Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 46 of 121 (100854)
04-19-2004 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
04-18-2004 11:35 PM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
The missing image which the moderator "fixed" is a picture of the USS Iowa, BB61.
Webshots - Desktop Wallpaper and Screen Savers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-18-2004 11:35 PM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Sylas, posted 04-19-2004 4:09 AM redwolf has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 121 (100855)
04-19-2004 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by redwolf
04-19-2004 2:50 AM


It's still supported; the seismosaur's neck isn't.
No, it's supported by the ligaments and musculature that one would have to be totally ignorant of anatomy not to infer from the creature's skeleton.
In other words it's supported by the tail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 2:50 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5261 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 48 of 121 (100864)
04-19-2004 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by redwolf
04-19-2004 2:56 AM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
redwolf writes:
The missing image which the moderator "fixed" is a picture of the USS Iowa, BB61.
Webshots - Desktop Wallpaper and Screen Savers
The problem is not due to the moderator... that URL is not accessible. All the moderator did was reduce the size of pictures so that they did not extend the width of the page beyond the normal page width of a browser. Having a very large image in posts tends to make the whole page a bit hard to read.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 2:56 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 11:06 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 49 of 121 (100871)
04-19-2004 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
04-18-2004 11:35 PM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
If Saurapods were operating at lower gravity why is it that their bones are structually designed to take the operating loads predicted at current gravitational levels? Why is it that their bones have air gaps - a weight reduction measure similar to modern birds? Why is it that their pelvis consist of five fused veterbra with a cleft structure apparently modified to support vast loads and hold a huge tendon? Why do they need gastralia if not to support their massive weight?
[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 04-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-18-2004 11:35 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 11:12 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 121 (100884)
04-19-2004 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by redwolf
04-17-2004 9:14 PM


You appear to have replied to Sylas but not me on this point. Why is that? In any event, I take it that your assertion concerning Bechtel/ACE is unsupported by factual evidence, and hence cannot be used as valid support for your claim. Honesty would require you to retract the claim until/unless it is supported.
Moreover, in real life, you could only rope or chain so many humans, elephants, oxen, or anything else together before the question of how to organize such an effort reached critical mass, the weight of the chains also a critical problem. You'd never get that many elephants or whatever to pull together properly, even if it were possible, which it isn't.
Another unsupported assertion. Please document where the experiment was performed, or the calculation. Your argument from personal incredulity is getting very thin, and I am unwilling to take your unsubstantiated word for anything at this point. In fact, if you look at the picture Sylas posted, you can see how it was done - four (or possibly more) lines of "pullers". It is certainly not difficult to see how that could be organized - as long as the lines were organized so that each was pulling on the same vector. What's even more revealing about that picture is the guy standing at the foot of the statue who appears to be pouring something in front of the sledge. Lubricant, maybe - just what the modern tests have shown is needed? You seem to be conflating "ancient" = "stupid". BTW - your lack of knowledge is showing in this area, as you have neglected to bring up the one argument against the theory (that human power is sufficient) that has any real validity. I leave you to figure out what that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by redwolf, posted 04-17-2004 9:14 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 51 of 121 (100906)
04-19-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Sylas
04-19-2004 4:09 AM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?

The problem is not due to the moderator... that URL is not accessible. All the moderator did was reduce the size of pictures so that they did not extend the width of the page beyond the normal page width of a browser. Having a very large image in posts tends to make the whole page a bit hard to read.
I'm using redhat 9 and firebird; there must be some really huge difference between what I'm seeing and what windows users are. The pictures looked fine and of a reasonable size when I posted the thing originally and the one image looks too large to put on the screen now.
There is basically no way I could recommend anybody using any version of windows on a home computer connected to the internet at this point in time. Linux is basically like a brick wall which viruses and other cybernetic mayhem simply bounce off of, the targets for all such simply not being there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Sylas, posted 04-19-2004 4:09 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2004 11:09 AM redwolf has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 121 (100908)
04-19-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by redwolf
04-19-2004 11:06 AM


I'm using redhat 9 and firebird; there must be some really huge difference between what I'm seeing and what windows users are.
I'm rockin' Firebird under XP; your links just give 403 errors.
There is basically no way I could recommend anybody using any version of windows on a home computer connected to the internet at this point in time.
NAT routing, chief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 11:06 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 12:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 53 of 121 (100910)
04-19-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Jack
04-19-2004 5:56 AM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?

If Saurapods were operating at lower gravity why is it that their bones are structually designed to take the operating loads predicted at current gravitational levels?
They simply aren't. That was the entire point of the show which I'd mentioned earlier. Like I said earlier, fifteen years ago, I was the only person on Earth making such a claim and you'd get laughed at for making it and I caught every sort of grief on t.o for making that claim, nonetheless, everybody who's ever done the math since then has come to the same conclusion.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 04-19-2004 5:56 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 04-19-2004 11:35 AM redwolf has replied
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 04-19-2004 11:44 AM redwolf has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 121 (100912)
04-19-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by redwolf
04-19-2004 2:50 AM


swing bridge
A better example is a swing bridge. These are supported in the middle and turn 90 to allow boat passage. When turned they are totally supported by the center pylon and the bridge structure
Engineering analysis have also been done and found no problem with the structure of even the biggest sauropod. These were done pre-internet, so I have had trouble finding sources to cite here.
Still haven't seen your answer to why the stegosaurus is so WRONG shaped for the water panther ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 2:50 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 55 of 121 (100914)
04-19-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by redwolf
04-19-2004 11:12 AM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
Any chance of a link to a peer-reviewed work that came to that conclusion? Or anything in respectable scientific literature? Or even the maths itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 11:12 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 12:01 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 56 of 121 (100915)
04-19-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by redwolf
04-19-2004 11:12 AM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
quote:
How do we weigh dinosaurs?
There is a regular relationship between the weight of an animal and the cross-sectional
area of its legs.!
This relationship has been developed for modern animals, using animals that range in size
from shrews to elephants.
In general:
Mass is proportional to Leg area (to the power) 2.75
Typical weights derived using this method in metric tons (=1000 kilograms):
Big Theropods (e.g., Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus): 2 - 7 tons
Sauropods (e.g., Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc.): 6 - 50 tons, biggest ~180 tons
Ornithopods (e.g., Iguanodon): ~5 tons
Stegosaurs:! 2 - 3 tons
Big Ceratopsians (e.g., Triceratops): 4 - 6 tons
(edited for formatting)
From here: http://faculty.evansville.edu/...3/PDFs/17_Dino_Paleobio.pdf
Now, these weights were extrapolated from the leg area of the Sauropods - why would they have these leg areas if they were not so heavy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 11:12 AM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by catapam, posted 05-03-2004 10:05 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 57 of 121 (100918)
04-19-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Jack
04-19-2004 11:35 AM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
>Or even the maths itself?
It goes like this, more or less:
If you put one of our very strongest weightlifters, say, Bill Kazmaier or Brent Mikesell, next to a sauropod at equal weight sizes, you will be looking at one creature at the very top of the food chain and another near the bottom. The powerlifter's body is mostly bone and muscle; the saur's body (by weight) is mostly the vast digestive system needed to process grass and leaves, i.e. low value foods. There is no way the saur would be as strong, at equal weight sizes, particularly since muscle tissue is known to be nearly identically the same for pretty much all vertebrate animals, i.e. there is no way to simply claim that a sauropod simply had BETTER muscle than the weightlifter.
Mathematically, due to the familiar square/cube problem, the human weightlifters top out at 20,000 - 25,000 lbs, i.e. at that size in our present gravity, it would be everything in the world one of them could do, fully warmed up, simply to stand up and lift his weight off the ground.
You can get a general idea of how this works by assuming that the idea of a 350 lb man doing a 1000 lb squat or deadlift is about ballpark for the max possible such effort in the world, and using the normal isometric scaling which is used to determine who amongst the champions of various weight divisions has done the absolute best lift of a certain kind. Such scaling works fairly well amongst athletes built along similar lines and, for the purpose of scaling the SAME athlete to different sizes, would work perfectly since the similarity is obviously perfect.
The equation becomes:
1350/(two thirds power of 350) = x/(two thirds power of x)
and, like I say, the result comes in around 20,000 lbs. That's the theoretical limit for the world today. The largest elephants actually weight around 14,000 - 16,000 lbs. The left side of the equation represents a 350 lb man lifting a 1000 lb. bar and the right side represents the same athlete simply lifting himself, i.e. standing up. The equation basically asks, at what weight would it be the same level of effort just to stand up, as it is for one of these top athletes to do a 1000 lb squat or deadlift (at hispresent/normal size, in our present gravity).
Notice that I'm not using one of the so-called yoke lifts which could be as much as 3000 lbs or thereabouts, since that only involves moving from standing minus an inch or two to standing, and does not resemble the ordinary act of standing up the way a squat or deadlift does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 04-19-2004 11:35 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Jack, posted 04-19-2004 12:11 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2004 12:59 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 58 of 121 (100920)
04-19-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
04-19-2004 11:09 AM


I'm rockin' Firebird under XP...
The first part of that makes sense, the second part doesn't.
There are something like 50,000 known viruses out there in the windows world, and this in my view has something to do with all the little companies and products which msoft has swallowed up and spat out the bones thereof over the years; I would GUESS that a lot of the people who used to work at those companies now sit around writing windows viruses.
There are something like five or ten known viruses in the linux world and they're all targeted at servers, the chance of me ever getting one of them is basically zero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2004 11:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wertbag, posted 04-20-2004 5:51 PM redwolf has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 121 (100921)
04-19-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by redwolf
04-18-2004 11:51 PM


Re: When did it change?
You are going to tell me that you feel these pictographs represent the result of actual personal experience with the creature involved, even thought they are distinctly different depictions? You still haven't told me how a "touch-up" can make blank rock appear where the neck and head should be according to actual skeletal construction and the multiple other problems with this being a stegosaurus. These are depictions of mythical creatures and nothing more. These two pictures do not resemble each other let alone a stegosaurus:
You still have not answered:
http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity -->EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity
Note the long neck of the stegosaur would be in an area of unpainted rock on the petroglyph, so there is no way that it could have been altered by "touchups" ... and when you are done with that, compare the lengths of the legs on the (model) skeleton front and back -- rear legs are almost 2x the length of the front legs. On the petroglyph the front legs as long as the rear legs, again like a bull. Finally look at the scale of the plates along the back between the real model and the petroglyph. Orders of magnitude wrong again. These are not errors that would be made by people familiar with the actual creatures.
Like I said before, these kinds of pages rely on sensationalism based on incredulity, gullibility and lack of awareness regarding alternates. Another word is ignorance, which is curable through education of the willing.
ps -- where are the spikes at the end of the Agawa pictograph tail? Or do the "spikes" refer to all those little spikes along the length of the tail?
Gee, that same criticism holds for your picture #2 as well. Coincidence?
Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by redwolf, posted 04-18-2004 11:51 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 60 of 121 (100923)
04-19-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by redwolf
04-19-2004 12:01 PM


Re: When did it change? how old the rock?
The idea that you can simply scale up a human weightlifter is non-sensical. Humans simply do not work in a mechanically comparible way to a sauropdod. Note that it is not actual muscle power that is the issue but rather the way that that muscle can be utilised.
If your form of argument worked Kangaroos could not jump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 12:01 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by redwolf, posted 04-19-2004 4:42 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024