Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: more on large animals and gravity Message-ID: <1905@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 16:52:54 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1905 Posted: Thu Aug 29 16:52:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 18:42:32 EDT References: <382@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 177 Summary: 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