A 500-Year-Old ‘Paradox’ by Leonardo da Vinci Has Finally Been Solved, Study Says

A mystery of fluid physics first noticed by da Vinci has puzzled scientists for centuries, and we now have an answer.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A 500-Year-Old ‘Paradox’ by Leonardo da Vinci Has Finally Been Solved, Study Says

A mystery of fluid physics first noticed by da Vinci has puzzled scientists for centuries, and we now have an answer.

I reads that, cheers, master neutrino

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A 500-Year-Old ‘Paradox’ by Leonardo da Vinci Has Finally Been Solved, Study Says

A mystery of fluid physics first noticed by da Vinci has puzzled scientists for centuries, and we now have an answer.

I reads that, cheers, master neutrino

Yeah, QI.

It’s a good example of an apparently simple interaction being actually very complex, and literally impossible to model with sufficient precision to predict exact outcomes from a given starting point, even without considering quantum uncertainty.

I wouldn’t call this a “paradox” though, and this phenomenon doesn’t seem to be what is normally meant by “Leonardo’s Paradox”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A 500-Year-Old ‘Paradox’ by Leonardo da Vinci Has Finally Been Solved, Study Says

A mystery of fluid physics first noticed by da Vinci has puzzled scientists for centuries, and we now have an answer.

I reads that, cheers, master neutrino

Yeah, QI.

It’s a good example of an apparently simple interaction being actually very complex, and literally impossible to model with sufficient precision to predict exact outcomes from a given starting point, even without considering quantum uncertainty.

I wouldn’t call this a “paradox” though, and this phenomenon doesn’t seem to be what is normally meant by “Leonardo’s Paradox”.

What is normally meant by “Leonardo’s Paradox”?

I didn’t even know until today that there was a “Leonardo’s Paradox” and the internet seems to have a few of them.

We can’t even predict fluid turbulence.

mollwollfumble said:

We can’t even predict fluid turbulence.

change is a constant.

mollwollfumble said:

We can’t even predict fluid turbulence.

Apparently these people think they can.

(Or at least model a sample of it).

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

We can’t even predict fluid turbulence.

Apparently these people think they can.

(Or at least model a sample of it).

so it’s all a bit of a Froude then

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

We can’t even predict fluid turbulence.

Apparently these people think they can.

(Or at least model a sample of it).

so it’s all a bit of a Froude then

In continuum mechanics, the Froude number (Fr, after William Froude, /ˈfruːd/) is a dimensionless number defined as the ratio of the flow inertia to the external field (the latter in many applications simply due to gravity). The Froude number is based on the speed–length ratio which he defined as:

F
r
=
�
�
�
{\displaystyle \mathrm {Fr} ={\frac {u}{\sqrt {gL}}}}
where u is the local flow velocity, g is the local external field, and L is a characteristic length.
“
Froude Number

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Apparently these people think they can.

(Or at least model a sample of it).

so it’s all a bit of a Froude then

In continuum mechanics, the Froude number (Fr, after William Froude, /ˈfruːd/) is a dimensionless number defined as the ratio of the flow inertia to the external field (the latter in many applications simply due to gravity). The Froude number is based on the speed–length ratio which he defined as:

F
r
=
�
�
�
{\displaystyle \mathrm {Fr} ={\frac {u}{\sqrt {gL}}}}
where u is the local flow velocity, g is the local external field, and L is a characteristic length.
“
Froude Number

Well, um. I dunno. I can’t see it, sorry.