Of course they all fly in the same air. But that same density of air, effects each one differently.
If there is no such thing as "relative density" then how can the following have any validity?
Viscosity has a magnified effect on very small flying things,
What I meant by "relative density" is that if one were to calculate the ratio of the size of a molecule of air compared to the size of a bumble, then one could derive X. If one then calculated the size of a molecule of air compared to a RC airplane, one could derive Y. And the air molecule compared to the size of a jumbo jet would be Y. Therefore, X, Y, & Z would be the relative densities I was referring to. I'll admit I am not a mathematician or physisit, but it just seems like common sense to me.
I have seen many squirrels (not the flying kind) fall 40' from a tree onto the ground, and then run off seemingly unaffected. Granted there are other factors involved, but if a man fell 10' he's probably going to the hospital. My thinking is that if the molecules of air have a different impact (magnified) on very small things like bumble bees, then they should have a different impact on medium sized things than they do on extremely large things. Thus the effect of the density of the air, would be relative to the size of the object.
Perhaps
Thrust has no part in wing lift, otherwise gliders would fall like a stone.
If there was no "thrust" involved, then the glider would remain on the runway wouldn't they?--unless a very strong wing came along? Even if the "thrust" is provided by a tow plane, it has to have thrust to overcome the drag.
An F-104 in level flight at Mach 2 is flying on its wing as much as a vintage glider doing 30knots.
While I see the reasoning here, if they are equal, then, if they were both sitting on the runway and a 30 knot wind came along, the F-104 would be lifted the same as the vintage glider, wouldn't it? Not to mention that mach 2 is achieved well above the flight envelope of the glider--another relative difference in density. (I wasn't aware that a F-104 could achieve that speed in level flight).
I REALLY appreciate you verifying that those lessons were wrong and the links! I have only read the first "wrong theory"
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html -- so far, but you can only imagine the feeling it gave me. On one hand, I have always thought that was B.S. on the other hand, I thought I was just not intellegent enough to understand them properly. I have always had a difficult time just accepting things because they are "accepted theories". It is definately a shock to me! I don't understand all I know about some things, but, fortunately, I have a enough common sense to get by
Thanks for you help HarryC