What would birds look like if they used buoyancy to fight gravity?












7












$begingroup$


What would birds look like if they did not have to fight gravity to fly?



The question comes from the premise put forward by some that gravity is not real and that what holds us down is pressure caused by density.



Obviously, this is not the case, but if it were, how would it (yes, conceptually) affect the way birds evolve, develop and/or fly?



[EDIT] To conceptualise a little... Let's say we had evolved on Earth and then been transplanted to an artificial planet. One with no gravity but one where the gas we are surrounded by is dense enough to actually cause some amount of pressure and thus keep us on the ground - a ground which has no gravity because it is perhaps only a metre deep, though wide enough to house every country... and then birds had evolved. (Perhaps they had been put there before we were.)






biology physics evolution gravity







share|improve this question









New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not enough to formulate an answer, but I'm looking forward to depictions of fuzzy little helium sacs chirping away.
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to Worldbuilding, Matt W! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ynneadwraith that was my first thought when I read the title, but the question is subtly different and removes the density issue somewhat.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What causes the downward pressure of the atmosphere, then?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JoeBloggs I'm still clinging to my helium gasbags, but shifting them to the upper atmosphere (the only way to get buoyancy in very thin atmosphere is to fill yourself with something lighter...or vacuum I suppose)
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


What would birds look like if they did not have to fight gravity to fly?



The question comes from the premise put forward by some that gravity is not real and that what holds us down is pressure caused by density.



Obviously, this is not the case, but if it were, how would it (yes, conceptually) affect the way birds evolve, develop and/or fly?



[EDIT] To conceptualise a little... Let's say we had evolved on Earth and then been transplanted to an artificial planet. One with no gravity but one where the gas we are surrounded by is dense enough to actually cause some amount of pressure and thus keep us on the ground - a ground which has no gravity because it is perhaps only a metre deep, though wide enough to house every country... and then birds had evolved. (Perhaps they had been put there before we were.)






biology physics evolution gravity







share|improve this question









New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not enough to formulate an answer, but I'm looking forward to depictions of fuzzy little helium sacs chirping away.
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to Worldbuilding, Matt W! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ynneadwraith that was my first thought when I read the title, but the question is subtly different and removes the density issue somewhat.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What causes the downward pressure of the atmosphere, then?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JoeBloggs I'm still clinging to my helium gasbags, but shifting them to the upper atmosphere (the only way to get buoyancy in very thin atmosphere is to fill yourself with something lighter...or vacuum I suppose)
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago














7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


What would birds look like if they did not have to fight gravity to fly?



The question comes from the premise put forward by some that gravity is not real and that what holds us down is pressure caused by density.



Obviously, this is not the case, but if it were, how would it (yes, conceptually) affect the way birds evolve, develop and/or fly?



[EDIT] To conceptualise a little... Let's say we had evolved on Earth and then been transplanted to an artificial planet. One with no gravity but one where the gas we are surrounded by is dense enough to actually cause some amount of pressure and thus keep us on the ground - a ground which has no gravity because it is perhaps only a metre deep, though wide enough to house every country... and then birds had evolved. (Perhaps they had been put there before we were.)






biology physics evolution gravity







share|improve this question









New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




What would birds look like if they did not have to fight gravity to fly?



The question comes from the premise put forward by some that gravity is not real and that what holds us down is pressure caused by density.



Obviously, this is not the case, but if it were, how would it (yes, conceptually) affect the way birds evolve, develop and/or fly?



[EDIT] To conceptualise a little... Let's say we had evolved on Earth and then been transplanted to an artificial planet. One with no gravity but one where the gas we are surrounded by is dense enough to actually cause some amount of pressure and thus keep us on the ground - a ground which has no gravity because it is perhaps only a metre deep, though wide enough to house every country... and then birds had evolved. (Perhaps they had been put there before we were.)






biology physics evolution gravity




biology physics evolution gravity






share|improve this question









New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago







Matt W













New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 10 hours ago









Matt WMatt W

1365




1365




New contributor




Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Matt W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not enough to formulate an answer, but I'm looking forward to depictions of fuzzy little helium sacs chirping away.
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to Worldbuilding, Matt W! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ynneadwraith that was my first thought when I read the title, but the question is subtly different and removes the density issue somewhat.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What causes the downward pressure of the atmosphere, then?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JoeBloggs I'm still clinging to my helium gasbags, but shifting them to the upper atmosphere (the only way to get buoyancy in very thin atmosphere is to fill yourself with something lighter...or vacuum I suppose)
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not enough to formulate an answer, but I'm looking forward to depictions of fuzzy little helium sacs chirping away.
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to Worldbuilding, Matt W! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ynneadwraith that was my first thought when I read the title, but the question is subtly different and removes the density issue somewhat.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What causes the downward pressure of the atmosphere, then?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JoeBloggs I'm still clinging to my helium gasbags, but shifting them to the upper atmosphere (the only way to get buoyancy in very thin atmosphere is to fill yourself with something lighter...or vacuum I suppose)
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    10 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Not enough to formulate an answer, but I'm looking forward to depictions of fuzzy little helium sacs chirping away.
$endgroup$
– Ynneadwraith
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
Not enough to formulate an answer, but I'm looking forward to depictions of fuzzy little helium sacs chirping away.
$endgroup$
– Ynneadwraith
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding, Matt W! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
Welcome to Worldbuilding, Matt W! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
10 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@ynneadwraith that was my first thought when I read the title, but the question is subtly different and removes the density issue somewhat.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ynneadwraith that was my first thought when I read the title, but the question is subtly different and removes the density issue somewhat.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
What causes the downward pressure of the atmosphere, then?
$endgroup$
– nzaman
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
What causes the downward pressure of the atmosphere, then?
$endgroup$
– nzaman
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs I'm still clinging to my helium gasbags, but shifting them to the upper atmosphere (the only way to get buoyancy in very thin atmosphere is to fill yourself with something lighter...or vacuum I suppose)
$endgroup$
– Ynneadwraith
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs I'm still clinging to my helium gasbags, but shifting them to the upper atmosphere (the only way to get buoyancy in very thin atmosphere is to fill yourself with something lighter...or vacuum I suppose)
$endgroup$
– Ynneadwraith
10 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















30












$begingroup$

They would be round, because that's the best format for storing gas. They would also probably be drifters with little flight control. So...



Red!






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
    $endgroup$
    – DreadfulWeather
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
    $endgroup$
    – Brilliand
    1 hour ago



















8












$begingroup$

Fish, or possibly penguins



A world where things can fly without needing to fight gravity (I don’t want to think what the method for that is) is a world where the first fish to develop the ability to breathe out of water skips land completely and just goes straight for the air.



Even if it’s something specific to birds, you’d start to see more and more penguin like ‘torpedo’ shapes optimised for slipping through the air rather than pushing against it (hell, in this world penguins might be the most successful bird!)



You’d probably see larger control surfaces (wings/fins) than in the water, as water is denser, but without the need for surfaces to glide/flap with I can’t see why a bird wouldn’t move back to a more energy efficient form of locomotion, namely oscillating the body back and forth and using the limbs purely for control instead of relying on the limbs to do both.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    7












    $begingroup$

    I don't see any reason why birds couldn't theoretically achieve buoyancy in the air. It's just probably extremely inefficient for animals the size of normal birds compared to winged, powered flight.



    They would need a biological way of producing a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium. Then, they would need a 'bag' of enough volume that its hydrogen offsets the rest of their mass.



    Finally, these birds would need some means of controlling their ascent and decent, which means ballast. This is probably going to be water that they can release to fly higher. When they need to drop down, they would release hydrogen instead. They couldn't fly higher again until they had a chance to replenish both, so they would need to be able to float on the water while they produce hydrogen and take in enough water to keep them grounded until they're ready to go.



    In short, they would probably look like blimps, but with flapping fins/wings instead of propellers. They would also be much more likely to be large. The square/cube law works the opposite way with things that are lighter than air. The bigger you are, the easier it is to fit in lift gas relative to surface area.



    As for 'gravity not being real' and your 'pressure caused by density' alternative, I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I don't see how it would make a difference. In both cases, you achieve flight by being less dense than the air.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
      $endgroup$
      – Matt W
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
      $endgroup$
      – Matt W
      9 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
      $endgroup$
      – Pasqueflower
      9 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
      $endgroup$
      – Matt W
      9 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
      $endgroup$
      – 8bittree
      6 hours ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    They would definitely look very silly. They would by default have to have very low momentum in relation to air resistance so they would be much less efficient in their movement than IRL birds and have much less maneuverability. A good comparison is an airplane and a hot air balloon. they would most likely look like big balloons with small propulsive appendages on their back side.



    they would certainly be comical to watch go about their days.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltlJEdSAHw






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Matt W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137009%2fwhat-would-birds-look-like-if-they-used-buoyancy-to-fight-gravity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      30












      $begingroup$

      They would be round, because that's the best format for storing gas. They would also probably be drifters with little flight control. So...



      Red!






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
        $endgroup$
        – DreadfulWeather
        1 hour ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
        $endgroup$
        – Brilliand
        1 hour ago
















      30












      $begingroup$

      They would be round, because that's the best format for storing gas. They would also probably be drifters with little flight control. So...



      Red!






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
        $endgroup$
        – DreadfulWeather
        1 hour ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
        $endgroup$
        – Brilliand
        1 hour ago














      30












      30








      30





      $begingroup$

      They would be round, because that's the best format for storing gas. They would also probably be drifters with little flight control. So...



      Red!






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      They would be round, because that's the best format for storing gas. They would also probably be drifters with little flight control. So...



      Red!







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 9 hours ago









      RenanRenan

      45.9k11108233




      45.9k11108233












      • $begingroup$
        but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
        $endgroup$
        – DreadfulWeather
        1 hour ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
        $endgroup$
        – Brilliand
        1 hour ago


















      • $begingroup$
        but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
        $endgroup$
        – DreadfulWeather
        1 hour ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
        $endgroup$
        – Brilliand
        1 hour ago
















      $begingroup$
      but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
      $endgroup$
      – DreadfulWeather
      1 hour ago




      $begingroup$
      but doesnt current birds already use some kind of little buoyancy i think i remember something like that from biology classes
      $endgroup$
      – DreadfulWeather
      1 hour ago




      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
      $endgroup$
      – Brilliand
      1 hour ago




      $begingroup$
      @DreadfulWeather They do, but it isn't enough that you'd really call them "buoyant". They're just lighter than land animals their size.
      $endgroup$
      – Brilliand
      1 hour ago











      8












      $begingroup$

      Fish, or possibly penguins



      A world where things can fly without needing to fight gravity (I don’t want to think what the method for that is) is a world where the first fish to develop the ability to breathe out of water skips land completely and just goes straight for the air.



      Even if it’s something specific to birds, you’d start to see more and more penguin like ‘torpedo’ shapes optimised for slipping through the air rather than pushing against it (hell, in this world penguins might be the most successful bird!)



      You’d probably see larger control surfaces (wings/fins) than in the water, as water is denser, but without the need for surfaces to glide/flap with I can’t see why a bird wouldn’t move back to a more energy efficient form of locomotion, namely oscillating the body back and forth and using the limbs purely for control instead of relying on the limbs to do both.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        8












        $begingroup$

        Fish, or possibly penguins



        A world where things can fly without needing to fight gravity (I don’t want to think what the method for that is) is a world where the first fish to develop the ability to breathe out of water skips land completely and just goes straight for the air.



        Even if it’s something specific to birds, you’d start to see more and more penguin like ‘torpedo’ shapes optimised for slipping through the air rather than pushing against it (hell, in this world penguins might be the most successful bird!)



        You’d probably see larger control surfaces (wings/fins) than in the water, as water is denser, but without the need for surfaces to glide/flap with I can’t see why a bird wouldn’t move back to a more energy efficient form of locomotion, namely oscillating the body back and forth and using the limbs purely for control instead of relying on the limbs to do both.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          Fish, or possibly penguins



          A world where things can fly without needing to fight gravity (I don’t want to think what the method for that is) is a world where the first fish to develop the ability to breathe out of water skips land completely and just goes straight for the air.



          Even if it’s something specific to birds, you’d start to see more and more penguin like ‘torpedo’ shapes optimised for slipping through the air rather than pushing against it (hell, in this world penguins might be the most successful bird!)



          You’d probably see larger control surfaces (wings/fins) than in the water, as water is denser, but without the need for surfaces to glide/flap with I can’t see why a bird wouldn’t move back to a more energy efficient form of locomotion, namely oscillating the body back and forth and using the limbs purely for control instead of relying on the limbs to do both.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Fish, or possibly penguins



          A world where things can fly without needing to fight gravity (I don’t want to think what the method for that is) is a world where the first fish to develop the ability to breathe out of water skips land completely and just goes straight for the air.



          Even if it’s something specific to birds, you’d start to see more and more penguin like ‘torpedo’ shapes optimised for slipping through the air rather than pushing against it (hell, in this world penguins might be the most successful bird!)



          You’d probably see larger control surfaces (wings/fins) than in the water, as water is denser, but without the need for surfaces to glide/flap with I can’t see why a bird wouldn’t move back to a more energy efficient form of locomotion, namely oscillating the body back and forth and using the limbs purely for control instead of relying on the limbs to do both.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 10 hours ago

























          answered 10 hours ago









          Joe BloggsJoe Bloggs

          35.2k1998173




          35.2k1998173























              7












              $begingroup$

              I don't see any reason why birds couldn't theoretically achieve buoyancy in the air. It's just probably extremely inefficient for animals the size of normal birds compared to winged, powered flight.



              They would need a biological way of producing a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium. Then, they would need a 'bag' of enough volume that its hydrogen offsets the rest of their mass.



              Finally, these birds would need some means of controlling their ascent and decent, which means ballast. This is probably going to be water that they can release to fly higher. When they need to drop down, they would release hydrogen instead. They couldn't fly higher again until they had a chance to replenish both, so they would need to be able to float on the water while they produce hydrogen and take in enough water to keep them grounded until they're ready to go.



              In short, they would probably look like blimps, but with flapping fins/wings instead of propellers. They would also be much more likely to be large. The square/cube law works the opposite way with things that are lighter than air. The bigger you are, the easier it is to fit in lift gas relative to surface area.



              As for 'gravity not being real' and your 'pressure caused by density' alternative, I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I don't see how it would make a difference. In both cases, you achieve flight by being less dense than the air.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
                $endgroup$
                – Pasqueflower
                9 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
                $endgroup$
                – 8bittree
                6 hours ago
















              7












              $begingroup$

              I don't see any reason why birds couldn't theoretically achieve buoyancy in the air. It's just probably extremely inefficient for animals the size of normal birds compared to winged, powered flight.



              They would need a biological way of producing a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium. Then, they would need a 'bag' of enough volume that its hydrogen offsets the rest of their mass.



              Finally, these birds would need some means of controlling their ascent and decent, which means ballast. This is probably going to be water that they can release to fly higher. When they need to drop down, they would release hydrogen instead. They couldn't fly higher again until they had a chance to replenish both, so they would need to be able to float on the water while they produce hydrogen and take in enough water to keep them grounded until they're ready to go.



              In short, they would probably look like blimps, but with flapping fins/wings instead of propellers. They would also be much more likely to be large. The square/cube law works the opposite way with things that are lighter than air. The bigger you are, the easier it is to fit in lift gas relative to surface area.



              As for 'gravity not being real' and your 'pressure caused by density' alternative, I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I don't see how it would make a difference. In both cases, you achieve flight by being less dense than the air.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
                $endgroup$
                – Pasqueflower
                9 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
                $endgroup$
                – 8bittree
                6 hours ago














              7












              7








              7





              $begingroup$

              I don't see any reason why birds couldn't theoretically achieve buoyancy in the air. It's just probably extremely inefficient for animals the size of normal birds compared to winged, powered flight.



              They would need a biological way of producing a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium. Then, they would need a 'bag' of enough volume that its hydrogen offsets the rest of their mass.



              Finally, these birds would need some means of controlling their ascent and decent, which means ballast. This is probably going to be water that they can release to fly higher. When they need to drop down, they would release hydrogen instead. They couldn't fly higher again until they had a chance to replenish both, so they would need to be able to float on the water while they produce hydrogen and take in enough water to keep them grounded until they're ready to go.



              In short, they would probably look like blimps, but with flapping fins/wings instead of propellers. They would also be much more likely to be large. The square/cube law works the opposite way with things that are lighter than air. The bigger you are, the easier it is to fit in lift gas relative to surface area.



              As for 'gravity not being real' and your 'pressure caused by density' alternative, I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I don't see how it would make a difference. In both cases, you achieve flight by being less dense than the air.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              I don't see any reason why birds couldn't theoretically achieve buoyancy in the air. It's just probably extremely inefficient for animals the size of normal birds compared to winged, powered flight.



              They would need a biological way of producing a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium. Then, they would need a 'bag' of enough volume that its hydrogen offsets the rest of their mass.



              Finally, these birds would need some means of controlling their ascent and decent, which means ballast. This is probably going to be water that they can release to fly higher. When they need to drop down, they would release hydrogen instead. They couldn't fly higher again until they had a chance to replenish both, so they would need to be able to float on the water while they produce hydrogen and take in enough water to keep them grounded until they're ready to go.



              In short, they would probably look like blimps, but with flapping fins/wings instead of propellers. They would also be much more likely to be large. The square/cube law works the opposite way with things that are lighter than air. The bigger you are, the easier it is to fit in lift gas relative to surface area.



              As for 'gravity not being real' and your 'pressure caused by density' alternative, I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I don't see how it would make a difference. In both cases, you achieve flight by being less dense than the air.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 10 hours ago









              PasqueflowerPasqueflower

              499110




              499110








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
                $endgroup$
                – Pasqueflower
                9 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
                $endgroup$
                – 8bittree
                6 hours ago














              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
                $endgroup$
                – Pasqueflower
                9 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt W
                9 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
                $endgroup$
                – 8bittree
                6 hours ago








              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
              $endgroup$
              – Matt W
              9 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              I hope this satisfies @ynneadwraith :)
              $endgroup$
              – Matt W
              9 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
              $endgroup$
              – Matt W
              9 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Thanks @Pasqueflower. The gravity not being real thing is apparently part of the flat earth concept - I can't justify it. My understanding of current flight mechanics is that lift does not need require a body which is less dense than air - though maybe I misread your statement?
              $endgroup$
              – Matt W
              9 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
              $endgroup$
              – Pasqueflower
              9 hours ago






              $begingroup$
              Lift does not require a body that is lighter than air, it just requires a larger force pointing up than gravity. But that's what buoyancy means. It's the upward force of a liquid or gas that is opposing the weight an immersed object. The magnitude of the force is equivalent to the weight of fluid that the object displaces. And this is different at different altitudes/depths, because pressure increases as you go deeper. Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity. Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid. Whichever is higher determines which way something goes.
              $endgroup$
              – Pasqueflower
              9 hours ago














              $begingroup$
              Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt W
              9 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Yep - and that whole concept pretty much destroys the source of this question, hence the messed up nature of the question.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt W
              9 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
              $endgroup$
              – 8bittree
              6 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              "a gas lighter than the atmosphere, which is much more likely to be hydrogen than helium." - Or possibly just hot air.
              $endgroup$
              – 8bittree
              6 hours ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              They would definitely look very silly. They would by default have to have very low momentum in relation to air resistance so they would be much less efficient in their movement than IRL birds and have much less maneuverability. A good comparison is an airplane and a hot air balloon. they would most likely look like big balloons with small propulsive appendages on their back side.



              they would certainly be comical to watch go about their days.



              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltlJEdSAHw






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                They would definitely look very silly. They would by default have to have very low momentum in relation to air resistance so they would be much less efficient in their movement than IRL birds and have much less maneuverability. A good comparison is an airplane and a hot air balloon. they would most likely look like big balloons with small propulsive appendages on their back side.



                they would certainly be comical to watch go about their days.



                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltlJEdSAHw






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  They would definitely look very silly. They would by default have to have very low momentum in relation to air resistance so they would be much less efficient in their movement than IRL birds and have much less maneuverability. A good comparison is an airplane and a hot air balloon. they would most likely look like big balloons with small propulsive appendages on their back side.



                  they would certainly be comical to watch go about their days.



                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltlJEdSAHw






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  They would definitely look very silly. They would by default have to have very low momentum in relation to air resistance so they would be much less efficient in their movement than IRL birds and have much less maneuverability. A good comparison is an airplane and a hot air balloon. they would most likely look like big balloons with small propulsive appendages on their back side.



                  they would certainly be comical to watch go about their days.



                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltlJEdSAHw







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 3 hours ago









                  SdarbSdarb

                  992




                  992






















                      Matt W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Matt W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Matt W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Matt W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137009%2fwhat-would-birds-look-like-if-they-used-buoyancy-to-fight-gravity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Histoire des bourses de valeurs

                      Image
                      L’ histoire des bourses de valeurs retrace les étapes de l'émergence d'espaces de valorisation des obligations, qui dominent ainsi jusqu'au milieu du XIX e  siècle. Auparavant, le financement des armements navals vénitiens et hollandais sous la forme d'actions reste une exception. Elles prennent leur essor au XVIII e  siècle sur un marché déjà mondialisé, soutenu par les banques centrales et le Trésor public. L'émergence de la presse écrite, qui publie des listes de cours, puis du télégraphe, qui les diffuse rapidement, permet aux entreprises de faire connaître leur activité et aux actions de prendre le relais vers le milieu du XIX e  siècle, le développement des chemins de fer, de l'extraction de matières premières et précieuses s'ajoutant à celui des banques et des canaux. La Bourse reste affaire de territoires et concessions. Jusqu'au XX e  siècle, les entreprises industrielles n'y prennent qu'une place minoritaire, avant d'y connaît...
                      Read more

                      Why is there Russian traffic in my log files?

                      Image
                      0 My family's business runs a website with GoDaddy for promotional purposes. I checked the logs the other day and found some really strange traffic that I don't exactly understand: 188.234.248.201 - - [31/Jan/2019:10:22:26 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 301 241 "http://reduslimofficial.ru/about/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.140 Safari/537.36 Edge/17.17134" 185.127.17.253 - - [31/Jan/2019:10:23:15 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 301 237 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/23.0.1271.64 Safari/537.11" 216.244.66.244 - - [31/Jan/2019:11:06:44 -0700] "GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.1" 301 251 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; DotBot/1....
                      Read more

                      Rename multiple files to decrement number in file name?

                      Image
                      2 1 I have incorrectly named files which are unsynced by -1. The problem is I need to rename 1000s of them. DBGC180_805754 DBGC180_805755 DBGC180_805756 to DBGC180_805753 DBGC180_805754 DBGC180_805755 I would prefer using bash scripts or a unix command. rename filenames recursive share | improve this question edited Sep 29 '16 at 7:24 Wildcard 22.9k 10 65 169 asked Sep 27 '16 at 16:48 iamunix iamunix 14 1 ...
                      Read more