Are the planets growing?

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

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:23 am

Grey Cloud wrote: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.
Because the birds you listed do not prey on their food they forage for it as they are omnivores and eat whatever they can find. Apart from Secretary Birds which are birds of prey but I’ve chosen to exclude this as it’s another strawman argument because they can fly.


Grey Cloud wrote: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.
Then what evidence do you have for whatever earth/continent formation theory you subscribe to? And it is relevant because you are arguing that it can’t be expanding because we don’t have evidence, so what evidence do you have to the contrary?


Grey Cloud wrote: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.
Why do animals have eyes? Is that a futile question? Would you argue that all the extinct animals may have had eye sockets, but as we have no evidence that they actually saw things then we can’t say they were able to see? Do you appreciate how ridiculous that sounds?


Grey Cloud wrote: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 have made 2 separate points. There are no flightless avian predators of any weight. There are no birds able to fly over 45lb. I haven’t been switching anything. All the birds you listed can either fly or are not predators; they are forager/scavengers. They are omnivores that can eat seeds, fruit, roots etc. If that’s all they can find are you still happy to say they hunt and prey on this food source? And you are wrong again because I did mention other potential factors for not flying. On page 32 I said;

Aardwolf wrote:I'm just curious to know why all flightless birds over 40lb have all chosen not to fly. We know from prehistory that animals can fly up to 500 pounds so if nothing has changed why have they all chosen to become land dwellers? Every single species of them. I can understand why some may have if there was a benefit in their environment, but it makes no sense for every single species to give up flying. How would you explain it?


Grey Cloud wrote: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.
I only queried you referencing of the Great Bustard because just like your Secretary Bird strawman, this bird can also fly. Can the various bustards you mention also fly?


Grey Cloud wrote: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.
I don’t need facts and evidence to point out a strawman argument. By its very nature there are no facts or evidence to disprove the argument because it’s fallacious.


Grey Cloud wrote:Over what time period did this theoretical gravity change take place? Was it overnight, over decades, millenia or what?
It’s directly related to the expanding earth so why would it happen overnight? Are you trying to set up another strawman?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aristarchus » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:08 am

StefanR wrote: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?


It's not about what you or I would propose for an experiment. The experiment involved would have to consider "isolation of population" and "duration." Since no experiment has taken place that entails such factors, you can't then claim those that diagree with you to prove a negative.

StefanR wrote: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.


Yes. It does - or a very close proximity. One of the faults lying in the Urey-Miller experiement is that it uses kludge factors to try and provide evidence for abiogenesis. I do not know of any valid scientific methodology or conclusion that would not take into account excluding factors lacking in providing an exact environment of that under consideration.

StefanR wrote: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?


What scientists did do was send monarch butterflies into space to test a hypothesis. The results were incomplete, because there has to be isolation of population and duration - and the latter two are prerequisites to the hypothesis offered by astrophysics/astrobiology for conducting such experiments.

StefanR wrote: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.


What the experiment concluded was the following:

“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?”

Ergo, it is possible that wing size development for animals in prehistoric times could also have had a gravity locator, thus wing size was perhaps permitted to be much larger than today because of lower gravity. Based on this, I am more open to the ideas proposed by Aardwolf than your attempts to invalidate them.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:10 am

webolife wrote:What? I never said Aardwolf agreed with me, just that he understood my point... maybe he didn't?


Let's take another look at what you stated above.

webolife wrote: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.


And, let's take another look at what Aardwolf actually said in response to your original statement:

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


webolife, come on, your statement implies that Aardwolf agreed with your analysis, not just that he "understood" your point of view. But, of course, Aardwolf can speak for himself -- I'll leave it there -- except to say, "If one can't be trusted with the little things, it hardly makes sense to trust someone with the bigger things."

Moving on:

webolife wrote:Obviously you don't want folks to read my posts... hmmm, what does that say about your theory?


I have no problem with anybody reading your posts, actually, discussion within the bounds of scientific discourse is a good thing. A hypothesisis or a theory, for that matter, needs to be challenged by reasonable scepticism.

The issue I have is that you don't address or challenge specific examples which I provide, nor do you respond to specific questions I ask you about the examples.

Here, again, I provided an example and asked questions:

Anaconda wrote:webolife:

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

Anaconda wrote: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.


And, again, you refused to engage the specific example -- analyzing specific examples is what empirical science is all about -- batting back and forth fuzzy generalities is what pseudo-science is all about.

Frankly, I would prefer discussion of specific examples rather than fuzzy generalities because generalities do little to advance actual understanding of the physical dynamics involved, rather, "fuzzy generalities", often, are a fig leaf for justifying pre-existing bias or prejudice (obviously, considering the subject, I want readers to move beyond pre-existing bias & prejudice). And, since you ignore specific examples, even spending time justifying why you don't have to answer questions about specific examples (see webolife's comment, above), instead of simply "grasping the nettle", I will continue to explain why your statements and objections offer little if any probative value for discovering the geological mechanics which constrain the Earth's development.

Exploring & discussing the Earth's dynamics, hopefully learning and gaining deeper understanding, is what this forum is all about.

Since I have no problem with anybody reading your posts, I don't think it says anything about the Expanding Earth theory, it really has everything to do with the quality of your analysis & objections and how much weight readers should give your comments -- specific examples are more informative than fuzzy generalities, in my opinion.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:40 am

StefanR wrote:"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?
If they were able to perform the experiment under the correct conditions of reduced gravity I am certain there would be. Zero or micro gravity has other potential detrimental effects so is of no use.
As for all the links, I’m not going to respond unless there are specific points you have relating to these we can discuss. However, I did note an interesting tidbit;

“In fact, the smallest grasshoppers didn't even have problems in oxygen as low as 5%.”

So we have an insect that although it was born in 21% oxygen was able to operate without any problems. Shouldn’t it have died? Meganeura supposedly died out with only a 40% reduction yet this carried on even though it lost 76%. Yet again when you read the detail of these papers you realise the data doesn’t really support their conclusion. The real factor here was its weight. It was light enough for the reduction to be irrelevant. As I said, oxygen is a factor, it’s just not the main one.


StefanR wrote:You are dodging the question yet again.
I’m not in the habit of posting links to papers especially when they are non controversial issues. If you are so concerned that the estimate is wrong, find a paper that refutes it.


StefanR wrote: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.
If you believe their take off is solved then fine that’s up to you. Still doesn’t explain why we have no creatures of this size able to fly. And any extant birds that are of this size were all fortunate enough to find respective environments that were safe enough to give up being able to fly. Lucky them.


StefanR wrote: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.
No controversy? I know you want the science to be settled but it isn’t because if it were then why do we have articles like this;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090428-giant-pterosaurs-fly.html

To quote;

"Based on the weights and body sizes of modern birds, a new study finds that animals heavier than 90 pounds (41 kilograms) with wingspans greater than 16.7 feet (5.1 meters) wouldn't be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft. "

"Takeoff is the hardest task. I suppose they could not take off using only muscular efforts."


Of course both sides are wrong. They flew because in their time they were effectively much lighter but they can’t or won’t see this because to admit/show or prove it would shake the foundations of science as we know it. Or they would be labelled as crackpots and lose tenure.


StefanR wrote:It will only be simple if you simplify and isolate it as you do.
I simplify it because it’s simple. Unlike CO2 which isn't.


StefanR wrote:Which of the two? Is density no concern?
No because between two similar species internally they will be very similar also only scaled up. Certainly good enough for an approximation. Consider an Alsation and a horse. A horse is about just over 2 times the height and width and about 2.5 times length of an alsation. This equates to about 12 times the volume. And how much more does it weigh? You guessed it, about 12 times.


StefanR wrote:Do you have proof for that assertion? Or is it just your guess? Emperical evidence has shows otherwise.
Nope. As the sentence stated, it’s my belief. The empirical evidence shows that growth can be stunted. Nothing more. Anything more that that is assumption.


StefanR wrote:I can show you many links and posts in the Tensegrity-thread. It will make your opinion show to be quite uninformed.
Oh well. I can live with it. Especially as this is mainly a discussion about flight. If I wish to debate that thread one day maybe I will. I just hope it isn't full of strawmen.


StefanR wrote: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?
Yes it does. Where would you suggest we look for a preserved one in its entirety for proof?


StefanR wrote:Pterosaurs were dynamic living creatures that could take-off quadrupedaly, no problems there, enough height and thrust generated by powerfull muscles and low weight.
But you wanted to compare them to hang gliders. Do you now accept it’s an invalid analogy?


StefanR wrote:If birds don't choose why do you keep on returning to that frase?
Because I don’t believe it is statistically possible for them to all find favourable ground environments for them to live on and all lose flight by coincidence. So they chose or it was forced.


StefanR wrote: 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?
That one of its ancestors was able to fly is beyond question. Which one? Who knows, the experts will associate any large bird as being flightless because of wing size to body as they apply a consistent gravity.


StefanR wrote: I believe GreyCloud recieved the same question about flightless predatory birds, and I think answered it quite satisfactorely and generously IMO.
Then you also think its apt to refute a point about flightless predatory birds with references to flying ones and ones that don’t prey on their food? I suppose I’ve come to expect this level of debate now.


StefanR wrote: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.
I’m not making an assumption about anything. There are no flying birds over 45lb. Fact. That all found favourable environments on the ground is your assumption. It’s your assumption I find unlikely. They wouldn’t be grounded at the same time because they have different weights. The heaviest lost flight first and eventually will become extinct just like the very heaviest that have already gone. Mainly because they have to run around with 2 essentially useless appendages where arms or extra legs would be preferable. And that’s why there are so few large birds species left. Oh, if only they could fly...


StefanR wrote: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?
Then why not just link to a repository and leave. We can read at our leisure. Most individuals attend forums as an er......forum. I don’t think BAUT tactics are welcomed over here.


StefanR wrote:How interesting are the mentioned points down here:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pseudoskepticism
Very interesting. Relevance to my point?


StefanR wrote:Do all birds take-off in the same way? So the pterosaurs only walked on their hindlegs?
No to the take off and I don’t believe pterosaurs had forelegs.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:53 am

webolife wrote: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.

If it was genuine mistake then I of course apologise for the accusation.

However, that just means that if you thought that to be a possibility, there is some doubt cast on your ability to apply a logiical thought process. This also doesn't bode well for the rest of your arguments. In fact it's probably worse.

And for the record I dont agree with any of your points about uplift. Of course there is uplift expected and predicted by an expanding earth. Compresion of the crust on the continents is exactly what would be expected by a flattening curvature of the earth. There is less area above the curve as its straightened hence compression, uplift and crumpling would be unavoidable.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:18 am

webolife wrote: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.


Which answers do you want me to respond to? (I'd be happy to respond to specific questions or examples. But preferably not an overloaded laundry list designed to overwhelm the interlocutor.)

Let's make this straight-forward and simple: Why don't you ask me one question at a time for a start.

Now, let's look at a sentence from the above quoted paragraph:

webolife wrote:Again I remind you, I do not make any claims for subduction, other than not entirely ruling it out.


What does that mean?

In the absence of a response from webolife, I can only take that to mean: "I' won't defend subduction, but I'll use it whenever subduction happens to help my constant diameter perspective." It's this fuzzy approach to the question that needs to be pointed out.

webolife often invokes the general dynamic of "compression" in support his constant diameter opinion.

But as I have pointed out before in this thread, "compression" by itself is not a model. Sure, it's a geological dynamic, but freed from an overall model or framework of physical relationships, individual examples of geological compression don't tell scientists anything about the overall structure & dynamics of Earth.

webolife wrote: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.


Where is the horizontal compressional force coming from in the case of the uplift reported along the San Andreas fault after the '94 Northridge quake?

Afterall, the San Andreas fault system is a transform fault where the Pacific tectonic plate is sliding laterally or horizontally past the North American tectonic plate.

Per Wikipedia:

The San Andreas Fault is a continental transform fault that runs a length of roughly 810 miles (1,300 km) through California in the United States. The fault's motion is right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal motion). It forms the tectonic boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate.

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

At the location on the San Andreas fault where the '94 Northridge earthquake happened, no significant compression occurs according to the Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift model.

So, again, webolife, where does the "compression" come from to account for the 4,000 square kilometer region-wide uplift?

webolife wrote: If this [compression accounts for uplift idea] were not so, I would have to take each one of your specific examples as a unique case...


Well, there you go, webolife, I provided a specific example where the mainstream "subduction" model, does not account for the uplift. I'd please like that explanation now.

And, more over, the previous examples I've given, the Chilean and Peruvian quakes contradict your "compression equals uplift" idea.

And, below, is an example, again, previously provided in this thread which also contradicts your "compression equals uplift" idea.

In Surprise, Major Earthquake Fault Slips Backward

(Live Science) -- August 2, 2007 -- A vast chunk of Earth sliding under Mexico has surprisingly reversed direction, puzzling geologists and leaving them wondering...[because]...Suddenly, in the latter half of 2006, the plate began moving the other way and quadrupled its speed, scientists announced today.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... kward.html

Anaconda wrote:[Paraphrase: "Please provide a specific response to the reversal of the westward lateral motion against the force of compression exhibited in this example."]


Obviously, your excuse for not grappling with specifics doesn't hold up:

webolife wrote: If this [compression accounts for uplift idea] were not so, I would have to take each one of your specific examples as a unique case...


So, webolife, your own rationalizations don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Please, by your own standards, respond to each one of my examples.

If you refuse, it becomes patently obvious you have no intention of being intellectually honest in this discussion.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:16 pm

Just to be sure people get the point that Aardwolf is making, I've posted the article to avoid the usual twists and turns that seem to be happening here lately.

Go step by step through the article and you will see echoes of the arguments on the thread. You can see the twists and turns as Sato makes his points then people try to say he is wrong by giving examples that actually support his main point. Sound familiar?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-fly.html
Giant Pterosaurs Couldn't Fly, Study Suggests

April 28, 2009

Giant pterosaurs, colossal winged reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs, have long been considered the heaviest animals ever to take to the skies.

But new research suggests that the notion of giant pterosaurs soaring over Earth simply doesn't fly.

Based on the weights and body sizes of modern birds, a new study finds that animals heavier than 90 pounds (41 kilograms) with wingspans greater than 16.7 feet (5.1 meters) wouldn't be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft.

The conclusion casts serious doubt on the flying ability of large pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus, thought to be one of the largest airborne animals of all time.

The late-Cretaceous creature may have weighed up to 551 pounds (250 kilograms) and had up to a 34.1-foot (10.4-meter) wingspan—nearly as wide as a schoolbus is long.

"I think that the giant pterosaurs could not stay aloft in an environment similar to the present," said study leader Katsufumi Sato, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo's Ocean Research Institute.

Even if they could stay up, the bulky beasts would have had trouble getting off the ground in the first place, Sato said.

"Takeoff is the hardest task. I suppose they could not take off using only muscular efforts."

Setting Limits

Sato, who is also a National Geographic Society emerging explorer, journeyed to the southern Indian Ocean to study the world's largest bird, the wandering albatross, and four smaller bird species. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)

All five species are considered to be soaring birds—flyers that use a strategy of gliding punctuated by sporadic flapping, as pterosaurs are generally thought to have flown.

The researcher outfitted 26 birds with tiny accelerometers, which collected data on their flapping speeds from takeoff to landing.

Comparing the data across species, Sato found that the flapping speeds required for a bird to take off and then stay cruising are linked to its body size.

He and his team calculate that 22 pounds (10 kilograms)—the weight of a large wandering albatross—is the "pragmatic limit" for safe and sustainable flight in variable wind conditions.

Sato's findings, appearing tomorrow in the journal PLoS ONE, also suggest that, in theory, a soaring flyer can weigh no more than 90 pounds (41 kilograms) with a wingspan no wider than 16.7 feet (5.1 meters).

Swimming Pterosaurs?

Other scientists are not quite convinced that Sato's research means large pterosaurs couldn't get airborne.

"One possibility is that Sato's findings don't really apply to pterosaurs or even to all birds," suggested Davin Unwin, a paleobiologist at the University of Leicester in the U.K.

For example, Argentavis, a giant bird thought to have existed six million years ago, had a wingspan of 20 feet (6 meters) and seems to have been able to fly, Unwin said.

What's more, Unwin said, giant pterosaur fossils all seem to have extraordinarily thin bone walls, which could mean the animals were lighter than their size would suggest.

Makoto Manabe, a senior scientist at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo, also thinks it's possible that pterosaurs were simply lighter than we currently think.

Or, if pterosaurs couldn't fly, Manabe wonders whether they might have been swimmers, "using their wings as fins like penguins."

"Having said that," he added, "their wings do not look very efficient at swimming."

According to study leader Sato, it's possible heavy pterosaurs overcame their difficulties during takeoff by launching themselves from high places such as trees or cliffs.

But if pterosaurs really were capable of sustained flight, "we must think about the possibility of drastic change in other environmental factors, such as much lighter gravity or much denser air over geological time," he said.

Biggest Critic

In general, Sato thinks the reactions from paleontologists have been "not so negative," despite the fact that his conclusions would bring huge pterosaurs abruptly down to Earth.

He is expecting his biggest critic to be much closer to home.

"My six-year-old son, Takuto, is a dinosaur freak," he said, "and will never agree with my findings."

The comments by Sato give me hope that people are beginning to see the obvious, and get their comments into print: that gravity was less in the past.
"My six-year-old son, Takuto, is a dinosaur freak," he said, "and will never agree with my findings."

That sums up what's been happening here. Too many six year olds in the mix.

And then this popped in just as I was about to post.
Anaconda wrote:Now, let's look at a sentence from the above quoted paragraph:
webolife wrote:Again I remind you, I do not make any claims for subduction, other than not entirely ruling it out.

What does that mean?

Yes!
Anaconda wrote:If you refuse, it becomes patently obvious you have no intention of being intellectually honest in this discussion.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:40 pm

Giant Pterosaurs Couldn't Fly, Study Suggests.
April 28, 2009


Dinosaur the size of a giraffe could fly across continents.

A dinosaur the size of a giraffe was capable of launching itself into the air and flying for thousands of miles, scientists have discovered.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dino ... nents.html

Trans-continental flying dinosaurs. Cool. Wonder if they flew in formation, like geese? :D
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby webolife » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:41 pm

Subduction is the alleged sliding of a denser [basaltic] oceanic plate beneath a lighter [granitic] continental plate.
The friction caused by this is purported to create some of the heats associated with magmatic activity along continental margins, such as the Pacific Rim "ring of fire". The oceanic plate and continental plate are butting aheads accordiing to continental drift. This head-butting process is compressional whether or not the alleged downward slide of subduction is happening. The compression will result in a thickening of the crust and mountain formation at the "leading edge" of the moving plates, which is what is observed. According to the SM this process is still happening in the present. This is basic continental drift theory, based on the seafloor spreading evidence first discovered 50 years ago. I differ from this outlook in a couple ways:
1. I see the present fingernail pace rate of drift as residual movement from an earlier more catastrophic period.
2. I think that the compressional aspect of mountain formation is sufficient to account for the spreading observed in the rift zones. SO, while subduction seems like a reasonable conjecture, I question its validity BECAUSE of evidences like you present, which I see as a rebound or torquing of the crust near the plate boundaries, which would include most or all of the specific cases you present. I simply see that spreading anywhere in the crust is accompanied by compression elsewhere, so it is not necessary in my view that oceanic crust be plunging beneath the continents. All of this on a static-radius earth. Generalizing in this manner is what building a parsimonious theory is all about. There is nothing pseudoscientific about it.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby StefanR » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:46 pm

My golly, look at the date, this must be a conspiracy.


Pterosaur reptile used "pole vault" trick for take-off
15 November 2010 Last updated at 13:00 GMT



A new study claims that the ancient winged reptiles known as pterosaurs used a "pole-vaulting" action to take to the air.

They say the creatures took off using all four of their limbs.

The reptiles vaulted over their wings, pushing off first with their hind limbs and then thrusting themselves upwards with their powerful arm muscles - not dissimilar to some modern bats.

The research is published in the open-access journal Plos One.

Pterosaurs lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, but belonged to a different group of reptiles. They existed from the Triassic Period until the end of the Cretaceous - about 220 million years ago to 65 million years ago.

In their study, Dr Mark Witton at Portsmouth University, UK, and Dr Michael Habib of Chatham University, Pennsylvania, US, reappraised giant pterosaur fossils.

Their findings challenge other claims that the giant pterosaurs - such as Pteranodon and the largest azhdarchids - were not capable of flying.
'Too heavy'

Researchers have previously suggested that these creatures were too heavy to have taken to the skies.

There have also been doubts that the ancient reptiles could have taken off using the same action as birds.

"Most birds take off either by running to pick up speed and jumping into the air before flapping wildly, or if they're small enough, they may simply launch themselves into the air from a standstill," said Dr Witton.

"Previous theories suggested that giant pterosaurs were too big and heavy to perform either of these manoeuvres."

He added: "These creatures were not birds; they were flying reptiles with a distinctly different skeletal structure, wing proportions and muscle mass.

"They would have achieved flight in a completely different way to birds and would have had a lower angle of take off and initial flight trajectory."
Muscle bulk

The authors of the latest study suggest that, with up to 50kg of forelimb muscle, the creatures could easily have launched themselves into the air despite their massive size and weight.

Dr Habib explained: "Instead of taking off with their legs alone, like birds, pterosaurs probably took off using all four of their limbs.

"By using their arms as the main engines for launching instead of their legs, they use the flight muscles - the strongest in their bodies - to take off and that gives them potential to launch much greater weight into the air," he explained.

"When they were far enough off the ground, they could start flapping their wings before finding a thermal or another area of uplift to gain some altitude and glide off to wherever they wanted to go," he told BBC News.

The largest pterosaurs may have had wingspans up to 13m and weighed up to 544kg.

But the authors' reappraisal of pterosaur fossils suggests these numbers may have been overestimated. They argue that the biggest creatures may have had 10-11m wingspans and weighed between 200 and 250 kg.
More on This Story
Related stories

* Pterosaurs 'flew like birds' 30 OCTOBER 2003, SCI/TECH
* Flying reptiles just got bigger 08 SEPTEMBER 2005, SCI/TECH
* New flying reptile fossils found 14 OCTOBER 2009, SCI/TECH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11756858

What a marvelous gift, thanks. :shock: 8-)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:07 pm

GaryN wrote:Trans-continental flying dinosaurs. Cool. Wonder if they flew in formation, like geese?

Be very afraid when they fly over. We are talking killer poop/droppings. Let's get that into the thread to admire and wonder at how they ignore the need for a lower gravity. Ha!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dino ... nents.html
Dinosaur the size of a giraffe could fly across continents

A dinosaur the size of a giraffe was capable of launching itself into the air and flying for thousands of miles, scientists have discovered.
pterosaur_1761446c.jpg

Dr Mark Witton, a palaeontologist from the University of Portsmouth and Dr Michael Habib from Chatham University USA, have studied how the giant pterosaur, which was as big as a giraffe, could get off the ground.

Dr Witton said: ''Most birds take off either by running to pick up speed and jumping into the air before flapping wildly, or if they're small enough, they may simply launch themselves into the air from a standstill.

''Previous theories suggested that giant pterosaurs were too big and heavy to perform either of these manoeuvres and therefore they would have remained on the ground.

''But when examining pterosaurs the bird analogy can be stretched too far.

''These creatures were not birds, they were flying reptiles with a distinctly different skeletal structure, wing proportions and muscle mass.

''They would have achieved flight in a completely different way to birds and would have had a lower angle of take off and initial flight trajectory.

''The anatomy of these creatures is unique.''

Their research, published today in the international Public Library of Science journal, PLoS ONE, follows claims that pterosaurs were too heavy to take off like birds.

But Drs Witton and Habib suggest that the creatures, with up to 50kg of forelimb muscle, could easily have launched themselves into the air despite their massive size and weight.

Previous theories have asserted that giant pterosaurs could have been six metres tall with a wingspan of up to 12 metres but the researchers argue that five metres high with a 10 meter wingspan would have been more realistic.

Dr Witton said: ''The size of the flight muscles in a giant pterosaur would be incredible: they alone would be up to 50kg (110lbs) and account for 20% of the animal's total mass providing tremendous power and lift.''

Dr Habib added: ''Scientists have struggled for decades to figure out how giant pterosaurs could become airborne and some recent proposals have simply assumed it must have been impossible.

''But they may have approached the problem from the wrong end, instead of taking off with their legs alone, like birds, pterosaurs probably took off using all four of their limbs.

''By using their arms as the main engines for launching instead of their legs, they use the flight muscles, the strongest in their bodies, to take off and that gives them potential to launch much greater weight into the air.

''This may explain how pterosaurs became so much larger than any other flying animals known.''

The researchers examined every possible anatomical aspect of the prehistoric flying reptiles, which died out 65 million years ago along with the dinosaurs.

Using fossilised remains they estimated size and weight and calculated bone strength and mechanics and potential ''flap gliding'' performance.

They concluded that not only could pterosaurs fly, they could do so extremely well and could have travelled huge distances and even crossed continents.

They found that it was unlikely that they would need to flap continuously to remain aloft but would flap powerfully in short bursts with their large size allowing them to achieve rapid cruising speeds.

Dr Witton said: ''Pterosaurs had incredibly strong skeletons, for their weight, they're probably amongst the strongest ever evolved.

''And, unlike birds, where the wings become relatively weak as they grow in size, those of pterosaurs do the opposite: they become stronger.

''As pterosaurs became larger, they reinforced their wings and expanded their flight muscles to ensure they could keep flying.''

OMG! They say what?
Dr Witton said: ''Pterosaurs had incredibly strong skeletons, for their weight, they're probably amongst the strongest ever evolved.

''And, unlike birds, where the wings become relatively weak as they grow in size, those of pterosaurs do the opposite: they become stronger.

''As pterosaurs became larger, they reinforced their wings and expanded their flight muscles to ensure they could keep flying.''

I love the Witton artwork, but what is he smoking.

Then just as I was going to post StefanR posts another article, awesome. These guys must be reading the Forum.
pteranodon-1.jpg
Some have suggested the biggest pterosaurs were incapable of flight

Everybody give a wave to Dr. Witton.
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:31 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote: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.
Because the birds you listed do not prey on their food they forage for it as they are omnivores and eat whatever they can find. Apart from Secretary Birds which are birds of prey but I’ve chosen to exclude this as it’s another strawman argument because they can fly.
I was mistaken about the Secretary Bird, I forgot it could fly. Nothing to do with strawmen.
What about the Penguins? Do they forage for fish? Do the ground-dwelling birds forage for small rodents and lizards etc? Given that the Secretary Bird can fly but chooses to hunt mainly on the ground, as does the Caracara, how does that fit in with your theory of enforced gounding?


Grey Cloud wrote: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.
Then what evidence do you have for whatever earth/continent formation theory you subscribe to? And it is relevant because you are arguing that it can’t be expanding because we don’t have evidence, so what evidence do you have to the contrary?
I don't need evidence for my pet theory because a) it is your theory about gravity that is under scrutiny and b) I don't have a pet theory. I couldn't give a fig whether the Earth has shrunk or grown, or reduced or increased its gravity. I am not advocating anything, you are the one doing the advocating thus you are the one required to come up with evidence. Trying to put the onus on me to come up with evidence for my pet theory is a strawman tactic.

Grey Cloud wrote: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.
Why do animals have eyes? Is that a futile question? Would you argue that all the extinct animals may have had eye sockets, but as we have no evidence that they actually saw things then we can’t say they were able to see? Do you appreciate how ridiculous that sounds?
I said asking such questions was futile exercise, i.e. one can only speculate, the definitive answer will always elude one. Lots of animals do not have eyes, you yourself gave a couple of examples. Several species have the organ but no actual vision. All seem to cope just fine. The introduction of eyes into the debate is a strawman. As far as I know, theere is only one use for eyes and that is seeing. Wings can be used for flying , swimming or just plain balance, to name but three.

Grey Cloud wrote: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 have made 2 separate points. There are no flightless avian predators of any weight. There are no birds able to fly over 45lb. I haven’t been switching anything. All the birds you listed can either fly or are not predators; they are forager/scavengers. They are omnivores that can eat seeds, fruit, roots etc. If that’s all they can find are you still happy to say they hunt and prey on this food source? And you are wrong again because I did mention other potential factors for not flying. On page 32 I said;

Aardwolf wrote:I'm just curious to know why all flightless birds over 40lb have all chosen not to fly. We know from prehistory that animals can fly up to 500 pounds so if nothing has changed why have they all chosen to become land dwellers? Every single species of them. I can understand why some may have if there was a benefit in their environment, but it makes no sense for every single species to give up flying. How would you explain it?

The fact that some of the examples do not exist soley on hunting is irrelevant. They still hunt and kill live animals when the opportunity arises.
As I have already stated at least twice, we have no evidence, as far as I know, that any of these birds ever flew. Are there examples of Penguins with decent sized wings?

Grey Cloud wrote: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.
I only queried you referencing of the Great Bustard because just like your Secretary Bird strawman, this bird can also fly. Can the various bustards you mention also fly?


Grey Cloud wrote: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.
I don’t need facts and evidence to point out a strawman argument. By its very nature there are no facts or evidence to disprove the argument because it’s fallacious.
But you haven't exposed any strawman arguments, merely levelled the accusation repeatedly.


Grey Cloud wrote:Over what time period did this theoretical gravity change take place? Was it overnight, over decades, millenia or what?
It’s directly related to the expanding earth so why would it happen overnight? Are you trying to set up another strawman?
No, that is a genuine question. If I understand the EE theory correctly, the expansion/growth has been going on forever and continures to this day. If that is correct then where is the evidence of avian species becoming ground dwellers, one species after another as the increased gravity caught up with them? Why should the large flyers all stop millions of years ago? Why didn't at least some of them evolve so as to retain the ability to fly in the slowly increasing gravity?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:18 am

i again request you to see the depth of this theory with complete mechanism of nature.this is practical and complete . please observe it again and again you will find good results after some time.


Theory of Earth Formation


1. Universe is like a natural forest where different-2 Planets are growing and last shrinking and dying. As in the natural forest where different-2 seeds of trees & plants are germinating and converting in big trees & plants, And after completion of their age, started shrinking & dying.

2. As in the natural forest produces thousands of its seeds and only few seeds can germinate and after germination few can convert in big trees only same as old cosmic bodies produce millions of Meteoroids and few Meteoroids can germinate in asteroid and out of these asteroids a very few can convert in big Planets only. Although all Meteoroids are not seed of Planets, only few Meteoroids are seeds , produced by old cosmic bodies & rest are debris of old cosmic bodies. One Planet is a result of one Meteoroid only as one tree is a result of one seed only.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj

3. As seeds contains Amino Acid and Proteins. The main properties of seed same Meteoroids (seed) contains Amino Acid & proteins.

4. Plate Tectonics is the main part of this theory. But biological process of the Earth is responsible for the motion of plates only. At some point on the log of tree You can see black plates in the red core of log of tree are pushing white crust of log toward outside extraordinary, making like mountains on log of tree. Same Plates in the Earth formed Mountains. Please see the attached link for more clarification.

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j

5. Minerals available on Earth or we can say mineral produced by Earth are also produced by all living things. I mean Iron, Zn, CU, Ni, etc. Are produced by all living thing by biological process. This is very much common factor for all living things including Planets. If Earth is a just ball of rocks only then It can not produced different-2 minerals like all other living things even if it can produce different-2 minerals it can not deposit its mineral in different-2 mines that actually we have. It will become alloys when reaching in different-2 mines. These different-2 pockets of minerals are possible only if Earth is a living thing only. (Intelligent Point )

6. As tree has bark around it same Earth is also covered with bark. Continents are part of bark of Earth. When log of tree increases in girth its bark starts cracking and separating. Same Continents starts cracking when Earth started growing and expanding. There are lots of points on continents clearly indicating that at earlier stage of Earth they have separated from each other.

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj



7. As resin erupting from log of tree same volcano are erupting from Earth.

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j

8. Log of tree contains core and crust as per attached link same Earth has core and crust. As red core of tree is hard and termite cannot eat easily same core of Earth is so hard that we can not dig it easily.

http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj


9. This is the complete mechanism of Planet from Meteoroids to Asteroid and Asteroid to Planet. As same from seed to small germinated plant and from germinated plant to big tree.

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj

10. Summary: Planets are living thing like Tree and Plants & taking birth from seeds (Meteoroids) & having biological growth. Here universe is a soil where there Meteoroids are germinating & converting in Planets.



Author:

Suresh Bansal
Sureshbansal342@gmail.com
JUST BELIEVE IN YOURSELF
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aristarchus » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:13 am

sureshbansal342,

Thank you for your insight. Great stuff! I've been reasoning some of these things as it relates to understanding the universe as a living organism. My only question would be regarding the following from you:

"One Planet is a result of one Meteoroid only as one tree is a result of one seed only."

Could there be a kind of panspermia from regions of space that act as multiple seeding of a planet? It would appear to me that an evolutional process would entail not only the generating of evolving consciousness through plasma arcs, but also various microbes and viruses infiltrating the atmosphere from space that produces flux and change for a dynamic living system.

One could even conceive that thoughts are living organisms - as well as cultures/civilizations. I also would like to thank the proponents of the expanding earth theory on this thread. Something new, which I have not contemplated before until recently.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:37 pm

IT'S NOT EITHER - OR; IT'S NOT EITHER PLATE TECTONICS [WITH SUBDUCTION] OR EARTH EXPANSION
Webolife wrote: Again I remind you, I do not make any claims for subduction, other than not entirely ruling it out.

Anaconda replied: What does that mean?
- In the absence of a response from webolife, I can only take that to mean: "I' won't defend subduction, but I'll use it whenever subduction happens to help my constant diameter perspective." It's this fuzzy approach to the question that needs to be pointed out.
- webolife often invokes the general dynamic of "compression" in support his constant diameter opinion.
- But as I have pointed out before in this thread, "compression" by itself is not a model. Sure, it's a geological dynamic, but freed from an overall model or framework of physical relationships, individual examples of geological compression don't tell scientists anything about the overall structure & dynamics of Earth.

webolife wrote: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.

Anaconda replied: Where is the horizontal compressional force coming from in the case of the uplift reported along the San Andreas fault after the '94 Northridge quake?

* Anaconda, have you not checked out the Cardona Interview thread yet? He has said that he thinks both petroleum and coal are formed abiotically, as you've said. And he thinks both Plate Tectonics and Earth Expansion are possible, but he says it would be Continental Drift without subduction, which he seems to think probably would involve expansion. I think significant Earth Expansion is unlikely, however. There's a way to have Continental Drift without subduction or expansion. That's if the continents were smashed apart, such as by an "impact", and slid on the underlying magma. See http://newgeology.us. Cardona may have a better explanation than an impact to explain what made the continents slide apart, but I haven't asked him to explain that yet. I intend to before long.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests