The Impossible Dinosaurs - Megafauna and Attenuated Gravity

Kronia.com ^ | Ted Holden

[js1138]

There’s a guy building a full size replica of Stonehenge with his own muscle power. Exactly why is something as absurd as reduced gravity invoked to explain something that doesn’t require a remarkable explanation?

And why is Ted Holden back under a new user name?

[js1138]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

[js1138]

sneakback bump

[lysdexia]

>One thing I haven’t seen however is any sort of a theory to explain ancients building with stones too heavy for any technology, ancient or modern either one, to move. There are a couple of temple column stones like that in Baalbek Lebanon, and then what they call “geoglyphs” in Peru which amount to walls or something or other made with 200-ton fitted stones. Those things require reduced gravity as well?<

Uh, fiht heavy stone with heavy stone? That is, one could heap up sand on one side of a block and then drag the other side so it’s effectively leihter. Maybe the landscape was significantly different then, and full of streams or ise or earth. On flat ground without any help, one could dig a ditch on the forward side and heap the dirt behind the block, so the block gradually slides downhill. Then when the block is lastly in spot, dig out all the earth so the ground is flat again.

[lysdexia]

Swordmaker, you're not so smart—maybe you're some engineer for a living as you use substandard notations: Kg/M² = [kelvin][gram]/[molar]². (Hey, I see you're also in SJC, however. What did you do in summer 2006 when Sacramento was 117°?)

I don't know of any "square cube law" for bodies. The cube scaling you used was exactly the objection someone had with "spheres and polyhedra" as the cube is the latter, a hecsahedron. There is no proof anybody should scale in all three dimensions over the course of a lifetime, as baby and grownup, or over species in the same genus. Bodies grow as more of a loaf or trunk than a ball, where there is a bias or main axis of growth, as there is no reason to grow outward unless one deliberately eats to fullness, as your imaginary round cow. So the ratios are more lik 1:1.5:2.6, not 1:2:3.

Your objection for overheating and running all the time for watter is bogus; there was no proof these were warm-blooded, and two sections on Wikipedia say otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Physiology
Skeletal structures suggest that theropods and other dinosaurs had active lifestyles better suited to an endothermic cardiovascular system, while sauropods exhibit fewer endothermic characteristics. It is certainly possible that some dinosaurs were endothermic while others were not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Size
There are several proposed advantages for the large size of sauropods, including protection from predation, reduction of energy use, and longevity, but it may be that the most important advantage was dietary. Large animals are more efficient at digestion than small animals, because food spends more time in their digestive systems. This also permits them to subsist on food with lower nutritive value than smaller animals. Sauropod remains are mostly found in rock formations interpreted as dry or seasonally dry, and the ability to eat large quantities of low nutrient browse would have been advantageous in such environments.

This says the opposite of the beliefs of some here, where a bigger dinosaur would mean one hotter and riskier. If that were so, there would be no whales as these fatasses must be doing something wrong. The biggest are the slowest, and their quality of life shouldn't scale down—unless they trip at a gallop, which they hardly do anyway. Your main argument against heaviness which you set everything on is a misunderstanding, as I said in this email in the "electric universe" thread (addresses edited):

Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Autymn D. C."
Subject: Re: [TheProving] Re: "Is the Universe Electric?" by my best friend
To: theproving:yahoogroups.com, hiawatha:efn.org
CC: eclectic007:gmail.com, FaithRada:aol.com, hypatiasm:earthlink.net, Brokenpa:aol.com, Mom2twinz3:aol.com, Veggie72:aol.com, LSzipzap:aol.com, edithlaq:aol.com, hypatia141:aol.com, iwaslookingforlinda:yahoo.co.uk, parupunte_medapani:yahoo.com, goodspeed743:aol.com, Dtalbott:teleport.com, nwbooo:yahoo.com, urigeller:compuserve.com, randi:randi.org, mdthuney:email.msn.com, victorzammit:optusnet.com.au, SunGod95:aol.com, nitesh.dhawan:gmail.com, nguyenivy:gmail.com

--- John R Benneth <johnrbenneth:juno.com> wrote:
> For instance, here's a question that you, with your
> philosophy of
> dismissal, cannot reasonably address: How is it that
> dinosaurs could grow
> so huge, an impossible feat in today's gravity? In
> today's gravity their
> bones would crumble, their huge mass would suffocate
> them. The only
> reasonable conclusion is that gravity then was a
> quarter of what it was
> today, which leads to the question, how could that
> be?

Here's the full story, "The Impossible Dinosaurs -
Megafauna and Attenuated Gravity":
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1989265/posts.
The author seems to be ignorant of mekaniceis as he
doesn't bother to prove their impossibility with the
strength of bones (Your legbone can take 700 pounds
/sideways/, and much more tallways.) or how the
workduty between bones, sinew, and ligaments goes.
When you're upriht, your bones support you. His
mistake is his claim for a heavier body, the leg must
be wider—which those were not much—but this is
athwart how a lever works; if the leg is /longer/,
then the legs can heave a heavier body over a greater
span. You can see how the heavier animals are also
much taller.

> Or why is it that the craters on the moon are so
> symmetrical and flat
> bottomed, unlike rounded impact crater scoops and
> holes, but more like
> the electrical scarring one sees from an arc welder?

It must depend on whether the impact is by a comèt, a
stone, or a metal.

> Why do they have
> corkscrew terracing along their strange, raised
> ridges? These don't look

where?

> like your normal impact craters. No! A baby can see
> that! And why have we

Where are these "normal" impact craters? Those big
ones are by iron.

> NEVER seen a new crater added to the moon's
> pockmarked surface? Never in
> recorded history!

I'm pretty sure you're wrong and new ones are on film
or in news.

> Normal astrophysics says these are impact craters,
> but why is it that
> these craters ALL have a little peak in the middle?
> Hmm? Where does that
> come from? Only where there is great heat, like

boing. Why don't you watch the impact simulators on
TV/WWW make the same before you open your delusional
trap?

> those offset ones, Wizard
> Island in Crater Lake, in the old craters of
> volcanoes. Normal mechanical
> physics don't explain this. However, plasma physics
> does have an

You know shit about mekanic fýsiceis.

> explanation, although we already know, its not one
> that you will accept.
> And, how is it that we find rocks from Mars on the
> surface of the Earth?
> Impossible! How could any impact on Mars create an
> escape velocity, and
> how could such a small amount of material find its
> way into our orbit,
> land on Earth and be found without destroying Mars
> altogether? Yet there

Where is your proof the impact would destroy Mars?
The impactor already has a speed greater than the
escape; only Mars is in the way. Do you know how a
whip or hýdraulic ram works?

> they are! Mars, and the rocks from Mars, in the
> places where, by YOUR
> philosophy of dismissal, they shouldn't be!

Theists are habitual and pathologic liars; you "GIòn"
and FaithRada are excellent proof.

> something in man's distant past happened to him, a
> huge traumatic event,
> that the stories of the incredible cataclysms told
> in the Bible were
> true. And who knows what Talbott and Thornhill would

They weren't worldwide and weren't at the same time,
so they're not fully true.

-Aut

[ThePythonicCow]

I appreciate being pinged for clear arguments, well presented.

Your recent post above is not such. I don't know what it's point was, and the insults, confusions, and typos discouraged me from trying very hard to find its point(s).

I would encourage you not to ping me on your future posts.

[Fred Nerks]

lysdexia
Since May 22, 2008

no thanks.

[js1138]

There is some degree of talent required to be incomprehensible to all sides.

[Swordmaker]

There is some degree of talent required to be incomprehensible to all sides.

I was dumbfounded. I think his primary language is not English... nor is his forte science. It may be his primary language is humor.

However, his Freepname is quite interesting... lysdexia - dyslexia?

[Swordmaker]

However, his Freepname is quite interesting... lysdexia - dyslexia?

He's gone... banned or suspended.

[Fred Nerks]

He's gone... banned or suspended.

no it's not, it's still here!

[SunkenCiv]

It takes some kind of special gift to be banned twice in the same day, eh?

http://www.freerepublic.com/~lysdexia/

This account has been banned or suspended.

[theFIRMbss]

> insults, confusions, and typos discouraged me

I was sad that post
didn't include colored fonts.
Rants just aren't rants

to me if they don't
have big colorful letters.
I swear. Kids these day . . .

[Swordmaker]

You owe me a new keyboard... I should drink Pepsi while read FR.

[Centurion2000]

Wrong again. Using your logic we would be significantly stronger than chimpanzees (average male weight 90 - 115 pounds). Not even close! Location of muscle attachments is part of it, but chimpanzees are significantly stronger than humans in spite of their smaller weight.

Not really actually. Show me a chimpanzee that can run a marathon.

Almost all of a human's strength is in its legs and a lot of that is wrapped up in endurance as well.

Sure animals are stronger. No land animal is faster over long distance.

[Coyoteman]

Wrong again. Using your logic we would be significantly stronger than chimpanzees (average male weight 90 - 115 pounds). Not even close! Location of muscle attachments is part of it, but chimpanzees are significantly stronger than humans in spite of their smaller weight.

Not really actually. Show me a chimpanzee that can run a marathon.

Almost all of a human's strength is in its legs and a lot of that is wrapped up in endurance as well.

Sure animals are stronger. No land animal is faster over long distance.

I was watching a lecture last night on anthropogeny, a newly emerging field of study.

The lecturer mentioned that it takes three grown men to hold down a small chimp.

Note: they are not chasing him down, they are holding him down. I think my comment above is not contradicted by early humans' adaptations to grasslands, and probably persistence hunting, leading to the capability for long distance running.

[Centurion2000]

Not even close! Location of muscle attachments is part of it, but chimpanzees are significantly stronger than humans in spite of their smaller weight.

Well, my point was that humans are significantly weaker than chimpanzees because their muscle mass is concentrated in their arms whereas ours are in our legs.

[Max in Utah]

Accretion. The Earth and all bodies with sufficent mass gain more, and as they gain, their mass increases, causing more accretion. The figure I’ve seen most is 0.1%/year(dust, meteors, and water), but even at a magnitude less(.01%), it adds up.

At a 0.1% per year increase, you could have a 2,100% gain in only 10,000 years, if I did my math right. Accretion would explain an increase in gravity.

[akb]

Hi, Swordmaker!
I have explanation for gravity changes of the Earth, which caused the dinosaurs’ extinction.
You can read my theory here http://www.kanat.htmlplanet.com/tgk.htm
What do you think about it?