AP's 33rd science book--Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1 by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 33rd published book of science
Archimedes Plutonium
Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 33rd published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface: Ever since I was a teenager in High School, I was troubled with the saber-toothed tiger-- how evolution could have built such an animal. But I was not logical in mind as a teenager, and had to wait until now to let my logical mind survey that perplexing question. To an extraordinary claim in science-- huge teeth that an animal cannot cope with, requires extra-special evidence and proofs of science. How can evolution theory (even though it is a rule or algorithm) (see my Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution book), how can evolution produce an animal with teeth that "get in the way of everything" as the animal goes through life. So, I am asking the science community to completely re-examine the fossil evidence of Smilodon. I do not have that evidence available, but the entire Paleontology community can make the evidence available. For what I suspect is that the tiger never had saber-teeth and that those teeth found in digs or tar pits, were the teeth of Entelodonts or some ungulate horn or walrus type animal teeth. In other words, I question the claim there ever existed a cat with huge canine teeth.
Cover Picture: What spurred me onto this book was a few days ago seeing the cover of Science News, 30 March 2019 showing a Saber-Toothed Tiger. And how utterly ridiculous for a tiger to have those teeth. And just as ridiculous that grown scientists believe such nonsense without questioning it.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) Science News, 30March, 2019, with cover picture of Saber Tooth Tiger opens up deep wounds of science in Archimedes Plutonium.
2) So I can remember back to High School seeing the Saber Tooth Tiger and wondering— how is that animal going to eat with those teeth always in the way.
3) In science, extraordinary claims, require special extra supporting evidence, not just your run of the mill evidence.
4) AP begins to focus on the true likely owner of those saber teeth-- not the tiger but its prey animal the walrus.
5) Is the Gomphothere, the 4 tusked elephant paleontologists second joke?
6) Added information by Science News 22Jun2019 on Smilodon.
7) Cat teeth anatomy examination.
8) Eagerly waiting for a DNA analysis of Smilodon saber teeth (I bet they come from a walrus).
9) Is this another joke in Paleontology, as if they do not have enough jokes already, the herbivore crocodile, what is next, the tree-with-wings?
10) Testing the DNA of skull of Smilodon with testing the saber teeth.
11) News of the Dire-Wolf and its extinction reminds me of Smilodon history, only Smilodon is _probably_ a modern day cat like the jaguar.
12) Hippopotamus evolution into whale.
13) David Attenborough promoting pseudoscience with Paleontology the most encrusted entrenched pseudoscience.
14) Summary.
-------
Text
-------
1) Science News, 30March, 2019, with cover picture of Saber Tooth Tiger opens up deep wounds of science in Archimedes Plutonium.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Did Paleontologists get it all wrong about the sabre toothed
tiger-- not teeth but horns of some ungulate-- I am guessing
Did Paleontologists get it all wrong about the sabre toothed tiger-- not teeth but horns of some ungulate-- I am guessing.
Could be some walrus type of animal.
Anyway, Smilodon, the sabre-toothed tiger. I have never actually believed it was a tiger, for how could evolution go so far as to disfavor a organism with teeth too large to eat, and to use as a weapon.
So, with this Science News, 30March, 2019 with cover of a sabre-toothed tiger. I open the question of -- how could this have been a mistake of Paleontology. I ask, what animal could the scientists have mixed up with? Some ungulate with horns and where the tiger kept bringing his prey meat near its den site and then fossilized together with the tiger. So that future paleontologists would be so dumb to never ask questions and think that the horn was the tiger's teeth.
So, I ask the paleontologists, prove, prove, prove that those were the teeth of the tiger, and not some horns of another species.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:08:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Here i am asking for a complete review over all sabre tooth tiger fossils to see if those disadvantageously long teeth were horns of a different animal. I cannot see evolution evolving such obstructive teeth.
So on smilodon i want proof.
So far i see no complete smilodon skull fossil. Teeth are separated. So smilodon may have normal big cat teeth.
This topic needs a total review— and i think what happened in the past is media hype of a sabre tiger just to gain publicity but not actual science reality.
Prove the Smilodon actually owned sabre teeth.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Another puzzling aspect of Smilodon is that it is claimed to have gone extinct, a puzzling extinction. But, i would contend that if there never existed a sabre toothed tiger in the first place but a mistaken horn as teeth, then the smilodon is our today’s living big cats.
So i call the entire paleontology science to make a thorough review of smilodon. For it is likely the smilodon was a joke of science.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:42:01 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
I was looking at warthog teeth and look similar to smilodon. Did the warthog live in the Americas, though?
I found no smilodon skull with all teeth intact.
Do we have a large cat today whose canine base is large but whose canine teeth is small.
I am thinking that all warthog teeth found in the tar pits were mistakenly thought to be smilodon’s teeth.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 9:36:09 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Looking for warthogs in Americas during time of smilodon. There was entelodonts, a predator pig.
Saw that the first discovery of Smilodon, he thought it was a prehistory hyena.
2) So I can remember back to High School seeing the Saber Tooth Tiger and wondering— how is that animal going to eat with those teeth always in the way.
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Did Paleontologists get it all wrong about the sabre toothed
tiger-- not teeth but horns of some ungulate-- I am guessing
So i can remember back to High School seeing the Sabre Tooth Tiger and wondering— how is that animal going to eat with those teeth always in the way.
So with the Science News magazine of 30 March 2019 and the ridiculous cover showing a cat with two canine teeth as large as its head itself— insults my logical intuition. Insults me so much that i am willing to go out on a limb— and say — the paleontologists likely messed up badly — by putting the horns of a ungulate or the tusks of a warthog or walrus onto a cat.
Yes, i am willing to go out on that limb— for it is so far removed of what we think of as evolution— that we want extra proof those teeth belonged to the cat. Farfetched ideas require an extra burden of scientific evidence and proof.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Now, let us begin to list all the crazy incompatible things a Smilodon had to do if it truly was the owner of huge sabre teeth. For best guess is the sabres were horns of a prey ungulate or the tusks of a pig animal.
Objections:
1) eating is terribly difficult— almost as if the mouth were caged in by the teeth
2) grooming the tiger’s coat especially for parasites, difficult
3) how could the mother even lick her newborn or carry them to a den or new location
4) the sabres would help small prey get away as the sabres would push the prey away from the mouth.
5) in mating the male would kill the female inadvertently as it latches onto female neck.
The more and more i think about Smilodon, the more i am convinced paleo scientists have a clown joke, not science of Smilodon.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
This is what we know for certain that South American jaguars have the strongest jaws of any cat as they were recently filmed hunting and taking down a alligator, on a Nature tv episode.
We can compare the jaw and canine socket of a jaguar and Smilodon jaw. My guess here is the socket of jaguar and smilodon canine socket are almost the same socket. Suggesting the sabre belonged to a ungulate horn or peccary tusk or walrus type animal.
If true, then Smilodon never had sabre teeth. And in the 1800s when these fossil tigers were being discovered— the choice for paleo scientists was get fame and fortune with a sabre cat or stay unknown with discovery of a “fossil cat nothing remarkable”.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:43:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright some pictures from the Evolution Institute and a quote:
“When the specimens had been thoroughly examined by Wysocki and his team at Clemson University, it was seen that Smilodon had a retention of the deciduous canines while the permanent ones were growing in. This means that the cats had four upper canines at the same time! This is seen somewhat with big cats such as lions, but the baby teeth are only present for a few months while the adult teeth grow in. When we look at Smilodon the older canines remain in place for nearly a year while the saber teeth grow in.”
Question: how can paleo scientists be sure that the picture was not a warthog type pig with tusk rather than tiger.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Source: Scientific American on internet
—quoting—
Entelodonts are widely regarded as omnivores that scavenged dead animals and, at least sometimes, caught and ate live ones. Evidence for this omnivorous lifestyle comes from their pointed incisors, recurved, pointed, serrated canines*, serrated premolars and an unusually mobile** jaw joint. Further evidence comes from studies on bite strength (Effinger 1998, Joeckel 1990) and from bite marks left on the bones of other mammals (Hunt 2005). Oh yeah, and there’s the discovery of a pile of bitten-in-half little camels from the Early Oligocene, the marks on their bones matching the tooth anatomy of the entelodont Archaeotherium (Sundell 1999).
— end quote —
AP writes:
Now the sabres of a hippo look very similar to these smilodon alleged teeth. And if the entelodont had sabre teeth this is likely where the mistake occurred. That sabre teeth found near a cat fossil belonged not to the cat but to entelodont. And the smilodon never went extinct but rather is now the jaguar— the most powerful jawed cat. My best guess.
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Interesting read on walruses with their huge canine tusk. They use that tusk for breathing holes in the ice. So we can see how it advantages the walrus. But totally ridiculous on a cat.
Question: would there have been walruses in the habitat of smilodon.
The hippo has sabre tusks in its mouth and wondering if the entelodont had tusks in its mouth.
We need a whole-scale new investigation on Smilodon to determine if it was the owner of saber-teeth.
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 2:43:53 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Quoting Wikipedia
There is a debate about how both the scimitar-tooth and the dirk-tooth evolved in felines and other mammals. the two sides of the debate revolve around whether it was derived from a sexual dimorphic trait or if it was completely natural selection that drove the creation of these phenotypes. The argument for sexual dimorphic origins stems from the fact that in mammals sexual dimorphic traits manifest as tools for males to compete for females. It is believed that the scimitar-tooth and the dirk-tooth were originally only in males for use in competition but then with the rise of mega-herbivores it became favorable for females to take up the trait as well. The natural selection side of the debate argues that the scimitar and dirk-tooth both evolved because of the unfilled niche of predation of megaherbivores so the trait evolved to take advantage of said niche.
—- end quote —-
AP writes: looking into sloth claws as both scimitar tooth and smilodon tooth. Perhaps what happened is the claws of sloths were mistaken as teeth of cats.
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Quoting Wikipedia on other trapped cats where smilodon was found in tar pit:
†Panthera leo atrox (American lion)
†Panthera onca augusta (Pleistocene North American jaguar)
Puma concolor (cougar)
AP writes: good this suggests none of the cats had saber teeth, for if panthers were sharing the same habitat as smilodon, then they all had the same sort of teeth.
3) In science, extraordinary claims, require special extra supporting evidence, not just your run of the mill evidence.
Now, this is the first day of April 2019 what we commonly know as April Fool's Day in the USA where you play a practical joke on others. But AP, Archimedes Plutonium never plays jokes when it comes to science. No, science is sacred to me, never to play jokes with. But I am about 75% sure that the Smilodon, the saber toothed tiger was a joke in science history. Perhaps never a "intentional joke" but still a joke of common sense reasoning and intuition. For, look at any picture of a cat with teeth so huge that it would hinder that cat throughout its living life. Does evolution work like that? Well, antlers of some ungulates burdens the owner, except during mating season, where they are a advantage. But can huge teeth ever be an advantage to a cat? Is there ever a situation in which those huge teeth help its cat owner? Honestly I cannot think of where such huge teeth ever benefits the owner, for every time the cat opens its mouth-- the teeth are in the way.
Back in 1989 was an extra-ordinary news report from Utah by Pons-Fleischmann of their experiment with cold fusion in a chemistry beaker where electricity run through a palladium creates fusion of hydrogen atoms. It was a remarkable claim, and my theme of Smilodon, is it was a remarkable claim that ever a cat existed with huge saber teeth. When science ever has remarkable claims-- then -- science must have remarkable proving evidence. The Pons-Fleischmann claim never materialized as being true.
So, the theme I am driving home in this small book-- Whenever science makes a claim that is out of the ordinary, that is somewhat counterintuitive, it is the burden of those scientists to provide extra-ordinary proof and evidence their claim is true.
So far, no-one in the Paleontology community has provided this extra-ordinary proof and evidence the tiger ever had huge teeth. In fact, no-one in the Paleontology community has asked for a entire review of the case of tigers with big teeth. And this is alarming because, as I read the history and see that the first big teeth were discovered in South America and skull separate from teeth, makes me awfully suspicious that the entire history of saber toothed tigers is a history of publicity and not of actual true science.
It is worth repeating a major theme in science-- if the claim is extra-ordinary, then the proof needs extra-ordinary evidence.
The fact of the matter, that Paleontology science has never held a all-out-review of the evidence for Smilodon, looks more to the idea that the tiger never really was the owner of such huge teeth.
If a Paleontologist tomorrow found a fossilized snake and in the same rock matrix, found fossilized wings. We demand extra ordinary proof that the snake had wings, before we accept that idea.
Summary Comments: I cannot access the literature of Smilodon. The best I can do at this moment is write this tiny book, urging the Paleontology community to get their act together and review the entire situation of Smilodon. Hold a conference if need be. But do not ignore this request, for by ignoring you only make the Paleontology community far worse than being a laughing stock joke of science. Show strong proving evidence, such as intact skulls with intact teeth. As far as I know, there are none. And I do not mean where someone inserted teeth into a socket hole.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than Paleontology's
mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more laughable?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:06:18 +0000
Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than Paleontology's mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more laughable?
Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake?
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
But the mistake in Physics is far more impacting of all sciences and is no joke whatsoever with its electron being 0.5MeV when the true electron is the muon. As for Paleontology, we can laugh because it is easy to confuse a fossil matrix where you find the bones of a walrus type tusk animal next to a cat species, and easy to see that paleontologists would err.
But then when Rutherford and Bohr found a 0.5MeV particle and thought it was the atom's electron, that was a real bad joke, for it indicated they never learned what Angular Momentum means in physics, and that you could not have Chemistry bonding of covalent with proton at 938MeV, electron 0.5MeV, when they really are 840MeV opposed to 105MeV.
So paleontologists made a laughable mistake with no real dire consequences. But Physicists made a top world class mistake in all of science with their electron at 0.5MeV.
4) AP begins to focus on the true likely owner of those saber teeth-- not the tiger but its prey animal the walrus.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than Paleontology's
mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more laughable?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:18:52 +0000
I need a walrus type species near the tar pits of California during the time of Smilodon and the below excerpt from Wikipedia gives me that type of subtropical walrus with tusks that were mistaken to be the canines of Smilodon.
Quoting Wikipedia:
Two subspecies of walrus are widely recognized: the Atlantic walrus, O. r. rosmarus (Linnaeus, 1758) and the Pacific walrus, O. r. divergens (Illiger, 1815). Fixed genetic differences between the Atlantic and Pacific subspecies indicate very restricted gene flow, but relatively recent separation, estimated at 500,000 and 785,000 years ago. These dates coincide with the hypothesis derived from fossils that the walrus evolved from a tropical or subtropical ancestor that became isolated in the Atlantic Ocean and gradually adapted to colder conditions in the Arctic. From there, it presumably recolonized the North Pacific Ocean during high glaciation periods in the Pleistocene via the Central American Seaway.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 1:55:10 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
This subtropical walrus appears to be a footnote from
^ a b Hoelzel, A. R., ed. (2002). Marine mammal biology: an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-632-05232-5.
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 00:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than
Paleontology's mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more
laughable?
Now it maybe possible to obtain fossil DNA from Smilodon and the sabers.
As i said before, extraordinary claim requires extra burden of proof. Test the bones of Smilodon and alleged saber to see if DNA matches.
AP
Alright, today is 5 April 2019 and I reached the end of the line on research into Smilodon, on literature available to me on Smilodon and on fossil record on Smilodon. I can only pry so far into the knowledge of Smilodon before the entire Paleontology community needs to get involved. And for them to share what data and information they have on Smilodon. I raised the issue of Science, science as a whole-- Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof. The claim of a cat with enormous canine teeth requires special extra proof, for those teeth get in the way of that cat's life. Evolution does not work with evolving into disadvantageous body parts. A cat with saber teeth is a disadvantage for the life of that cat, not a advantage. So what could those saber teeth be from what animal if not a cat? Well, I would guess the evolution of the bear into a walrus in the Ice Ages of geologic history. One of the literature above mentions a tropical to subtropical walrus. And walrus have large canines. The canines of walrus are advantages of ice hole for breathing for the walrus and for protection of the walrus against polar bears, perhaps orcas.
So, since a saber tusks on a cat is of little to no use, only getting in the way of the cat living its life, I would guess that all these saber teeth found in Smilodon fossil digs, are the teeth of a small walrus that lived during the time of Smilodon, and that Smilodon preyed upon these smaller walruses. This is not uncommon for cats to prey on larger animals, for we have recorded on camera of jaguars attacking alligators and with their powerful jaws-- strongest jaws of any cat alive-- they routinely take down alligators.
So, call together a worldwide Paleontology conference, seminar, symposium, bringing together all the data and information on the Smilodon fossil record, and iron out the question-- do those saber teeth belong to a cat, or was there a huge mistake and the teeth belong to another animal species.
AP
5) Is the Gomphothere, the 4 tusked elephant paleontologists second joke?
Comment: Alright on Wednesday 19 June 2019, on Iowa PBS was a program (Wedn is science night) called "When Whales Walked: Journeys in Deep Time" with caption reading: Scientists follow clues from the fossil record and use technology to make exciting new discoveries. 8-10pm. This was a 2 hour long program and delightful to watch. And I was thinking of my Smilodon book as the program progressed, will there be another fossil find that I would ** logically object to ** I wondered as the show progressed. So they had 4 animals in the show, each about 1/2 hour long, starting with whales, then crocodiles then birds, (maybe I have that turned around), and finally elephants. No problems with the fossil finds and paleontology claims so far, but in the elephant section, well, they showed and talked about this 4 tusked animal called a Gomphothere. And then, all bets off, for me, for this seems too silly to be true.
Just like the Saber Toothed Tiger, in that evolution does not work to hinder an animal as it goes through life. And so for these claims that an animal had unusual body parts that hinders the animal. I ask for Extra Evidence and Proof that the Saber tooth tiger had those canines. For the more likely case is, that paleontologists want money fame and fanfare and make the crazy claim the tiger had those saber teeth, even though it debilitated the animal in living out its life.
So on the one hand, you get a paleontologist making a fortune and museums packed with visitors, and fame and fortune to the paleontologist, all because it is claimed a tiger really had those teeth.
So, I am a Logical scientist, not a fame and fortune seeker. And when something goes by that which makes us wince, and convulse by thinking a tiger evolved canines that hindered that animal all its life long. Then I say-- give me added extra proof that sabers found with tigers truly belonged to the tiger and were not the teeth of a walrus type animal which the tiger had preyed upon. So that every Smilodon fossil ever found never had the saber teeth attached, and the paleontologist is running a scam of science, just to garner fame, fortune and public interest.
So as I was watching this program on PBS of "When Whales Walked" and the section on the elephants with this 4 tusk Gomphothere. The same alarm bells of my Logical Mind went off. How or why would evolution craft a animal with 4 tusks when 2 tusks are ample enough and 2 tusks can hinder, let alone have 2 more. Were there fierce predators during the time of Gomphothere that they needed 4 tusks?
So here again, like Smilodon, when a science runs into absurd and exaggerated claims, we want that science to review and provide a extra ordinary proof that such 4 tusked animals actually existed. Because it is so much easier by Logic to simply say, they found the extra two tusks of a animal in which the skeleton disappeared alongside a animal with its two tusks and its body was mostly intact. In other words, they found 4 tusks because there were two individual animals, each with 2 tusks. And no 4 tusked animal existed.
As I said before that:
Extraordinary Claims in science require extraordinary proof.
I bet that there is no Gomphothere fossil with all 4 tusks intact. And that all Gomphothere fossils found to date has two tusks intact with the extra 2 tusks separated.
Paleontologists-- prove me wrong on Smilodon, and prove me wrong on Gomphothere, else, you are the butt of the jokes.
Research Notes as of 25 June 2019.
6) Added information by Science News 22Jun2019 on Smilodon.
Alright, belatedly I examined some recent science news and to my delight and surprise, Science News followed up on their cover picture of a Smilodon, Saber Toothed Tiger cover picture of 30March 2019, with added information in 22June 2019 page 17. So I quickly took a new photo with this added information. The added photo is of two Smilodon fossils from South America.
And claiming that the saber teeth were used to pierce the skull of rivals for females or for food, claiming that the pierced hole in one of the skulls fits the saber teeth.
Dubious, very very dubious and skepticism should reign here. But we see quite vividly two examples of fossils of Smilodon.
If we remove the saber teeth in both samples what we are left with is 6 teeth on one skull and 6 + 8 on second skull.
I am a cat owner, not that I want to be, but because cats make my place their home and so I am forced to help them through life. And I have studied them now for 19 years ever since moving back to South Dakota. One thing I know for sure about cat teeth anatomy is that they have molars where on the side of their mouth they do a lot of chewing. They eat mostly from the sides of their mouth with their grinding molar teeth. Any reader can easily pull up pictures of cat teeth and jaws.
So, if the Smilodon had those huge sabers, implied they had No Grinding Molars, for the sabers would have interfered with grinding teeth.
That leads me to suspect what happened was that saber teeth were found with fossil Smilodon and those sabers belonged to a walrus type of animal the Smilodon preyed upon.
Did the paleontologists of Smilodon run a similar science scam and hoax on Smilodon, that Dawson ran on Piltdown Man as a ancient prehuman fossil, where he claimed he found a descendent of humans as a fossil but where he really prefabricated a fossil hoax? Is the Saber Toothed Tiger a fossil hoax?
For me, anyway, this is sadly looking to be the case. That perhaps some unscrupulous scientist grinded down the molars and tried fitting on the stump of the molars with a saber teeth that belonged to a walrus animal.
7) Cat teeth anatomy examination.
To claim a tiger had huge saber teeth is to claim that tiger had no functioning grinding molars. And so, actually, I do not think anyone in the paleontology community stopped and ask whether canines this large is compatible with other teeth functioning in the tiger. So that can the molars function as molars when you have a canine of this size and placement. About the only questions seemingly asked is what use was the saber teeth, as the 22JUN Science News discusses. But no-one asking whether such teeth would make other teeth nonfunctional-- hence, never belonged to the tiger. And in the fossil skull shown, looks as though the saber teeth of the upper skull and the lower skull were all cemented in place. So that all 4 sabre teeth were cemented in place and did not come intact with the skull. So that if this is true, then we can expect the attachment of the sabres were to the molars. And one can easily see that we just take a Smilodon fossil skull, and grind down the molars so that we attach sabre teeth.
And so, it is highly probable that the Smilodon never went extinct, but exists today as one of the big cats species in North America and South America. Perhaps that South American jaguar that routinely hunts caiman crocodiles.
Now, let me switch over to the recent PBS show on elephants and the Gomphothere as seen in the 4-part-section show on PBS of "When Whales Walked".
There was another PBS show quite recently discussing living elephants on NATURE and the opening scenes of that program was 4 tusks but no bodies (if I remember it correctly). And by the end of the program, the wildlife photographers had suggested the cause of those 4 tusks was two bull males fighting and hit by lightening and killed from lightening.
So, what I am saying, is that there never was a elephant like animal with 4 tusks, but rather, in the fossil record, you often find several tusks together, and that does not imply, I repeat, does not imply that one individual was the owner of all 4 tusks.
Again, the motivation, is that paleontology is often cut and dry and boring, and so, some like to spice up that science by making ridiculous claims for their fossil finds. A museum is not going to be filled by the general public if the Smilodon was just a old ancient cat with normal teeth. But if you claim the cat had huge saber teeth, you fill up the museum and you propel the scientist to fame and fortune.
Research Notes as of 26 June 2019.
Alright, I was looking at skulls of cougar, mountain lions and their lower canine almost matches their larger upper canine. So it is reasonable to expect that the genetics of evolution would favor both upper and lower canines to evolve together, sort of like in-tandem evolve together, so that if the upper gets larger, the lower gets larger. Looking at the skull of Smilodon in Science News 22 June, we see the lower canine as it should be for a mountain lion yet the upper canine totally out of proportion. Now looking at walrus skulls, and we see just the same curvature of teeth as we see the curvature of these Smilodon canines.
Now, I wonder if those Smilodon saber teeth still have DNA, and if so, we run a DNA testing, and there are plenty plenty of saber teeth in the tar pits of California where the La Brea Tar Pits of Los Angeles has the largest collection of Smilodon fossils. And as a note: California has made the Smilodon the state fossil. And would it not be more laughable, if they find out that their fossil is a fakery, and would that thus, lower the scientific power or prowess of the entire state of California, that how could say CalTech or Stanford or Berkeley be schools of science, yet, they could not even get a fossil correctly done.
So, now, here is a nice plan of research by those paleontologists of California to redeem themselves. Take some alleged tiger saber teeth and run a DNA test on them and see if the Smilodon teeth are actually a walrus animal, or a ungulate horn, or a ancient boar pig tusk.
8) Eagerly waiting for a DNA analysis of Smilodon saber teeth (I bet they come from a walrus).
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: DNA test Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger,
Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked
Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:00:41 +0000
DNA test Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium.
Alright, the entire science story of Smilodon is going nowhere, nowhere at all until a DNA analysis is performed on Smilodon fossils.
Since those cats come from about the same time period as Neanderthal and since Neanderthal supplied DNA to research. Makes sense that Smilodon fossils should yield testable DNA.
Once such a DNA testing on Smilodon is begun, in this manner can we fully say whether or whether not the saber teeth belonged to the cat, or was a walrus tooth or some other animal tooth.
And the testing may have to be in Germany where they did the Neanderthal DNA.
What I predict as the outcome-- I predict it will be found that the saber teeth was not the cats, but a walrus. And I further predict that geneticists can find the chromosomes where the canine teeth of cats is connected in parallel evolution of the lower teeth to the upper teeth, meaning, that if the saber teeth were the cats, the lower canine teeth should have evolved to become larger also-- suggesting, here again that the saber teeth did not belong to Smilodon.
This story of Smilodon must now be a priority of DNA testing. And the fossils are relatively young in age so should have plenty of DNA to test. And the tar pits should have protected and preserved the DNA.
It is befuddling as to why no-one has sought to DNA test the Smilodon before now.
Research Notes as of 27 June 2019.
Early in this book I have stated I do not know the data of Smilodon fossils, and have asked the entire Paleontology Community to open up on all the information and data of the Smilodon. That was March 2019, saying that the data and information of all that is known of Smilodon has to be opened up. For it is my suspicion and my guess that not a single fossil of an intact skull with all its teeth of Smilodon has ever been found. Not a single one entire intact skull with all the teeth. Further, my suspicion and guess, is that every Smilodon fossil of saber teeth has been found separate of a Smilodon skull. Every saber teeth of Smilodon has to be glued or cemented to a skull. Am I correct on these guesses? For the Paleontology community has certainly not been forthcoming on openness of data and information. As if they are deliberately trying to evade science.
So in closing, I ask again, is it true, that there exists no fossil Smilodon with skull and in tact teeth especially the saber teeth? Is it true that zero, zip, nada, nought, not one single saber tooth is attached to a jaw or skull of a fossil Smilodon. And that all saber teeth of alleged Smilodon come separated from a skull, separate from a jaw. And all are glued or cemented onto a jaw or skull by museums and artisans. And it is very very obnoxious that the Paleontology community hides that data.
If so, it looks very much in favor of AP's conjecture-- there never existed a cat with those saber teeth. And that the saber teeth belonged to some ancient pig with tusks, or walrus with tusks or some ungulate with tusk like horns.
I cannot force the Paleontology community to come forthright, and open up their data and information on Smilodon, but I can ridicule them for not opening up.
And once they are open and forthright on getting the science and truth about Smilodon, one of the first things that needs be done is DNA testing of those fossils, especially the saber teeth. For as this book is all about-- Extraordinary Claims in Science-- require-- Extraordinary Proof and Evidence in Science. DNA testing would be that Extraordinary Evidence.
9) Is this another joke in Paleontology, as if they do not have enough jokes already, the herbivore crocodile, what is next, the tree-with-wings?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: A herbivore crocodile? Apply the test of extra evidence Re: DNA
test Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon,
Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the
2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium
A herbivore crocodile? Apply the test of extra evidence Re: DNA test Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium.
Just when I thought I was finished with the Smilodon book, up pops another candidate for erroneous science in paleontology. The Economist, June29, 2019 page 76 "Vegetarian crocodiles". I did have a look to see if any reptiles other than turtles were herbivores. Apparently there are lizards that are herbivores.
But the criterion I set out in my book is that "extraordinary claims must have a higher standard of evidence" to be acceptable. For as far as commonsense goes. A fossil find can have a mix of bones from various different animals and a scatterbrained scientist me not recognize that the herbivore teeth do not belong to a carnivore reptile.
I think most every Paleontologist works under the rule that whatever bones are found in a chunk of rock belongs to one individual. And this is a huge error in reasoning.
It may well be, that these creatures were herbivore reptiles, maybe a forerunner of what will evolve into turtles.
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 22:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's
paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere
Testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere.
Alright, I am going to include the vegetarian crocodile in this book on Smilodon and Gompothere. I have only the The Economist, 29June2019 pages 76-77 to go by. England spells paleontology as palaeontology. I like the abbreviated spelling, for why keep words longer for no good reason.
The article is titled "Vegetarian crocodiles".
And I thought it would be interesting to test out my modus operandi of paleontology. My modus operandi is that if a claim is made of the fossil record that sounds in anyway silly, then the paleontology community has the extra burden of getting extra evidence for that claim to be acceptable.
Reading this article, I see that the researchers of Mr. Melstrom and Dr. Irmis, have indeed made a extraordinary claim in science-- to think that a crocodile ever existed that was a herbivore is outlandish. But have they also given extraordinary evidences to support their claim.
Reading the article says they checked 146 teeth of 16 individuals. So that was not too bad. It would have been very bad science if they checked the teeth of 1 individual and made their claim.
But what is behind this claim is a new technique called the OPCR. OPCR is Orientation Patch Count Rotated analysis. It scans a tooth and measures the "complexity of the tooth's surface".
Now here I have to bulk at the claim, because OPCR is a new to science technique. When an extraordinary claim is made, it should not be made in the first place if what the evidence is -- a brand new technique. So in this case, well, we need evidence that the OPCR is measuring complexity, and the concept of complexity is itself a controversial topic.
So I would say that their claim is a not-worthy claim.
If the researchers had found fossilized plant matter in the bones, then they have a worthy claim.
A new technique is not Extraordinary Evidence, and maybe it is bogus evidence altogether.
And there is also the case where the carnivorous crocodile ate a herbivore and the teeth of the herbivore got fossilized with the jaw and skull of the crocodile and fooling future paleontologists that happen to uncover this animal fossil.
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's
paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere
Testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere.
This topic of vegetarian crocodile is interesting question on its own right. The question of how easy or difficult it is to alter what a species eats.
Sounds reasonable that if omnivore you can swing either full herbivore or full predator. But once herbivore hard to go directly to predator and vice versa.
Recently on PBS was a show that involved Panda bears and how they went herbivore. They were already omnivores and so they transitioned into full herbivore.
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: the Herbivore Crocodile fails the test of science
The Herbivore Crocodile fails the test of science.
So, the Panda bear was omnivore before it went totally herbivore.
Are there any teeth of present day crocodiles that are omnivores?
New Scientist--Daily News shows pictures of Chimaerasuchus as extinct herbivore
Pakasuchus as extinct herbivore
Notosuchus as extinct carnivore
Armadillosuchus as extinct omnivore
So, I really have to ask when Dr. Irmis and Mr. Melstrom did their study of 146 teeth from 16 extinct crocodilians using OPCR a new technique of paleontology, where all the teeth separate from the jaw? I mean, was everything studied all separate bone fossils.
Because, what I am saying for the science of Paleontology, has to be better than its illogical rubbish claims. If you want to make extraordinary claims in science, such as paleontology, you better come up with extraordinary supporting evidence.
And just the evidence of a new technique, OPCR, is not going to justify the claim of a herbivore crocodile.
For a species to evolve from omnivore to herbivore is less involved than evolving from carnivore to herbivore. But still, the evolving of "what is eaten" requires many changes, not just in the teeth but the internal organs of stomach. It is not unreasonable evolution. For in a similar line, we see many land mammals evolve to the point where they are marine creatures. And we can see that evolution requires many changes also in body.
But I think the biggest clue to this question of a herbivore crocodile is the body anatomy other than the teeth. If you are going to be a herbivore crocodile, then the face of that crocodile, its snout should alter in form and not be the snout of a carnivore crocodile. In those 4 pictures above, the snouts look all the same. And as a herbivore, you need not open the mouth so wide or tall, as in herbivores, such as horses, do not open wide. Herbivores tend to have a compact head, not long and slender. And to be a herbivore would mean you tended to have to go further away from the water, and more on land, so that would tend to drive changes in skin anatomy to cope with sun and drying out.
To a claim in any science that seems farfetched, requires not just a new technique, but requires much much more supporting evidence for the claim to get any traction.
The Herbivore Crocodile fails the test of science.
AP
10) Testing the DNA of skull of Smilodon with testing the saber teeth.
Update: 28November 2019, thinking on this subject tonight and I seem to have not emphasized the idea of actual Genome testing of the skull of the tiger Smilodon and then genome testing the saber teeth. If there is a match, well, of course the Paleontologists got it correct and I got it wrong. If there is no match, then, well Paleontologist just had their biggest laughable joke science. Maybe that genome testing already took place, maybe not. And I see no prohibition in testing Smilodon fossils. Many of the fossils come from the tar pits of California, and I suspect the tar did not ruin DNA testing. And I think the age of these fossils does not ruin DNA testing, or, maybe their lost all their DNA to rock matrix.
But there is also another testing to go on Smilodon. The walrus is a predatory animal. Could the evolution of the walrus, for small animals in the tropics to the large walrus that live in cold country. Could all the paleontologists up to now have completely mis-identified the Smilodon as not being a cat at all but a walrus. This of course depends on finding legs and other parts of Smilodon showing without a doubt it was a cat, not a walrus.
Update: 30November 2019, saying there is ancient DNA for both Smilodon fossils and Gomphothere fossils that there is workable DNA in both fossils, then that would be proof one way or another, whether the saber teeth belonged to a large cat or not, and whether a elephant like animal the Gomphothere actually had 4 tusks or not.
Update: 1 December 2019, for I probably was not clear in my above updates. What I am on about recently, is the idea that perhaps the skull of the so called "Smilodon" the few found intact, were only skulls without any limbs. And the walrus evolved from the subtropics moving up north. It could be the case that a walrus is a predatory animal and so is the Smilodon cat predatory. So that a skull of the evolving walrus when found without the limbs or rest of the body, would be mistakenly identified as a cat, when in reality is the walrus. Thus, explaining the large canine teeth. So if there is no DNA to inspect in any Smilodon fossils. And if there is only saber teeth attached to a few fossil skulls but never the "rest of the body". Then, well, we can ask the paleontologists to review the possibility that the skull was not a cat, but a evolving walrus.
As for the Gomphothere, here again, if no DNA is forthcoming from fossils, then the likelihood of 4 tusks for one animal fossil, the likelihood is that 2 of those tusks were from another individual. If DNA is possible, I am confident the research will reveal the DNA of 2 of the 4 tusks do not match, and thus proving there were two animals fossilized with only the tusks of one of the gomphothere.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Smilodon DNA, can it come from tar?? Since recent ancient DNA comes
from tree-gum
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:52:49 +0000
Smilodon DNA, can it come from tar?? Since recent ancient DNA comes from tree-gum.
Quoting the BBC:
This is the face of a woman who lived 6,000 years ago in Scandinavia.
Thanks to the tooth marks she left in ancient "chewing gum", scientists were able to obtain DNA, which they used to decipher her genetic code.
This is the first time an entire ancient human genome has been extracted from anything other than human bone, said the researchers.
She likely had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes.
Dr Hannes Schroeder from the University of Copenhagen said the "chewing gum" - actually tar from a tree - is a very valuable source of ancient DNA, especially for time periods where we have no human remains.
"It is amazing to have gotten a complete ancient human genome from anything other than bone,'' he said.
--- end quote ---
My predicament is unravelling the Smilodon, saber tooth tiger, saying it was not the tiger's canine at all, but belonged to a walrus type species that the tiger preyed upon.
A clinching proof of my hypothesis would be to check the DNA of a saber tooth to the DNA of the tiger skeleton itself. If they match, well, I was wrong. If they are of different species, well I stand true to science.
Now is there some hindrance of tar as a preservative of DNA? Many of the Smilodon fossils come directly out of tar pits in California especially. Or is tar too acidic and destroying the DNA?
Of course, the BBC article above says Bones are the usual source for ancient DNA. Do we have enough fossils that we can extract ancient DNA from Smilodon, or, has the rock matrix fossilization ruined the DNA??
Geneticists were able to extract the DNA of Neanderthals, seems as though, they should be able to extract DNA of Smilodon.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: So, now, why are Paleontologists still clinging to the horrible ugly
mistake of the Saber Tooth Tiger? If it takes them a few weeks to correct a
stupid silly bird claim, it should take just a few weeks to verify that the
Sabre toothed tiger
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:55:55 +0000
So, now, why are Paleontologists still clinging to the horrible ugly mistake of the Saber Tooth Tiger? If it takes them a few weeks to correct a stupid silly bird claim, it should take just a few weeks to verify that the Sabre toothed tiger.
Recently another well preserved fossil in amber was discovered, and at first paleontologists made a hasty and probably fake call-- by calling it a bird that lived 99 million years ago. And the inflation of science to be that of the most "money making excitement" rather than the truth of science.
Imagine, if you can, what response would the amber fossil of a bird smaller than a hummingbird be, and the truth-- it was not a bird but a lizard.
Same thing goes for the Smilodon, that ridiculous notion that a cat would have the teeth of a walrus, when the teeth are in fact from the walrus that the cat happened to prey upon.
Imagine, that California can have a fake fossil and make a lot of money selling tickets to watch a cat fitted with walrus teeth. Instead of the truth of science, that simply wants the truth and not some money making circus show.
So, it was a few weeks ago that Paleontologists make the bozo claim of a bird, and now in NEW SCIENTIST, 11APR2020, we seem to have a complete retraction where lead scientists having a second closer look at the fossil demonstrate that the animal was more likely a small lizard.
So, now, why are Paleontologists still clinging to the horrible ugly mistake of the Saber Tooth Tiger? If it takes them a few weeks to correct a stupid silly bird claim, it should take just a few weeks to verify that the Sabre toothed tiger was a science sham all built around the idea of making money, and not telling the truth of science.
AP
In science, -- crazy claims need extra added supporting evidence. That is the theme throughout this text. Make a crazy claim in science-- then be prepared to have to provide super extra evidence.
Theme of this book: In science when we make any claims, in any science, that seems a bit farfetched or stretched of our intuition, or counterintuitive claims, any claims in science that seems to not fit smoothly, then those claims have the added and extra burden of Extra Proof, Extra Evidence. So an Extraordinary Claim in any science requires Extraordinary Evidence. And Smilodon is a perfect example of this. The 4 tusked pre-elephant is another example of this.
11) News of the Dire-Wolf and its extinction reminds me of Smilodon history, only Smilodon is _probably_ a modern day cat like the jaguar.
News of the "dire wolf" in Scientific American, I would bet there extinction was due to humans I do not recall if I ever heard about the "dire wolf". Maybe I did but my memory is no longer very sharp. But reading the article, the idea that cross my
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 21, 2021, 3:03:23 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News of the "dire wolf" in Scientific American, I would bet their extinction was due to humans.
Anyway the purpose of the article was to report that the dire-wolf was not related to the gray-wolf, but only 5 million years in the past was related.
I do not recall if I ever heard about the "dire wolf". Maybe I did but my memory is no longer very sharp.
But reading the article, the idea that crossed my mind was their extinction was due to humanity in the Americas.
Maybe the gray-wolf had enough sense to retreat and run away whenever humans came around.
Probably even the Smilodon, the tiger that had no saber teeth for those were the teeth of the walruses they preyed upon, that the humans extincted the Smilodon along with dire-wolf.
And maybe the dire-wolf was more aggressive and not retreating. So that whenever humans came upon a pack of dire-wolves, the humans would stonethrow to death or then spear them to death.
The humans would certainly hunt the animals that the dire-wolf needed to live on. So I bet the cause of extinction was exclusively human made.
I suspect the fossils found in the tar pits would not show signs of being injured or harmed by humans. And, by the way, have there ever been found human remains in the California tar pits? Or could humans figure out by that time that tar pits were death traps. Perhaps even use them in their hunting.
But I bet that if dire-wolf bones were found other than in tar pits, that many of them would show signs of human killing or injury.
The extinction of so so many large animals in the Americas is directly to be blamed on the increasing numbers of humans in the Americas.
Paleontologists are just too slow to recognize the force of extinction that Homo sapiens brings along with themselves. Humans were, and are a fearsome killing machine driving many species to extinction, and paleontologists should be more open about it. Instead of trying to blame some climate change. Blame something else to soften the reality that humanity is a killing machine.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 22, 2021, 1:46:01 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 2:55:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> News of the "dire wolf" in Scientific American, I would bet there extinction was due to humans
>
> I do not recall if I ever heard about the "dire wolf". Maybe I did but my memory is no longer very sharp.
>
> But reading the article, the idea that cross my mind was their extinction was due to humanity in the Americas.
>
> Maybe the gray wolf had enough sense to retreat and run away whenever humans came around.
>
> And maybe the dire-wolf was more aggressive and not retreating. So that whenever humans came upon a pack of dire-wolves, the humans would stonethrowing to death or then spear them to death.
>
> The humans would certainly hunt the animals that the dire-wolf needed to live on. So I bet the cause of extinction was exclusively human made.
>
> I suspect the fossils found in the tar pits would not show signs of being injured or harmed by humans. And, by the way, have there been found human remains in the California tar pits?
>
> But I bet that if dire-wolf bones were found other than in tar pits, that many of them would show signs of human killing or injury.
>
> The extinction of so so many large animals in the Americas is directly to be blamed on the increasing numbers of humans in the Americas.
>
> Paleontologists are just too slow to recognize the force of extinction that Homo sapiens brings along with themselves. Humans were, and are a fearsome killing machine driving many species to extinction, and paleontologists should be more open about it. Instead of trying to blame some climate change.
>
And what Paleontologists need to research into is this idea of Mass Killings of animals. Of course our ancestors where horrible ugly killing machines, and animals could not have figured this out. That a entire herd was routed to fall off a cliff. But the ugly intelligence of Early Humans would have figured it out. That the easiest way to hunt is steer a herd of animals to fall off a cliff.
So that if the extinction of many many large animals all occurred in a very short time, would mark the advent of Early humans having spears to dominate and coupled with a herd steered over a cliff.
Before that time, the hunters will kill what they needed. Here, in Over-the-Cliff carnage, is a extinction mode of hunting.
And probably the tar pits of California were used as another mass slaughter of animals. The humans knowing the animals would be trapped so they drove in large numbers, animals to the tar pits.
Perhaps the dire-wolf itself would be driven over a cliff or steered into tar pits. Or if anything, once humans had slaughtered so much of the animals that the dire-wolf needed to live on. They faced extinction along with their prey.
This mass slaughter by driving over a cliff would be geographically easy in the Americas, but not so easy in Africa. So we see a huge extinction of large animals in the Americas, especially North America for it had plenty of cliffs to drive animals off the cliff.
And such a extinction makes sense if Africa and Asia had no large extinctions for that time period, only the Americas.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 22, 2021, 7:42:01 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So it is not written into modern day Paleontology textbooks or Darwin textbooks that Mass Killings can quickly lead to extinction of that species.
I have seen on TV various different programs of where a pile, huge pile of bones are found in digs. There is the cliff in Canada. There is the tar pits of California. There is a site in Colorado of a cliff overhang and a pile of bones underneath. There are several in Utah and North Dakota.
What I am tired, sick and tired of hearing from "soft in head scientists" is they find a pile of bones in the geological record and the first thing that snaps into their weak minds for an explanation is "climate change". All because of current global warming of CO2 greenhouse gas. So these weak in science and logic intelligence, seeking an explanation, that "climate change" is on the tip of their tongues. I am sick and tired of that.
As for the huge extinctions in the Americas of large animals. That is probably due to the arrival of the killing machine of early humans with their rock and stone pointed spears and their throwing of rocks and stones. No animal can survive a band of stone throwing and spear thrusting band of humans.
But, now, couple that with the malevolent intelligence, not a good intelligence but a evil one, of scaring a herd towards a cliff to see hundreds of animals plunge to their death.
So, Darwin evolution books and Paleontology books need to add a chapter on the mechanics of mass killings. Africa did not have the geography to drive herds off of cliff escarpments that the Americas had. And so we do not see the extinctions number of species in Africa that we see in the Americas, and for the dolts of science with their "climate change explanation" do those dolts think that the climate of North America was not affecting Africa?
So we have to factor in the Early Humans as nasty, brutish and evil cliff mass killings (or tar pit mass killings).
The only similar mass killings in modern times is the attempt to wipe out the rabbits by introducing a lethal virus. Luckily the rabbit populations recovered with some immunity. But if we extend that mass killing attempt to cliff throwing over board to rabbits. If humans every couple of years introduced a new lethal virus upon rabbits, there is no doubt in my mind that we can extinct the rabbit species. Because the difference between hurdling large animals over a cliff escarpment is the Persistence in having a daily meal. If we persisted in viral infection on rabbits. We too can extinct the rabbit just as Early Humans extincted the wooly mammoth and all the other large animals.
We have to make it clear in science history, that humanity, early humans were a evil killing machine and the cause of so many animal extinctions.
12) Hippopotamus evolution into whale.
Recently in March 2021, AP watched a NATURE program on hippos: Hippos: Africa's River Giants: Africa's river giants are explored, as hippos protect their families, face their enemies and more. It was narrated by Attenborough. And he said a sentence or two about the fact that the closest living relatives of the whale are hippos. Before this show, I was unaware that hippos could _not swim_. But the fact most important to me was that they are related to the whales. Because, before this show I was thinking some "deer like creature" was the evolving into the whale, but one can easily see that a hippo like creature is just "ready made to evolve into a whale".
13) David Attenborough promoting pseudoscience with Paleontology the most encrusted entrenched pseudoscience.
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 23, 2025, 2:24:37 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
Tonight on PBS is a repeat of NATURE: Museum Alive With David Attenborough on at 7:00PM and again at 11:00PM. It is a shame for me and others that David cannot understand that no cat ever existed with saber teeth for they get in the way of --- "making a living". David falsely said that the tar pits fetched a entire fossil jaw with teeth intact. The sabers in truth are the tusks of ancient Walruses, which the cats preyed upon.
I dare any paleontologist to show us a cat jaw with tusks in tact.
And if a paleontologist comes up with a jaw with tusks in tact, we expect him to run DNA analysis to see if it is Walrus or cat.
In this program on BBC, I was squirming in pain upon seeing David explain that the cat caught its prey by stabbing it with its saber teeth. So sad, so sad to see David ending his science career with science poppycock nonsense.
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 23, 2025, 5:29:39 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
Correcting David Attenborough's poor discussion on dinosaurs in his Museum Alive show.
--- quoting NATURE transcript NATURE: Museum Alive With David Attenborough ---
♪♪ ATTENBOROUGH: London's Natural History Museum is full of wonders.
It's a place where we can get a vivid idea of the great variety of life... that inhabits our planet.
But there are some creatures here that I can never hope to encounter because they are extinct.
[ Dinosaurs roaring ] [ Recording powers down ] GUARD: Ladies and gentlemen, the museum is going to be closing in 5 minutes, so please make your way towards the exits.
Thank you.
ATTENBOROUGH: Tonight, however... ♪♪ ...something magical is happening.
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ATTENBOROUGH: It's a big place.
There are 70 million or so specimens here I'm told.
♪♪ And the first I want to look at right now is way up on the very top floor.
The Maori people of New Zealand have legends about huge flightless birds that in the past had roamed their islands.
Stories that many Europeans dismissed as myths.
Until this skeleton was sent here.
It was a giant.
♪♪ The Maori in their legend had called it a moa.
But was it the largest bird that had ever lived?
♪♪ ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] There were several different species of moa, but this was certainly the biggest.
It stands three meters tall.
But is this really what it looked like when it was alive?
You can tell how an animal held its head from the junction between the skull and the neck.
If that is underneath the skull, then its neck would have been upright.
But this moa's neck joint is at the back of the skull, so it must have held its neck more horizontally, like this.
♪♪ ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] ♪♪ So, was the giant moa the biggest bird that has ever existed?
Well, if it craned up its neck, it was almost certainly the tallest.
♪♪ [ Chuckles ] ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] [ Laughs ] [ Heavy footsteps approach ] But the moas had an enemy and one that was also huge.
It too can be found here in the museum.
This colossal bird was nearly twice as heavy as the most powerful eagle alive today.
♪♪ Not only that, but it had formidable weapons... ♪♪ ...a beak the size of a butcher's cleaver... ♪♪ ...and razor-sharp talons as big as the claws of a tiger.
This flying killer is Harpagornis.
♪♪ [ Eagle screeches ] ♪♪ We know that Harpagornis preyed on moas because moa skeletons have been found with holes stamped through their pelvic bones that exactly match the grasp of Harpagornis's claws.
It was probably even strong enough to cling to a moa's back with one foot while it slashed at its victim's neck with the other.
[ Moa squawks ] But it looks as if this moa is going to escape, for now.
♪♪ Science has revealed the truth behind many a myth, but there is one tall story that is still remarkably persistent.
♪♪ Back in 1951, a famous Himalayan explorer and mountaineer, Eric Shipton, came across some huge footprints in a high snowfield that looked as if they'd been made by some kind of giant ape.
Shipton's Sherpa companions had no doubt about what had made them.
A Yeti.
An abominable snowman.
Well, there is one small specimen acquired by the museum and kept in its vaults that might just explain those prints.
♪♪ It was found in a shop in Hong Kong that sold Chinese traditional medicines.
♪♪ It was a molar tooth of some kind of ape-like creature, except that it was huge.
The museum only got a fragment.
This is it, but here's a cast of a complete one, and it's six times the size of one of ours.
It was given the name Gigantopithecus, giant ape.
After that discovery, one or two more teeth were discovered, but nothing much until eventually a piece of the lower jaw was found.
The original is now in America.
This is a cast.
But here is the lower jaw.
If this animal had a skull with the same proportions as those of a gorilla, its complete skull would have been this big.
This was a true monster.
[ Tapping, footsteps approach ] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Low growl ] ♪♪ So, we know a huge ape did exist, Gigantopithecus.
It could well have stood three meters tall, in which case it would have been eight times as heavy as I am.
And if you're as heavy as that, you don't spend much time climbing trees because they won't support you.
So, the likelihood is that his arms are quite short, and he walked upright.
He was bipedal.
I'll get out of the way.
♪♪ [ Low growl ] ♪♪ An upright animal has its head on the top of its spine as I do.
And if that head is to be well balanced, it's better not to have a long muzzle but a rather flat face.
So, if I were to observe Gigantopithecus and it stared back at me, I suspect I'll find its look rather unnervingly familiar.
[ Low growl ] ♪♪ ♪♪ Gigantopithecus is commonly thought to have died out several hundred thousand years ago.
But sightings of the yeti continue to be reported.
So, is it possible that some kind of giant ape, maybe even Gigantopithecus itself, still survives somewhere out in those remote Himalayan mountains?
[ Ape roaring ] ♪♪ Of course, if you want to imagine what an extinct animal looked like, you really need a complete skeleton... and bits of skin and feathers, if you can get them.
And even then, you may well make mistakes.
♪♪ ♪♪ This poor old bird is a dodo.
It once lived on the island of Mauritius in the Indian ocean.
And it's almost certainly the first animal species that human beings actually exterminated in historic times.
And so now we talk about being "as dead as a dodo."
But in spite of its fame, this one is a fake.
Its feathers come from a goose, its feet were modeled on a turkey, and its beak, I suspect, is plaster.
The museum can be forgiven because no skin or feathers of the dodo survive.
Its image was influenced by pictures like this one, painted by a 17th-century Dutch artist, Roelandt Savery.
But he had never seen a living dodo and based his image on accounts by seafarers.
I've often wondered whether dodos actually looked like that.
But unfortunately, they had all disappeared before anyone could get a good look at them.
Until now.
♪♪ [ Laughs ] This funny, dumpy creature is how the bird is usually represented these days.
But I've seen quite a lot of flightless birds over the years, and this one doesn't quite ring true.
An examination of the way its thighs join its pelvis has shown that in life it actually stood much more upright.
♪♪ We now know that its feathers were probably a lot fluffier than in that painting.
We also now know that it was related to the pigeon, and some experts suggest that it made a pigeon-like call -- doo-doo, doo-doo -- which gave the bird its name.
[ Dodo calling ] The dodo probably fed on fruit.
There was a lot of it on the island.
I'll try him with a bit.
Come on!
♪♪ What do you make of that?
[ Laughs ] Ow!
That's a very powerful beak!
In fact, it may well have been adapted for crushing shells and crustaceans for the sake of the calcium.
And there's a female.
Maybe she is another reason why they had such large beaks -- to show off with during courtship.
♪♪ [ Dodo calling ] ♪♪ And here comes a rival male.
[ Dodos calling, hissing ] He could be another reason for having a huge beak -- to fight with in disputes over nest sites.
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Until now, no one has ever seen a dodo egg, so no one knows how big it was.
♪♪ But after tonight, who knows?
♪♪ [ Dodo clicking ] ♪♪ There are specimens of animals in the museum from every corner of the planet.
The mummified remains of this strange creature were found in a cave in Patagonia, South America.
It was a giant ground sloth.
There are several kinds of ground sloth, and this one had immense claws.
What could they have been used for?
♪♪ [ Ding! ]
[ Low growl ] [ Door squeaks, footsteps slowly approach ] ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Low growl ] These ground sloths probably spent most of their time on all fours.
But nonetheless they were perfectly capable of rearing up on their hind legs.
And when they did that, they probably stood about three meters tall, which is as tall as a grizzly bear, if not taller.
♪♪ But I don't think this one is going to use its claws on me.
♪♪ That dung made it clear that these creatures are vegetarians, so they doubtless used those claws for ripping up plants.
But it's been discovered recently that they used them for something else as well.
♪♪ Something that seems rather surprising for animals of their great bulk.
♪♪ [ Dirt falling ] ♪♪ They dug burrows.
♪♪ ♪♪ Hmm!
♪♪ Huge excavations like this have been found all over Patagonia.
And we know they were made by giant sloths because scratches on the walls of the burrows exactly matched their claws.
Such immense burrows must have been excellent places to take refuge.
And the giant sloths may well have had need of them.
Because there was a truly ferocious predator living alongside them.
[ Big cat snarls ] ♪♪ A great cat with immense, saber-shaped teeth... ...Smilodon.
For me there is no more alarming animal in the whole museum than this.
And its skeleton is perfectly preserved because about 10,000 years ago it wandered into a pool of naturally occurring tar oozing from the ground in California.
In general shape, it was somewhat like a lion, but more muscular, and much heavier.
And those saber teeth were really sharp.
No wonder the giant sloths needed burrows in which to take refuge.
[ Low growling ] [ Sharp note plays ] ♪♪ [ Low growling ] You might think that Smilodon would have caught its prey as a lion often does, by chasing it, leaping on it at speed, and then throttling it, suffocating it with a bite to the neck.
♪♪ But Smilodon stalked its prey, creeping quietly across the plains, until it got really close.
♪♪ And then it pounced!
♪♪ ♪♪ Smilodon couldn't throttle its prey with those huge teeth, and they were too brittle to slash.
They would shatter if they struck bone.
♪♪ Instead, the animal would have first used its great weight to pin down its victim.
Then it would have used its sabers like blades to slice open the soft flesh of its victim's throat.
But these terrifying hunters had a rather touching side to their characters.
Tigers today are solitary hunters, and when one gets too old to hunt successfully, it dies.
But skeletons of really elderly sabertooths have been discovered.
Which suggests that not only did Smilodon hunt in packs, but when members of the family were too old to hunt for themselves, they were allowed to take a share of the kill.
♪♪ ♪♪ The museum is full of creatures that appear terrifying, but which no doubt, if you knew them better, would prove to have quite a charming side to their characters.
But there is one here that would, I think, chill everyone's blood.
♪♪ ♪♪ This is a vertebra from the backbone of a modern snake.
It was a python.
And we know exactly how long it was because it was measured when it was alive.
It was 21 feet long, seven meters.
This, however, is a similar bone from the spine of a fossil snake.
And if this was 20 feet long, how big was this?
Certainly 30 feet, 10 meters, 11 meters.
It was a monster.
But what did it live on in those far distant times?
[ Clank ] [ Sharp note plays ] Maybe, if I follow it, I'll find out what it ate.
♪♪ ♪♪ Science calls this snake Gigantophis.
And it was truly immense.
It was certainly big enough to swallow me.
But would it have eaten human beings?
It's an alarming thought.
♪♪ Well, it might well have done if we had both been around at the same time, but we weren't.
We'd not yet appeared on Earth.
But there was a prehistoric elephant like this one that was unlucky enough to be wandering around the planet alongside Gigantophis about 40 million years ago.
♪♪ Could this monster snake have tackled one of these?
We know from its massive size that it must have been a constrictor... ...and constrictors don't use venom.
♪♪ Instead, having seized an animal with their jaws, they wrap their coils around their prey and squeeze so hard that they stop their victim's heart, and it dies within minutes.
♪♪ I wonder if he realizes that his dinner tonight is a fiberglass model?
I'll leave him to it.
Around 150 years ago when this great museum was being built, pioneer geologists were collecting some huge fossilized skeletons from cliffs on the coasts of Southern England.
They had paddle-like limbs... ferocious teeth... and huge eyes.
They were reptiles, and they were given the name ichthyosaur -- fish lizard.
♪♪ ♪♪ Now it's got skin and flesh on it, you can see how remarkably similar it is to today's dolphin.
It's got the same streamlined silhouette, the same pointed jaws, it's air-breathing, even gives birth to live young.
But surely an ancient ichthyosaur couldn't be as advanced as a modern-day dolphin?
♪♪ [ Dolphin squeaking ] Or could it?
♪♪ ♪♪ Dolphins are mammals.
Ichthyosaurs, reptiles.
Very, very different groups.
They're not at all closely related.
And yet, they both have very similar body shapes.
They're a remarkable example of what's called convergent evolution -- two groups of unrelated animals that have evolved similar bodies to suit the same environment.
But there are some differences.
Dolphins beat their tales up and down, like their cousins, the whales.
Ichthyosaurs, as is clear from their fossils, had tails like fish that beat from side to side.
And dolphins only have two flippers, whereas ichthyosaurs had four.
So, is it possible that ichthyosaurs were as fast in the water and as agile as dolphins, if not more so?
I wonder who would win in a competition?
♪♪ ♪♪ [ Dolphin squeaking ] One kind of dolphin, spinners, can leap from the surface of the water and spin in the air.
♪♪ Maybe the ichthyosaurs could do the same?
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ We know that ichthyosaurs lived and evolved on this planet for many millions of years more than dolphins have done so far.
So maybe ichthyosaurs would have won the competition after all.
Who knows?
[ Dolphin squeaking ] ♪♪ ♪♪ Living around the same time as the ichthyosaurs was another creature that became the subject of great argument when it was first discovered.
This, some might say, is the most scientifically important and valuable specimen in the whole of the museum.
It's a fossil called Archaeopteryx.
But what kind of creature was Archaeopteryx when it was alive?
♪♪ It had two long leg bones, so it must have stood upright.
A bony tail and a long neck.
Its head had bony jaws packed with teeth, like a reptile's.
And its arms had three elongated fingers, each ending with a claw.
So you might think it was some kind of strange, spindly-armed, upright-standing lizard.
Except for one fact.
♪♪ There is evidence of more than just bones on its slab.
Feathers!
♪♪ Archaeopteryx lived some 150 million years ago, long before the appearance of true birds.
Those feathers on its arms certainly enabled it to glide.
But that's not all.
♪♪ It had powered flight.
Marks on the bones show that there were enough muscles attached to them to enable it to flap.
Not only that, a recent scan of its skull showed that its brain would have given it the senses and reactions that are needed for accurate control in the air.
This creature was half reptile, half bird.
It was the first proof that in prehistory there were intermediate forms that linked the big, very different groups of animals that we know today.
♪♪ ♪♪ But while Archaeopteryx could certainly fly, it could also clamber up tree trunks and along the branches, like a tree-living reptile, thanks to those clawed fingers.
♪♪ There were insects flying around at that time.
And Archaeopteryx's teeth show that it was a hunter.
♪♪ ♪♪ And this is Professor Richard Owen, the man who acquired that fossil and built this museum.
Although he disagreed with Darwin's views on evolution, he was one of the great scientists of his time, and he had a particular flair for interpreting fossils.
♪♪ Another group of reptiles dominated the land.
♪♪ They lived long before big mammals, let alone human beings.
There were hundreds, probably thousands of different kinds, and they came in all shapes and sizes.
They are, perhaps, the most famous and dramatic of all prehistoric creatures.
And they were first identified and named here in Britain.
[ Low grunting ] They were the dinosaurs.
[ Grunting continues ] Thousands of people come here every day to look at their amazing skeletons, and to imagine what they must have looked like, and sounded like, when they were alive.
♪♪ [ Roaring ] [ Roaring stops ] ♪♪ It's hard to imagine a time when the world didn't know about dinosaurs.
But until relatively recently nobody knew they had ever existed, let alone that they once ruled the world.
The story of their discovery starts in the 1820s when a doctor named Gideon Mantell, living on the south coast of England in Sussex, picked up something odd in a sandstone quarry.
And this is what he found.
It's clearly a tooth of some kind.
This is its outer surface.
And in shape it's very like the tooth of a living lizard such as an iguana.
Which is why the animal it belonged to came to be called Iguanodon -- iguana tooth.
And with it were a number of other bones.
They were the hips and back legs of some kind of giant reptile.
More of them were discovered, and soon there were enough to get some idea of what the whole animal had looked like.
One odd little bone seemed to have nowhere to go, so the reconstructors put it on the end of its nose, making the animal look like some kind of reptilian rhinoceros.
It was like nothing anyone had ever seen before.
So, a great fossil hunt started in the quarries of Sussex.
And eventually the bones of several different kinds of big animals were discovered.
They were brought here to the museum, Professor Owen examined them, and he decided that they should belong to a completely new kind of animal, an animal he called a dino-saur -- "terrible lizard."
In due course more complete skeletons of Iguanodons were discovered and it became possible to reconstruct them with greater certainty.
Iguanodon could stand upright.
It had small arms and was over 25 feet, seven meters, tall.
And that horn on its nose was actually a spike on its thumb.
♪♪ Before long, new and even bigger species were being unearthed all over the world, from the instantly recognizable three-horned Triceratops to the sensational Tyrannosaurus Rex.
These astounding beasts have inspired and captivated not only scientists, but writers, artists and filmmakers for almost two centuries.
But it was Professor Owen, here in the Natural History Museum, who first identified them.
And his work has been continued here ever since.
♪♪ This is the laboratory, where the museum prepares its fossils for study and for display.
♪♪ It's here that they painstakingly remove the excess rock to reveal the fossils in all their extraordinary detail.
♪♪ This is the fossilized egg of a dinosaur, one of the first to be discovered.
And it was found close to some bones of a sauropod dinosaur.
Sauropods -- this is the model of one -- were gigantic vegetarian dinosaurs that wandered around on four legs.
There are lots of different species of them.
They're found all over the world, and they're the biggest land animals that have ever existed.
Of course, you can't prove that it was a sauropod that laid this egg.
But I would like to think that it was.
The weight of the sand that eventually covered it squashed it.
But if we could see it when it was first laid... ♪♪ ...we would see that it's much rounder than a chicken's egg, more like that of a turtle or a crocodile.
And of course, very much bigger.
[ Rustling ] Hmm!
Sounds like something's in there.
But how will that something make its way out?
Most dinosaur eggs are shell filled with rock.
But not so long ago someone in South America found a sauropod egg and inside there was a baby sauropod.
And on its nose, it had a little egg tooth.
Birds and crocodiles have the same sort of thing.
They need it, as the sauropod did, in order to be able to break out of the shell.
[ Rustling continues ] [ Thud ] Oh!
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Sauropod screeches ] [ Laughs ] [ Sauropod screeches ] We know that baby sauropods were very small and left their nests very early, perhaps to avoid being trampled upon by their huge mothers.
[ Sauropod screeches ] They probably hid in the forest until they grew large enough to join the herd of adults.
[ Sauropod screeching ] ♪♪ Hello!
[ Chuckles ] Well, this is just one leg bone of a fully grown sauropod.
So you can see this little fellow has got quite a lot of growing to do over the next few years.
♪♪ [ Sauropod screeches ] ♪♪ [ Sauropod screeches ] The museum, of course, has the skeleton of a fully-grown sauropod -- of a kind.
And its story is one of kings and millionaires.
Back in 1902, King Edward VII, then-Prince of Wales, saw a picture of a huge sauropod replica, one of the biggest yet discovered, whilst visiting the Scotsman turned American millionaire, Andrew Carnegie, at his castle in Scotland.
The prince immediately said, "Well, I would like one of those," and in those days what princes asked for, they got.
♪♪ And so, in due course, another replica turned up right here in the Natural History Museum.
♪♪ ♪♪ And here it is.
There are two ways of pronouncing its scientific name.
It's either diplo-do-cus or dip-lod-icus.
Either way it's a bit of a mouthful.
So I'm going to use the nickname that is commonly used around here.
This is Dippy.
And what's more, although there's no way of being sure whether it was male or female, I'm going to assume that Dippy was female.
♪♪ But what did Dippy look like when she was alive?
This strangely shaped fragment of a dinosaur called Edmontosaurus was mummified before it was fossilized, so not only the bones but the skin was almost perfectly preserved, and it was covered in small scales.
They didn't overlap like those of a lizard but formed a close-fitting mosaic.
Maybe Dippy was like that too.
But what about her color?
My suspicion is that Dippy, like many large mammals today, such as elephants or rhinoceros, was a general, all-over neutral plain color.
So, if we add a little bit of skin and flesh, we can get some idea of what she actually looked like.
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Low grunting ] ♪♪ ♪♪ So now, after 150 million years, we've got a pretty good idea of what Dippy looked like.
But how did she behave?
♪♪ ♪♪ Well, animals her size and weight must have moved in a rather ponderous way.
And in any case, since she was a vegetarian, as we know from her teeth, she had no need to be speedy to get her food.
But it's the tiny bones in Dippy's inner ear that can give us a clue as to what she sounded like.
These little bones are basically the same shape as that of the dinosaur's closest relatives, birds.
The range of sounds a bird hears is related to its size.
A small bird makes and hears high-pitched sounds, whereas large birds communicate with low-pitched sounds.
So huge Dippy, with her inner-ear bones shaped like those of a bird, could probably hear very low-pitched frequencies of sound.
And she could probably make them too.
[ Low roaring ] [ Chuckles ] ♪♪ [ Low roaring ] We know that elephants today can communicate using infrasound, sound with frequencies so low they're below human hearing.
And those sounds travel through the ground sometimes for many miles and are detected by elephants through their large, flat, sensitive feet.
[ Thump ] Dippy too had large, flat feet.
So maybe the giant dinosaurs communicated with one another in much the same way, as well as by bellowing.
Her long tail would have helped to balance her long, heavy neck, but why was her neck so long?
♪♪ The most likely explanation seems to be that it helped her to reach leaves in all sorts of difficult places.
But in order to reach the highest, most succulent leaves in the forest, it seems likely that Dippy would have reared up on her hind legs.
Come on Dippy!
[ Smooches ] Breakfast, come on!
♪♪ [ Chuckles ] ♪♪ Oh, hello!
♪♪ [ Low roaring ] ♪♪ [ Low roaring ] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Door closes ] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ London's Natural History Museum is full of wonders.
It's a place where we can get a vivid idea of the great variety of life that inhabits our planet, both today and in the past, especially after a night like that!
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ To learn more about what you've seen on this "Nature" program, visit pbs dot org.
♪♪
--- end quoting NATURE transcript---
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 23, 2025, 5:59:41 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
AP comments interspersed.
On Sunday, February 23, 2025 at 5:29:39 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Correcting David Attenborough's poor discussion on dinosaurs in his Museum Alive show.
--- quoting NATURE transcript NATURE: Museum Alive With David Attenborough ---
Because there was a truly ferocious predator living alongside them.
[ Big cat snarls ] ♪♪ A great cat with immense, saber-shaped teeth... ...Smilodon.
For me there is no more alarming animal in the whole museum than this.
And its skeleton is perfectly preserved because about 10,000 years ago it wandered into a pool of naturally occurring tar oozing from the ground in California.
AP writes: Not really David, for you should ask for the museum to show you a saber tooth that was attached to the jaw and not glued or wired-screwed two separate pieces. Then, David, you should ask for DNA analysis to make sure the saber and jaw are cat and not walrus. David, that is the scientific method. Not the method of you read it in all the books and you presumed the cat had saber teeth.
In general shape, it was somewhat like a lion, but more muscular, and much heavier.
And those saber teeth were really sharp.
No wonder the giant sloths needed burrows in which to take refuge.
[ Low growling ] [ Sharp note plays ] ♪♪ [ Low growling ] You might think that Smilodon would have caught its prey as a lion often does, by chasing it, leaping on it at speed, and then throttling it, suffocating it with a bite to the neck.
♪♪ But Smilodon stalked its prey, creeping quietly across the plains, until it got really close.
♪♪ And then it pounced!
♪♪ ♪♪ Smilodon couldn't throttle its prey with those huge teeth, and they were too brittle to slash.
They would shatter if they struck bone.
♪♪ Instead, the animal would have first used its great weight to pin down its victim.
AP writes: How obnoxiously silly to think it would pin down with teeth that got in the way. The reason a walrus has tusks is so a predator that gets near the walrus will slice into the predator.
Then it would have used its sabers like blades to slice open the soft flesh of its victim's throat.
AP writes: How mindlessly stupid that looks, David. And then the follow up question-- how would a male saber tooth tiger mate with a female without slicing her up in the act of mating. David, you need the museum to show you if ever there was a saber tooth connected to the jawbone and that both DNA is cat and not walrus. The world does not expect paleontologists to have taken Logic while in school, but the world does expect paleontologists to follow the Scientific Method whenever it runs into ridiculous mindless and stupid interpretations such as the Saber Tooth Tiger.
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 23, 2025, 7:57:25 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
I know David is old, but still, young enough to straighten out and correct this ugly portrayal of paleontology. A science that loves to make money with fantasy animals of tigers with walrus tusks, all to draw in more crowds, more children, and fill them up with propaganda anti-science.
So I am hoping David calls the museum and asks for a Science Look at the saber and the cat jaw. Has there ever been a jaw with the saber attached??? I have never seen or heard of a single one. Every saber tooth tiger comes separate of jaw and of tooth, every one.
And Walruses were plenty near the tar pits when cats lived.
Find me a single jaw with saber attached, not the glued together or pinned together.
And then, do the DNA analysis on saber teeth--- are they Walruses and not cat feline teeth.
A fitting job for David in the waning years of his life-- to correct this ugly anti-science that surrounds Smilodon.
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 25, 2025, 12:32:14 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
When David Attenborought talks about Diplodocus, the Sauropod, got me to thinking about the tail. The tail on dinosaurs and pterosaurs.
For the Moon had not yet arrived whilst dinosaurs lived and 1/2 of Earth was in constant sunshine. Shallow seas was the dominant environment, and a tail is very useful for an animal living in the sea.
A tail is ridiculous on a Pterosaur, and further evidence that they used their appendages not to fly but to oar-row while in water.
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 25, 2025, 2:18:46 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
The flying squirrel has a tail that helps it in its glide-movement, but its tail is far different from a reptile tail.
And we can check to see if snakes caused squirrels to dare the challenge of flying instead of being eaten.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Flying squirrels (scientifically known as Pteromyini or Petauristini) are a tribe of 50 species of squirrels in the family Sciuridae. Despite their name, they are not in fact capable of full flight in the same way as birds or bats, but they are able to glide from one tree to another with the aid of a patagium, a furred skin membrane that stretches from wrist to ankle. Their long tails also provide stability as they glide. Anatomically they are very similar to other squirrels with a number of adaptations to suit their lifestyle; their limb bones are longer and their hand bones, foot bones, and distal vertebrae are shorter. Flying squirrels are able to steer and exert control over their glide path with their limbs and tail. Molecular studies have shown that flying squirrels are monophyletic (having a common ancestor with no non-flying descendants) and originated some 18–20 million years ago. The genus Paracitellus is the earliest lineage to the flying squirrel dating back to the late Oligocene era. Most are nocturnal and omnivorous, eating fruit, seeds, buds, flowers, insects, gastropods, spiders, fungi, bird's eggs, tree sap and young birds. The young are born in a nest and are at first naked and helpless. They are cared for by their mother and by five weeks are able to practice gliding skills so that by ten weeks they are ready to leave the nest. Some captive-bred southern flying squirrels have become domesticated as small household pets, a type of "pocket pet". Description A northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) gliding Flying squirrels are not capable of flight like birds or bats; instead, they glide between trees. They are capable of obtaining lift within the course of these flights, with flights recorded to 90 metres. The direction and speed of the animal in midair are varied by changing the positions of its limbs, largely controlled by small cartilaginous wrist bones. There is a cartilage projection from the wrist that the squirrel holds upwards during a glide. This specialized cartilage is only present in flying squirrels and not other gliding mammals. Possible origins for the styliform cartilage have been explored, and the data suggests that it is most likely homologous to the carpal structures that can be found in other squirrels. This cartilage along with the manus forms a wing tip to be used during gliding. After being extended, the wing tip may adjust to various angles, controlling aerodynamic movements. The wrist also changes the tautness of the patagium, a furry parachute-like membrane that stretches from wrist to ankle. It has a fluffy tail that stabilizes in flight. The tail acts as an adjunct airfoil, working as an air brake before landing on a tree trunk. Similar gliding animals The colugos, Petauridae, and Anomaluridae are gliding mammals which are similar to flying squirrels through convergent evolution, although are not particularly close in relation. Like the flying squirrel, they are scansorial mammals that use their patagium to glide, unpowered, to move quickly through their environment. Evolutionary history Prior to the 21st century, the evolutionary history of the flying squirrel was frequently debated. This debate was clarified greatly as a result of two molecular studies. These studies found support that flying squirrels originated 18–20 million years ago, are monophyletic, and have a sister relationship with tree squirrels. Due to their close ancestry, the morphological differences between flying squirrels and tree squirrels reveal insight into the formation of the gliding mechanism. Compared to squirrels of similar size, flying squirrels, northern and southern flying squirrels show lengthening in bones of the lumbar vertebrae and forearm, whereas bones of the feet, hands, and distal vertebrae are reduced in length. Such differences in body proportions reveal the flying squirrels' adaptation to minimize wing loading and to increase maneuverability while gliding. The consequence for these differences is that unlike regular squirrels, flying squirrels are not well adapted for quadrupedal locomotion and therefore must rely more heavily on their gliding abilities. Several hypotheses have attempted to explain the evolution of gliding in flying squirrels. One possible explanation is related to energy efficiency and foraging. Gliding is an energetically efficient way to progress from one tree to another while foraging, as opposed to climbing down trees and maneuvering on the ground floor or executing dangerous leaps in the air. By gliding at high speeds, flying squirrels can rummage through a greater area of forest more quickly than tree squirrels. Flying squirrels can glide long distances by increasing their aerial speed and increasing their lift. Other hypotheses state that the mechanism evolved to avoid nearby predators and prevent injuries. If a dangerous situation arises on a specific tree, flying squirrels can glide to another, and thereby typically escape the previous danger. Furthermore, take-off and landing procedures during leaps, implemented for safety purposes, may explain the gliding mechanism. While leaps at high speeds are important to escape danger, the high-force impact of landing on a new tree could be detrimental to a squirrel's health. Yet the gliding mechanism of flying squirrels involves structures and techniques during flight that allow for great stability and control. If a leap is miscalculated, a flying squirrel may easily steer back onto the original course by using its gliding ability. A flying squirrel also creates a large glide angle when approaching its target tree, decreasing its velocity due to an increase in air resistance and allowing all four limbs to absorb the impact of the target.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 25, 2025, 2:37:11 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
I am going to ask David Attenborough to do this show over again only split it into two shows, each a 1 hour long. The first show is before the dinosaurs and showing where no Smilodon full jaw of a cat with saber tooth attached, and that DNA puts the saber teeth to walruses.
The second 1 hour show is the age of Dinosaurs with T-Rex and Sauropods-- David's "Dippy".
In this 2nd show -- start it with a "setting placer". Start the show by explaining that in the age of Dinosaurs there was no Moon accompanying Earth and that the continents were a supercontinent until Cretaceous when the supercontinent was split by the asteroid. And you have continental drift of continents.
Explain that when the Moon was not here, that the Earth day was as long as a year, meaning that the dinosaurs lived in perpetual Sunshine all day all year long. There was no nighttime when dinosaurs lived as 1/2 of Earth faced the Sun perpetually and this is the reason we have dinosaur fossils near the north and south pole.
Explain that during the dinosaur era, that the land was on the sunny side of earth and surrounded by oceans. There likely was no dry land that we call deserts but shallow seas everywhere and the entire land mass covered in plants.
David's program is more anti-science imagination fostering fiction--- tiger with sabers, than a program meant to teach truth and science.
Pterosaurs did not fly in the air-- for that would be like asking giraffes to fly. No, they used their appendage to boat oar row in shallow seas and oceans.
Sauropods grew immense size because they lived in water to buoy their massive weight and the reason for long neck so they can both eat plants in water or reach trees growing along shore.
David paints a picture of Fiction Imagination to stir awe and wonder but is anti-science instead. Teaching kids to believe in exaggeration and fraud, not reality and truth.
Archimedes Plutonium Feb 26, 2025, 2:22:13 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
David, split up your show into two parts. After the Moon arrived about 90 million years ago and before the Moon arrived. The bolide that struck Earth about 66 million years ago was a rock that was connected to the Moon arrival some 90 million years ago.
The dinosaurs enjoyed Sunshine all day and all year long, for 1/2 of Earth was in permanent sunshine-- explaining why you have North and South Pole dinosaurs. Explaining why so much Shallow Seas on land continents.
So now, with Sauropods, David, you failed to explain that they were sea creatures that buoyed up their enormous weight, and why they had long necks and long tails to swim and eat in water, and the water protecting them from T Rex.
Explaining that Pterosaurs-- those flying giraffes as the great joke of paleontology, were actually boat-oar-rowing appendages. Notice that the beaks with teeth meant Pterosaurs fished in the oceans, not the ridiculous notion of flying around on land and landing to kill an animal.
But above all, David, at least get the Paleontology community to correct Smilodon--- since there never ever was a intact jaw of tiger with a saber tooth (from every picture and news I have seen). Every Smilodon fossil has the saber attached by a screw or glue in museums. The world has never found a fossil Smilodon with saber attached to jaw of a cat.
And get DNA analysis of saber teeth proving it is an ancient Walrus.
Kids deserve better than to have anti-science propagandized to them.
Archimedes Plutonium Mar 2, 2025, 1:29 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
So how does David Attenborough wish to see himself in the future??? As a leader of Phony Paleontology--- too lazy, too dumb to ask if anyone has a cat jaw with saber tooth attached, and not glued or screwed on by some museum or charlatan scientists. And if such a fossil exists have it DNA tested to see if cat or walrus. For AP bets that all those saber teeth come from a walrus. David-- it is easy to ask for a fossil where the saber tooth is attached already--- then test for DNA.
As for Pterosaurs flying--- giraffe sized animals flying--- let us get a expert Aeronautical Engineer to tell us if any of those ridiculous dinosaurs ever took to the air, because AP reasons that with all those Shallow Seas and 1/2 of Earth in constant sunlight-- the Moon had not yet arrived. That those Pterosaurs used their appendages to Boat Oar-Row across water and they had teeth in those bills because they ate fish.
A Aeronautical Engineer can tell from the size and weight of those long necks, bills that they were water animals not flying air animals. Another clue is tails, for tails tell us if water or air.
So, David, please, start doing true science for Smilodon and for Pterosaurs and for Sauropods instead of your catch and grab sensationalism anti-science. Why not do the Jackalope in your next anti-science show-- a rabbit with horns, as you did Smilodon-- a cat with walrus teeth.
David, science should never be the size of audience you can grab and how youthful that audience is, but Science always and foremost is the truth. So, do the right by science--- ask the world paleontology collection-- had anyone found a saber tooth attached to a jaw??? Because in SCIENCE 18 August 2023 "at the La Brea Tar Pits and Museum in Los Angeles" not a single jaw intact with saber teeth.
David-- ask at your London museum-- was their saber glued on or screw wired in place. And ask why on Earth they cannot DNA analyze the saber tooth to see if Walrus.
So be a scientist David, not a propaganda sensationalist.
14) Summary.
Ever since my youth, I wondered how on Earth could biology evolution evolve a cat wherein its saber teeth impede and get in the way of everything the cat does in life. And then I decided to do something about that question by exposing so-called scientists who perpetuate this game of increasing museum tickets sold, making money on science fantasy.
One also has to realize that few scientists are required to take formal logic in college and universities, especially the ones who end up being paleontologists. Paleontologists are one of the worst group of scientists when it comes to logic and reasoning and deduction. Maybe it is the long hours spent in the field digging up fossils and the Sun beating down on their heads.
So, when you cannot get scientists to do the scientific method on Smilodon--- show us a jaw with attached saber where both jaw and saber are DNA identified as a cat. Then you can say there existed a saber toothed tiger. But until that is done the most reasonable guess is the sabers are a ancient walrus tusk.
And Paleontology as a science needs an overhaul as to making fossils available to the scientific method. Not where museums glue and screw wire on and call it a saber toothed cat or a 4 tusk animal or a Pterosaur the size of a giraffe flying in the air. Where museums are more for science fantasy to rake in money than they are for truth of science.
So, David Attenborough--- make a world wide call for anyone who has a Smilodon fossil saber tooth already attached to a jaw and where both are DNA tested. In the 18 August 2023 SCIENCE magazine shows pictures of drawers and drawers of Smilodon at Museum of Los Angeles and not a single saber tooth attached to jaw (without being glued or wired by the Museum). Make the call David and have a DNA testing.
For what AP works on is commonsense logical reasoning--- evolution never evolved a cat with teeth that get in the way of everything the cat does in life.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or University press to hardcover publish all 341+ AP books of science, likely to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
_(cropped).jpg)
Born
1983 or 1984 (age 40–41)[1]
Other names
spez[3]
Education
University of Virginia (BS)
Occupation(s)
Co-founder and CEO of Reddit
X (symbol) X X-TimSweeneyEpic 4likes, 4 years ago Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? 9:56 PM- Oct 22, 2019
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real ...
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real ...
Tim Sweeney on Univ Maryland failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction. Read AP's textbook--
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors// Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
12) So stupid in physics that they never took a course in Logic in College to be able to think straight and clear and thus able to understand that physics has no Black Holes nor does it have a Big Bang for both violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. duh duh duh
13) Hopelessly stupid in science when they see Accelerated Polar Ice Cap melt and run to their dumbarse computer modeling with CO2 greenhouse gas, when it is the Sun gone Red Giant because Sun and stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As every proton in the Sun is having muons thrust through the proton torus producing electrical energy.
14) So stupid in science and logic, that they will not even do Water Electrolysis and actually weigh the mass of oxygen compare to hydrogen. No, these logically impaired so-called scientists stop the experiment by eyeballing the volume, and then run to the lounge for cake coffee and donuts. Please be sure-- dan christensen, kibo parry and jan burse to concoct a hate sheet that appears 2nd or 3rd in a Google search of AP.
15) Is there any university in the entire world that requires its scientists to have 2 years of Logic study-- the AP corrected Logic not the crazy error filled Boole logic, so they can at least try to think straight, think clearly--- Answer is--- no.
Science Advisor to the President
In office
February 18, 2022 – October 3, 2022
President
Joe Biden
Preceded by
Eric Lander
Succeeded by
Arati Prabhakar
16th Director of the National Institutes of Health
In office
August 17, 2009 – December 19, 2021
President
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Joe Biden
Deputy
Lawrence A. Tabak
Preceded by
Raynard S. Kington (acting)
Succeeded by
Lawrence A. Tabak (acting)
2nd Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute
In office
April 1993 – August 1, 2008
President
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Preceded by
Michael M. Gottesman (acting)
Succeeded by
Alan Edward Guttmacher(acting)
Personal details
Born
April 14, 1950 (age 74)
Staunton, Virginia, U.S.
Spouse
Diane Baker
Children
2
Education
University of Virginia (BS)
Yale University (MS, PhD)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (MD)
Scientific career
Fields
Molecular genetics
Institutions
Thesis
Semiclassical theory of vibrationally inelastic scattering, with application to H+ + H₂ (1974)
Doctoral advisor
James Cross
Univ. Virginia Steve Huffman, why cannot Dr. Wiles Dr. Tao admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, even High School kids see a lid dropped into a paper rolled up cone is a Oval not ellipse. Is Dr. Wiles and Dr. Tao a complete math ranting lunatic??????Tao in 2021
Born
17 July 1975 (age 49)Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Citizenship
- Australia
- United States[3]
Alma mater
Known for
Partial Differential Equations, Analytic Number Theory, Random matrices, Compressed Sensing, Combinatorics, Dynamical Systems
Spouse
Laura Tao
Children
2
Awards
Fields Medal (2006)showList
Scientific career
Fields
Harmonic analysis
Institutions
University of California, Los Angeles
Thesis
Three Regularity Results in Harmonic Analysis[3] (1996)
Doctoral advisor
Elias M. Stein
Doctoral students
Monica VișanUniv. Virginia Steve Huffman, why cannot Dr. Wiles Dr. Tao admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, even High School kids see a lid dropped into a paper rolled up cone is a Oval not ellipse. Is Dr. Wiles a complete math ranting lunatic??????--- when searching AP in Google created by Steve Huffman hate spew platform Reddit---Reddit's Steve Huffman Lunatics
Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
Steve Huffman on Univ Virginia failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
.jpg)
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction. Read AP's textbook--
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors// Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
12) So stupid in physics that they never took a course in Logic in College to be able to think straight and clear and thus able to understand that physics has no Black Holes nor does it have a Big Bang for both violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. duh duh duh
13) Hopelessly stupid in science when they see Accelerated Polar Ice Cap melt and run to their dumbarse computer modeling with CO2 greenhouse gas, when it is the Sun gone Red Giant because Sun and stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As every proton in the Sun is having muons thrust through the proton torus producing electrical energy.
14) So stupid in science and logic, that they will not even do Water Electrolysis and actually weigh the mass of oxygen compare to hydrogen. No, these logically impaired so-called scientists stop the experiment by eyeballing the volume, and then run to the lounge for cake coffee and donuts. Please be sure-- dan christensen, kibo parry and jan burse to concoct a hate sheet that appears 2nd or 3rd in a Google search of AP.
15) Is there any university in the entire world that requires its scientists to have 2 years of Logic study-- the AP corrected Logic not the crazy error filled Boole logic, so they can at least try to think straight, think clearly--- Answer is--- no.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪ ♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪ ♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪ ♪♪♪♪♪
Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward
Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything