miserlou,
do not mistake challenging your theories and claims for an attack on your person. Presenting information as absolute facts does however mean investing your personal credibility in your claims and blurring the distinction. Rough fact of life. My problem is that I'm used to a discussion standard where challenges to statements are met by logical discussion or references rather than by reiteration.
Yes, I did state that the lower surface pushes air down. Simplification, overgeneralization, and in hindsight I could have qualified that statement with a "may" to avoid confusion... or just omitted the entire paragraph. That's where you're treading a fine line between writing simplified forum posts and text books, I guess.
You can either write something which brings the discussion forward in relatively few words, or you can write a legal document. It depends on your target audience. The first is for people interested in having an educating discussion. The second is for debating team duels, where the subject at hand is put second to winning debating points. I know which I prefer in my spare time.
Level flight was specified to make clear that it was representative state of flight and I think I did make my point.
I have not agreed to any statement about anything being "just beyond the angle at which the flow over the upper surface has broken down". That's not the case in a spin either, if that's where the confusion stems from.
If a theory presented as a general theory cannot stand the test of the extremes, it is a flawed theory. As stated, for some flight cases the ratio between upper surface and lower surface (positive) lift goes to infinity and then changes sign, making it rather obvious that trying to pin a figure on that ratio is a moot point. Yet you persist to argue a 1:3 ratio, in the face of established science, based on something you heard someone say. That does annoy me. That you try to support your case by saying it would be pointless to build wings the way they are actually built does not improve matters.
I do look forward for an informed discussion on the subject, where it may be possible to figure out where the misunderstanding lies. Please do present the theory you are referring to and we will talk about it and try to sort it out. As long as it remains an unsupported claim I'm afraid it goes in the OWT box, along with the downwind turn stall and the conveyor belt takeoff.
The fourth paragraph was a quip at the FAA. Shear forces through friction will obviously not be a significant factor when talking lift. With that ruled out, if pressure forces from pressure differences across the surfaces of the wing are not responsible for the lift force, then what is? Telekinetics? It would appear that they have some way to go, even though the half venturi is finally binned. Anyway, so much for the attempt at being subtle...
Now, can we get back to the subject at hand and try the best we can to understand each other, or are we to continue disassembling posts into molecules in order to find minor points to squabble about and win debating points?