Back in the day NACA tests were done with manometers on wings and it was shown that when the pressure drop on the upper side and pressure rise on the lower side were added up overall that lo and behold there was enough lift to hold the plane up. And thus we all learned that this pressure difference is what holds the plane in the air. Some rather bright science whizes proved this without any room for error.

Later some bright wig showed that the air approaching the wing is split so as to both accellerate up and over the wing as well as downwards on the lower side. When looked at the final downward accelleration of the mass of air affected by the wing was able to show that lift is a Newtonian effect with the energy imparted to pushing the air mass down being equal to the energy needed to maintain flight. And thus we learned that lift is generated by a newtonian reaction due to accellerating a mass of air downward to generate an equal and opposite reaction that holds the plane up.

Then somewhere along the way we found a guy that liked going around in circles that showed that the airflow ahead of, around and behind the wing could be described using a circular airflow. It's a stretch that makes no sense to me but for those able to understand the math I gather it makes sense.

So now we have what appears to be a fourth way to explain the wing's lift. And much like the other three this one appears to be saying that the others are wrong.

Each explanation came from highly respected research. And each suggests that their method is the only valid one. But it's all the same lift that keeps adding up to "1" despite how you add them up. And there IS only ONE lift that seems to have multiple ways of showing itself. Seems like Mother Nature enjoys a practical joke.

I know about the Magnus effect on a rotating cylinder but I'm not sure how you can apply that to a fixed wing. I guess I'd have to read the article or they are calling it that due to the manner in which the air flows around the wing or some such thing. I also question how they can claim that the pressure differential doesn't add up to the lift needed when early NACA experiments proved that it does.