Question

Hi Michi,
For a long time I wanted to raise the main issue that appears here, but because of its sensitivity I put it off. In the meantime other things piled up, and then I said to myself: okay—let’s go for all of it…
I’ll start with the easier part—“a reason for the party.” I found an article published in May 2015 by NASA about the silly debate over what causes aerodynamic lift, and it supports my view.
And of course I’m continuing to try to develop the vertical takeoff and landing system, and I long ago realized that for this I need an impeller [fan] that can suck in air and create a moderate vacuum—about 0.5 atmospheres. I looked to see whether there is such a fan on the market [off the shelf] and didn’t find one. By chance I got to a conference at the Technion where UAV engines were being presented, and I found an engineer from Beit Shemesh Engines who confirmed that it is indeed possible to manufacture an axial blower [like in a simple fan] that creates the vacuum I want, except that its structure is very complicated.
Afterward it occurred to me that maybe this complexity stems from the need to supply a large mass of air to an aircraft engine, whereas I don’t need a large air mass, only a small one.
So I decided I’d consult the “gurus” on the engineering Q&A site CR4.
I told them I have an innovative idea that is backed by two professors from the Technion, and that in order to check its feasibility I need a fan that can create a moderate vacuum. And I don’t need a high airflow rate.
I asked for their opinion: would designing and manufacturing such a fan, which would not need to supply much air, be simpler than a fan at the same pressure for high airflow rates?
And within half an hour I started getting a flood of answers, and not one of them answered my question. Instead I was inundated with suggestions to use various fans, including bicycle pumps…
My attempts to explain what my question was were ignored, partly because I ignored the question of what airflow rate I need.
The exchange [me versus several commenters] became more and more vulgar!
Until one of them called me a stubborn senile old ignoramus and the like. I really wasn’t upset, and I used my favorite method: “A soft answer turns away wrath.” But it did make me wonder why educated people don’t make an effort to understand a short text.
But—I also remember that I sent several thoughts of my own to a few Torah scholars [before I knew you], and they responded not to the subject I raised but to what they concluded I had written, based on their familiarity with me and my background. Only after I marked my words as they appeared in the original and sent them back did they understand that oops—they had made fools of themselves…
The day before yesterday I met with my friend Prof. T.L., who is the first person I consult on technological matters, and he’s the one who supports me as much as possible, but flow is not his field.
He suggested I get help from Dr. K., who is knowledgeable in these matters. [He’s retired and has lots of free time, besides a wealth of knowledge and experience!]
And indeed, right away I called K. from T.L.’s office, and we agreed that I would send him an email presenting my idea.
Now you’re going to “die laughing” [send me a selfie of how you’re laughing…]:
When I got home I told my son Y. about T.L.’s suggestion. On the spot Y. informed me that the “angels” oppose my getting help from K. [before I had even mentioned his name!], and said that the angels have a young, energetic person who wants to be in touch with me and leverage my ideas—he will come to me!
And he repeated that I should avoid contact with K.!
In short—I’m now biting my nails and waiting for that young and energetic person!
How long I should wait, I don’t know, but I’ll give Y. the chance and the respect, and in the meantime I’ll take a few walks to see the blossoms before the parching drought arrives [apparently].
And now to the “really” heavy things, the ones that truly weigh on me: if things were up to me, I wouldn’t be dealing with aviation at all, but would focus on questions of the essence of Judaism according to my worldview.
But I have no one to talk to. I deluded myself into thinking that salvation would come from the “transparent kippot,” but they’re focused on being light Orthodoxy…
Progressive Judaism [the clowns, in your terminology] is exactly in my spirit, except that apparently they want to preserve the status quo; apparently they avoid standing out too much.
And now I come to the main point: I have a considerable amount of anger toward Orthodox [rabbinic] Judaism.
On the one hand, I am full of appreciation for the work of the Sages, and very proud of their humane, socially advanced thinking.
On the other hand, it is clear to me that they acted wisely when they declared themselves the successors of Moses our teacher.
In practice there was no other responsible way!
On the other hand, this path got Judaism stuck in an alley of preserving the framework at any cost.
And apparently this is the reason Orthodox Judaism is focused on “what they did to us,” whereas Reform Judaism sees a need to emphasize our obligation to act.
Seemingly [as you expressed a few months ago in your reply to me] we can rely on the backing of the Torah to carry out genocide.
But most Jews are clear that this is not the way of the Torah, and what is still lacking is an explicit statement [as I would like to see!] that the essence of Judaism is preserving creation.
It is true that there is no explicit statement on this matter in the Torah, but I think and believe that this is a significant part of our obligation to study the Torah deeply, meditate on it, and instead of mobilizing the famous Jewish logic for matters of kashrut and the like, to mobilize it in order to prove [something that in my humble opinion can be done very easily!] that the supreme mission of the Jewish people is to bring peace to the world.
I hope my story and my insights have been presented with sufficient clarity.
All that remains for me is to wish you and your whole household a peaceful Sabbath and all the best.