The authors of the Bauer/Bienefeld 2012 paper "refuted" assumptions and
conclusions that only they **themselves** jumped to. They did not address,
explain, or dispute the nearly identical outcome of on one hand, a hive of
bees, and on the other hand, a number of soap bubbles of equal volume,
compressed between two sheets of glass.
So they "refuted" nothing at all, as what they attempted to contradict was
never said, but only half-understood. Quoting the abstract snippets
offered:
"Hexagonal comb cells of honeybees are not produced via a liquid equilibrium
process."
"Liquid equilibrium" was never presented as anything but a parallel path
that would produce a nearly identical structure (not precisely identical,
because soap films produce a more regular structures, with more consistent
wall thicknesses, and less variation from the ideal 120-degree angle where
surfaces meet).
"self-organised construction of hexagonal comb cell arrays"
The authors misunderstood the presentation of purely tension/compression
formation of identical cell arrays to those made by bees using, for example
soap bubbles, as a claim that the bees had nothing to do with construction.
What was being said that bee comb, constructed by bees, ends up being
largely identical to what soap foams do when simply created from many
identically-sized bubbles, compressed between two sheets of glass (per
Weaire and Phelan).
When the Germans made a tensile structure for their pavilion at Expo 67 in
Montreal, and again for their Olympic Stadium for the 1972 Summer Olympics
in Munich, they deliberately mimicked soap film/foam, using a inordinate
amount of math, precision engineering, and manpower. The fact that they
ended up with something that was identical to what soap bubbles do on their
own somehow did NOT prompt Bauer/Bienefeld to publish a paper to claim that
these structures did not "self-organize". Its strange that they can see
both men and bees construct their structures, and somehow seem to believe
that the bees can do as good a job as men, despite their lack of
instruments, precision tools, math, and engineers with slide rules that man
needs.
"bees were shown to be engaged in direct construction"
This is also obvious - the bees can be seen taking individual flakes of wax
to construct cells - no one ever said that magic was employed.
"the wax temperature was between 33.6 and 37.6 °C. This is well below 40 °C,
i.e. the temperature at which wax is assumed to exist in the liquid
equilibrium that is essential for self-organised building"
No one has ever claimed that wax was liquid at any point except, perhaps,
the point of extrusion from bee wax glands, but I won't go there, as there's
seems to be no 40 C there, either. Somehow this bothers no one at all, as
if a gland could somehow directly produce a solid. Yet despite the
compelling evidence that a purely biochemical process is at work, and what
cannot be a solid as produced/extruded by a gland quickly becomes semi-solid
upon exposure to air, no one is willing to posit a "curing time" for wax
flakes that might make them slightly more pliable for a while after being
(magically) produced from glands, and "harden up" to structural strength
after exposure to air, and maybe some chewing for good measure.
So, neither the German tensile roof structures, nor Buckminster Fuller's
constructions used "liquid equilibrium" in their attempts to mimic soap
films, to utilize the tensile forces that result in "geodesic" domes or
sweeping arched pavilions, but they did need a lot of precision tools and
extensive math, something the bees clearly lack, and soap films also clearly
lack.
Even this toy presents what appears magic, but it is nothing but physics of
an extremely similar type, using tension alone:
https://www.amazon.com/Tensegrity-Table-Magnetic-Floating-Gap/dp/B09N9DW5R1
https://tinyurl.com/cybkv9vp
There's a much simpler one without the magnets, far cheaper:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Sanwood-Educational-Toy-Collective-Simple-Operati
on-Wood-Tension-Structure-Handmade-Toy-for-Kid-DIY-Toys/706208207
https://tinyurl.com/yckz5sun
So, one is left with a question - bee combs and soap films both naturally
fall into identical default shapes for closely-packed cells and bubbles, yet
neither can be observed going to the extreme effort and calculations
required for man to emulate similar "tensile" structures. Is this mere
coincidence? It seems that a shared underlying principal is at work, as
coincidences are not permitted in the laws of physics as we currently
interpret them. The math is admittedly challenging, but it need not be a
barrier to getting a solid grasp on the overall situation.
The paper at issue:
https://tinyurl.com/msr75tjj
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
