Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!baylor!peter From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Those amazing 250 pound birds. Message-ID: <417@baylor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 12:41:51 EDT Article-I.D.: baylor.417 Posted: Fri Aug 16 12:41:51 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 13:34:47 EDT References: <1600@watdcsu.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX Lines: 23 > 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. Wrong. The limiting factor in bird growth isn't wing size, it's muscle power. A bird of indefinit seize can glide. The problem is moving the wings: pushing a mass of air around. Even if the gravity and air pressure are less, the bird can still generate the same amount of power & would be able to fly. Of course there are still many problems with the "low gravity" thesis. Here's one: If skylab came crashing down in a couple of years, how long would the aqueous firmament stay up? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076