Re: Skepticism and Plate tectonics

Darwin123 <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I respectfully disagree with the conclusions of the references that you
gave. I am not challenging their data, I just don't believe they have
considered the most obvious alternatives. I would love to see what they
think of EE theory, though.

I'm pretty sure that they never heard about it!

So besides "I don't believe they have considered the most obvious
alternatives". What are your arguments against their conclusion?


Indeed, that would be much better if you could read the references
first, rather than making comments like the following ones:

Maybe it rained more often putting the fires out. Maybe the
humidity was higher, so there was more morning dew. Or maybe it was
colder. Maybe the atmosphere is thicker with more carbon dioxide, as
well as oxygen. Or maybe charcoal didn't fossilize as easily in the
Jurassic as the Permian. It seems to me that any of these
possibilities is more consistent with both current day physics and the
spectroscopic studies of distant galaxies.

Man, if you really think that the level of oxygen during the Jurassic
would be at odd with the laws of Physics, you're sick!
Wait, I said that it was consistent with the laws of physics. I was
aying that your EE hypothesis was not consistent with the laws of
physics. Who is sick?

Really. "It seems to me that any of these possibilities is more
consistent with both current day physics and the spectroscopic studies
of distant galaxie"

Why such a statement and why absolutly looking for alternatives to
discredit their work if you don't consider that the oxygen level they
calculated is not consistent with the laws of Physics?


(2) Oxygen and Evolution Robert A. Berner, John M. VandenBrooks, Peter
D. Ward (2007) Science Vol. 316 p 557

So that hypothesis would not hold for dinosaurs.


An EE person would say that the surface gravity was smaller in
those days. I think that is not true. I think maybe the brontosaurus
was cold blooded.

Nope. It has been proven beyond any doubts that dinosaurs are
warm-blooded:
Gee, not even all mammals are warm blooded. Look at the naked
mole rat.

Well, this is an adaptation to underground life. Anyway.
Nevertheless, one can not extrapolate over all mammals. How
come you are extrapolating over all dinosaurs? Warm bloodedness is not
a physical law for mammals, it is a primitive feature.

Warm Bloodedness is a rule for mammals, and there is one exception
confirming this is a rule :-)


Not all arcosaurs are warm blooded even today. Alligators
are cold blooded, and birds are warm blooded. Dinosaurs probably
spanned the entire spectrum between these two limits.

May be but you understand that it is speculation supported by zero
evidences.
There is NO evidence that large apatosaurs were warm blooded. Your
statement that large
dinosaurs (on the order of 60 feet or more) were warm blooded is
unsupported by evidence.

There is NO evidence that large apatosaurs were cold blooded. Your
statement that large dinosaurs (on the order of 60 feet or more) were
cold blooded is unsupported by evidence.

I hope you got the message this time.


Only the smallest dinosaurs were warm blooded. The large ones
would cook if their systems generated as much heat as the smaller
ones.

How large? the thescelosaur from the Fisher et al is 13 foot-long,
already a respectable size.
About the size of a large bear, which is warm blooded. Also the
size of a large alligator, which is cold blooded. Both are still
around.

huhu, comparing a bear to an alligator, that is a bit far fetched, you
can't really compare their activity! Or do you suggest that a
thescelosaur was as passive as an alligator?

There have not been large land animals on the order of 60 feet or
more since the end of the Mesozoic. The dinosaurs Fischer mentioned
are in the range of animals that exist now. Find me evidence that a
full grown apatosaur was warm blooded.

As Bird like heart and lung does not seem to be conclusive evidence, I
don't have much evidence. Fast growing animals seem to required
warm-blood metabolism, though.

The super giants we are talking about were much bigger.
Apatosaur was about 80-100 feet long. That is more than 7 times as
long as Fischer's thescelosaur. There is no land animal of that size
alive anymore. Although some extinct mammals are large, none were ever
as large as the apatosaur. No bird has ever been as large as the
apatosaur.
I can believe that a baby apatosaur may have been warm blooded,
though.

So the metabolism would changed during the growth? Why not. Do you have
any other examples of a changing metabolism among living animals?


I also don't know if that cardiovascular evidence can be
interpreted the same way with a higher oxygen content.

??? The level of oxygen was supposed to be lower (about 10%) at the
time Dinosaurs ruled the world. Could you please read the references
before making silly or irrelevant comments?

Your references are not consistent with each other. You are
putting together one study which assume oxygen is lower with another
study assuming that oxygen was the same. You have to track the
assumptions in an article.

Sorry but, In the article about the four chambered heart, the authors do
not make assumption about the level of oxygen in the Jurassic. They
remark that a four chambered heart would significantly improve
oxygenation of the body. Definitively a huge evolution advantage if the
oxygen level was about 10% when dinosaur began to rule. Far from
inconsistent, this is actually very logic.


Hu? What are those exceptions you're talking about? The laws of Physics
are working beautifully in the framework they were defined. So what?
First assume the gravitational constant remains constant.

I prefer!

Assume that the sun has a constant mass and the earth has an
increasing mass. Then to keep the same distance, the earth has to keep
the same velocity. Therefore, both the linear momentum and the angular
momentum is increasing. Thus, three conservation laws are
simultaneously broken by an expanding earth model: mass, linear
momentum, and angular momentum.

First, the conservation of mass does not have to be broken as the mass
has to condense from energy.
Secondly this energy has certainly momentum that is conserved in the new
mass. So there are no need to break the conservation of momentum either.
The true question is where does that energy come from.

[Mode wild speculation ON]

I would personally lean toward an aether sink theory of gravitation. To
make a long story short. Mass (matter) would catalyze the condensation
of aether in more matter. That condensation would consume aether,
creating a low pressure of aether in the process (gravitational field)
attracting more aether and so on.

[Mode wild speculation OFF]

The changing mass of the sun is reserved for another question.
>
Well, as the oxygen and cold-blooded hypotheses do not hold, there are
not much alternatives left.
As stated above, they still seem to hold. I have to again refute
your particular statement that ALL dinosaurs were warm blooded. Look
at the naked mole rat. You expect me to believe, from the bones of two
or three species, that all dinosaurs were warm blooded all through the
Mesozoic? Not all dinosaurs were warm blooded. I believe the evidence
that many if not most of the smaller ones were warm blooded. The large
ones were cold blooded in the sense of thermoregulation.

Large dinosaurs were cold blooded?
Cold blooded with respect to thermoregulation. Their temperature
would have to be high even without thermoregulation. The body
generates heat even in a coldblooded animals resting phase. The
surface to volume ratio is smaller for a large animal. Therefore, a
metabolism like a mouse would cook a large animal. A metabolism like a
lizard would be more viable. It is possible that young dinosaurs were
warm blooded and turned cold blooded as they grew.

So let's say that the metabolism changed during the growth (still wonder
how?) Still need a very efficient respiratory system especially as the
concentation of oxygen was about 10%, right?

Sorry but that is wishful thinking.
Darwin called it descent with modification. You see, if a cold
blooded animal turns to a warm blooded animal, it has to do so by the
accumulation of a large number of small modifications. Therefore,
there had at some point have been a spectrum of animals from warm to
cold blooded. So one would not expect all dinosaurs to be warm blooded
at all times. Read "Origin of the Species."

Sorry but Darwin is a bit outdated :-)
Evolution is more about bursts than small progressive modifications. The
main engine of evolution is clearly the alteration of gene regulation
(evo-devo) which leads to dramatic enhancements over a short period.


Yes, it is not even plausible. Not only would physical constants
have to change in a short period of time (hundreds of millions of
years),

??? Why for god sake do you want to change any physical constants?
Since the matter in the sun is basically the same as matter one
earth, a more reasonable assumption is that both the earth and sun are
increasing in mass. There is nothing in EE theory that tell me why the
sun should be exempt from the same process pumping up the earth.

Indeed. It is also reasonable to state that all bodies must grow.
However, it is difficult to specualte on the specific rate for each
bodies as, I remind you, we have not clue on that matter condensation
thing.

Now,
keeping the same earth velocity is not sufficient. The velocity has to
increase with time, same as the mass increases. Thus, the earth is
accelerating with no external force acting on it.

And that is not possible. Therefore the energy that is at the origin of
the new matter must have momentum.

Therefore, it
violates all three conservation laws and all three of Newton's Laws of
motion. Therefore, even Keplers laws are broken.

Nope. See above. You like to claim that laws have to be broken, do you?

One way to save the three Newtonian laws of motion is to change the
mass of earth and sun and change Newton's gravitational constant. The
conservation laws are still broken, but at least we can keep Kepler's
Laws.
Okay, maybe we don't want to keep them. Or maybe the earth really
does have a special place in the universe. The only object that is
constantly expanding! Eventually, the earth should be larger than the
sun! Won't that be fun!

hey hey, by that time the sun might have turned into a blackhole.


but several constants have to change in such an exact way as
to keep certain ratios constant. For example, the "perfect" adjustment
of physical parameters such that orbits are maintained but the earth
grows doesn't seem plausible.
There is no way to break the conservation of mass and leave
everything else unchanged. You need to change the gravitational
constant in order to leave both the conservation laws and Kepler's
laws the same. Kepler's Laws is an empirical model, only valid when
mass, linear momenta, angular momenta, and gravitational constant are
unchanged. If you expect Kepler's Laws to hold true when mass changes,
then there has to be a fine adjustment of the other parameters. If you
know the laws so well, you can easily do this in your head.

I would say that Kepler's laws work very well given a specific timeframe
in which an increase in mass is negligible. The same for GR :-)

Consider a sun of constant mass. In order to keep the
conservation of momentum unviolated, you have slow down the earth and
allow it to come closer to the sun. You can do this by changing the
gravitational constant. You can change the mass of the sun and keep
Kepler's laws only by changing the gravitational constant.

Nope. You can simply assume that there is a gain of mass with momentum.
Please don't ask me how! I don't have clue!


Oh, I see. You don't know Kepler's laws.
You don't know the conservation of momentum.

Héhé.


Then let's make a funny exercise.

On one hand there is football which mass is 0.4 kg that is orbiting
around the sun at an orbital speed of 30 km/s. On the other hand, there
is a planet which mass is 6.10E24 kg, also orbiting around the sun at an
orbital speed of 30 km/s.

What is the orbit radius of the football? How does it compare to that of
the planet?
The same.

Good!

Exercise for you. keeping the sun the same.
Calculate the momentum of the two objects. Both linear and angular. Is
each momenta of the two objects the same?

Nope. So I guess that you assume the new matter is formed without
momentum? Where are the evidence to support this statement?

Exercise for you, allowing the sun to increase in mass.
Now put the two objects around a sun that is heavier than our own. Is
the velocity the same as around our sun?>

You mean, the two objects are at the same distance from the heavier sun.
Then the velocity is higher.


Useful constants:
Mass of the sun: 2.10E30 kg
Gravitational constant G: 6.67x10E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Have fun!
You too!
In the case with the heavier sun, tell me how the velocity can
remain the same with that gravitational constant?

Why would the velocity remains the same if there is a gain of mass and
momentum?


Biological evolution provides for a means of careful adjustment
in biological parameters on the order of thousands of years. Thus, the
"perfect" adjustment of animal size doesn't seem far fetched with
natural selection.
That inflation theory you refer to doesn't allow for major changes
of physics during the Jurassic. There is no natural selection even on
the order of millions of years for inflation theory. The multiple
universes model provides a backwards sort of "natural selection," but
more on the order of trillions of years.
Also, you are talking to someone who isn't enthusiastic on
inflation theory. It is better than EE theory, which isn't even a
quantitative theory.

Hell no, it is an empirical model.
So it isn't even a theory.

Not yet. Geosciences are more descriptive than predictive. So is Plate
Tectonics.


It would take a lot to convince me that a
universal constant changes. Accusing scientists of malfeasance doesn't
do it.

I wonder why I would accuse myself of malfeasance?
Because you are not a scientist!

Are you so sure? You played, you lost. Insert coin.

--
Florian

"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Maupertuis/Leibniz/Meister
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Skepticism and Plate tectonics
    ... I said that it was consistent with the laws of physics. ... Warm bloodedness is not ... increasing mass. ... The changing mass of the sun is reserved for another question. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... When it was measured that light had momentum, ... Because mass is part of momentum yes? ... are VERY closely approximated by newtonian laws at our relatively slow ... although there is a not-terribly-useful concept of relativistic mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... When it was measured that light had momentum, ... Because mass is part of momentum yes? ... macroscopic] are fully compatible with Newton's laws. ... a measurement for the momentum of light? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast