|Ok, Pay no attention to that worthless rant of frustration that I wrote at 4am and for which Tracy decided to post when she shouldn't have. No excuses for me. I appologize. Emotions got fired up and that was a bunch of immature garbage. Like I said at the end, feel free to beat me, ignore me, etc. I'll deserve it.
Alright.... The following is a link Holtz gave:
"So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee. Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change."
The other links basically say the same thing. A certain mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of the bumblebee... Fine and dandy. Nothing new hereâ. They donât fly like birds.They donât fly like planes. They even donât fly like helicopters, but they are kinda close to them. Wonderful. Theropods didnât walk like crocodilians and they didnât walk like modern birds, but they are kinda close to themâ Close to a COMBINATION of both. In fact, I said that the math had to be reworked to make an accurate model of how the bumblebees can fly: "Face it... Bumblebees would not have been able to fly if we had not seen them do so. That made the people go back over and over to get their math right so they didn't have to say "I did the math and they can't do it."" And even better, I stated that we need to treat theropods as living animals. BUT, the problem is that they aren't running around today (at least the non-avian ones) so that we can't actually treat them like living animals as we did with the bumblebee. Chickens and crocodiles just donât cut it people. How in the world can you make a mathematical model for an animal, extinct no less, based on animals that function in an entirely different manner, and draw some pretty big conclusions from it??? So many unknownsâ So many assumed parametersâ So, I'm not sure if the comments were directed at me, or Bakker, or both. I covered my bases. I have no idea what Bakker said.
I think what some are saying about Hutchinson's paper is that it's not completely adequate or appropriate for describing the cursorial locomotion of _Tyrannosaurus rex_. Notice how I said not completely... It's damn good. The more I read it over, the more I see this........ BUT, as even Hutchinson himself said in his post "that paper of ours": "The model is a first step in a long series of modeling and experimental studies that I'm undertaking. I am not ashamed to admit that details about the model might be shown to be wrong by myself or others in the future. That's science." That is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I mentioned things like the bumblebee, whales, and tuna in my original post.
Maybe Bakker should have used Tuna instead of the bumblebee???? After all, when you read this link (http://www.robotbooks.com/robotic-fish.htm) for example on overcoming Grayâs paradox, this section in particular jumps right out at you since it is a mirror of what we are dealing with here:
âKumph says the tuna and pike were built to resolve Gray's paradox-- why fish can swim so fast. In theory fish should not be able to swim as fast as they do. "Fish do not seem to have the muscle power to swim at the speeds they do." says Kumph.
Although the robopike is a relatively crude model, Kumph says it is more efficient than it should be. Kumph is now working with Rodney Brooks, director of MIT's artificial intelligence laboratory to refine the design of robopike and make it behave more like a real fish and to swim convincingly.â
Well, well, wellâ. Fish donât seem to have the muscle mass to swim as fast as they do, and we still canât model it right. How fascinating!!! Sure, we are dealing with a different medium called water, but the fact remains that itâs the muscle power that is in question.
The experimental results of the tests on the robotic fish clearly demonstrated that RoboTuna does indeed duplicate Gray's paradox, but it does so with unarguably "known" mechanical muscles. These experimental results, at least for the parameters tested, supported Gray's claim that the differences in marine/terrestrial muscle power are NOT the answer, but do not go so far as to explain what the solution to the paradox is.
Iâm sure we are talking about different parameters, BUT, you can say aaaaaaall you wantâ. The muscle power is the feature in question,â..Just like in Hutchinsonâs paper.
Thatâs all I ever wanted to say.