141

The Textbooks Were Wrong About How Your Tongue Works (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Bebo@literature.cafe to c/science@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The perception of taste is remarkably complex, not only on the tongue but in organs throughout the body.

The idea that specific tastes are confined to certain areas of the tongue is a myth that “persists in the collective consciousness despite decades of research debunking it.” Also wrong: the notion that taste is limited to the mouth.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra2304578

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

I read the article you posted here (great read btw, thanks for posting) and I think just to quibble, that idea of lift (Bernoulli's Theorem) is not wrong, just insufficient. It sounds like that mechanism definitely contributes to the overall generated lift, but doesn't tell the whole story.

I really enjoyed the bit about Einstein designing an aerofoil and when it was tested, the pilot said the plane "waddled like a pregnant duck". Really interesting to see one of the smartest physicists to ever live just kinda give up on aeronautics and consider it a "youthful folly".

[+] jordanlund@lemmy.world -11 points 2 years ago

Not only doesn't tell the whole story, but there are parts of it that just aren't understood at all.

Two particles split by the wing reach the end of the wing at the same time, but the one on top of the wing is going faster? 🤔

What generates the low pressure zone on top of the wing? 🤔

Smarter people than me have been trying to figure it all out and while there are some good answers, they're competing answers. LOL.

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Because it travels further, due to the curve, surely. So the air particles are more stretched across the top of the wing, and the pressure therefore lower than along the relatively straight underside of the wing. I thought that was the explanation. I'm interested to hear why that's not a complete enough answer though, because planes are clearly flying.

[-] sushibowl@feddit.nl 0 points 2 years ago

Some things to think about: symmetrical wings, with the same curve on bottom and top, can fly perfectly fine. Flat wings, with no curve at all, don't fly quite as well but with the proper angle of attack can also generate lift. Additionally, planes fly perfectly well upside down.

If this curve explanation were complete, how could those things work?

[-] callcc@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

A symmetrical profile, when having a non zro angle of attack, is actually not symmetrical anymore.

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, those are all good points. I've decided the answer is related to the directionality of gravity somehow, but I'm not sure why. So you're already working with one acceleration vector when stationary. As in, the air underneath is being pushed on in a way the air above the wing isn't, almost like cavitation versus compression. Then you add the thrust vector and the little differentials add up to the point it generates lift. I'll keep thinking about it!