Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!elsie!imsvax!ted From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: more on 250 lb. birds Message-ID: <375@imsvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 13:12:08 EDT Article-I.D.: imsvax.375 Posted: Mon Aug 19 13:12:08 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 17:59:29 EDT Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD Lines: 140 Before anyone corrects me on either of these points, let me say that I've seen "pteratorn" spelled with and without the 'p', and estimates of weight for same between 150 and 250 lbs. Not that the later point matters; a 150 lb bird couldn't fly any more than a 250 lb bird. At least, not NOW. David Canzi writes: >I'll give Ted the benefit of the doubt, and assume for the sake of >argument, that the pteratorn existed, would not be able to fly today, >and that the force of gravity was weaker before the flood. If all this >is so, then, even in lower gravity, the pteratorn would *still* not be >able to fly. > >Sure, the bird would weigh less, but so would the air. The lighter air >would, as a result have lower pressure, and as a direct result lower >density. Even though the bird would be lighter, the thinner air still >wouldn't be able to support it. The air was thick enough to breathe, or we wouldn't be here. It could be that birds just flew a little faster just like planes fly faster at 20000 ft. than at 10000 ft. to get the same lift from their wings. I hate to say this. Contrary to what my boss likes to tell our customers, I don't really know everything, YET. I'm still working on it. I don't know what effect, if any, lighter air might have had on inhabitants of the archaic world, including the pteratorn. We later day catastrophists have put bits and pieces of the picture together until we can see a little bit of the archaic world. The best I can do is to tell you what I do know: 1. A 200 lb. bird could not possibly fly in our world, for reasons having to do with power to weight ratios. Don't take my word for this. You reside in a major university with physics and engineering departments. Have them do the calculations. 1.1 Consider that the largest birds which fly now, thirty pounders which can barely take off and land, are, with the single exception of the Berkut eagle, bird equivalants of gliders and cargo planes i.e. their wings are made for lift and soaring. The pteratorn was a bird equivalant of an F16, his wings being made for aerial maneuver, swooping, and pouncing. How much more impossible his life! The biggest Berkuts, by the way, vary their weight from 22 to 26 lbs or so; at 22 lbs, they fly and kill things, at 26 lbs they sit around feeling fat and happy and wait until they get back down to 22 or so to fly some more. 2. The pteratorn flew in the archaic world. Birds which don't fly, including penguins, ostriches, the now extinct moas etc. are adapted for running, swimming, or some kind of scheme in which they earn their living by means other than flight. Their wings are very obviously useless for flight. A pteratorn was a scaled-up golden eagle. Without being able to fly, he would present no danger to his natural prey animals other than the possibility that they might die laughing. Picture a penguin, knife in hand, chasing one of the big jack-rabbits found around Austin or San Marcos and you've just about got it. Without being able to capture these prey animals, the pteratorn would quickly starve. McDonalds was not an option for him. 3. Brontasaurs and Ultrasaurs, in all likelihood, could not even walk in our world. Every book on dinosaurs I have ever read in which the author did any thinking, makes some mention of this problem. Most claim that the brontosaur lived in water, since his legs would not easily support his great bulk on land. But the brontasaur, if water based, would have needed huge flat feet to keep from sinking hopelessly in the mud on river bottoms and floundering. He didn't have them. 4. The ultrasaur is a relatively new find. Much larger than the brontasaur, he will not likely appear in standard dinosaur books. In an article on the Wash. D.C. area's WETA public TV network, channel 26, the narrator claimed a 20 foot span from this creatures backbone to his belly. He said: "If this guy swallowed you and you set up housekeeping in his stomach, you'd need a hell of a ladder just to change a lightbulb". Weight would be a far worse problem for the ultrasaur than the brontasuar. I like to use the case of the pteratorn in my "gravity" spiel because it's easier for most people to comprehend. The case of brontasaurs and ultrasaurs is an equally valid argument for lesser gravity in the archaic world; it simply requires a little more thought. 5. The only logical explanation for these impossible animals is that the felt effect of the force of gravity was less in the archaic world than it is now. Rather than attempt any more brief explanations of the nature of the archaic world and have 50 more people call me a pseudo-scientist, I hereby recommend that you purchase a copy of David Talbott's book "The Saturn Myth", 1980, under the DoubleDay label. It is the only intelligent book on the nature of the archaic world which I am presently aware of. 6. Consider the one place on this earth where really big animals are found today, namely the oceans. There also, due to the effect of water bouyancy, the felt effect of gravity is less than what we experience. Funny coincidence, isn't it. 7. Aside from sizes, there is another thing which decreased gravity might correllate with. Gravity is the major source of all stress on land animals. Creatures living with less gravity than we live with might live longer than we do. Of course, other things, such as parasites and disease effect lifespan too. But it is known that several species of Chinese carp and goldfish regularly live more than 200 years, and scientists are unsure how long big sharks and whales live. Possibly very long, at least in some cases. 8. Genesis claims that the lifespans of the men between the generation of Noah and that of Abraham were shortened something like 100 years per generation. This same notion appears elsewhere in Jewish Midrashim. Louis Ginzbergs "Legends of the Jews", vol I, page 172 contains the note: "The brother of Peleg was called Joktan, because the duration of the life of man was shortened in his time." The notion of longer lifespans in the archaic world is common in all mythologies. In Hesiod's "Works and Days", (back to Greek mythology for the moment), there is a reference to an ancient fear that there would be an age "when babes would be born with grey beards". Apparantly, at one time, humans were losing time that fast. 9. The archaic world was radically different from our world. There is no telling what a "year" meant to the authors of Genesis. But consider ratios. Our ratio of the age of physical maturity for men to the lifespan of men is something like four or five to one. For the antediluvians whose generations are recounted in Genesis, this ratio is more nearly 13 or 14 to one.