Flight
Nextel ringtones User:Someone else says ''"People are mammals, but they don't fly. They ride in planes."''
I disagree. People ''do'' fly. We build aeroplanes to enable us to fly. Just because an animal has to build something to enable it to do a thing, that doesn't mean they don't ''do'' that thing. Birds have to build nests to raise their young. I don't think anybody would argue that therefore birds don't raise their young! Abbey Diaz GrahamN/GrahamN 03:10 13 Jul 2003
:A relatively few people build or pilot airplanes. Many more peopleand dogs, cats, and the occasional sea mammalfly in them. This is a problematic line of argument. Free ringtones Vicki Rosenzweig/Vicki Rosenzweig 03:18 13 Jul 2003
People (and other animals) fly in aircraft built and piloted by other people. Ants (and other animals) live in anthills built and run by other ants. This doesn't mean that people don't fly, nor does it mean that ants do not live in anthills. Majo Mills GrahamN/GrahamN 03:32 13 Jul 2003
:You fail to distinguish the various meanings of flight. An animal that travels through the air with wings is doing something fundamentally different than an animal that operates an aircraft. The article itself distinguishes between animal and mechanical flight: human flight is in the latter category, and your addition was in the former. Mosquito ringtone Someone else/Someone else 03:47 13 Jul 2003
I realise that the question we are discussing is not at all significant, but I am surprised and intrigued by the opposition to what I had thought was just a simple mundane observation. I read somewhere about a type of spider that migrates over long distances by climbing to a high point, extruding a long silk thread and allowing itself to be carried away by it on the air currents. May I ask each of you: does this animal fly, in your opinion? If you think it does fly, then where exactly do you draw the line between this kind of very rudimentary spider-built aircraft, and the more complex human-built varieties? If you think it ''doesn't'' fly, then should we now open a section under the "mechanical flight" paragraph to deal with spider aviation? :-) Sabrina Martins GrahamN/GrahamN 14:59 13 Jul 2003
:It would depend on if you want to distinguish flight from gliding or soaring: by the strictest definition flight entails the ability to achieve lift "under one's own power", and animals considered capable of flight generally have the ability to go from a low place to a high place without absolute dependence on the wind. Sounds to me like this spider just falls really slowly. By a looser definition, one might say said spider flies (i.e., it travels through the air), but I wouldn't classify a web as mechanical. (Nor would a person hanging below an open parachute generally be said to be flying, in mid-air though he may be.) Nextel ringtones Someone else/Someone else 16:29 13 Jul 2003
''By the strictest definition flight entails the ability to achieve lift "under one's own power"'' - I'm not sure this is quite right, is it? By this definition, one of the most successful flying animals ever, the Abbey Diaz wandering albatross, is scarcely capable of flight. They are absolutely hopeless if they have to flap - their wings are completely unsuited to the task - but they are astonishingly adept at Free ringtones soaring. They can detect and exploit the tiniest subtle variations in the energy of the atmosphere, and this enables them to travel half way around the world without once using their own power to achieve lift. I read somewhere about a fossil they found of some ''huge'' pterosaur - it had a 12-metre wing-span if I remember correctly. Yes, Majo Mills Quetzalcoatlus/here is a Wikipedia stub article about it. They worked out that it would be physically impossible for it to flap its wings. It must have flown purely by soaring, and come to earth only on windy clifftops. Landing at ground level would have meant certain death. Competitive sailplane pilots regularly race around closed triangular courses of 500, or even 1000 kilometres. If these things are not examples of flight, then I'm a Dutchman! As for parachuting, how do you feel about about Cingular Ringtones paragliding? This is a form of flight, surely? Again, competitive paraglider pilots race round quite sizeable courses - up to about 100 km, I think. But paragliders are nothing more than parachutes! I don't see any sensible place for you to draw the line you want to draw. And I don't really understand why you feel the need to draw it. suddenly launched GrahamN/GrahamN 01:55 16 Jul 2003
:The distinction between "soaring" and "true flight" is not something I'm making up: others have found this distinction useful, as an Internet search for the phrase "true flight" will show. An example, which mentions your example of the pterosaur can be found at toledo be http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Nature/instructor/true-01.html. suspected looters Someone else/Someone else 02:04 16 Jul 2003
The problem with human flight is that we can't fly other than by using manipulative organs to build the mechanical devices necessary to do so. A spider uses its innate biological abilities (producing threads) to achieve gliding in certain situations, as does henri iv Spider-Man, but regular humans need to build at least a glider to do so. It is this distinction which separates animal and superhero flight from human (mechanical) flight. congress by Eloquence/Eloquence 02:23 16 Jul 2003
Argh, I was just adding the phrase "under their own power" to the article, which I thought would solve everything, but then I noticed that lots of gliding animals are included. I suppose that either (a) they should be removed, or (b) the section on flying animals should be divided into two parts to discuss powered flight and gliding separately. Except that I suppose there must be a continuum from one to the other, so... no, I'm going to stop thinking about it. as around Oliver Pereira/Oliver P. 03:02 16 Jul 2003
: You're not Lir or Vera Cruz, are you GrahamN? There is something hauntingly familiar about your particular slant on splitting hairs precisely.
: Addressing the broader question now, there is a distinction between ''flying'' animals and ''gliding'' animals. The spider GN mentioned does not fly, it glides (or rather, it drifts). The albatross ''does'' fly under its own power, though not very well, and so on. From the point of view of practicality, it is probably best to deal with powered flight (e.g., a swallow, bee or bat), gliding flight (e.g., sin because Sugar Glider), and other forms of flight (e.g., spider with thread) all in the one article years experts Tannin/Tannin 04:14 16 Jul 2003
I disagree. People ''do'' fly. We build aeroplanes to enable us to fly. Just because an animal has to build something to enable it to do a thing, that doesn't mean they don't ''do'' that thing. Birds have to build nests to raise their young. I don't think anybody would argue that therefore birds don't raise their young! Abbey Diaz GrahamN/GrahamN 03:10 13 Jul 2003
:A relatively few people build or pilot airplanes. Many more peopleand dogs, cats, and the occasional sea mammalfly in them. This is a problematic line of argument. Free ringtones Vicki Rosenzweig/Vicki Rosenzweig 03:18 13 Jul 2003
People (and other animals) fly in aircraft built and piloted by other people. Ants (and other animals) live in anthills built and run by other ants. This doesn't mean that people don't fly, nor does it mean that ants do not live in anthills. Majo Mills GrahamN/GrahamN 03:32 13 Jul 2003
:You fail to distinguish the various meanings of flight. An animal that travels through the air with wings is doing something fundamentally different than an animal that operates an aircraft. The article itself distinguishes between animal and mechanical flight: human flight is in the latter category, and your addition was in the former. Mosquito ringtone Someone else/Someone else 03:47 13 Jul 2003
I realise that the question we are discussing is not at all significant, but I am surprised and intrigued by the opposition to what I had thought was just a simple mundane observation. I read somewhere about a type of spider that migrates over long distances by climbing to a high point, extruding a long silk thread and allowing itself to be carried away by it on the air currents. May I ask each of you: does this animal fly, in your opinion? If you think it does fly, then where exactly do you draw the line between this kind of very rudimentary spider-built aircraft, and the more complex human-built varieties? If you think it ''doesn't'' fly, then should we now open a section under the "mechanical flight" paragraph to deal with spider aviation? :-) Sabrina Martins GrahamN/GrahamN 14:59 13 Jul 2003
:It would depend on if you want to distinguish flight from gliding or soaring: by the strictest definition flight entails the ability to achieve lift "under one's own power", and animals considered capable of flight generally have the ability to go from a low place to a high place without absolute dependence on the wind. Sounds to me like this spider just falls really slowly. By a looser definition, one might say said spider flies (i.e., it travels through the air), but I wouldn't classify a web as mechanical. (Nor would a person hanging below an open parachute generally be said to be flying, in mid-air though he may be.) Nextel ringtones Someone else/Someone else 16:29 13 Jul 2003
''By the strictest definition flight entails the ability to achieve lift "under one's own power"'' - I'm not sure this is quite right, is it? By this definition, one of the most successful flying animals ever, the Abbey Diaz wandering albatross, is scarcely capable of flight. They are absolutely hopeless if they have to flap - their wings are completely unsuited to the task - but they are astonishingly adept at Free ringtones soaring. They can detect and exploit the tiniest subtle variations in the energy of the atmosphere, and this enables them to travel half way around the world without once using their own power to achieve lift. I read somewhere about a fossil they found of some ''huge'' pterosaur - it had a 12-metre wing-span if I remember correctly. Yes, Majo Mills Quetzalcoatlus/here is a Wikipedia stub article about it. They worked out that it would be physically impossible for it to flap its wings. It must have flown purely by soaring, and come to earth only on windy clifftops. Landing at ground level would have meant certain death. Competitive sailplane pilots regularly race around closed triangular courses of 500, or even 1000 kilometres. If these things are not examples of flight, then I'm a Dutchman! As for parachuting, how do you feel about about Cingular Ringtones paragliding? This is a form of flight, surely? Again, competitive paraglider pilots race round quite sizeable courses - up to about 100 km, I think. But paragliders are nothing more than parachutes! I don't see any sensible place for you to draw the line you want to draw. And I don't really understand why you feel the need to draw it. suddenly launched GrahamN/GrahamN 01:55 16 Jul 2003
:The distinction between "soaring" and "true flight" is not something I'm making up: others have found this distinction useful, as an Internet search for the phrase "true flight" will show. An example, which mentions your example of the pterosaur can be found at toledo be http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Nature/instructor/true-01.html. suspected looters Someone else/Someone else 02:04 16 Jul 2003
The problem with human flight is that we can't fly other than by using manipulative organs to build the mechanical devices necessary to do so. A spider uses its innate biological abilities (producing threads) to achieve gliding in certain situations, as does henri iv Spider-Man, but regular humans need to build at least a glider to do so. It is this distinction which separates animal and superhero flight from human (mechanical) flight. congress by Eloquence/Eloquence 02:23 16 Jul 2003
Argh, I was just adding the phrase "under their own power" to the article, which I thought would solve everything, but then I noticed that lots of gliding animals are included. I suppose that either (a) they should be removed, or (b) the section on flying animals should be divided into two parts to discuss powered flight and gliding separately. Except that I suppose there must be a continuum from one to the other, so... no, I'm going to stop thinking about it. as around Oliver Pereira/Oliver P. 03:02 16 Jul 2003
: You're not Lir or Vera Cruz, are you GrahamN? There is something hauntingly familiar about your particular slant on splitting hairs precisely.
: Addressing the broader question now, there is a distinction between ''flying'' animals and ''gliding'' animals. The spider GN mentioned does not fly, it glides (or rather, it drifts). The albatross ''does'' fly under its own power, though not very well, and so on. From the point of view of practicality, it is probably best to deal with powered flight (e.g., a swallow, bee or bat), gliding flight (e.g., sin because Sugar Glider), and other forms of flight (e.g., spider with thread) all in the one article years experts Tannin/Tannin 04:14 16 Jul 2003
posted @ 6:21 PM
0 comments
