ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/09/85)
My apologies to anyone who has seen this article more than once. We've
been having major problems with usenet in the D.C. area. Since Sept. 15,
when the CVL computer at U. Md. was taken down with no warning to anyone
below it on usenet (which is most of the D.C. area), very little has
gotten through one way or the other. For awhile, it will be difficult to
tell what has gotten through and what hasn't.
To Wayne: You have indicated that your own notions of arithmatic in such
matters show the ultrasaur to be "just barely possible". What then is your
opinion of the Breviparopus, the creature known only by tracks, described in
the Avon Field Guide to Dinosaurs and in other recent articles, which, to
judge from the tracks, would have totally dwarfed even the ultrasaur? I mean,
160 feet long, 48 feet at the shoulders, 800,000 to 1,200,000 lbs? Serious,
I'm not making this one up.
The article concerning the possibility that sauropods simply had no adult
size and grew until the square-cube problem killed them shows better thinking
than I am used to seeing on net.origins. As I understand it, the best clues we
have to actual sauropod behavior and life-styles come from groups of tracks
found in Texas. I am sure scientists would have noticed if any of these "herd"
tracks consistantly showed a preponderence of juvenile creatures, and only a
few of the really large ones. Further, we have to consider the fact that a
great many creatures living today have ancestors far larger than themselves;
rhinos - super-rhinos, elephants - imperial elephants, eagles - pteratorns,
and so on. It seems more likely that gravity itself is the limit on size
for any particular design for a living creature; that gravity was less in
ancient times, and hence, animals simply grew larger.
Something like a pteratorn simply would not evolve in our present
gravity. I have one (non-catastrophism oriented) book which shows an ostrich
and says "the ostrich is too large to fly and its wings have atrophied and
become vestigial". Think about that, and then think about the pteratorn,
which was heavier than an ostrich, and its non-vestigial wings.
There is one other effect which one would expect in an environment of
lessened gravity. Gravity is the main source of stress on land animals.
One would expect creatures living in lessened gravity to last longer than we
do. Every mythology book from any antique nation which had any memory of the
world prior to the flood reads true on this one. Chapter five of Genesis is
no different from most in this regard.
To Jeff:
I appreciate the effort (the calculations on Saturn), but you're wasting
your time with this one for two reasons. Number one is that Saturn may have
been more massive prior to the flood than after. A number of mythological
sources indicate that the flood was preceded by seven days by a steller
blowout within our own solar system, and that this blowout involved Saturn.
Consider the language of the story of Noah in Genesis in which the seven
days prior to the flood are mentioned twice within seven verses:
Genesis 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
forty days....."
and
Genesis 7:10 "And it came to pass, after seven days....."
Seven days of what? The Old Testament is laconic to a fault, and it seems
likely to me that it wasn't intended to be terribly readable in and of itself.
Many stories which its authors assumed to be common knowledge are glossed over,
or get one or two sentences. The whole thing may actually have been meant as
a sort of index to larger bodies of Midrashim. At any rate, the seven days
are mentioned in only one other place to my knowledge:
Isaiah 30:26 "Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,
and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days, in
the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the
stroke of their wound."
The seven day light festivals of the ancient world, including Hannukah as well
as the Roman Saturnalia, seem to have been related to this event. Thus, it
is unlikely that the figure you were using for the mass of Saturn was relevant.
The term "sun", prior to the flood, meant Saturn.
I said there were two reasons. The second is that nobody is sure whether the
tidal pull of Saturn was the ONLY contributer to the lessened gravity of the
earth in ancient times. It is well known even by scientists who claim to be
total uniformitarians that the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself
more than once during the age of man and that this field was once far stronger
than it is now. Could gravity have been lessened for this reason as well, due
to some unified field type of efect? Your guess is as good as mine.
There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that stars are electro-magnetic
as well as thermo-nuclear phenomena, and the evidence from mythology books is
that Saturn exhibited more than its share of this sort of thing.
Finally, let me say that the evidence from the realm of mythology which
supports the notion of our having once been a planet of Saturns is overwhelming.There is no question on this one, amongst those who have kept up with the
Velikovsky theories. This evidence may be read in David Talbotts book,
"The Saturn Myth", Doubleday, 1980. Talbott was a friend of Velikovsky's and
an editor of the Pensee Journal, the old Student Academic Freedom Forum. The
book is still available, inexpensive, and gives a far better account of the
topic than anything I could write in a few lines on net.origins.
:js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (10/14/85)
Ted Holden writes: > The article concerning the possibility that sauropods simply had no adult > size and grew until the square-cube problem killed them shows better thinking > than I am used to seeing on net.origins. Then you've been reading too many of your own articles, Ted. > > To Jeff: > > I appreciate the effort (the calculations on Saturn), but you're wasting > your time with this one for two reasons. Someone already warned me that I was wasting my time. It seems they were right. > Number one is that Saturn may have > been more massive prior to the flood than after. Right. If it had had 20-30 times as much mass, the Earth *could* concievably orbit close enough to Saturn for tidal effects to cause the effectively lighter gravity you've been expounding. Of course, Saturn would have been big enough to ignite and be called a star then... no wonder the dinosaurs all became extinct, huh, Ted? > A number of mythological > sources indicate that the flood was preceded by seven days by a steller > blowout within our own solar system, Oh, so you're going to ignore the calculations which show your position to be untenable, and look for evidence in mythology. All of that stuff with math is just too hard to bother with anyway, right Ted? > and that this blowout involved Saturn. > Consider the language of the story of Noah in Genesis in which the seven > days prior to the flood are mentioned twice within seven verses: > > Genesis 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth > forty days....." > > and > > Genesis 7:10 "And it came to pass, after seven days....." Well, I've considered it. In 7:4, the story says that God said he'd cause a flood, starting in seven days. In 7:10, it says that the flood happened, as predicted. What happened to the mythological sources which were supposed to indicate that the flood was preceded by seven days by a 'stellar blowout' (and just what the heck *is* a stellar blowout supposed to be? Did the Sun get a flat? And how does this relate to Saturn losing 95-97% of it's mass?) > > Seven days of what? The Old Testament is laconic to a fault, and it seems > likely to me that it wasn't intended to be terribly readable in and of itself. >Many stories which its authors assumed to be common knowledge are glossed over, > or get one or two sentences. The whole thing may actually have been meant as > a sort of index to larger bodies of Midrashim. At any rate, the seven days > are mentioned in only one other place to my knowledge: >Isaiah 30:26 "Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, >and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days, in > the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the > stroke of their wound." > > The seven day light festivals of the ancient world, including Hannukah as well > as the Roman Saturnalia, seem to have been related to this event. Thus, it >is unlikely that the figure you were using for the mass of Saturn was relevant. > The term "sun", prior to the flood, meant Saturn. I guess this is in line with my conclusion that a Saturn as immense as Ted imagines it was would have ignited like a 'sun'. But what do you suppose he thinks kept everybody from getting terminal sunburn, orbiting just above the surface of the Saturn 'sun'? Maybe the famed 'canopy of vapors'? (I really shouldn't keep teasing him like this. He probably agrees that this is a likely explanation.) > > I said there were two reasons. The second is that nobody is sure whether the > tidal pull of Saturn was the ONLY contributer to the lessened gravity of the > earth in ancient times. If you're suggesting some other mechanism which is within the realm of the laws of physics as they are currently understood, please explain this mechanism so we can all judge its sufficiency. If you are, instead, as the excerpt below seems to imply, suggesting that some mechanism which is beyond our understanding of the laws of physics are at work, then I am at a loss to explain why you think my calculations relating orbital distance to tidally-produced lighter gravity were a waste of time. "We might not understand all of the laws of physics, so it's a waste of time to bother calculating anything with the ones we do know." If this is your attitude, then why bother posting to a scientifically oriented forum such as this? > It is well known even by scientists who claim to be > total uniformitarians that the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself > more than once during the age of man and that this field was once far stronger > than it is now. Could gravity have been lessened for this reason as well, due > to some unified field type of efect? Well, since no experiment has ever shown any relation between gravity and electromagnetism, and since many types of magnetic field generating systems can reverse their field without affecting the size of the gravity well they produce, I'll have to *guess* that the past reversals of the Earth's magnetic field were unacompanied by any changes in its gravitational field. > Your guess is as good as mine. *I'll* be the judge of that, thank you. Oh, well... that's all of the debunking I'm up for with this posting... I'll be waiting for a follow up from Ted, explaining how Saturn lost so much mass, and how those ancient religionists saw Saturn's rings overhead through the canopy of vapors, and how the canopy of vapors stood up to such an intense flux of saturnine radiation (maybe they had a reflective mylar layer on top?), and maybe how any rational being can possibly hold the views he does... Maybe I'll have to wait for awhile... -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/15/85)
In article <424@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > Finally, let me say that the evidence from the realm of mythology which >supports the notion of our having once been a planet of Saturns is overwhelming.There is no question on this one, amongst those who have kept up with the >Velikovsky theories. > This simply isn't true. I have sent Mr. Holden references of people working in the field of folklore and mythology who consider Velikovsky's interpretations to be bat pucky. Mr. Holden is merely using an old and dishonorable trick of the Velikovskians. When in the company of scientists, argue mythology. When in the company of anthropologists, argue physics. Even a cursory reading of Velikovsky's works by someone with only a layman's interest in myth and ancient history reveals laughable inaccuracies. Only the fact that the net is richer in experts in the physical sciences rather than myth and history has prevented Velikovsky from being raked over those coals, as well. I would suggest that Mr. Holden keep quiet about this, or a true expert on ancient cultures may get incensed enough to totally destroy this position, as well. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/23/85)
In article <7112@ucla-cs.ARPA> reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) writes: > Only the fact that the net >is richer in experts in the physical sciences rather than myth and history >has prevented Velikovsky from being raked over those coals, as well. I would >suggest that Mr. Holden keep quiet about this, or a true expert on ancient >cultures may get incensed enough to totally destroy this position, as well. Some of us who are knowledgeable about ancient cultures have more interesting things to do than to respond to Holden's postings, which is about as productive as arguing with someone who claims to be Jesus. Now that I mention it, perhaps he *does* think he is Jesus -- I don't think he has ever denied being Jesus, and it sort of fits the rest of his cosmology. Anyone for starting the First Church of Holden, Scientist? It would make a great cult. There is no reason to respond to his writings about mythology because he has not presented one single argument against accepted interpretations of mythology, and indeed he appears unaware that there are any non-Velikovskian theories of myth. He uses Ovid as a source for ancient history, which is like using *Paradise Lost* as evidence that the Garden of Eden existed, or Wagner's Ring as evidence for the existence of Wotan, Siegfried, Valhalla, etc. Anyone who wishes to learn about mythology might start with something by Joseph Campbell. This is recommended for creationists, too, since they have no understanding whatsoever of the nature of myth; on the other hand they have no desire to learn, either, since the whole point of creationism is the uncritical acceptance of myth as historical fact. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes