Those laws of physics you lot love to..

Accuse me of breaking...
Never stop questioning them

This was discussed at some length on CVRDA a couple of years ago, I seem to remember this is same scientist who with one of his colleagues de-bunked Bernoulli, then later in their paper admitted their theory relied on parts of Bernoulli's theory to work.

Check out the original paper.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/38/6/001/pdf

As said, the speed of flow was a simple way to explain the situation to school kids, but the more detailed analysis termed "circulation theory" had been around for a lot longer than the article suggests.

I cant watch the video but I think his comment about sails is utter crap.
The video appears to show an ideal aerofoil at a high incidence of attack. This can mean that laminar airflow has been lost and separation has occurred. This creates turbulence with low mean speed and increases the differential pressure across the aerofoil. The article is very poorly written.
In aerodynamics. It has been understood for 100 years that we cannot model directly the behaviour of an aerofoil. The whole "two molecules of air" explanation is about conservation of mass, a fundamental basis for Bernoulli's equation. It still works as an explanation in some circumstances, especially in 2 dimensions (The classic cross section of an aerofoil with streamlines.)It also assumes an ideal fluid which air is not (eg it is compressible)
Once in 3-d, the maths becomes utterly horrible and relies on the empirical (The Navier Stokes equations). I cant remember the relationship between Navier Stokes and Circulation but it is the accepted conceptual explanation but cannot be directly proven by maths.
A sail is a very non ideal aerofoil operating very much in 3-D.

Edited by Cameron Winton - 28 Sep 17 at 2:17pm