Are the planets growing?

[webolife]

OK, ok I admit, the "45 seconds" statement was a strawman, for which I sincerely apologize. I know you think I am somehow ignoring your specific examples, but this is not the case. I am looking at them through the various glasses of 1) the standard model, 2) "my" catastrophic version/reworking of the SM, 3) the hollow earth version of the exp. earth theory, the outer-space matter origin version, and other hybrid versions of the theory, and... asking questions from the position that I don't find your model a more elegant theory of spreading or uplift than a model that includes an equivalent amount of compression on a static radius earth [with or without subduction]. I see an equivalent amount of compression/uplift happening in mountainous regions of the earth that would account for the specific spreadings you are evidencing, on a static-radius earth. I keep bringing this up because your expanding earth theory does not adequately [at least in the posts and materials I've up 'til now read] address this compressional equivalency question. I have not used a "young earth" argument to oppose the expanding earth, because I do not believe it is relevant to the questions I am asking. For you to try to make this an issue is a tangent and misleading to other readers. Is this your purpose? If you think my questions are invalid, then don't answer them, that's up to you. Let the readers decide if they think my questions have been sufficiently addressed, or if I have tried to address yours, if they care. As I already posted elsewhere and recently on the "credentials" thread, it would not alter my own view significantly if the expanding earth were verified. (On the other hand, perhaps you bring up this non-essential issue because you feel that it is actually relevant and may be dangerous to your own theoretical premises, or you feel you have to discredit me to keep me from challenging your own belief system? If you don't want me to post any more, I won't. It's not like I have nothing else to do with my time.)
I'm here because I'm interested in the theory, not because I just like "doubting" everything. Questioning, yes, it's what I do.

[Aardwolf]

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?

I’m not getting drawn into a semantic argument. If you wish to refer to your list as birds of prey then go ahead. Such nonsense doesn’t even deserve contemplation. I expect better from the posters on this site.

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?

I don’t have evidence. What do you believe caused their enforced change then from flight to non-flight then?

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?

I don’t, only that they all don’t fly now. And the only common trait between them all is that they weigh over 45lb.

What evidence do you have that they ever flew.

Because they have wings. Until you can describe a process whereby nature evolve useless ground appendages (where arms or extra legs would be much more preferable) comments like this are absurd and just weaken any argument you may have. And anyway why shouldn’t they have flown, they’re not too heavy are they?

[Aardwolf]

OK, ok I admit, the "45 seconds" statement was a strawman, for which I sincerely apologize. I know you think I am somehow ignoring your specific examples, but this is not the case. I am looking at them through the various glasses of 1) the standard model, 2) "my" catastrophic version/reworking of the SM, 3) the hollow earth version of the exp. earth theory, the outer-space matter origin version, and other hybrid versions of the theory, and... asking questions from the position that I don't find your model a more elegant theory of spreading or uplift than a model that includes an equivalent amount of compression on a static radius earth [with or without subduction]. I see an equivalent amount of compression/uplift happening in mountainous regions of the earth that would account for the specific spreadings you are evidencing, on a static-radius earth. I keep bringing this up because your expanding earth theory does not adequately [at least in the posts and materials I've up 'til now read] address this compressional equivalency question. I have not used a "young earth" argument to oppose the expanding earth, because I do not believe it is relevant to the questions I am asking. For you to try to make this an issue is a tangent and misleading to other readers. Is this your purpose? If you think my questions are invalid, then don't answer them, that's up to you. Let the readers decide if they think my questions have been sufficiently addressed, or if I have tried to address yours, if they care. As I already posted elsewhere and recently on the "credentials" thread, it would not alter my own view significantly if the expanding earth were verified. (On the other hand, perhaps you bring up this non-essential issue because you feel that it is actually relevant and may be dangerous to your own theoretical premises, or you feel you have to discredit me to keep me from challenging your own belief system? If you don't want me to post any more, I won't. It's not like I have nothing else to do with my time.)
I'm here because I'm interested in the theory, not because I just like "doubting" everything. Questioning, yes, it's what I do.

Admitting to use deliberate strawman arguments doesn't bode well for the rest of your critique.

[Grey Cloud]

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?

I’m not getting drawn into a semantic argument. If you wish to refer to your list as birds of prey then go ahead. Such nonsense doesn’t even deserve contemplation. I expect better from the posters on this site.
Those are dictionary definitions so it is not semantics. If you do not consider a creature which catches and eats other live creatures to be a predator then what is it?
Your calling my statements nonsense and saying that you expect better of posters on this site is judge you trying to evade the issue. You are wrong as you called them scavengers when they evidently fit the criteria of predators.

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?

I don’t have evidence. What do you believe caused their enforced change then from flight to non-flight then? That you don't have evidence is exactly my point. All you have is the expanding Earth theory, which may be right or wrong, to which you are trying to cobble on your changed gravity speculation. As I have said before, as I am saying now, there is no evidence as far as I know that penguins ever flew. I'm no expert but I would guess that the musculature required for swimming is a lot different that for flying.

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?

I don’t, only that they all don’t fly now. And the only common trait between them all is that they weigh over 45lb.
Not all penguins weigh over 45lb. The smallest is the Fairy Penguin which weighs in at 2lb/1kg). The largest variety of kiwi weighs in at 7.3lb/3.3kg. Secretary Bird is around the same. The Great Bustard weighs in around 22-35lb/10-16 kg.

What evidence do you have that they ever flew.

Because they have wings. Until you can describe a process whereby nature evolve useless ground appendages (where arms or extra legs would be much more preferable) comments like this are absurd and just weaken any argument you may have. And anyway why shouldn’t they have flown, they’re not too heavy are they?

Nature is chock-full of weird and wonderful creatures. Asking why a creature developed a certain attribute is a pointless exercise. Why did whales and dolphins take to the oceans full-time? A dolphin isn't too heavy to live on land. Why have crocs n gators remained virtually unchanged for millions of years?

[Aardwolf]

Those are dictionary definitions so it is not semantics. If you do not consider a creature which catches and eats other live creatures to be a predator then what is it?
Your calling my statements nonsense and saying that you expect better of posters on this site is judge you trying to evade the issue. You are wrong as you called them scavengers when they evidently fit the criteria of predators.

If you wish to refer to them as birds of prey go ahead. That’s your choice if it’s necessary to emphasise your point. I’ll stick with scavengers or foragers as a description.

That you don't have evidence is exactly my point. All you have is the expanding Earth theory, which may be right or wrong, to which you are trying to cobble on your changed gravity speculation.

And exactly what evidence do you have for plate tectonics? In fact, you are actually missing a huge amount of evidence needed for subduction that should be as glaringly obvious as the ocean spreading.

As I have said before, as I am saying now, there is no evidence as far as I know that penguins ever flew. I'm no expert but I would guess that the musculature required for swimming is a lot different that for flying.

Yes, birds that never flew. Ok. You stick with that. Like moles and cave salamanders that never saw. They obviously developed eyes for fun. Is vestigiality a swear word in your world?

Not all penguins weigh over 45lb. The smallest is the Fairy Penguin which weighs in at 2lb/1kg). The largest variety of kiwi weighs in at 7.3lb/3.3kg. Secretary Bird is around the same. The Great Bustard weighs in around 22-35lb/10-16 kg.

Then they shouldn’t be part of this discussion as my point is all birds over 45lb have lost flight. I never said that weight is the only reason that birds would stop flying. More strawmen. Also, was the Great Bustard the Bustard on your list of flightless predatory birds?

Nature is chock-full of weird and wonderful creatures. Asking why a creature developed a certain attribute is a pointless exercise. Why did whales and dolphins take to the oceans full-time? A dolphin isn't too heavy to live on land. Why have crocs n gators remained virtually unchanged for millions of years?

More strawmen. We’re talking about flight not reasons why other creatures evolved into their environments. Meaningless nonsense. You’ve had many opportunities to address my point why all birds over 45lb have lost flight. But you can’t so we have endless strawmen.

[sureshbansal342]

please try this theory . pls try to understand the depth of this theory and its complete mechanism with practical approach.one by one you will get all answers of your questions in this theory but it will take some time to understand the depth.just you believe in yourself only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hnq87afXWI

[Grey Cloud]

Those are dictionary definitions so it is not semantics. If you do not consider a creature which catches and eats other live creatures to be a predator then what is it?
Your calling my statements nonsense and saying that you expect better of posters on this site is judge you trying to evade the issue. You are wrong as you called them scavengers when they evidently fit the criteria of predators.

If you wish to refer to them as birds of prey go ahead. That’s your choice if it’s necessary to emphasise your point. I’ll stick with scavengers or foragers as a description.
I am not referring to them as birds of prey (raptors), it was you who originally said that the examples I gave were not predators but scavengers. I gave dictionary definitions of predator and scavenger to show that my examples were predators. You are insisting in calling them scavengers and foragers without any rational basis.

That you don't have evidence is exactly my point. All you have is the expanding Earth theory, which may be right or wrong, to which you are trying to cobble on your changed gravity speculation.

And exactly what evidence do you have for plate tectonics? In fact, you are actually missing a huge amount of evidence needed for subduction that should be as glaringly obvious as the ocean spreading.
I don't need any evidence for plate tectonics and or subduction as I am not advocating either of these. You are the one with the changed gravity theory and I am the one showing that your evidence is non-existant. Introducing plate tectonics and subduction is a strawman as our discussion as only ever been about birds and and flight in the context of your gravity change theory.

As I have said before, as I am saying now, there is no evidence as far as I know that penguins ever flew. I'm no expert but I would guess that the musculature required for swimming is a lot different that for flying.

Yes, birds that never flew. Ok. You stick with that. Like moles and cave salamanders that never saw. They obviously developed eyes for fun. Is vestigiality a swear word in your world?
I am not saying that they never flew, only that as far as I know they never have. You seem unable to produce evidence that they did. As I said in my previous post, asking why a creature has a certain attribute is a futile exercise.

Not all penguins weigh over 45lb. The smallest is the Fairy Penguin which weighs in at 2lb/1kg). The largest variety of kiwi weighs in at 7.3lb/3.3kg. Secretary Bird is around the same. The Great Bustard weighs in around 22-35lb/10-16 kg.

Then they shouldn’t be part of this discussion as my point is all birds over 45lb have lost flight. I never said that weight is the only reason that birds would stop flying. More strawmen. Also, was the Great Bustard the Bustard on your list of flightless predatory birds?
This has nothing to do with strawmen but is the result of directly addressing statements made by you. You originally asked how many flightless birds are predators; I said 'lots'. You asked for examples; I gave examples. You denied that the examples were predators; I gave the dictionary definition of predator. You then changed tack again and wrote that 'the only common trait between them all is that they weigh over 45lb'; I showed that this was not the case. You are now saying that they should not be part of this discussion. You have not directly stated that weight was the only reason birds stopped flying, nor have I accused you of doing so, but you have only ever mentioned weight.
I believe I wrote 'various bustards' or similar. The Great Bustard may not itself be a predator but as it is the largest of the family it follows that those bustards which are predators would weigh even less than the GB.

Nature is chock-full of weird and wonderful creatures. Asking why a creature developed a certain attribute is a pointless exercise. Why did whales and dolphins take to the oceans full-time? A dolphin isn't too heavy to live on land. Why have crocs n gators remained virtually unchanged for millions of years?

More strawmen. We’re talking about flight not reasons why other creatures evolved into their environments. Meaningless nonsense. You’ve had many opportunities to address my point why all birds over 45lb have lost flight. But you can’t so we have endless strawmen.

Meaningless nonsense? I see that above you have used the examples of cave salamanders and moles. I have addressed your point about birds over 45lb, I have said that you have no evidence that they ever flew and you so far have been unable to come up with any such evidence.
Accusing one's opponent of strawman tactics does not automatically win a discussion - only facts and evidence will do that.

Over what time period did this theoretical gravity change take place? Was it overnight, over decades, millenia or what?

[StefanR]

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?

"You've got a straw in your beak!", remarked the scarecrow to the raven on his head. Again this is just a question asking if you know of any of such results from insects taken to space, it could corroborate your idea of larger insects in a lower gravity. I have tried to search for it but cannot find any, still many insect experiments went up in space for low-gravity research. Do you think there could be observed an effect on size in space experimentation with insects?

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%?

Dragonflies' flight capabilities are prodigious. They dash, they dart, they manoeuvre, they cross oceans. At least four distinct flight styles are recognised in Odonata: counter-stroking (where fore- and hind-wings move up and down about 180 degrees out of phase), phased-stroking (where the hind-wings cycle about 90 degrees - a quarter cycle - before the fore-wings), synchronised-stroking (where fore- and hind-wings move in unison), and gliding.
Dragonfly flight is powered by muscles attached directly to the wing bases. Efficient muscle action depends on temperature and many dragonflies spend considerable time and energy in maintaining a near constant elevated temperature for their flight muscles. When at rest the dragonfly thorax appears skewed, but in flight the head is held low and the stroke of the wings is about parallel to the long axis of the flight muscles, providing mechanical efficiency. Small controller muscles operating on the wing base adjust the wing shape and angle of attack of the wing during each stroke.
Thrust generating mechanisms in dragonflies are complex. Whereas aircraft use only two methods for generating lift (and one of these only for very short periods) dragonflies use at least four distinct physical processes: classical lift, supercritical lift, vortices, and vortex shedding. There is also something funny happening during take-off by some perching libellulids. Classical lift is the stuff that keeps aeroplanes up, and is well understood. Supercritical lift ocurs when the attack angle of the wing passes a critical value. Very high lift is generated for a short distance then the wing "stalls". By using short wing strokes dragonflies can use this effect continuously. The study of the use of vortices and of shed vortices in insect flight is a field that is only just opening up. Thrust is generated both by the movement of the wing through the air and by the twisting of the wing (supination/pronation) at the ends of each stroke. Almost all Zygoptera use the 'clap-and-fling' lift-generating mechanism (Weis-Fogh 1975) in take off, calopterygids also use it during normal flight. A remaining conundrum is the libellulid dragonflies that perch with their wings low, pointed well forward, and twisted to be near vertical. These animals launch themselves into the air very quickly. High speed filming needs to be done to see what is happening. Dragonfly flight is very powerful in terms of the body mass of the animals - accelerations to 4g in a straight line and 9g in turns are documented in high speed videotapes of free-flying dragonflies as they pursue, or break off attacks on, prospective prey - indicating a very respectable power/weight ratio.
Dragonfly wings are very dynamic structures. They are not simple planar objects. The corrugations in the wing hold an aerofoil of air around the physical wing, lowering friction, and the wings flex around several axes, responding both to muscle actions and to inertia effects. The pterostigma on the leading edge near the tip is a weight that causes the wing tip area to flex during a wing stroke, improving aerodynamic efficiency.
To make things more impressive, dragonflies can fly with different wings doing quite different things, even using different methods to generate thrust. Asymmetric wing stroking in damselflies permits wings on one side to drive forward, and the other side to drive back, spinning the animal on its axis in a single combined stroke. All dragonflies achieve their mastery of flight by varying what their wings are doing in a coordinated fashion. They can adjust wing shape, stroke length, angle of attack, move a wing forward (or backwards) of its "usual" position, stop one or two wings, adjust relationships between any two wings on either side of the body ... the list goes on.

http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=2471

The Australian species inhabit the rainforests of the north, near Queensland and near Perth in swampy areas.
With a wing-span of about 5 inches, and a large thick body that can be as fat as a thumb, this dragonfly weighs more than some birds.

http://www.itsnature.org/endangered/mod ... dragonfly/

The transmitter weighs 0.01 ounces—about the same weight as a paper clip. Even though this is approximately 25 percent of the dragonfly’s total weight, it caused no apparent flight problems.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports ... acking.jsp

Conventional wisdom holds that airplanes (airfoils) are more efficient because they travel from point to point with no wasted up-and-down motion. "But there are infinitely many ways you can go up and down," said Wang. "Of all these paths, are any better than a straight line? Some are -- that's what I found."
The insight came from dragonflies.
"Dragonflies have a very odd stroke. It's an up-and-down stroke instead of a back-and-forth stroke," she said. "Dragonflies are one of the most maneuverable insects, so if they're doing that they're probably doing it for a reason. But what's strange about this is the fact that they're actually pushing down first in the lift.
"An airfoil uses aerodynamic lift to carry its weight. But the dragonfly uses a lot of aerodynamic drag to carry its weight. That is weird, because with airplanes you always think about minimizing drag. You never think about using drag."

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Drago ... light.html

The dragonfly's weight is similar to that of a butterfly, around 0.0001 ounce (0.003 grams) for the smallest, to 0.1 ounce (3 grams) for the largest.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_a ... _dragonfly

Evolutionary scientists know full-well that dragonflies as large as hawks and cockroaches big enough to take on house cats thrived during the Paleozoic era (245-570 million years ago, according to their timescale). One physiologist, John Harrison, has been particularly fascinated with such creatures. Harrison is a professor of biology at Arizona State University, and wanted to know why insects of long ago grew to be so large. He and his colleagues believed the answer to be in how insects breathe, and they are busy studying how the respiratory physiology of modern insects affects their body size.
Air breathing animals breathe with lungs. Insects, rather than lungs, breathe with a network of tiny tubes called tracheae. Air enters the tubes through a row of holes along an insect’s abdomen, and then diffuses down the blind-ended tracheae. In terms of the subject at hand, it is here where the rubber meets the road, because the distance oxygen can travel down the tracheae is dependant upon its concentration in the air. Theoretically, then, if atmospheric oxygen is doubled, it will make it twice as far. If an insect has a longer trachea, therefore, one should expect that the insect will need higher oxygen to breathe.
The question is, can all this be tested? In an attempt to do just that, Harrison studied and continues to study some of the larger insects of our day in his ASU laboratory; namely grasshoppers and dragonflies. What he has found is revealing. The insects’ activity is affected by the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and just as the theory predicts, the effect is more pronounced in the largest specimens. The biggest bugs have the longest trachea, and therefore need the most oxygen.
For the remaining skeptics, there is one last test that should be made ... and has been made. If the theory be true, then smaller insects with shorter trachea should be able to deliver adequate oxygen to the tissues even in a low-oxygen atmosphere, and this difference should be most obvious when the smaller and larger insects are forced to engage in oxygen consuming activity, such as flying or jumping.
Simply put, this is exactly what Harrison has seen in his laboratory, and not with different kinds of insects, but with different sizes of the same kind of insect.
Harrison and graduate student Scott Kirkton tested the aerobic performance of grasshoppers given varying amounts of oxygen, and found that smaller grasshoppers can hop nonstop in atmospheric oxygen levels lower then that of our own (21%). In fact, the smallest grasshoppers didn't even have problems in oxygen as low as 5%.
As for the larger grasshoppers? They were quite the contrast from their smaller brothers and sisters, as they tired out faster and their hopping rates rapidly dropped to zero. When extra doses of oxygen were given, however, they began jumping more, strongly suggesting an oxygen-stimulated boost which increased their performance.
The same was seen with dragonflies. As has been shared, fossil dragonflies the size of hawks have been discovered. A dragonfly of such size calls for a dragonfly with a long trachea, and in experiments where oxygen levels were greatly reduced, the dragonflies, not even half as large as their fossil ancestors, went from effortless flight to desperate exertion. The specimens couldn't even get off the ground at the lowest oxygen levels!
This is because the flight muscle of an insect burns more oxygen than any other animal tissue, and scientists know this well. It is a powerful, beautifully designed machine, depending on oxygen to run akin to a car depending on gas. The fact is this: the amount of oxygen supplied to an insect’s muscles, such as those of a dragonfly, directly depends on the amount of oxygen in the air. Therefore, the results of Harrison's experiments make perfect sense, and shed light on the type of atmosphere insects of such large size, such as dragonflies, grasshoppers, etc., would need in order to survive.
Arguments & Objections
The argument is that some insects can increase oxygen delivery by a mechanical pumping action of their bodies, and therefore aren't as dependant on oxygen levels. While this is true of some insects, it doesn't explain all of them. Furthermore, and more importantly, Harrison's experiments strongly refute such an argument. The larger grasshoppers and dragonflies were not able to cope with lower oxygen levels, while the smaller specimens were able to. It is clear, then, that the larger grasshoppers and dragonflies were not able to utilize any type of pumping action to accommodate their altered environment.

http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/death2.htm

Once the eggs hatch out the dragonfly nymph begins its long journey towards adulthood. The dragonfly nymph undergoes several stages as a nymph and this process can last anything from about six months to five years depending on the species. Most of a dragonfly’s life is spent as a nymph under water.
Like the adult form it will eat just about anything it can catch its menu typically includes mosquito larvae, tadpoles, small fish, water bugs and even other dragonfly nymphs. They can devour their own body weight in one sitting they are voracious eaters.
Once free of the husk it begins to pump blood into its wings inflating them to their full size during this stage the adult dragonfly is extremely vulnerable to predators as it can do nothing to escape them. It takes time for the sun to dry and harden the dragonfly’s body and wings but once this is accomplished the adult dragonfly is ready to eat and mate.
After all this hard work the dragonfly usually only spends about two months as an adult dragonfly. Most dragonflies do not die of old age they mostly end up as prey themselves before they die of natural causes. The chief predators of dragonflies are birds who pick them off much like the dragonflies do their prey by plucking them right out of the air. Fortunately not before most of them have time to mate.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Lifecycle-of-the-Dragonfly

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.

You are dodging the question yet again.

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.

And the take-off for pterosaurs has been solved by quadrupedal take-off where with this mode they use there strong downstroke flight muscles and legs. The take-off for dragonflies is no problem as they have abundant flight muscles to get into the air, if not for oxygen-consumption of the same muscles.

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.

You are the one that is making and needing the controversy. Paleontologists and engineers know the difference between things on paper and things in the flesh or in practice. The fact that both these groups see it as such and know it as such I have already given you examples of. Your controversy is a fallacy and non-existant.

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.

It will only be simple if you simplify and isolate it as you do.

1000 times the size?

Should have said weight or volume.

Which of the two? Is density no concern?

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.

Do you have proof for that assertion? Or is it just your guess? Emperical evidence has shows otherwise.

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.

I can show you many links and posts in the Tensegrity-thread. It will make your opinion show to be quite uninformed.

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.

There are fossil remains of many plants in larger size than their relatives today, to almost tree-like sizes, but always much smaller than flora today.
Why is it speculation about mega-plants, when they lived at the same time as your mega-animals? Does it not lie in the line of reason for them to be huge?

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.

Pterosaurs were dynamic living creatures that could take-off quadrupedaly, no problems there, enough height and thrust generated by powerfull muscles and low weight.

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.

If birds don't choose why do you keep on returning to that frase? Could you guide me to a bird that didn't find a favourable environment on the ground to live in? Do you say there were direct ancestors of ostriches with huge wings? I believe GreyCloud recieved the same question about flightless predatory birds, and I think answered it quite satisfactorely and generously IMO. The high unlikeliness is a consequence of your assumption, and perhaps it says something about your assumption as not all flightless birds were grounded at the same time or do you have specific proof for that? And pterosaurs are not birds, so you cannot relate those figures of weight.

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.

Some arguments are better shown or put more eloquently previously by people familiar with the subject. Why should I disdain from such expediency and proficiency? And when it concerns facts or results from emperical research, why should I refrain from offering those as examples for previous points that were made in my own words?

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 hazardous road for GET to go to animal gigantism is fraught with legitimate arguments against it, pointing to the fact that it is a dead end. Maybe the growth had diminished significantly before life got a chance, or there is something else going on instead GET, at least the fossilrecord has no proof for that. Always proceeding from a false dichotomy in analysis is a choice.

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.

How interesting are the mentioned points down here:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pseudoskepticism

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.

Do all birds take-off in the same way? So the pterosaurs only walked on their hindlegs?

[Aristarchus]

Again this is just a question asking if you know of any of such results from insects taken to space, it could corroborate your idea of larger insects in a lower gravity. I have tried to search for it but cannot find any, still many insect experiments went up in space for low-gravity research. Do you think there could be observed an effect on size in space experimentation with insects?

I can't speak for Aardwolf, but I already explained that such an experiement would involve "isolation of population" and "duration." What experiemtent would you propose that would take into account such factors? In addition, space might not be conducive for such an experiment, if it cannot mimic the exact environment on prehistoric Earth.

Otherwise, the link I provided on the monarch butterflies sent into near earth orbit did provide evidence that gravity effects flight nomenclature of these insects - i.e., the insects appear to have something of a "gravity locator" - and this does appear to give credence to Aardwolf's argument and positing.

Again, you're not being honest, since you do not explain that such an experiment for testing larger growth insect size would involve "isolation of population" and "duration."

[webolife]

Aardwolf...what is with you? Why do you feel you have to discredit me, in order to boost your argument? I did not intend the "45 sec earth expansion" as a strawman, but on re-examination realized and admitted that it was. What I was pointing out, and you realized this by your response, was that whether the various "uplifts" that are noted around the earth are small or big, slow or quick, they do not necessarily evidence earth expansion, nor are they measured as such. The most consistent and ongoing examples of uplift/vertical displacement throughout the earth are in the mountain ranges, which have been variably measured to be rising at a fingernail's growth rate. This is entirely explainable by [continental-drift-style] horizontal compression on a static-radius earth. Furthermore there is no evidence for an earth radius that is anything other than static. This does not prove that I'm right or you're wrong, but it does place the ownness on you to provide a supported theory that explains the evidence better.

[Anaconda]

Furthermore there is no evidence for an earth radius that is anything other than static.

webolife, there you go again. The same sweeping generalization without ever answering specific questions about specific examples. And worse, it ignores a whole body of facts & evidence. Is that the way you operate?

Don't you see how that kind of response robs you of credibility.

And I'll keep pointing out your failure to be responsive to my direct questions about specific examples.

What I was pointing out, and you [Aardwolf] realized this by your response, was that whether the various "uplifts" that are noted around the earth are small or big, slow or quick, they do not necessarily evidence earth expansion, nor are they measured as such.

No. It seems Aardwolf wasn't agreeing with you, rather, he was simply stating that after you present such an obvious strawman argument, it's hard to take the rest of your comment seriously.

Admitting to use deliberate strawman arguments doesn't bode well for the rest of your critique.

Now does that even come close to sounding like Aardwolf agrees with your statement?

Rather it seems you twist his statement to suit your purpose. Neither does that help your credibility.

[Anaconda]

webolife:

Since you ignore specific examples, I'll provide an example previously presented in this thread:

The '94 Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area was the result of the San Andreas fault shifting, which is a transform fault where two tectonic plates slip horizontally or laterally past each other -- "subduction" is not even alleged to happen on this particular fault.

Yet, the observed & measured uplift covers a 4,000 square kilometer area:

The Northridge earthquake significantly deformed the Earth’s crust over an area of about 4,000 square kilometers. In general, the earthquake caused uplift throughout the San Fernando Valley and adjacent mountain areas.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/ofr-96-0263/mainshk.htm

So, this is not a limited area of uplift, rather, it's a 4,000 square kilometer region-wide uplift.

Considering this is a transform fault where no "subduction" is even alleged to happen, it begs the question: What caused this uplift? Where did it all come from?
Expanding Earth theory provides an explanation.

webolife, what would be the reason for this region-wide uplift considering the San Andreas fault is not a "subduction" fault which would cause compression? What specific geological model would account for the uplift observed & measured after the '94 Northridge earthquake?

Answering these entirely reasonable questions would have more credibility than making sweeping generalizations without any supporting specific geological examples.

[webolife]

What? I never said Aardwolf agreed with me, just that he understood my point... maybe he didn't?
You keep quoting my "generalizations", but do not respond to my actual answers by which I support them!
Again I remind you, I do not make any claims for subduction, other than not entirely ruling it out. What I say is that uplift zones such as the San Andreas, the Cascade mountains, the Himalayas, and pretty much every range on the earth [too sweeping for you?], are the compressional result of horizontal forces that result from spreading elsewhere. Generally, zones of compression/uplift "parallel" [or otherwise correspond to] zones of depression [the trenches] as well as being associated with spreading zones throughout the earth, an obvious example being the Andes Mountain range and trench [compressional zone] associated with the mid-Atlantic rift [spreading zone]. If this were not so, I would have to take each one of your specific examples as a unique case, but that is not necessary. I have repeatedly pointed both to uplift and spreading zones across the earth... why should your specific cases require special attention? We see things differently, my view being apparently too similar to the standard model for your comfort... but how is that not credible? Obviously you don't want folks to read my posts... hmmm, what does that say about your theory? This will be the last time I will respond to your attacks on my credibility, so if you feel the need to continue doing so, fire away... as for me, I have freely questioned and will continue to question people's ideas for the sake of my own understanding, as I have since coming onto this website 5 years ago... if the moderators feel I am being inappropriate they are free to censure me.

[StefanR]

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.

I don't think I'm dishonest. It is extrapolating the concequences of the idea of gravity affected animals and seeing if one can find corroborating evidence. That Aardwolf, Allynh or Ted Holden haven't done such things says more about them than about me. And I wasn't asking to prove a negative, I was asking if animals in space would be affected by low-gravity. It's an hypothesis based on what might be expected from postulating a changing gravity and it's effect on animal size.

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.

So it is possible to do oxygen-experiments, where there was the observation that there was a reaction to oxygen sometimes in the first generation. And you don't have to take long-living insects, one could start with Drosophilas for instance. And what does radiation have to do with gravity?

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.

The article seems to talk about that the unfolding of wings of Monarchs is seemingly aided by gravity. Probably there is a relation with the microtubules in the cells or such like mechanism. See Tensegrity-thread for ideas. The Monarchs compensate the lack of such feedback with a rocking motion. But what has it to do with flying or insect size?

[StefanR]

Again this is just a question asking if you know of any of such results from insects taken to space, it could corroborate your idea of larger insects in a lower gravity. I have tried to search for it but cannot find any, still many insect experiments went up in space for low-gravity research. Do you think there could be observed an effect on size in space experimentation with insects?

I can't speak for Aardwolf, but I already explained that such an experiement would involve "isolation of population" and "duration." What experiemtent would you propose that would take into account such factors? In addition, space might not be conducive for such an experiment, if it cannot mimic the exact environment on prehistoric Earth.

Drosophilas are not that big and have short livespans. They have also been used for oxygen experiments. And why should I propose experiments for a hypothesis that is not mine. Why is it not possible for you, Aardwolf, Allynh or Ted Holden to come up with fresh ideas? And it doesn't have to mimic the exact environment as it was stated by Aardwolf that only gravity is mainly responsible for insect size. And according to that idea, one could take a lesser gravity between 10% and 100% to at least see some effect. But how are you going to shield gravity here on Earth? And have insects not been in space for experimentation?

Otherwise, the link I provided on the monarch butterflies sent into near earth orbit did provide evidence that gravity effects flight nomenclature of these insects - i.e., the insects appear to have something of a "gravity locator" - and this does appear to give credence to Aardwolf's argument and positing.

Well I commend your effort to try to give evidence, but I think you should try reading it again. Again, the Monarch observations was about the unfolding of wings and not about flight. And as such give absolutely no credence to Aardwolf. Even worse it shows that lowering gravity effets in a negative way the development of Monarchs. It has to expand even more energy en time to unfold it's wings. Not so handydandy when predators lurk around the corner. Not in space of course.

Again, you're not being honest, since you do not explain that such an experiment for testing larger growth insect size would involve "isolation of population" and "duration."
No apparently you are the one who is not honest as you seem to posit a false conclusion to observations of an experiment and try to make it seem as if Aardwolf has a point. There was no need for explaining such things because insects have been in space and for more generations. Still no size growth.