[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / egy / fur / polk / pone ]

/x/ - Paranormal

Oh shit! What was that?

Catalog

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


First day on 8chan? Read the FAQ
If you find a thread where the reply box is missing, login using username: Anyone, password: 0 and you'll be able to post
Please read the rules before posting

File: c6b99eefb8eae61⋯.jpg (5.29 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault.jpg)

 No.29414

Why would cylindrical ufo's be cylindrical?

Is there any reason why aircraft would be cylindrical? Seems like it would be redundant. Can anyone tell me how this would be beneficial in aviation?

Vid and pic related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qePb0Paxvdk

 No.29416

It's not just an aircraft, it's a spacecraft, and maybe a timecraft. Aerodynamics are not important.


 No.29425

Nobody really knows what UFOs are or how they work, so even an aviation expert wouldn't be able to answer your question. I remember reading a website about a kind of hypothetical engine that would use vortexes to create a vacuum in front a plane and "suck" it forward, and I guess a cylindrical shape would help with that, but we're talking about a technology that's probably very primitive compared to what UFOs use.


 No.29427

>>29414

>spaceships need to be aerodynamic


 No.29432

File: b01a254c2794d58⋯.jpg (3.11 MB, 2921x1905, 23:15, standard missile.jpg)

>>29414

>why would anyone use cylindrical aircraft


 No.29474

you're thinking inside of the box, applying our limited knowledge of flight to a people, if they exist, who have a far more advanced form of propulsion, and flying.

Face it, planes and rockets can't get us from one solar system to another. If they can do it, then their technology is waaaaaay…. beyond ours.

Aerodynamics as we know it, only applies if you have to deal with air friction and gravity, thus, the shapes of our planes and rockets.

If you can negate gravity and/or destabilize matter around your ship, it doesn't have to 'slice' through anything and can be in any shape whatsoever.

A cylindrical shape would be an excellent use of an enclosed space allowing a greater square footage on every round level than any other shape. (Work out the math yourself. Circles rule in square footage)

Strategically, if you are examining a planet for whatever reason, you would send down a variety of different ships for various purposes. Small scouts to zip around looking for places of interest, and bigger ones filled with equipment or possibly for extensive specimen collection. In that case, cylindrical shaped ships would be ideal.


 No.29484

>>29416

>>29425

>>29427

>>29474

But if the craft is designed to be mostly for space or time travel why send it inside the atmosphere? Surely they'd have craft better suited for this. These craft's have been sighted many times, there'd be no point after going here once and knowing the atmosphere.

>>29432

Thanks for an actual answer. We should look into our own cylindrical craft to see reasons why.


 No.29519

>>29484

These ARE the smaller craft being sent down for exploration. They just use the same tech as the big one. Why use anything else?

All our craft, planes, trains, automobiles, and rockets use the same tech: Combustion at some point, whether directly or to generate electricity.

Wow! We're still rubbing sticks together to do things… God, we're so primitive! No wonder they don't make contact.


 No.29521

>>29427

there is no air friction in space, so aerodynamics do not apply


 No.29523

>>29474

They've been "examining the planet" since before we invented writing. They probably know this planet better than us at this point. This is more like some continued surveillance operation. It's not a coincidence that in ancient times they were also known as the "watchers".

>>29519

They've made contact thousands of times, they're just not interested in an equal relationship, because, well, we're not equal. I don't think it's our technological development that's the problem…


 No.29540


 No.29545

File: 9f852c52158a3a6⋯.jpg (86.91 KB, 800x511, 800:511, Trinity Tranportation 88.jpg)

File: 8935003e1249e59⋯.jpg (44.51 KB, 550x367, 550:367, modern submarine.jpg)

File: dd3cb8c37ca28d3⋯.jpg (60.59 KB, 586x320, 293:160, Boeing 757.jpg)

>>29484

>We should look into our own cylindrical craft to see reasons why.

Isn't what we have cylindrical enough? Airplanes need wings, so using antigravity would make them cylindrical. Maybe they started off using the same shapes in their vehicles before going antigravity and the shape just stuck? Physics is universal, so streamlining designs would be too.

Maybe there is no reason at all. Like how there are so many house designs. Maybe someone just thought it looked nice.


 No.29552

File: 79154441ad5668b⋯.jpg (274.58 KB, 1885x1055, 377:211, cycyldt.jpg)

Everyone here is forgetting about one thing: cost effectiveness. Spheres have the highest volume:surface area ratio out of regular 3D objects. What it means is that it will take less material to build a hollow sphere that holds certain volume than any other shape to hold the same volume, like cube or cone. Cylinders are 2nd most efficient shapes after spheres.


 No.29553

>>29545

Maybe. Maybe they just needed to have a long space to house many beings, and went with the 2nd most practical design >>29552 and used anti gravity as "wings."


 No.29558

>>29521

thx captain obvious


 No.29679

>>29414

Because it's in the name

>cylindrical ufo

>cylindrical


 No.29681

>>29679

Haha nice ironic shitposting friend.


 No.29685

>>29414

To show how boss they are.

>look we are defying the laws of aerodynamics!

>why

>because we can. reeeeeeeeeeee


 No.29686

>>29685

This is now the correct answer.

They just wanna show off how much better they are than everyone else.


 No.30120

>>29414

Rockets and missiles are cylindrical. Depending on how it's propelled, that may be the best shape.

Saucer/disc-shaped craft are stable at supersonic speeds, and NASA has determined that the best shape for a spacecraft using an Alcubierre FTL drive is a disc, in order to generate the proper magnetic field to warp space.

A sphere is the most efficient shape for packing as much mass as possible into a given area.

Different shapes for different reasons, and we're not technologically advanced enough (yet) to know all the reasons.


 No.30170

>>29552

Cylindrical craft have the added benefit of space-efficiently utilizing flat-bottomed compartments, which provide a more stable platform for cargo to rest on and a more comfortable platform for terrestrial beings to rest on than, say, the interior of a sphere.


 No.30491

File: d806828c6b9b2d9⋯.png (235.89 KB, 700x438, 350:219, screen-shot-2016-04-12-at-….png)


 No.30503

>>29552

Although spheres do indeed have the highest volume in proportion to surface area, the amount of 'usable' volume is limited by its space, unless you're packing it with liquid.

Solid storage and usable space is better served with a cylinder. Then there is the added bonus that the hollow cylinder is the strongest shape in nature.


 No.30506

because they are beans

they are just not human beans

but they are real


 No.30530

cigar shaped UFO's are a thing




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / egy / fur / polk / pone ]