ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (09/14/85)
There are several kinds of animals on our planet which can
glide, but are not generally capable of flying. These include
the flying squirrel, the flying fish, and one or two kinds of
lizards. In each of these, gliding is basically an escape
mechanism which they use occasionally to get out of harms way,
and which they use to cover small distances, typically 50 or 100
feet. The flying fish and lizards must jump vigorously to
achieve their shorts glides, while the squirrel takes off from
trees. None of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary
mode of transportation and, in that sense, there are no true
gliders amongst the animals of our planet. There are none now,
there have never been any, and there never shall be any.
The reasons for this are so many, so obvious, and so
compelling, that only someone like Bill Jefferys, whose entire
life has been spent absorbing dogma and sealing his mind off from
logic, would have any problem with them. A (partial) list of
such reasons would include the following:
1. Such a creature (as a quetzalcoatlus northropi),
assuming it could only glide, would only be able to
take off from high ground. Did any of you readers ever
see a sailplane or a hang glider take off from low
ground? Real thermal currents only start from about
100 feet up or so, even over asphalt. It would have to
have been a carrion feeder (unless Jefferys has some
explanation as to how a glider might could have
caught some super-slow prehistoric duck while staying
airborne). It would have had to land on low ground,
eat carrion (thereby gaining several pounds), and then
(since there would have been NO WAY IN HELL for it to
have gotten back in the air from where it stood),
DRAGGED its hiney AND ITS 45 FOOT WINGS slowly and
clumsily back up to the top of the mountain again,
hoping that all of the predators along the way, out of
the goodness of their hearts, would refrain from eating
it.
2. Any creature which could only glide would have no
home. Its life would be a continual migration in the
direction of the prevailing winds. How then would it
care for its young, back at the nest?
3. How many days have any of you readers seen it go with
no wind? How many days can any of you live without
food?
But a crank like Bill Jefferys has no use for logic such as
this. He quotes Wan Langston's obviously misguided statement:
"It appears, then, that *Quetzalcoatlus* may have lived on fairly
flat, low-lying ground. There, as is the habit of a vulture,
it may well have had to wait each morning until the sun
warmed the ground and strong thermal updrafts developed.
In the larger pterosaurs the musculature that animated the
wing was not impressively massive, and the hind limbs were long
but weak. All things considered, it seems unlikely that
*Quetzalcoatlus* could have run on its hind legs and flapped
its wings energetically. Still, if the animal could stand up
on its hind legs and catch the appropriate breeze, a single
flap of the wings and a kick with the legs may have been all
it needed for takeoff."
And then goes on to say:
>Langston is not describing the same behemoth which flies by
>expending large amounts of power flapping its wings that Ted does.
>For a gliding animal such as Langston postulates, large amounts of
>wing power are not required, as the necessary lift comes from thermals.
>True, getting airborne is not easy, but Langston proposes a plausible
>mechanism, well known from living (though smaller) creatures. Once
>airborne there is no reason why *Quetzalcoatlus* could not have
>remained aloft all day, as unpowered sailplanes do today.
Now, we've all seen vultures take off from low ground by simply spreading
their wings and ascending into the rising heat waves coming off the ground,
haven't we? I mean, these guys seem to be describing the Texas pterosaur as a
prehistoric G. Gordon Liddy, with superman cape attached, only the real
G. Gordon Liddy at least had the sense (if you could call it that) to try his
stunt from the roof of his uncles barn. The technique didn't work for Liddy
(who spent several months in the hospital) any better than it would have for
Quetzalcoatlus Northropi, which outweighed Liddy by about 100 lbs.
The funniest part of Jefferys' article is his asking me to clear any
future quotes from University of Texas professors with HIM. I mean, I gave
Langston the benefit of the doubt, Bill. I quoted the INTELLIGENT part of his
article. bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/15/85)
> The funniest part of Jefferys' article is his asking me to clear any >future quotes from University of Texas professors with HIM. Ted, please do not put words in my mouth. I never said or even implied such a thing. I suggest you go back and reread your copy of "Nettiquette", if indeed you have ever read it. >I mean, I gave >Langston the benefit of the doubt, Bill. I quoted the INTELLIGENT part of his >article. I see that you do not apologize for quoting Professor Langston out of context. Indeed, you appear to revel in it. And you accuse me of poor scholarship! I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that your quotation out of context was unintentional. I regret that you have shown that this trust was misplaced. By this act you have destroyed all credibility that your articles could possibly have had in this forum. If you think that quoting others out of context is acceptable, how can anyone believe anything you say? Face it, Ted. You have irretrievably LOST the whole debate by this foolish act. I am dropping out of this discussion. It is impossible to carry on a civilized conversation with someone who behaves as you do. Send your flames to /dev/null, Ted. My "n" key works very well indeed. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/15/85)
Ted accused Bill of "sealing his mind off from logic". Let's look at some of Ted's diatribes and their contents and see how well he does. 1) Ted has stated that mathematics is wrong and is based on incorrect assumptions. Since it was mathematics that allowed us to send a spacecraft to successfully intercept a comet last week Ted's statement is demonstrably incorrect, and hence Ted's knowledge of mathematics is suspect. 2) Ted has criticized all authors of textbooks. He could not find a single branch of study to exempt from this proclamation. Ted's sense of reality is suspect. 3) Ted has been confronted with an error in the manner in which he quoted material from someone's work. Instead of correcting the error by retracting that part of his argument, he did nothing. Ted's integrity is therefore suspect. 4) Look at the following: > trees. None of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary > mode of transportation and, in that sense, there are no true > gliders amongst the animals of our planet. There are none now, > there have never been any, and there never shall be any. Ted claims that we will never find any fossils or remains of creatures that rely on gliding as their primary mode of transportation. One can say that one thinks it unlikely for certain reasons, but it is not scientific to say it without qualification. Ted's delusions of doing science are therefore suspect. Ted you are making a poor impression here. I might be wrong, but the above seem to indicate that (a) you are ignorant of mathematics, (b) you are ignorant of reality, (c) you are lacking in integrity, and (d) you are ignorant of science. In short, you are ignorant. Now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will wait for you to show me how wrong I am; all you have to do is make simple retractions, or even qualifications, to the above four topics. It's real easy. Just say something like "math works pretty well", and maybe an admission like "I don't know absolutely everything, therefore I was wrong when I said that all textbook authors are wrong". A small comment like "I seem to have made a mistake when I failed to retract an error that was pointed out to me" would also go a long way towards piecing the shreds of your credibility back together again. Sincerely, Padraig Houlahan.
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/18/85)
--
Well, sports fans, what Ted Holden has provided us with so far are
some simple explanations for two archeological puzzles: (1) really
large dinosaurs, and (2) mass extinctions of large mammals. And
it's true, these are puzzling to modern evolutionary theory.
But what we have to ask Ted (and so I do herewith) is, does
Velikovsky's explanation hold together? If Velikovsky's explanation
of planetary billiards really happened, show me, Ted, how those
collisions preserved angular momentum. Show me how the
"Age of Cronos" lessened gravity yet didn't tear the earth apart.
Let's see some more of that calculator magic. Show how Velikovsky's
hypothesis, which does explain those two puzzles, is still consistent
with celestial mechanics. Go ahead--make my day.
Ted, if you tell me that the laws of physics didn't apply back then,
then what's with all the muscle/weight/strength calculations? Throw
out physics and even a 300 lb. rock can fly.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 17 Sep 85 [1ier Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/19/85)
In article <395@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > > There are several kinds of animals on our planet which can > glide, but are not generally capable of flying. These include > the flying squirrel, the flying fish, and one or two kinds of > lizards. In each of these, gliding is basically an escape > mechanism which they use occasionally to get out of harms way, > and which they use to cover small distances, typically 50 or 100 > feet. The flying fish and lizards must jump vigorously to > achieve their shorts glides, while the squirrel takes off from > trees. None of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary > mode of transportation and, in that sense, there are no true > gliders amongst the animals of our planet. There are none now, > there have never been any, and there never shall be any. > This is somewhat misleading, there may be no *pure* gliders which rely on gliding for transportation, bu there *are* a number of animals that are *predominantly* gliders. These include the Albatross and many(or even most) Vultures, especially the giant Vultures called Condors. These animals have sufficient musculature in thier wings to wupplement gliding with an occansional flap(to provide that small extra push needed to stay aloft). The wing structure of the larger pterosaurs(such as Quetzalcoatlus and Pteranodon) is very close indeed to that of an Albatross. In short the comparison of these organisms to Flying Squirrels and the like is an apples/oranges comparison. > >>Langston is not describing the same behemoth which flies by >>expending large amounts of power flapping its wings that Ted does. >>For a gliding animal such as Langston postulates, large amounts of >>wing power are not required, as the necessary lift comes from thermals. >>True, getting airborne is not easy, but Langston proposes a plausible >>mechanism, well known from living (though smaller) creatures. Once >>airborne there is no reason why *Quetzalcoatlus* could not have >>remained aloft all day, as unpowered sailplanes do today. > > > Now, we've all seen vultures take off from low ground by simply spreading >their wings and ascending into the rising heat waves coming off the ground, >haven't we? I mean, these guys seem to be describing the Texas pterosaur as a >prehistoric G. Gordon Liddy, with superman cape attached, only the real >G. Gordon Liddy at least had the sense (if you could call it that) to try his >stunt from the roof of his uncles barn. The technique didn't work for Liddy >(who spent several months in the hospital) any better than it would have for >Quetzalcoatlus Northropi, which outweighed Liddy by about 100 lbs. > But it *does* work for the larger Vultures(how many times have yoy even *seen* a Condor, let alone watched one take off?). Mr Liddy didn't have the advantage of fantastically light bones like birds and pterosaurs. Also, he probably was using the wrong wing proportions. This is where the thrice mentioned *low* stall speed calcualated for these animals becomes important, it is what allows this to work. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/20/85)
In article <395@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: ............(a series of ramblings on why gliding can't be applied to the pterydactles question) > > Now, we've all seen vultures take off from low ground by simply spreading >their wings and ascending into the rising heat waves coming off the ground, >haven't we? Actually if one watches the gliders amoung the birds these accusations still are wrong. Take albatrosses for, instance. Walking is not one of their strong points, in fact they are notoriously awkward on the ground (hence their nickname -"gooney birds). They only require a step or two and a spread of their wings to catch wind and thermals. Little or no flapping is needed. (Come to think of it there's nothing to keep pterydactls from a flap or two either.) This is espcially true when they are floating on water. They don't get a running start there. Yet they are amoung the best gliders in the bird world. As for vultures, they don't fly much after they've eaten. They also just spread their wings, give a short step or two, and jump into a bit of the wind and fly (have seen them in the hot Texas country side). I have also seen seagulls do the same -- without flapping--just picking up a 5 mile an hour breeze. (It's even more fun in storms-- they fly backwards then ). I suggest a little intensive bird watching. P.M.Pincha-Wagener
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/22/85)
> 2. Any creature which could only glide would have no > home. Its life would be a continual migration in the > direction of the prevailing winds. How then would it > care for its young, back at the nest? You seem to believe that gliders can only glide downwind. Wrong. The small airplanes I'm taking lessons on can glide when the engine fails. The emergency procedure for dealing with engine failure (when they happen at a high enough altitude), involves picking a field to land on, gliding downwind past the field, and doing two 90 degree turns. The second one, toward the field, is a turn directly into the wind. I've actually practiced these, so I know they're possible. -- David Canzi ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a justification of ourselves for having wronged him. (Ambrose Bierce)
mikel@codas.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) (10/04/85)
> > 2. Any creature which could only glide would have no > > home. Its life would be a continual migration in the > > direction of the prevailing winds. How then would it > > care for its young, back at the nest? > > You seem to believe that gliders can only glide downwind. Wrong. > > The small airplanes I'm taking lessons on can glide when the engine > fails. The emergency procedure for dealing with engine failure (when > they happen at a high enough altitude), involves picking a field to > land on, gliding downwind past the field, and doing two 90 degree > turns. The second one, toward the field, is a turn directly into the > wind. I've actually practiced these, so I know they're possible. > -- > David Canzi > > ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a > justification of ourselves for having wronged him. (Ambrose Bierce) Gliding upwind is quite common, while in the Swiss Alps this summer, I watched, on two occasions, a glider makeing it's way through a very high pass (12000'+ | ~4km), and it was doing so upwind, circiling around down wind until it could gain enough altitude to pass. Fascinating view! -- ======= Mikel Manitius ==----===== AT&T ...!{ihnp4!}codas!mikel ==------===== Information Systems (305) 869-2462 ===----====== SDSS Regional Support AT&T-IS ETN: 755 =========== Altamonte Springs, FL My opinions are my own. =======