Slashdot Mirror
A Unified Theory of Animal Locomotion
Roland Piquepaille writes "You probably already know that there is a master equation for all life processes based on metabolism. Now, physicists from Duke University have applied the so-called 'constructal theory' to explain how running, flying and swimming modes of locomotion are similar even if they're apparently unrelated. This single unifying physics theory explains how fast animals get from one place to another and how rapidly and forcefully they step, flap or paddle in relation to their mass. In other words, these scientists argue that the characteristics of animal shape and locomotion are predictable from physics."
Forget the penguin for a moment.
Are birds buoyant in their fluid?
That right there is a big difference.
I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
Robotics researchers already knew that something like 'animal' locomotion could be implemented based on the principles of physics. ie. given the right mechanical setup, locomotion is almost automatic and takes no supervision by a computer.
Actually, it's what you'd expect. Animals would naturally evolve to move in an efficient manner. It would give them an evolutionary advantage. What the bleep did these guys expect?
www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050806/bob8.asp
Maybe, but maybe you didn't understand the article too... (judging from your post)
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
This is question I have asked my daughter from time to thing about... Are Bird and Fish the same or different?
This article starts to show that yes they are.
Yes, they are what ? That wasn't a yes or no question. The answer was "same" or "different". How the fuck does someone screw up answering their own question?
Of course they are, just not nearly enough to stop them from plummeting downwards.
And heck, if you're going to define our atmosphere and our ocean as a fluid medium, then you're saying that ALL animals are the same - name a single animal that travels through a completely SOLID medium.
You're missing the point. He's not saying they're related because they move through fluids, he's saying they're related because they have three dimensional control of where they are.
And to some extent, that is something exclusive to them. Land animals have to do a lot more work than them in order to move in anything but the "plane" of the Earth.
Gravity? I could understand if the atmosphere was thicker back then it may help the pterodactyls fly, but how was the gravity different? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of this idea.
This guy is scum and the fact that Slashdot editors continue to post his stuff says a lot about how they view their readers.
So like hell we'll simmer down, cuz I'm sure that's just what the editors and Roland would want.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
So giant ant overlords could only evolve on a planet with less gravity or intense pressures? Or maybe have bouyancy like at the bottom of our oceans. Maybe we should worry about giant lobstermen.
I would like to know how this applies to humans in space. Will I somday be able to fly under my own power in a lunar gymnasium like in an old Heinlein story I once read?
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
My guess is that Roland is an alter ego of a /. staffer, or a /. staffer's buddy, and that /. staffer is getting kickbacks.
I'll point out that the primary concern that you cite in your journal is that this guy is driving traffic to his site instead of to the sites of the source information, and yet this article's primary link goes directly from Slashdot to Duke University.
It's sad when a canned reply that consists of a single link to an off-topic journal is modded up to a 5. Makes me think of the days when anti-Katz postings would be modded through the roof for no particular reason other than spite.
"Their argument is that everything fits together so perfectly and logically that there must have been a creator."
And that's a fine thing to think, but you cannot rely on ID's central theme -- unexpected complexity -- when you have no frame of reference. By expanding the complexity of locomotion to physics in general, we render any assertions about complexity moot. Is physics complex? Maybe, but perhaps we are just poor judges of complexity. That argument is pure philosophy.