T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
wrote:

When the motion of an object is caused by lift it will never reduce the
relative airflow that initially caused that motion it will increase the
speed and change the direction of it.

You're making the same argument here that you made before -
you are separating the vector components of the new RW into
two parts, the original RW and the new vector component of
RW comprising a vertical RW due to rising air. Then you
ignore the original component and make arguments about the
other component in isolation. It's obviously true that if
there were no wind other than the vertically rising air,
then all the aircraft vertical acceleration would be due to
drag from that rising air. That's not what's happening
though.

There is no wind other than the vertically rising air, the rest of the
relative airflow is caused by the motion of the glider thru the still
air. The difference between the two is that to move thru the air you
must over come drag and to remain still in moving air you must overcome
drag. This makes them easy to separate. The glider uses inertia to
overcome drag from the lift (a meteorological term for rising air). I
did not use the term vertical acceleration I said upward acceleration
witch did not include the gliders downward deceleration from the
thermal. I believe that when the gliders downward motion stops it is
slightly less influenced by the downward motion thru the air.
You said after the flight stabilizes to a steady climb at the original
constant speed in the rising air The glider will continue in
unaccelerated flight and the only difference will be that the glider
is now in a steady unaccelerated climb instead of a steady
unaccelerated descent. Here is another difference. The lift and drag go
from resisting downward motion to causing upward motion among other
things.

The validity of your argument depends on the ability to
separate the RW into two non-orthogonal vector components
and attribute lift and drag separately to each, then add up
the lift and drag from each component. That's what's wrong.
You can't treat your vector components independently, as you
are doing.

So my argument is not valid due to the many and obvious shortcoming of
mathematical formula. You cannot explain it mathematically so it's
not true or does not exist or even more absurd metrological lift causes
vertical aerodynamic lift. This does not make what I said true but sure
is a good sign that it is. Save the math to balance your checkbook not
to distort actual occurrences in the real world. This is not rocket
science you simply have to apply a little common sense and logic. You
know I am wrong but you do not know why.