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.
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]
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Cosmology has been controlled by theoretical physicists that have been lying through their teeth since the 40's.
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.
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]
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]
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I think you are deliberately leaving out important facts and twisting the evidence to meet your agenda.
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.
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.
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.
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]