Air foil - Absolutely useless without a LOT more information, the amount of information there isn't even enough to be dangerous
It actually is dangerous for the opposite reason: it's outright misinformation. The explanation in the image is completely wrong, and is nothing but a popular myth. To see that it's nonsense, it's enough to recognize that acrobatic planes that can fly both upside-up and upside-down exist, and in fact tend to have symmetrically shaped wings. Appropriately enough, the illustration is labeled
woo.
Some of the physics on the image is just worthless nonsense, such as the exact value of the speed of light, the meter, and the gram. A large chunk of text concerning units and none of is of any practical utility nor advances physics in any conceivable way. For the one bit of useful information in there regarding pendula, the critical bits of information are missing: that the height-independence is only correct for short swings but not in general. Any info on the historical mechanisms used to compensate for this and similar issues,
or even that you need them, would have been at least somewhat useful.
Some bunch of stuff that's similarly worthless, such as E = mc². Years before relativity, Hasenöhrl deduced E = (3/8)mc², Abraham E = (3/4)mc², and Poincaré and de Pretto both concluded E = mc², all years before Einstein. If you don't understand why Hasenöhrl and Abraham were wrong and why Poincaré was basically right while de Pretto was wrong despite both having the same formula, and why Einstein gets the credit over them both
anyway, then it wee be just a worthless factoid. If you do get it, then you wouldn't have needed reminding. It's completely possible to select a single sentence out of one of Einstein's 1905 papers and have it directly point the way to revolutionizing nineteenth century physics—but it surely ain't about E = mc².
Similarly, atoms—so what? The hypothesis had been around for literally
millennia, yet there were highly respected and influential chemists calling atoms unscientific foolishness as far as 1905; what can you do to convince them otherwise? Do you know what Einstein did to do so? Thomson? Rutherford? Chemically, law of multiple proportions is more useful than this. Physically, even a basic description of a cathode ray tube would be a thousand-fold more useful than simply recounting the structure of the atom (incidentally, CRTs is both how electrons were discovered and directly lead to television technology). Hell, the very
idea of a periodic table would
actually be both simple and revolutionary at an appropriate time, instead of half of that section.
I'm ragging on physics because I'm personally more familiar with it, but it doesn't paint a good picture for other fields on that image. You can't make penicillin out of mold unless you're already a good chemist. Hell, even basic facts like germs causing disease—sure, but that's both completely common knowledge among anyone living today, and yet highly controversial among doctors for a long time. Spewing a fact and establishing it are completely different things.
Nearly everything in that page is random facts which if you know enough to be able to use them, you know enough to not need to be told.
Basically, this in a nutshell. The basic conceit of the image is that Joe Schmoe who finds himself back in time will be able to take the credit for all these wondrous things, whereas in reality, the absolute best Joe Schmoe can hope for is to slightly decrease the research time of already competent experts that would already be poised to discover it. And even then that's assuming the information doesn't hurt more than help, e.g., anyone from this era can tell them that airplanes can be a thing (which is certainly useful in itself), but outright physically-wrong non-explanations have outright negative usefulness.
Overall, while not
entirely useless, it was clearly written by someone who hasn't had a clue of how either science or technology works, and that makes most of it a waste of time.