Article

2005-05-11 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Thineling Flomoper5900 2005-05-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 There is good evidence that water vapour released by volcanic eruptions is the major medium term driver of climate (change). I.e. there is no reason to posit changes to CO2 levels.

Ive just noticed the last few lines of the article is cut off in the comments windows, as I was going to savage the incredibly ignorant last sentence. A 100% of all life on earth dies irrspective of the climate. Species dissapear because conditions are no longer conducive to their survival across their range. All that is required for their survival is a pocket that remains conducive. For all but the larger vertibrates that can be a very small area, perhaps the size of a swimming pool.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 00:17|| 2005-05-11 00:17|| Front Page Top

#2 Dinos big, mammals small. Change gravity and the big bad dinos can't support their massive bodies. Only those that live mostly in water have some chance to float a bit past the extinction event. If some of them had the wits to get resized to fit in the new setup, they may have survived until recently. At least, it does not seem they are still present, bare a few anecdotal reports from inacessible areas of Congo whence the natives describe critters that are a bit too similar to brontosaurus. Since some gorila species were discovered just a couple of decades back, one can't exclude the possibility that the natives see somethingn real and do not suffer from a wholesale vision disorder. The pictures they draw would be recognized by almost anybody, except paleontologists. So I am not sure who exactly has a vision problem here. Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) anyone?

The fact is that at the present gravity, as I noted a few days ago, the elephant is the ultimate in size as the land based critters go.

How do you change gravity? I dunno, but since gravitational constant is anything but constant, even on our speck of cosmic comedy it varies, I suppose there may be a way. I'll think about it.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 00:26|| 2005-05-11 00:26|| Front Page Top

#3 I have no trouble with the very large dinosaurs being aquatic in shallow seas and swamps. This neatly explains their very long necks which are otherwise a difficult to explain adaptation. Why have a long neck when to extend it even halfway upwards would cause the animal to drop dead from an anuerism. The answer is to graze horizontally along riverbanks and similar becuase they couldn't leave the water. Aquatic animals can be much larger than terrestial animals - the Blue Whale is larger than any dinosaur. There is no need to posit a change in gravity.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 05:12|| 2005-05-11 05:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Change gravity and the big bad dinos can't support their massive bodies.

Sobiesky, that's as insane a theory as cold fusion.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 07:32|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-05-11 07:32|| Front Page Top

#5 Just as I suspected. Q is responsible for the dinosaur extinction.

Posted by ed 2005-05-11 07:36|| 2005-05-11 07:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Phil, the only problem is that there were extra large land critters. Larger than elephant.
Several times over. Bruhathkayosaurus, 45 m, 175-220 tons. Seismosaurus about the same. You find diplodocs and titanosauria in different places, not in isolated area, meaning they had to go places. BTW, blue whale... The largest specimen found was a female 94 feet (29 m) long weighing more 174 tons (158 tonnes). There were longer ones, (about 35 m) but not that heavy, so she was short and plump. That zillions of websites say it is the largest animal evar does not make it so.

As for sauropods' long necks and danger of aneurism... giraffe anyone? Sauropods were likely to inhabit nearby swampy areas, but that does not make them aquatic. Their feet do not seem to be adapted to permanent swampy environment, like crocks' or gators'.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 07:45|| 2005-05-11 07:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Sobiesky, I googled both of the dinos you mentioned and what do you know? They both have extremely long necks. A long neck is an adaption (and must be an adaption) to the animal accessing a food supply that it cannot physicaly reach without the long neck. For an animal that can move on land that must be a food source that is high up. Most of the giraffe's reach results from its long legs. Its neck is nothing like as long as these dinos. Their necks are at least 3 times as long. The giraffe has a number of special adpations to ensure it doesn't die becuase of its long neck (its the pressures involved in pumping a fluid against gravity) and its length is generally considered to be the biological limit to neck length (in our gravity). Ergo the dinos long necks must have been to reach horizontally because they could not physically move to the food source. I.e. they could not leave the water. It seems cut and dried to me.

Cold fusion is real.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 08:04|| 2005-05-11 08:04|| Front Page Top

#8 That should have read - and its length is generally considered to be the biological limit to neck length in a neck that reaches up (in our gravity).

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 08:11|| 2005-05-11 08:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Could be the thunk of the asteroid was enough energy to release copious amounts of methane from the methane hydrate deposits under the oceans. From what I read the deposits don't need much additional energy to gasify.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-05-11 08:22|| 2005-05-11 08:22|| Front Page Top

#10 LOL, RC, don't tell that to Phil!

But, explain why it 'is' insane.

For instance, I see formation of planets from an accretion disk as insane, and yet it is a fashionable tale for many decades now. (I won't say fairytale in order not to hurt anyone's feelings. Though, we have white dwarves and red giants and all sorts of lore critters inhabiting universe, so what the heck?)
One would suspect that in that time, somewhere in the universe, you would see that happen. They're lookin'. Lookin' is still goin' on. And, they're puzzled. A lot of planets discovered recently have highly eliptical orbits. I mean giants like Jupites or biger. They say it went through a hypothetical cloud of dust over there and that pulled it from a circular orbit. Hahahaha. Actually, not anything one two black holes can't fix, no? We can't see them so they must be there. If we could see something there, it wouldn't be a black hole then. Where we would be without black holes? Problem is, that in one case the x-ray burst are visible at the perihelium, while the mythical invisible singularity should be 90 degrees from that position, pulling the orbit towards itself. No bursts there, though. Well, we can add normalization constant here and there and viola! Time to invent a while hole, maybe? Darn, already done, let's make up something extra exotic! Make Alice happy!

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 09:20|| 2005-05-11 09:20|| Front Page Top

#11 Phil, look at the pictures. The neck and tail are not the main mass of the body. I agree that the horizontal mode of neck movement is likely, but the neck and tail comprise maybe 15% of the body mass. So, we are stuck with a chunk that is 10 or more times as massive as whole elephant. I'll see if I can dig up some data that would indicate that these behemoths would have a really hard time to support their weight with the gravity as it is. May take a bit of time.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 09:30|| 2005-05-11 09:30|| Front Page Top

#12 Phil, if you say that they had an obvious adaptation, then why their limbs did not follow the trend and adjust to liquid environment? Then, consider plesiosaurs that were obviously aquatic and did not have a need to reach some foliage on banks as the fed on fish and aquatic animals and yet they had looong necks as well. What was the possible reason for that kind of adaptation?

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 09:39|| 2005-05-11 09:39|| Front Page Top

#13 The impact structure at Chixilab (SP) IIRC from the reconstruction of crustal plate movements was 65MY ago just about antipodal from the hot spot that created the Deccan Traps (there are similiar volcanic outpourings at various other place around the globe including one still running, its called Iceland). One thing I have always wondered about is just what causes hot spots to form. While they my arise from variations in the movement of the molten interior of the Earth I personally think they may also arise from the results of large impacts. Consider all of the shock waves that result from the impact would travel through and around the Earth and would refocus at a spot somewhere in the antipodal region of the impact. Of course the only way to find out would be to stage a really large impact on the Earth or perhaps Venus. Fortunately I have a Dentist apoint ment that day. But there are regions on Venus that show volcanic structures similiar to hot spot activety and the impact structures that due exist are above a certain size (the atmosphere of Venus is thick enough that below a certain size comet and asteriods should detonate in the atmosphere) could be related. Has anyone ever thought to look for impacts and lava flows that are antipodal on Venus. As to the feeding or other behaivor of the Saurapods we simply don't have enough evidence to to prove any theory IMO

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-05-11 09:56|| 2005-05-11 09:56|| Front Page Top

#14 Phil, explain this:

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 09:57|| 2005-05-11 09:57|| Front Page Top

#15 But, explain why it 'is' insane.

Because it takes Occam out into the woodshed and buggers him with a rusty pitchfork. There are infinitely simpler explanations available that fit the facts; why start inventing things like changes in gravity?

More importantly, there's no reason dinosaurs couldn't be the size they were under the same strength gravity we have today. That the elephant is the largest CURRENT land animal says nothing about what the largest POSSIBLE land animal could be; there have been, after all, relatively recent animals that were larger than the elephant.

(For example, Indricotherium transsouralicum was between 11 and 20 tons, and lived as recently as 25 million years ago. The largest elephant on record -- a literal Guinness world record holder -- weighed 12 tons.)

Here's a whole bunch of articles dedicated to punching holes in the silly "dinosaurs had less g to deal with" theory.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 09:59|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-05-11 09:59|| Front Page Top

#16 Evolutionary adaptation is driven by necessity. That is, the adaptions that are most advantagous occur first. For a shallow water animal that doesn't swim just wades, ie walks on the bottom there is no need for fins/flippers or they are of marginal advantage. The hippopotamus is a good modern example of a largely aquatic animal that has no aquatic adaptations to its limbs.

I come back to a long neck has severe physiological problems and must have evolved for compelling reasons - a need to reach a food source that the dino could not move to - a restriction that could not possibly apply to an animal that could move on land. Ergo the dinos could not leave the water.

Re the plesiosaurs, evolution has lots of examples of similar form resulting from different function. Its long neck is no more relevant to the argument than is the giraffes.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 10:11|| 2005-05-11 10:11|| Front Page Top

#17 What is there is to explain? An artist has rendered the long neck as being upright. So what?

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 10:15|| 2005-05-11 10:15|| Front Page Top

#18 Huge die-off when algae discovered photosynthesis and started punping out oxygen, too - but I don't hear anybody complaining...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-05-11 10:24|| 2005-05-11 10:24|| Front Page Top

#19 why start inventing things

RC, astronomers can do it, why can't I? ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 10:26|| 2005-05-11 10:26|| Front Page Top

#20 Phil, it is not that the artist just decided that the neck was upright. It is a reconstruction based on the shapes of the vertebrae. In contrast, when you look at vertebrae of diplodocus and titanosaurus, they vertebrae were shaped in a way that if they lifted their head above the back spine, the vertebrae would simply lock. That is why I said it was likely that they moved their head horizontally.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 10:33|| 2005-05-11 10:33|| Front Page Top

#21 RC, astronomers can do it, why can't I? ;-)

Because they know their physics and you don't?

Because the "lower gravity" crap has already been demonstrated to be wrong?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 10:33|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-05-11 10:33|| Front Page Top

#22 BTW, you made this claim earlier:

I dunno, but since gravitational constant is anything but constant, even on our speck of cosmic comedy it varies,

What's your source on this?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 10:40|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-05-11 10:40|| Front Page Top

#23 Because they know their physics and you don't?

You mean that at the present time they are authorities and get funding, while I don't.
Thanks, but I'll stick with Halton Arp, late Fred Hoyle and AlfvÃ©n. They make more sense.

What's your source on [G]?

Will dig it up for ya, but may take a bit of time. Deadline looming up so I have to behave and do some work, or my butter would be in peril. Bread I can bake myself. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 11:04|| 2005-05-11 11:04|| Front Page Top

#24 Biggest dinosaurs had long necks for different reasons than the giraffes. Giraffes have long necks to get to the food at the top of the trees where they have less competition for tasty leaves. Sauropods gotta keep eating, they can't be relying on the top of a few trees. They have long necks so they can eat everything in a much larger radius.

Keeps a lot of fuel to keep such a beast fed. Any serious change in climate that might reduce that food source would reduce the population quick as the big predators would hop on the slowest ones and shred them. It wouldn't be long before the numbers were unsustainable and once the sauropods go the carnivores have nothing to eat and they fall as well.

Not talking days or weeks here but centuries or more. There is also no reason to believe there wasn't a plague or two that thinned the herd during all that time as well. An ill-timed plague could really tip things.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-05-11 11:10|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-05-11 11:10|| Front Page Top

#25 You mean that at the present time they are authorities and get funding, while I don't.

No. I mean that they have to use physics to explain their theories, and have to run those theories past a whole bunch of other people who use physics to punch holes in the theories.

Thanks, but I'll stick with Halton Arp, late Fred Hoyle and AlfvÃ©n. They make more sense.

Halton Arp: His work's been pretty well demolished by peer review: "it has been shown that Arp's bridges are almost certainly nothing more than either photographic artifacts or statistical anomalies"

Hoyle: Last holdout on the Big Bang. Crank when it comes to evolution.

They may make more sense, but they're wrong.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 11:19|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-05-11 11:19|| Front Page Top

#26 it has been shown that Arp's bridges are almost certainly nothing more than either photographic artifacts or statistical anomalies

"Almost certainly". That's peachy. (We can't say just "certainly", what if it turns out to be right at some time?).

Which one is it--photo artifacts or stats anomaly? Can't they make up their mind?
Statistical anomaly.... meaning that if that shows on several pictures from different observatories and apparently something is there, then in the grand sheme of things it must be a statistical anomaly because it simply can't be.

BTW, re G, just some quick links:
1
2

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 11:36|| 2005-05-11 11:36|| Front Page Top

#27 Re Big Bang... The hypothesis is another metaphysical "creationist theory" for which the only difference with the usual "creationist theory" claiming that universe started 4000 B.C. is by changing the number 4000 B.C. by 15 billion years.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 11:54|| 2005-05-11 11:54|| Front Page Top

#28 Brackiosaurus:

There is new research data which has turned up possibily the best theory to date.

Scientists have unearthed a massive specimen on the coast of California. The reasearch team nicked named it 'Barry', seems as if 'Barry' consumed large quanitys of Balco nutrients.

More study is needed but to date the Pacific Coast team believes Barry's freak size is due to diet alone and not changes in gravity.

Posted by I know 2005-05-11 12:27|| 2005-05-11 12:27|| Front Page Top

#29 Are you sure they did not nicknamed it "Barney"?

Feeding on Balco nutrients? Very advanced type then. And a Californian to boot, health conscious! ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 12:59|| 2005-05-11 12:59|| Front Page Top

#30 Yeah, until the League catches 'em. ;-)

Posted by too true 2005-05-11 13:13|| 2005-05-11 13:13|| Front Page Top

#31 Hey, I took Geology for Idiots (not the actual name of the course) from Dewey McLean at Virginia Tech circa 1985! He was a good lecturer, but a bit of an eccentric because he kept coming up with pretexts for mentioning his "the dinosaurs were killed by mantle degassification" theory. He's not at all out of the mainstream, though, and he's published some well-received stuff in his time.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2005-05-11 13:25|| 2005-05-11 13:25|| Front Page Top

#32 I for one intend to get rich during the coming era of low gravity.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-11 13:35|| 2005-05-11 13:35|| Front Page Top

#33 As I recall, dinosaur species had been dying off throughout the era prior to that asteroid hit. Contrary to the scientist quoted in the article, I had always understood that the climate had cooled a bit, and new types of plants appeared, which the dinosaurs weren't as easily capable of digesting. The meteor was just the final straw in a fragile situation.

As for dinosaur size, would the air density make a difference? During the height of dinosaurea, the humidity was generally quite high -- certainly able to support larger flying creatures, so would it be able to support larger walking creatures as well?

And finally, not all selection is the result of physical environment. Some traits, like large horns, the fancy tail of the peacock, or voluptous breasts on the female homo sapian, (are you done snickering yet?) are the result of innate sexual preference, resulting in preferential mating opportunity. It could be that the long neck of the brachiosaurus and other sauropod species was simply sexy.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-05-11 13:42|| 2005-05-11 13:42|| Front Page Top

#34 Ship, dunno about that, but try here

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 15:05|| 2005-05-11 15:05|| Front Page Top

#35 TW, more humid air would probably not make much difference. The pressure difference would be rather marginal.

Good point about selection. Moderately voluptous breasts are my favorite selection trait. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 15:16|| 2005-05-11 15:16|| Front Page Top

#36 1) For the same temperature and pressure, humid air is less dense than dry air. This is because water molecules are lighter than nitrogen, yet carry the same kinetic energy.

2) I have a problem with variations in G. That is, if there were enough variation to have a measurable impact on life, it would also be enough to move Earth out of the habitable zone. Even if it increased slowly so that orbits remained roughly circular, an increase would pull the planets in.

Posted by Dishman">Dishman 2005-05-11 19:09|| 2005-05-11 19:09|| Front Page Top

#37 Ah, SSCs (Secondary Sexual Characterics) where would we be without them. However, they are always present in one sex and not in the other. Nice theory TW, but there is no indication of a long neck being a SSC, so I think we can discount it.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 20:23|| 2005-05-11 20:23|| Front Page Top

#38 Phil. Long neck is a SSC in certain African tribes. They streeetch it a much as they can, by creating an exoskeleton of metal rings. Malians and femalians. If, being a malian, you see a femalian with a short neck, you skip her--she is too ugly. If, being a femalian, you see malian with a short neck, he won't get laid. May not be a SSC, but perhaps a TSC. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 20:44|| 2005-05-11 20:44|| Front Page Top

#39 A characteristic present in both male and female is generally referred to as a fitness display and not an SSC, although I agree one could blur into the other. The example that comes to mind is aerobatic diplays in some birds of prey. While I can think of examples of SSCs that clearly have no survival value - the male Peacock's feathers (yes I know a female Peacock is called a Peahen), I can't think of a fitness display that doesn't clearly relate to a survival characteristic, which leads me back to 'what purpose did the long neck serve?'.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 21:12|| 2005-05-11 21:12|| Front Page Top

#40 Dishman, everyone would have a problem with it, but perhaps there is also a repulsive force/agent.

Just an analogy... Grab an ebonite rod and a cat. Yea, you remember that experiment from physics class! Granted, to overcome gravity, it would take a lot of cats... But here ya go, a force that is polarised and attracts and repels.

I am not saying that there are gravitons and antigravitons. But I've never seen the curvature of the spacetime either. It may have some degree of elasticity--you push against, and it will push you back. Or maybe the cats are really the answer. The EM force may be more relevant in our universe than we think it is.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 21:12|| 2005-05-11 21:12|| Front Page Top

#41 Phil, hold on a sec, I'll ask them...

OK, they say it is beautiful. Parse that. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 21:16|| 2005-05-11 21:16|| Front Page Top

#42 I can't think of a fitness display that doesn't clearly relate to a survival characteristic

And I can't think of a survival characteristic that doesn't clearly relate to a fitness display.

Darwinian Fitness Def: The relative reproductive success of a genotype as measured by survival.
Darwinian Survival Def: The survival of only those organisms best able (fittest) to obtain and utilize resources.

That is cuz I love circles. They are the the ultimate, most sublime form. ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 22:00|| 2005-05-11 22:00|| Front Page Top

#43 Sobiesky, you are stretching. I can think of any number of survival characteristics that are not displayed, an immune system for example.

I'll leave the epistemological debate for another day.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-11 22:18|| 2005-05-11 22:18|| Front Page Top

#44 I know I were. ;-)

Although, your example is debatable. It has, positively, some outward display characteristic, generally refered to by folks as health.

Hokay, epistemology another day...

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-11 22:32|| 2005-05-11 22:32|| Front Page Top

16:02 juriseqs
15:49 juriseqs
08:31 juriseqs
08:31 juriseqs
00:03 mmurray821
00:00 trailing wife
23:58 mmurray821
23:56 trailing wife
23:51 trailing wife
23:51 3dc
23:51 RIchard Aubrey
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:41 trailing wife
23:35 3dc
23:35 trailing wife
23:31 trailing wife
23:03 Zhang Fei
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:56 Mike Kozlowski
22:35 Raj
22:35 phil_b
22:34 twobyfour
22:33 phil_b
22:32 Sobiesky