website/nature.html at main · plammertse/website · GitHub

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>

<!--------------------------------------------------------------
-- file    : nature.html
-- purpose : Page for website Piet Lammertse
----------------------------------------------------------------
--   history :
--     2025-12-02 new
--------------------------------------------------------------->

<!-- FORMATTING------------------------------------------------>
<head>
  <link rel="stylesheet" href="plammertse.css">
  <title>  Piet Lammertse on flight in nature  </title>
</head>

<body>

<!-- NAVIGATION BAR-------------------------------------------->
<ul>
  <li> <a href="index.html">           Home           </a> </li>

  <li> <a style="background-color:#0000B0;";
       href="nature.html" >            Nature         </a> </li>

  <li> <a href="flapping_flight.html"> Flapping flight </a> </li>
  <li> <a href="seeds.html">           Flying seeds   </a> </li>
</ul>


<!------------------------------------------------------------->

<h2> Nature </h2>

<h4> "nature knows best" </h4>

<p> There is a widespread romantic view that "nature knows best".
</p>
<p>&emsp; I guess this is true from an evolutionary standpoint.
 Nature is much, much older than we are,
 and it is unwise
 to ignore the fact that we are part of it
and very dependent on it.
But evolution is blind, and it can get stuck in a suboptimal solution.
</p>
<p>&emsp;
A mountain lake cannot jump over the next ridge to flow into
the river down in the valley and into the sea
 much as it would like to,
 at least not until you get to the quantum level.
 Plant leaves reflect green light because photo&shysynthesis
does not use the green part of the spectrum,
 which is decidedly suboptimal.
</p>
<p>&emsp;
 Nature does not alway have the best solution.
</p>

<h4> but how about rotation </h4>

<p> In birds and fishes, there is one glaring thing
 that nature does <i>not</i> have,
and that is propellers.
</p>
<p>&emsp;
 There is a rotating mechanism at the  most basic level of our cells
 in the physical mechanism of ATP synthase. But at the macro level,
nature apparently never found a way to make blood flow
 (&hairsp;or in plants, sap&hairsp;)
in sufficient quantities to rotating parts.
 Birds have flapping wings,
 and fishes have undulating fins and tails,
not because they are particularly efficient
 but because apparently, there is an evolutionary roadblock
 on the path to continuous rotation.
</p>
<p>&emsp;
 There is no reason to suppose that birds are more efficient than airplanes,
or dolphins more efficient than sub&shymarines, and in fact they are not.
Having said that, no doubt nature has tricks
 that we have not discovered yet,
 and that we could learn from.
</p>
<p>&emsp;
But the main reason for studying animal flight
 and swimming is that they
hold a special fascination for us.
 It is simply irresistible to apply
the knowledge that have served us so well
 in understanding ships and airplanes, to birds
and insects as well as anything else
 that propels itself through air or water.
</p>

<!-- FOOTER ------------------------------------------------------------>
<br> <br>
<div class="footer"> P. Lammertse,  2025 </div>

</body>
</html>