From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:27:47 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <PHS.92Oct11161638@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr>, phs@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes:

*|   1.  We no longer have such creatures, and there must be a reason for that.
*|       If such sizes worked for sauropods, and if nothing has changed vis a
*|       vis circumstances which might allow for such sizes, then in all the
*|       intervening time, something, at least one life form, should have
*|       RE-evolved into such sizes.  This is, of course, assuming the usual
*|       multi-million-year time frames given out in schools for dinosaurs.
*|       In reality, of course, these time frames are wrong.


*Ted, here you are BACKING AWAY from previous claims you made. (Yes !)

If and when I ever change one of my views on any of these topics, I'll be
very up front about it...  you won't have to figure out whether it's
happening or not.

*Surely you understand that your argument I quoted only indicate that huge
*land animals do not exist anymore because (1) gravity has changed, OR (2)
*there has not been enough time because the time frames are wrong.
*
*In the past, you claimed (1) and (2) (and other things :-), but only used
*sauropod necks as a "proof" of (1). 

Supporting evidence...  not in and of itself a proof.  Just one more thing
which is difficult or possible to deal with using standard hypotheses.

The difficulty in convincing people of this thing being what it is, I'd
rather use the simplest and most directly comprehensible aspect of it as
a "proof":  at this point, the calculations showing what happens to a top
weight lifter at 200,000 lbs.

Even Throop and a number of others at this point are admitting that a 
200,000 version of one of our top power lifters would not be able to 
function in our world.

The next step will be to somehow get them to realize that a 200,000 lb sauropod
would not in any way be stronger or more efficient than a 200,000 lb version
of Kazmaier or Paul Anderson.  That seems glaringly obvious to me for several
reasons:

1.  The 200,000 saur would have nothing like the muscularity of a 200,000
version of Kaz or Anderson.  The Saur's weight was mostly digestive system;
the human athletes' weight is mostly muscle.

2.  There is no known difference between quality of muscle between any two
vertibrates.  I've posted the quote from Nielson enough times.  The saur 
would not have been more efficient for that reason.

3.  Visually, Kaz and Anderson are stockier than the saurs.  Leverage would
favor them.

4.  Calculations show that a combined max for both bench press and squat for
a 200,000 lb Kaz would be around 140,000 lbs.  You can work that out for
yourself as I have using 2/3 power of weight as the normal scaling factor,
figuring a 1000 lb squat and a 650 lb benchpress, which is ballpark for
Kaz.  This means that using every muscle in his body and then some, i.e.
using many muscles twice (since virtually everything goes into a squat
to begin with), Kaz would still be utterly pinned to the ground, unable
to stand.

5.  We've had a number of the t.o regulars claiming that a squat thrust
is somehow a very inefficient way to come up with weight, i.e. that animals
have some magical way of coming up/standing up with is far  more efficient.
They ought to take their insight to the American Olympic weightlifting
team.  Those guys have been looking for more efficient ways to get weight
up for decades, and haven't found one.

Unfortunately, I don't at present have any really good way of putting all
this into a neat or tidy equation.  Sometimes the most difficult thing
there is is convincing somebody of something like 2 + 2 = 4, which you'd 
never really thought about "proving".

I'm still working on it.


*This is the first time I see you using
*it as a proof of "(1) or (2)" (which is a step back.) Surely, you did not
*intend to use it as a proof of "(1) and (2)" ?

I mentioned the thing about time frames in passing.  The thought was this:

   IF tens of millions of years have actually passed since the time of the 
   sauropods, and IF conditions on earth have changed no more than is 
   commonly believed, then indeed something, at least one life form, SHOULD
   have again evolved into such sizes.  Likewise, some bird of prey should
   have again evolved into the 200 lb, 30' wingspan size of the Argentinius
   Magnificens, and Meritt, Day, Hyde et. al. should be running down the
   street from him this very minute.

In our age, central asians have been trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for
size and strength for 2000 years, and cannot get them beyond 25 lbs, at
which point they begin to experience sever problems taking off.  You've seen
my long post on prehistoric flying creatures;  I'll repost it shortly.

*Well, all this is pretty unclear. And your theory, like every theory, will
*improve by being refined with time. So please make all this very clear for
*me. Is the sauropod neck thing an argument for (1) or for (2) ? (I mean, in
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*your head).
*

Have you been working for George Bush?  The sauropod neck thing is an argument 
for 1, as is also the sauropod tail thing.  You can do your own calculations
for it.  Figure that a 400,000 ultrasaur just MIGHT have had a neck which
weighed 30,000 lbs from the shoulders out, and that cog of that neck MIGHT
have been 15' out from the shoulders.  That MIGHT just be 450,000 foot pounds
of torque.

Or, if you want to be really serious about it, get a plastic model of a 
sauropod, put it together with auto body putty on the inside so it isn't
hollow, find out how much water the whole thing displaces, cut the neck off
at the shoulders and find out how much water the neck displaces, multiply
the 360,000 lb figure (McGowan's) for the ultrasaur by the ratio and tell
us exactly how much the ultrasaur's neck weighed, where its center of gravity
was etc.

.............................................................................

BTW.  George Bush is going to find out about the massacre thing on Nov. 3,
and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE