Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Science and Space > Science and Technology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 04-November-2008, 02:20 PM
grant hutchison grant hutchison is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cran View Post
The important thing is that we both seem to support a finding of substantially less than 35% (partial pressure) O2 in the Mesozoic ... and that the author seems to have confused the Palaeozoic Carboniferous (high O2; biggest bugs) with the Mesozoic Cretaceous (mostly high sea levels, high temps, biggest critters) ...
If you take a look at Figure 19 in the GEOCARBSULF paper, you'll see a plot of Bergman's 2004 model, which spikes up to near 35% in the Cretaceous. Berner has some critiques of Bergman's modelling in that section.
So it's possible the idea of high Cretaceous oxygen comes from either the dodgy old amber data, or Bergman's fairly recent model, or confusion with the Carboniferous. (I did some googling recently concerning Sato's pronouncement on pterosaur wing-loading, and it was interesting how many people seemed to think that pterosaurs and giant dragonflies lived at the same time in the same high-oxygen environment. Frankly, I just despise people who can't keep geological periods straight in their heads. )

Grant Hutchison
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 04-November-2008, 02:26 PM
grant hutchison grant hutchison is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
(I'm drunk folks, going to go vote the President pretty soon.)
Good to know you're taking a responsible attitude to selecting the Leader Of The Free World.
(My mother got a name she hates because my grandfather had a few drinks and changed his mind on the way to the registry office: eighty-five years of misery and counting. Be careful out there, Don. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
A pole to pole forest! How rockin' is that?
A polar broad-leaf forest! I'd certainly pay to see that.

Grant Hutchison
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 05-November-2008, 06:15 PM
jlhredshift's Avatar
jlhredshift jlhredshift is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Madison, Ohio
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
A polar broad-leaf forest! I'd certainly pay to see that.

Grant Hutchison
Yes indeed. With herds of Triceratops roaming the forest edge and lake plains in Alberta.

What trees grew on the north coast?
__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 07-November-2008, 11:31 AM
cran's Avatar
cran cran is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
Posts: 1,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
Super dense atmosphere would give the same pressure all around the bug, so wouldn't produce any bouancy.

You need changes of density for that.

Like how wood is more dense than air but (generally) less dense than water.

So it floats on water, but doesn't rise into the air.

The air might be really really dense, but it would only help that wood "float" if it were more dense than that wood.


(Dense air might help wings work better, but that's a different thing...)
something was bugging me about this line of argument ...

dinosaurs (and insects) didn't need to float; they only needed to support their own weight ... >>thinking: whales and ocean critters<<

increased atmospheric density => reduced density gradient (difference);
it does improve bouyancy ...
__________________
Quote:
"I don't know...I'm making it up as I go!" ...Dr I. Jones

"...and your wise men don't know how it fee-e-e-eels...
to be thick as a brick..." J. Tull

"Nature abhors perfection... cats abhor a vacuum!"

Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 07-November-2008, 12:05 PM
jlhredshift's Avatar
jlhredshift jlhredshift is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Madison, Ohio
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
Yes indeed. With herds of Triceratops roaming the forest edge and lake plains in Alberta.

What trees grew on the north coast?
And I now realize that Big Don's comment referred to after the K/T; oops.
__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 07-November-2008, 12:43 PM
cran's Avatar
cran cran is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
Posts: 1,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
And I now realize that Big Don's comment referred to after the K/T; oops.
so, substitute triceratops with "super-size-me" turkeys, and things that looked a bit like rhinos (but weren't), etc ... and you're there!
__________________
Quote:
"I don't know...I'm making it up as I go!" ...Dr I. Jones

"...and your wise men don't know how it fee-e-e-eels...
to be thick as a brick..." J. Tull

"Nature abhors perfection... cats abhor a vacuum!"

Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 07-November-2008, 12:53 PM
jlhredshift's Avatar
jlhredshift jlhredshift is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Madison, Ohio
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cran View Post
so, substitute triceratops with "super-size-me" turkeys, and things that looked a bit like rhinos (but weren't), etc ... and you're there!
__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 09-November-2008, 10:32 AM
Vultur Vultur is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 110
Default

What's interesting is, the question isn't really "how did dinosaurs get so big?" The biggest non-sauropods (Shantungosaurus, Lambeosaurus) were only a little bit bigger than Indricotherium, Deinotherium, and the biggest Mammuthus species. The question is really "how did sauropods get so big?" Everything else seems to top out at 15-25 tons (rhinos (biggest Indricotheres) and theropods (biggest Spinosaurs) ~15, proboscideans 15-20, hadrosaurs 20-25...), but sauropods reached at least 80-100 tons (Argentinosaurus), maybe more (Amphicoelias fragillimus and Bruhathkayosaurus, if they're as big as estimated, are mindboggling, but based on little evidence).
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 09-November-2008, 11:35 AM
cran's Avatar
cran cran is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
Posts: 1,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vultur View Post
What's interesting is, the question isn't really "how did dinosaurs get so big?" The biggest non-sauropods (Shantungosaurus, Lambeosaurus) were only a little bit bigger than Indricotherium, Deinotherium, and the biggest Mammuthus species. The question is really "how did sauropods get so big?" Everything else seems to top out at 15-25 tons (rhinos (biggest Indricotheres) and theropods (biggest Spinosaurs) ~15, proboscideans 15-20, hadrosaurs 20-25...), but sauropods reached at least 80-100 tons (Argentinosaurus), maybe more (Amphicoelias fragillimus and Bruhathkayosaurus, if they're as big as estimated, are mindboggling, but based on little evidence).
genetic predisposition?
steroids?
inappropriate diet and exercise regime?

but you're right, Vultur; that's an awful lot of mass to shift on land ...
and worthy of further research ...
__________________
Quote:
"I don't know...I'm making it up as I go!" ...Dr I. Jones

"...and your wise men don't know how it fee-e-e-eels...
to be thick as a brick..." J. Tull

"Nature abhors perfection... cats abhor a vacuum!"

Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 09-November-2008, 08:06 PM
pzkpfw's Avatar
pzkpfw pzkpfw is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In front of PC
Posts: 2,875
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cran View Post
it does improve bouyancy ...
I see your point. Thanks. ...was mixing bouancy with floating.

(i.e. that an object in a more dense medium still "feels lighter" even if fully immersed. Doh! e.g. Water tanks used to train crews for space-walks!)

I guess I need to try to calculate the density of a Dragonfly, compare to the density of air; and then with the density of air at higher pressures... that would provide a % improvement in natural bouancy. A lunch-time "project".

{But would the more-dense air create more drag and thus make it harder to move?}

[

What I was thinking about, was arguements about whether a sinking ship would ever go down far enough that it hit water at such a high pressure that it stops sinking. Turns out "no". As long as the ship is denser than the water, it will keep sinking, and it always is. (The twist was apparently that at high enough pressure the water would turn into ice - and that would stop the ship sinking... but it wouldn't occur on Earth.).

]

Apology to Toothdust.
__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.
Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 09-November-2008, 11:38 PM
chrissy's Avatar
chrissy chrissy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Co.Durham.England
Posts: 17,446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by william
Hi Christine,

Thanks for the information. The giraffes have biological means to cope with higher blood pressure. A Sauropod's neck is however significantly longer, say 18 meters (60 ft) compared to a giraffe which is 5.5 meters tall, which would increase the pressure problem by a factor of three.

The question of mass and structural support is interesting. I would be interested to see a scientific paper that addressed that issue. The Argentinosaurus has 10 times more massive than a Savannah Elephant.
Please call me chrissy, thank you.

The evidence just points to "a Sauropod is not able to raise its neck too high because of a left ventrical pressure if it lifts its head too high", but that doesn't discount the fact it has a long neck and it ate lower to the ground.
They are still finding out new things about many dinosaurs, and when that mummy was found, it gave evidence that the dinosaurs were much larger.
__________________
You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. But you can not please all of the people all of the time.

"Why change passwords when you've got a baseball bat?"
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 10-November-2008, 02:24 AM
cran's Avatar
cran cran is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
Posts: 1,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
I see your point. Thanks. ...was mixing bouancy with floating.

(i.e. that an object in a more dense medium still "feels lighter" even if fully immersed. Doh! e.g. Water tanks used to train crews for space-walks!)

I guess I need to try to calculate the density of a Dragonfly, compare to the density of air; and then with the density of air at higher pressures... that would provide a % improvement in natural bouancy. A lunch-time "project".

{But would the more-dense air create more drag and thus make it harder to move?}
not sure - the best modern analogy would be to ask some of the deep sea critters whether it's harder to swim ...

Quote:
[
What I was thinking about, was arguements about whether a sinking ship would ever go down far enough that it hit water at such a high pressure that it stops sinking. Turns out "no". As long as the ship is denser than the water, it will keep sinking, and it always is. (The twist was apparently that at high enough pressure the water would turn into ice - and that would stop the ship sinking... but it wouldn't occur on Earth.).

]
one of the design concepts incorporated into the Titanic* (and, I believe, submarines) was water-tight compartments within the structure - a ship (or sub) sinks because water displaces air - if the air cannot be displaced, then sinking will only continue until the total of air and container reaches equilibrium with the water [edit: that should be total of remaining air ... and it only holds true if it doesn't hit the seafloor first ] ...

*of course, it didn't work on the Titanic ...

back to your dragonfly - if, within its structure, there are locations to trap air (pockets, sacs, whatever), and that air can be warmed with respect to the outside air ...?
__________________
Quote:
"I don't know...I'm making it up as I go!" ...Dr I. Jones

"...and your wise men don't know how it fee-e-e-eels...
to be thick as a brick..." J. Tull

"Nature abhors perfection... cats abhor a vacuum!"

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could a dinosaur civilization have existed? banquo's_bumble_puppy Off-Topic Babbling 148 23-October-2008 09:00 PM
"New" dinosaur site in Utah? jlhredshift Science and Technology 0 19-June-2008 04:01 PM
Mathematics! Truth or Tool? Fadingstar Science and Technology 205 14-June-2008 02:37 PM
Scientist: Planet Going Back to Dinosaur Era Lurker Science and Technology 21 18-September-2006 07:35 PM
Dinosaur to Bird Evolution tofu Science and Technology 48 02-March-2006 10:13 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today