ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/26/85)
Amongst the reasons I could think of for believing in the
Velikovskian notion of catastrophism, there are a host of minor
reasons, and what I would consider to be two major reasons. The
minor reasons are convincing. They include:
1. Velikovsky's explaination of the 360 day calendars of
virtually all antique nations, an enigma which most history
books choose to ignore.
2. Velikovsky's explaination of the origin of petroleum
formations.
3. The theory of catastrophic evolution, the only version of
evolution which makes sense.
4. Velikovsky's correct prediction in 1950 of the surface heat
of Venus and of it's hydrocarbon atmosphere as natural
fallouts of his theory of the origin of Venus. The
"super-greenhouse" theory which is currently in use to
explain Venus' heat is the single worst example of an
after-the-fact ad-hoc theory which I am aware of. The
theory's creation was an example of what I would call
dishonorable behavior on the part of astronomists. The
theory exists for no other reason than to prevent Immanuel
Velikovsky from claiming credit which is rightly his. My
own distrust of the natural sciences and their journals,
particularly astronomy, stems from such reasons.
5. The very elegant explanations for so much of what we read in
ancient literature which Velikovsky's theories provide.
The two things which I regard as major reasons for believing
in catastrophism include the enigma of the large animals, which I
and several other writers have been beating to death on the net
for the last 4 weeks, and one other. I wish to get into this
second major reason reason for catastrophism beginning next week,
and will therefore make this my last article for a while on the
topic of large animals.
I claim that the existence of creatures whose size and
weight would prevent them from functioning in our world is
compelling evidence that the FELT EFFECT of the force of gravity
was considerably less in ancient times than it is now. This
works in favor of catastrophists such as Velikovsky, David
Talbott, Leroy Ellenberger et al who have a plausible
explaination for all of this. Traditional science has no such
explanation.
The laws governing gravity have never changed to my
knowledge. But the FELT EFFECT of gravity changes for any number
of reasons, including the fact that you might be swimming, or
standing right under the moon etc. The explanations for lesser
gravity in the ancient world are of this sort. Copies of David
Talbott's "The Saturn Myth" Doubleday 1980 are still around and
give a good account of some of this.
Scientists studying dinosaurs around the turn of the century
concluded that the big sauropods lived in water. Calculations
they did showed that their legs would not support them on land
and that water bouyancy would have been their only possible
hope. Two observations:
1. Those who made these calculations were not relying on
any immature or incomplete body of knowledge as regards
engineering or math. The Brooklyn bridge had already
been built by then and the first really large steel
warships were being built.
2. The calculations were based on the Brontosaur and his
near cousins, the largest sauropods known THEN. These
calculations hold DOUBLE for more recent finds such as
the ULTRASAUR, which could nearly swallow a brontosaur,
and TRIPLE for the BREVIPAROPUS, which could swallow
BOTH of them. Books describe the ultrasuar as 100 feet
long and likely as heavy as a blue whale. Breviparopus
was 160 feet long, likely far heavier than a blue
whale. One such creature would make the entire
defensive unit of a football team; since he could
cover the field from sideline to sideline with ten feet
to spare, the opponents would never score.
But there was a problem with these calculations. They
ignore the fact that sauropods show no adaptation for life in
water. They would need huge flat feet to keep from sinking
hopelessly in the mud on river bottoms; They didn't have them.
But scientists tended to ignore these facts and books on
dinosaurs described sauropods as living in rivers.
The only way out of the enigma, the only logical way to have
sauropods live on land and yet not be crushed by their own
weight, is to believe that the effect of gravity was less in what
I term the archaic world, the world prior to the flood. This is
what you would expect, having understood what Velikovsky and
Talbott have to say about the Saturnian age. It solves the
problem of the sauropods rather elegantly, as well as the
problem of the pterosaurs and pteratorns etc. These giant birds
obviously could not fly in our world, yet they were obviously
made for flying. It is impossible to picture them having earned
their living by any means that did NOT involve flight.
Stanley Friesen, in a recent article on net.origins,
denies the entire proposition. He writes:
>> Every book on
>> dinosaurs I have read mentions the problem of
>> weight for these animals; most state that
>> brontosaurs lived in water even though their bodies
>> show no adaptation for an aquatic life, simply
>> because rudimentary calculations showed that their
>> legs would not support them on land.
>Well, you have not been reading very recent work on this.
>Those "calculations" were *very* rudimentary, so rudimentary I would
>call them guesses rather than calculations. *Real* calcualtions
>have shown that even the largest "brontosaur" had plenty of *extra*
>support capacity in thier legs! They would have had no more trouble on
>dry land than an Elephant. This has been accepted for quite a number
>of years now by the scientific community. In fact the lack of aquatic
>adaptions in these animals is now held to be conclusive proof that
>they were *not* aquatic.
>> The problem
>> for large birds is more appalling. I have actually
>> seen books which state that pterosaurs and
>> pteratorns climbed up mountains and then glided
>> down again, a hell of a hard way to have to make a
>> living. The authors were admitting that 200 lb
>> birds can't fly in our world.
>Same problem again, these guesses(or assumptions)
>have been amply dispelled by valid calculations. The larger
>Pterosaurs have in fact been shown to have a better lift ratio
>than any airplane. The stall speed of Pteranodon was about 5 mph
>(and that is *air speed* not ground speed). Such an organism
>could take off just by facing into the wind!(I believe this was
>in a recent issue of one of the Linnean Society jornals).
>The pteratorn is prabably a similar case of jumping to a conclusion
>before making proper calculations! I see no reason why it could not
>fly!
>And I wasn't going to get involve in the Velikovsky debate!
>I just couldn't let such gross mis-statements pass without comment.
RIGHT. I admire a man with a sense of humor. This was enough to
send me back to the Rockville library where, amongst other
things, I learned about the breviparopus.
I went back to the library and spent several hours looking
at the more recent dinosaur books. Basically, the newer books
indicate that scientists have decided that sauropods lived on
land, based upon the aforesaid lack of aquatic structures as well
as evidence from newer sauropod tracks. There was no mention of
anyone doing calculations showing that sauropods could move on
land. Like I said, the basic principles of engineering have not
changed since the late 1800s.
What this amounts to is not really good science so much as a
case of scientists changing their minds as to what constitutes
the lesser of two evils. Apparently, they would now rather
believe that sauropods lived on land and ignore the problem of
weight, rather than assume they lived in water and ignore the
problem of structure. The notion of lesser gravity has not yet
occurred to them.
The Avon Field Guide to Dinosaurs, 1983, says:
"Experts used to think that these dinosaur giants had almost
always wallowed in the water. Scientists argued that their
legs could not have borne their massive weight unless water
boueyed up their ponderous bodies. They thought only water
plants would have been soft enough for sauropods' cropping
teeth to tackle. They believed, too, that the sauropods on
land would have been at the mercy of the large fanged
carnosaurs. All these notions now stand challenged.
Studies show that sauropods were better built for walking on
dry land than feeding in deep water......"
Edwin Colbert's "Dinosaurs, an Illustrated History", Hammond,
1983, states:
"In fact, some of the earlier authorities thought that the
giant sauropods were too large to support their great weight
on the land, that they of necessity had to stay in water
deep enough to float the body. The sauropod trackways from
Texas, especially a dramatic sequence found at Glen Rose,
point up the fallacy of this argument."
No mention of any precise math formulations in either these
two or any of the other books I found. The enigma is still
there. Both describe the many problems of weight for dinosaurs.
The Avon Field Guide states that:
"The largest carnosaurs may have managed nore more than a
rapid rolling walk, using powerful muscles to keep the tail
held stiffly off the ground, so balancing the mighty torso,
short, thick neck, and big, deep head..... As time passed,
larger kinds of carnosaurs replaced the early types. The
smaller, more active ones could have attacked plant eaters
at least as big as camptosaurids. The largest were probably
too slow and clumsy to kill, and fed on corpses - behaving
more like jackels than like lions.
So the best modern science can do for the mighty tyrannosaur
is to make a jackel out of him. It's almost too funny to deal
with.
I have news for Stanley Friesen, the editors at Avon, and
anyone else interested in dinosaurs. Nothing makes it in this
world by wallowing, shuffling, floundering, hobbling, gliding
without being able to flap your wings and FLY when needed, or
flying at 5 mph. The tyrannosaur himself would have been an easy
target for smaller carnosaurs or wolves if his best was as Avon
described. Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live.
Try catching a deer or rabbit sometime with your governor set at
5 miles per hour. Likewise, the picture science gives us of the
pterasaurs is basically ludicrous. You get this picture of a
giant flying reptile, making it's home in cliffs, using its 5 mph
stall speed to spread its wings into the wind and take off and
soar. The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to
capture airborne prey at 5mph; it would have to have been a
prehistoric vulture. But you don't find many dead animals in the
cliffs. It would have had to descend to the valleys and lowlands
to find dead animals, land, eat them (and presumably gain several
pounds in the process), and then what? Especially on a windless
day (I still need to eat on windless days, and I am assuming the
pterosaurs did). Remember, albatrosses today can barely take off
at thirty pounds. The pterosaur's only hope in life was Immanuel
Velikovsky and David Talbott's theory regarding lesser gravity.
Pterosaurs probably wore Velikovsky tee-shirts.
Likewise, gravity being what it is today, nothing evolves
into a state in which it can only waddle, shuffle, hobble,
flounder, or glide with no possibility of powered flight when
needed. Simple Darwinian principles prevent that. Anything
tending in that direction perishes long before it could think in
terms of new species. Hence, the largest animals we have are our
present elephants. If the force of gravity were to be cut in
half tommorrow, it would likely be less than a hundred years
before we had mammoth and megalotherium sized animals again.
Normal evolution as it proceeds now can account for fairly large
differences in size WITHIN a species in a few generations.
Finally, we come to the problem of the extinction of all
such large animals, with the lonely exceptions of the elephant,
rhino, and giraffe. Catastrophists make the totally logical
claim that large animals were particularly vulnerable to
extermination during catastrophies, having the most difficult
time getting to high ground or cover, and that left-over large
dinosaurs and mega-mammals died when the effect of gravity
changed after the flood, making the world no longer habitable for
them. Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews", citing sources of
rabbinical literature which go back two thousand years before
Christ, actually describes the last days of several of these
leftover large dinosaurs. The notion that dinosaurs died out
millions of years ago is one of the fairy tales of modern
science.
Consider that no instance is known of an entire species
being exterminated from a major continent in recorded history
other than at the hand of man, and that only recently, within the
last several hundred years. Ancient man had neither the
capability nor the inclination for such feats. Most of the
cases of species extermination which science books like to go
over occured on islands.
The notion that humans exterminated most of the world's
mega-fauna is idiotic and worthy of ridicule. An imperial
elephant stood four or five feet taller at the shoulders than
modern African elephants. The same would-be stampede artist
which an African elephant would stomp pancake flat, the imperial
elephant would stomp microscopically fine. Capturing a single
rhinosceros with trucks and heavy equipment is dangerous work and
often ends up with overturned trucks and broken bones. Picture
ancient man exterminating EVERY SINGLE ONE of the double-sized
super-rhinos or megalotheriums on this planet with knives and
spears. That is what Bill Jefferys, Stan Friesen et al would
have us believe happened. Also every single one of the
super-bisons, giant cave bears, mammoths, mastodons, imperial
elephants, and on and on. All with knives and spears. Forget
stampeding these creatures over cliffs; most of them lived in
areas WITHOUT cliffs. Those who would have us believe that man
exterminated all these creatures must account for their
extinction in areas like our great plains and the great Russian
and Siberian steppes where you can travel for DEGREES OF
LATTITUDE AND LONGITUDE, and never see a cliff. The notion of
humans actually doing all of this is an example of what Hitler
would have called the BIG LIE. Hitler was a desperate man; any
scientific theory which ends up having to rely on such a notion
is, likewise, desperate.
But you readers will have to judge between my rationale for
extinction and that of Jefferys, Friesen et al based on what
has already transpired on the net. Like I say, to me the point
seems obvious and not really worthy of any further debate and
I've got a new topic for next week.csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/27/85)
It's time for another episode of "Ted Holden -- Argumentum Ad Hominem!": > 1. Velikovsky's explanation of the 360 day calendars of > virtually all antique nations, an enigma which most history > books choose to ignore. Except for the ones that discuss astrology. 12 x 3 x 10 = 360. This is significant. I'd be willing to post references. Maybe there will be a TV show about it. > 2. Velikovsky's explanation of the origin of petroleum > formations. Which could be no more valid than the current, reasonable explanation. > 3. The theory of catastrophic evolution, the only version of > evolution which makes sense. This argument holds a lot of weight, I must admit... but I'm still a little doubtful. > 4. Velikovsky's correct prediction in 1950 of the surface heat > of Venus and of it's hydrocarbon atmosphere as natural > fallouts of his theory of the origin of Venus. The > "super-greenhouse" theory which is currently in use to > explain Venus' heat is the single worst example of an > after-the-fact ad-hoc theory which I am aware of. The > theory's creation was an example of what I would call > dishonorable behavior on the part of astronomists. The > theory exists for no other reason than to prevent Immanuel > Velikovsky from claiming credit which is rightly his. My > own distrust of the natural sciences and their journals, > particularly astronomy, stems from such reasons. Temper, temper, Ted. What if I.V. had said Venus was a frozen ball of ice? If I predict that we won't have a nuclear war in the 20th century, and we don't, does that mean anything? If we do, you won't be around to tell me I was wrong... > 5. The very elegant explanations for so much of what we read in > ancient literature which Velikovsky's theories provide. The explanations, I must admit, are fascinating. As far as believing them, I'd rather stick with what various cultures had to say about their own literature. When the Egyptians said,"Ra is the sun god, a circle with a dot in it is his symbol," I'm a little more willing to believe them than Velikovsky. Velikovsky isn't even an Egyptian name! > Scientists studying dinosaurs around the turn of the century... Scientist studying physics at the turn of the century concluded that light was a wave and traveled in a medium known as "the ether". Experiments showed that this was wrong, so they came up with a better theory that's held up really well since then. That's what makes them scientists. Anyway.... > ...concluded that the big sauropods lived in water. Calculations > they did showed that their legs would not support them on land > and that water bouyancy would have been their only possible > hope. Two observations: > > 1. Those who made these calculations were not relying on > any immature or incomplete body of knowledge as regards > engineering or math. The Brooklyn bridge had already > been built by then and the first really large steel > warships were being built. Dinosaurs were not made of steel. Here's an interesting engineering tidbit: My dorm at MIT, which was built when these calculations were made, was one of the first steel-reinforced concrete structures ever built. They really didn't have any idea how strong steel-reinforced concrete was, so while the new dorms are as flimsy as kleenex, my dorm could legally be rated as a parking garage under Cambridge building codes. Now... you were saying about engineering... > Like I said, the basic principles of engineering have not > changed since the late 1800s. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. May I ask a personal question? Do you have any kind of degree (a high school diploma don't count!)? > at least as big as camptosaurids. The largest were probably > too slow and clumsy to kill, and fed on corpses - behaving > more like jackels than like lions. > > So the best modern science can do for the mighty tyrannosaur > is to make a jackel out of him. It's almost too funny to deal > with. As are you. What makes you think a tyranasaur was any different that the way they describe? There is no evidence that it was a hunter. There are many kinds of animals behaviors that must be seen to be realized. The fact is that if a tyranasaur moved any fast that say, 2 MPH, it would break it's legs. > I have news for Stanley Friesen, the editors at Avon, and > anyone else interested in dinosaurs. Nothing makes it in this > world by wallowing, shuffling, floundering, hobbling, gliding > without being able to flap your wings and FLY when needed, or > flying at 5 mph. That's not news to anyone, or have you not noticed the incredible LACK of dinosaurs in the world. (The ones you saw on TV last night were FICTIONAL, Ted, it was ONLY A MOVIE). > Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live. Why do you say things like this? Proof? References? > The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to > capture airborne prey at 5mph; There are very few flying creatures that catch airborne prey. What makes you think that this beastie did? > Pterosaurs probably wore Velikovsky tee-shirts. As well as many other creatures with brains the size of pinheads. > The notion that humans exterminated most of the world's > mega-fauna is idiotic and worthy of ridicule. Yeah, it doesn't account for the fact that the dinosaurs pre-dated humans by a million years or so. > I've got a new topic for next week. I can't wait! (Tee hee.) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/27/85)
In article <382@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > I went back to the library and spent several hours looking > at the more recent dinosaur books... The Avon Field Guide to Dinosaurs, > 1983... Edwin Colbert's "Dinosaurs, an Illustrated History", Hammond, > 1983... No mention of any precise math formulations in either these > two or any of the other books I found. Your ideas of proper library work are as ludicrous as your ignorance of biology and Velikovski's ignorance of physics. Do you really expect to find calculations of loading of dinosaur legs in popular works? These aren't even college textbooks, let alone research papers where this information would originally have been published. > I have news for Stanley Friesen, the editors at Avon, and > anyone else interested in dinosaurs. Nothing makes it in this > world by wallowing, shuffling, floundering, hobbling, gliding > without being able to flap your wings and FLY when needed, or > flying at 5 mph. Evidently you know very little about the life still extant on our planet. Nor do you seem hesitant to misrepresent other's arguments. > Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live. > Try catching a deer or rabbit sometime with your governor set at > 5 miles per hour. Likewise, the picture science gives us of the > pterasaurs is basically ludicrous. You get this picture of a > giant flying reptile, making it's home in cliffs, using its 5 mph > stall speed to spread its wings into the wind and take off and > soar. The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to > capture airborne prey at 5mph; it would have to have been a > prehistoric vulture. But you don't find many dead animals in the > cliffs. It would have had to descend to the valleys and lowlands > to find dead animals, land, eat them (and presumably gain several > pounds in the process), and then what? Especially on a windless > day (I still need to eat on windless days, and I am assuming the > pterosaurs did). Remember, albatrosses today can barely take off > at thirty pounds. The pterosaur's only hope in life was Immanuel > Velikovsky and David Talbott's theory regarding lesser gravity. I can't count the fallacies in this argument. A stall speed of 5 mph is not like a governor. The prey need not have been airborne: they may have been fish-eaters like ospreys and some eagles, owls, and bats, in which case they likely would not have landed. In many areas, winds are regular and predictable. I'm sure you wouldn't starve despite an occaisional windless day. > Likewise, gravity being what it is today, nothing evolves > into a state in which it can only waddle, shuffle, hobble, > flounder, or glide with no possibility of powered flight when > needed. Simple Darwinian principles prevent that. Anything > tending in that direction perishes long before it could think in > terms of new species. Apparently you've never heard of tortoises. Or flying squirrels, phalangers, snakes, frogs, and lizards. Or flightless parrots. Or kiwis. Or a zillion other extant examples. > Consider that no instance is known of an entire species > being exterminated from a major continent in recorded history > other than at the hand of man, and that only recently, within the > last several hundred years. Ancient man had neither the > capability nor the inclination for such feats. Most of the > cases of species extermination which science books like to go > over occured on islands. If ancient man could exterminate species on islands, why not on continents? Take for example the moas of New Zealand. They were huge, yet exterminated by the aborigines with stone-age weapons before the Europeans arrived. Nor is New Zealand small. If species have been exterminated from continents by the hand of man in recorded history (such as the auroch, long before guns), then why not during prehistory? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/29/85)
In article <382@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live. > Try catching a deer or rabbit sometime with your governor set at > 5 miles per hour. Likewise, the picture science gives us of the > pterasaurs is basically ludicrous. You get this picture of a > giant flying reptile, making it's home in cliffs, using its 5 mph > stall speed to spread its wings into the wind and take off and > soar. The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to > capture airborne prey at 5mph; it would have to have been a > prehistoric vulture. You have a basic misunderstanding here. The stall speed of a bird (or an airplane) is not its maximum speed. It's the speed at which the bird is moving too slowly to fly -- basically its wings can't produce enough lift below stall speed. Both birds and airplanes are safest when they're moving at well above their stall speeds. The only reason I got involved in this argument in the first place was that I was amused that the boring ground school stuff I took with my flying lessons had such an unexpected use as arguing in net.origins. -- David Canzi This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting sytem. It was only a test. Repeat: only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/29/85)
In article <382@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Scientists studying dinosaurs around the turn of the century > concluded that the big sauropods lived in water. Calculations > they did showed that their legs would not support them on land > and that water bouyancy would have been their only possible > hope. Two observations: > > 1. Those who made these calculations were not relying on > any immature or incomplete body of knowledge as regards > engineering or math. The Brooklyn bridge had already > been built by then and the first really large steel > warships were being built. The basic fallacy in these calculations, as I understand them, were failure to properly account for the bulk properties of bone, and for the effects of the internal structure of bone. In short, an analysis based on the physics of steel girders will not work for the different reactive properties of bone. > > RIGHT. I admire a man with a sense of humor. This was enough to > send me back to the Rockville library where, amongst other > things, I learned about the breviparopus. > > I went back to the library and spent several hours looking > at the more recent dinosaur books. Basically, the newer books > indicate that scientists have decided that sauropods lived on > land, based upon the aforesaid lack of aquatic structures as well > as evidence from newer sauropod tracks. There was no mention of > anyone doing calculations showing that sauropods could move on > land. Like I said, the basic principles of engineering have not > changed since the late 1800s.... > No mention of any precise math formulations in either these > two or any of the other books I found. The enigma is still > there. Both describe the many problems of weight for dinosaurs. > Well, it sounds as if you are reading "popular" books, which quite naturally leave out a lot of detail. The correct place to find out about these things is in *journals* where the truely detailed analyses can be found. If I can get to UCLA this weekend I will try to find at least a few of the references I have mentioned. > The Avon Field Guide states that: > > "The largest carnosaurs may have managed nore more than a > rapid rolling walk, using powerful muscles to keep the tail > held stiffly off the ground, so balancing the mighty torso, > short, thick neck, and big, deep head.... > So the best modern science can do for the mighty tyrannosaur > is to make a jackel out of him. It's almost too funny to deal > with. I agree, if this analysis is correct it is quite absurd! But many(perhaps most) palaeontologists disagree with this analysis. Another journal article I read recently covered dinosaur gaits, and it came to a quite different conclusion. Or you might try the "popular" book "Warm-blooded Dinosaurs", it is better than most, and gives more in the way of calculations. > > I have news for Stanley Friesen, the editors at Avon, and > anyone else interested in dinosaurs. Nothing makes it in this > world by wallowing, shuffling, floundering, hobbling, gliding > without being able to flap your wings and FLY when needed, or > flying at 5 mph. > ... Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live. > Try catching a deer or rabbit sometime with your governor set at > 5 miles per hour. Likewise, the picture science gives us of the > pterasaurs is basically ludicrous. You get this picture of a > giant flying reptile, making it's home in cliffs, using its 5 mph > stall speed to spread its wings into the wind and take off and > soar. The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to > capture airborne prey at 5mph; > You do not seem to understand the significance of stall speed, it is the *minimum* speed at which something can fly, not the maximum. The optimal flying speed for Pteranodon(the genus for which the calculations were done) was more like 30mph. The reason the low stall speed is so important is that its wings were so large relative to its body that it couldn't have flapped them while on the ground, so it needed pre-existing wind speed to take off. It *didn't* need cliffs, that was the assumption when we thougth it took more than 5mph to take off. This animal was in fact predominantly a glider, very similar in build and proportion to am Albatros. It seems to have been a sort of cross between an Albatross and a Pelican, catching fish by scooping them out of the water with its large beak. If you have ever watched them, fishing Pelicans do not even fly 30 mph! As far as other types of Pterosaurs are concerned, most of them are quite small, and have more normally proportioned wings, so there is no problem about *them* flying. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (08/29/85)
In article <382@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > Amongst the reasons I could think of for believing in the > Velikovskian notion of catastrophism, there are a host of minor > reasons, and what I would consider to be two major reasons. The > minor reasons are convincing. They include: > > 1. Velikovsky's explaination of the 360 day calendars of > virtually all antique nations, an enigma which most history > books choose to ignore. This one I'm a little unsure of, but I do know that some of the "antique" nations had an "unofficial" week thrown in for religious purposes. Sorta like the week between Xmas and New Years. > 2. Velikovsky's explaination of the origin of petroleum > formations. HCN + CH4 + other similer SIMPLE hydrocarbons => long chain crude molecules? In only a couple of thousand years? No way. It's simpler (and more in keeping with entropy) to assume the break-down of biological molecules to Petroleum-type molecules, than the other way around. Besides, according to the "scientific" theory, there's lots more time for it to occur. [ I'll get to point 3 (catastrophic evolution) in a moment. ] > > 4. Velikovsky's correct prediction in 1950 of the surface heat > of Venus and of it's hydrocarbon atmosphere as natural > fallouts of his theory of the origin of Venus. The > "super-greenhouse" theory which is currently in use to > explain Venus' heat is the single worst example of an > after-the-fact ad-hoc theory which I am aware of. It's the only one that explains the facts. Get it straight: Venus's atmosphere is primarily CO2 and H2S04! (neither of which is a hydrocarbon). > 5. The very elegant explanations for so much of what we read in > ancient literature which Velikovsky's theories provide. Certainly very elegant - he set out to INVENT a solution to "what we read in ancient literature". No wonder he succeeded. > > The two things which I regard as major reasons for believing > in catastrophism include the enigma of the large animals, which I > .... > The laws governing gravity have never changed to my > knowledge. But the FELT EFFECT of gravity changes for any number > of reasons, including the fact that you might be swimming, or > standing right under the moon etc. The first contradicts yourself (sorta). The second is silly. For the moon to have any noticable effect on gravity, it would have to be REALLY close. How close I'm not sure (not knowing how to calculate, or by how much the gravity was different), but consider two possibilities: 1) The moon was at geostationary orbit (22k miles? (or Km, can't remember)): - Then only animals on ONE side of the earth would be big. - The oceans would be mounded QUITE HIGH on the "moon" side. - The other side would be dry. NONE of these are supportable by the fossil or geological evidence. 2) The moon wasn't at geostationary orbit: - Tides would be ENORMOUS. Kinda precludes any dry-land life near the ocean. - Gravity would be less for half the "day" (presuming the days were approx the same length - that's what IV says), and HIGHER for the other half. I don't think that even catastrophic evolution would support reversal modifications on a daily basis. - Earthquake activity would be so high as to probably eliminate ALL dry-land life. Same goes for the near miss of Venus. > Scientists studying dinosaurs around the turn of the century > concluded that the big sauropods lived in water. Calculations > they did showed that their legs would not support them on land > and that water bouyancy would have been their only possible > hope. Two observations: > > 1. Those who made these calculations were not relying on > any immature or incomplete body of knowledge as regards > engineering or math. The Brooklyn bridge had already > been built by then and the first really large steel > warships were being built. Yeah, and the Verranzo Narrows bridge collapsed due to an incomplete understanding of aerodynamics and resonance. Even more modern bridges and structures are collapsing. > > 2. The calculations were based on the Brontosaur and his > near cousins, the largest sauropods known THEN. These I suspect very strongly that if some scientists decided to take the time to bother with the calculations, they would probably come up with an explanation. Just like with bees not being able to fly - the oft-quoted calculations assumed that a bee was a glider! > I have news for Stanley Friesen, the editors at Avon, and > anyone else interested in dinosaurs. Nothing makes it in this > world by wallowing, shuffling, floundering, hobbling, gliding > without being able to flap your wings and FLY when needed, or > flying at 5 mph. Lots make it in this world with such handicaps: 1) The flying squirrel doesn't fly - it glides. A pteratorn would be better at it. 2) The various sorts of Sloths can hardly be said to be able to go as fast as a flounder. 3) Plants don't move around much either! > ... Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live. > Try catching a deer or rabbit sometime with your governor set at > 5 miles per hour. He didn't say that that was the MAXIMUM speed, he said that was the STALL speed (the MINIMUM speed). That's a better stall speed than ANY modern aircraft! And it's maximum speed is likely to be a LOT higher. With all that weight it could be over a 100mph. Peregrine falcons find that perfectly satisfactory as a dive speed thank you! > Likewise, the picture science gives us of the > pterasaurs is basically ludicrous. You get this picture of a > giant flying reptile, making it's home in cliffs, using its 5 mph > stall speed to spread its wings into the wind and take off and > soar. The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to > capture airborne prey at 5mph; it would have to have been a > prehistoric vulture. But you don't find many dead animals in the > cliffs. See above. Maybe all those dead animals pushed off of the cliffs by prehistoric man were there? :-) Besides, who said that the Pterasaur ate air-borne prey? Something that large probably didn't! 5 Mph is fast enough to catch some ground prey. > It would have had to descend to the valleys and lowlands > to find dead animals, land, eat them (and presumably gain several > pounds in the process), and then what? Especially on a windless > day (I still need to eat on windless days, and I am assuming the > pterosaurs did). Not necessarily. Some snakes only eat once a month. The big birds of prey don't hunt every day either. On a windless hot day even that vulture the Bald Eagle doesn't fly. > Consider that no instance is known of an entire species > being exterminated from a major continent in recorded history > other than at the hand of man, and that only recently, within the > last several hundred years. Ancient man had neither the > capability nor the inclination for such feats. Most of the > cases of species extermination which science books like to go > over occured on islands. Recorded history is ONLY 6,000 years! We're talking about hundreds of millions. Science already has verified quite a few more plausible catastrophies (eg: the ice ages, large cometary/meteoric impacts, major volcanic activity (Krakatoa was peanuts compared to Thera, Thera was peanuts compared to what happened in the Yellowstone activity zone 600 million years ago - and the latter's due to blow again NOW - give or take a few million years) that would have dramatic effect on survivability of species. They don't to go to something so ludicrous as Velikovsky's theories which, amongst other things, won't stand up to the math. > The notion that humans exterminated most of the world's > mega-fauna is idiotic and worthy of ridicule. I agree. But Velikovsky's theories are even MORE idiotic. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (08/30/85)
In article <1905@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (myself) writes: > 1) The moon was at geostationary orbit (22k miles? (or Km, can't > remember)): > - Then only animals on ONE side of the earth would be big. > - The oceans would be mounded QUITE HIGH on the "moon" side. > - The other side would be dry. > NONE of these are supportable by the fossil or geological > evidence. > 2) The moon wasn't at geostationary orbit: > - Tides would be ENORMOUS. > Kinda precludes any dry-land life near the ocean. > - Gravity would be less for half the "day" (presuming > the days were approx the same length - that's what IV > says), and HIGHER for the other half. > I don't think that even catastrophic evolution would support > reversal modifications on a daily basis. > - Earthquake activity would be so high as to probably > eliminate ALL dry-land life. I just remembered something. Since water ALWAYS assumes a surface perpendicular to the gravitation sum vector, we can make some rough guesses as to how high (or low) the tides would be. If the gravity was halved (say) on the moon side, then the gravity on the other side would probably approximately double. This sorta implies that the water level would be hundreds of MILES higher on the moon side. There's a Sci-Fi book out recently with the math worked out (which is what I remembered). I will post the author and book title if I can find it in the debris of our house move. I have also figgered out a rough guess as to how close Venus would have to be to have an effect of halving gravity. Venus because, for the purposes of this discussion, it is fairly close to the mass of the earth. Say, in order to verify Velikovsky, we have to halve the effective gravity of the earth. Consider the following: 1) If Venus was orbitting with a radius of 7000 miles (almost touching), gravity would be zero on the side facing it. But you'd get squashed pretty quick. 2) For the earth to have an effect of 1G, and Venus to have .5 G, then Venus would have to be approximately the square root of 2 times farther out. Eg: 1.4 * 7000. Thus, the centre-to-centre distance would be about 9800 miles, implying that the separation between them was 2800 miles or so. HOLY SMOKES THAT'S CLOSE! - you could drive it in 3 days! Obviously that's not geostationary! How would any animal have lighter gravity long enough to adapt? You mention 100's of years for catastrophic evolution ala Velikovsky. How about less than 12 hours? And, the tides would drown everything. And, the stress heating would be so high as to probably melt both planets. For the moon to have a pull of 1/2 G on the Earth's surface, considering it's much smaller mass, it's orbit would be so close as to place it's surface within the Earth's radius. Therefore, hardly conducive to any kind of evolution! Oops, I forgot, the Moon as only 1/6th the gravity of the Earth. How then could it have ANY appreciable effect on the effective gravity of the earth even if it was TOUCHING? (if it was touching, we would be at 5/6G, not enough to justify Velikovsky) Velikovsky could have invented some far prettier (and harder to disprove) theories if he bothered to even TRY out the math! If you are going to go back to the aqueous firmament idea, just guess how much of it there'd have to be! -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/30/85)
In article <382@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > The notion that humans exterminated most of the world's > mega-fauna is idiotic and worthy of ridicule. > Picture > ancient man exterminating EVERY SINGLE ONE of the double-sized > super-rhinos or megalotheriums on this planet with knives and > spears. That is what Bill Jefferys, Stan Friesen et al would > have us believe happened. AAAAARGH!!!!!!!!!!:-) I CARE TO DIFFER WITH THE BLANTENT MISDIRECTION OF THIS ARTICLE! In my reading of the articles listed (and the ones the I have posted) NO WHERE was it stated that man killed off ALL the mega-fauna!!!!!!! In fact I SPECIFICALLY STATED that was not the case!!! READ YOUR ARTICLES CAREFULLY!!!! All it takes is depleting a certian amount of the population below its critical mass to cause it to die out.(THIS is what is happening currently!) Once this happens, Nature does the rest. Now if this happens to an important link in the food chain, other species (carnivores especially) die off too because of a lack of food! This tends to be a cascading effect that can affect several groups -- especially during times of stress due to environmental transistions such as the period just after a major ice age!! It is not difficult. What we have happening today is very similar. Point 2 - In regard to no fauna recorded being wiped out over an entire continent until recently __WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! This has happened quite frequently throughout geologic history. The most distinctive of these are the INDEX FOSSILS geologist use all the time to distinquish ceertian areas, and time periods. These are very significant and usefull indicators. So on this point you have been grossly mislead!! Point 3 - No ancient calendar having more than 360 days. Please! Look up the Olmec calendar(which later became the Mayan calendar) for accurate calendars. They not only had 365 days they had compensations for all leap year contingencies.Their calendar rivals ours (and is in some ways better)for accuracy! What are you trying to prove with that statement? Point 4 - In reguards to the texts used on dinosaur calculations and such. These texts wouldn't have those type of calculations anyway! They are VERY GENERAL overview texts that make no pretentions of being in depth texts! I suggest you check on Romers texts and the journals (Journal of Paleontology) for you mathematical cal- culations. The books you mentioned are beginners texts and the calculations are long involved and BORING. General beginnig text rarely mention such. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES EXIST!!(Another good example of the "magical thinking"that is rampant in some of the replies on this net. Note:That was an editorial comment Mail all flames, don't clutter the net with them,please. Thank-you) Go look again. Point 5 - albatrosses stop flying at thirty pounds -- condors are bigger and heavier and BETTER at flying! I
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (09/01/85)
In article <382@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > 1. Velikovsky's explaination of the 360 day calendars of > virtually all antique nations, an enigma which most history > books choose to ignore. Ted, I'm sure that you are aware that the earth orbits the sun in 365+ days. Considering that 360 is one of the nicest approximations to 365+, I would say that that is the best answer to your "enigma". Dave Long -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long Then the Usenetter said to the Architect: "From *where* did you think the chaos came?" -- Var. on Trad. Joke
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/01/85)
In article <1905@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >Yeah, and the Verranzo Narrows bridge collapsed due to an incomplete >understanding of aerodynamics and resonance. Even more modern bridges and >structures are collapsing. Oops, "Tacoma Bridge". The book I mentioned about planets in very close orbit is: > > The Flight of the Dragonfly - Robert L. Forward PhD 1984 > greg >-- >Gregory J.E. Rawlins, CS Dept., U.Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario N2L3G1,Canada Thanks Greg. (lsuc!msb got your reply and forwarded it to me. How it was sent to him is beyond us). Another interesting tidbit: If, Venus was orbitting with a radius of 9800 miles as I calculated as a requirement to make the gravity on the side of Earth facing Venus approx .5G (assuming Venus the same mass as the earth to a first approximation), the gravitational vector at 90 degrees to the Earth-Venus axis at point X would be: ----- / \ | A | Venus \__|__/ | --|-- / | \ | B--X Earth \_____/ 1 G towards centre of Earth + gravity from Venus on A-X direction. Let's see: A-B = 9800 mi. B-X = 3500 mi. A-X = sqrt(A-B*A-B + (B-X)*(B-X)) = 10406 mi.; Gravity at 3500 mi. from Venus centre is 1G, => at 10406 mi. is: (3500 / 10406) squared = .11 G on A-X axis B-X-A angle = atan(9800 / 3500) = 70 degrees A-B component of A-X gravity = arcsin(70) * .11 = .1 B-X component of B-X gravity = arccos(70) * .11 + 1 = 1.03 Result vector angle = arctan(.1 / 1.03) = 5.7 degrees. Hence, the gravitational vector would be 5.7 degrees off of the B-X line, towards A. Since water always assumes a surface perpendicular to the gravitational vector, we can then see that water would rest 5.7 degrees off of the "normal" horizontal plane. Just to give you an idea of how BIG the tides would be in such a situation, consider how high 5.7 degrees IS after a 100 miles: (in a 100 miles the Earth hasn't curved much, and the vector equations would still hold approximately) = 100 * tan(5.7) = 9.9 MILES! Tides under such a circumstance would be so high as to mash EVERYTHING flat. So much for Velikovskian theories about reduced gravity from other planets allowing larger animals. We've already established that the moon cannot orbit close enough to have any appreciable effect (if it was orbitting with a separation of 0, the effective gravity would only be 5/6 G.) If the planet was MUCH larger than the Earth - so it could be farther away to have the same effect of reducing the gravity by .5, it is easy to see that the tidal effects would be worse. Eg: assume a mass big enough to be far enough away that 3500 miles would have no appreciable effect in attenuating gravity. Then, not only would the gravity on the side of the Earth facing it be a sum of 1G + .5G the other way (to halve gravity), the vector at the X position would be approximately 1G down plus .5G at 90 degrees. Then you'd have tide angles approaching 20-30 degrees! I sure wouldn't want to live there!!!!!! Anybody want to do the full Calculus to figger out how high the tides would be? -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321