You're starting to bore me now with your responses. Another forum with the same thread is being a lot more productive for me. So long.
You're starting to bore me now with your responses. Another forum with the same thread is being a lot more productive for me. So long.
A ray the size of a flying fish could theoretically evolve the same ability of glide/flying above the waves. It's undeniable, surely? I think many people when they here the word "fly", immediately think of a bald eagle or something. It's the uplift from the wind which can allow sustained low energy travel through the air when low above the waves. (The ground effect is just an enhancement of this mode of travel)I'm still waiting for you to explain how we're being naive about aerodynamics.
I was refering to Phlog with that statement I seem to remember.I'm still waiting for you to explain how we're being naive about aerodynamics. Your last response does not address the question.
I was refering to Phlog with that statement I seem to remember.
So do you except that rays could have evolved to fly in theory?
It doesn't matter who you were referring to, at least two of us, AN and myself, would like to know the answer to AN's question. How are we being naive about aerodynamics?I was refering to Phlog with that statement I seem to remember.
No. This is obviously BS.You then cannot say that rays could have evolved to fly anymore than you can say that slugs can evolve to be humans.
I really don't know what you're talking about anymore. There's no good reason why rays couldn't have evolved to glide/fly like an albatross. It's a FACT. The reason why I'm proposing this is that it solves the mystery of eye-witness accounts of flying UFO's and bioluminesence. It's a BETTER explanation for Ropens than the established imagery of a living pterosaur IMO.It doesn't matter who you were referring to, at least two of us, AN and myself, would like to know the answer to AN's question. How are we being naive about aerodynamics?
When you have answered this I shall consider dealing with your attempt at a diversion.
I really don't know what you're talking about anymore. There's no good reason why rays couldn't have evolved to glide/fly like an albatross. It's a FACT. The reason why I'm proposing this is that it solves the mystery of eye-witness accounts of flying UFO's and bioluminesence. It's a BETTER explanation for Ropens than the established imagery of a living pterosaur IMO.
It's common sense!!What exactly are you calling a fact?
It's common sense!!
Then fucking well pay attention. You made a claim in an earlier post that some of the posters in this thread were naive about aerodynamics. We wish to know in what way were they naive about aerodynamics.I really don't know what you're talking about anymore.
I really don't know what you're talking about anymore. There's no good reason why rays couldn't have evolved to glide/fly like an albatross. It's a FACT. The reason why I'm proposing this is that it solves the mystery of eye-witness accounts of flying UFO's and bioluminesence. It's a BETTER explanation for Ropens than the established imagery of a living pterosaur IMO.