Are the planets growing?

[Grey Cloud]

Hmmn.

How much uplift must be observed in earthquake locations world-wide before it becomes apparent uplifted geology in the wake of earthquakes is conclusive proof that Earth's expansion is the cause of the world's earthquakes?

I don't see how this uplift is 'conclusive proof' of anything. If the Earth is growing then why should it a) grow only around certain areas (i.e. quake zones) and b) why would it only grow in spurts (quakes) rather than continuously/gradually?
Re a), one could ask why are quake zones not a lot higher than non-quake zones.

There are on average 20,000 detected earthquakes every year. Probably a lot more go undetected but thats still over 2 every hour. That's pretty gradual.

I would suggest that the vast majority of those quakes occur in the various earthquake belts/zones. If that is the case then the terrain in those areas should be rising on an almost continual basis.

Aalso Aardwolf has me confused. He seems to be aadvocating that the Earth both grows and shrinks with his commments on variable/changing gravity. I may have hold of the wrong end of the stick there but if he is then how does that sit with growth from quake uplift, i.e. how does the Earth shrink again?

I have never said or intimated anything of the kind.

Sorry, it was Allyn's comments on variable gravity which confused me.

How many flightless predators are there?

Lots.

[webolife]

Anaconda. Please. You are now attacking my credibility due to your opinionated dislike of what you think my assumptions are. This is ad hominem, and an attempt to play on biases in your readers. I do not "retire for a while". I actually work hard for a living teaching science and math to middle schoolers, 33rd year, not stopping any time soon. I'm not promoting my view on this thread, I am questioning yours. I have never attacked your credibility, just questioned your viewpoint, a scientific endeavor. Vertical displacement is commonly presented as uplift for the very reason that I dispute your assumption that continental drift requires subduction on a static earth. Let me give you a specific example: The 1964 Good Friday earthquake produced vertical displacements up to 50 meters in parts of Alaska, and tsunamis on the same scale. Surely this must count as one of your best evidences of an expanding earth? Yet the radius of the earth was not measured to have increased by 50 meters in a mere 45 seconds... in fact, as you seem to have conceded, it is not possible[?] to measure this kind of expansion? I think subduction may or may not be possible, but it is simply unnecessary! The mountainous areas of earth are where continual "uplift" is observed, at the rate of a fingernail's growth in a number of locations. And yet your model has the mountainous regions as NOT being uplifted but merely folded by horizontal forces of an increasing radius, while the SM has them being uplifted by horizontal forces of continental drift. At the same time, trench zones often paralleling the mountain ranges show a downward displacement of even greater depth than the mountains are high. Now by the same logic you use for GET, the earth could be REDUCING its radius, as shown by the deep trenches, and the shrinking of the crust could be produciing the folding of the mountains worldwide. Whatever is causing the shrinking in one area could be pulling on other parts of the crust causing them to split. Subduction could or may not even be part of this scenario, because the depth of the continental "roots" beneath mountains could account for the matter pulled from the spreading zones. Vertical displacement under such a paradigm, however would be viewed as a shrinking radius. But then, I don't believe there is any evidence for a shrinking earth as such... and I'm betting money you agree with me here. Whatever you believe, that will be how you "see" the evidence. I'm for a relatively static earth, and that's the evidence I see, regardless of where may be displacement, or expansion, or compression evidences... there are plenty of each, and plenty of theories to be had.

[Aardwolf]

Lots.

You're being a little obtuse. You know I was refering to birds.

[Aardwolf]

The 1964 Good Friday earthquake produced vertical displacements up to 50 meters in parts of Alaska, and tsunamis on the same scale. Surely this must count as one of your best evidences of an expanding earth? Yet the radius of the earth was not measured to have increased by 50 meters in a mere 45 seconds...

This is really just nonsense. You state the effect is "in parts" yet suggest this should affect the whole earth. You would need thousands of miles of this to effect the earth.

Meaningless strawman.

[allynh]

Meaningless strawman.

I agree.

I read through webolife's post and could not make out what he was actually stating. As far as I could tell, he both agrees and disagrees with everybody; all in the same paragraph. Look back to the start of the thread, read through all of webolife's posts, and you will not be able to state what his viewpoint is other than, "I doubt what you are saying."

I've said before that I would love to see what his model of the Earth actually is. That he should start his own thread and lay everything out for people to see, but he won't. To bad, I bet it would be great.

If he chooses his role to just doubt everything said, I'll take that as a given and not bother to respond to any comments he makes.

BTW, That is the one thing wrong with this thread format on the Forum, there is no ignore this user button. Though I suspect, that if that option were ever implemented on the Forum that people would click on ignore all of my posts as well. Ha!

[Grey Cloud]

Lots.

You're being a little obtuse. You know I was refering to birds.

So was I.

[Aardwolf]

Lots.

You're being a little obtuse. You know I was refering to birds.

So was I.

OK which ones?

[Aardwolf]

Meaningless strawman.

I agree.

I read through webolife's post and could not make out what he was actually stating. As far as I could tell, he both agrees and disagrees with everybody; all in the same paragraph. Look back to the start of the thread, read through all of webolife's posts, and you will not be able to state what his viewpoint is other than, "I doubt what you are saying."

I've said before that I would love to see what his model of the Earth actually is. That he should start his own thread and lay everything out for people to see, but he won't. To bad, I bet it would be great.

If he chooses his role to just doubt everything said, I'll take that as a given and not bother to respond to any comments he makes.

BTW, That is the one thing wrong with this thread format on the Forum, there is no ignore this user button. Though I suspect, that if that option were ever implemented on the Forum that people would click on ignore all of my posts as well. Ha!

I dont think there is essentially anything wrong with playing devils advocate. It promotes thinking and better understaning ergo better theories as a result. However, the arguments need to make logical sense or its just arguing for the sake of it rather than anything constructive.

[StefanR]

But if gravity is determinate for size, why is it so strange to ask if insects without that impediment grow larger?

Ok, where’s the research for muliti generation insect growth (or lack of) in space?[/size]

Well I don't know. Insects have gone up in space for experimentation, but as of yet I can not find any unexpected increases in size reported. But suppose they would do such an experiment, do you think it would get the insects to grow larger?

If you wish to know, look up one of the links or read about how trachae work and how its function is different to mammalian or bird respiration. As for how dragonflies fly, if you do not know that, how can you say that Meganeura didn't fly? I'm hesitant to give you an explanation or a link to any such information, as you have the habit of not reading what is offered to you. Why don't you look it up if you do not know? Hint: Dragonfly wingbeat is a special kind among insects, go see!

So you can’t establish why dragonflies can fly without 35% oxygen. Ok.

Apologies for my misunderstanding here, but are you asking for the how or the why? Just for clarification of the question.

Do you really think it is that simpel? Nature is not a mathematical equation, I thought you knew that coming here at TB. And all those big Beetles all fly, irrespective of their weight.

Close enough for a ball park figure. And adult beetles do not exist over 45 to 50 grams no matter how many times you say they do. I find it hard to believe that someone who presents themselves as knowledgeable is unable to discover the flying weight of an adult Goliath Beetle. Your error has been spotted, admitting you are wrong is the mature course of action.

For sure I admit my initial figure was taken by referencing too brief some info, as I'am not knowledgable about the ins and outs of the life of the Goliath Beetle. The higher figure was indeed related to another stage in the lifecycle. My bad.
It is why I asked you too about giving me some reference to the calculation of the weight of Meganeura. But you seem to be hesitant in properly showing me where I can find that. Please assist me.

And for pterosaurs a quadrupedal take-off is seen, and an insect can fly away from vertical planes, like trees and such. By the way, why do you ask me how that ornithopter of 600 grams? Have you not checked the link? Movies are present.

A qurdrapedal take-off is assumed not seen. A dragonfly can hover, fly backwards and need to hunt and carry prey away yet you think it’s ancestor needs to climb a tree and jump off. What nonsense. I know how these ornithopters take off, they are thrown by hand to achieve enough forward momentum to initiate flight. As I said “Getting in the air is the problem for nature, not maintaining flight once there”. However, is that replicated in nature? It must be as far as you are concerned as you want to compare it.

A quadrupedal take-off is proposed by looking at the functional anatomy of Pterosaurs and I thought I read there were tracks somewhere giving credense to the idea. Of course it is not seen, as pterosaurs are long gone but their remains are still there. But pterosaurs are not birds and didn't have a running take-off as such.
As for the dragonfly, I will say it would also take-off from branches and rocks, vertical and horizontal. I first said only vertical surfaces, but after reflection I can't see an objection for Meganeura just to take-off like dragonflies do.
Again I was giving examples of models because the argument at that moment was weight. As the models were not given for other reasons I don't see why I have find the problem there with the take-off of models.

A right I see. I think we were talking about the same thing. Paleontologists, biologists and engineers sure do know about that Law. They are not hiding it.

Yes paleontologists acknowledge it then proceed to ignore it’s consequences. For something 10 times the height, width and length it’s circa 1000 times the weight.

No it is found that in reality, that law is just not as rigid as you still seem to think. Those researchers found by practical application with animals or aeroplanes that there are caveats as shown in the links. There is no ignoring, but progressive understanding how mathematical relations hold in nature and engineering.And they are very open about it as well.

I was comparing the focussing on one parameter in a complex system.

Weight is the single most important factor unlike CO2.

Yes I know about CO2, that was not what I was saying.


[quote="StefanR"] There are two sentences in that bit of quote, you focus on the first and forget the second.

There is a diminishing return. As they progressed the increase becomes less significant. As such they could never get to 1000 times the size no matter how much time they have.

1000 times the size?

Indeed and they have shown experimentally, that oxygen is for insects one of the main limiters of size.

Obviously its a limiter. Still doesn’t prove it was the only cause. It’s just the favoured one by them because it avoids awkward questions.

Well it is one that is more easily studied, instead of lowering gravity. And they did comfirm the reaction and relationship. And although they didn't find limits yet to that growth because of duration of experimenting, it can't just as well not be brushed aside as you would like it to be.


[quote="StefanR"] But the research experiment had as only variable factor oxygen, not gravity. And still there was significant size increase over several generations. [/quote]Significant for you keep your beliefs intact but not enough to enlarge to the required size due to diminishing returns. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe increased oxygen was a factor for size, but it cannot explain the ability to overcome the weight in flight and bone and muscle strength problems (for dinosaurs). I would like to see the oxygen experiments done in lower gravity to see if there is an amplified effect. I suspect there would be.

No significant for the researchers. The weight in flight was no problem according to you but taking-off.
Bone and muscle problems of dinosaurs have been discussed in the tensegrity-thread and those arguments have been discussed many times on the internet. And people like Ted Holden have been shown were the problem lies in their reasoning.
I would like to see such experiments too. Without suspections.

So insects are preserved as well as , birds, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, mammals. Even plants, big and small, have been preserved, why not these huge plants? They must have existed in this low gravity, according to your idea.

Just give me one example of how a couple of hundred meters long plant fossil is to maintain intact or where you could possibly find an intact impression etc. The absence of finding something does not prove it didn’t exist, especially when you consider the size of the vehicle thats required to contain or present it.

So if I have to take it from you, there were no Megaflora? If not found, should they have existed in a lower gravity?

Quadrupedal take-off. Quadrupedal take-off. Quadrupedal take-off.
Waving with Ockham at this stage is a sign of desperation. Hanggliders by weight equal the heaviest pterosaurs.

Yet again, if you want to compare to nature, how does a hang glider get in the air? Remember;

“Getting in the air is the problem for nature, not maintaining flight once there”

Depends on the place you wish to take of with your hangglider. It can range from a few steps on the beach, to going from a slope or ledge, to towing. Again hanggliders was introduced as it was denied that those weights could fly.

I asked for examples, specific examples. And birds are not equal to the pterosaurs in body make-up. There lies a big difference. Both do fly and they share certain principles in that activity. Like the tail fin of a whale is different from a fish, though both use it for propelling through water. Again, why is being big an advantage for prey?

There are many advantages for prey. Being small can help as well. However, if you are a predator you do not chooses to lose flight. If you do you die. How many flightless predators are there? Any bird that lost flight needed to become a scavenger. Birds became flightless because they had no choice and altered their feeding habits. If this is not the case why no large predators? According to you they should still be able to fly at least up to 500lb.

Again you give no reasons for prey being large, but quickly move on to something else. That's ok. Again birds don't choose.
Flightless predators as in birds?
Could it also not be that first there is the change in behaviour and then the adaptation?
The 500 lbs was in relation to what?

But we are discussing specifics, or do you mean principles?

I’ll discuss specific but I am not going to respond to your BAUT tactic of posting reams of paper to prove you win.

Yes, you already made clear that you suffered immense trauma at BAUT, but what can I do about that? As I said I gave links either for refrence or clarification. But please go discuss specific and I will not paste any content of an paper here in reply. Fair enough?

Maybe you should not be too indiscriminate in rejecting science. I use papers and references to show you that I'm not making things up. Maybe you should get more intimately acquainted with some research papers, at least it would give you better understanding of nature as it is studied. Independent thinking is good indeed, but if one never interacts with others than one can also give way to misconceptions and a closed mind.

Unfortunately you do appear to be making things up. Where’s the paper discussing 100 gram flying insects? And I don’t have the closed mind, you are arguing from mainstream, not me. I am willing to accept the mainstream view if it had any supporting evidence or proof but it doesn’t. There are many papers with many conclusions but they are so full of assumptions as to render them useless, or at best showing different possibilities but certainly none ruling out GET.

I see you found yourself a stick to hit me with, darned beetles. There are many papers indeed, but they give evidences of reasons why gigantism in animals in relation to GET is a hazardous road to go into. I can understand you don't like or want to understand them as they can balance out the assumptions you yuorself have with GET and animal gigantism.

You only have to look at the circus that supports Big Bang theory. Hundreds of thousands of papers supporting something that is frankly nonsense and requires so many additions and compromises that has made if full of contradictions and errors dressed up as phenomena. This kind of activity is rife throughout the establishment. Read papers. Use independent critical thought and you too will realise the limitations and house of cards many are built upon. Too many scientists have a position to protect and unfortunately this has been true for centuries. It’s human nature and the reason why so many new thoughts and discoveries and from outside of the establishment. Not all, but more than should be, considering the weight of “expert” opinion is always within the establishment.

The big bang theory is not similar to research in gigantism in animals. I can understand your critical approach to science in some areas, it also is reasonable to consider the boundaries of where malficience takes over from honesty. Claiming all of science is rotten is far too overstretched. Pseudo-skepticism lies perilously round the corner. And for clarity, I did not quote for expert opinions, but for scientific understanding through experimentation.

Have you looked at the link I gave? No, otherwise you would not be so silly asking.

Yeah I did and there’s nothing natural about that take off. Unless of course you are proposing that Pterosaurs had a symbiotic relationship with ancient primates.
Again, I gave examples of models because of the fact that the argument was about that such weights could not fly, not for take off.
Just as an aside for clarity, how did pterosaurs take-off in a lower gravity as you propose? [/quote][/quote][/quote]

[Anaconda]

webolife:

Your comment needs to be directly addressed in a step by step progression:

Anaconda. Please. You are now attacking my credibility due to your opinionated dislike of what you think my assumptions are. This is ad hominem, and an attempt to play on biases in your readers.

No.

This what I stated:

Under those circumstances, readers should give little or no credibility to your comments. It would be reasonable for readers to chalk up your failure to be responsive to those questions about specific examples because of your faith-based belief in a biblical "young earth" which is fundamentally incompatible with the Expanding Earth theory because, while exact geolgical time can't be known, the Expanding Earth theory certainly takes more time to unfold than a biblical "young earth" belief system allows for.

First, I challenge your credibility because of your repeated refusal to answer specific questions, I addressed to you, about specific examples. In fact, I gave you another opportunity to address specific examples, the 10 foot lateral movement to the West measured after the Chilean earthquake and the 4,000 square kilometer uplift measured after the '94 Northridge quake, (yes, you addressed the '64 Alaska earthquake, see below) but, yet, you choose to ignore those examples.

Your continued refusal to "grasp the nettle" via specific examples needs to be pointed out because it goes to your credibility and demonstrates the weakness of the arguments against Expanding Earth theory.

webolife, pointing out your faith-based belief in a biblical "young earth" and how that belief is irreconcilable with Expanding Earth theory is not ad hominem. Rather, it explains why you ignore evidence which supports Expanding Earth theory and why it matters, not at all, how much evidence is presented in support of Expanding Earth theory.

I do not "retire for a while".

Of course, that's a matter of perception & opinion. However, it would be easy enough to dispell such perceptions by simply addressing specific examples instead of ignoring them.

I'm not promoting my view on this thread, I am questioning yours [support for Expanding Earth theory]. I have never attacked your credibility, just questioned your viewpoint, a scientific endeavor.

I agree.

But challenging credibility, where appropriate, is also a scientific endeavor. Again, pointing out an interlocutor's philosophical foundation, in essence, "where somebody is coming from" to explain why they won't come to grips with specific examples or discount a body of scientific facts & evidence, is appropriate.

Let me give you a specific example: The 1964 Good Friday earthquake produced vertical displacements up to 50 meters in parts of Alaska, and tsunamis on the same scale. Surely this must count as one of your best evidences of an expanding earth?

No, it's a significant piece of evidence in a chain or body of evidence. The Alaskan uplift by itself, as an isolated fact, would have limited or even no significance, but when taken in consideration or context with other pieces of evidence, the significance becomes apparent. I provided a series of examples, including the 4,000 square kilometer uplift measured after the '94 Northridge earthquake. It's the total or cummulative body of examples, in regards to uplift, which makes uplift significant.

Webolife, the logic you employ in discounting the significance of the uplift observed after the '64 Alaskan earthquake is faulty:

Yet the radius of the earth was not measured to have increased by 50 meters in a mere 45 seconds...

And, it is a strawman argument as both Aardwolf and allynh have already pointed out. As I stated originally and again, above, in this comment, it's the fact that uplift is being observed & measured all over the world, not just one specific example which adds to the evidence supporting Expanding Earth theory. webolife, surely, you can't be proud of having to resort to such obviously faulty logic and strawman arguments. It doesn't add to the force of your arguments nor to your credibility.

...in fact, as you seem to have conceded, it is not possible[?] to measure this kind of expansion?

No, I did not concede that it is impossible to show that overall Earth radius has increased.

This is what I wrote:

There might not be direct evidence, such as using a specific measuring device which has the demonstrated capability to observe & measure an increase in the overall radius of the planet, but there certainly are numerous facts & evidence which form a chain of evidence demonstrating Earth is expanding.

It was a qualified answer based on my personal knowledge...or lack, thereof.

(I suspect if power & financial resources were applied to the quest of directly measuring the increase of Earth's radius, a specific measuring device or methodology could be developed and applied to the question.)

However, allynh provided a powerful answer:

And you would need to show that overall Earth radius has increased to show earth expansion, plain and simple.

This is from the post I made far upstream when I posted my version 3.0 of Growing Earth Theory.

Everybody forgets, that the GPS system shows constant growth of the planet. When I worked at the Highway Department we were setting up base stations at each District office. They were at known survey coordinates, and constantly recorded the day to day divergence from "true" that the GPS satellites measured. Those divergences were sent to the USGS all day long so that surveyors could enter a "fudge factor" to "correct" their survey. The USGS and NASA are trapped in the concept of a static diameter Earth, so each day, the oceans get bigger, and the continents appear smaller.

Of course, as webolife repeatedly does, he ignored allynh's answer and all of the supporting links provided.

And yet your model has the mountainous regions as NOT being uplifted but merely folded by horizontal forces of an increasing radius, while the SM has them being uplifted by horizontal forces of continental drift.

This is a strawman argument. Perhaps, it would be better to ask me what causes uplift, instead of putting words in my mouth.

Aardwolf and allynh:

webolife's comments are more than being a devil's advocate, look at his last comment, it's a scatter gun, attempting to overload his interlocutors. That's why he refuses to engage on specific examples presented to him.

I doubt webolife has a personal model beyond an amorphous, fuzzy, belief in a biblical "young earth". The specifics aren't important to webolife's world-view nor does he need a specific model of Earth's evolution and development, he has faith... it was made... that is enough. The foundation of his belief is the young earth. webolife, undoubtedly, would dispute any model which directly threatens his "young earth" belief system.

I agree with allynh, that is why there is a circular quality to his comments, paticularly when he is pressed, or, if you like, "throwing mud against the wall" quality. You can't scientifically reason with a person like that because their dogma will always trump logic, facts, and evidence.

Webolife thinks I'm being harsh.

But what else can one conclude when an interlocutor repeatedly refuses to "grasp the nettle" by responding to specific questions about specific examples. At that stage of the interaction, all you can do is point out the person's motive for refusal and let readers decide, for themselves, on the person's credibility.

[Grey Cloud]

Lots.

You're being a little obtuse. You know I was refering to birds.

So was I.

OK which ones?

Kiwi, ostrich, all penguins, secretary birds, various bustards, etc. Okay, so now it's your turn. Hit me with the comprehensive list of non-predatory flightless birds.

I am being kind here as I could argue that all animals are predators in that they prey on other life-forms - as opposed to plants which take their energy straight from the Sun.

[Aardwolf]

Well I don't know. Insects have gone up in space for experimentation, but as of yet I can not find any unexpected increases in size reported. But suppose they would do such an experiment, do you think it would get the insects to grow larger?

So you will retract the gigantic spider strawman argument?

Apologies for my misunderstanding here, but are you asking for the how or the why? Just for clarification of the question.

According to you weight is not a factor therefore if a 500g meganura cannot fly without 35% oxygen, why can a 5 gram dragonfly with similar physiology in only 21%?

For sure I admit my initial figure was taken by referencing too brief some info, as I'am not knowledgable about the ins and outs of the life of the Goliath Beetle. The higher figure was indeed related to another stage in the lifecycle. My bad.
It is why I asked you too about giving me some reference to the calculation of the weight of Meganeura. But you seem to be hesitant in properly showing me where I can find that. Please assist me.

Any reference on meganuera will confirm the estimated weight. It’s not controversial.

A quadrupedal take-off is proposed by looking at the functional anatomy of Pterosaurs and I thought I read there were tracks somewhere giving credense to the idea. Of course it is not seen, as pterosaurs are long gone but their remains are still there. But pterosaurs are not birds and didn't have a running take-off as such.
As for the dragonfly, I will say it would also take-off from branches and rocks, vertical and horizontal. I first said only vertical surfaces, but after reflection I can't see an objection for Meganeura just to take-off like dragonflies do.
Again I was giving examples of models because the argument at that moment was weight. As the models were not given for other reasons I don't see why I have find the problem there with the take-off of models.

They were for comparison to nature. As I said engineers have the same problems that nature has at this gravity. Once in flight you can scale up quite significantly (to a limit) but nature doesn’t have the benefit of getting a helping hand from primates to get in flight. Hence the limitation is related to take-off either by pure lifting power, forward momentum or both if very heavy.

No it is found that in reality, that law is just not as rigid as you still seem to think. Those researchers found by practical application with animals or aeroplanes that there are caveats as shown in the links. There is no ignoring, but progressive understanding how mathematical relations hold in nature and engineering.And they are very open about it as well.

I agree there are some economies of scale but it is a close enough approximation. And yes palaeontologists say it’s not a factor, engineers say it is. This is why we have the controversy.

Yes I know about CO2, that was not what I was saying.

Well weight is not a single parameter in a complex system. It’s the most important factor in a relatively (compared to climate) simple system.

1000 times the size?

Should have said weight or volume.

Well it is one that is more easily studied, instead of lowering gravity. And they did comfirm the reaction and relationship. And although they didn't find limits yet to that growth because of duration of experimenting, it can't just as well not be brushed aside as you would like it to be.

No I do actually believe it may be a factor. It’s just not the dominant one.

No significant for the researchers. The weight in flight was no problem according to you but taking-off.
Bone and muscle problems of dinosaurs have been discussed in the tensegrity-thread and those arguments have been discussed many times on the internet. And people like Ted Holden have been shown were the problem lies in their reasoning.
I would like to see such experiments too. Without suspections.

IMO tensegrity is only valid for inanimate creatures but let’s not delve into that discussion here.

So if I have to take it from you, there were no Megaflora? If not found, should they have existed in a lower gravity?

I have no idea, I suspect there may have been but where could you find a fossil? It’s not possible to find one so it will always remain speculation.

Depends on the place you wish to take of with your hangglider. It can range from a few steps on the beach, to going from a slope or ledge, to towing. Again hanggliders was introduced as it was denied that those weights could fly.

Unfortunately a predatory animal cannot rely on favourable wind conditions, favourable terrain or help from other species to take off. It’s still not a valid comparison. You may as well start talking about 747’s and how well they can fly.

Again you give no reasons for prey being large, but quickly move on to something else. That's ok. Again birds don't choose.
Flightless predators as in birds?
Could it also not be that first there is the change in behaviour and then the adaptation?
The 500 lbs was in relation to what?

Being big could be an advantage to prey to scare or intimidate predators. It’s safer just to fly away though so I wouldn’t give up that option in a hurry if I could. I know all large birds didn’t choose to all stop flying. I also know they didn’t all find favourable environments on the ground to live in. They stopped because they were all forced to when they became too heavy for economical flight and over time their wings devolved because they are essentially useless ground appendages. Yes flightless predatory birds. Yes there could have been change in behaviour first, I just find it highly unlikely that this happened right across the board for all birds over 45lb. The 500lb goes back to the Pterosaurs which should still be able to fly according to your earlier posts if gravity is irrelevant.

Yes, you already made clear that you suffered immense trauma at BAUT, but what can I do about that? As I said I gave links either for refrence or clarification. But please go discuss specific and I will not paste any content of an paper here in reply. Fair enough?

If you wish to discuss something in a paper then fine, link away and reference your point, however, all you did was post 8 links and abstracts and didn’t even post a single word of your own.

I see you found yourself a stick to hit me with, darned beetles. There are many papers indeed, but they give evidences of reasons why gigantism in animals in relation to GET is a hazardous road to go into. I can understand you don't like or want to understand them as they can balance out the assumptions you yuorself have with GET and animal gigantism.

What hazards? The only stumbling block for GET is where does the extra material come from. For mainstream to accept this it would change the entire scientific outlook. Virtually everything that is studied and relied upon going back centuries would be wiped out. The establishment will not and cannot allow this to happen. You only have to look at how they view the EU to know this.

The big bang theory is not similar to research in gigantism in animals. I can understand your critical approach to science in some areas, it also is reasonable to consider the boundaries of where malficience takes over from honesty. Claiming all of science is rotten is far too overstretched. Pseudo-skepticism lies perilously round the corner. And for clarity, I did not quote for expert opinions, but for scientific understanding through experimentation.

I’m not commenting regarding honesty. It’s a form of confirmation bias. They essentially know what to expect and ensure their conclusions are biased toward this outcome. For example they will reject data as “bad” if it doesn’t fit, or gloss over uncertainties. In many papers I have read there are inherent assumption and/or corrections which when viewed critically or taken into consideration can give an entirely different outcome to the conclusions of the scientist that wrote it. One of my favourite examples of this is one of Steve Carlip’s speed of gravity papers which clearly allows for instantaneous propagation but concluded that because GR fits its correct, even though he acknowledges within the paper that in fact the outcome is dependent on the model used, so any model would fit his calculations, including instant propagation.

Again, I gave examples of models because of the fact that the argument was about that such weights could not fly, not for take off.
Just as an aside for clarity, how did pterosaurs take-off in a lower gravity as you propose?

But as I have stated all along this is for comparison to nature. How can you have flight without take-off. Pterosaurs took off exactly the way that all birds take off. It jumps up and forward and flaps its wings. IMO in lower gravity it could probably have jumped 2-3 times its height to allow for the space.

[Aardwolf]

Lots.

You're being a little obtuse. You know I was refering to birds.

So was I.

OK which ones?

Kiwi, ostrich, all penguins, secretary birds, various bustards, etc. Okay, so now it's your turn. Hit me with the comprehensive list of non-predatory flightless birds.

I am being kind here as I could argue that all animals are predators in that they prey on other life-forms - as opposed to plants which take their energy straight from the Sun.

Scavengers are not predators. Picking worms and insects off the gound is not hunting. Penguins are more of an example of behavioral change rather than enforced change. I didn't say that couldn't happen, just that it couldn't have happened accross all large bird species simultaneously.

[Aristarchus]

Well I don't know. Insects have gone up in space for experimentation, but as of yet I can not find any unexpected increases in size reported. But suppose they would do such an experiment, do you think it would get the insects to grow larger?

Stefan, I do not believe you're being intellectually honest here. You state that there is no evidence for larger insects in space as presented from those already sent into space, and proceed to ask the person you're debating with to prove a negative. Apparently, Aardwolf doesn't perceive it to be even part of his argument, based off his previous response.

However, there is no conceivable experiment of duration that would provide an isolated population of insects in space to allow us to garner such evidence in the time allotted for what is being discussed here. "Isolated population" is the key word here, as well as, "duration" as it pertains to evolutionary processes. Microbes have been found to making evolutionary changes in reponse to levels of radiation in space and this is accomplished based off the rate of reproduction in Microbes populations.

What has been observed that raises new questions, is that monarch butterflies, and perhaps other insects, detect gravity on earth that corresponds to their flight development:

Space-voyaging butterflies from KU give researchers a trove of information

Upon emerging from the chrysalises without normal gravitational forces, the butterflies had to force the wings to assume a flat aspect.

“Pumping fluid into the wings did not seem to be sufficient in itself for the monarchs to extend their wings directly over their backs,” said Taylor. “The process, which normally takes three minutes, took at least 15 minutes and the new adults kept moving most of this period, often from side-to-side — a kind of a rocking motion. During most of this time, the wings folded back on themselves.”

Two of the butterflies were able to expand their wings, not perfectly, but well enough so that if on Earth, they would have been able to fly. The wings of the last butterfly to emerge did not form normally.

“The overall results and the well-known patterns of monarch behavior on Earth indicate that monarchs have a sense of gravity,” said Taylor. “This conclusion raises the most interesting question of all: How do monarchs caterpillars and adults sense gravity and where is the gravity sensor — or sensors — located? Is it possible that gravity sensors in adults are different from those in larvae?”

There appears to be a direct correlation with gravity and how insects manage to detect it for flight. In addition, it is safe to surmise that the Earth's environment was radically different in prehistoric times, than it was today, and this would conclude for us not to negate the gravity question as it pertains to flight and size.

[Grey Cloud]

Lots.

You're being a little obtuse. You know I was refering to birds.

So was I.

OK which ones?

Kiwi, ostrich, all penguins, secretary birds, various bustards, etc. Okay, so now it's your turn. Hit me with the comprehensive list of non-predatory flightless birds.

I am being kind here as I could argue that all animals are predators in that they prey on other life-forms - as opposed to plants which take their energy straight from the Sun.

Scavengers are not predators. Picking worms and insects off the gound is not hunting. Penguins are more of an example of behavioral change rather than enforced change. I didn't say that couldn't happen, just that it couldn't have happened accross all large bird species simultaneously.

Scavenger: An animal, such as a bird or insect, that feeds on dead or decaying matter. Ergo non-applicable to my examples.
Predator: An organism that lives by preying on other organisms. Ergo my examples are spot on.
Hunting? Do you think that worms and insects queue up to be eaten? What about secretary birds and bustards? Where's your superior list of non-predatory flightless birds?

What evidence do you have that penguins are more an example of behavioural change rather than enforced change? They can hardly change their behaviour to or from eating insects or seeds in the Antarctic can they?

What proof do you have that any of these changes happened simultaneously? E.g. what evidence do you have that, e.g., the kiwi and the penguin became flightless at the same time? What evidence do you have that they ever flew.