Having just re-read the start of this tedious thread, it is quite clear that dCL blew large holes in AnFI's maths about halfway down page 2 - then Nick produced some graphs showing Ct/sigma which AnFI grabbed like a drowning man and tried to use to prove his point - it doesn't.
Thereafter the insults flew (and yes, guilty as charged for part of that) and a circular argument ensued.
The problem is that AnFi has produced (or developed) a theory that is based on NO PROOF whatsoever, no empirical test data, no academic or scientific papers, no accident reports and not even any anecdotal eveidence - only the flaky maths that don't deal with 'insignificant or irrlevant (according to him) factors.
And the invented justification that knowledge of this mythical UCA might prevent pilots from crashing into the ground is about as useful as expecting rainbow-coloured unicorns to give you more lift when you have made a mees of things.
Btw AnFi this isn't pricking your pomposity - we are way past that as you don't feel any sense of humility, shame or embarrasment.
If I had such a random idea as UCA, I would probably PM some of our learned contributors to see what they thought or try contacting aircraft designers for opinion. I certainly wouldn't parade my stream of consciousness on this forum and try to propose it as fact. The Emperor's New Clothes springs to mind...