What's with all of the female units?

[vicheron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u16sKK-1oLQ

[MattII]

Not at all, unfolded the wings are actually pretty broad and definately enough to carry the creature through the air if it had the neccesary avian adaptations (muscles, fast lungs and hollow bones). Chickens can actually fly and they have smaller wings and even less aerodynamic bodies than the griffons do.

The largest flying bird ever recorded (a Great Bustard) weighed 21kg, there is no way a 100+kg Griffon is going to get airborne on the wings as small as they're show with.

You sound like you know what you are talking about. Thing is though Mlai, the armour worn on frong of the legs is not actually that thick or extensive. It's basically a few rather thin plates attatched to a cloth backing. The problem is the way the backing is attatched together with the spikyness and lack of functional segmentation of the plates.

That's a point, armour on the body has to be thicker to resist arrows coming in at a more perpendicular angle, although I'd have thought that at least a thin plate over the gun would be a good idea, enough to stop a quarterstaff blow to the gut from winding them.

[Mlai]

The dwelling version does not have a shield Mlai. But you're half-right the bio mentions a shield.

Excuse me?

Not that the heroes wear much armour either.

Agrael.

Wings and parachutes are completely different things.

Not really. When it comes down to it essentially a wing is only a parachute that flaps, thus cancelling out the downwards drift of the creature.

Ok, full stop. I end all discussions concerning aerodynamics with you.

The sack of Rome was before the Roman Empire ever existed Mlai. The Romans had to pay a massive ransom, what saved them was the fact the Gauls lacked the neccesary siege weapons to take the central fortess of Rome.

Exactly which war/sack are we talking about here?

the armour worn on frong of the legs is not actually that thick or extensive. It's basically a few rather thin plates attatched to a cloth backing. The problem is the way the backing is attatched together with the spikyness and lack of functional segmentation of the plates.

We're talking about super-fast dark elf women. Supposedly each one a champion Olympic sprinter. And their only "defense" is that burst of speed. You want to wrap metal plates around their shins and their forearms, and say that would slow them down less than a lightweight torso body armour.

[hatsforclowns]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OYVtdZdiD9k

I really wish the myth about birds "flapping" their wings would die. It's no coincidence that our aerofoils and aircraft are shaped the way they are. Of course, as we have advanced our knowledge of aerodynamics we have found that the field is very diverse and there are many methods and techniques (e.g. you can actually fly with flat aerofoils, as opposed to the stereotypic cambered aerofoil).

However, it is the elegant and beautiful bird wing that is the source of it all. And it does NOT flap.

Annoying 3D, but if this doesn't get the point across...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5aVOD1sMA-4

[Mlai]

It's a flapping parachute, dude. Don't you know anything?

[hatsforclowns]

It's a flapping parachute, dude. Don't you know anything?

Whoopsie, my bad! Always got to stay alert to the ever-changing field of science and engineering.

Now...where did I put my hover-erm...flappingboard...?

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

The largest flying bird ever recorded (a Great Bustard) weighed 21kg, there is no way a 100+kg Griffon is going to get airborne on the wings as small as they're show with.

Jumbo jets weigh far, far more than that and they can still fly. I don't quite get what you mean.

Great Bustard in Flight

I fail to see any ginormous wings, the kind of wings that the heaviest birds around would presumably need to have if you have to have immense wings to fly around. It really doesn't have much bigger wings in fact than the griffons that are depicted in the game.

The reason we don't see any giant rocs in real life is not because it is impossible to have a very, very huge flying creature but because the evolutionary benefits of becoming bigger don't exist for a flying creature as it does for a ground creature.

Agrael.

His lizard creature has fire coming out of it's mouth. It's hardely normal and probably demonically enhanced.

Exactly which war/sack are we talking about here?

The one led by Brennus. In 390B long before the Roman Empire ever existed. But the idea that the Gauls were weaklings just waiting be conquered by a 'civilized' adversery is totally wrong.

The Gauls were quite feared throughout the Ancient world and defeated many armies from other cultures. Which proves that wearing light armour (or even going into battle naked) is not neccesarily a bad idea.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/sa ... 390bc.html

We're talking about super-fast dark elf women. Supposedly each one a champion Olympic sprinter. And their only "defense" is that burst of speed. You want to wrap metal plates around their shins and their forearms, and say that would slow them down less than a lightweight torso body armour.

And how much would an injured leg slow them down?

I really wish the myth about birds "flapping" their wings would die. It's no coincidence that our aerofoils and aircraft are shaped the way they are. Of course, as we have advanced our knowledge of aerodynamics we have found that the field is very diverse and there are many methods and techniques (e.g. you can actually fly with flat aerofoils, as opposed to the stereotypic cambered aerofoil).

However, it is the elegant and beautiful bird wing that is the source of it all. And it does NOT flap.

Annoying 3D, but if this doesn't get the point across...

Uhhh haven't you noticed that those birds quite certainly do flap their wings.

Actually if you are able to flap your wings enough times and are light enough you can basically break all the normal rules of aerodynamics. That's how bumblebees fly.

Indeed without thermal up-lift currents birds basically cannot hover in mid-air without flapping their wings. If they ever stop flapping they drop like a stone.

Indeed the need to continually flap pretty fast means that birds have specialised respiritory systems, they need to breathe in constantly in order to get enough oxygen to continue to flap (and thus fly).

[MattII]

Jumbo jets weigh far, far more than that and they can still fly. I don't quite get what you mean.

Yeah with 4 turbojet engines. If they lose power they certainly can't maintain their altitude.

I fail to see any ginormous wings, the kind of wings that the heaviest birds around would presumably need to have if you have to have immense wings to fly around. It really doesn't have much bigger wings in fact than the griffons that are depicted in the game.

There's this little thing called the Square-Cube law, which would ague against that. the Griffon is twice the length (based on the average size of a lion) of a Great Bustard, but will weight 8 times as much for only 4 times the wing area, thus their wings will need to be half as long again as they are, and just about half as broad.

The reason we don't see any giant rocs in real life is not because it is impossible to have a very, very huge flying creature but because the evolutionary benefits of becoming bigger don't exist for a flying creature as it does for a ground creature.

And because bones can only be made so thin before they begin to break.

[Mlai]

@ Slayer:

The sack of Rome in 390 BC, as an example of a band of naked warriors overpowering a more "civilized", armoured army... is a poor example for anyone willing to do 5 minutes of research on the subject.

You seemed to imply that the Gauls were naked barbarians, while the Romans were the fully decked-out organized army that we know from Gladiator. This is false; this is 390 BC:

Many historians speculate that the Romans learned much about weapons technology and battle tactics from this run-in with the Senones. Though only a single tribe, the Senones were part of the much larger culture of Celts (or Gauls) that had more advanced iron-working and close-quarter combat techniques. Specifically, the Celts/Gauls used heavier long swords and full body shields, which allowed them to interlock shields for greater defense (a tactic later named "tortoise" in the Roman histories).

Oh look, in 390 BC, it was the Celts who had the famed "shield tortoise" formation that we always associated with the Romans, courtesy of Hollywood. No chaotic reckless "charge of the barbarians" here.

Later, after Roman defeats in the second Samnite War had shown novel enemy tactics and formations, it was recognized the need for increased flexibility, leading to the reorganization of the legion into three main lines of soldiers: the hastati in front, the principes in the middle, and the triarii in the rear organized in alternating "maniples" (units). This was to be known as "manipular formation". Lightly equipped men who had been fighting in the legion for up to two years would fight in the Velites rank in the far front, throwing javelins at the enemy and then retreating. Men with more experience would fight in the next two ranks armed with a heavy javelin, a short sword and a shield: Hastati in the front, veteran Principes behind them. Finally the older Triarii would be in the rear, organized in smaller units of 60 men as opposed to 120 in the front ranks. The Triarii were armed in Hoplite weapons and armor. The Romans had created a "teaching army" that would introduce the young Velites to battle while minimizing the chances of death.

The military system that resulted remained the basis of all Roman armies for the next few centuries, as well as the instrument that made possible the Roman Empire.

The defeat at the hands of the Gauls was the last time the city of Rome was captured by non-Roman forces until 410 AD.

In 390 BC, the Gauls were the better armed and armoured force at the Battle of Allia. And surprise, they won easily against the Roman militia army. Like Japan at the visit of Commodore Perry, Rome learned its lesson well.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Yeah with 4 turbojet engines. If they lose power they certainly can't maintain their altitude.

And do bigger planes need disproportionately larger wings indefinately? If that were so we would expect jumbo jets to have wings that are bigger to a disproportianate degree than those of smaller planes. But as far as I can tell the rules for jumbo jets are the same as those for birds and smaller planes, that is to say the wings have to be equal to the length of the flying object and it's width.

There's this little thing called the Square-Cube law, which would ague against that. the Griffon is twice the length (based on the average size of a lion) of a Great Bustard, but will weight 8 times as much for only 4 times the wing area, thus their wings will need to be half as long again as they are, and just about half as broad.

Not at all. Square Cube Law for flying creatures is practically non-existent because air is lighter than water. Creatures in the sea suffer reduced square-cube law which is why the largest creatures in existance are sea creatures. Creatures flying through the air then are pretty much immune to the effects of the square-cube law.

Some bigger birds (like the condor) do have larger wings than smaller birds do but this is only because they actuallyhave to follow the basic flying rule of equal length wing to body because they cannot flap as much. This is because the circulation of blood is too slow in a larger creature to facilitate the speed of wing-flapping required to cheat the flying rules.

Yes small birds and insects very much do cheat. Bumbleflees definately cannot fly according to basic aerodynamic rules, their bodies are too big and their wings too small. But they get around it by simply flapping at so fast a rate that despite their small wings they can basically pull themselves off the ground in defiance of gravity.

While larger birds soar through the sky flapping their wings only as fast as they need to 'paddle' themselves forward through the air. They can fly rather like airoplanes do, they propel themselves forward through the air relying on their wings to keep them in the air rather than muscle power.

But of course that while birds might fly they all have to land at some point even if it is only to nest. You can only ignore square-cube-law when you're flying through the air.

But if birds were ever to develop internal gestation or somehow become their own nest (like perhaps a female bird depositing the egg in a special pouch in her mate's back) then birds could actually live forever in the air never ever having land. At which point a bird could perhaps even evolve to be even bigger than the blue whale.

And because bones can only be made so thin before they begin to break.

And why are we trying to make our birds bone's thinner? Aren't we trying to make them thicker in order to cope with the square-cube law effects of actually having to land. I actually wonder if hollow bone's are actually even neccesery to fly if you are a bigger bird soaring through the air rather than trying to beat the force of gravity by flapping a ridiculous number of times. Do larger birds only have hollow bones because they needed them when they were smaller birds?

And that is sort of the crux of the matter really about the Square-Cube-Law. Essentially much of it's power is basically due to limitations inherant to each basic creature type.

For instance elephants have huge and very thick bones because of the square-cube law. But ginormous dinosaurs exist that bear few if any signs of having disproportianately large bones despite being larger than elephants. Thus we can conclude one of three things.

1. Dinasaurs never existed and are a massive forgery that got out of hand.
2. Dinasaurs are magical.
3. The bones of mammals, birds, amphibians and modern reptiles are weak.

I happen to adhere to the third option. Thus most of the supposed limitations of the square-cube law are really imposed by the fact that the first mammel, bird, modern reptile, amphibian etc was a very small creature and many of the fundarmental problems with bigness are caused by these inherant structural limitations.

The huge bone's of elephants for instance are thus a result of the evolutionary limitations of the mammal form, they have evolved such thick bone's because it is the simplest (but not strictly the best way) of fighting against the square-cube law given the inherant weakness of their bone-structure.

The sack of Rome in 390 BC, as an example of a band of naked warriors overpowering a more "civilized", armoured army... is a poor example for anyone willing to do 5 minutes of research on the subject.

You seemed to imply that the Gauls were naked barbarians, while the Romans were the fully decked-out organized army that we know from Gladiator. This is false; this is 390 BC:

They were always naked barbarians with large shields and long swords Mlai. And these naked barbarians did a pretty good job of defeating the Greeks as well as the Romans on regular occasions.

So no, armour is not strictly neccesary to be successful warriors. Many warriors have faught quite successfully unarmoured. This also includes the likes of the Zulus who famously defeated a vastly more technologically advanced army (not that their armour would have been much use anyway in that case).

Oh look, in 390 BC, it was the Celts who had the famed "shield tortoise" formation that we always associated with the Romans, courtesy of Hollywood. No chaotic reckless "charge of the barbarians" here.

Yes hiding behind a shield is something that totally requires heavy armour.

In 390 BC, the Gauls were the better armed and armoured force at the Battle of Allia. And surprise, they won easily against the Roman militia army. Like Japan at the visit of Commodore Perry, Rome learned its lesson well.

And do have any actual historical evidence that the Romans at the time of their defeat by the Gauls were armed or armoured in any notably different fashion that they were later?

The evidence you show me is simply the reorganisation of the Roman forces, it does not tell us at all that any new weapons or armour was introduced. Indeed the fact that all the legionaries had to supply their own equipment basically guarantees that the same weapons and equipment available after their creation as before.

[Mlai]

Blah blah blah regarding aerodynamics, avian biology, and self-imagined dinosaur biology.

This is nothing personal against you, but... You simply deserve no response... you seem to know nothing regarding aerodynamics and avian biology, but you look up something in a half-baked manner and then pull stuff out of your ass based on your own imagination. The only argument you can win, are against ppl who don't know the subject, and who cba'ed to look it up for 5 minutes. This is well exemplified by you trying to pull one over me using the Battle of Allia.

And now, it's dinosaurs have magical bones which ignore the square-cube... nevermind that birds are direct evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs.

I majored in biology in college, therefore I have the foundation to know you're talking nonsense. But I'm not going to spend the time to retort. That would require looking stuff up for 5-10 minutes to refresh my memory. I cba'ed. Maybe Hatsforclowns will do it.

They were always naked barbarians with large shields and long swords Mlai. And these naked barbarians did a pretty good job of defeating the Greeks as well as the Romans on regular occasions.

Key item: LARGE SHIELDS.

Hence I mentioned the loss of large shields on the Raiders being the defining moment of their role change (in the game fiction). And, do Blood Furies have shields? No. No shields, no armour. Therefore not equivalent to barbarians with large shields that were even better than Roman shields at the time.

Someone already mentioned the factor of shields earlier.

And do have any actual historical evidence that the Romans at the time of their defeat by the Gauls were armed or armoured in any notably different fashion that they were later?

I even bolded the sentence but I guess you ignore it anyways.

Go look it up yourself.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

This is nothing personal against you, but... You simply deserve no response... you seem to know nothing regarding aerodynamics and avian biology, but you look up something in a half-baked manner and then pull stuff out of your ass based on your own imagination. The only argument you can win, are against ppl who don't know the subject, and who cba'ed to look it up for 5 minutes. This is well exemplified by you trying to pull one over me using the Battle of Allia.

And now, it's dinosaurs have magical bones which ignore the square-cube... nevermind that birds are direct evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs.

Well some of the dinosaurs are very very large and show few if any signs of the kind of square-cube adaptations required to be that big in their bones. The kind of adaptations that we see in elephants and which are the evidence that the square-cube law is true.

I never ever said that the dinosaurs bones were magical nor that they weren't actually bound by the square-cube law. I suggested that they had an adaption in their bones which made their bones far stronger than the bones of any modern creature.

As for birds, perhaps the very adaptation whatever it is was crucial to the evolution of the hollow bone's which birds presently have? Because the first bird was a rather small dinosaur the surplus bone-strength provided by the redundant adaptations to be a far larger dinosaur allowed them to sacrifice bone-strength in the evolution of hollow bones?

I majored in biology in college, therefore I have the foundation to know you're talking nonsense. But I'm not going to spend the time to retort. That would require looking stuff up for 5-10 minutes to refresh my memory. I cba'ed. Maybe Hatsforclowns will do it.

If you don't have any intention of addressing the issue DON'T COMMENT!

And I'm supposed to magically detect the superior knowledge of biology you apparantly have. Despite supposedly knowing why I am wrong, you are remarkably unwilling to state it clearly.

There is no damn rush, this is a message forum. I take your refusal to answer as empty postering and bravado; you not only don't know why I'm wrong but you have no damn idea how to find out the information but you still think that somehow you 'should' know it and are trying to pass your laurels as a substitute for knowledge.

I want to be wrong because after-all I'm mostly making this up as I go along. I find it rather exhilarating (and frightening) that somehow the 'educated' are no match for my intelligence even in regard to matters that are their specific field (and not mine).

Key item: LARGE SHIELDS.
Hence I mentioned the loss of large shields on the Raiders being the defining moment of their role change (in the game fiction). And, do Blood Furies have shields? No. No shields, no armour. Therefore not equivalent to barbarians with large shields that were even better than Roman shields at the time.

Someone already mentioned the factor of shields earlier.

But Blood Furies do not fight in the manner than the gauls faught in. They do not attempt to break the enemy in a single charge but instead to charge repeatadly and swiftly withdraw ideally (ie not blood maidens) without giving the enemy any ability to retaliate. I was just drawing attention to the fact that even in history armies have eschewed heavy armour for mobility.

As I interpet it, the Blood Furies don't fight as a unit with a formation but rather as a swarm. The unit breaks apart into a number of individuals with little coordination but carrying out a single action (attacking a single enemy) before returning to the original point which is marked by their banner and forming a loose formation.

They depend upon the fact that an enemy formation cannot respond in any coherant manner, indeed the moment that the enemy formation reacts is when they scatter and return to base.

Shields are heavy Mlai. The reason the Gauls wore light armour or no armour at all was because it allowed them to carry a large shield without compromising speed and mobility (and thus the power of their charge).

Carrying shields for the Blood Furies makes no sense at all because they rely on being faster and more agile than any regular troops with shields.

I even bolded the sentence but I guess you ignore it anyways.

Go look it up yourself.

Yet tt doesn't actually say anything about what weaponry the Romans faught with, it is mostly the historians trying to explain why the Romans could possibly be defeated by the Celts.

Many historians speculate that the Romans learned much about weapons technology and battle tactics from this run-in with the Senones. Though only a single tribe, the Senones were part of the much larger culture of Celts (or Gauls) that had more advanced iron-working and close-quarter combat techniques. Specifically, the Celts/Gauls used heavier long swords and full body shields, which allowed them to interlock shields for greater defense (a tactic later named "tortoise" in the Roman histories).

Well there is more to wars than weaponry and armour. Such things as tactics, strategy, training, morale and just dumb luck also factor into the equation.

It implies that the Gauls had larger shields than the Romans and the Romans copied those shields. But as for body-armour it doesn't say anything at all.

[hatsforclowns]

I majored in biology in college, therefore I have the foundation to know you're talking nonsense. But I'm not going to spend the time to retort. That would require looking stuff up for 5-10 minutes to refresh my memory. I cba'ed. Maybe Hatsforclowns will do it.

Highly unlikely I'm kind of a perfectionist when it comes to certain things that I take great interest in, so I would end up trying to explain every single little thing and writing a huge thesis on the matter. Which would just make me look like a ginormous pretentious pompous douche

Besides, I don't know anything about avian biology or biological mechanics and anatomy in general, and it's not something I majored in in college

My field of "expertise" is ballistics (although I'm a bit interested in general aerodynamics as well), but when studying ballistics -- whether professionally, or just amateurishly like me -- you're sooner or later going to run into Bernoulli's principle and Newton's law of motion, followed by flow regimes, flow theory, and then the whole bloody shebang. But it's not like you have to dig deep into aerodynamics to understand the problem, probably the same with the biology stuff as well. Biology just isn't my thing

It's probably not going to help Slayer, since s/he appears to be blinder than a bat, but not even insects "flap" their wings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXLrjX41Wg

Although bees are aerodynamically very advanced, which is why we have the myth of the bee violating aerodynamic theory.

And to outright dismiss the square-cube law!? What exactly is s/he smoking?

[Corlagon]

writing a huge thesis on the matter. Which would just make me look like a ginormous pretentious pompous douche

Don't worry, you'd have a hard time beating me in that regard

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Highly unlikely I'm kind of a perfectionist when it comes to certain things that I take great interest in, so I would end up trying to explain every single little thing and writing a huge thesis on the matter. Which would just make me look like a ginormous pretentious pompous douche

Well put very simply I don't want to be completely right because that would mean I might as well declare myself to be God and be done with it. . I don't know very much about the subject except scattered references put together and understood according to my rather basic understanding of physics.

Besides, I don't know anything about avian biology or biological mechanics and anatomy in general, and it's not something I majored in in college

But apparantly something that Mlai knows about except that Mlai seems rather eager to make claims, for instance that the creatures depicted in the game couldn't fly with the wings they are depicted as having and actually doing nothing to back up his claims.

When asked for an explanation he simply puffed himself up in the knowledge he supposadly has and flaunting his qualifications without actually providing anything to back up his claims and then declaring that others are 'not worthy of a response'.

He's behaving like the definition of arrogant know-it-all writ large.

My field of "expertise" is ballistics (although I'm a bit interested in general aerodynamics as well), but when studying ballistics -- whether professionally, or just amateurishly like me -- you're sooner or later going to run into Bernoulli's principle and Newton's law of motion, followed by flow regimes, flow theory, and then the whole bloody shebang. But it's not like you have to dig deep into aerodynamics to understand the problem, probably the same with the biology stuff as well. Biology just isn't my thing

It's probably not going to help Slayer, since s/he appears to be blinder than a bat, but not even insects "flap" their wings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXLrjX41Wg

If you want to prove that birds and insects don't flap their wings there would be a better way to do it that showing me slow motion videos of birds and insects flapping their wings.

I take it that what you are really saying is that the birds and insects don't flap in the sense that they actually bend their wings during flight; they move their wings using the muscles in their wing shoulders (if that's the right word to use) while keeping their wings straight.

As I understand it there are two basic ways to fly. One is my manipulating the air around you to give you lift, that is how helicopters fly and the other by air passing under your wings either through wind currents or because you are propelling yourself forward through the air by some mechanism. That is how gliders and aeroplanes fly through the air.

Most insects fly in the former fashion, most birds fly in the latter fashion. Flying in the latter fashion requires larger wings, which is why insects often have such small wings but yet can fly.

Although bees are aerodynamically very advanced, which is why we have the myth of the bee violating aerodynamic theory.

Bumblebees not bees in general. It was a point brought up by somebody to pinpoint the limitations of existing aerodynamic theory as it was taught at the time. It's certainly not a myth.

And to outright dismiss the square-cube law!? What exactly is s/he smoking?

And what are you reading! I did no such thing!

The square-cube-law does not apply to flying creatures (or rather it does to a very limited extent). The reason is that they are suspended in air, which is even less dense than water. Water-dwelling creatures can consequently grow much, much larger (say the blue whale) than any land-dwelling creature because they are suspended in water which effectively cancels out much of their weight. So while in flight the square-cube law in effect to all intents and purposes does not exist.

The basic rules obeyed by flying objects from birds to planes regardless of size is that they must have wings equal in length and I think at least half the width (I'm not sure about this one) as the rest of the creature's body. There must also be some kind of rules for weight and/or density but I know nothing about them other than they must exist. But a creature would have to get ridiculously large for the square-cube law to cause them any problem when they are flying.

And then there is the oft ignored 'dinosaur problem'. Simply put the square-cube law means that one cannot simply scale up a creature while leaving it's overall bone (and other structures) as they are because the structures will break (or fail) under the strain of sustaining the greater weight of the creature.

Thus there has to be a disproportionate increase in the strength of the structures to accomadate any proportianate increase in the creatures size. This may obviously take the form of a qualitive increase (making the structures better) or a quantative increase (making them disproportianately larger).

Now meet mr T.Rex. He is 20 feet tall and 40 feet long. He is a bepedal creature. Now compare his bones with those of a human being.

T-Rex bones

Human bones

What you can see is that proportionately the T-Rex bones and the human bone's are pretty similar in bulk thus if they were made of the same stuff formed in the same manner according to the Square-Cube law any T-Rex's bone's would crumble into dust and it would die.

The only way such a creature could actually have lived is for it's bone's to have been immensely stronger in a 'qualative' sense than those of any creature that lives today. The great mystery is just what is T-Rex's secret?

[Pol]

The great mystery is just what is T-Rex's secret?

Probably nothing. There were more interesting 'sauruses'.

[Mlai]

But apparantly something that Mlai knows about except that Mlai seems rather eager to make claims, for instance that the creatures depicted in the game couldn't fly with the wings they are depicted as having and actually doing nothing to back up his claims.

When asked for an explanation he simply puffed himself up in the knowledge he supposadly has and flaunting his qualifications without actually providing anything to back up his claims and then declaring that others are 'not worthy of a response'.

He's behaving like the definition of arrogant know-it-all writ large.

I'll explain 1 time why you're not worth answering.

You behave like an arrogant know-it-all; you keep arguing against things you know little facts about. If shown that you're wrong, you don't go and do the 15 mins of research required. No, you either ask others to do it for you, or you twist the argument into another direction so that it seems as if you're not wrong (unless the other person goes and does another 15 mins of research on the other thing you're now talking about).

Example: When shown that the Gauls at the Battle of Allia were actually better equipped than the Romans, you try to imply that the Gauls' large shields are not part of personal armour. The entire reason the Battle of Allia was raised in the first place, was for you to try to showcase that less-armoured barbarians defeated better-armoured Romans.

Or, if you know you're proven wrong, you quickly ignore the fact altogether.

Example: The fact that the Raider dwelling does indeed have a LARGE SHIELD.

But it's not like you have to dig deep into aerodynamics to understand the problem, probably the same with the biology stuff as well.

Exactly. What does this mean for you, Slayer? It means: Go look it up yourself.

Bumblebees not bees in general. It was a point brought up by somebody to pinpoint the limitations of existing aerodynamic theory as it was taught at the time. It's certainly not a myth.

This is another example of a discussion being led awry by your tangents.

What exactly are you trying to say about bumblebees? How exactly are you saying that they violate the aerodynamic theory? And I suppose you want to include hummingbirds with the bumblebees?

If I'm to guess at what you're trying to say, you think that anything with small wings but "flaps fast" violates the aerodynamic theory? But first, how does that even have anything to do with HOMM flying creatures???

Griffins and Angels certainly can never "flap that fast," so what does it even matter what bumblebees can do???

You can say Pixies can. But I already excluded pixies from the debate because they have fairy dust.

[MattII]

Most insects fly in the former fashion, most birds fly in the latter fashion. Flying in the latter fashion requires larger wings, which is why insects often have such small wings but yet can fly.

Insects also get a lot of help from the Square-Cube law because they're so small.

The square-cube-law does not apply to flying creatures (or rather it does to a very limited extent). The reason is that they are suspended in air, which is even less dense than water. Water-dwelling creatures can consequently grow much, much larger (say the blue whale) than any land-dwelling creature because they are suspended in water which effectively cancels out much of their weight. So while in flight the square-cube law in effect to all intents and purposes does not exist.

This is so whacked-up it's almost funny. The reason the square-cube-law doesn't apply underwater is because water has a relatively high density, and therefore provides a lot of buoyancy. Air on the other hand has a relatively low density, and therefore provides very little buoyancy. On top of which there are not many materials less dense for pressure than air.

Now meet mr T.Rex. He is 20 feet tall and 40 feet long. He is a bepedal creature. Now compare his bones with those of a human being.

T-Rex bones

Human bones

What you can see is that proportionately the T-Rex bones and the human bone's are pretty similar in bulk thus if they were made of the same stuff formed in the same manner according to the Square-Cube law any T-Rex's bone's would crumble into dust and it would die.

Or Mr Rex can't lift much more than his own weight, something which humans can do, up to double their own weight or more (the ILBE of the USMC allowed the carriage of up to about 120 lb, which is, I figure, maybe 80% or more the weight of the average marine).

[Pol]

And please people stay on topic.

@Slayer, Slayer
Maybe a subtle art of communication would do wonders for you, not only in this thread. Can you give it a thought?

It's always nice being nice, respecting other people opinions, listening, try to view it from their perspective and then discuss it back, to benefit of all. The better you're thinker - the merrier will be the blueberries.

And it's not required to always win.

Which reminds me, did you used "Introduce thread"? If not, it may be good idea to jump here and provide us with some background information about you.

As for arguments. Well, you're sometimes wrong, you know? Especially on boards it's good to think it twice before hitting the submit button.

And if you're wrong, it's correct to admit that - which makes a good sign, that you respect other discussion participants.

Hopefully you will take my advice to heart and become less prolific writer but a more wise man.

[Mlai]

It's not like I get my kicks trying to embarrass the guy. I liked his conjectures on DE religion and culture. A lot. And also I agree with the Death Of Author concept.

But after having to read through similar debate tactics used by Intelligent Designers and Global non-Warmers against true scientists, I get riled up real quick.