Talk:Sense of balance

message: It seems to me quite unlikely that fluid would take several minutes to lose momentum, indeed I would expect it to be almost instantaneous given the size of the canals and likely viscosity. More likely this is similar to the persistence of vision where the optic sensors get 'tired'?--Rjstott 04:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I find an easy way to remember this as being one of those builders tools to check if a surface is level and flat. 62.136.152.223 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Estibular System

message: Could equilibrioception be considered a homeostatic process? 72.67.27.145 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equilibrioception as homeostasis? 

message: I have arrived at the Wiki page as I have been trying to find out if balance can be improved.  It would seem like a reasonable thing to include in the main article as it is so fundamental to many sports (& to health).  I am interested in it from a sports perspective.  There are many exercises which claim to "improve your balance", but what I wonder is, have you just learnt to do that exercise?  For example, if I learn to walk the tightrope, has my balance improved, or have I just learnt to walk the tightrope?  Somewhat philosophical but there must be some measure of "balance ability" that is independent of the exercise you practised.
80.229.162.156 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Balance be Improved?

message: Balance is NOT primarily governed by vision, but by a differencial reference point presumed to be stationary with respect to the current momentum derived from the equilibrium sensors.
There is such a thing as blindfolded balance, and it is trained for in areas such as aviation and ice skating twirls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.8.124 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masking error. 

message: Have placed this at the end of the page before Other animals. This section was recently added by a new editor who clearly hadn't looked into the Wiki guidelines. The references provided are not entered up correctly and some may not even be suitable; there is a repetition of certain bits of information; there is a lot of content completely uncited. Have placed this section further down, still keeping the heading but treating it more as a summary. The section is in real need of attention. Hardly any links are provided and it is quite badly written up. But there may be useful content to retrieve. Let's see if it can be made good.  Or it may be felt that it should be removed for improvement first. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New section System overview

message: I see that this article has been moved by  without discussion in reversal of a move discussed above. I do not have any strong opinions on the better title, but feel that reversal of a move should generally be considered a thing to be done after discussion, and not without any warning. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back following a technical move request from a third party citing lack of discussion. The previous title Equilibrioception has been left as a valid redirect. This does not preclude or prejudice a proposed move discussion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move