It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theory about size of life on the surface.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Dave420, Noobfun

Ty for tackling this... The Hollow Earth Theory and the religious like zealotry is one of my pet topics to bash and... I can't be everywhere lol

Great job guys,

I would add to this, it is very likely there is some sort of Reaction via heavier radioactive elements at the very center of the core...

beyond that, Sweet...

I as a spelunker just get mortified when

people don't realize how much massive room there is in the crust itself to offer explanation for anything from, bases, other civilizations and the like if they wish to believe.... without turning science inside out...For what amounts to, an incapacity to actually visualize the vastness of it all.

50 Miles depth in some spots, we have never built a structure larger than 1 Mile and 3 structures of a Half mile in height will hold in Shanghi... more commercial and living space than all of NYC

But there isn't enough room in the crust to explain any theory you'd like in regards to aliens, or civilizations or anything else...

Rofl...

Without Hollowing out the entire planet to do so?




posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

The oxygen crisis Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?


The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.



Decherd says. “Others have shown that oxygen was 50 percent higher and carbon dioxide was 500 percent higher in the Cretaceous atmosphere. Both of these gases affect the growth of plants, which are very sensitive to changes in oxygen and carbon dioxide levels.”

www.ncsu.edu...

hmmm so maybe it was the massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere that made dinosaurs really big not oxygen .... as this would be like sucking on a exhaust pipe

but that wouldnt work for the giant insects that came much before the dinosaurs they needed a high oxygen count as they breath through thier skin

so it seems high oxygen doesnt explain all large creatures and thier development




Around 10,000 years ago, the planet's forest cover was at least twice what it is today, which means that forests are now emitting only half the amount of oxygen. Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources.
as your article shows oxygen in cities is down 50% but average height keeps going up i guess this goes against the high oxygen things get bigger idea


The largest flying creature alive today is the Andean condor Vultur gryphus. At maximum size it weighs about 22 pounds and has a wingspread of about 10 feet. But 65 million years ago in the late cretaceous period, the last age of dinosaurs, there was another larger flying animal, the giant pterosaur Quetzalcotalus. It had a wingspread of over 40 feet, the size of a small airplane. Other pterosaurs were also quite large. The pteranodons of the late jurassic period, the classic flying dinosaurs of magazine illustrations, had a maximum wingspan of about 33 feet. This presents a puzzle: how is it that the largest flying animals of the cretaceous were able to attain so much greater size than modern birds? There are severe physical limits associated with flight. It is difficult for large birds to generate enough lift to take off. Consider the well-known square-cube law: if you double the size of a bird by simple scaling, its wing area and associated lift go up by 22, or a factor of 4, while the body weight that must be lifted goes up by a factor of 23, or a factor of 8. When an evolving flying animal species increases in size the basic design must be altered to accommodate the reduced lift-to-payload ratio. But if anything, the pterosaurs were less well designed than modern birds. They lacked the birds' efficient keelbone muscle structure and the aerodynamic advantages of feathers. How, then, could pterosaurs have grown so large?
the vast amounts of CO2 would also solve this problem a thousand times over


At a meeting of the Geological Society of America held last Fall in Phoenix, Robert Brenner of Yale University and Gary Landis of the U. S. Geological Survey reported the results of a QMS analysis of ancient air bubbles trapped in amber. They obtained a remarkable result. The atmosphere of the Earth 80 million years ago was discovered to have 50% more oxygen than modern air. Brenner and Landis found that for all gas samples taken from amber 80 million years old the oxygen content ranged between 25% to 35% and averaged about 30% oxygen. Cretaceous air was supercharged with oxygen.
and super supoer super charged with CO2 which would be great for mass amounts of plants and with all this food around dinsoaurs eating them could get huge ..so predators would have to get huge to to eat them .... CO2 plays a more valid role then the extra oxygen

yes more oxygen would be a good thing for us unless you get to much then its poisonous but it is by no means an expalnation for giant animals except insects

[edit on 11/11/08 by noobfun]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 

The last sentence of your post was "Please try to deny ignorance. Its pathetic." Allseeingeye is using theories which he knows are theories but is able to understand there logic beter than some mainstream theories which you are defending as if they are fact. Your a hypocrite and you sir are the one who needs to deny ignorance.



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join