Bigger Dinosaurs and the Redneck Watermelon Truck
Ted Holden
Consider the case of the two rednecks who were buying watermelons for
$2 apiece in Fla., trucking them to Chicago and selling them for $2.
They noticed they were not making any money and came to the obvious
evolutionist conclusion: they decided they needed a bigger truck!
Evolutionism amounts to an attempt to use time in the same manner in
which the two rednecks attempt to use truck-size. Basically, you have
an idiot's doctrine which demands billions of violations of real
probabilistic laws, not one such violation of which has ever been
observed within recorded history, and the claim is that if only enough
TIME is granted, i.e. the hundreds of millions of years which the
doctrine clims separates the geological epochs, then all of the
relative probabilistic laws will in fact be reversed, and the
violations of those laws will HAVE to happen.
What if, however, somebody could coersively demonstrate that these
gigantic time frames are in fact total fictions, and that nothing more
than a few thousand years at most separates us from the age of
dinosaurs? Such a demonstration is in fact provided on my www system
at
in the section denoted Catastrophism and Ancient Anomalies. It turns
out to be an easy mathematical demonstration (the blatherings of Wayne
Throop and one or two others notwithstanding) that there is an
absolute size limit for land animals of around 21000 lbs in our
present world, and the obvious conclusion is that gravity has changed
in the meantime, i.e. that sauropods simply did not experience gravity
the way we do at all.
Moreover, and this is the interesting part, in Baalbek Lebanon, at the
temple of Jupiter as well as at nearby quarries, there are carved
column stones of sizes (one is about 100'x20'x20') beyond the capacity
of any modern technology, much less any ancient technology, to move.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has flatly stated that it has no
technology which could move the largest of those stones a single inch.
Now, those stones and the temple of Jupiter were not built by
dinosaurs. The same reduced gravity which allowed dinosaurs to exist
and, in fact, the dinosaurs themselves, persisted into the age of
man. The oral traditions which Vine Deloria notes ("Red Earth, White
Lies") that American Indians retain of dealing with dinosaurs on a
daily basis, the names and descriptions given them, refer to a time
just a few thousands of years ago, and not 65 million.
So much for the giant time spans and the redneck scientists trying to
drive their watermelon truck (the theory of evolution) over them.
Again, all of these questions of gravity in past ages are dealt with
in the section on catastrophism and ancient anomalies at:
What is presented is a big-picture view, any number of things which do
not occur in our present world due to the nature of gravity, elephants
galloping, eagles with 25' wingspans etc. etc., which were normal just
a few thousand years ago.
Again, the present limit for size in our world is around 21000 lbs.
That is the point at which, mathematically, the strongest creatures
which we know anything about, i.e. your top powerlifters such as
Kazmaier or Challet, would require the same effort merely to stand and
walk which they do for one of their 1000-lb deadlifts or squats at
their normal size. Scientists continue however to dig up increasingly
large dinosaurs, the latest being around 160' long, 45' tall:
#########################################
#########################################
London Times
Argentina unearths
largest dinosaur
BY NIGEL HAWKES, SCIENCE EDITOR
Links
BONES found in a desolate region of southern Patagonia
have turned out to be from the largest dinosaur ever
recorded.
The herbivore, which lived during the Cretaceous period
105 million years ago, appears to have been between
157ft and 167ft long - at least 26ft longer than the
previous recordholder, Seismosaurus. The new creature,
yet to be given a name, was found by a villager in a dusty
region riddled with immense canyons called La Buitrera
(The Vulture's Cage).
Carlos Muñoz, a palaeontologist and director of the
Florentino Ameghino museum in southern Rio Negro
province, said: "Two cervical vertebrae 3ft 10in high were
found, in addition to a femur 6ft 6½in long and some other
indicative bones." Like Seismosaurus, which was found in
New Mexico, the new dinosaur had a small head, a long
neck and an exceptionally long tail.
"We're ecstatic with this spectacular find. In Patagonia,
walking among the rocks is enough to discover fossils,"
Señor Muñoz said.
The scrubby region has proved to be an extraordinary
source of dinosaur fossils. Last April, Argentine
palaeontologists uncovered the bones of a meat-eater
thought to be bigger than Giganotosaurus, the biggest
carnivore on record.
They also found the bulkiest herbivore, Argentinosaurus,
which although not quite as long as Seismosaurus was
more heavily built and probably weighed more than a
hundred tons. A team of palaeontologists is working at La
Buitrera discovery site with the aim of removing the cache
of bones to the Florentino Ameghino museum for scrutiny
by the end of the month.
"We are going to be working until January 31 and then we
will take everything to the museum to remove the
sediment, study it and later mount a presentation," Señor
Muñoz said.
Dinosaurs have always impressed by their sheer bulk. An
early record-holder was Brachiosaurus, found in 1907 in
what is now Tanzania by a German expedition. Now in a
Berlin Museum, Brachiosaurus is more than 74ft long. Its
huge size has now easily been exceeded by the 120ft
Argentinosaurus, the 130ft Seismosaurus, and now the
unnamed Patagonian dinosaur, at 157ft to 167ft.
Together with its huge herbivore dinosaurs, Patagonia had
flesh-eaters of matching bulk. Giganotosaurus, found by
the Argentine palaeontologust Rodolfo Coria near
Nuequen in 1993, dethroned Tyrannosaurus rex as the
largest carnivorous dinosaur, only to be dethroned in its
turn by last April's find, yet to be named.
Understanding how such huge creatures functioned
remains a puzzle. The flesh-eaters must have been very
small in number if they were not to run out of food, so any
adverse event posed a distinct risk of wiping out the entire
species.
The problem for the plant-eaters was different. The larger
a creature's body is the more difficult it is to disperse body
heat, assuming it is warm-blooded. The new Patagonian
dinosaur must have run a risk of becoming so hot that it
cooked.
For many years, the west of North America was the best
place to find dinosaur fossils. Later, the Gobi Desert
produced some wonderful finds. But in recent years,
South America and particularly Argentina, Bolivia and
southern Brazil, has been the prime area for dinosaur
hunters. Lowell Dingus, a palaeontologist at the American
Museum of Natural History in New York, said: "There's
no question about it. This part of South America,
especially Argentina, is producing more new and
important discoveries than any other part of the world
right now."
When the dinosaurs flourished, large parts of Patagonia
were huge shallow freshwater lakes and floodplains,
around which herds of the creatures gathered looking for
food.
Floods laid down silty mud that preserved footprints and
dinosaur bones, which are now coming to light as
researchers begin to look closely at rocks of the right age
to contain the fossils of dinosaurs. Dinosaur names are
chosen by the scientists who first describe them, and
generally try to convey something about the creature. The
suffix -saurus, means lizard, and comes from the name
first given to the creatures in 1841 by the anatomist
Richard Owen, dinosaur - from the Greek deinos
(terrible) and sauros (lizard).
Palaeontologists, however, are beginning to run out of
superlatives for the ever-larger species they are finding.
Supersaurus already exists, and so does Ultrasaurus.
Carlos Muñoz may be obliged to name his new fossil after
the place where it was found.
################################################
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Boikat
Boikat
Ted Holden wrote in message <38945a76....@news.webcombo.net>...
>
>Consider the case of the two rednecks who were buying watermelons for
>$2 apiece in Fla., trucking them to Chicago and selling them for $2.
>They noticed they were not making any money and came to the obvious
>evolutionist conclusion: they decided they needed a bigger truck!
Sounds more like how things would be if fundies and other assorted twits do
math. Evolutionists would either find a supplier that charged less when
buying the watermelons, or sell them at a hight price in Chi-town.
[snip warpage]
What the hell: <plonk!>
Chris C.
> gigantic time frames are in fact total fictions, and that nothing more
> than a few thousand years at most separates us from the age of
> dinosaurs?
It would have to be coercively because no one would reach that opinion
looking at the evidence. They certainly would need to be forced.
Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at
ARK
Date: 15th century
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to
coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of
the community -- Scott Buchanan>
synonym see FORCE
Ashland S Henderson
>$2 apiece in Fla., trucking them to Chicago and selling them for $2.
>They noticed they were not making any money and came to the obvious
>evolutionist conclusion: they decided they needed a bigger truck!
That's about the level of reasoning of most creationists and
Velikovskians.
>Evolutionism amounts to an attempt to use time in the same manner in
>which the two rednecks attempt to use truck-size. Basically, you have
>an idiot's doctrine which demands billions of violations of real
>probabilistic laws, not one such violation of which has ever been
>observed within recorded history, and the claim is that if only enough
>TIME is granted, i.e. the hundreds of millions of years which the
>doctrine clims separates the geological epochs, then all of the
>relative probabilistic laws will in fact be reversed, and the
>violations of those laws will HAVE to happen.
Since you don't understand evolution and since real evolution is
nothing like what you are describing above, your conclusions are
in, shall we say, severe trouble.
>What if, however, somebody could coersively demonstrate that these
>gigantic time frames are in fact total fictions, and that nothing more
>than a few thousand years at most separates us from the age of
>dinosaurs? Such a demonstration is in fact provided on my www system
>at www.bearfabrique.org in the section denoted Catastrophism and
>Ancient Anomalies. It turns
>out to be an easy mathematical demonstration (the blatherings of Wayne
>Throop and one or two others notwithstanding) that there is an
>absolute size limit for land animals of around 21000 lbs in our
>present world, and the obvious conclusion is that gravity has changed
>in the meantime, i.e. that sauropods simply did not experience gravity
>the way we do at all.
No, it turns out that you don't usnderstand much of anything about how
animals work. Your grade school arithmatic doesn't cut it. And, of course,
if someone could demonstrate the time frames are total fictions, one
could win quite a few prizes. Unfortunately, the time frames were
conclusively demonstrated to be real back before Darwin and no
evidence has serioiusly challenged that conclusion in 150 years. Except,
in the minds of the self-deluded.
>Moreover, and this is the interesting part, in Baalbek Lebanon, at the
>temple of Jupiter as well as at nearby quarries, there are carved
>column stones of sizes (one is about 100'x20'x20') beyond the capacity
>of any modern technology, much less any ancient technology, to move.
>The US Army Corps of Engineers has flatly stated that it has no
>technology which could move the largest of those stones a single inch.
Why do I doubt your unsubstantiated claims. Oh, I'm sorry, it's because
you never substantiate your claims and the always turn out to be
wrong.
>Now, those stones and the temple of Jupiter were not built by
>dinosaurs. The same reduced gravity which allowed dinosaurs to exist
>and, in fact, the dinosaurs themselves, persisted into the age of
>man. The oral traditions which Vine Deloria notes ("Red Earth, White
>Lies") that American Indians retain of dealing with dinosaurs on a
>daily basis, the names and descriptions given them, refer to a time
>just a few thousands of years ago, and not 65 million.
See above.
>So much for the giant time spans and the redneck scientists trying to
>drive their watermelon truck (the theory of evolution) over them.
>Again, all of these questions of gravity in past ages are dealt with
>in the section on catastrophism and ancient anomalies at:
>www.bearfabrique.org
>What is presented is a big-picture view, any number of things which do
>not occur in our present world due to the nature of gravity, elephants
>galloping, eagles with 25' wingspans etc. etc., which were normal just
>a few thousand years ago.
Not to mention a great deal of pseudoscientific bull and general
Tedisms demonstrating an (at most) vague connection with the
real world.
>Again, the present limit for size in our world is around 21000 lbs.
>That is the point at which, mathematically, the strongest creatures
>which we know anything about, i.e. your top powerlifters such as
>Kazmaier or Challet, would require the same effort merely to stand and
>walk which they do for one of their 1000-lb deadlifts or squats at
>their normal size. Scientists continue however to dig up increasingly
>large dinosaurs, the latest being around 160' long, 45' tall:
You really ought to get past grade school math, Ted.
ugly stanic bat snipped.
By the way, Ted. It's nice to see you surface now and then. The
current crop of net loons somehow lacks your magnificent delusions
and egomania. Possibly C.Cagle excepted.
wylie ceyote
Ted Holden wrote:
So, this explains a lot. The Inca didn't need a wheel to move massive
stones to high Andean peaks because they could merely carry them. And of
course Stone hinge would have been a much easier task as well had the
ancients been able to just lift the stones into place. Or in Egypt, they
could send stellae weighing 14 tons down the nile and unload them with
ease standing them up with out the use of an A-frame. Come on! Was the
world smaller? Was the moon in its' current orbit? Was the moon there at
all? What supports this theory that the burden of gravity was easier to
bear only a few thousand years ago?
>
> Now, those stones and the temple of Jupiter were not built by
> dinosaurs. The same reduced gravity which allowed dinosaurs to exist
> and, in fact, the dinosaurs themselves, persisted into the age of
> man. The oral traditions which Vine Deloria notes ("Red Earth, White
> Lies") that American Indians retain of dealing with dinosaurs on a
> daily basis, the names and descriptions given them, refer to a time
> just a few thousands of years ago, and not 65 million.
>
You believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time only
a few thousand years ago? I'd like to see where on ANY cave wall or at ANY
temple there are depictions on man and dinosaur.
> So much for the giant time spans and the redneck scientists trying to
> drive their watermelon truck (the theory of evolution) over them.
> Again, all of these questions of gravity in past ages are dealt with
> in the section on catastrophism and ancient anomalies at:
>
> www.bearfabrique.org
>
> What is presented is a big-picture view, any number of things which do
> not occur in our present world due to the nature of gravity, elephants
> galloping, eagles with 25' wingspans etc. etc., which were normal just
> a few thousand years ago.
>
> Again, the present limit for size in our world is around 21000 lbs.
> That is the point at which, mathematically, the strongest creatures
> which we know anything about, i.e. your top powerlifters such as
> Kazmaier or Challet, would require the same effort merely to stand and
> walk which they do for one of their 1000-lb deadlifts or squats at
> their normal size. Scientists continue however to dig up increasingly
> large dinosaurs, the latest being around 160' long, 45' tall:
>
> #########################################
> #########################################
>
>
Sorry to break in unannounced. I have been following this NG for quite a
while and am very interested in some of the views and opinions. I am eager
to learn more about both sides of the argument but am very much an
evolutionist.
Ted Holden
> So, this explains a lot. The Inca didn't need a wheel to move massive
>stones to high Andean peaks because they could merely carry them. And of
>course Stone hinge would have been a much easier task as well had the
>ancients been able to just lift the stones into place. Or in Egypt, they
>could send stellae weighing 14 tons down the nile and unload them with
>ease standing them up with out the use of an A-frame. Come on! Was the
>world smaller? Was the moon in its' current orbit? Was the moon there at
>all? What supports this theory that the burden of gravity was easier to
>bear only a few thousand years ago?
I used to think the different gravity was due to tidal pull associated
with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
for a number of reasons. It turns out that gravity itself is not a
basic force in nature but rather something like an electrostatic
effect, which was weaker during the age when the electrostatic nature
of the Earth was stronger. The section on catastrophism and ancient
anomalies at www.bearfabrique.org covers these topics in some detail.
>You believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time only
>a few thousand years ago? I'd like to see where on ANY cave wall or at ANY
>temple there are depictions on man and dinosaur.
Try:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai.html
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
Jonathan Stone
Ted Holden <med...@webcombo.net> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 2000 16:47:12 -0500, wylie ceyote <wce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>stones to high Andean peaks because they could merely carry them. And of
>>course Stone hinge would have been a much easier task as well had the
>>ancients been able to just lift the stones into place. Or in Egypt, they
>>could send stellae weighing 14 tons down the nile and unload them with
>>ease standing them up with out the use of an A-frame. Come on! Was the
>>world smaller? Was the moon in its' current orbit? Was the moon there at
>>all? What supports this theory that the burden of gravity was easier to
>>bear only a few thousand years ago?
>
>with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
>for a number of reasons. It turns out that gravity itself is not a
>basic force in nature but rather something like an electrostatic
>effect, which was weaker during the age when the electrostatic nature
>of the Earth was stronger. The section on catastrophism and ancient
>anomalies at www.bearfabrique.org covers these topics in some detail.
Sounds you've finally figured out that Talbot, Grubaugh, et. al's
`tippe-toppe' stack of planets won't work. Thank goodness for that.
Now, tell us more about how gravity is not a basic force, how it's
related to electrostatic effects. What evidence supports this theory?
Can you make any predictions? How come this pseudo-electrostatic
gravity weakens with increasing `electrostatic nature'? What _did_
happen to the orbits of all the planets if gravity was weaker back
then? Do Van de Graaf generators affect the local gravitational
field? Should be easy to measure.
Don't be a tease; tell us where to find these gems.
>>You believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time only
>>a few thousand years ago? I'd like to see where on ANY cave wall or at ANY
>>temple there are depictions on man and dinosaur.
>
>Try:
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai.html
Oh no, not the scorpion &c again...
Landis D. Ragon
>>
>> http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai.html
>
>Oh no, not the scorpion &c again...
It is a nice looking scorpion, isn't it.
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
Mark Isaak
Ted Holden <med...@webcombo.net> wrote:
>I used to think the different gravity was due to tidal pull associated
>with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
>for a number of reasons.
I'm flabbergasted! I never expected you to change your model, Ted. Thank
you for a happy surprise.
>It turns out that gravity itself is not a
>basic force in nature but rather something like an electrostatic
>effect, which was weaker during the age when the electrostatic nature
>of the Earth was stronger.
Do you suppose this would explain how the earth could have had many more
hollow areas inside it in the past, and why they collapsed
catastrophically a few milennia ago? Should we start collaborating on the
Once Hollow Earth theory?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Andrew MacRae
|On 30 Jan 2000 16:47:12 -0500, wylie ceyote <wce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|> So, this explains a lot. The Inca didn't need a wheel to move
massive
|>stones to high Andean peaks because they could merely carry them. And of
|>course Stone hinge would have been a much easier task as well had the
|>ancients been able to just lift the stones into place. Or in Egypt, they
|>could send stellae weighing 14 tons down the nile and unload them with
|>ease standing them up with out the use of an A-frame. Come on! Was the
|>world smaller? Was the moon in its' current orbit? Was the moon there at
|>all? What supports this theory that the burden of gravity was easier to
|>bear only a few thousand years ago?
|
|with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
|for a number of reasons.
I'm utterly stunned that you would say such a thing. What about
the evidence of the "anomalous" gash in Pangaea formed by the Tethys
Ocean, and identified by Lynn Rose as the product of the collapse of a
former "egg-shaped world"? What about the plate tectonic triple junction
seen in Ethiopia? What about the Talbott et al. symbolic indications of
planetary alignment seen in many cultures around the world? What about
Grubaugh's much-touted computer simulations of the "planetary stack" that
apparently yielded stability?
|It turns out that gravity itself is not a
|basic force in nature but rather something like an electrostatic
|effect, which was weaker during the age when the electrostatic nature
|of the Earth was stronger.
Why was it stronger in Earth history? Would this be something
that would leave comparable evidence on other planets and moons too?
|The section on catastrophism and ancient
|anomalies at www.bearfabrique.org covers these topics in some detail.
Sounds like it might be worth checking out. Does it address the
ample evidence for modern-like tidal cycles going back in the sedimentary
record for thousands of years? The Moon's orbit would have to be pretty
different in Earth history if gravity was different enough to affect
surface conditions significantly. For that matter, so would the Earth's
orbit, which might have some interesting climatic effects.
Hmmm... I just checked. All that Pangaea-Lynn Rose stuff is still
there. What gives? How can that still be valid if the "previous
solar-system alignment" stuff does not work, and how do you account for
this "anomaly" with whatever new thing you think does work?
|>You believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time
|>only a few thousand years ago? I'd like to see where on ANY cave wall or
|>at ANY temple there are depictions on man and dinosaur.
|
|Try:
|
| http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai.html
Unfortunately, these are not nearly as detailed or convincing
evidence of co-existence of dinosaurs as, say, carvings of galloping
mammoths are for the co-existence of mammoths and humans. Where are the
carvings of galloping dinosaurs? If you found some of those, in adequate
detail that the identification was unambiguous (a nice bipedal theropod
dinosaur with gnashing teeth and claws should do it), maybe it might
become interesting. What you do have could easily be interpreted as some
other animal, and, as discussed when you last brought it up, there is
always the possibility that native peoples came across
naturally-articulated dinosaur skeletons, and made some logical deductions
about the anatomy. Dinosaurs are rarely found fully articulated, so there
isn't much left to the imagination, especially if the bones of large
animals were already familiar to people (e.g., bison).
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
wylie ceyote
Ted Holden wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2000 16:47:12 -0500, wylie ceyote <wce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So, this explains a lot. The Inca didn't need a wheel to move massive
> >stones to high Andean peaks because they could merely carry them. And of
> >course Stone hinge would have been a much easier task as well had the
> >ancients been able to just lift the stones into place. Or in Egypt, they
> >could send stellae weighing 14 tons down the nile and unload them with
> >ease standing them up with out the use of an A-frame. Come on! Was the
> >world smaller? Was the moon in its' current orbit? Was the moon there at
> >all? What supports this theory that the burden of gravity was easier to
> >bear only a few thousand years ago?
>
> I used to think the different gravity was due to tidal pull associated
> with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
> for a number of reasons. It turns out that gravity itself is not a
> basic force in nature but rather something like an electrostatic
> effect, which was weaker during the age when the electrostatic nature
> of the Earth was stronger. The section on catastrophism and ancient
> anomalies at www.bearfabrique.org covers these topics in some detail.
>
So, if the force of gravity is greater now than it was 2 or 3 thousand years
ago, what is keeping these massive structures that I mentioned before standing?
Wouldn't they collapse under their own weight? Or at least settle?
>
> >You believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time only
> >a few thousand years ago? I'd like to see where on ANY cave wall or at ANY
> >temple there are depictions on man and dinosaur.
>
> Try:
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai.html
>
> Ted Holden
> med...@bearfabrique.org
The idea of dinosaur and man coexisting is absurd. There is nothing that even
remotely suggests it. I would however agree that it is likely that ancient
people knew of their existence. In all the excavation of gold and granite I am
sure that they would have unearthed some clues to the past, but there is no
evidence of even that. I would imagine that a huge skull of a T-Rex would be
highly prized in a superstitious race like the Maya or Toltec yet there are no
figurines or stelea in their honor.
Phillip
R Bishop
Folks, Teddie is notorious around here. If you think his gravity theory is wild,
you should hear some of his others. He's a compendium of all that is crazy
and off-beat. And his brain has been stuck in these delusions for years.
A very sad mental case.
Sue
"Carpe Jugulum"
Terry Pratchett
Ted Holden
MacRae) wrote:
>|I used to think the different gravity was due to tidal pull associated
>|with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
>|for a number of reasons.
>
> I'm utterly stunned that you would say such a thing. What about
>the evidence of the "anomalous" gash in Pangaea formed by the Tethys
>Ocean, and identified by Lynn Rose as the product of the collapse of a
>former "egg-shaped world"?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that tidal pull wasn't there:
just that it would be inadequate to explain the existence of creatures
165' long and 50' tall which would require a 3-1 attenuation of
gravity to survive, and that a better explaination for the major
reduction in gravity appears to exist. The best place to start by way
of comprehending all of this is the DeGrazia/Crossthwaite works
available from http://www.grazian-archive.com/ in CD form and also on
my own site (http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/degrazia.html),
at least the books bearing on the recent electrostatic nature of the
Earth, in downloadable PDF files.
Once you start to comprehend that the electrostatic nature of the
planet was in fact stronger just a few thousand years ago, then the
rest of it becomes less difficult to digest.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
Richard Harter
>Once you start to comprehend that the electrostatic nature of the
>planet was in fact stronger just a few thousand years ago, then the
>rest of it becomes less difficult to digest.
Indeed. The mode of thought (to use the word "thought" loosely) that
permits one to comprehend (to use the word "comprehend" even more
loosely) such things makes inordinately easy to swallow (and digest)
almost anything.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Tick tock, Tick tock, the hours run on
Like little mice under the feet of elephants.
Louann Miller
>James Hogan has a new novel out, _Cradle of Saturn_. It might
>be of some amusement to people in this newsgroup.
>The premise is similar to that of Richard Garfinkle's _Celestial
>Matters_, which was set on an alternate Earth where Aristotle's
>physics was correct. In _Cradle of Saturn_, Hogan uses the
>alternate physics of Velikovsky, Ginenthal, and so forth.
>It's all there -- Jupiter spitting forth new planets, Earth
>having once orbited Saturn, electromagnetism instead of gravity,
>and so on. Even Holden's reduced-gravity sauropods make an
>appearance, right down to the weightlifter analogy (though
>Holden is uncredited).
>To top it all off, in this alternate universe there really *is*
>a conspiracy of establishment scientists trying to suppress the
>Velikovskian physics in favor of the physics of our universe,
>although just how they managed to come up with that physics in
>the first place is not made clear.
It is by no means certain that Hogan is proposing all the above as
counterfactuals for the sake of a fun novel. Two of his recent books
are anthologies containing both short stories and editorials:
"Rockets, Redheads, and Revolution" and "Minds, Machines, and
Evolution." I've read only the first of those two, but one of the
essays suggests a personal skew toward ID or other odd directions. He
tosses out a list of paradoxes (such as the famous cross-strata whale)
that many a t.o. newbie has used before, and he doesn't show evidence
of having applied critical thinking to any of them. Some science
fiction fans are suggesting that the Brain Eater* has got him.
Louann
*Fanspeak: a mythical creature which attacks distinguished
usually-male SF authors in late middle age, often at exactly the point
where they become too venerated for their editors to edit them with
any authority. Sudden shifts in writing style and passionate advocacy
of offbeat social/political opinions are the usual symptoms.
Robert Parson
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>It is by no means certain that Hogan is proposing all the above as
>counterfactuals for the sake of a fun novel. Two of his recent books
>are anthologies containing both short stories and editorials:
>"Rockets, Redheads, and Revolution" and "Minds, Machines, and
>Evolution." I've read only the first of those two, but one of the
>essays suggests a personal skew toward ID or other odd directions. He
>tosses out a list of paradoxes (such as the famous cross-strata whale)
>that many a t.o. newbie has used before, and he doesn't show evidence
>of having applied critical thinking to any of them. Some science
>fiction fans are suggesting that the Brain Eater* has got him.
Hogan has enthusiastically jumped aboard two Fringe Science bandwagons:
"HIV does not cause AIDS" (a la Peter Duesberg and followers) and
"Stratspheric ozone depletion is a hoax" (a la Dixy Lee Ray, Petr
Beckmann, and the LaRouchies.) He's written essays on these topics
for _Analog_ and _Omni_.
------
Robert
Ken Cox
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >It is by no means certain that Hogan is proposing all the above as
> >counterfactuals for the sake of a fun novel.
> Hogan has enthusiastically jumped aboard two Fringe Science bandwagons:
> "HIV does not cause AIDS" (a la Peter Duesberg and followers) and
> "Stratspheric ozone depletion is a hoax" (a la Dixy Lee Ray, Petr
> Beckmann, and the LaRouchies.)
Oh, dear. Suddenly the novel isn't as much fun.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Robert Grumbine
>>On 30 Jan 2000 16:47:12 -0500, wylie ceyote <wce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I used to think the different gravity was due to tidal pull associated
>>with the previous solar-system alignment but that doesn't really work
>>basic force in nature but rather something like an electrostatic
>>of the Earth was stronger.
>Sounds you've finally figured out that Talbot, Grubaugh, et. al's
>`tippe-toppe' stack of planets won't work. Thank goodness for that.
>Now, tell us more about how gravity is not a basic force, how it's
>related to electrostatic effects.
See Ralph Sansbury. Ted has apparently shifted his preference slightly,
but it is only slightly, from the Talbott alignment as cause for things
(but with a force basically like gravity) to Sansbury's version of 'gravity'
as the cause (still, I think, with Talbott's alignment). Ted can clarify.
At any rate, Sansbury's idea w.r.t. gravity is, as Ted alludes, that
it isn't a fundamental force. It is, instead, caused by 'nuclear
electrostatic dipoles' inside each nucleus. These dipoles are not,
don't be confused, normal dipoles that folks might think of on hearing
the term. Their behavior is quite different. For instance, each
nucleus actually has an arbitrarily large number of dipoles, one for
each other piece of matter in the universe. The 'gravitational' attraction
is really the dipole-dipole interaction between, e.g., the sun and
the earth. Rather, between the 'sun' dipole of earthly matter and its
corresponding 'earth' dipole in solar matter. (Separate set for all
other pairings of bodies). Unlike ordinary dipole-dipole interactions,
the strength of Sansbury's declines as inverse square. For tides,
there is yet another dipole inside each nuclear particle. Not only
does the particle know how to construct a dipole seen only by the
correct body, but it also can see that it needs a tidal correction.
That's just a start, but you get the drift if you're interested.
>What evidence supports this theory?
>Can you make any predictions? How come this pseudo-electrostatic
>gravity weakens with increasing `electrostatic nature'?
Ah, you see that the dipoles are also affected by the electrostatics
of other things. So if you have a current (for instance) then this
could reorient the dipoles and thereby alter the strength of the
dipole to dipole interactions (but again, this is selective; changing
the strength of the dipole aimed at the earth need not change the
strength of the one aimed at Venus, for example). This is the change
of the electrostatic polarization of the matter, if I remember
Sansbury correctly.
One or another regular should be able to aim you towards Sansbury's
gravity page. I don't have the reference at hand. He's quite active
in sci.astro (among other places).
Just a reminder: None of the preceding is my theory. I found quite
a goodly number of points already falsified by experiment when reading
Sansbury. I'll let the reader look up Sansbury's original and have
fun himself.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Andrew MacRae
|James Hogan has a new novel out, _Cradle of Saturn_. It might
|be of some amusement to people in this newsgroup.
|
|The premise is similar to that of Richard Garfinkle's _Celestial
|Matters_, which was set on an alternate Earth where Aristotle's
|physics was correct. In _Cradle of Saturn_, Hogan uses the
|alternate physics of Velikovsky, Ginenthal, and so forth.
|
|It's all there -- Jupiter spitting forth new planets, Earth
|having once orbited Saturn, electromagnetism instead of gravity,
|and so on. Even Holden's reduced-gravity sauropods make an
|appearance, right down to the weightlifter analogy (though
|Holden is uncredited).
|
|To top it all off, in this alternate universe there really *is*
|a conspiracy of establishment scientists trying to suppress the
|Velikovskian physics in favor of the physics of our universe,
|although just how they managed to come up with that physics in
|the first place is not made clear.
Cool. You didn't say whether this was supposed to be a work of
fiction or not. Heh, not that it matters in terms of potential for
amusement :-) There is also the remote possibility that it is intended as
a kind of subversive, supposed "fiction" like some of Galileo's published
works, and that he actually believes it.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Louann Miller
MacRae) wrote:
>In article <389AFCAA...@research.bell-labs.com> Ken Cox
><k...@lucent.com> writes:
>|James Hogan has a new novel out, _Cradle of Saturn_.
>|To top it all off, in this alternate universe there really *is*
>|a conspiracy of establishment scientists trying to suppress the
>|Velikovskian physics in favor of the physics of our universe,
>|although just how they managed to come up with that physics in
>|the first place is not made clear.
> Cool. You didn't say whether this was supposed to be a work of
>fiction or not. Heh, not that it matters in terms of potential for
>amusement :-) There is also the remote possibility that it is intended as
>a kind of subversive, supposed "fiction" like some of Galileo's published
>works, and that he actually believes it.
He might arguably believe his background, but he doesn't believe his
plot; its' set a couple of centuries in the future, for one thing.
I've read and enjoyed a couple of Hogan's novels, but this one bogged
me down very quickly.
> -Andrew
> mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
>
hy...@tamu.edu
loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) writes:
>
> He might arguably believe his background, but he doesn't believe his
> plot; its' set a couple of centuries in the future, for one thing.
> I've read and enjoyed a couple of Hogan's novels, but this one bogged
> me down very quickly.
Which were they? I own three but have never got more
than 100 pages into any. Frankly, I think Ted Holden
is a better writer.
Just to stay fainly on topic, Hogan's web page details
his doubts about evolution. No particularly new points,
however.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Jonathan Stone
{splutter}
No fair. Next time, please put a disclaimer at the top of your
Tedology posts. I an't afford to replace laptops that often.
I'm morbidly curious. How does Sansbury think "normal"
R-squared Newtonaian models of gravity explain tides?
Is he unacquainted with the calculus, or what?
IS there an explanation for hollow shells?
How about 1/R inside non-point uniform masses?
these are all high-school maths, after all.
PS: we should talk about early results fo the Cape Roberts project
sometime....
Robert Grumbine
Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>{splutter}
>
>No fair. Next time, please put a disclaimer at the top of your
>Tedology posts. I an't afford to replace laptops that often.
Well, you already knew that it was a Ted thread. What more
do you need?
>I'm morbidly curious. How does Sansbury think "normal"
>R-squared Newtonaian models of gravity explain tides?
>Is he unacquainted with the calculus, or what?
Again, see Sansbury for the real answers. But as far
as I can tell, he doesn't think Newtonian gravity explains
tides. (See also ?alan goodrich for a different variant
on inability of Newton to explain tides). As to the math,
it certainly doesn't look to me like Sansbury is comfortable
with calculus. Of course, I've said that of people who
have taken calculus 3, so it may say more about my standards.
(They didn't do very well, you understand, nor could they
use the material a year later.)
>PS: we should talk about early results fo the Cape Roberts project
>sometime....
? Don't know the project. Another gravity experiment?
The lengths people go to, as in the Eotvos type experiments, to
test gravity is pretty impressive. (The serious tests, in this
case: Does all matter feel gravity the same way?) From that,
I get a sense of what the bounds are for changes to gravitational
theories. Obviously doesn't have the same effect on Sansbury
et al.
Ken Cox
> loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) writes:
> > I've read and enjoyed a couple of Hogan's novels, but this one bogged
> > me down very quickly.
> Which were they?
I've always liked "The Two Faces of Tomorrow", and "Thrice
Upon a Time" was kind of fun, but I agree with you -- his
output has a low signal-to-noise ratio as measured on my
enjoyment scale.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Kent Paul Dolan
http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai5.gif
is a picture of a dinosaur so clear that it can be identified by
species, so explicit it can overturn all the evidence accumulated among
all the sciences for evolution?
Ha, ha, ha.
I is more likely to be something my preliterate son Johnny scribbled,
since he doesn't exactly get his letters right side up or left to right
as they should be, but if you look carefully, you can pick out the
upside down J, the any-way-up-is-good-enough O and the somewhat
backwards N.
I suppose the reduced gravity back in those days must have worn him out
before he could finish, and shunted him Back to the Future in a downhill
rush.
Thanks for a new addition to my collection of URLs for the "evidence"
for creationism, wowsers all.
There are people out there who in all seriousness propose that a "science"
can be taught based on this kind of evidence?
Atheist-flavored-saints preserve us.
[By the way, there are _current_ drawings of elephants by _living_ Africans
that show elephants in a position that to western eyes resembles flying, and
is so seen by other Africans. Does this tell us 1) that gravity in Africa
is a lot weaker than in North American zoos, 2) that Dumbo wasn't the first,
or 3) that artistic license does not a proof in physics make?]
Xanthian.
--
Kent, the man from xanth. | Can we hurry this up? | Reputed net.scum Latter
Kent Paul Dolan. | I have places to go, | Day Saint propagandist
<xant...@well.com> | and people to insult. | and known rabid atheist.
Kent Paul Dolan
>my own site (http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/degrazia.html),
One more utterly hilarious compendium of non-science to which I will
be sure to point all my friends who start showing signs of taking
creationism seriously. Yours isn't yet my favorite example, but keep
up the good work, I think you have the needed stuff in you to take first
place. That "dinosaur" picture is a classic; it looks less like a dinosaur
than many of my four year old's scribbles, but the "scientists" were able
to identify it down to the exact species, apparently a species with a big
hole where the center of its body should be, and no front limbs.
You just have to _love_ how creationists will change all the physical
constants of the universe before facing the fact that their "science"
falls flat on its face under the teensiest application of rational
thought.
My all time favorite is the attempt to account for the much bigger size
of dragonfly fossils than of current dragonflies, with the modest claim
that the earth has _shrunk_ so much in 6000 years as to account for the
difference. Talk about using a sledge hammer to drive a tack.
If he weren't so busy spinning in his grave, I'm sure William of Occam
would use his famous "razor" to cut his own throat.
To those who have never served aboard a submarine, and listened to the
hull compress, let me assure you, shrinkage at that rate makes noise.
Lots and lots of noise. You wouldn't be able to miss it.
Of course, if the earth shrinks, so do its rocks, and fossils, after
all, are just rocks...so it takes a lot more handwaving than this to
deny that dragonflies have evolved to quite different sizes than in
times long past.
Xanthian.
--
Kent, the man from xanth. | Can we hurry this up? | Reputed net.scum Latter
Kent Paul Dolan. | I have places to go, | Day Saint propagandist
<xant...@well.com> | and people to insult. | and known rabid atheist.
"But daddy, if it weren't for the creationists, what would we have to laugh
about?"
SARAH CLARK
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
<snip>
> You just have to _love_ how creationists will change all the physical
> constants of the universe before facing the fact that their "science"
> falls flat on its face under the teensiest application of rational
> thought.
>
> My all time favorite is the attempt to account for the much bigger size
> of dragonfly fossils than of current dragonflies, with the modest claim
> that the earth has _shrunk_ so much in 6000 years as to account for the
> difference. Talk about using a sledge hammer to drive a tack.
I believe i have heard the following explanation for junk DNA:
Adam and Eve, before the fall, had a very complete and perfect
set of DNA for very perfect humans. After the fall, the DNA
degenerated. I believe it continues to degenerate due to our
current immoral state.
I may have misinterpreted the statement. It _was_ a creationist
who said it, you know.
--
Kent Paul Dolan
Holey two-legged diplodocus, Batman:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai5.gif
is a picture of a dinosaur so clear that it can be identified by
species, so explicit it can overturn all the evidence accumulated among
all the sciences for evolution?
Ha, ha, ha.
It is more likely to be something my preliterate son Johnny scribbled,
since he doesn't exactly get his letters right side up or left to right
as they should be, but if you look carefully, you can pick out the
upside down J, the any-way-up-is-good-enough O and the somewhat
wsndering N.
I suppose the reduced gravity back in those days must have worn him out
before he could finish, and shunted him Back to the Future in a downhill
rush.
Thanks for a new addition to my collection of URLs for the "evidence"
for creationism, wowsers all.
There are people out there who in all seriousness propose that a "science"
can be taught based on this kind of evidence?
Atheist-flavored-saints preserve us.
[By the way, there are _current_ drawings of elephants by _living_ Africans
that show elephants in a position that to western eyes resembles flying, and
is so seen by other Africans. The artists, however, tell us that they are
drawing exactly what they see. Does this tell us 1) that gravity in Africa
is a lot weaker than in North American zoos, 2) that Dumbo wasn't the first,
or 3) that artistic license does not a proof in physics make?]
Xanthian.
--
Kent, the man from xanth. | Can we hurry this up? | Reputed net.scum Latter
Kent Paul Dolan. | I have places to go, | Day Saint propagandist
<xant...@well.com> | and people to insult. | and known rabid atheist.
Notice how manfully I resisted the obvious crack about the need to
carry industrial strength umbrellas in lands of weakened gravity?
hy...@tamu.edu
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> writes:
> hy...@tamu.edu wrote:
>> loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) writes:
>> > I've read and enjoyed a couple of Hogan's novels, but this one bogged
>> > me down very quickly.
>
>> Which were they?
>
> I've always liked "The Two Faces of Tomorrow", and "Thrice
> Upon a Time"
I bought the latter because the premise sounded
interesting but could not get far into it. Though
I think I got farther with it than with any of his
other books. Can't recall much except that as a
grad student in physics I found his scientist types,
particularly the recent PhD's, laughable. Also
the concept that people would mostly be getting
their doctorates from major corporations gave the
book an air of surreality which didn't quite fit
the author's intentions. I think.
For some reason I also bought "code of the lifemaker",
but haven't even opened it. Any thoughts on that one?
Stephen Watson
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>hy...@tamu.edu wrote:
>> loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) writes:
>> > I've read and enjoyed a couple of Hogan's novels, but this one bogged
>> > me down very quickly.
>
>> Which were they?
>
>I've always liked "The Two Faces of Tomorrow", and "Thrice
>output has a low signal-to-noise ratio as measured on my
>enjoyment scale.
I've read about half-a-dozen Hogan novels, and always found them good
escapist fun, despite the undertone of a political axe being ground.
But if I want to read *good* sci-fi, I reach for Ursula LeGuin or Kim
Stanley Robinson.
Apropos of recently-read SF books: Eric Idle's _The Road To Mars_.
Sort of like _Hitchhiker's Guide_ with a plot ;-). Poses the
question: what is the adaptive value of comedy?
-- Steve "Currently resisting the temptation to re-read the whole
_R/G/B Mars_ trilogy" Watson
--
-- Steve Watson
Nortel Networks, Ottawa Canada
swa...@nortelnetworks.com
Ken Cox
> For some reason I also bought "code of the lifemaker",
> but haven't even opened it. Any thoughts on that one?
That's another one that's moderately good, though the sequel
isn't. Actually, the best part of "Code of the Lifemaker" is
the prologue, with the stuff about the automated factories.
That section is also somewhat relevant to talk.origins.
Once Hogan starts introducing the human characters in "Code",
things go downhill a bit. (Hal Clement is generally terrible
at character as well, but he never really tries -- characters
are there to explain the physics and chemistry, and any life
or emotion they may have is incidental. Hogan seems to be
trying to write interesting characters, which somehow makes
it worse.)
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Landis D. Ragon
>
>Holey two-legged diplodocus, Batman:
>
>http://www.bearfabrique.org/sauropods/supai5.gif
>
>is a picture of a dinosaur so clear that it can be identified by
>species, so explicit it can overturn all the evidence accumulated among
>all the sciences for evolution?
>
>Ha, ha, ha.
>
>It is more likely to be something my preliterate son Johnny scribbled,
>since he doesn't exactly get his letters right side up or left to right
>as they should be, but if you look carefully, you can pick out the
>upside down J, the any-way-up-is-good-enough O and the somewhat
>wsndering N.
If you look at it carefully, it's actually a rather good glyph of a
scorpion.
The 'hole' in the center is it's body; the 'neck' is one of it's
claws, and the 'leg' on the left-bottom is the other claw. The 'tail',
of course, is actually the tail of the scorpion.
>
>I suppose the reduced gravity back in those days must have worn him out
>before he could finish, and shunted him Back to the Future in a downhill
>rush.
>
>Thanks for a new addition to my collection of URLs for the "evidence"
>for creationism, wowsers all.
>
>There are people out there who in all seriousness propose that a "science"
>can be taught based on this kind of evidence?
>
>Atheist-flavored-saints preserve us.
>
>[By the way, there are _current_ drawings of elephants by _living_ Africans
>that show elephants in a position that to western eyes resembles flying, and
>is so seen by other Africans. The artists, however, tell us that they are
>drawing exactly what they see. Does this tell us 1) that gravity in Africa
>is a lot weaker than in North American zoos, 2) that Dumbo wasn't the first,
>or 3) that artistic license does not a proof in physics make?]
>
>Xanthian.
--