 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / January 2007Solution to the Big Dinosaur Paradox
Over three hundred and fifty years ago Galileo wrote about scaling properties. He said that as animals get bigger their bones become much thicker and their relative muscle strength is reduced. Because of this the Africa elephant is the largest animal that can exist today. While the giraffe is the tallest animal that can exist today. The Brachiosaurus was over twenty times heavier than today's Africa elephant and over three times taller that today's giraffe. Scaling properties are fundamental to all science disciplines. But because paleontologists have failed to solve the big dinosaur paradox, they continue to insist that size does not matter. Because of this, Galileo's scaling properties are not taught in science classes and so everyone's education suffers. I have posted a web site www.dinosaurtheory.com where I explain the scaling properties and the many problems presented by the large dinosaurs and pterosaurs of the Mesozoic era. On the web site I also make available external links to other researchers that are presenting similar information. Finally, from my web site an article can be requested that gives the solution to the big dinosaur problem. The controversy is over. I have solved the big dinosaur paradox and much more. Enjoy the article and try not to lose too much sleep thinking about it. I am David Esker and I will rock the science world. I can't figure out how to get to your article and I imagine others will have similar problems. Why not post a summary of your theory? A couple of points: In point of fact, land mammals significantly larger than the African elephant are known.Indricotherium is estimated to have had about twice the mass. That's all I plan to say on that subject, I'm not really equipped to evaluate at what point land animals exceed physical possibilities. You're correct about giraffes and the problem of getting blood to their head. I've long been a bit curious how they do it without a lot of strokes and similar circulatory problems. Note however, that there are at least three relatively straightforward "engineering" fixes that could have been used by the long necked sauropods. 1. Secondary pumps (hearts) every few meters in the neck. 2. Operate the central circulatory system at quite high pressure and feed the smaller blood vessels through pressure reducers. 3. Simply don't deliver (much) oxygenated blood to the brain when the neck is elevated and apply the sort of physiological techniques that allow air breathing mammals to function underwater. That would mean that the head would have to "come down for air" periodically just as a whale or seal needs to come up for air occasionally. It doesn't seem like that would be enormous problem. (I'll leave the issue of the musculature required to raise and lower a neck that long to someone better equipped to comment). === Your discussion of blood pressure seeems essentially correct. If it will help, here are three decidedly unscientifc diastolic blood pressure measurements made with a wrist cuff. Standing, arm elevated -- 47. Standing, wrist at heart level - 80. Standing, arm at side -- 109. > Over three hundred and fifty years ago Galileo wrote about scaling > properties. He said that as animals get bigger their bones become much [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > much more. Enjoy the article and try not to lose too much sleep > thinking about it. I am David Esker and I will rock the science world. > I can't figure out how to get to your article and I imagine others will > have similar problems. Why not post a summary of your theory? If it has to do with the felt effect of gravity based on Saturn being stationary over the north pole, Ted Holden is way ahead of him on that. > A couple of points: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>much more. Enjoy the article and try not to lose too much sleep >>thinking about it. I am David Esker and I will rock the science world. To get to my article it is first necessary to visit my web site 'www.dinosaurtheory.com'. Just type this in at the top of the page of your web browser and hit enter. I appears that you do have good questions and comments. Your statements about the Indricotherium, giraffes, and blood pressure are all on target. You will find the answers to most of your questions either in my web site or in my article. The article is twelve pages long and yet this is not nearly enough to explain the theory. It is really only a partial summary of the theory. Twelve pages is not enough to get to issues such as your question about Indricotherium and so that is why I am writing a book that explains the theory. My intention is for the book to come out in the fall of 2007. Thank you again for your comments. David Esker > I can't figure out how to get to your article and I imagine others will > have similar problems. Why not post a summary of your theory? ***To get to my article it is first necessary to visit my web site 'www.dinosaurtheory.com'. Just type this in at the top of the page of your web browser and hit enter. *** Didn't have any trouble finding or navigating the website. Problem was (and is) that nothing there including the 'Request Article' link took me anyplace where I could read, download, or request said article. I'm using Firefox. Could you have used some sort of wierd HTML that only works in Internet Explorer? > ***To get to my article it is first necessary to visit my web site > 'www.dinosaurtheory.com'. Just type this in at the top of the page of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > using Firefox. Could you have used some sort of wierd HTML that only > works in Internet Explorer? Once you click 'Request Article', you can write me a short note or not, but then send me the e-mail. Once you send an e-mail to me, the system will automatically send an e-mail back to you that has an attachment containing the article. I am not really a computer person, but I would think that it should work for everyone's system. If you did not send me an e-mail, then that would be the reason that you didn't get the article. > I can't figure out how to get to your article and I imagine others will > have similar problems. Why not post a summary of your theory? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > musculature required to raise and lower a neck that long to someone > better equipped to comment). Some had what was most likely an elastic ligament in the neck. Acted like a rubber band so not much muscle was needed. > === > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> much more. Enjoy the article and try not to lose too much sleep >> thinking about it. I am David Esker and I will rock the science world. >Over three hundred and fifty years ago Galileo wrote about scaling >properties. He said that as animals get bigger their bones become much [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >much more. Enjoy the article and try not to lose too much sleep >thinking about it. I am David Esker and I will rock the science world. It seems that all that is left is to describe the mechanism responsible for the increased atmospheric pressure and possibly, what caused it to change towards its present value, which may have led to the demise of the giant animals of that time. I wonder what other record there might be of a more dense atmosphere since it does seem to explain several observations. I had mistakenly thought atmospheric pressure to be a function of a planets mass, but considering the atmosphere of Venus, a generally Earth-sized planet, is 90 times as dense, I see that is not true. > It seems that all that is left is to describe the mechanism > responsible for the increased atmospheric pressure and possibly, what > caused it to change towards its present value, which may have led to > the demise of the giant animals of that time. The largest animal ever to live on the planet is currently alive and well, breathing the same air we breathe.  SignatureFor email, replace firstnamelastinitial with my first name and last initial. >> It seems that all that is left is to describe the mechanism >> responsible for the increased atmospheric pressure and possibly, what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The largest animal ever to live on the planet is currently alive and >well, breathing the same air we breathe. True enough, though it is supported by the bouyancy provided by the ocean. The issue here is land animals. > >> It seems that all that is left is to describe the mechanism > >> responsible for the increased atmospheric pressure and possibly, what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > True enough, though it is supported by the bouyancy provided by the > ocean. The issue here is land animals. There is no issue at all. The oxygen to the brain thing is easily disposed of by anatomy. Long necked sauropods didn't keep their brains in their heads. Instead, they had two brains, the larger of which was located at the base of the spine. It is also quite likely that the circulatory system made some compensations, probably by using the swallowing contractions to move blood up the neck. That could have evolved into a simple 2-chambered secondary heart. We will probably never know, because soft tissue has not survived. What has not changed is the atmosphere, at least since the Carboniferous. SignatureFor email, replace firstnamelastinitial with my first name and last initial. >> >> It seems that all that is left is to describe the mechanism >> >> responsible for the increased atmospheric pressure and possibly, what [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >What has not changed is the atmosphere, at least since the >Carboniferous. That is contrary to what little study I have done (I don't plan on making this my life's work) and I would actually be more surprised to find there has been no change. I see that CO2 & O2 levels have fluctuated quite a bit since then. While you have described what is quite likely, probable and what we may never know, I was hoping to find a smoking gun, but how is one to determine what record there is of something so ephemeral as the atmospheric pressure, even more so than the soft tissue we both lament. I found two techniques that may help. One was the use of fossil stomata and their response to pressures of CO2 to measure the altitude of the Sierra Nevadas in ancient time. Another was the use of bubbles in lava that could indicate what the atmospheric pressure was at the time of its deposition, accurate to within 0.10 bar. I think that was also used to measure altitude by assuming a standard pressure. Perhaps if one could mask the data by using an independant measure of altitude in order to gain an absolute measure of atmospheric pressure, we may have something useful. Hi William, In your first posting you said something about the larger the planets having the thicker atmosphere. This statement is true. The present Earth is unique in breaking the rule. But during the Mesozoic era (the age of the dinosaurs) the Earth did have the thickest atmosphere of the four terrestrial planets. Then the order of the thicknes of the atmosphere was the same as the mass of the planet: Mercury, Mars, Venus, Earth. As far as finding a smoking gun or evidence of a previous denser atmosphere, it may seem that this might be difficult to prove but instead I believe that you will be amazed by all of the evidence. Also you made a statement about the mechanism of how this change took place. I have solutions, along with the supporting evidence, for all of these issues. However I think that it would be best that I focus on completing my book on the subject as the best way to share this information with you and everyone else. The bad news to this is that it will be several months until my book is published. Sorry! For now, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about my website dinosaurtheory.com and the article 'the solution to the big dinosaur problem'. David >William Wingstedt wrote: >While you have described what is > quite likely, probable and what we may never know, I was hoping to > find a smoking gun, but how is one to determine what record there is > of something so ephemeral as the atmospheric pressure, even more so > than the soft tissue we both lament. > >Hi William, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >and everyone else. The bad news to this is that it will be several >months until my book is published. Sorry! Very well, I'll be patient and look forward to seeing your book. >For now, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about my >website dinosaurtheory.com and the article 'the solution to the big >dinosaur problem'. I approached it very skeptically, but found it to be interesting and thought provoking. Good luck in all of your endeavors... >David > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> of something so ephemeral as the atmospheric pressure, even more so >> than the soft tissue we both lament. > >>> >> It seems that all that is left is to describe the mechanism >>> >> responsible for the increased atmospheric pressure and possibly, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > gain an absolute measure of atmospheric pressure, we may have > something useful. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm, but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm - comparable to average CO2 concentrations today. Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished. In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. So the issue, as I see it, is likely one of figuring out the relative change in CO2 concentrations over time, since it has apparently fluxiated quite a bit over time. We know what the concrentration is now, and what the current pressure is, as well as what it was in the early carboniferous period. It stands to reason that we should be able to figure out what those concentrations were during the mesozoic (if that already hasn't been done), and thereby estimate what the atmospheric pressure was (accounting for changes in other gas concentrations as well, naturally). I'm not an expert in this particular field either, but it seems like this would be a good place to start. Doing a web search, I find that Berners' "results show a similar overall pattern to those for GEOCARB II: very high CO2 values during the early Paleozoic, a large drop during the Devonian and Carbonifer- ous, high values during the early Mesozoic, and a gradual decrease from about 170 Ma to low values during the Cenozoic. However, the new results exhibit considerably higher CO2 values during the Mesozoic, and their downward trend with time agrees with the independent estimates of Ekart and others (1999)." So if the atmospheric pressure was high, the elevated CO2 levels may be part of the reason. The questions in my mind are was the pressure high enough to account for large land animals? Why would higher pressure facilitate larger animals as opposed to an increase in oxygen levels? Berner, for instance showed that O2 was higher during the mesozoic (when these big animals were evolving) than now (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content-nw/full/96/20/10955/F2). of course, it was much higher 300 million years ago, but then, there weren't all these critters running around on the continents then, either. And also, what would high atmospheric CO2 concentrations do to their metabolisms? George |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.