feel a force. Should be simple enough for 2nd graders.

svachalek• 5 years ago

It seems similar to explaining monads. If you stick to the math and logic, it's quite clear and hard to confuse. But if you succumb to the common temptation to explain it in a more "intuitive" way, it seems you are doomed to tumble down the stairs in the dark.

ummonk2• 5 years ago

That article seems to oddly assume that in the Newtonian explanation, deflection of air is implied to only happen below the airfoil rather than above. At least when I explain lift that way, I gesture air being sent downwards both along the top and bottom of the airfoil.

As to explaining why air above the airfoil has to go downwards it seems pretty obvious that the air gets sucked into the gap left by the airfoil, but more importantly the article left out the Kutta condition that air doesn't wrap around a sharp trailing edge. This is both an intuitive phenomenon and crucial to the estimation of lift.

tzs• 5 years ago

One of the reasons there is so much confusion on this is that there are at least two different valid ways to look at it, but any given person usually only knows one of them (or rather, a simplified version of a serious misunderstanding of one of them). Different people know a different one of them, and thus argument breaks out whenever the topic comes up.

NASA has a bunch of aerodynamics educational material on their old Glenn Research Center website. Here's a page on these two different ways to look at lift [1].

Very briefly, the gas flow has to simultaneously conserve mass, momentum, and energy.

One approach is to consider conservation of energy. When you work out the implications of that you get different flow velocity over different parts of the wing and different pressure due to those differences. When you integrate the pressure over the whole wing you find that you get lift.

The other approach is to consider conservation of momentum. Working out the implications of that, you get velocity differences in the flow. If you integrate those around the whole wing, you find that there is a net turning of the flow downward. Conservation of momentum requires that the wing gets momentum opposite of that and we have lift.

[1] https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/bernnew.html

dylan60414• 5 years ago

or rather, a simplified version of a serious misunderstanding of one of them

or both?

perl4ever• 5 years ago

Does this all work for symmetric wing cross sections?

jerf• 5 years ago

I think it's a classic case of not understanding equality, hiding behind enough complexity that it's a bit more complicated than usual. Many people have a hard time not reading equalities as an implication... if there's a mass and an acceleration, then there's a force. But the equality says, it's the same. It isn't an if-then, it is that whereever there is a mass that is accelerating, that is force. The force doesn't "cause" the mass to accelerate and the mass accelerating doesn't "cause" the force; they're equal, they're the same thing, trying to wedge in between the two of them is a fatal error, and a very common one in physics education.

Both of those approaches are equal. Or, to put it another way, it isn't that the fast moving air and the slow moving air "causing" a pressure differential which then "causes" lift... it's one integrated process. They aren't separable. You can't have different levels of pressure without some effect on air velocity, you can't have forces in the air without some effect on pressure, etc. The whole argument is all "But what causes what?" and the only correct answer is that it's an equality, not an implication. It can only be properly understood as a single whole that can be looked at in several ways.

ummonk2• 5 years ago

The point is that it's much easier to intuite which way the air gets deflected (and thus change in momentum) than where the air speeds up or slows down. In fact, the easiest way to know where the air speeds up and slows down is indirectly based on where the pressure will be higher and where it will be lower, since the latter is easier to intuit than the former.

filoeleven• 5 years ago

I usually just say “Bernoulli’s principle” with a hand-wave. It’s an ignorant dismissal accompanied by a practical demonstration. Works great at parties inside wind tunnels.

ProAm• 5 years ago

This usually results in a flat spin and death heading out to sea.

dylan60414• 5 years ago

Talk to me Goose!

0x737368• 5 years ago

"Maverick's re-engaging, sir!"

soheil2• 5 years ago

But the birdie makes it worth it.

CommonGuy• 5 years ago

What is this kind of annoying cookie consent dialog? Takes over a minute to disable advertisment cookies, probably just to coerce users into accepting all cookies

callesgg• 5 years ago

Took 20s to just accept them.

timdaub• 5 years ago

I closed the page when it popped up. I didn't end up reading anything on the site.

mngnt• 5 years ago

This may take up to a few minutes to process.

It did for me. When it got to "applying settings", I scrolled down and started reading. Then, as I was half way through, it scrolled all the way up just to proudly announce that the Sisyphean task of NOT tracking me is done.

You have successfully updated your Cookie settings.

brink• 5 years ago

Can we just appreciate the funny article?

dylan60414• 5 years ago

Not if you can't get past the cookie window

jeltz• 5 years ago

Nope, I couldn't read it.

Shank• 5 years ago

This is why I really suggest using uBlock Origin, blocking all of the trackers, and then removing the cookie popups. That would have been blocked by the "EasyList Cookie" and "Fanboy's Annoyances" list(s), with the other default filters in place for trackers.

dharmaturtle• 5 years ago

For the lazy (works for me with uBlock Origin & Chrome):

1. https://easylist.to/

2. Click "add it to your ad blocker" on the relevant list.

3. Click subscribe in the upper right corner

sundvor• 5 years ago

I didn't see any of them, page loaded instantly.

Browser is Samsung Internet on my mobile, which has a built in section for ad blocking. I've enabled Adblock for Samsung Internet and Adblock Plus, can't quite remember why I enabled both, but there's a few more too. (Sadly no Ublock Origin, which I run on my desktops).

I am actually quite happy with this, it's very impressive out of the box.

herpderperator• 5 years ago

This is hilarious. It was literally "loading" for a good few seconds and then "processing" the request for even longer. What in the world...

SV_BubbleTime• 5 years ago

With the dark pattern they have there, doesn’t seem like “consent” at all anymore.

opheliate• 5 years ago

At this point, seeing the TrustArc dialogue evokes a visceral urge to exit whatever page I'm on ASAP. I can't believe they're able to get away with this kind of behaviour.

anigbrowl• 5 years ago

I'd be quite happy if CA sued them. Or you could add up the 10-20 second time wasted and multiply it by several million californians to get a sense of how many person-years of attention they're stealing to try to trick people into waiving their privacy rights.

Andrex• 5 years ago

If you turn off JavaScript, you get this message:

Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes ofwebsite accessibility

Still waiting on the punchline.

sneak• 5 years ago

Just accept everything and either use Cookie Autodelete on desktop or manually delete all your cookies every night when you brush your teeth before bed.

Much more efficient use of time.

ambirex• 5 years ago

say experts who are flightless and honestly a little jealous ;)

throwanem2• 5 years ago

Okay, but the real question here: What'd he shoot it with?

(Old photographer joke: You're shooting by a lake on a cloudy day and you happen on someone drowning, and have to choose between dropping your gear to run to the rescue and getting a shot to sell the local paper. So - what f-stop do you use?)

dylan60414• 5 years ago

f/8.

I'd be more concerned about shutter speed. If the drownee is flailing their arms, dragging the shutter slower might yield a more dramatic look with the motion blur. Too high of shutter speed so the action is frozen might look more like someone rehearsing their part in a synchronized routine.

Keeping the subject in focus is more important as a decent telephoto will get you an out of focus background. Unless you're just a dick and use a wide angle but wade out into the water to get a decent framing.

lmilcin3• 5 years ago

With f/8 on a cloudy day you might get problem getting sharp image of the arms or have to settle on grainy image, regardless of the lens.

I would use fastest aperture I can that is still sharp and just shot a bunch of frames very quickly in hopes I can get arms in just the right, dramatic position.

As to whether to shoot wide or tele, if you feel you have enough time try to get subject to fill the frame first, while he still looks lively, and then quickly change the lens to get some additional shots with the background.

benjiweber• 5 years ago

Apparently people drowning don't actually flail their arms (never seen anyone drowning though).

mey• 5 years ago

And this is why I carry a GoPro around in my bag.

robocat• 5 years ago

As always, do your refresher: http://spotthedrowningchild.com/

(On iPad I had to stop loading before page would show the random video, YMMV).

phoenix3200• 5 years ago

This was my dad. This very last weekend.

Though to be fair, he would not have been able to rescue the said individual.

KMnO4• 5 years ago

“f/8 and be there” is a common expression that describes these situations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ƒ/8_and_be_there

cupcake-unicorn• 5 years ago

Haha, real /r/nottheonion vibes here :) Would love to see a video

jkaplowitz• 5 years ago

I first saw this news on that exact sub. :)

isoprophlex• 5 years ago

Very interesting... website is pretty terrible though. Here's a link to a translated local source with the same info:

https://www-rtlnieuws-nl.translate.goog/editienl/artikel/524...

iforgetmypass• 5 years ago

The original source is some strange indie news wire service I've never heard of before, "Zenger news."

datavirtue• 5 years ago

"Once young geese have mastered flying, they start to see what is possible and how far they can go, pulling in random JavaScript libraries and changing the testing framework for no reason."

salawat• 5 years ago

pulling in random JavaScript libraries and changing the testing framework for no reason."

Offenders will be hoisted up by the toes with yarn and beaten into unconsciousness with an organic carrot.

Signed: Quality Assurance

projectramo• 5 years ago

Sigh. That was Maverick in the (we prefer the term) inverted dive. Goose was just along for the ride.

dylan60414• 5 years ago

coughbullshitcough

djrogers• 5 years ago

Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. I was, uh, you know, giving him "the bird."

anonu• 5 years ago

Trying to find more photos of this phenomenon [1][2]

[1] https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/wow-canada-goose-flying-up... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5353933/Goos...

foolinaround• 5 years ago

My memory is weird!

As I was reading this link, i suddenly thought of the movie 'Top Gun' - which I have'nt watched or discussed this decade!!

And then a few minutes later, it dawned on me!

There is this character called 'Goose'!

dylan60414• 5 years ago

If only you'd read the comments thread before posting this...

noduerme• 5 years ago

> This aerial acrobatic resembles a falling leaf and may be used to avoid avian predators or a long, slow descent over an area where hunters for sport or food are present.

Reminds me of a description I heard from a DEA pilot of the combat landings they would pull in Colombia.

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-c-130-pilots-view-of-a-com...

hahamrfunnyguy• 5 years ago

A Goose flying upside down:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AeJ3aLm0UY

mc32• 5 years ago

And more geese flying upside down one-upping or me tooing each other: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amhgFdyW1Q8

blunte• 5 years ago

I saw this exact thing a couple of months ago not so far from Arhnem. (I thought it might be a crane, but it was moving very fast... so I could be mistaken.)

This bird was diving at about 30-45 degrees from fairly high, and it suddenly inverted, stayed inverted for a second or so, and then righted itself. It was moving very fast, and you could actually hear the sound (and the changes of sound) of the air as it was moving through it.

There were no other airborne birds of that size that I could see anywhere near it, so I initially thought it was dying or otherwise out of control. But then it descended below view, and I never heard a thump.

I searched for inverted bird flight immediately after and learned that there are a number of observed cases where birds may do that. One theory is that they sometimes do it because they enjoy it. Other theories of course involve chasing prey, observing things, showing off, etc. But I like the idea that a bird might just be having fun. I mean, if I could fly, I think I would screw around all the time just because I could. After all, children will just run around wildly just because they can run.

brundolf• 5 years ago

We often assume non-human animals are totally focused on the logical business of survival. But we aren't, and I don't see why they would be any different

jon_richards• 5 years ago

Here's a fun example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGaSHDmuAPg

Darvokis2• 5 years ago

Watch any number of animal documentaries. Animals (particularly mammals) of all kinds engage in play, whether children or adults. I find it odd that anybody questions the idea.

BeefWellington• 5 years ago

This is one of my favorite ted talks, on animal behaviour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

The examples of animals doing things the way they do are both funny and entertaining.

rsync• 5 years ago

"Because I was inverted."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ump0N5yOpkM

sparker72678• 5 years ago

I assumed this was the goose they were talking about.

A+

Areading314• 5 years ago

I thought this was going to be about Top Gun

soheil2• 5 years ago

Well that Goose broke his neck

chrismorgan• 5 years ago

One moderately windy day when cycling, I encountered a bird that I concluded was practising precision soaring and simply enjoying itself. It was constantly adjusting its posture as necessary so that it could hover roughly in-place, with just the occasional flap needed. Then after maybe a minute it’d abruptly change position by a few metres in any direction, and start hovering again. I watched it for more than five minutes before it flew away.

I also remember another time watching a sparrow land on a wire fence backwards in a fairly strong wind: it flew with the wind towards the fence, then turned around in mid-air a metre or two before it reached the fence, was blown the rest of the way and landed neatly.

Swenrekcah• 5 years ago

Your story reminds me of this video of a snowboarding crow: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3dWw9GLcOeA

yellowapple• 5 years ago

Thanks; that sent me on yet another YouTube rabbit hole around crows and their zany behavior.

quercusa• 5 years ago

Mature red-tailed hawks can hover or soar with only the slightest movements but the juveniles are comically bad at it.

MikeDelta• 5 years ago

I sometimes forget that also animals need to practice in order to become good at something.

ajuc• 5 years ago

I've seen crows do that near a corner house with L-shaped roof. The wind was going from the backyard, hitting the sloped roof and blowing straight up in that corner and a lot of crows were jumping from the roof, hovering on the wind for a few minutes and returning to the roof when they couldn't keep in the stream.

adflux• 5 years ago

Plenty of birds of prey do this before going in for the dive

Iwan-Zotow• 5 years ago

cooling the balls, so to speak

amarant• 5 years ago

That page has probably the worst cookie banner experience I've ever seen! 3 pop-ups later, 5 second delay between each, and the page jumping back to the top after each of them, I gave up and decided no article is worth this amount of suffering. I got to read the first paragraph tho, I guess that's something....

sicromoft• 5 years ago

uBlock Origin

thih9• 5 years ago

Sadly not available on Safari 13+. Reader view worked well for me.

Goose flying upside down is simply showing off, say experts

Related Stories