Are the planets growing?

[sureshbansal342]

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.

first i will like tell you that I am not any geologist but i am a small trader of iron and steel in India.but i am observing this theory from last 25 years.i have lot lot of similarities that earth or planets are growing and expanding like a tree. reg your point i can not understand the typical meaning of your question. please explain in simple manner. i again suggest you that you observe the growth of log of tree again and again and correlate with my theory every point you will find very good results.i am not any qualified and language problem is also there.I know only that my theory is with practical and with complete mechanism.my point is there is a direct relation with biology and planet formation that we have to examine as i am without any facility and help.

[Aristarchus]

i again suggest you that you observe the growth of log of tree again and again and correlate with my theory every point you will find very good results.i am not any qualified and language problem is also there.I know only that my theory is with practical and with complete mechanism.my point is there is a direct relation with biology and planet formation that we have to examine as i am without any facility and help.

Thank you for your response to my previous post. I appreciate your allegory of biology and plant formation, as it seems to relate to the occult teaching regarding the tree of life and as it is relates to (viz.), as it is above, so it is below. It also appears to resemble the repeating patterns and systems one finds in the Mandelbrot Set. I also have admiration for anyone that has learned more than one language, as this is something I have not had the initiative to master.

I am very open to the hypothesis of an expanding earth, and find your proposal intriguing and valid. My question to you is that you stated in your previous post the seeding of earth, but as a singularity, and this appears to somewhat adhere to a panspermia model, as panspermia is where I have directed my reading and investigations. I find panspermia a plausible theory and a valid hypothesis with accumulating evidence to support it.

It is just that it appears to me that panspermia presumes a multiple seeding of earth that in ongoing, and not the result of of a singular seeding from an asteroid.

A panspermic view of life - Interview with N. Chandra Wickramasinghe

Two recent experiments in the United States have once again drawn the attention of scientists to the theory of panspermia. (Panspermia, which literally means seeds everywhere, underlies the hypothesis that the (biological) stuff of life did not have its origins in terrestrial resources but in inter-stellar space. The theory maintains that life on the earth was seeded from space and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on complex genes (including those of viruses and diseases) that the earth rec eives from space from time to time.)

The key argument of the duo is that, given the fact that the life of the earth is about 3.8 billion years, the time scales available are, probabilistically speaking, very small for the kind of chance mutations and selection by accumulation of mutational errors to occur and the consequent emergence of higher life forms (like humans) entirely based on terrestrial processes. They argue that the time scales in the universe as a whole, particularly unbounded time in the context of steady state cosmology as a gainst the big-bang cosmology, and the combined resources of all the comets around all the stars in all the galaxies would be more conducive for life to begin. Once started, the robustness of life, for which Hoyle and Wickramasinghe claim there is suffic ient experimental evidence, ensures its "essential immortality".

Comets and meteorites function as transporting vehicles for these across space, as space between stars is littered with cometary debris. Life forms survive and are repeatedly regenerated in the warm watery interiors of comets, the duo argue. Comets arriv ing on the earth from the 100 billion-strong Oort cometary cloud brought the first life on the earth. The evolution of the earth was directed by the continued arrival of cometary bacteria, which are probably still arriving. In the evolution into higher l ife forms, genes of viruses and viroid particles which have complex genes, would have played a crucial role, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe believe. While there may have been local transfer of microbes between some of the planets, like Mars and the earth, thes e would be minor aspects of panspermia. The main transfer, according to them, is through comets to inter-stellar and inter-planetary space, back to comets, amplification in comets, transfer from comets to all prospective habitats on planets and planetar y satellites.

[Aardwolf]

I was mistaken about the Secretary Bird, I forgot it could fly. Nothing to do with strawmen.

I’ll just have to take your word for it, but it’s still a strawman, intentional or not.

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?

I already stated that Penguins have probably evolved due to their environment rather than forced to do so. Just like some Kingfishers and Ducks will no doubt evolve to do so in the future. Bear in mind Penguins generally only inhabit areas where there are very few (if any) land predators, just like most other flightless birds. And I’ve never stated that the only reason birds lost flight is because of weight. IMO it’s just highly improbable that all birds over 45lb found better environments on the ground. Picking specific birds that have found their own niche in their environment doesn’t change that opinion. They are Just more strawmen arguments.

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.

A strawman would require that I refute something you haven’t said. Where did I do that? I’m just pointing out that the alternatives have just as much (lack of) evidence as GET (except GET doesn’t need to invoke unseen geologic processes to work). I just hope you criticise their theories as vehemently for their lack of evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence IMO supports GET far more than other theories.

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.

But it wasn’t about whether they coped or had alternative uses. You stated that as we cannot produce evidence they used the wings for flight therefore we cannot say they flew. We also have no evidence that those creatures used wings for balance or for swimming. It’s all speculation therefore we use opinions. IMO that they used their wings for flight is far more likely than any other use, just like eyes for seeing. If your opinion is that they used them for something else then fine. However it would be a cruel evolutionary joke when they could have been given far more useful arms or extra legs.

As I have already stated at least twice, we have no evidence, as far as I know, that any of these birds ever flew.

Just like we have no evidence they eyes were used to see and legs were used to walk and teeth were used to chew and ears were used to hear. I guess you are awaiting to be convinced by some photo or video evidence. The rest of us in the meantime can employ logic and probabilities for a good enough answer..

Are there examples of Penguins with decent sized wings?

Who would know? Do you know for certain that every a fossil representing every stage of its evolution has been gathered?

But you haven't exposed any strawman arguments, merely levelled the accusation repeatedly.

1)Secretary Bird on your list of flightless birds (strawman whether intentional or not)
2)Great Bustard mention during flightless bird discussion
3)Asking how specific birds fit into my theory about enforced growth when I never said all birds were forced.
4)Asking why there has been no report declaring gigantic spiders in the ISS when no research has been done.
5)Stating that I said only gravity is responsible for insect size when I already acknowledged it was just the main factor.
6)Declaring lowering gravity was detrimental to insects, when it was microgravity that was the cause of the defects.

That’s just the last few pages. Shall I go back further for an exhaustive list?

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?

Firstly, we don’t have every possible fossil to even attempt an answer this. And even if we did, due to the constrained views of the experts in the field they would likely be classed as flightless regardless because they would be forced to apply the strength of gravity as it is now.

Why didn't at least some of them evolve so as to retain the ability to fly in the slowly increasing gravity?

Isn’t that the question I have been asking repeatedly? Why indeed. According to the palaeontologists creatures up to 500lb at least should be able to fly but we have none over 45lb. The reason; it’s because there are real physical barriers to powered flight which make it completely uneconomical to nature over a certain weight to wing area ratio due to the square-cube law. It’s reducing the maximum size continually which is why the heaviest flying bird, the Kori Bustard, avoids flying as much as possible. Eventually it will also be classed as flightless as long as it can find a predator free environment. If not it will just become extinct.

[sureshbansal342]

i again suggest you that you observe the growth of log of tree again and again and correlate with my theory every point you will find very good results.i am not any qualified and language problem is also there.I know only that my theory is with practical and with complete mechanism.my point is there is a direct relation with biology and planet formation that we have to examine as i am without any facility and help.

Thank you for your response to my previous post. I appreciate your allegory of biology and plant formation, as it seems to relate to the occult teaching regarding the tree of life and as it is relates to (viz.), as it is above, so it is below. It also appears to resemble the repeating patterns and systems one finds in the Mandelbrot Set. I also have admiration for anyone that has learned more than one language, as this is something I have not had the initiative to master.

I am very open to the hypothesis of an expanding earth, and find your proposal intriguing and valid. My question to you is that you stated in your previous post the seeding of earth, but as a singularity, and this appears to somewhat adhere to a panspermia model, as panspermia is where I have directed my reading and investigations. I find panspermia a plausible theory and a valid hypothesis with accumulating evidence to support it.

It is just that it appears to me that panspermia presumes a multiple seeding of earth that in ongoing, and not the result of of a singular seeding from an asteroid.

A panspermic view of life - Interview with N. Chandra Wickramasinghe

Two recent experiments in the United States have once again drawn the attention of scientists to the theory of panspermia. (Panspermia, which literally means seeds everywhere, underlies the hypothesis that the (biological) stuff of life did not have its origins in terrestrial resources but in inter-stellar space. The theory maintains that life on the earth was seeded from space and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on complex genes (including those of viruses and diseases) that the earth rec eives from space from time to time.)

The key argument of the duo is that, given the fact that the life of the earth is about 3.8 billion years, the time scales available are, probabilistically speaking, very small for the kind of chance mutations and selection by accumulation of mutational errors to occur and the consequent emergence of higher life forms (like humans) entirely based on terrestrial processes. They argue that the time scales in the universe as a whole, particularly unbounded time in the context of steady state cosmology as a gainst the big-bang cosmology, and the combined resources of all the comets around all the stars in all the galaxies would be more conducive for life to begin. Once started, the robustness of life, for which Hoyle and Wickramasinghe claim there is suffic ient experimental evidence, ensures its "essential immortality".

Comets and meteorites function as transporting vehicles for these across space, as space between stars is littered with cometary debris. Life forms survive and are repeatedly regenerated in the warm watery interiors of comets, the duo argue. Comets arriv ing on the earth from the 100 billion-strong Oort cometary cloud brought the first life on the earth. The evolution of the earth was directed by the continued arrival of cometary bacteria, which are probably still arriving. In the evolution into higher l ife forms, genes of viruses and viroid particles which have complex genes, would have played a crucial role, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe believe. While there may have been local transfer of microbes between some of the planets, like Mars and the earth, thes e would be minor aspects of panspermia. The main transfer, according to them, is through comets to inter-stellar and inter-planetary space, back to comets, amplification in comets, transfer from comets to all prospective habitats on planets and planetar y satellites.
thanks for reply.
first with very honestly still i can not understand your point due to lack of education of geology and language.i think you are talking about (Panspermia) life on earth.and i am talking about that planets are them self living thing like a tree. as tree produces thousands of its seeds same an old cosmic body or an old planet produces million of meteoroids (seeds of planets) and out of these meteoroids some germinate in asteroids and out of these asteroids only few can convert in big planets . as one tree is a result of one seed only same one planet is a result of one meteoroid(seed).
I have already stated that i am observing this theory from last 25 years and i am without any help and instruments so i have mailed this theory to thousands of people from last 10 years including Wikramsinghe throw internet.actually problem is i am not any geologist so can not argue according to them due to techanical words .
2. my theory is totally different idea so its many times to difficult to mold them. lot of people not ready to even listen and just started to shout without knowing the depth.if you want frequent clarifications you can directly mail to sureshbansal342@gmail.com . because every time i do not login this thread.But again i must tell you that i am very much clear with this theory with practical manner.
3. it is very clear cut and easy every one can try trees and its bark,resin eruption etc
4. all living thing are producing same minerals like iron,zn,cu,mn--------- etc as earth is also producing same minerals . this is very much common factor for all living things and power point also that we should think in this direction.

[StefanR]

"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.

What he has found is revealing. The insects’ activity is affected by the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and just as the theory predicts, the effect is more pronounced in the largest specimens. The biggest bugs have the longest trachea, and therefore need the most oxygen.
For the remaining skeptics, there is one last test that should be made ... and has been made. If the theory be true, then smaller insects with shorter trachea should be able to deliver adequate oxygen to the tissues even in a low-oxygen atmosphere, and this difference should be most obvious when the smaller and larger insects are forced to engage in oxygen consuming activity, such as flying or jumping.
Simply put, this is exactly what Harrison has seen in his laboratory, and not with different kinds of insects, but with different sizes of the same kind of insect.
Harrison and graduate student Scott Kirkton tested the aerobic performance of grasshoppers given varying amounts of oxygen, and found that smaller grasshoppers can hop nonstop in atmospheric oxygen levels lower then that of our own (21%). In fact, the smallest grasshoppers didn't even have problems in oxygen as low as 5%.
As for the larger grasshoppers? They were quite the contrast from their smaller brothers and sisters, as they tired out faster and their hopping rates rapidly dropped to zero. When extra doses of oxygen were given, however, they began jumping more, strongly suggesting an oxygen-stimulated boost which increased their performance.
The same was seen with dragonflies.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 202#p42202

Your dubious way of citing and cherry-picking sure does shine in full glory here. It is also called quoting out-of-context.

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 yet again a dodge. It is not so much being concerned by the estimate being wrong, I just wish to see how the figure was attained. Please don't keep dodging this question, and help us all. I have asked you for over ten pages and all the time you just claim it is not controversial. But if it is such, why is it so difficult to find a good explanation? And no, I'm not going to find a refuting paper, you make the claim, you provide additional evidence for that claim.

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.

The quadrupedal take-off is just one of the many reasons, pterosaurs differ from birds. Birds are not similar to pterosaurs. How safe are ostriches in Africa?

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

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.

Yes the claims of mr. Sato seem to be representing a side in your percieved controversy. But again mr. Sato is making the same mistake you seem to want to keep in the air. He is measuring birds (albatrosses specifically) and thinks he can make statements about pterosaurs. But pterosaurs are not birds and birds are not pterosaurs. So mr. Sato is making a conclusion about something his study is not covering. Not sure if that is proper. Mr. Sato has been given reply by mr. Witton and other scientists by studying pterosaurs. Also mr. Sato is the sole claiment of this reasoning (perhaps apart from some immediate inferiors of his). And he is not claiming a lower gravity anywhere. But perhaps mr. Sato will be given some more money to study for NG:
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.)
Perhaps Sato goes for the butaniku, but I also think he is a reasonable man. So I can't say anything about that. But mr. Sato is taken seriously by his peers and his ideas are considered as can be seen in the Witton-paper on quadrupedal take-off. Sato makes no claim for a changing gravity in any way. Why don't you ask him if you think he is scared to say such thing out loud.

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.

Analogies: terms may vary, relationships stay the same. Aside from that, there is a difference between similarity and likeness.

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.

Yes, it is considered an approximation with such small differences. But it is also considered incorrect when considering different bodyplans as is seen in the larger dinosaurs and the larger pterosaurs. The use of post-cranial pneumatisation of bones is seen to be progressively present. The bigger the animal the more pneumatisation is present. It is just one of the many known empirical facts that support a natural adaptation for larger sizes in these animals. It assures that although volume is increase, the weight is not increasing at the same rate. By that way, doubt can be cast upon taking your ratio too dogmatically.

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.

No, the results show a stunting and a increase in size and activity. No assumptions, just observations. Your selective reading and denial of evidence will not change that. And I personally rather go with observations than your unsubstantiated belief, but I'm always open for reasonable ideas.

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.

Well mention is made there about dinosaurs and pterosaurs as well. So, be my guest.

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?

Fossil evidence does not immediately mean one fossil in its entirety. Remember not all fossils need to be entire to make statements about them. We have evidence of big insects, big pterosaurs and big dinosaurs and big mammals, where is the big plant evidence? I have seen many folks claim Megaflora, but when asked for evidence they remain silent. Why is that?

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?

It was not invalid, as it showed that weight was not the problem of being and getting in the air, with the same weight and size. The fact that pterosaurs are more dynamic and fully integrated in their structure makes the case only more plausible. Then you came with a supposed take-off problem, and that has been dealt with quadrupedaly. And no you cannot equate pterosaurs with birds. And again aside from that, similarity is not equal to likeness.

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.

So again, which bird didn't find a favourable environment on the gound to live in? And what kind of statistics are you using to come to that believe of that impossibility? How do birds choose if not forced? You have said earlier birds don't choose, so why do they do that now again according to you?

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 see, it's all those devious obfusciating experts again. So again, which bird didn't find a favourable environment on the gound to live in?

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.

There were also examples given of flightless predatory birds by GreyCloud . Your selective reading is doing you a disservice, only focussing on the one or two examples out of many that might be disputed. But perhaps you should be more precise in your questions, as GreyCloud already pointed out to you the difference between predatory birds and birds of prey.

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...

So your assumption is that all birds have flown all the time through history until grounded by gravity? Do you have any evidence for that assumption? Does a bird have to fly to be a bird?

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.

I see, so if I give examples and list them here it is against proper forum use according to you. Will you accuse by the same reason Allynh and Anaconda of such tactics? Are some animals more equal than others? Who are you to say I'm to leave? Can't take the heat? The links and quotations will stay there for reading at your leisure for some time. Does it make you uneasy that there are so many reasons against your assumptions? It is not that your assumption is disproven of course, but the likelyhood of it being true diminishes by the post and link. I can see that discussing these things in the open might be threatening to your assumptions concerning gigantism and get and the sale of Ted's books, but then again this is a forum as you state. If you think that giving links and quotations is wrong, please notify an administrator and make him/her remove more than half of the posts on this forum. Your idea of trying to restict debate is eerily reminiscent of how Phil Jones at CRU might like to see it. But do go ahead and notify an administrator and explain my misconduct, I will be waiting for any reprimande and removal of posts.

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

Very interesting. Relevance to my point?

It is indeed. Do you really wish to give a full explanation of that? Or will you be screaming BAUT-tactics again? If you will I can give a list of suchlike points and give examples of my accusation.

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.

But you said:

Pterosaurs took off exactly the way that all birds take off. It jumps up and forward and flaps its wings.

So should that than be ?:
Pterosaurs took off exactly the way not all birds take off.
And I did not ask if they had forelegs, I asked if pterosaurs walked only on their hindlegs. Did pterosaurs only walk on their hindlegs?

[Aristarchus]

first with very honestly still i can not understand your point due to lack of education of geology and language.i think you are talking about (Panspermia) life on earth.and i am talking about that planets are them self living thing like a tree. as tree produces thousands of its seeds same an old cosmic body or an old planet produces million of meteoroids (seeds of planets) and out of these meteoroids some germinate in asteroids and out of these asteroids only few can convert in big planets . as one tree is a result of one seed only same one planet is a result of one meteoroid(seed).

Reading emphasis, mine, I apoligize for any misunderstanding on my part. As I have stated, I find your positing interesting and intriguing, and would like to read more about the development of your position. Hopefully, you will offer more and revisit the topic at some point, and with all the multi-tasking I am currently doing - at some point I would like to find time to ask you more questions. I do like your line of reasoning, and would be most interested in any responses directed towards you from others following this line of research.

[sureshbansal342]

first with very honestly still i can not understand your point due to lack of education of geology and language.i think you are talking about (Panspermia) life on earth.and i am talking about that planets are them self living thing like a tree. as tree produces thousands of its seeds same an old cosmic body or an old planet produces million of meteoroids (seeds of planets) and out of these meteoroids some germinate in asteroids and out of these asteroids only few can convert in big planets . as one tree is a result of one seed only same one planet is a result of one meteoroid(seed).

Reading emphasis, mine, I apoligize for any misunderstanding on my part. As I have stated, I find your positing interesting and intriguing, and would like to read more about the development of your position. Hopefully, you will offer more and revisit the topic at some point, and with all the multi-tasking I am currently doing - at some point I would like to find time to ask you more questions. I do like your line of reasoning, and would be most interested in any responses directed towards you from others following this line of research.

sir, my theory is very much clear,practical with complete mechanism from seed to planet.I suggest you to please observe the growth of log of tree,its bark,resin eruption,plate tectonics etc and if you find there is some thing strong in this please help me as i am a small metal scrap man in India.

[Wolfgang1949]

A simple basic question:
Rather than assuming an increease in the mass of the earth's core was due to creation of matter ex-nihlo, why not consider that the additional matter was created from EM energy. After all, isn't matter just a form of congealed energy??

[sureshbansal342]

A simple basic question:
Rather than assuming an increease in the mass of the earth's core was due to creation of matter ex-nihlo, why not consider that the additional matter was created from EM energy. After all, isn't matter just a form of congealed energy??

are you asking to me?

[allynh]

Here is an article from the NewScientist about large mammals.

dn19771-2_300.jpg (6.91 KiB) Viewed 10154 times

Why mammals grew big – and then stopped
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... opped.html

19:00 25 November 2010 by Jeff Hecht

Land mammals kept getting larger for 35 million years after the dinosaurs were wiped off the planet, then hit a plateau of 15 tonnes around 30 million years ago.

The first comprehensive study to compare the maximum size of fossils around the world shows how the extinction triggered a growth spurt in the mammals that were left to take over the continents. It reveals that land mammals around the world responded the same way to the death of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

There has been a long-running debate over how mammals grew from the tiny shrew-like creatures that hid from dinosaurs to the much larger sizes of recently extinct behemoths such as the woolly mammoth. A decade ago, John Alroy, now at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reported that North American mammals had grown steadily larger for 65 million years after the mass extinction that marked the end of the dinosaurs' reign.

Now Felisa Smith of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and 19 colleagues have looked at mammalian fossils from Africa, Eurasia and South America to see how maximum body size changed with time. The pattern they found "is replicated across space and time, which is just amazing", says Smith.

Giant herbivore

The fossils show how mammals – which initially weighed in at only 10 to 100 grams – ballooned and eventually reached a maximum of 17 tonnes some 25 million years later. The largest one, Indricotherium transouralicum – which is also the largest mammal to ever walk the earth – was a hornless rhinoceros-like herbivore that stood about 5.5 metres tall at shoulder level.

"Basically, the dinosaurs disappear and all of a sudden there is nobody else eating the vegetation," says co-author Jessica Theodor of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

All of the largest mammals were plant-eaters. "It's more efficient to be a herbivore when you're big," says Theodor.

Mammalian predators never grew to much more than a tonne, about the size of a modern polar bear. Size can be a problem for predators, says Smith, as it makes it easy for potential prey to spot and elude them.

Smith thinks temperature and energy set the upper limits, because massive mammals have a hard time dissipating body heat in warm climates. Even the largest megafauna were not as big as large dinosaurs, and Smith believes dinosaurs could grow much larger because they generated less internal heat.

Others are not convinced. "I don't think we really know why we have larger animals at given times," says palaeontologist Donald Prothero of Occidental College in Los Angeles. Alroy says that evolutionary trends are better revealed by changes in lineages than by looking only at the largest species.

[Aardwolf]

Your dubious way of citing and cherry-picking sure does shine in full glory here. It is also called quoting out-of-context.

Please explain why the full paragraph changes in any way the meaning of the sentence I quoted.

And yet again a dodge. It is not so much being concerned by the estimate being wrong, I just wish to see how the figure was attained. Please don't keep dodging this question, and help us all. I have asked you for over ten pages and all the time you just claim it is not controversial. But if it is such, why is it so difficult to find a good explanation? And no, I'm not going to find a refuting paper, you make the claim, you provide additional evidence for that claim.

I can only find estimates with no citation so we’ll have to rely on our own calculations. 450g is reasonable to me. Possibly even conservative .

The quadrupedal take-off is just one of the many reasons, pterosaurs differ from birds. Birds are not similar to pterosaurs. How safe are ostriches in Africa?

Safe enough as they are extant. However, not as safe as they would be if they had retained their ability to fly.

Yes the claims of mr. Sato seem to be representing a side in your percieved controversy. But again mr. Sato is making the same mistake you seem to want to keep in the air. He is measuring birds (albatrosses specifically) and thinks he can make statements about pterosaurs. But pterosaurs are not birds and birds are not pterosaurs. So mr. Sato is making a conclusion about something his study is not covering. Not sure if that is proper. Mr. Sato has been given reply by mr. Witton and other scientists by studying pterosaurs. Also mr. Sato is the sole claiment of this reasoning (perhaps apart from some immediate inferiors of his). And he is not claiming a lower gravity anywhere. But perhaps mr. Sato will be given some more money to study for NG:
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.)
Perhaps Sato goes for the butaniku, but I also think he is a reasonable man. So I can't say anything about that. But mr. Sato is taken seriously by his peers and his ideas are considered as can be seen in the Witton-paper on quadrupedal take-off. Sato makes no claim for a changing gravity in any way. Why don't you ask him if you think he is scared to say such thing out loud.

He disagrees with research saying they could fly therefore his paper is controversial. Nothing to do with my perception of it. I’m not interested in debating the paper. You said there was no controversy. You’re wrong. Just accept it.

Analogies: terms may vary, relationships stay the same. Aside from that, there is a difference between similarity and likeness.

The relationship isn’t the same. Weight is significant regarding flight. Co2 isn’t significant at all, it’s a minor trace gas with respect to climate.

Yes, it is considered an approximation with such small differences. But it is also considered incorrect when considering different bodyplans as is seen in the larger dinosaurs and the larger pterosaurs. The use of post-cranial pneumatisation of bones is seen to be progressively present. The bigger the animal the more pneumatisation is present. It is just one of the many known empirical facts that support a natural adaptation for larger sizes in these animals. It assures that although volume is increase, the weight is not increasing at the same rate. By that way, doubt can be cast upon taking your ratio too dogmatically.

Empirical fact? Don’t you mean assumption designed to fit their preconceived ideas. Empircal facts point out that the square cube law is present when scaling up for any extant animals, and there no reason to assume this isn’t true for extinct ones as well.

No, the results show a stunting and a increase in size and activity. No assumptions, just observations. Your selective reading and denial of evidence will not change that. And I personally rather go with observations than your unsubstantiated belief, but I'm always open for reasonable ideas.

The empirical evidence shows that they can stunt the growth of certain insects. They then use this to assume that’s why large insects died out. There is no empirical evidence that lower oxygen caused the extinction of meganeura. That’s the assumption you are erroneously trying to promote to evidence.

Fossil evidence does not immediately mean one fossil in its entirety. Remember not all fossils need to be entire to make statements about them. We have evidence of big insects, big pterosaurs and big dinosaurs and big mammals, where is the big plant evidence? I have seen many folks claim Megaflora, but when asked for evidence they remain silent. Why is that?

So which fragment of a plant do you suggest can be used to determine the height of the plant?

It was not invalid, as it showed that weight was not the problem of being and getting in the air, with the same weight and size.

How do you get a hang glider in the air? With its own power? I think not. It needs external power or favourable terrain/weather and Pterosaurs need neither . Invalid analogy.

The fact that pterosaurs are more dynamic and fully integrated in their structure makes the case only more plausible. Then you came with a supposed take-off problem, and that has been dealt with quadrupedaly. And no you cannot equate pterosaurs with birds. And again aside from that, similarity is not equal to likeness.

I don’t have a take off problem. I know they could take off. Your hand glider analogy has the take off problem.

So again, which bird didn't find a favourable environment on the gound to live in?

All the ones over 45lb that still fly; which is none.

And what kind of statistics are you using to come to that believe of that impossibility?

Probability ones that tell me that multiple species across multiple environments should not all experienced exactly the same localised evolutionary development. If you buy it then good for you however it’s too much of a coincidence for me. I’d expect a global change to be caused by a global effect.

How do birds choose if not forced? You have said earlier birds don't choose, so why do they do that now again according to you?

They don’t choose, they are forced. Where did I say they chose? Just pointing out the options.

I see, it's all those devious obfusciating experts again. So again, which bird didn't find a favourable environment on the gound to live in?

All the ones over 45lb that still fly; which is none.

There were also examples given of flightless predatory birds by GreyCloud . Your selective reading is doing you a disservice, only focussing on the one or two examples out of many that might be disputed. But perhaps you should be more precise in your questions, as GreyCloud already pointed out to you the difference between predatory birds and birds of prey.

Predatory birds by definition must prey on their food. The flightless birds listed were scavenger/foragers. And why should I ignore strawmen? Don’t use them if you don’t like them pointed out. When a flightless predatory bird is referenced we’ll discuss.

So your assumption is that all birds have flown all the time through history until grounded by gravity? Do you have any evidence for that assumption? Does a bird have to fly to be a bird?

No, I don’t have any photos, videos or eyewitness accounts that these birds flew. You also have no evidence that they didn’t. All we have are fossils of creatures with wings. If you wish to assume these were land appendages then fine. I’ll assume they are for flight. And no a bird doesn’t have to fly to be a bird. That its ancestors did is a certainty. Exactly which ancestor is open to debate.

I see, so if I give examples and list them here it is against proper forum use according to you. Will you accuse by the same reason Allynh and Anaconda of such tactics? Are some animals more equal than others? Who are you to say I'm to leave? Can't take the heat? The links and quotations will stay there for reading at your leisure for some time. Does it make you uneasy that there are so many reasons against your assumptions? It is not that your assumption is disproven of course, but the likelyhood of it being true diminishes by the post and link. I can see that discussing these things in the open might be threatening to your assumptions concerning gigantism and get and the sale of Ted's books, but then again this is a forum as you state. If you think that giving links and quotations is wrong, please notify an administrator and make him/her remove more than half of the posts on this forum. Your idea of trying to restict debate is eerily reminiscent of how Phil Jones at CRU might like to see it. But do go ahead and notify an administrator and explain my misconduct, I will be waiting for any reprimande and removal of posts.

How can I restrict debate when you didn’t try to debate anything. All you did was link to a series of papers without comment. Were you actually expecting someone to refute 8 papers in their entirety?

It is indeed. Do you really wish to give a full explanation of that? Or will you be screaming BAUT-tactics again? If you will I can give a list of suchlike points and give examples of my accusation.

So it was an accusation of Pseudoskepticism. Well unless you have some specifics its ad-hominem.

But you said:

Pterosaurs took off exactly the way that all birds take off. It jumps up and forward and flaps its wings.

So should that than be ?:
Pterosaurs took off exactly the way not all birds take off.
And I did not ask if they had forelegs, I asked if pterosaurs walked only on their hindlegs. Did pterosaurs only walk on their hindlegs?

I don’t know of any birds that can take off without moving forward and upward (apart from humming birds*) but I’ll revise my point to most birds anyway. And you need forelegs to have hindlegs so I don’t know how to answer your question.

*I would however exclude them from this discussion as they have a diffferent flight mechanic more akin to insect flight than Pterosaurs which is why they have the same weight restriction as moths, dragonflies etc.

[GaryN]

I don't see mentioned in this thread the idea of a growing earth by a plasma deposition
method. Looking at the layered surface of the Earth and the other planets observed at
sufficient resolution, surely must tell us something? If material was pulled off the
surface of another planet, then wouldn't species separation in the plasma stream
account for how the layers could be so well defined? A MAD idea? I got lots more.

[allynh]

I was checking the Neal Adams site to see if the GET DVD was available yet, and noticed that he added another article. It echoes the latest discussion here in the thread.

New York Times Article Supports Neal's Theory
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html

This is the NYTimes article he is talking about. I'd completely missed the article.

When Giants Had Wings and 6 Legs
February 03, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/scien ... -legs.html

In answer to GaryN's last post, I'm looking at the latest series of Thunderbolt videos and trying to come up with a post that makes sense. They talk about moving material around, filling in craters, etc..., just like sedimentary material forms. I like that, it also ties in with starbiter's concept of Duning, and the way many layers can be laid down at the same time.

The videos are a great first step in visualizing the Thunderbolt viewpoint. I can see why they are resistant to Growing Earth Theory. The things they get right, are disturbingly right. The things they get wrong, are disturbingly wrong. But that's for another post when I see the whole sequence of videos.

[Aardwolf]

But Dr. Harrison said most of his experiments with grasshoppers and dragonflies do not really support the idea that raising the oxygen level makes a difference. ''You've got all the oxygen you need already,'' he said.

After all these pages and posts it appears the increased oxygen argument isn't all it's made out to be.

[allynh]

Oh, this is deeply fun.

The NYTimes had the announcement of Jack Oliver's death and an article about the history of Plate Tectonics.

Jack Oliver, whose studies of earthquakes provided convincing proof that Earth’s continents are constantly moving, died last Wednesday at his home in Ithaca, N.Y. He was 87.

In the main article they link to Oliver's landmark paper that sold the idea of plate Tectonics. When you read through it, remember that subduction has never been shown to happen. Harvest the pdf before it vanishes.

Seismology and the New Global Tectonics
http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Isacks1968.pdf

The NOVA episode Deadliest Earthquakes used subduction as a reason for major coastal quakes, yet when you watch the video their simulation makes no sense and does not match reality.

Deadliest Earthquakes
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/dead ... uakes.html

I've harvested the two NYTimes articles as example of how things change. Pay special attention to the slam on Velikovsky at the end of the main article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/scien ... liver.html

Jack Oliver, Who Proved Continental Drift, Dies at 87

Jack Oliver, whose studies of earthquakes provided convincing proof that Earth’s continents are constantly moving, died last Wednesday at his home in Ithaca, N.Y. He was 87.

His death was confirmed by his daughter, Cornelia Oliver.

The idea of continental drift, that Earth’s crust is slowly shifting and moving, had been proposed by the German geophysicist Alfred Wegener in 1912, but most of the scientific community regarded it with skepticism and often derision through much of the 20th century.

In the 1960s, scientists set up seismometers across the world, allowing them to measure and record the slightest shakings almost anywhere. In 1964, Dr. Oliver and a former graduate student of his, Bryan Isacks, went to the South Pacific to set up seismic stations on the island nations of Tonga and Fiji.

They puzzled over waves from deep earthquakes, emanating as far down as 400 miles below the surface, before realizing that part of the seafloor was being bent downward and pushed into Earth’s interior.

In 1968, Dr. Oliver, Dr. Isacks and another former graduate student of Dr. Oliver, Lynn Sykes, wrote a paper, “Seismology and the New Global Tectonics,” that put together earthquake evidence from around the world that made a convincing case that continental drift — now called plate tectonics — was indeed occurring.

“All of the pieces suddenly made sense if you believed plate tectonics was going on,” said Larry D. Brown, a professor of geological sciences at Cornell who was a former student of Dr. Oliver. “Jack was a great integrator. He was one who would stand back and say there’s a bigger picture here.”

John Ertle Oliver was born Sept. 26, 1923, in Massillon, Ohio. In high school, he played on Massillon’s championship football team, which was coached by Paul Brown, who went on to become a Hall of Fame coach of the Cleveland Browns and Cincinnati Bengals in the National Football League.

He continued playing football at Columbia. From 1943 to 1946, he interrupted his studies to serve in the United States Naval Construction Battalion, commonly known as the Seabees, in Hawaii and the Philippines. He returned to Columbia to finish his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in physics and then earned a doctoral degree in geophysics in 1953.

After finishing his doctorate, Dr. Oliver remained at Columbia. While looking at seismograms recorded at Columbia’s Lamont Geological Observatory outside New York City, Dr. Oliver noticed a long-period seismic wave that was generated not by an earthquake, but by a nuclear test in Nevada.

“Even the professionals who were in the business of detecting explosions” were surprised to learn that a nuclear explosion in Nevada could be detected at a seismic station in New York State, Dr. Oliver recalled in an oral history recorded by the American Institute of Physics in 1997. “So overnight I became the world’s expert in this subject.”

That led to his serving as an adviser to the White House on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1958 and 1959 and as a delegate to the negotiations in Geneva.

Dr. Oliver moved to Cornell in 1971 to lead the geological sciences department. The work on plate tectonics in the 1960s had centered on the ocean seafloor, so at Cornell Dr. Oliver shifted his focus to the continents. He helped establish the Consortium for Continental Reflection Profiling, or Cocorp, which took advantage of oil exploration techniques for geology research.

Dr. Oliver was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was a past president of the Seismological Society of America and the Geological Society of America. He wrote or co-wrote more than 200 scientific papers.

In addition to his daughter Cornelia, of Los Angeles, Dr. Oliver is survived by another daughter, Amy Mascolo of Doylestown, Pa.; a brother, William, of Massillon; and six grandchildren. His wife, Gertrude, died in 2003.

In his 1998 autobiography, “Shakespeare Got It Wrong: It’s Not ‘to Be,’ It’s ‘to Do,’ ” Dr. Oliver indulged in a fondness for limericks, interspersing them between chapters. Here is one:

The youth wondered what he should be.

His prof said, “You’re missing the key.

Life’s not to be, but to do.

Pick a task, follow through.

You’ll live ever after most happily.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/weeki ... chang.html

Quakes, Tectonic and Theoretical

“And yet it moves ...” Galileo is said to have muttered to himself after recanting his heretical notion that the Earth orbited the Sun.

To most people living in 1633, the idea that something as expansive and firm as the Earth was not the center of the universe was still a ridiculous notion. But only with the acceptance that the Earth is actually a small rock going around the Sun did the study of the heavens start to make sense.

Geology had a similar intellectual blind spot just 50 years ago.

The space age had already begun, the first computers were crunching numbers, and yet many, if not most, earth scientists thought the continents were stuck, unmoving on the surface of the Earth.

American geologists were particularly stubborn. “I had been told as an undergraduate at M.I.T. that good scientists did not work on foolish ideas like continental drift,” recalled Lynn Sykes, an emeritus professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia.

The field of geology in 1960, when Dr. Sykes began his graduate studies at the Lamont Geological Observatory at Columbia, was much like biology a century earlier.

Geologists studied individual rock formations the way biologists catalogued animal and plant species. Only after “On the Origin of Species,” published in 1859, did the theory of evolution tie together the study of life.

In 1960, geologists still did not have a framework to understand volcanoes, earthquakes and other processes that shape Earth. Dr. Sykes said he thought that his adviser, Jack Oliver, was also not a believer in continental drift. Within a decade, the research of Dr. Oliver, who died recently at age 87, Dr. Sykes and others had made the notion of static continents as quaint and archaic as the stationary Earth that Galileo was forced to accept.

“It’s now difficult to see why we didn’t get it,” Dr. Sykes said.

The German geophysicist Alfred Wegener had proposed in 1912 that the continents were once all connected, then broke up and drifted apart. Wegener was not the first to notice that the east coast of South America seemed to fit together with the west coast of Africa, but he assembled a wealth of geological and fossil evidence to support the theory.

The reception was often hostile. Critics pointed out that Wegener’s explanation for why continents would drift — that the spinning of the Earth caused them to plow through the ocean crust — could not work.

Then, in the 1960s, new data led scientists to take a closer look. Dr. Sykes was studying shallow earthquakes that occurred along midocean ridges, and Dr. Oliver, along with Bryan Isacks, another Lamont scientist, were exploring deep earthquakes near Fuji and Tonga in the South Pacific. In 1968, the three wrote a landmark paper that was for many the convincing proof for the emerging theory of plate tectonics, showing how all those different seismic signals made sense if the Earth’s crust were broken up into separate plates that slowly slid around.

As plates pull apart, crash together, slide past each other, they fuel volcanoes, generate earthquakes and push up mountains. The San Andreas Fault made sense, as did midocean ridges where tectonic plates pull apart and form new ocean floor.

“Most of the really great breakthroughs in science are unifications,” said Owen J. Gingerich, a science historian at Harvard. Newton’s laws of motion unified the sky and Earth as ruled by the same physics; that was radically different from the earlier Aristotelian concept, in which the two realms were separate. Einstein’s laws of relativity unified space and time.

“Obviously, plate tectonics was an enormous unifying theory that began to make sense of disparate sorts of phenomena,” Dr. Gingerich said.

In planetary astronomy, there has been in recent years another shift — in this case, away from the quaint notion that the planets have always been following the same orbits.

When the Russian-American scholar Immanuel Velikovsky wrote “Worlds in Collision” in 1950, describing catastrophic near collisions and the wandering of planets, astronomers dismissed it as crank science. After all, how could anything push around the planets?

The particulars of Velikovsky’s suppositions, based on readings of mythology, are still crank science, but the history of the solar system is now widely accepted as much more chaotic.

The new model has the giant planets forming much closer together, with Uranus and Neptune bunched closer to where Jupiter and Saturn are today. Then their orbits became unstable and Uranus and Neptune were flung outward.

In this context, the formation of giant planets makes more sense. (Otherwise, for instance, there would not have been enough material where Uranus is now to form Uranus.) So do the orbits of the icy bodies beyond Neptune, including Pluto, which would have been scattered by the wild orbits of Neptune and Uranus.

In the universe, almost everything moves and changes.