HOME | DD

Davesrightmind In reply to phyrexianrevoker [2013-05-25 00:54:46 +0000 UTC]

Winner!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

phyrexianrevoker In reply to Davesrightmind [2013-05-25 16:34:45 +0000 UTC]

XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GuesssWho9 In reply to Mechatherium [2013-06-03 04:40:06 +0000 UTC]

But on the gripping hand . . .

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Vanwolf In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-09 21:46:12 +0000 UTC]

If you have to apologize in the same breath, you probably shouldn't say it...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Vanwolf In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-09 21:45:03 +0000 UTC]

If you have to apologize in the same breath, you probably shouldn't say it...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

fractalxavier91 In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-08 23:55:57 +0000 UTC]

Maybe he wasn't going for realism.

Besides, there are other reasons for membranes. Gliding isn't the only explanation. Those aren't even really gliding membranes. They're too small.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteriDish In reply to fractalxavier91 [2013-05-09 08:55:43 +0000 UTC]

thanks for jumping an the bandwagon

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fractalxavier91 In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-09 16:58:25 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, what?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LessThan3Kitty In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-08 21:22:51 +0000 UTC]

They also said a bee should not be able to fly... and yet it does.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteriDish In reply to LessThan3Kitty [2013-05-08 21:30:20 +0000 UTC]

your argument is both wrong and unnecessary.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LessThan3Kitty In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-08 22:00:36 +0000 UTC]

Actually, it was very much necessary. It's true that the statement "bees shouldn't be able to fly, yet they do anyway" is indeed false, it was believed to be true because scientists didn't know as much about the bee as they do now. So why not learn more about the creature before you cut it down.

Also. Who said anything about the creature being able to glide? Maybe the membranes are to attract a mate. The artist specifically said "swinger". Nothing about it being able to glide. So in theory my dear friend, your comment was wrong and unnecessary. When people watching a cartoon with talking animals, they don't point out how unrealistic it is because animals don't talk in real life. They enjoy the movie for what it is. So why not just enjoy the beautiful work for what it is?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteriDish In reply to LessThan3Kitty [2013-05-08 22:40:30 +0000 UTC]

First of all, clearly, bees can fly and scientists knew they can fly all along, that doesn't take an einstein to realize that, they only didn't know how the bee moves its wings and that created the confusion when they did the wing area/body mass calculation, but because bees CAN fly, nobody said they can't fly, all they could say at most is that they are missing something (and they did, they didn't know bees can generate lift even in the upswing and not only the downswing like birds or bats) and the "bees can't fly" hype was created by incompetent and/or sensation-hungry newspapers, not scientists.

second of all, whether or not the creature is a glider, the asymetry doesn't make any sense at all, an arboreal creature needs to be ballanced, this bad boy needs to overcompensate for his big honking hulk arm in every swing. second of all, with this beast being built like a regular vertebrate, two arms coming out of one girdle don't make any sense either, because of muscles that would have to go through each other, which is not biomechanically possible (one of the things i really hated about the creatures in avatar, but that's irrelevant
and third of all, a membrane doesn't make any sense for a creature that isn't a glider, it slows the creature down as it's swinging because of the air resistance and unnecessarily increases the body surface.


Last of all, barely anything has been said about this creature so there is not much that one could learn about it, but you made a bigger deal out of this than I intended to, I know not everybody takes this into account (and no one is obliged to) I like a bit of sense even in made up creatures.

As I said, this might not be my cup of tea, but I did compliment the author's technique, so I don't understand what's your problem, I even apologized for being so nitpicky in my original comment and I consider my original comment to be constructive ctiticism given in a civil and polite form.
If you see it as something else, it's not my problem, and neither it is yours, this is not between you and me, if anything, this is between me and the author.

Not everybody has to like everything, and that's okay.

P.S. If anything, this is between me and the author, they are free to respond to/ignore my comment if they so desire, and you can kindly stay out of this.

I will not respind to any future replies from you or anybody else who might wish to reply to me.

I said what I had to say, I have nothing more to add.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Reapr9 In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-09 21:41:30 +0000 UTC]

The "Bees unable to fly" thing was meant from the view from physics, not just observation with the naked eye. It was put this way because of how large they were, which in turn gives more aerodynamic properties, and the speed at which they beat their wings. Bees were also very large compared to their wings which left them with the task of lift with the smaller wings. Bees beat their wings at the rate of 230 b/s, faster than the eight times smaller fruit fly which beats at 200 b/s. The previously stated factor of size giving more aerodynamic features evaded the bee. It uses specially designed flight muscles to flap at an angle of 90 degrees, shorter than various other insects. Also, your belief in a naturally aerodynamic design is a misguidance. The bee also increases the angle of the beat of the wings when carrying something such as nectar. This makes it less aerodynamic when in a proper manner it could increase b/s and get better results with aerodynamic qualities. Your comment was more negative than positive for you leaving out a positive word of encouragement or guidance. The mind is a powerful ally, and a dangerous enemy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LessThan3Kitty In reply to PeteriDish [2013-05-08 23:20:51 +0000 UTC]

I was merely comparing the bee confusing with your confusion with this creature. If you don't like the creature, don't comment. Since the artist gave little description, you should have inquired more about it before making such a negative comment. Appreciate art for what it is, not what it isn't. Like I said, if you don't like it, don't comment. Who cares if you like a bit of sense with your made up creatures. This is NOT YOUR creature so it doesn't matter what YOU want in the creature. You want to make a creature with more logical "sense" then go draw one, and let other people do their thing. If he likes his creatures asymmetrical, then let him do it. Don't cut him down for it.

As for the "between you and the artist" comment, if you post something for everyone to see, then it becomes everyone's business. I have just a right to comment on what you said about the artists picture as you do commenting on the artist's picture itself. You don't like his asymmetrical design, I don't like your negative attitude. Again if you don't like the concept, don't comment. Why not just go make your own creatures that make "sense" to you, instead of bashing someone else work because they don't think like you. Don't like it, don't comment. End of story.

Have a nice day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0