Are the planets growing?

[webolife]

Aardwolf, et.al.
Regarding the two assertions of hypothetical elegance...
I don't know which is most parsimonious, but I disagree with both points of view.
Both views suggest a Lamarckian sort of transformational process by which animals "try" to gain or lose features over time. This is a common perception/misconception about the process of natural selection, and does not belong in a scientific discussion. A better question to try to answer is:
How did large flying reptiles become extinct? This is much more achievable an answer than "How did they fly?"
Large flightless birds [up to 8+ meters in height, relatives of modern emus, ostriches, etc.] are known from the fossil record. Their smaller modern relatives, as well as the smaller modern relatives of many sorts of animals, are likely the survivors of a global catastrophe, I would agree; but this need not be due to gravitational issues at all, but to matters related more to climate change, food supply, and mobility/maneuverability, or other competitive considerations in the post-catastrophic struggle for survival.
You keep accusing me of not answering specific questions, but I give you general answers that I believe are applicable to a variety of observations, including the specific ones you cite. One can find some piece of evidence for almost any concept, but does the concept address a broad range of questions/observations, with the fewest exceptions possible? Many "exceptional" creatures exist today, as well as in the past, but we can't build our case on just the exceptions, but try to find commonalities. Yes, I do understand that often exceptions "prove" the rule, and that this is what you are trying to do with the pterosaurs, and with your evidence from the fault regions in South America. But if you are highly selective in your evidencing and/or highly exclusive in your openness to alternative solutions, you do yourself and science a disfavor. Personally, my overall model and view of the catastrophic history of the earth would be minorly altered were it found that the earth is expanding as you propose. You simply have not convinced me yet.

[moses]

At 1/2 gravity the ocean levels would rise,
allynh

Water does not expand. The ocean levels would stay the same.

But clearly quick changes of gravity under quick electrical changes, has major problems. The growing of the Earth is way too difficult. So the big creatures came from another gravity which means they came from another planet. Thus electrical effects transported the creatures from planet to planet.
Mo

[Aardwolf]

Hmmn.
Fascinating thread. Though I don't really have any interest as to whether the Earth has grown or not, a couple of points come to mind:
a) This diversion about large flying creatures is predicated on the asumption that they actually did fly. There is no actual evidence as I see it, just a lot of suppositions from various breeds of scientists. I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.

Then one would need to explain why evolution deemed it necessary to provide the flying creatures with wings when arms would be the obvious candidate if they were ground based. Even nothing at all would be better rather than lug two giant useless appendages around slowing you down and using up energy.

Who mentioned evolution? Who said evolution was capable of forethought? Who said the wings were useless? Why/how do they slow down the creature? Why/how are they using up energy? Penguins have wings and use them for swimming; the male ostrich uses his wings in his mating display.

No evolution is not capable of forethought therefore if something had wings it's because it once used them to fly. Pengiun wings are extremely stunted in relation to their body compared to the Pterosaurs and Meganeura. On these creatures they are huge and would be very cumbersome waste of energy if not used for good reason. I doubt that evolution specifically grew wings for show. Many birds use them for mating, and they also use them to fly. Still no-one has attempted to explain why all large flightless birds have grown wings for reasons other than flying. It's absurd.

[Aardwolf]

Webolife,

We all know you are a fan of Ockham's theory so when presented with the 2 scenarios below which would he choose to be correct?

1) All birds over 40lb have independently found niches within their environments that provide a better chance of survival if they stay on the ground and give up flying; rather than to continue to fly.

2) A single global effect caused all large birds to lose the ability to fly.

Why does it have to be limited to those two choices?
Re 1), Perhaps birds which inhabit those niches can grow to over 40lb precisely because they inhabit those niches.
Re 2) Why do you think/how do you know that it was single global event? Could have been 27 regional events for all you know.

It doesn't have to be limited. Still, of the 4 we now have, which would Ockham choose? Which scenario has the fewer assumptions?

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf, et.al.
Regarding the two assertions of hypothetical elegance...
I don't know which is most parsimonious, but I disagree with both points of view.
Both views suggest a Lamarckian sort of transformational process by which animals "try" to gain or lose features over time. This is a common perception/misconception about the process of natural selection, and does not belong in a scientific discussion. A better question to try to answer is:
How did large flying reptiles become extinct? This is much more achievable an answer than "How did they fly?"
Large flightless birds [up to 8+ meters in height, relatives of modern emus, ostriches, etc.] are known from the fossil record. Their smaller modern relatives, as well as the smaller modern relatives of many sorts of animals, are likely the survivors of a global catastrophe, I would agree; but this need not be due to gravitational issues at all, but to matters related more to climate change, food supply, and mobility/maneuverability, or other competitive considerations in the post-catastrophic struggle for survival.
You keep accusing me of not answering specific questions, but I give you general answers that I believe are applicable to a variety of observations, including the specific ones you cite. One can find some piece of evidence for almost any concept, but does the concept address a broad range of questions/observations, with the fewest exceptions possible? Many "exceptional" creatures exist today, as well as in the past, but we can't build our case on just the exceptions, but try to find commonalities. Yes, I do understand that often exceptions "prove" the rule, and that this is what you are trying to do with the pterosaurs, and with your evidence from the fault regions in South America. But if you are highly selective in your evidencing and/or highly exclusive in your openness to alternative solutions, you do yourself and science a disfavor. Personally, my overall model and view of the catastrophic history of the earth would be minorly altered were it found that the earth is expanding as you propose. You simply have not convinced me yet.

Now I understand Anaconda’s frustrations.

How did large flying reptiles become extinct? This is much more achievable an answer than "How did they fly?"

Indeed. It’s because most palaeontologists don’t like the answer staring them in the face. Better to stick to safer career sustaining ground. They flew because gravity was reduced in the past. Ockham may not have liked the answer either, but he wouldn’t have argued with the simple logic.

You simply have not convinced me yet

Luckily I’m not trying to. I gave up on trying that years ago as even if you present irrefutable evidence, individuals that have a instilled belief system just become obtuse and obfuscatious rather than address the points clearly and concisely.

[StefanR]

And increased respiration cannot improve take up? Their empirical evidence concentrates on stunting their growth which as I said can be done many ways. Let’s see them create an insect 1000% larger than normal by increasing oxygen.
No, as it seems the increased/active respiration cannot improve the take up, as it is dominated by the diffusion of oxygen into the tissues of the insects. With the current level of oxygen the ammount of trachae in the body of an insect would have to increase and that would get to a level where the structural integrity could come into trouble. Just lowering gravity to account for very large insects would not be able to change the oxygen uptake abillity of the tissues. The empirical evidence as is shown in the articles I placed here for convenience, shows that there is a stunting in growth in hypoxia and an increase in growth in hyperoxia. Not all insects according to research react in exactly the same way or ammount but a reaction is shown. Insects taken into space with very little gravity don't show a propencity to grow larger over generations, or do you have other evidence to the contrary. They should according to your ideas about the limiting factor for size of insects. Why are there no articles screaming : "Gigantic spiders reared in the ISS !!" ?
Why shoudn’t they be scaled down. What so special about smaller dragonflies?
Still not sure what you are meaning here. What is so special about smaller dragonflies?
The weight estimate comes from comparison to currently living species and it’s actually quite conservative. You shouldn't need to be shown how they calculated it as it's simple to do empirically yourself. As for the Goliath Beetle, it does not fly at 100 grams, but at around half that.
So now you do accept a comparison with currently living species? And I do need to be shown how they calculated it, how do I do that emperically myself? How do you know the Goliath Beetle does not fly at 100 grams?
How does it take off?
It is a model. And I gave it to you as example as you mentioned that ornithopters would not fly above the weight of insects, but it does fly with 600 grams. Why do you switch again to the take-off, as it was about weight?
Not specifically to quadrupedal take-off, but to flight in general. You must know all about it considering your argument about wingload.
No I don't, that's why I'm asking you to tell me, please?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 756#p41756

Because I find it interesting that apparently volume to surface is factor in their size but weight is insignificant.
Weight is not insignificant, but just one of the many factors that do all combine to a good body-plan for flight. Just focussing on weight, is like focussing on CO2 in climate science.
Not as huge as the differences in size. Did they get a 1000% increase in hyperoxia?
As you could have read, there was a significant size increase or reduction. But there is a difference in having the time to raise several generations and study those and the time involved in nature.
I don't when it’s used to prove only what being observed; which is that they can stunt growth by reducing a resource (although interestingly only some insects increase in hyperoxia). This proves absolutely nothing about prehistoric creatures and their existence. It’s just theoretical like GET.
No, the relationship found within research of size and oxygen shows that that relationship is real. It is observed that insects can react to oxygen, by changing their structure because of debilitated or enhanced function. It does prove there is a natural pathway to explain the size increase of some insects in prehistory. This finding correlates with the time the larger insects were here and a raised oxygen level in prehistory was present. Their existence has already been proven plainly by the fossils themselves, or would you say someone placed them there to confuse us all? The fact that there is an experimentally proven natural pathway for larger size, the experimentally shown difference in reaction to hyperoxia is also reflected in the fossil evidence as not all insects were huge in size, which should have occured in a lower gravity. By the way, were are all your huge plants of hundreds of meters high that are growing in your lower gravity,grow big- idea ? Empirical data was gathered here by observation, what do you have?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 758#p41758

Yes, flying is more intensive. Exponentially so. That's my point about weight isn't it, and why we dont have any now yet we used to have large flyers long ago.
And if you are the predator, losing flight is likely to be a disadvantage. I just don't buy that all larger birds found better life on the ground. Not even one stayed in flight. It would appear to offer a big advantage to hunt larger mammals, reptiles and other birds. There's plenty around. Nature used to find it economical.
So if flying is more intensive, and I think you mean by exponentionally, very much. Good, so at least you can say there is a trade-off somewhere. Weight wasn't a problem for hanggliders you remember, but then you switched to take-off of pterosaurs, and there we had quadrupedal take-off, but now it's weight again. It seems you are running in circles, weight is not the problem. You comparing birds and pterosaurs in an improper way there lies the problem.
I did not ask you to take the advantages of gigantism in predators but those being predated upon, as prey. Why is losing flight as predator a disadvantage? Could you give examples of, using your words, larger birds of which you don't buy that they found better life on the ground?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 759#p41759

Wow. If I didn't know better I would have thought I was discussing something on BAUT as their usual tactic is to throw masses of papers at the proponent. Of course, when arguing from a mainstream perspective you can always win the argument this way. That how science works isn't it?
Regarding the papers, do any discuss the diminishing effects of hyperoxia? Is there any limitation to this process? I assume you know all the papers intimately.
Wow indeed, you managed to completely copy all the post and then refrain from any particular comment about them. Why do you run away from what is said there? And I just placed them here out of convenience and perhaps as a little service to you for a quick reference to a random picking of the most recent research about oxygen and insects. There was no evil intent or BAUT-tactic behind it. Of course I'm very sorry if that is what you make of it, but that is your perception. But if you are happy with doing a smearjob, feel free and make your day. Not all science is evil just because it opposes your believe structure. And it is even more devious to use mainstream science when it fits ones alley and discard it as ridiculous and manipulated when not. Does that mean you already know everything and by that are the Great Inquisitor in what is good and bad? Empirical data is indifferent to your beliefs.
Regarding the papers, yes they do that as well as enlargening effects, or did you mean hypoxia? In these experiments, the limitation is the time they can run the experiments and the number of generations you can observe in that time. And no, I don't know them intimately, I just googled insect-oxygen-size. I did read them out of interest of the subject at the moment I googled them and I have already read about such things before. If you are interested in the subject why don't you? Just read some of those articles, it won't hurt you. Or are you already settled in your conclusion based on mere belief and imagination? Is that the science you propose? Just assuming something isn't, without even investigating properly if something perhaps can be?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 760#p41760

[StefanR]

Now that we have established from all the great fossil evidence presented in the thread above, (Thanks once again to StefanR for all the great links and videos) that the gravity of Earth has varied from at least 1/10th to one gravity, we need to look at the implications of what that lower gravity of the early Earth means.

Glad you liked the links and the video's allynh, but when are you actually going to read and watch them? If you really think you're able to state that from these links gravity has varied from 1/10th to one gravity, it seems to me you have problems with understanding what you are reading. Or did you get the 1/10th figure somewhere else? Is it in Ted Holden's book?
If you say gravity varied by a growing earth, as you discarded a electrical gravity effect with a constant Earth, please explain the following to me. If you look at the fossil evidence you are of course aware of the fact that the period of larger amphibians and insects was well before your big impossible dinosaurs, a substantial amount of time there was no large animal roaming the earth in between. If gravity changed beccause of a growing Earth, doesn't the fossil evidence then point to a Earth that was first big when live started and then became smaller to accomodate larger insects and such in a lower gravity, than it grew again to make gravity larger and make it impossible for large insects, then it shrank again to accomodate the larger dinosaurs and also made insects disregard that changed gravity and not grow big, then the Earth grew again to make it impossible for large dinosaurs to live, then it schrank again to accomodate large mammals that are not alive today, and then again grow in size to kill of those larger mammals and grounding those poor big birds of aardwolf unable to fly, leaving us with what is supposedly considered normal according to you.
How is that possible?
And why didn't plants react to these changes? Where are the 1 kilometer high trees, in your 1/10th gravity?

[moses]

How is that possible?
StefanR

Of course in my model the variation in low and high gravity creatures is to be expected. When Mars was very close to Earth big creatures were transferred, whereas when Mars was further away there would be little such transference.
Mo

[Aardwolf]

No, as it seems the increased/active respiration cannot improve the take up, as it is dominated by the diffusion of oxygen into the tissues of the insects. With the current level of oxygen the ammount of trachae in the body of an insect would have to increase and that would get to a level where the structural integrity could come into trouble. Just lowering gravity to account for very large insects would not be able to change the oxygen uptake abillity of the tissues. The empirical evidence as is shown in the articles I placed here for convenience, shows that there is a stunting in growth in hypoxia and an increase in growth in hyperoxia. Not all insects according to research react in exactly the same way or ammount but a reaction is shown. Insects taken into space with very little gravity don't show a propencity to grow larger over generations, or do you have other evidence to the contrary. They should according to your ideas about the limiting factor for size of insects. Why are there no articles screaming : "Gigantic spiders reared in the ISS !!" ?

Were talking about lower gravity not zero.

Still not sure what you are meaning here. What is so special about smaller dragonflies?

Nothing, so why can they fly? If weight has no impact scaling up then it has no impact scaling down therefore, if meganuera cannot fly because of lower oxygen their neither should dragonflies. How do they cope with lower oxygen?

So now you do accept a comparison with currently living species? And I do need to be shown how they calculated it, how do I do that emperically myself? How do you know the Goliath Beetle does not fly at 100 grams?

Easy, you take a larger and smaller version of a species or similar species. Measure the length, width and height. Where the larger creature is twice the length width and height then compare the weight. Is it double? I’ll leave you to find out. Goliath Beetles do not fly at 100g because they do not exist at that weight post larval stage.

It is a model. And I gave it to you as example as you mentioned that ornithopters would not fly above the weight of insects, but it does fly with 600 grams. Why do you switch again to the take-off, as it was about weight?

Because nothing that files would get very far if it couldn’t take off and as I said to you way back on page 31:

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

I guess you forgot.

No I don't, that's why I'm asking you to tell me, please?

You know about wing load but not about the square cube law. Odd. Read this book for some help:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Galileos-Square ... B0043EV9ZO

Weight is not insignificant, but just one of the many factors that do all combine to a good body-plan for flight. Just focussing on weight, is like focussing on CO2 in climate science.

CO2 in climate is insignificant. Weight in flight isn’t.

As you could have read, there was a significant size increase or reduction. But there is a difference in having the time to raise several generations and study those and the time involved in nature.

Significant? Anywhere near 1000%? Linear or logarithmic growth?

No, the relationship found within research of size and oxygen shows that that relationship is real. It is observed that insects can react to oxygen, by changing their structure because of debilitated or enhanced function. It does prove there is a natural pathway to explain the size increase of some insects in prehistory. This finding correlates with the time the larger insects were here and a raised oxygen level in prehistory was present. Their existence has already been proven plainly by the fossils themselves, or would you say someone placed them there to confuse us all?

As I said there are many ways to stunt and increase growth. Proves nothing except that they can induce limited adaptaion which can be done by varying many of its resources.

The fact that there is an experimentally proven natural pathway for larger size, the experimentally shown difference in reaction to hyperoxia is also reflected in the fossil evidence as not all insects were huge in size, which should have occured in a lower gravity.

Not at all. Gravity just defines an upper limit which is why there is life from bacteria upwards.

By the way, were are all your huge plants of hundreds of meters high that are growing in your lower gravity,grow big- idea ? Empirical data was gathered here by observation, what do you have?

Where exactly would you find a preserved plant hundreds of metres tall? How exactly would that get fossilised? A leaf of twig gives no indication of the size or height of the plant it was on.

So if flying is more intensive, and I think you mean by exponentionally, very much. Good, so at least you can say there is a trade-off somewhere. Weight wasn't a problem for hanggliders you remember, but then you switched to take-off of pterosaurs, and there we had quadrupedal take-off, but now it's weight again. It seems you are running in circles, weight is not the problem. You comparing birds and pterosaurs in an improper way there lies the problem.

If you want to compare a hang glider to nature how does it take off? Unfortunately, as paleontologists are acutely aware, when dicussing flight in nature you need to consider how take off is achieved. Which is why they need to find reasons rather than the obvious one that they took off exactly the same way every flying animal takes off. It's their blinkered view on the greater picture that requires further assumtions to support their beliefs. Ockham would not be happy.

I did not ask you to take the advantages of gigantism in predators but those being predated upon, as prey. Why is losing flight as predator a disadvantage? Could you give examples of, using your words, larger birds of which you don't buy that they found better life on the ground?

Any bird over 45lb. Apparently they all found better life on the ground even though they should all be capable of flying up to at least 500lb.

Wow indeed, you managed to completely copy all the post and then refrain from any particular comment about them. Why do you run away from what is said there? And I just placed them here out of convenience and perhaps as a little service to you for a quick reference to a random picking of the most recent research about oxygen and insects. There was no evil intent or BAUT-tactic behind it. Of course I'm very sorry if that is what you make of it, but that is your perception. But if you are happy with doing a smearjob, feel free and make your day. Not all science is evil just because it opposes your believe structure. And it is even more devious to use mainstream science when it fits ones alley and discard it as ridiculous and manipulated when not. Does that mean you already know everything and by that are the Great Inquisitor in what is good and bad? Empirical data is indifferent to your beliefs.

I had no comment because you win. You have all the mainstream papers that say the same thing over and over. They must be right because that how science works isn’t it? Personally I prefer to discuss specifics but if that’s beyond my opponent then they obviously win with the papers.

Regarding the papers, yes they do that as well as enlargening effects, or did you mean hypoxia? In these experiments, the limitation is the time they can run the experiments and the number of generations you can observe in that time. And no, I don't know them intimately, I just googled insect-oxygen-size. I did read them out of interest of the subject at the moment I googled them and I have already read about such things before. If you are interested in the subject why don't you? Just read some of those articles, it won't hurt you. Or are you already settled in your conclusion based on mere belief and imagination? Is that the science you propose? Just assuming something isn't, without even investigating properly if something perhaps can be?

Maybe you need to understand these papers fully and their limitations before you cite them as evidence for something. I wouldn’t use a paper unless I knew it intimately, however, there’s no substitute for independent thought.

By the way has google told you how those 600 gram ornithopters take off yet?

[allynh]

Water does not expand. The ocean levels would stay the same.

From the Wiki quote above"

Since many liquids can be considered incompressible, a reasonably good estimation can be made from assuming a constant density throughout the liquid.

To simplify equations water can be considered incompressible, but only over short distances. Any ocean, miles deep is under compression. Even the temperature of the water changes the density, so the pressure created by gravity will compress it as well. Change the gravity, the ocean levels rise or fall.

Now, where did I leave the rosin for my bow. Ah, there it is. Now back to my fiddle lesson.

[moses]

To simplify equations water can be considered incompressible, but only over short distances. Any ocean, miles deep is under compression. Even the temperature of the water changes the density, so the pressure created by gravity will compress it as well. Change the gravity, the ocean levels rise or fall. allynh

Anyone else ? Help.
Mo

[allynh]

Glad you liked the links and the video's allynh, but when are you actually going to read and watch them? If you really think you're able to state that from these links gravity has varied from 1/10th to one gravity, it seems to me you have problems with understanding what you are reading. Or did you get the 1/10th figure somewhere else? Is it in Ted Holden's book?

I'll ignore the obvious snarky statements, because I know from a previous answer that you gave upstream that you are "just teasing" by making all these strawman arguments. All the links you posted were great, I would never have found the information otherwise. They profoundly add to the discussion by showing the size variability of past animals. I encourage everyone to read those links that StefanR posted upstream, they are critical to understand the fossil evidence for Growing Earth Theory. Of course, ignore the snarky comments he made, he was "just teasing" when he made them. I cannot state more clearly how important the information in those links adds to the proof that gravity was less in the past. I'm still harvesting the sites he linked to and gaining profound insight. Thanks again.

If you say gravity varied by a growing earth, as you discarded a electrical gravity effect with a constant Earth, please explain the following to me.

- If you look at the fossil evidence you are of course aware of the fact that the period of larger amphibians and insects was well before your big impossible dinosaurs, a substantial amount of time there was no large animal roaming the earth in between.

- If gravity changed beccause of a growing Earth, doesn't the fossil evidence then point to a Earth that was first big when live started

- and then became smaller to accomodate larger insects and such in a lower gravity,

- than it grew again to make gravity larger and make it impossible for large insects,

- then it shrank again to accomodate the larger dinosaurs and also made insects disregard that changed gravity and not grow big,

- then the Earth grew again to make it impossible for large dinosaurs to live,

- then it schrank again to accomodate large mammals that are not alive today,

- and then again grow in size to kill of those larger mammals and grounding those poor big birds of aardwolf unable to fly,

- leaving us with what is supposedly considered normal according to you.

I broke up the paragraph for clarity sake, it was all a bit mashed together and jumbled, but StefanR has pointed to the best example for Growing Earth Theory rather than a constant Earth with variable electric gravity.

As I pointed out in the Atmospheric pressure post upstream, if the gravity dropped by half, most life would be wiped out. If gravity dropped to 1/10th, as the fossil evidence clearly showed, then most animal life would be killed on Earth, land and ocean, since 1/10th atm is equal to the pressure of about 50,000 feet today. If this happened on a constant Earth with gravity fluctuating up and down, there would be no life other than bacteria, etc...

On a Growing Earth, starting with a planet smaller than today's Moon, at 1/10th gravity, it would take a deep atmosphere about ten times as high as today's just to match 1 atm at sea level. From the fossil evidence we know the atmospheric pressure at sea level was at least within the life range of 1 atm and 1/2 atm, otherwise there would be no life. From what Maxlow has determined, the early Earth was fairly flat with shallow seas, no high mountains or regions of high elevation.

As the planet grew, the gravity increased, which pulled the air column down, increasing the pressure, but that atmosphere would now be spread over a larger surface area, reducing the pressure.

The Earth would be growing in size over time, the atmosphere pulling in with higher gravity, but having to cover a growing surface area at the same time, so the pressure would vary over time as well. You could have big animals in the beginning because of low gravity and moderate air pressure, then have smaller animals as the gravity increased but the pressure dropped. The size of animals is limited by both gravity and pressure.

Life would be in a constant battle with growing gravity and variable air pressure. Life was probably on the verge of extinction many times as the Earth grew, with gravity constantly rising and the atmosphere not growing fast enough at times to keep up. If we could graph animal and insect size over time, with gravity constantly going up(never down), we would see where changes in gravity and pressure(both up and down) would limit size or allow increases depending on conditions. It would not be a simple equation.

And why didn't plants react to these changes? Where are the 1 kilometer high trees, in your 1/10th gravity?

Classic strawman StefanR, but then of course, you're "just teasing". Now back to my fiddle.

[Anaconda]

Gentlemen:

The discussion regarding insects and animals is interesting. Overall the evidence of giant insect and animal life in the fossil record, in my opinion, does support the proposition there was less gravity in earlier epochs of Earth's history. Although, the discussion suggests there is room for varied opinions.

Present day geological evidence can also shed light on the question of whether Earth is expanding.

Today, with seismic measuring devices all over the world and rapid communication, we know that earthquakes happen everday all over the globe. When we think of earthquakes, we are conditioned to think of lateral or horizontal ground motion, but when one researches the scientific literature and news reports, it becomes apparent that vertical uplift is just as or more common than lateral motion. And that raises the question:

If earthquakes are accompanied with vertical uplift, at what point or amount of uplifting does it become apparent the Earth is expanding because the Earth's crust is constantly being uplifted outward?

I mean, after all, if the Earth is a constant size, then, any uplift would have to be matched with an equal amount of subsidence. But that is not what is observed. Sure, some subsidence is noted, but on the whole much more uplift is observed & measured as a result of earthquakes.

One only has to research the phrase, "uplift measured after earthquakes" and numerous examples are found of such measurements and occurances.

It's not surprising that almost all conventional geologists fail to "connect the dots" of the overall uplift because their starting a priori assumption is that Earth's size is constant. So, even though vertical uplift is observed & measured in the vast majority of earthquakes, they only consider the local effect and fail to note the overall pattern.

Let me provide some examples:

Chile Megaquake Creates New Coastline: Big Pics, Aug. 2, 2010

After the quake, Marcelo Farias of the University of Chile in Santiago and a team of researchers surveyed the coast, looking for changes in the landscape. Along a 500-kilometer (311-mile) stretch, they found the land had sunk a full meter below its pre-quake level in some places. In others it had risen from the sea (see the "after" picture below of the same piece of coastline).

The team's calculations, published last week in Science Express, suggest the megathrust fault between the South America and Pacific tectonic plates slipped 10 meters (33 feet) during the quake. Some places along the coast showed vertical uplift of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet), all of it occurring as the quake released 175 years of pent up seismic energy in just a few short minutes.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/chile-quake-uplift.html

And:

Huge Chilean Earthquake Raised Country's Coast, Jul 29, 2010

The Chilean earthquake that struck on Feb. 27 changed the country’s landscape by raising the ground by more than 8 feet near the coast and sinking land farther inward, a new study finds.

Chile is situated atop a hotspot for earthquake activity, so learning how this magnitude 8.8 quake moved the land will tell scientists more about what causes large earthquakes.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/huge-ch ... oast-0388/

If geologists "connect the dots" they could easily conclude that Earth's expansion is what causes earthquakes. Notice that the land subsided farther inland, this contradicts the idea that a tectonic plate is "subducting" or "diving" underneath the South American plate, and, thus, pushing up the South American plate. Interestingly enough, this is very similar to what was observed & measured on the coast of Peru in a 2007 earthquake, which has already been previously discussed:

Physorg.com -- CSI: Pisco, Peru -- Study uncovers tectonic events behind earthquake, April 10, 2009

Three-dimensional deformation following the 2007 Pisco, Peru earthquake. The red areas show ~1m of uplift offshore and the blues areas about 50 cm of subsidence on land. The hinge-line between uplift and subsidence closely matches the location of the coastline. Credit: UM Rosenstiel School

http://www.physorg.com/news158584209.html

The hinge-line can also be called a pivot line.

Uplift has been recorded even in the absence of an earthquake:

'Uplift' baffles scientists, transforms area beach, July 8, 2009

Like a giant fist punching through the earth, a 1,000-foot long section of the beach below Bluff Point rose up 20 feet from the tidelands sometime last Friday or late Thursday, pushing boulders up from the ocean bottom, cracking sandstone slabs and toppling rocks upside down.

Scientists don't know exactly what caused the uplift. It would take an earthquake over magnitude 7 to cause an uplift that high, said Peter Haeussler, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Anchorage.

"I have no idea," he said when he first learned of the uplift. "This sounds really, really bizarre."

http://www.homernews.com/stories/070809 ... _002.shtml

"Bizarre" for somebody who can't conceive of an expanding Earth.

Uplift happens as a result of earthquakes all over the world:

Charles Lyell and the great 1855 earthquake in New Zealand: first recognition of active fault tectonics, 2010

Comparison is made with the results of subsequent work that, although in broad agreement with Lyell's account, also indicate greater localized uplift, less subsidence, variable vertical displacement along ‘Lyell's' fault, the nature of the fault contact and horizontal displacement on the fault.

http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cgi/cont ... t/167/1/35

And, in California, as well:

Studying the Setting and Consequences of the Earthquake (Northridge '94)

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. The Santa Susana Mountains were pushed up by at least 40 centimeters, based on direct measurements at Oat Mountain, and possibly by as much as 52 centimeters, based on modeling slip on the fault plane. The northern edge of the San Fernando Valley was pushed up less than the mountains, but uplift of more than 20 centimeters was measured in Northridge, and as much as 20-40 centimeters of uplift occurred throughout the northern part of the valley.

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

Of course, this earthquake was a result of the San Andreas fault, which we are always told is a fault where two tectonic plates slip horizontally or laterally past each other, but as one can read, there was substantial vertical uplift:

... but uplift of more than 20 centimeters was measured in Northridge, and as much as 20-40 centimeters of uplift occurred throughout the northern part of the valley.

So, if these are two tectonic plates which are moving horizontally or laterally past each other, how does all that observed & measured uplift occur? It seems logical that secular expansion of the Earth's crust is also happening.

Uplift was also observed & measured as a result of the 1989 San Fransico earthquake (World Series earthquake):

Resolving vertical tectonics in the San Francisco Bay Area from permanent scatterer InSAR and GPS analysis, 2005

The InSAR residuals indicate significant uplift over the southern foothills of the active Mount Diablo anticlinorium, the Mission Hills stepover region of the Hayward and Calaveras faults, and the central and southern Santa Cruz Mountains located along a restraining bend of the San Andreas fault.

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/34/3/221.abstract

And, across the globe in Taiwan substantial uplift was observed & measured:

(Scroll down the webpage to) Field Studies of Two Tragic 1999 Earthquakes, The Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan

I was awestruck by the results of the large-scale uplift. Where the fault cuts through cities and lifelines, hundreds of buildings, a major dam, numerous roads and levees, and at least five major bridges were ruptured. Nevertheless, as in the 1906 San Andreas and 1999 Anatolian fault dislocations, well-built structures, even though adjacent to such major offsets, were left standing, often with little damage. Across one previously level street, I encountered the fault scarp with undamaged houses on one side, elevated by 6 meters so that they now looked down on their neighbors; only the house on the lot through which the faulting occurred was destroyed. From the riverbank on the side of this street, one could observe a newly created waterfall in the riverbed exposing at least a 100-meter zone of gouge.

http://www.whfreeman.com/bolt/content/bt00/bt00nn01.htm

Possibly the best example of substantial uplift being observed & measured after an earthquake is the Alaska Earthquake 1964 (series of photo images with accompanying captions at the link):

Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964. Uplifted sea floor at Cape Cleare on Montague Island in Prince William Sound in the area of the greatest recorded tectonic uplift on land (33 feet).

Hinchinbrook Coast Guard dock, raised above all but the highest tides by regional uplift in Prince William Sound. Land in this area rose about 8 feet during the earthquake.

Muskeg-covered pre-earthquake marine terrace on Middleton Island at an altitude of 110-125 feet. It is one of five uplifted terraces on the island, and a surf-cut rock platform exposed between the base of the sea cliff and the new high tide level is a sixth terrace formed by uplift of about 11 feet in 1964.

And, yes, there was some subsidence as well, but much less overall:

This road, along Women's Bay on Kodiak Island, is in an area that tectonically subsided 5 feet during the earthquake.

The ground northwest of the fault (on the right) was displaced upward as much as 16 feet with respect to the ground southeast of the fault during the earthquake, but both sides of the fault were uplifted with respect to sea level due to general tectonic uplift of the region.

Hanning Bay fault scarp on Montague Island, looking northwest. Vertical displacement in the foreground, in rock, is about 12 feet. The maximum measured displacement of 14 feet is at the beach ridge near the trees in the background.

http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin ... ake%7C1964

Uplift and subsidence was observed & measured as a result of the 2004 Boxing day, Indian Ocean earthquake and tidal wave:

Comparing Pre- and Post-Quake Images (NASA):

ASTER imagery showed dramatic uplift at North Sentinel Island, shown in this pair of images from December 2, 2004, and February 20, 2005. In the 2005 image, the newly exposed coral reef appears bright white, similar to the coral at North Reef Island.

Through a combination of satellite imagery and field measurements, Meltzner and his colleagues developed a comprehensive picture of subsidence and uplift resulting from the Aceh quake. Colored dots represent estimates of minimum uplift or subsidence (sinking). The dashed line is the estimated pivot line, on either side of which the earth either rose or fell.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /aceh2.php

Notice the "pivot" line with uplift and subsidence on each side of the "line", respectively, is similar to the uplift and subsidence observed & measured in the two seperate locations on the South American coast, Chile and Peru, respectively.

Again, this contradicts the so-called "subduction" model where supposedly tectonic plates "dive" under other tectonic plates. In the Indian Ocean earthquake & tidal wave, supposedly the Indian Ocean plate "dived" under the Indonesian plate, but it's the Indonesian plate on the one side of the pivot line which subsides instead of uplifts.

It's suggested that the violent and sudden uplift of the Indian Ocean seafloor off the Indonesian coast is what causes the tidal wave. That's why it's the Indian Ocean side of the "pivot line" where uplift is observed & measured. This is all consistent with evidence of Earth's expansion.

Again, and again, uplift is observed & measured, I could have cited more examples of uplift after an earthquake, but the point is made.

And the question must be asked again: How much uplift must be noted in earthquake locations all over the world before it's apparent that uplift is a secular feature of earthquakes (and sometimes without earthquakes, too) and is overwhelming evidence of Earth's expansion?

[StefanR]

No, as it seems the increased/active respiration cannot improve the take up, as it is dominated by the diffusion of oxygen into the tissues of the insects. With the current level of oxygen the ammount of trachae in the body of an insect would have to increase and that would get to a level where the structural integrity could come into trouble. Just lowering gravity to account for very large insects would not be able to change the oxygen uptake abillity of the tissues. The empirical evidence as is shown in the articles I placed here for convenience, shows that there is a stunting in growth in hypoxia and an increase in growth in hyperoxia. Not all insects according to research react in exactly the same way or ammount but a reaction is shown. Insects taken into space with very little gravity don't show a propencity to grow larger over generations, or do you have other evidence to the contrary. They should according to your ideas about the limiting factor for size of insects. Why are there no articles screaming : "Gigantic spiders reared in the ISS !!" ?

Were talking about lower gravity not zero.

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

Still not sure what you are meaning here. What is so special about smaller dragonflies?

Nothing, so why can they fly? If weight has no impact scaling up then it has no impact scaling down therefore, if meganuera cannot fly because of lower oxygen their neither should dragonflies. How do they cope with lower oxygen?

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 now you do accept a comparison with currently living species? And I do need to be shown how they calculated it, how do I do that emperically myself? How do you know the Goliath Beetle does not fly at 100 grams?

Easy, you take a larger and smaller version of a species or similar species. Measure the length, width and height. Where the larger creature is twice the length width and height then compare the weight. Is it double? I’ll leave you to find out. Goliath Beetles do not fly at 100g because they do not exist at that weight post larval stage.

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.

It is a model. And I gave it to you as example as you mentioned that ornithopters would not fly above the weight of insects, but it does fly with 600 grams. Why do you switch again to the take-off, as it was about weight?

Because nothing that files would get very far if it couldn’t take off and as I said to you way back on page 31:

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

I guess you forgot.

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.

No I don't, that's why I'm asking you to tell me, please?

You know about wing load but not about the square cube law. Odd. Read this book for some help:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Galileos-Square ... B0043EV9ZO

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.

Square Cube Law: For any given shape, surface area increases in proportion to the square of any linear dimension, while volume increases as the cube. The surface area of a cube of side x is 6x2, while the volume is x3. Thus, for any given shape, doubling linear dimension will increase surface area by a factor of four and volume by a factor of eight. Biological interactions may depend on linear dimension, surface area or mass. Other things being equal (although they never are), a taller organism will be able to access vegetation in proportion to its height. The surface area over which it will lose heat from metabolizing all that fodder increases as the square of its height. The mass it has to support to get the additional height increases as the cube of the height. Thus, increasing or decreasing size requires morphological adaptations. Simply scaling up or down won't work beyond a fairly small range. As a practical matter, biological organisms are sufficiently complex that they can compensate by a series of small adaptations, including morphologically invisible behavioral adaptations, to a surprising degree. The square-cube law is therefore not quite the limitation it appears to be. Nevertheless it is an important constraint on evolution. As a point of reference, there are actually few biologically important parameters that depend on dimension. However, one of these is the force per unit cross-sectional area of muscles. "Square" interactions, those which depend on surface area, include respiratory efficiency, bone strength (i.e. cross-sectional area), aerodynamic lift, and rate of heat gain or loss to the environment, frictional resistance to motion in water, and pressure exerted on a surface. "Cube" interactions are often metabolic. Again, other things being equal, an animal twice as tall will need eight times as much energy to run at the same rate. An important, but very consistent, oddity in this respect is that larger organisms almost invariably have lower basal metabolic rates. It takes much less energy per kilogram to run a 100 kg kangaroo than a 50 g kangaroo rat.

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/List ... arySq.html
or

One of the interesting aspects of this data is that it does not seem to follow the expected "square-cube" law. We might expect that the stress in similar structures increases with the linear dimensions if the imposed load is proportional to the structural weight because the latter grows as the cube of the linear dimension while the material cross-section carrying the load grows as the square. There are several reasons that the relationship is not so simple:
1. Some aircraft components are not affected very much by the square-cube law.
2. New and better materials and techniques have helped empty weight.
3. Higher wing loadings are used for larger aircraft.
4. Some portions of airplanes have material size fixed by minimum "handling" thickness.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/weights.html

Weight is not insignificant, but just one of the many factors that do all combine to a good body-plan for flight. Just focussing on weight, is like focussing on CO2 in climate science.

CO2 in climate is insignificant. Weight in flight isn’t.

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

As you could have read, there was a significant size increase or reduction. But there is a difference in having the time to raise several generations and study those and the time involved in nature.

Significant? Anywhere near 1000%? Linear or logarithmic growth?

There are two sentences in that bit of quote, you focus on the first and forget the second.

No, the relationship found within research of size and oxygen shows that that relationship is real. It is observed that insects can react to oxygen, by changing their structure because of debilitated or enhanced function. It does prove there is a natural pathway to explain the size increase of some insects in prehistory. This finding correlates with the time the larger insects were here and a raised oxygen level in prehistory was present. Their existence has already been proven plainly by the fossils themselves, or would you say someone placed them there to confuse us all?

As I said there are many ways to stunt and increase growth. Proves nothing except that they can induce limited adaptaion which can be done by varying many of its resources.

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

The fact that there is an experimentally proven natural pathway for larger size, the experimentally shown difference in reaction to hyperoxia is also reflected in the fossil evidence as not all insects were huge in size, which should have occured in a lower gravity.

Not at all. Gravity just defines an upper limit which is why there is life from bacteria upwards.

But the research experiment had as only variable factor oxygen, not gravity. And still there was significant size increase over several generations.

By the way, were are all your huge plants of hundreds of meters high that are growing in your lower gravity,grow big- idea ? Empirical data was gathered here by observation, what do you have?

Where exactly would you find a preserved plant hundreds of metres tall? How exactly would that get fossilised? A leaf of twig gives no indication of the size or height of the plant it was on.

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.

So if flying is more intensive, and I think you mean by exponentionally, very much. Good, so at least you can say there is a trade-off somewhere. Weight wasn't a problem for hanggliders you remember, but then you switched to take-off of pterosaurs, and there we had quadrupedal take-off, but now it's weight again. It seems you are running in circles, weight is not the problem. You comparing birds and pterosaurs in an improper way there lies the problem.

If you want to compare a hang glider to nature how does it take off? Unfortunately, as paleontologists are acutely aware, when dicussing flight in nature you need to consider how take off is achieved. Which is why they need to find reasons rather than the obvious one that they took off exactly the same way every flying animal takes off. It's their blinkered view on the greater picture that requires further assumtions to support their beliefs. Ockham would not be happy.

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.

I did not ask you to take the advantages of gigantism in predators but those being predated upon, as prey. Why is losing flight as predator a disadvantage? Could you give examples of, using your words, larger birds of which you don't buy that they found better life on the ground?

Any bird over 45lb. Apparently they all found better life on the ground even though they should all be capable of flying up to at least 500lb.

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?

Wow indeed, you managed to completely copy all the post and then refrain from any particular comment about them. Why do you run away from what is said there? And I just placed them here out of convenience and perhaps as a little service to you for a quick reference to a random picking of the most recent research about oxygen and insects. There was no evil intent or BAUT-tactic behind it. Of course I'm very sorry if that is what you make of it, but that is your perception. But if you are happy with doing a smearjob, feel free and make your day. Not all science is evil just because it opposes your believe structure. And it is even more devious to use mainstream science when it fits ones alley and discard it as ridiculous and manipulated when not. Does that mean you already know everything and by that are the Great Inquisitor in what is good and bad? Empirical data is indifferent to your beliefs.

I had no comment because you win. You have all the mainstream papers that say the same thing over and over. They must be right because that how science works isn’t it? Personally I prefer to discuss specifics but if that’s beyond my opponent then they obviously win with the papers.

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

Regarding the papers, yes they do that as well as enlargening effects, or did you mean hypoxia? In these experiments, the limitation is the time they can run the experiments and the number of generations you can observe in that time. And no, I don't know them intimately, I just googled insect-oxygen-size. I did read them out of interest of the subject at the moment I googled them and I have already read about such things before. If you are interested in the subject why don't you? Just read some of those articles, it won't hurt you. Or are you already settled in your conclusion based on mere belief and imagination? Is that the science you propose? Just assuming something isn't, without even investigating properly if something perhaps can be?

Maybe you need to understand these papers fully and their limitations before you cite them as evidence for something. I wouldn’t use a paper unless I knew it intimately, however, there’s no substitute for independent thought.

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.

By the way has google told you how those 600 gram ornithopters take off yet?


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

[allynh]

Even NewScientist magazine is asking:

Why Can't Elephants Jump?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -jump.html

Now I'm just being silly.