"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.
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.
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.
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 ... s-fly.html
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Very interesting. Relevance to my point?
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.