Nature's (Minor) Follies

Nature, despite Her inimitable awesome design skills displayed in the design of the spectacular  macrocosm and microcosm that fill this infinite Universe which puzzle to no end  the most evolved species on earth viz. the homo sapiens,  seems to have commited a few (very minor ) 'BLUNDERS' too (as I perceive). This is in Human Physiology in particular and in Animal Physiology in general.  They are the following:

1) When any part of the body gets a hit by some hard object we get severe pain localised to the point of hit. If left unattended a red patch is seen around the point which is due to clotting of blood and the pain aggravates. If an ice pad had been immediately applied on the spot the blood wouldn't accumulate and the pain would've vanished. Same is the case with a minor burn injury. What is Nature's intention in rushing blood to the spot? One would expect that it is to heal the injury. But the effect is opposite!!

2) What is the phenomenon of 'Itching' and what is its purpose?  Itching prompts us to scratch the spot with our nails or any instrument. Scratching results in injury to the skin and the injury helps the organism reach deeper in the flesh. So the situation worsens. Then what does Nature intend by causing the sensation of itching? 

3) The denture in humans gives rise to innumerable problems several of which are caused by the remnants of food we chew getting stuck in between the teeth. (A huge profession called 'Dentistry' and a big Industry of toothpaste/brush and several related products thrive on this phenomenon). Invariably everyone suffers from ailments caused by this apparently innocuous phenomenon. Couldn't Nature create the upper and lower denture as single pieces rather than as individual tooth separated by an inter-tooth space? That straightaway would've done away with the majority of dental problems which are caused by decay of food remnants. These U-shaped denture blocks could have been formed as

extensions of jaw bones, of course with capping the exposed surface of the bone with white enamel coating as is the case with normal teeth. From cosmetic angle such tooth blocks could be shaped like normal teeth but WITHOUT the inter-dental gaps. 

Even for normal teeth,  the problem could be solved by filling the gaps with a hardening adhesive material or alternatively by capping  the teeth rows on both the jaws with two transparent skin-like U-shaped removable sleeves, whose technology is currently available,  which could be worn permanently,  if so preferred, without any cosmetic diminution. 

Intelligence Of Web-weaving In Spider And Nest-building In Birds

How astonishing is this web-making by a small creature called Spider!!😯 Has it got the brainpower to architecture the web and the sophisticated skill to implement the architecture? Obviously NO. Then how does it do such an intricate job?

My detailed hypotheses on 'Intelligence' pervading the whole Universe was posted on an earlier occasion on FB (which I shall post again for those who missed it). My contention is that all INANIMATE objects have 'hardwired' intelligence which enables them to follow precisely physical/chemical laws of Nature. Humans (and other evolved life forms to a lesser degree) I proposed, have a 'software' intelligence (attributable to human brain) as well which enables them to wilfully do other functions as well, like, for instance, designing and engineering an aeroplane which can challenge natural laws. 

The Spider whose complex web-weaving procedure is illustrated below compels me to propose the existence of what we may call 'Firmware' ( in line with the lingo familiar to Computer Scientists) which is an unalterable software  program that Nature has embedded in the miniscule-sized rudimentary brain ('ROM' in computer parlance) of such creatures.

Other than Spider we are all familiar with the nest-building procedure of birds which involves many intricate tasks like collecting the raw-materials from surroundings or at times from far-off places, building the nest on tree branches hanging it securely, orienting it in an appropriate way with its entrance at the bottom lest  predators get entry etc. etc.

My contention about 'firmware' is reinforced by the fact that unlike humans these sub-human species are never TRAINED in web-weaving/ nest-making etc by their elders or colleagues.

The Languages Spoken By Sub-human Species

Listen to these birds on the tree chattering.... They make a sound at certain frequency that suggests urgency and also flutter their wings apart from turning their heads in frenzy...

The list of languages spoken by humans numbers about 7000 ( so says Google)…. In my opinion there are millions of languages if you include sub-human species... animals, birds and other creatures like the beetles.  They make sounds characteristic to the species.. The frequency, modulation, body movement etc. are the syllables and words of that language...

Ants Are Great Sprinters

The other day I was watching a tiny black ant of about a mm long walking ( rather 'running') on the edge of our sitout wall.

 Astonished at its speed I roughly timed its movement. In 10 seconds it covered a distance of about 20 cm. Fortunately I could identify an ant which had a SINGULAR GOAL, whatever it might be, needing no halt on the way. (Often, as we all have witnessed, an ant slows down midway to 'chat' with another ant of its clan coming from the opposite direction.

Its sociology must be interesting to investigate, which I believe scientists must have done)

 My observation, for which I don't claim great accuracy, shows that this ant which is a mm long could cover a distance of 20 mm in a second. That means 20 times its body length.

 Compare this feat with that of a grown-up Cheetah. Its body length is about 6 ft. In a second I don't think it can cover more t body length.

 So the comparison is between 20 times to 3 times the body-lengths of the two species.  We are aghast at the speed of Cheetah. But in scientific terms Ant is approximately 7 times FASTER which we never imagined. Also it can run almost equally efficiently on a VERTICAL surface or on a surface facing down challenging the gravitational force.

One wonders where does this little creature get the strength from. I think it has 3 pairs of legs. How does it get the strength for its tiny limbs. What is its physiology? Has it got a 'heart' that pumps 'blood' into its limbs. Has it got 'lungs' to absorb oxygen from the air and supply to its 'heart'. How does its 'brain' guide it for its single-purpose goal to reach the destination?

(All these curious facts drives me to study the physiology of Ants)

But the essential point I wish to drive home is that a puny little Ant is SEVERAL TIMES FASTER than Cheetah which was given credit by us so far😯😯😯

Jerky movement of head by birds

Adding to several other observations on Nature that have intrigued me, on which I had posted earlier, I like to mention another that has come to my notice a couple of days ago...

It is the following...

Our house compound  has a few trees that give us shade in summer. They attract several species of birds and animals like squirrel. They chirp especialy in the mornings and evenings and move around jumping from branch to branch. Observing their movements  a peculiarity struck me.

They turn their heads in a jerky fashion. Its never a smooth motion like ours, humans.

Why that is so? Nature surely has a reason to endow these creatures with such pattern of head movements. Seldom do you find this peculiarity among animals except in Sqirrel.

I propose that such a behavior is because their eyes are on both sides of their head which severely restricts the possibility of full coverage of the visual world in front of them. The reason is that the central portion of the field of vision is occluded because of the positioning of the eyes on a nearly parallel plane on both sides of the head unlike the great advantage that we humans have as a result of positioning of both eyes on the same plane at right angles with the direction of view.

The latter style of positionig covers almost 120 degrees of view of the scene in front with the individual cones of vision overlapping for nearly 30 degrees of each cone of vision. In fact as a result of this overlap we get additionally a 3-d vision of the scene which eables us to know the distance of each object in front of us. (Most probably birds are not able to get a 3-d view for the reason that the cones of coverage of the two eyes do not overlap.) The fact that there is a blind patch in front of them they need to move their heads FAST to ensure that there is no threat from the blind area. With the Sqirrel also this is the case. But most other animals have their eyes positioned in such a way that they can look straight ahead with the visual cones overlapping (to a lesser degree than for humans). Owls, monkeys have their eyes in the same plane as humans.  Most other animals have their eyes in converging planes ( with the meeting line being in front) but sufficient to give a total frontal view. So they don't need to have a jerky movemnt of head. Recall how a cow or a lion moves its head. I'm not sure of the Owl, though...

I would like to know whether any other explanation is plausible for this phenomenon...

https://www.facebook.com/reel/557403919550611?s=yWDuG2&fs=e&mibextid=Nif5oz

Inadequacy of Classical Music Swaras

I've had some basic training in Carnatic music. I've also been a karaoke singer in local karaoke clubs....

One thing that occurred to me when I studied the syllables ('swaras') of classical music viz. Sa, Re, Ga, Ma, Pa, Dha, Ni, Sa representing different pitches ('Srutis') was the following...

You 'spell' these syllables by progressively moving your tongue on your  palate from just behind the front teeth backward to utter 'Sa', 'Re' & 'Ga'. After 'Ga' you utter 'Ma' & 'Pa' with your lips, then go back to your palate for 'Dha' & 'Ni' progressively moving your tongue backward as earlier. So the first THREE music syllables are on the palate, next TWO are on the lips and the next TWO are on the palate again.

 Why did the music gurus choose that way i.e. use only 7 syllables (or 'srutis') whereas symmetry demands 8. (The fact that the basic colours in visual light are 7 viz. Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red doesn't justify sound to comprise of only 7 pitches or 'srutis')

So the music syllables must be 'Sa', 'Re', 'Ga', 'Ma', 'Pa', 'Dha', 'Ni', '?'. So 8 in number. The last syllable can be named as 'Sha' which is produced by moving the tongue further backward on the palate after 'Ni'.

Or in other words what I propose is that instead of designating the next sruti after 'Ni' as 'Sa'   name it as 'Sha'. The sruti of 'Sha' will be that of the present upper 'Sa'. The sruti (pitch or frequency in the language of Physics ) of starting 'Sa' of next octave will be the sum of that of 'Sha' and that of starting 'Sa' of the previous octave.

Note that we speak of 'OCTave' to refer to the set of EIGHT upper srutis and NOT 'SEPTave', as it were...

Aside from the theme on which I wrote above, I found an interesting fact about the frequencies that are representing the Swaras and about the rate of increase in frequencies as we proceed from 'Sa' to upper 'Sa' in the middle octave. ( There are 3 octaves in music... Lower, Middle and Upper) The frequencies start from 240 Hz to 480 Hz in the middle octave. The interesting thing is that the frequencies increase for the swaras (in all octaves) in the ratio 9/8, 10/9 and 16/15 for 'Sa'-'Re', 'Re'-'Ga', 'Ga'-'Ma'  then 9/8, 10/9, 9/8 and 16/15 for 'Ma'-'Pa', 'Pa'-'Dha', 'Dha'-'Ni' and

'Ni'-'Sa'. 

I wonder why the consecutive swaras couldn't be assigned values that result in constant frequency ratios between them!!!