Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:39 pm

Although you only see it in a couple sections of that last Youtube clip, such as where the SA continent splits from Africa and the Andes are pushed up as a result, and where Africa splits from Arab penin at the same time as India is separating from eastern Africa resulting in the Himalayas, the fact that the globe remains the same radius [regardless of subduction] shows that the ordinary view of continental drift is feasible. Splitting in one place results in compression in another. If subduction is occurring, it is unnecessary for the overall understanding of this simple model.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:25 am

I was doing a google image search and stumbled across an entire thread discussing dinosaurs, gravity, etc..., that I'd never seen before because it's over in The Human Question area. I've added a note to pop it up to the top again. Read the thread, people are all over the place in the discussion, and a bunch of threads were combined together, but there are tons of fun links. This is the post that caught my attention in the google image search.

Re: Rigorous study of size limits for flying creatures
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =30#p10782

The post before was from Ted Holden, and it was just sitting there, in the middle of this thread that has nothing to do with dinasaurs or flight.

Recovered: Tensegrity Structures in Biology
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 44&start=0

The fundamental thing when you read through the discussion is the unassailable fact that these animals are impossible on Earth in one gravity.

I then took the image and did an image search on a search engine someone pointed me to.

http://www.tineye.com/

BTW, This is a deeply scary search engine. I love it.

From that I found these LiveScience articles.
How Huge Flying Reptiles Got Airborne
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0901 ... light.html
Millions of years ago, giraffe-sized reptiles called pterosaurs launched into the air with a leap-frog maneuver, relying on all four limbs, suggests a new study that may solve a longstanding mystery.

Though not closely related to birds, pterosaurs (which means "winged lizards") likely were capable of powered flight. They are thought to have ruled the skies from more than 200 million years ago until the mass extinction event 65 million years ago that wiped them out along with most dinosaurs and many other plants and animals.

Once airborne, even the largest of these flyers, such as Quetzalcoatlus northropi whose wingspan reached 35 feet (10 m), could stay aloft by flapping their impressive wings.

But how did pterosaurs lift off the ground?
01.jpg
If man had lived 65 million years ago, here’s how he would have measured up to two of the flying reptiles known as pterosaurs. The massive 30-foot wingspan of the toothless pteranodon (left) was surpassed by that of Hatzegopteryx (right) at 40 feet or more. Illustration by Mark Witton.
02.jpg
A modern-day man and giraffe, drawn to scale, flank the extinct pterosaur known as Hatzegotpteryx. Illustration by Mark Witton.
Huge Flying Reptiles Ate Dinosaurs
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0805 ... ptile.html
With a name like T. rex, you'd expect to be safe from even the fiercest paleo-bullies. Turns out, ancient, flying reptiles could have snacked on Tyrannosaurus Rex babies and other landlubbing runts of the dinosaur world.

A new study reveals a group of flying reptiles that lived during the Age of Dinosaurs some 230 million to 65 million years ago did not catch prey in flight, but rather stalked them on land.

Until now, paleontologists pictured the so-called "winged lizards" or pterosaurs as skim-feeders. In this vision, the creatures would have flown over lakes and oceans grabbing fish from the water's surface, much as gulls do today.
03.jpg
A group of flying reptiles called Quetzalcoatlus may have strolled along a fern prairie eating baby dinosaurs for lunch. Credit: Mark Witton, University of Portsmouth.
This is a selection of other articles that were linked to at LiveScience.
Tale of Huge Reptiles Fishing While Flying Called False
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0707 ... oskim.html
Prehistoric flying reptiles known as pterosaurs are often pictured as skimming along the surface of water during flight with their mouths open, fishing on the wing.

Now scientists find this romantic Age of Dinosaurs vision unlikely. Any pterosaur trying this feeding method might have taken a nasty crash.

Pterosaurs, or "winged lizards," were the first creatures with a backbone to fly. They included the largest animals that ever flew, giants that reached more than 40 feet across in wingspan. (Despite the "saur" in their name, pterosaurs were not dinosaurs.)

How pterosaurs ate remains a mystery. Recently scientists pointed out jaw similarities between the extinct reptiles and modern birds known as skimmers (Rynchops), which graze water during flight seeking prey.
How Brachiosaurs Got So Huge
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0810 ... opods.html
Brachiosaurs and other long-necked giants of the dinosaur world weighed as much as 10 African elephants. Researchers now think they know why the tubby vegetarian beasts got so big: They swallowed high-energy foods whole.

Their small heads helped, too, by allowing those long necks to reach nutritious leaves high up in the trees.

With body lengths of more than 131 feet (40 m) and heights of 56 feet (17 m), sauropods dwarfed meat-eating dinosaurs and even the largest land mammals ever. Sauropods appeared on the scene about 210 million years ago in the Late Triassic and dominated Earth's ecosystems for more than 100 million years from the Middle Jurassic to the end of the Cretaceous.
Gulp! Long-Necked Dinosaurs Didn't Bother Chewing
http://www.livescience.com/animals/new- ... 00223.html
A mom's wise words about chewing your food likely got lost on a giant, long-necked dinosaur that lived about 105 million years ago in North America. That's according to analyses of four skulls from a newly identified dinosaur species.

"They didn't chew their food; they just grabbed it and swallowed it," said study team member Brooks Britt, a paleontologist at Brigham Young University.

Paleontologists discovered the four skulls, two of which whose bones were fully intact, from a quarry in Dinosaur National Monument in eastern Utah. Now called Abydosaurus mcintoshi, the dinosaur species is a type of sauropod (long-necked plant-eaters) and is most closely related to Brachiosaurus that lived 45 million years earlier.
Dinos' Veggie Diets Packed Surprising Punch
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080205-dino-gut.html
By mimicking the guts of the biggest dinosaurs, scientists now find the animals' diets of evergreens and ferns were more nourishing than previously thought.

These new findings help solve the mystery of how such dinosaurs reached huge sizes off seemingly poor food.

The largest animals to have ever lived on land were colossal vegetarians known as sauropods, which included the massive Apatosaurus (once known as Brontosaurus). Strong evidence reveals these herbivores may have reached up to 130 feet in length and 110 tons in weight, and sketchier data hint they might have grown even larger.

These enormous beasts must have relied mostly on ferns, gingkoes, conifers and similar plants, as the flowering plants we are most familiar with today did not dominate the globe until late into the Age of Dinosaurs. However, those plants are generally seen as very poor in nutritional value, because few animals eat such flora today.
If the sauropods had metabolisms similar to elephants, the scientists estimate a roughly 77-ton dinosaur would have had to eat more than four times the amount of dry plant matter necessary for an 11-ton elephant. Still, eating this much might not have been too much of a problem for the sauropods — they swallowed food whole without chewing it, meaning they could have consumed huge amounts of chow daily.
How Dinosaurs Got So Big
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0907 ... -size.html
The secret to mega-dinosaurs' impressive sizes may be that the reptiles used more of their energy for growing and less for keeping their bodies warm compared with some creatures.

A new model could help explain how some dinosaurs, such as long-necked sauropods, could have achieved masses of around 60 tons — about eight times the mass of an African elephant, the largest land animal alive today.

The two main factors that determine vertebrate size are the amount of available food and how the creature expends its energy, said researcher Brian K. McNab, a paleontologist at the University of Florida. For example, elephants can be quite large because they feed off grasses, a relatively abundant food supply as opposed to say, the nectar that hummingbirds and bees consume, McNab said.
04.jpg
Illustration of a sauropod. Sauropods are thought to be the largest dinosaurs and the biggest creatures ever to walk on land. Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
There is no way that the Sauropod could possibly exist as pictured in today's Earth at one gravity, and if all that doesn't drive you crazy, there is this article.
Dinosaurs Were Taller Than Thought
http://www.livescience.com/animals/gian ... 00930.html
As if dinosaurs weren't already giant to begin with, new research indicates they were even taller than was thought.

Although researchers had a good idea how tall dinosaurs stood based on their skeletons, it turns out that parts of their bodies that didn't fossilize might have boosted their height by at least 10 percent.

The ends of many dinosaurs' long bones, including leg bones such as the femur or tibia, are rounded and rough and lack major bony joint structures. Instead, very thick layers of cartilage probably helped form the joints connecting these bones, "and would have added significant height to certain dinosaurs," explained researcher Casey Holliday, an evolutionary anatomist at the University of Missouri. In contrast, mammals have bony joint structures and much less of the soft-tissue cartilage.
Not only is the dinosaur size a problem, but walking and running would be impossible as well. Look at these two articles.
Animations Reveal How Dinosaurs Might Have Walked
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0603 ... otion.html
When the American Museum of Natural History wanted to create a digital walking Tyrannosaurus rex for a new dinosaur exhibit, it turned to dinosaur locomotion experts John Hutchinson and Stephen Gatesy for guidance.

The pair found the process humbling.

With powerful computers and sophisticated modeling software, animators can take a pile of digital bones and move them in any way they want. This part is easy; but choosing the most likely motion from the myriad of possibilities proved difficult.

"We kind of took a step back and said 'Whoa, boy! Limbs are very complicated.' We can't just take a limb, connect the bones together and figure out how the animal moved," Hutchinson told LiveScience. "It's absolutely impossible."
Bus-Sized Dinosaur Breathed Like Birds
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0809 ... osaur.html
A huge carnivorous dinosaur that lived about 85 million years ago had a breathing system much like that of today's birds, a new analysis of fossils reveals, reinforcing the evolutionary link between dinos and modern birds.

The finding sheds light on the transition between theropods (a group of two-legged carnivorous dinosaurs) and the emergence of birds. Scientists think birds evolved from a group of theropods called maniraptors, some 150 million years ago during the Jurassic period, which lasted from about 206 million to 144 million years ago.

"It's another piece of evidence that's piling onto the list of things that link birds with dinosaurs," said researcher Jeffrey Wilson, a paleontologist at the University of Michigan.
08.jpg
This flesh rendering of the predator Aerosteon shows its lungs (red) and air sacs (other colors) as they might have been in life about 85 million years ago. Credit: Todd Marshall c 2008, courtesy of Project Exploration.
I started this post with the impossible size of the flying dinosaurs, now here is the ones with the longest neck, equally impossible on our current Earth.
Streeeetch! Long-neck Dinosaur Sets New Standard
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060320_new_dino.html
Scientists have identified a new dinosaur species that had one of the longest necks relative to body length ever measured.

A typical neck bone in this creature was about the size of two loaves of bread.

The species, Erketu ellisoni, belongs to the group of massive four-legged herbivorous dinosaurs called Sauropoda, the largest land animals ever to walk on Earth. This giant group also includes Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, and the largest of them all, the 120-foot long Argentinasaurus.

E. ellisoni had an extremely elongated neck. A single neck vertebra measures nearly two feet long, longer than the same vertebrae of the much larger Diplodocus carnegii.
Museums and movies have long reconstructed sauropods in postures similar to a giraffe—with their heads held high, grazing hard-to-reach leaves. But based on how vertebrae fit together, recent studies and computer modeling suggest that these dinosaurs may actually have walked with their necks and heads held parallel to the ground.
09.jpg
09.jpg (6.86 KiB) Viewed 12726 times
An artist rendering of Erketu ellisoni , the long-necked sauropod. Image courtesy Jason Brougham, AMNH, published here with permission.
10.jpg
The Argentinasaurus was the largest dinosaur. This herbivorous sauropod was 120 feet long and weight 100 tons. Credit: Joe Tucciarone
Think about how crazy the articles read.

- Flying dinosaurs weighing 500 pounds leapt into the air from all fours.

- Dinosaurs got big by eating high energy foods.

- A 77-ton dinosaur would have had to eat more than four times the amount of dry plant matter necessary for an 11-ton elephant.

Track down the Ted Holden book that I have mentioned before, Dinosaurs, Gravity, and Changing Scientific Paradigms for his description of how impossible all these animals are, based on a one gravity Earth. Fun book.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:27 am

It always makes me laugh when scientists state that these long necks were held horizontally. Why would nature even need to evolve such a design. It makes absolutely no sense. It's must be for height. What possible other advantage could it have? Not to mention the fact that the muscles required to hold it horizontal would need to be immense and defeat any purpose. If I know anything about nature it's that it's efficient and it would be far more efficient to just walk a bit closer to wherever your head needed to be.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:19 pm

I spent a long time looking at the Diplodocus longus skeleton while visiting the Nat'l Museum of Natural History in Wash DC a few years back, with the same question in mind as you bring up here. Generally one can infer musculature from the structures of the bones particularly surrounding the shoulders and pelvis. But I had a very difficult time visualizing what musculature could hold such a neck horizontally. There is one design inference that can be drawn, however, and it is one that is no longer commonly depicted in reconstructions of the sauropods -- a swampy or shallow aquatic habit. The easiest way to "defeat" gravity on Earth is to get in the water. Here is an older artist conception, but I picture a more horizontal neck "resting" on the water surface:
http://www.cubetopia.com/wp-content/upl ... mbembe.jpg
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:13 pm

Here is the image webolife mentioned.
mokele-mbembe.jpg
webolife wrote:But I had a very difficult time visualizing what musculature could hold such a neck horizontally.
That's what the tensegrity discussion was all about.

Whatever reason caused the Sauropod to have a long neck and tail, how they carried them, etc..., does not change the fact that they impossibly existed at all. Impossible that is on an Earth at one gravity.

The main thing that you have to remember, just like a giraffe, the neck has to be able to support being extended or the animal would die. This is the same point Holden made about elephants. If the elephant can't get up from the ground, it dies. Elephants are as big as you can get in today's one gravity, anything larger would be unable to stand up, much less lift a long neck or tail like the Sauropod

What blows my mind is the article about how the animals were longer/taller than we first thought because science missed the fact of the cartilage thickness between the bones.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:17 am

webolife wrote:I spent a long time looking at the Diplodocus longus skeleton while visiting the Nat'l Museum of Natural History in Wash DC a few years back, with the same question in mind as you bring up here. Generally one can infer musculature from the structures of the bones particularly surrounding the shoulders and pelvis. But I had a very difficult time visualizing what musculature could hold such a neck horizontally. There is one design inference that can be drawn, however, and it is one that is no longer commonly depicted in reconstructions of the sauropods -- a swampy or shallow aquatic habit. The easiest way to "defeat" gravity on Earth is to get in the water. Here is an older artist conception, but I picture a more horizontal neck "resting" on the water surface:
http://www.cubetopia.com/wp-content/upl ... mbembe.jpg
But why would nature devise such a cumbersome appendage if the animal could just wade a little closer. And if these animals were mainly water bound evolution would have adapted a more efficient body structure for getting about in water. Fins, flippers etc. These thing were evolving for billions of generations. Excuses are always made for these problems to try and get round the fact that these animals had a land based physiology with long necks because they evolved on land and needed to reach very high food. That it doesn't fit other geological presumptions is more likely because those geological presumptions are wrong.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:19 am

Duplicate post

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by StefanR » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:38 am

allynh wrote:
Here is the image webolife mentioned.
mokele-mbembe.jpg
webolife wrote:But I had a very difficult time visualizing what musculature could hold such a neck horizontally.
That's what the tensegrity discussion was all about.

Whatever reason caused the Sauropod to have a long neck and tail, how they carried them, etc..., does not change the fact that they impossibly existed at all. Impossible that is on an Earth at one gravity.
Well if the only reference you are using are some Livescience articles or pictures of mokele-mbembe, the fabulous remaing dinosaur in the Congo, I personnaly think you will not come any further in understanding. What the tensegrity discussion about that subject more clearly showed, is that using the size of animals as an argument of a growing earth or changing gravity is not such a wise thing. Often arguments taking the size of certain animals as impossible use modeling and preconceptions which are outdated or negligent of the progression which is taking place in the field of that part of science.
For instance that example of the positioning of the neck is no longer accepted and if Webolife would go to the Museum in Berlin (a very nice museum!) he might be delighted to see that they mounted the skeleton with a lot more reason.
Image

Or perhaps find a vast amount of articles about neck posture here:
http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv ... k-posture/
The main thing that you have to remember, just like a giraffe, the neck has to be able to support being extended or the animal would die. This is the same point Holden made about elephants. If the elephant can't get up from the ground, it dies. Elephants are as big as you can get in today's one gravity, anything larger would be unable to stand up, much less lift a long neck or tail like the Sauropod
Mammals are not the same as those large dinosaurs or large pterosaurs. Again one of the things in that Tensegrity-thread is the fact that it also mentiones the cunning coincidence of the use of a structural function that seems to be applied in a progressive way in relation to the size of the largest animals involved. Although mammals do use this function mostly in there skulls, the bigger dinosaurs and pterosaurs had the possibility to use it in almost the whole of the skeleton, large parts of their internal soft-tissue volume aside. But read for yourself:
The vertebrae of sauropod dinosaurs are characterized by complex architecture involving laminae, fossae, and internal chambers of various shapes and sizes. These structures are interpreted as osteological correlates of a system of air sacs and pneumatic diverticula similar to that of birds. In extant birds, diverticula of the cervical air sacs pneumatize the cervical and anterior thoracic vertebrae. Diverticula of the abdominal air sacs pneumatize the posterior thoracic vertebrae and synsacrum later in ontogeny. This ontogenetic sequence in birds parallels the evolution of vertebral pneumaticity in sauropods. In basal sauropods, only the presacral vertebrae were pneumatized, presumably by diverticula of cervical air sacs similar to those of birds. The sacrum was also pneumatized in most neosauropods, and pneumatization of the proximal caudal vertebrae was achieved independently in Diplodocidae and Titanosauria. Pneumatization of the sacral and caudal vertebrae in neosauropods may indicate the presence of abdominal air sacs. Air sacs and skeletal pneumaticity probably facilitated the evolution of extremely long necks in some sauropod lineages by overcoming respiratory dead space and reducing mass. In addition, pulmonary air sacs may have conveyed to sauropods some of the respiratory and thermoregulatory advantages enjoyed by birds, a possibility that is consistent with the observed rapid growth rates of sauropods.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... p=175#p175
Pterosaurs represent one clade of extinct archosauriforms for which pneumaticity of the
postcranial skeleton has been inferred based on morphological comparisons with extant birds.
Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in living birds is derived from an extensive pulmonary air sac system, diverticula of which invade components of the postcranium, thus resulting in an air-filled skeleton. The skeletal manifestation(s) of pneumaticity, pneumatic foramina and/or fossae in communication with large internal bony cavities, are characteristic osteological correlates related to the presence of a heterogeneously-partitioned (i.e. one with distinct exchange and non-exchange regions) pulmonary apparatus. An air-filled skeleton in a flying animal no doubt serves a variety of functions, perhaps none as important as allowing a disproportionate increase in volume without the typical mass increase observed in the majority of terrestrial vertebrates.
Pneumatic features in individual bones of pterosaurs form the basis for numerous inferences,
including (1) the identification of the presence of a heterogeneously-partitioned pulmonary system and (2) hypotheses regarding specific components (e.g., individual diverticula) of the pulmonary apparatus.
For example, pneumatic foramina on the lateral surface of cervical vertebral centra in certain
pterosaurs (e.g., Anhanguera) indicate the presence of lateral vertebral diverticula in the neck, likely originating from a cranial section of the pulmonary system. Patterns of whole-body pneumaticity can provide important phylogenetic data and are perhaps related to ecological specializations and/or body size evolution within different groups. For example, it is only in the largest pterosaurs (e.g., certain pterodactyloids) that distal forelimb elements such as
syncarpals and phalanges are pneumatized. A similar pattern of distal forelimb pneumaticity and very large body size is also observed in some clades of living birds (e.g., pelicans, vultures, bustards), underscoring a possible functional linkage between body size evolution and the ability to pneumatize the postcranial skeleton, thereby decoupling typical volume—mass relationships. We hypothesize that the ability to pneumatize the postcranium via a pulmonary air sac system underlies the rapid body size diversification apparent in the Upper Jurassic/Cretaceous radiation of pterodactyloids generally, and was critical in the evolution of extremely large size (> 5 m wingspan) in several ornithocheiroids and azhdarchoids
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 865#p11865

Does Ted Holden take into account this issue of pneumaticity in his calculations and reasonings?
What blows my mind is the article about how the animals were longer/taller than we first thought because science missed the fact of the cartilage thickness between the bones.
That is indeed very odd as all the mounted skeletons do mount them with space between the joints. Why should that be?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:04 pm

StefanR, beautiful picture, beautiful link. I will have great fun reading through and harvesting the articles. BTW, go to the link and save a pdf copy of his paper before it vanishes.

Who owns my sauropod history paper?
October 13, 2010
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/w ... ory-paper/

I won't try to reargue the discussion you guys had over on the tensegrity thread, or what Holden discusses in his book. It is easier to read through the thread again, and to buy Holden's book rather than me try to argue with you. Simply look at that beautiful picture from the museum, and see the scale of the animal compared to the people walking at the base, then look back at the size comparison of people to the pterosaurs. There is no way those animals could exist on a one gravity Earth. None.

Tensegrity is an awesome concept, but tensegrity cannot violate the physics of flight. Look at the video that you linked to in the tensegrity thread, then imagine a pterosaur, the exact same size as the giraffe, actually flying today. Impossible.

Giraffe drinking at Nkorho Pan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_V0VBSGE0

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by StefanR » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:42 pm

allynh wrote:StefanR, beautiful picture, beautiful link. I will have great fun reading through and harvesting the articles. BTW, go to the link and save a pdf copy of his paper before it vanishes.

Who owns my sauropod history paper?
October 13, 2010
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/w ... ory-paper/
Glad you like the link, I found it very informative and there is a lot more there.
allynh wrote:I won't try to reargue the discussion you guys had over on the tensegrity thread, or what Holden discusses in his book. It is easier to read through the thread again, and to buy Holden's book rather than me try to argue with you. Simply look at that beautiful picture from the museum, and see the scale of the animal compared to the people walking at the base, then look back at the size comparison of people to the pterosaurs. There is no way those animals could exist on a one gravity Earth. None.
I didn't know that I was so difficult to argue with. :oops:
Now I have read the thread and you seem to have read and like Ted Holden's book, as you found it fun. So I'm just curious as to which arguments Holden gives that make you say they could not exist in this gravity level. I've been in Berlin and have seen the mounted skeleton and it is huge indeed. And here is a link to some reconstuctions in London of Pterosaurs at 1:1 scale.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10322177
And yes indeed they are quite large. But still I personally see no reason for them not being able to function in a gravity-level equivalent to today. The Pterosaurs could fly with ease as shown in the Tensegrity-thread. Simple hanggliders can lift a little of the veil that mystery, assisted with the special adaptations of the Pterosaurs.
Quite the same with the larger dinosaurs. Again that was also in the Tensegrity-Thread and showed that dinosaurs also had airsacs and pneumatized bones, quite like birds.
I can not imagine that Ted Holden only says that by looking at a picture, he is able to say that these animals were impossible? So what convinces you aside from just looking at the picture?
allynh wrote:Tensegrity is an awesome concept, but tensegrity cannot violate the physics of flight. Look at the video that you linked to in the tensegrity thread, then imagine a pterosaur, the exact same size as the giraffe, actually flying today. Impossible.

Giraffe drinking at Nkorho Pan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_V0VBSGE0
Again a mammal like the giraffe does not have pneumatized post-cranial bones. Here an other one of those Pterosaurs:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology ... london.php
Large? Yes Impossible? I don't think so. But apart from the fact that from images they look like they cannot exist, what other argument is there that convinces you that is true?
Here some more active giraffes 8-) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HCIGFdBt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63hi_fU0zs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxpKwl1jOug
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:40 am

StefanR,

What are your views regarding meganeura and their ability to fly?

Ther were some discussion earlier on this thread, pages 24-26, for reference.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:13 pm

StefanR wrote:So I'm just curious as to which arguments Holden gives that make you say they could not exist in this gravity level.
Excellent, that means that you will enjoy the book when you read it.

Great BBC videos, those guys were nuts trying to set things up during the night.

Look at your fighting giraffe videos, that proves the point that Pterosaurs flying or walking in one gravity is impossible. The giraffes are so big, that they have a hard time even getting up from the ground when they are down.
StefanR wrote:The Pterosaurs could fly with ease as shown in the Tensegrity-thread. Simple hanggliders can lift a little of the veil that mystery, assisted with the special adaptations of the Pterosaurs.
Sorry, but a giraffe weighs over a ton. Yes, Pterosaurs had hollow bones, but that only reduces the weight a small amount.

Giraffe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe
The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest of all land-living animal species, and the largest ruminant. The giraffe's scientific name, which is similar to its antiquated English name of camelopard, refers to its irregular patches of color on a light background, which bear a token resemblance to a leopard's spots. The average mass for an adult male giraffe is 1,200 kilograms (2,600 lb) while the average mass for an adult female is 830 kilograms (1,800 lb).[3][4] It is approximately 4.3 metres (14 ft) to 5.2 metres (17 ft) tall, although the tallest male recorded stood almost 6 metres (20 ft).[3][4]
Let's be real here. Look at hang gliders, and remember you are saying that Pterosaurs were one ton hang gliders. In Albuquerque, hang gliders routinely launch from the Sandia Crest. That is a nearly shear cliff face one mile above the Rio Grande Valley. Those hang gliders, fully loaded with two people might weigh 500 pounds, not a ton, and they can only fly a short distance, not hundreds of miles.

Hang gliding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_glider

Now look at this video of a Vulture.

Savanna Vulture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPXnFeB6ihA

Vulture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture

They weigh over twenty pounds, and when they are full of food they can barely lift off. Twenty pounds is 1% of a one ton Pterosaurs and it can barely fly after eating.

Once again, let's be real. If you use the hang glider analogy, then a one ton Pterosaur would have to climb a hill or mountain to be able to launch itself into the air, glide for a while then land.

Plus, if you have a giraffe size Pterosaurs having to walk miles and up hills then they are dead. Predators would simply line up waiting for dinner. A Pterosaurs that can't launch from the ground, like the vulture does to escape a predator, is dead.

A hang glider can stay up for a bit if they have thermals. The Pterosaurs routinely crossed oceans in their life cycle. A hang glider can't cross an ocean.

Walking With Dinosaurs: The Long Migration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QH3lmjVz1c

Yes, the video is computer graphics, but those Pterosaurs were one ton giraffe size animals. If they were not able to take off from the ground, like in the video, they were dead. And, as the Walking With Dinosaurs series pointed out, they routinely migrated long distances. One ton hang gliders can't launch from the ground or fly hundreds of miles, Pterosaurs could and did, but that is impossible on a one gravity Earth.

Episode Four: "Giant of the Skies"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_Wi ... e_Skies.22
Episode Four: "Giant of the Skies"
127, 000, 000 BC - Early Cretaceous - Brazil, North America, England, Spain

The story begins with a male Ornithocheirus dead on a beach. It then goes back six months to Brazil, where the Ornithocheirus flies off for Cantabria among a colony of Tapejara. He flies past a migrating column of Iguanodon and a Polacanthus. He reaches the southern tip of North America, where he is forced to shelter from a storm. To pass the time, he grooms himself, ridding his body of Saurophthirus. Then he sets off across the Atlantic, which was then only 300 kilometers wide and, after a whole day on the wing, reaches the westernmost of the European islands. He does not rest here, as a pack of Utahraptor are hunting Iguanodon. He flies to the outskirts of a forest, but is driven away by Iberomesornis. He reaches Cantabria, but was delayed by the storm and cannot reach the center of the many grounded male Ornithocheirus. Consequently, he does not mate and dies from exhaustion.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:23 am

Hi Allynh,

I don't really get it. Giraffes are not comparable with Pterosaurs, but still you take this image and you say the Pterosaur was of the same weight. That is not true. The highest weight estimates of the largest species range from 70 to 250 kg. My question to you is, can you show me a link to were it is stated that Pterosaurs could weigh a 1000 kg?
(As a sideline I believe the image you refer to has been discredited as the reconstruction was based on a small piece of bone which was later analyzed to be a piece of wood and by footprints that after analyses was from a dinosaur and not a Pterosaur. I can't find the link as of yet so perhaps I can find it later)

Here a bit from actual research:
Wing structure and flight capability.

Research into pterosaur flight has principally focused on ornithocheiroids like Pteranodon [15], [66]–[69] and Anhanguera [70], with some studies investigating multiple pterosaur taxa [16], [71], [72]. Azhdarchid flight has yet to be researched in great detail and some controversy surrounds their flight capability. Paul [73] and Frey et al. [74] concluded that azhdarchids would be able to perform prolonged flapping flight using large flight muscles, with Paul [73] suggesting this for even the largest forms. Other workers have argued that the flight muscles of large pterosaurs were not sufficient to maintain flapping flight [16]–[18], [75] and that they were dynamic soarers akin to modern albatrosses [16], [18]. Similar conclusions were drawn by Lawson [2], but vulture-like static soaring was suggested rather than dynamic soaring.

Drawing conclusions about the flight of pterosaurs is problematic due to our limited understanding of their paleobiology. Modelling flight is particularly difficult for the larger forms due to the lack of equivalently sized extant analogues [72]: the absence of such creates problems in estimating the masses of giant pterosaurs, a critical value in modelling even basic flight attributes such as wing loading and flight speed. Despite many attempts at estimating the masses of giant azhdarchids, little agreement has been achieved. Langston [17] suggested a Quetzalcoatlus with an 11–12 m wingspan may have weighed 86 kg and, with a 15.5 m wingspan, 136 kg. Citing Bramwell and Whitfield's [15] aeronautical work with a lightweight Pteranodon, Wellnhofer [24] suggested that an 86 kg estimate for a 10 m span Quetzalcoatlus could be too high and that its weight may have been comparable to modern ultra-light aircraft. Shipman [76] suggested that an azhdarchid of similar size would have a mass of 126 kg. The results of a multivariate analysis by Atanassov and Strauss [77] gave mass estimates of 90–120 kg depending on body density, but similar techniques used by Templin [78] and Chatterjee and Templin [16] produced estimates of 62–77 kg, a range of figures also cited by Witton [32]. A similar mass of 70 kg was produced by Brower and Veinus [71] using regression analysis of geometrically modelled pterosaurs. Considerably higher estimates are given by Marden [79] and Paul [73] at 200–250 kg, but calculations by Chatterjee and Templin [16] suggest a pterosaur of this magnitude would never become airborne. These calculations are contradicted by Marden [79], and other workers have criticised lower mass estimates for being impossibly low [66], [73], [80].

It is noteworthy that all mass estimates of azhdarchids have been based on methods for which pterosaur soft tissue density has to be estimated. Many pterosaurs exhibited extensive skeletal pneumaticity (e.g. [31], [81]) and azhdarchid vertebrae and humeri were clearly pneumatised [29], [40]. We therefore assume that azhdarchids exhibited pneumaticity in both their soft tissue anatomy as well as in their skeleton. However, given that pneumaticity has been shown to vary considerably among extant birds [82] and has a significant impact on mass estimates [83], we know too little about pterosaur anatomy to accurately predict their masses using density-dependent calculating techniques. A regression analysis of dry skeletal mass relative to total body mass [84], a technique that avoids the complications of estimating body density, generates a mass of 250 kg for a 10 m span azhdarchid, a figure matching the higher mass estimates of Paul [73], [80] and Marden [79]. Moreover, calculating the body volume of a giant azhdarchid suggests that soft tissue densities have to be less than 0.25 g/cm3 in order to allow masses of under 125 kg (Witton, unpublished data). We note that the masses of not only giant azhdarchids but all pterosaurs have been grossly underestimated and suggest that the flight calculations based on these hyper-lightweight estimates be treated with caution.

Some conclusions on azhdarchid flight can be drawn from their wing morphology alone. Wing planform is highly diagnostic of flight style in extant animals [85], but controversy over the shape of the pterosaur brachiopatagium has resulted in multiple interpretations of azhdarchid flight style. Langston [17], Wellnhofer [24] and Chatterjee and Templin [16] reconstructed azhdarchids with narrow brachiopatagia extending to the top of the hindlimbs, whereas Frey et al. [74] suggested that the membrane extended to the ankle, forming a much broader wing. No fossilised azhdarchid wing membranes are known, but evidence from anurognathids, campylognathoidids, rhamphorhynchids, ctenochasmatoids and non-azhdarchid azhdarchoids [86]–[91] indicates that ankle-attached wing configurations are more accurate.

Many authors have noted the relatively short wing configuration of azhdarchids, with their abbreviated distal wing phalanges contrasting with their long forearms, the latter a result of hyper-elongate wing metacarpals [12], [16], [17], [74]. These short wings contrast with long hindlimbs, a condition resulting from proportionally elongate femora [12], [17], [74]. Consequently, the forelimb-hindlimb ratio (length of humerus+radius+wing metacarpal/length of femur+tibia) of azhdarchids is low: Chatterjee and Templin [16] suggested a ratio for Quetzalcoaltus of 1.13, one of the lowest limb ratios for any pterodactyloid. This contrasts with the limb ratio of 1.45 present in Zhejiangopterus: a more typical pterodactyloid limb ratio (unfortunately, a precise ratio for a complete wing to hindlimb length cannot be given as no complete azhdarchid wing fingers have yet been described). Consequently, with their abbreviated wing fingers and long hindlimbs incorporated into the wing membrane, azhdarchids possessed relatively short, broad wings. Reconstructing the azhdarchid wing with broad brachiopatagia (wing shape derived from the ‘dark wing’ Rhamphorhynchus [91]) generates an aspect ratio of 8.1 (Figure 5), a value comparable to the aspects of modern storks, raptors and bats that engage in static soaring [85], [92]–[94]. With the relatively low wing loading that such broad wings produce, it is likely that large azhdarchids were also static soarers, using the warmed, rising air of thermals to gain altitude before soaring cross-country. Smaller azhdarchids may have been more capable of complementing gliding with sustained flapping flight than larger forms due to their lower masses and less demanding energetic requirements [16], [72]. These observations are supported by principal component analysis of azhdarchid wing form, with 10 m and 3 m span taxa plotting in the same ecomorphospace as condors, ibises and other thermal soarers [see 85 for further details]. The shape of azhdarchid wings implies that, like modern static soarers, they would have had relatively small turning radii when soaring, but comparatively poor glide performance compared to longer, narrower-winged forms [85], [92]. However, their broad wing area would act in concert with the deep camber produced by the elongate pteroid [40] to generate greater lift than that present in the narrower wing planform of dynamic soarers [70], [92]. This may have been crucial for azhdarchids, allowing them to take off in cluttered inland habitats where wind and topography are too variable to always allow an assisted takeoff. Additionally, it is of obvious benefit to have short, broad wings when taking off in vegetated inland settings [85]. That azhdarchids appear to have wings well adapted for flight in terrestrial environments correlates well with the regular occurrence of azhdarchid fossils in terrestrial strata.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0002271

SO again my question to you, where is there a mention of a Pterosaur of a 1000 kg?
When the highest estimate is about 200 -250 kg, how does that relate to you hangglider of 500 pounds?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:33 am

Aardwolf wrote:StefanR,

What are your views regarding meganeura and their ability to fly?

Ther were some discussion earlier on this thread, pages 24-26, for reference.
Why would it not have the ability to fly? As again I see no objections to it flying. But perhaps you have found new
arguments in the mean time?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:34 am

Pterosaur.Net
:: Myths and Misconceptions
Common misconceptions about size

Some pterosaurs have been portrayed in the popular literature, and in films and cartoons, as being the wrong size. Mostly this is because certain pterosaurs—namely Pterodactylus and Rhamphorhynchus from Upper Jurassic Europe—have served as templates for imaginary generic pterosaurs. In the movies The Land That Time Forgot (1975) and The People That Time Forgot (1977), for example, the pterosaurs are Pteranodon-sized (with wingspans of 5 metres or more), but they are clearly based on Pterodactylus, a form in which the wingspan was usually less than 1 m. Comic stories have also depicted Rhamphorhynchus and Dimorphodon as similarly gigantic, whereas in fact both had wingspans of less than 1.5 m.
That super-gigantic pterosaur

To date, the largest known pterosaurs are members of the Cretaceous azhdarchid group like Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx: these animals had wingspans of 10-12 m. However, in 2005 came the exciting news that evidence for an even larger pterosaur had been discovered: supposedly, a wing fragment from the Jordan and a trackway from Mexico indicated the presence of a new type of gigantic azhdarchid with an 18 m wingspan. This news, announced at a scientific conference by a colleague who shall remain nameless, was picked up by journalists and reported in newspapers and on radios all around the world. Unfortunately, the evidence for this super-pterosaur turned out to be erroneous. The bone turned out to be a piece of fossil wood and the trackway had not been produced by a giant pterosaur, but by a predatory dinosaur. Oh well.
http://www.pterosaur.net/myths.php
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests