 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
The lack of requirement for an inner ear in a non-rotating planet.
IF and it's a big if, we were on a non rotating yet orbiting planet the dinosaur would not have needed an inner ear. It's only on a rotating planet such an instrument of balance would be needed.Once again with a broad brushstroke, how else could creatures so massive move about a rotating planet or even stand. And if orbital conditions aren't so different how is the elephant so tiny in comparison as the largest land mammal. Yet in the sea where body mass is bouyed i doubt that whales have ever been much larger. So back to the bone collecters, if other bones and configurations happen in limbs etc why not an inner ear. And don't shout at me if it's illogical, but i feel it also a point of not shutting your own minds up in the same sense of self rightousness as the theists. Just a layman asking questions if one kind of evolving and adaptation, if on form why not the other.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on -
Sorry the typos been at the lager.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on -
You can always edit a discussion's original post if you want to (contrary to other posts it's not limited to 15 mins).
-
Permalink Reply by Cara on -
If the inner ear is positional for three dimensions, then why in zero gravity would a creature be inner earless? Perhaps less developed or less sensitive, but wouldn't it still be needed?
I am truely clueless about the inner ear, but currious at the same time. I'm not trying to question the validity of your statement, I'm trying to understand it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on -
The inner ear is for balance; falling doesn't happen in zero-G.
-
Permalink Reply by Cara on
-
I think I may have misunderstood positional to mean location in respects to other objects alone, instead of obviously using our position to maintain balance. I just wasn't adding balance into the equation for space.
I thought we were always falling, we only feel it in on earth because we have gravity here. similar to feeling motionless in an elevator, or car, when we are actually moving.
-
Permalink Reply by Cara on
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "we were always falling", because you didn't say relative to what.
I thought everthing including the sun was in constant freefall or motion so to speak. Therefore we only feel like we are motionless. There is evidence that every body in space (within our ability to track) is moving, shifting or expanding away from everything else. If two objects in space are placed side by side in space they drift apart without exceleration being applied externally.
You have me confused on the elevator now. If the elevator stops instantly, the passanger would not. Therefor the passanger is moving. At slow enough speeds, the movement would be minnimal but still there.
I still thinking about Bill on the 10th floor becasue I contradict myself if I say he is at rest compared to elevator guy, how about moving slower?
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on
-
I think the confusion has arisen partly because i'd had one too many glasses of wine and sort of threw it out as an abstract. The thing started because of certain warm blooded features in certain fossils. However mammals need a bone structure to the inner ear, i began to question whether this would have been necassary on an orbiting but non rotational planet. I feel that the tearing apart of the early singular land mass could only be explained by a change in state. According to the laws of physics such an event must have been assisted by the application of necassary force in order to change state.
So i agree with what you are saying but just wondered whether this mechanism could have evolved into the bone structure of later animals. The lift is only travelling in one direction at any particular time, we are orbiting,spinning and as you say travelling through space.
An early Greek philosopher had an idea that we were suspended in a liquid, not really too far away from chemistry's idea of spansules in a suspension. Can't find the reference at the moment but i do know his school was taken over at a later stage and turned to theist notions. i will be looking further because it could be seen as an early creationists attempt to obfuscate real thought. I was going to promise not to post again if i've been at the alcohol, but that would'n't be any fun now would it.
-
Permalink Reply by Cara on
-
I was going to promise not to post again if i've been at the alcohol, but that would'n't be any fun now would it.
Considering I'm consistantly on medication for pain atm, I probably should make the same promise.
I agree with you, it wouldn't be much fun. Plus, don't we seem to ramble off in deeper, though sometimes irrational thought while under the influence of something. I guess we could always make a warning lable... possible irrational thoughts may follow. Mine should probaly glow like a neon sign.
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on
-
I thought the pain had gone now S.P. has moved to the East coast! Shame the inner ear does not seem to work on political or intellectual balance.
-
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on
-
Just a quick point if we were'n't rotating would the g-forces have been less creating the possibility of a differing construct to any balance mechanism. It's the construction i'm beginning to work at not the lack of a balance mechanism.
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on
-
In a non rotating globe accelration has already reached it's maximum accelaration,( mr einstein.) Therfore in order for it to accelerate any further it would have to attain either further acceleration to attain greater weight from some outside agency or in inverse greater mass in order to achive further acceleration. In that case speed becomes constant.
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on
-
Yes, another slight confusion as well, it's really the construction it was also ab answer to adriana hugey's reply to a question over the appearance of warm blooded features in certain fossils. So sorry if i got a little mixed up, caught between two stools so to speak. So to join two slightly different nuances from slightly different answers; i accept ther would have been an inner balance mechanism to the ear, in answering the other half of it it's about what i feel would have a necessity with rotation that an inner bone structure would have been needed. Therefore i'm trying to question whether these later bone structures are a morphology and that any ancestors or possible links need not be discounted because of the inner ear's bone structure. All to do with my idea of being a non rotational planet at one time. Like you said of the pressure from acceleration the inner ear is invaluable and it's mainly the pressure that necessitates such. hope that's cleared up, sorry it came accross as a little 'foggy'.
Just
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
