Earth Spin

[CraigD]

I wonder why as a child I had no problems with swings or roundabouts, or fairground rides, but as an adult I cannot stand any sudden changes in my body state or motion.

Though the precise anatomical and physiological causes are not well understood, it appears that nearly all children under 2 year of age are immune to motion sickness. This immunity fades, and people tend to be the most susceptible to motion sickness in general at age 4 to 10, then in most cases “grow out of” that peak susceptibility (from many sources, including this “overview” webpage).

 

The cause, though not understood in detail, must have to do with the development of the vestibular organs in your inner ear that allow you to sense acceleration and rotation, and the sight processing parts of your brain. Up to a certain age, you’re “too undeveloped” to experience motion sickness.

 

In any case, your experience of being immune or resistant to motion sickness as a child, but not as an adult isn’t uncommon, even if the scientific explanation for it is vague.

 

:) I watched a cool British TV program where they demonstrated this by making a tent-covered merry-go-round and spinning first young children, then the adult show staff, in it, showing that the children were completely unaffected, while the adults were queasy to violently ill. :( Annoyingly, despite lots of web searching, I couldn’t find a reference to that episode or anything about the show. If anybody can, I’d appreciate a link to it. I recall seeing the show within the past 5 years, and recall that its performers wore jumpsuits, and that it regularly featured scantily clad women blowing things up.

[Mintaka]

Though the precise anatomical and physiological causes are not well understood, it appears that nearly all children under 2 year of age are immune to motion sickness. This immunity fades, and people tend to be the most susceptible to motion sickness in general at age 4 to 10, then in most cases “grow out of” that peak susceptibility (from many sources, including this “overview” webpage).

 

The cause, though not understood in detail, must have to do with the development of the vestibular organs in your inner ear that allow you to sense acceleration and rotation, and the sight processing parts of your brain. Up to a certain age, you’re “too undeveloped” to experience motion sickness.

 

In any case, your experience of being immune or resistant to motion sickness as a child, but not as an adult isn’t uncommon, even if the scientific explanation for it is vague.

 

:) I watched a cool British TV program where they demonstrated this by making a tent-covered merry-go-round and spinning first young children, then the adult show staff, in it, showing that the children were completely unaffected, while the adults were queasy to violently ill. :( Annoyingly, despite lots of web searching, I couldn’t find a reference to that episode or anything about the show. If anybody can, I’d appreciate a link to it. I recall seeing the show within the past 5 years, and recall that its performers wore jumpsuits, and that it regularly featured scantily clad women blowing things up.

 

 

 

hahaha that sounds like British TV alright ( scantily clad women blowing things up!)....

 

I remember being much more affected by travel sickness in cars as a child. Often I remember this had more to do with a sense of nausea related to the plastic smell of the car uphosltery, and a conflict between my contradictory feeling of sitting in an enclosed cell or space while my eyes and brain were aware of movement by seeing the world flying by outside. I think the brain gets sick when it's confused by sensory input mainly (and emotional input too). I was immune to sickness on swings and roundabouts though. I think this is because there was no conflict in my childish mind. I KNEW i was spinning, i felt the wind in my face and embraced the thrill of the ride. As an adult the nausea and conflict comes from my mind not being open enough to its environment, a victim of it's own self-containment and need for control.

[modest]

:) I watched a cool British TV program where they demonstrated this by making a tent-covered merry-go-round and spinning first young children, then the adult show staff, in it, showing that the children were completely unaffected, while the adults were queasy to violently ill. :( Annoyingly, despite lots of web searching, I couldn’t find a reference to that episode or anything about the show. If anybody can, I’d appreciate a link to it. I recall seeing the show within the past 5 years, and recall that its performers wore jumpsuits, and that it regularly featured scantily clad women blowing things up.

 

I was thinking, that sounds like "Brainiac"—a sky one show I used to get when I pirated satellite TV. I did an internet search and oddly enough found:

 

What's your opinion on chidlren being trained as astronauts (being sent up into space very early so they have a greater affinity with microgravity) and doing their studies in space.

Since most adults who aren’t unusually susceptible to motion sickness appear able to adapt to microgravity readily enough, I didn’t initially give alxian’s question much thought. However, after a second reading, a substantial ethical concern, unrelated to the risks of spaceflight, comes to mind. Unfortunately, evidence supporting the claim on which my concern based is sketchy, including an episode of the TV show “Brainiac: Science Abuse” (a British science show know for questionable science, including outright faking of “experiments”).

 

Under a certain age (this is the sketchy part – sources give this age as anywhere from 2 year to 5, with, to my knowledge, no supporting experimental data), the vestibular systems of children are incompletely developed, making them neurologically incapable of motion sickness, which occurs when the motion detected by one’s vestibular system doesn’t agree with that detected by ones visual and other sensory systems. As these systems develop in a child, after an initial period of effective immunity to motion sickness, she/he tends to experience a period, sometimes many years long, in which her/his susceptibility is greater than it will be in adulthood.

 

The acquisition of basic perceptual neurological systems tend to be time-critical – for example, cats deprived of their sense of sight (eg: with eyes constantly closed or covered) during a several week period as kittens, are never able to acquire normal visual perception (see “Implications of the Hubel Wiesel experiments for how the blind dream” for more description).

 

I’m uncertain what the effects of a prolonged absence of normal gravity would have on a child’s neurological development. Possibly, they might never be able to develop the normal sense of balance necessary to do such things as walk upright on a planetary surface.

 

Ethical organizations, such as space agencies with the capability of placing a child or adult in microgravity for a long period, are unlikely to risk this – and possibly other - potentially devastating, permanent developmental disorders, unless the risk can be justified against a great potential gain in knowledge or for a particular child.

 

The only child I can imagine who might benefit from long exposure to microgravity would be one suffering from an conventionally incurable condition exacerbated by normal gravity, such as a very weak heart, circulatory system, or musculoskeletal system. Given current manned spaceflight technology, such a child would likely be at unacceptable risk of injury from the high forces experienced when being launched into space.

Wouldn't children get used to being in microgravity faster than adults? Living and working in a 3D environment without a gravity bias?

Possibly. However, such a benefit might require that the child be very young – under two years old. For reasons such as the one I describe above, the risk likely outweighs the potential benefit too greatly for such an experiment to be conducted

Have their been any studies on how quickly/well children adapt to microgravity?

None of which I’m aware.

 

:hihi:

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

 

Correct, he would not [feel any sensation of moving]. Even if he were going nearly the speed of light, so long as his speed is constant and he doesn't change direction, he would feel weightless with no sensation of movement at all as long as nothing is bumping into him.

 

Actually, his speed and direction need not be constant. If he is freely falling in a gravity field he would feel weightlessness with no sensation of movement, yet speed is not constant since he's accelerating, and direction can change (an orbital motion for example).

 

Just a thought to add to the mix...

 

CC

[Qfwfq]

If he is freely falling in a gravity field he would feel weightlessness with no sensation of movement,

...in a gravity field with a negligible gradient over the size of his capsule! So there! :P :pirate:

 

Yeah, just to make things more complicated, sure it's more precise to say: "as long as his ship is subject to no force other than a reasonably uniform gravitational field..." :rant: