A Unified Theory of Animal Locomotion 229
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."
Re:Swimming Fish = Flying Bird? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are birds buoyant in their fluid?
That right there is a big difference.
Some robot guys already discovered that (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Wow...never would have guessed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Swimming Fish = Flying Bird? (Score:1, Insightful)
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?
Re:Swimming Fish = Flying Bird? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Swimming Fish = Flying Bird? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dinosaurs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Allow Me (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Giant ant overlords are scientificly impossible? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Roland Piquepaille (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Roland Piquepaille (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Science gibberish (Score:3, Insightful)
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.