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.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by david hartley on October 27, 2009 at 4:31am

I agree that we have become a little distracted Duanne but as my formal education finished to all intents and purposes at 11, ( the 'sect' had big plans for me) it is productive if a little self indulgent. University lite one may say, and other subjects and rational people as well, a delight for a person ostracized for his views on religion and the abusers that now shun me. Once again sorry about the self indulgence and i'll dig round in the ossified grey matter for my next lessons.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on October 27, 2009 at 7:30am

Hi David - We are trying to be clear on how all the forces work with gravity and rotation of the earth etc. It is a bit hard to picture as there are several things spinning in different ways.

You might find this interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

Sorry if I sounded a bit snarky. It feels like you are not listening, but perhaps it is just hard to make this clear without a picture.

Duane's summary is good... and Duane - I am impressed that you found that the centrifugal force is 0.3% of Earth's gravity max. I was wondering what the effect was, but didn't look it up.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on October 27, 2009 at 11:03am

No i understand the frustration as reticence (and a lack of diagrams of course) means that i have'n't quite put the point accross myself. I understand that we are moving accross a few axis which after all was the point i was trying to make but drawing a few wrong conclusions along the way, there's not too much wrong with my logic systems honest. As for being snarky, i've had a couple of prison sentences. Now that's a place that is snarky so i should be able to manage vigorous debate with exasperated scholars, absolutely no offence taken.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on October 27, 2009 at 11:05am

P.S. Wait till we get onto Big Bang theory, better order the valium now!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on October 27, 2009 at 11:56am

David, I very much appreciate your attempts to understand these things and that you've had to overcome a lot to get here. I even enjoy explaining things like this, but it would be helpful if you'd read thru the links we're supplying for some background. Wikipedia does have useful graphics about these things on occasion, and is (usually) written in a very accessible way. You've asked some of your questions several times over despite fairly clear answers, which suggests to me that you're missing some background education that would help you understand our answers. You seem genuinely inquisitive, so I encourage you to follow your nose a bit on Wikipedia. It's far from perfect, especially on controversial subjects, but for basic factual information it's really pretty good, and the bottom of every entry has reference links for more info.