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.

 

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

page: 10
51
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by dan steely
 


The average ambient air pressure is 1013 mb, do you know what the pressure average would have been at that time, gravity is not always the deciding factor.

While air pressure may have varied throughout earths past, the only thing a super high air pressure might lend itself to is the ability of the pterosaurs to fly.

However I highly doubt this was the case and there is no evidence to suggest as much.

Air pressure would have no bearing on the blood pressure arguments for the tall dinos though.

Taken in conjunction, a lower gravity field well explains the gigantic size and height of some of the dinosaurs and the ability for the pterosaur to fly.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by mnemeth1]


A lower gravity field is not necessary for either the giant pterosaurs to fly or the sauropods to live.
And the giant size of the creatures is from evolution and not lower gravity.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Rememebr the bog man, that was found in europe, like 10 years ago? If orget how old he was, 800 years? maybe more. HE was preserved in swamp mud..with the rope that choked him to death, still around his neck! They never mentioned if his protens and DNA were preserved specifically, but still, nature can preserve in rare cases!


800 yrs does not equal many millions... plus it was not 'mud' but peat bog... very moist... If Im not mistaken the acidic-ness makes it preserve.


Originally posted by ziggy1706
Thats what bothers me the most..casue ti dosnt click or make sense. flesh eating carnivores, wtih razor sharp machette teeth, predators, turned into little chirp chirps who eat only bread and insects...
Thats like one day, humans evolving into insects and praying mantisis!


Theres the worst metaphor of the day. A Large lizard evolving into a small lizard is like a biped mammal magically morphing into a small invertebrate... get real man. Maybe the lack of food did it. Smaller thing require far less energy (total) than large things.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by dan steely
 


The average ambient air pressure is 1013 mb, do you know what the pressure average would have been at that time, gravity is not always the deciding factor.

While air pressure may have varied throughout earths past, the only thing a super high air pressure might lend itself to is the ability of the pterosaurs to fly.

However I highly doubt this was the case and there is no evidence to suggest as much.

Air pressure would have no bearing on the blood pressure arguments for the tall dinos though.

Taken in conjunction, a lower gravity field well explains the gigantic size and height of some of the dinosaurs and the ability for the pterosaur to fly.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by mnemeth1]


A lower gravity field is not necessary for either the giant pterosaurs to fly or the sauropods to live.
And the giant size of the creatures is from evolution and not lower gravity.


I believe in evolution, therefore I believe a lower gravity field is necessary to explain the findings.

Pterosaurs didn't evolve to stumble around blindly on the ground and jump off of cliffs to get airborne and the sauropods didn't evolve into massive long necked beasts that couldn't lift their heads above their shoulders.

It makes absolutely no logical sense for such evolution to occur. Its not just the sauropods and pterosaurs, its the entire range of fauna from those time periods.

EVERYTHING displays signs of gigantism.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Pterosaurs were lighter than we think they were other than the fact that physics says they shouldn't be able to fly at their assumed weight. Just as there is no evidence to suggest that sauropods didn't lift their heads above their shoulders other than the fact that physics says doing so would have been impossible for them.

Is there any other creature alive today that can't use the full range of its skeletal motion without killing itself?

Occam's razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. And in this case, its clear that a lower gravity field well explains the findings above any other hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

So, greater amounts of water increase the appearance of sink holes due to the dissolution of minerals? Sounds like a flood to me.




well, that's the thing though that seals it for me. if we'd found even ONE fossil of a dinosaur in anything that's around it less than even a million years old, science would have to adjust that theory.

you're implication is that sink holes opened up all over the earth and dropped every single dinosaur fossil down into the much much lower levels. but at the same time left supposedly contemporary human and other animal fossils still sitting in the thousands of years old layers. meanwhile, no sink hole ever dropped human fossils down to the lower levels.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Occam's razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. And in this case, its clear that a lower gravity field well explains the findings above any other hypothesis.



i would say occam's razor in this case would seem to imply that we don't have enough remains to understand exactly how they did it - that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

a lot of it is just hypothesis based on the study of existing animals to correlate it what we see in the fossils. there might be, for example, things that were part of the animal's body that we see absolutely no sign of in the fossil remains.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Occam's razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. And in this case, its clear that a lower gravity field well explains the findings above any other hypothesis.



i would say occam's razor in this case would seem to imply that we don't have enough remains to understand exactly how they did it - that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

a lot of it is just hypothesis based on the study of existing animals to correlate it what we see in the fossils. there might be, for example, things that were part of the animal's body that we see absolutely no sign of in the fossil remains.


I think grasping for explainations that keep the status quo theory of the universe intact in the face of more obvious answers to the problems presented is the wrong way to go about science.

Cosmology has been controlled by theoretical physicists that have been lying through their teeth since the 40's. Cosmology is what sets the stage for how we interpret the dinosaur fossils. Cosmology says the earth is stable, it has existed in its present state for billions of years, and gravity does not change.

If our cosmological models are wrong (which they are) then it makes interpreting the real cause of dinosaur phenomena much easier.

I am a firm believer that the history of the earth as it has been told you is one big fat gigantic lie.




[edit on 5-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I believe in evolution, therefore I believe a lower gravity field is necessary to explain the findings.

You might believe that, but it doesn't mean that was the case.


Pterosaurs didn't evolve to stumble around blindly on the ground and jump off of cliffs to get airborne

Never said they did however I did post other theories as to high they took off. Also, as I've mentioned numerous times now, your own link mentioned that his (Sato's) research may not necessarily work for all flying animals. I also posted additional information that expanded on your link to Sato's PRELIMINARY research which gave additional information about how pterosaurs may have flown. You must have missed all that huh???

Oh and how do you explain flying squirrels then? For them to "fly", they must jump off something high.... OOPS
your bad.


and the sauropods didn't evolve into massive long necked beasts that couldn't lift their heads above their shoulders.


I Never said they did. I in fact mentioned that although that was one hypothesis, it was not one I agreed with. In fact, I do believe sauropods did indeed lift their necks up as high as their vertebrae would allow. The blood would pump to their brains via similar vascular mechanisms as a giraffe

A giraffe's heart, which can weigh up to 10 kg (22 lb) and measure about 60 cm (2 ft) long, must generate approximately double the normal blood pressure for an average large mammal to maintain blood flow to the brain. In the upper neck, a complex pressure-regulation system called the rete mirabile prevents excess blood flow to the brain when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Conversely, the blood vessels in the lower legs are under great pressure (because of the weight of fluid pressing down on them). In other animals such pressure would force the blood out through the capillary walls; giraffes, however, have a very tight sheath of thick skin over their lower limbs which maintains high extravascular pressure in the same way as a pilot's g-suit.

A few other things to keep in mind is that sauropods had very small brains which needed a lot less blood to supply oxygen. And let's also keep in mind that the atmosphere during the time of the dinosaurs had a higher oxygen content then it does now.


It makes absolutely no logical sense for such evolution to occur.

I think I just explained this fairly well.


Its not just the sauropods and pterosaurs, its the entire range of fauna from those time periods.

EVERYTHING displays signs of gigantism.

So what? The environment was different then it is now. But the gravity was not less. The size of the planet was pretty much the same then as it is now leaving gravity approximately the same.


There is no evidence to suggest that the Pterosaurs were lighter than we think

Yes actually there is. We are also approximating weight based on pieces of fossilized bone.


they were other than the fact that physics says they shouldn't be able to fly at their assumed weight.

You haven't posted any evidence to conclude this is true. The only piece of evidence you posted was a link to a PRELIMINARY research paper that indicated within it's contents that the research may not work for all flying animals.


Just as there is no evidence to suggest that sauropods didn't lift their heads above their shoulders other than the fact that physics says doing so would have been impossible for them.

Again no it doesn't.


Is there any other creature alive today that can't use the full range of its skeletal motion without killing itself?

I NEVER SAID THAT WAS THE CASE !!!!! Please read my posts if you are going to respond to them.


Occam's razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. And in this case, its clear that a lower gravity field well explains the findings above any other hypothesis.


Lower gravity means lower mass. The earths mass has not drastically changed in the last 200+ million years.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Cosmology has been controlled by theoretical physicists that have been lying through their teeth since the 40's.

Well apparently we need to learn exactly what a "theory" is.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Notice some very important phrases?
well-substantiated,
well-supported
well-documented

And ALL these geniuses are lying and/or wrong but you.....you're right. You know so much more then the most brilliant minds in the world. That would be fine and all but you can't even understand the links you post as evidence.


Cosmology is what sets the stage for how we interpret the dinosaur fossils. Cosmology says the earth is stable, it has existed in its present state for billions of years, and gravity does not change.

If our cosmological models are wrong (which they are) then it makes interpreting the real cause of dinosaur phenomena much easier.

I am a firm believer that the history of the earth as it has been told you is one big fat gigantic lie.
[edit on 5-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Please, for your own good....take a step back....put the cool aid down and run.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I think you are deliberately leaving out important facts and twisting the evidence to meet your agenda.

It doesn't pay to argue with you if you're going to use such tactics to maintain your arguments.

Its clear the giraffe is already at the maximum height limit for a land animal.

Its also clear that pterosaurs weren't a bunch of tree climbers or cliff jumpers.




[edit on 5-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You're referring to the growing earth theory? I read some of your other threads. I've been telling people the same things for several months myself.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You're referring to the growing earth theory? I read some of your other threads. I've been telling people the same things for several months myself.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Syrus Magistus]


Well I think its certainly a possibility.

I can't say for sure though.

I do however believe that the gravity of earth has drastically changed over time. There could be several possible causes of this. We still do not have a firm grasp on what causes gravity.

Standard theory says gravity is caused by warping space, which I think is total nonsense and still does not provide us with an answer as to why matter should curve space.

This means other mechanisms besides warping space (such as electromagnetic forces / dipole attraction) could be the cause of gravity. Thus if the earths electrical field has changed drastically, its possible this could also have an effect on gravity without the need for the earth's mass to change.

blazelabs has put out an electric gravity theory as have a few other researchers.



- In my opinion - I think the earth was ejected from a gas giant planet as a solid compact body. It has expanded over time, not due to a gain in mass, but due to not being under the pressure of a gas giants gravity and atmosphere.

I think as the earth has been dislocated over time into the suns orbit where we are today, the electric field of the earth has changed and altered earth's gravity.

So gravity is a function of the electrical field, expansion is a function of decompression after ejection.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I think you are deliberately leaving out important facts and twisting the evidence to meet your agenda.

Not at all. I'm referencing YOUR link.
precedings.nature.com...

Your link specifically stated the following:
-The link you listed specifically states in the heading,
-"Pre-publication research and preliminary findings"

I'm not lying or twisting that around am I? That's what it says right? Word for word....right?

"However, predicting an absolute value of this upper limit has been difficult because wing morphology and flight styles vary among species."

I'm not making this up. I'm posting, word for word, what YOUR link states.

Now that being said:

The wing shape of Pteranodon' suggests that it would have flown rather like a modern-day albatross. This is a suggestion based on the fact that the Pteranodon had a high aspect ratio (wingspan to chord length) similar to that of the albatross — 9:1 for Pteranodon, compared to 8:1 for an albatross. Albatrosses spend long stretches of time at sea fishing, and utilize a flight pattern called "dynamic soaring" which exploits the vertical gradient of wind speed near the ocean surface to travel long distances without flapping, and without the aid of thermals (which do not occur over the open ocean the same way they do over land).[6] However, most scientists do agree that Pteranodon could flap their wings and fly with power. These two flight styles would not have been mutually exclusive in Pteranodon, or in pterosaurs in general.

Wind tunnel tests on model pterosaur wings with the pteroid bone in an extended antero-ventral orientation supporting a large, highly cambered propatagium show that such a configuration enables the wing to develop up to 30% more lift, even at very high angles of attack. This anatomical feature, based on the pteroid bone - the bone unique to the pterosaur clade - may have enabled pterosaurs to be active, powered flyers in spite of the lack of other features associated with strong fliers. For example, pterosaurs usually had a small (relative to modern birds) sternum keel as an anchor point for the pectoralis muscle.

en.wikipedia.org...


It doesn't pay to argue with you if you're going to use such tactics to maintain your arguments.

Oh you mean tactics such as posting factual/scientific data? Yes heaven forbid we get bogged down in facts



Its clear the giraffe is already at the maximum height limit for a land animal.

Only to you. I've posted information related to sauropods but again you ignore that because you can't let go of your pet "idea".


Its also clear that pterosaurs weren't a bunch of tree climbers or cliff jumpers.

I like the way no matter how much I try and clarify what I've said, you ignore it and go back to this. Seems like you're trying (unsuccessfully) to twist my posts. What a surprise


[edit on 6-8-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Yes, it describes how the wing worked and that it was used for soaring.

However, as I said earlier, you're leaving out the heart of the argument, namely that IT WAS TOO HEAVY TO FLY.

Its clear right there in the abstract what they found:


The scaling relationships predicted that animals larger than the limit will not be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft under unfavourable wind conditions. Our result therefore casts doubt on the flying ability of large, extinct pterosaurs. The largest extant soarer, the wandering albatross, weighs about 10 kg, which might be a pragmatic limit to maintain a safety margin for sustainable flight and to survive in a variable environment.


I can build an airplane wing and describe its characteristics, however if I take a Cessna and load it up with the weight of a tank, it will not fly. No matter how great its wings are.

You're also leaving out the fact that the giraffe is as tall as a land animal can be and still get its blood up to its brain.

I'm done arguing with you if you want to continue to ignore the most important aspects of the findings.




[edit on 6-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Gravity is nonsense. What you're witnessing is the flow of electromagnetic energy, and it's not one-way. It's two-way. Our perception of gravity is the end result of a tug-o-war between new, healthy energy coming into the Earth and energizing it and old, depleted energy leaving it. This is why it's possible to build gravity shielding technology, which already exists, but it's kinda wobbly. It was on an official scientific site open to the public for a while, but it shouldn't have been because it was Black Ops, so it got taken down. I might have the link somewhere, but it's not on that particular (obscure) site anymore. That's my understanding of it.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes, it describes how the wing worked and that it was used for soaring.

However, as I said earlier, you're leaving out the heart of the argument, namely that IT WAS TOO HEAVY TO FLY.

Its clear right there in the abstract what they found:


The scaling relationships predicted that animals larger than the limit will not be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft under unfavourable wind conditions. Our result therefore casts doubt on the flying ability of large, extinct pterosaurs. The largest extant soarer, the wandering albatross, weighs about 10 kg, which might be a pragmatic limit to maintain a safety margin for sustainable flight and to survive in a variable environment.


I can build an airplane wing and describe its characteristics, however if I take a Cessna and load it up with the weight of a tank, it will not fly. No matter how great its wings are.

You're also leaving out the fact that the giraffe is as tall as a land animal can be and still get its blood up to its brain.

I'm done arguing with you if you want to continue to ignore the most important aspects of the findings.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by mnemeth1]


1. I posted information directly contradicting what you've said.
2. Your own link states that the research may not directly correlate to all birds.
3. Why do you continue ignoring factual information from YOUR OWN SOURCE??????



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


Whoot. I want a Pet T-Rex... LOL Joking.
Sounds like soon though. I heard about Splicing of Genes from a Mammoth and mixing it with Indian Elephants. I also heard many years ago about a Fossil that Still had Skin on it... That's Right. Skin.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 

Wow guess there was another found with Skin Last Year... Glad I looked...

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 


Oh Wow... And other this Year...

www.npr.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Your Cessna analogy is just silly. I cant put a tank in a Cessna but i can put a tank in a C5. There are a lot of factors involving flight .Wingspan for one if were talking birds or flying dinosaurs muscle to wait ratio wing shape and skeletal structure. Obviously these pterosaurs had to fly if they didn't they were useless on the ground and would have starved to death come on don't fight the fossil record.

As for giraffes They have adaptations for the life style they lead and by the way height is not the deciding factor apparently you know nothing about giraffes. Heres the problem a heart can give sufficient pressure to supply blood to a brain how tall the animal is is truly irrelevant. The problem comes in When they bend over to get a drink they would literally blow there mind. But lucky for the giraffe nature has a simple solution there is a pressure sensing valve that regulates blood flow to the brain.

Also heart position becomes important as well in a huge dinosaur the heart would have been much higher up in the body reducing the amount of stress on the circulatory system. In total seriousness comparing a giraffe to a dinosaur is stupid Look at an elephant there huge but nature didn't give them long necks and therefore doesn't have the heart 25 feet below the brain counting neck length. Giraffes adapted there neck was not supposed to be that long. Dinosaurs would have a completely different circulatory system.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join