[Smugfish]

draconic chronicler, on 18 November 2009 - 01:29 PM, said:

I am not sure why this thread is allowed to go on, since there is absolutely NO legends or contemporary sightings of flying rays. It is simply a matter of the original poster thinking, "Gee it would be cool if rays could fly". Therefore this has nothing to do with cryptozoology, myths, or legends.

There is only ONE connection rays have to cryptozoology. It is true that small rays were modified with other animal parts and stuffed in Medieval times and sold to the gullible as 'baby dragons', just as narwhale horns were sold as unicorn horns.

It would solve the bioluminescence problem of UFO's imo. It would answer the otherwordly nature of winged beast encounters. A ray ancestry would give these cryptids a high intelligence (manta rays have the highest intelligence of any fish), a naturally elusive nature to hide, and an ability to see in the dark and detect electrical signals. Every culture in history has legends of 'dragon-like' creatures. Breathing fire could simply be an ancient way of descibing lights or bioluminescence imo.

Also note that a ray's design would mean that it has the same aerodynamic advantages as a bat when hovering for example Science Daily

Quote

Hovering Bats Stay Aloft Using Swirling Vortices
Spedding said. “We have suspected for a while that insects weren’t the only creatures
affected by highly unsteady viscous air flows, but now we know that larger animals
adapted for slow and hovering flight, such as these nectar-feeding bats, can – and
perhaps must – use LEVs to enhance flight performance.


Simplified representation of the strong vortices associated with the unsteady
aerodynamics of bat flight at slow speeds. The vortices can be thought of as
causing the surrounding air to rotate rapidly around them, and this motion
around the LEV on top of the wing increases the lift force on it. Just like familiar,
fixed-wing planes, the bat also leaves tip vortices in its wake, but the overall
flow is further modified by the start vortices created at the
beginning of the downstroke.
(Credit: Image courtesy of University of Southern California)
The article: http://www.scienceda....0229135215.htm

Attached File(s)

•  hovering bat.jpg (11.11K)
  Number of downloads: 3
•  weird-creatures-do-exist.jpg (42.61K)
  Number of downloads: 2

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 18 November 2009 - 02:15 PM

[Drago]

Now they're bioluminescent so they can be dragons and UFOs too.

I'm not even Jewish and I'm gonna say it. Oy vey!

You're overextending your nonexistent ray species. You really should work on convincing us of their reality - something you've yet to do by ignoring any criticism including critical questions - before telling us the big long list of cryptids they're supposed to be in reality.

AND ALSO! Use your own limitations, Smugfish. Where's the scientific link that proves that a ray's shape and anatomy is so analogous to a bat that they could fly on the same principles? That is your opinion, not a scientifically illustrated fact. The only thing your link tells us is that bats take advantage of vortices caused by the motions of their wings - which are very, very different from the simple up and down motion ray 'wings' are capable of, unless you want to give their wings a skeletal/tendon structure allowing for the same incredible range of stiffened motion that a bat's wing is capable of?

This post has been edited by Drago: 18 November 2009 - 02:19 PM

[Smugfish]

Drago, on 18 November 2009 - 02:16 PM, said:

Now they're bioluminescent so they can be dragons and UFOs too.

I'm not even Jewish and I'm gonna say it. Oy vey!

You're overextending your nonexistent ray species. You really should work on convincing us of their reality - something you've yet to do by ignoring any criticism including critical questions - before telling us the big long list of cryptids they're supposed to be in reality.

AND ALSO! Use your own limitations, Smugfish. Where's the scientific link that proves that a ray's shape and anatomy is so analogous to a bat that they could fly on the same principles? That is your opinion, not a scientifically illustrated fact. The only thing your link tells us is that bats take advantage of vortices caused by the motions of their wings - which are very, very different from the simple up and down motion ray 'wings' are capable of, unless you want to give their wings a skeletal/tendon structure allowing for the same incredible range of stiffened motion that a bat's wing is capable of?

I've made my case. If you're a natural skeptic, then of course you will never agree until it's been proven by a dead body. I'm the first person to deduce this evolutionary history of the assumed cryptids and only wish to be recognised as such should I be proved correct in the not-too-distant-future. What's wrong with that?

P.S the blue crab, lobster and shrimp are not effected by an acidic non-calcifying ocean. Handy food then

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 18 November 2009 - 02:39 PM

[Mattshark]

Smugfish, on 18 November 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

I've made my case. If you're a natural skeptic, then of course you will never agree until it's been proven by a dead body. I'm the first person to deduce this evolutionary history of the assumed cryptids and only wish to be recognised as such should I be proved correct in the not-too-distant-future. What's wrong with that?

P.S the blue crab, lobster and shrimp are not effected by an acidic non-calcifying ocean. Handy food then

You're not deducing you are conjecting and being wilfully ignorant of elasmobranch biology, there is a rather large difference.

[Drago]

That's just my point. You haven't made any case at all. You made a statement, and then made more statements, and whenever someone offered a criticism or asked a critical question, you brushed them off, ignored them or segued into something totally unrelated to their question, usually to make another statement.

Mattshark asked you repeatedly how a flying ray would deal with its own mass in relation to any lift it might be capable of generating. Your response was to call it a stupid question and refuse to answer it, when you acknowledged the question at all.
It is of course not a stupid question, because mass has a major effect on how much lift is required to get it airborne.

And of course you have multiple conflicting theories going. Lifting body designs do not rely on wings for lift. Wings are a detriment to the concept because they're dead-weight and increased drag. Is your flying ray a lifting body that lost its wings or does it have enlarged enhanced wings for vortex-riding like the species of bat in your linked article?

You're saying I, and everyone else in this thread who actually thought about it, do not agree with your statements because we're skeptical? Of course we're skeptical. You've come here with opinions and statements you present as wholly factual. You tell us a fantastical creature that has never even been reported or theorized before not only exists, but is the proper explanation for most of the cryptids ever encountered. Then when we of course ask critical questions about this creature, you take them as personal attacks and brush them off (You cannot call mass when in consideration of flight characteristics 'silly' under any circumstances without sounding foolish. Any.) You argue with and insult anyone who asks you questions about the mechanics of this creature's ability to fly, granted with provocation in most circumstances, but this does not negate the validity of the question asked. You've done no actual support of your idea - you've merely built upon it with more and more outlandish-sounding ideas and pretended these were logical answers.

Skeptical? Of course we are. :\ You've 'deduced' nothing, you've built upon a flight of fancy to the point of ponderousness. Now you're telling us to all just jump on it too, without question or thought.

When you can directly and individually address and satisfactorily answer the questions you've been asked over the last ten pages, and no one can find fault with the basic concept, THEN we might be a little more willing to consider the possibility. So far all you've offered us is Santa Claus.

[The Silver Thong]

Smugfish, on 18 November 2009 - 06:49 AM, said:

It would solve the bioluminescence problem of UFO's imo. It would answer the otherwordly nature of winged beast encounters. A ray ancestry would give these cryptids a high intelligence (manta rays have the highest intelligence of any fish), a naturally elusive nature to hide, and an ability to see in the dark and detect electrical signals. Every culture in history has legends of 'dragon-like' creatures. Breathing fire could simply be an ancient way of descibing lights or bioluminescence imo.

Also note that a ray's design would mean that it has the same aerodynamic advantages as a bat when hovering for example Science Daily

You know bats are only a few grams in wieght and there wings are paper thin. A ray no matter what could not have ever flown like a bat not even to glide. Maybe breach the surface get some hang time just to flop and splash back into the water, thats it.

Why do you have a soft shell turttle pic there. Turttles could fly too?

[Moro Bumbleroot]

Smugfish, on 18 November 2009 - 07:24 AM, said:

Apologies for the delay in replying. Right, lets take a quick look at point 3): the 'saddle shape' (see photo#2) is a superb aerodynamic design, I used to have a German model glider of this type of airfoil and it flew beautifully. A ray the size of a flying fish could use it's muscles to provide the stiffening force necessary to maintain this aerodynamic shape of course! You're so simple minded..The way you list the points shows that you don't have a scientific background, do you? Point 2) "not large enough" is so poor, I just titter to myself and shake my head..

I was the only person on my HNC aerodynamics class to get a distinction. I worked at the Royal Aircraft Establishment for 8 years and was a member of the gliding club. A senior scientist in my team was a former glider test pilot and my line manager had two degrees from Oxford. It's so obvious that not one of you has a single aerodynamic qulaification, let alone any direct experience or work related scientific knowledge! Now, that's funny.

Not one of you has supplied a link of any kind which suggests that the basic proposition isn't possible. If the structure of a ray were so flimsy then the person in the attached photo wouldn't be able to hold the ray aloft - it would fall through his arms like an octopus if your assumptions were true!

Also, note that it's the lift to weight coefficient which is of primary importance! There's no good reason why this should be any different for a ray compared to a similar sized flying fish! Or prove it otherwise!!!! (Cartilage skeletons are LIGHTER than fish bone skeletons!) * please don't anyone reply against this without a scientific link!*

Do not try and dumb me down Smug. I know enough about science and biology to know that your little theory about flying rays, is simply ridiculous. You might know about aerodynamics, and thats fine. But, your theory just will not work with any ray, as there is no evidence through the history of ray fossil records that would even begin to promote your idea.

Yes, cartilage skeletons help, but the mass and weight of a ray would be to much for flying without the buoyancy of water to assist them.

This post has been edited by Moro Bumbleroot: 18 November 2009 - 07:30 PM

[Drunkenparrot]

Smugfish, on 18 November 2009 - 12:24 PM, said:

I was the only person on my HNC aerodynamics class to get a distinction. I worked at the Royal Aircraft Establishment for 8 years and was a member of the gliding club. A senior scientist in my team was a former glider test pilot and my line manager had two degrees from Oxford. It's so obvious that not one of you has a single aerodynamic qulaification, let alone any direct experience or work related scientific knowledge! Now, that's funny.

You may have held a low skill manufacturing position in the aircraft industry but your postings make it clear have no experience in either aeronautical theory or application. You certainly have never taken a basic ground school course, and while you may have gone for a ride you have clearly never held a rating. A good idea may be to not bother trying to lie about your qualifications to try and legitimize your silly argument, physics discussions on internet forums is an easy way of exposing idiots and liars.

I'll give you a clue, go input the relative numbers here.. http://www.ajdesigne...ation_force.php and report back with your findings. I'll be on pins and needles.

[Smugfish]

Drunkenparrot, on 19 November 2009 - 12:43 AM, said:

You may have held a low skill manufacturing position in the aircraft industry but your postings make it clear have no experience in either aeronautical theory or application. You certainly have never taken a basic ground school course, and while you may have gone for a ride you have clearly never held a rating. A good idea may be to not bother trying to lie about your qualifications to try and legitimize your silly argument, physics discussions on internet forums is an easy way of exposing idiots and liars.

I'll give you a clue, go input the relative numbers here.. http://www.ajdesigne...ation_force.php and report back with your findings. I'll be on pins and needles.

I was a scientific officer and have a degree in Astronomy with Computing. I also had tuition in Simulation Modelling at MSc level. No low-key manufacturing though.

Okay, so none of you can see where I'm coming from with this flying ray idea. That's fine. My friends would laugh at me too if I told them (so I don't)! Let's just wait and see.

[aquatus1]

Smugfish, on 19 November 2009 - 10:03 AM, said:

My friends would laugh at me too if I told them

You mean the ones in the gliding club, the one with the two degrees, the one that was a former test glider pilot, or the ones in your aerodynamics class? I suspect that not only would they laugh, but they did when you told them.

At some point, you should consider the possibility that it is not everyone else who is wrong, but that there may be something in your argument that is simply not being addressed to anyone's satisfaction other than your own.

It is clear, however, that this is not going to happen here, and this thread has run its course. If there is some sort of new point to address or new piece of information to reveal, please contact me, but otherwise, thread closed.