Dinosaur Extinction

Think comets.... not meteors...

meteors do very little damage.... at least not world wide, unless they are really huge... and then the damage is earth shattering..

Comets on the other hand can envelope the whole of a planet with the effects of its decompositional products.
 
quelquechosedautre said:
The theorem is based centrally on the concept of the true Angel of Death being the Hypercane as the source of the dust in the atmosphere, the frozen water lillies, and from my own experience with frost bite amongst others.
Click to expand...
By exposing that your theorem is based on the socalled "true Angel of Death being the the Hypercane," you basicalling telling us that you are a psycopath!
 
URI said:
Think comets.... not meteors...

meteors do very little damage.... at least not world wide, unless they are really huge... and then the damage is earth shattering..

Comets on the other hand can envelope the whole of a planet with the effects of its decompositional products.
Click to expand...
That's not true at all. Comets usually burn up during entrance to the Earth's atmosphere. They are a lot smaller. Their composition doesn't include iron and nickle. And they disintegrate without having any effect on Earth. The Yucatan Penisula Meteor is considered to have been a meteor.
 
>> And they disintegrate without having any effect on Earth.

LOL

well we disagree.
Meteors have a local effect, comets can have a global effect. Comets are much more dangerous.
 
Well yes. That is how I see it - in a sense. I am not an astronomer, but the forum is about "Dinosaur Extinction." Meteors that hit earth have a much more catastrophic effect on the totally of Earth's environment than do the thousands of comets that rain down upon the Earth's atmosphere before they are able to effect it in anyway. Meteors have a "local" Earth effect, but as far as I know, comets do not? What are you trying to get at?
 
valich: Humble self is in state of dire confusion but is hoping imminent valich person can give illumination. Humble self has read in many astronomy texts that Earth enjoys great number of METEOR strikes every, with greatest portion burning in air and so not striking ground. Humble self has not read of any COMET strike upon Earth in recorded history.

Imminent valich person is invited to explain his greater knowledge in contradiction to established and published astronomical meteor and comet literature so that all may benefit from superior wisdom and not remain mired in mental swamp of conventional astronomy mistruths. :cool:
 
CANGAS said:
valich: Humble self is in state of dire confusion but is hoping imminent valich person can give illumination. Humble self has read in many astronomy texts that Earth enjoys great number of METEOR strikes every, with greatest portion burning in air and so not striking ground. Humble self has not read of any COMET strike upon Earth in recorded history.

Imminent valich person is invited to explain his greater knowledge in contradiction to established and published astronomical meteor and comet literature so that all may benefit from superior wisdom and not remain mired in mental swamp of conventional astronomy mistruths. :cool:
Click to expand...
Read the facts that paleontologists and geologist have spent there life on. Your childish incoherent poetry belongs on a "how to raise a child" forum: not on Sciforum.
 
According to celestial being valich?

We are still waiting for master of wisdom valich to provide proof of meteor strike versus comet strike truth.
 
Anyone interested in verifying that exalted being valich is truthful in his statements claiming that many comets strike Earth every day and that few meteors strike Earth every day is invited to make a Google or Yahoo search of "meteor" and "comet" and see for themself where the facts lie. Lay? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Welcome CANGAS to the "Who's this ****** Vallich Society". Membership is open to all and is rapidly growing.

By the way the Siberian strike of 1908 was probably a comet.

The thing is Vallich doesn't quite grasp the difference between a meteor and an asteroid. A large lump of rock or nickel iron ten kilometres across is very definitely an asteroid. Meteors, as you point out, rain down all the time. If they don't burn up they get slowed to pretty much terminal velocity and do very little damage.

Will you consider asking the honourable Vallich these questions. "You say my poetry is childish and incomprehensible. Tell me oh wise one, if it is truly incomprehensible, then how can you discern that it is childish. To recognise its childishness would require that you first understand it at least in part. Please resolve this paradox for those of us who have intellects limited by a love of facts, rather than a love of self."
 
quelquechosedautre said:
It is the only sequence which would fit the facts that would otherwise seem in contradiction, for example...
...why so few perished locked-in-combat
...why mid-latitude dinosaurs died quicker and worse than tropical ones
...why dinosaurs in the form of birds survived
...why the extinction was total
...why computer models show that the earth temperature was back to normal in 6 weeks or so
...how the nuclear winter could have occured.
The theorem is based centrally on the concept of the true Angel of Death being the Hypercane as the source of the dust in the atmosphere, the frozen water lillies, and from my own experience with frost bite amongst others.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your above scenario, and as you can see, even another person refers to the "6-week nuclear winter," but what is the "true Angel of Death being the Hypercane"? Is this some sort of spiritual or religous attribute that you are adding to this scientific biology forum? I've never heard of this???
 
1. If you consider Cynodonts to be mammals then mammals arose before the dinosaurs.
2. Many dinosaurs were warm blooded.
 
Yes, Mammals evolved from Therapsida evolved from Synapsida which existed during the Triassic. Dinosaurs evolved from Diapsida.

When Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" came out I did hear about some speculation the some dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded but I haven't read any scientific literature on this. Do you have any journal citations? How would we know?
 
I will look through some old notes for citations. Their are several separate lines of argument. These are the ones I recall.
1) Phsyiological: extrapolating life styles from a variety of clues and comparison with modern predators, makes it highly probable that some were warm blooded.
2) The internal structure of the bones is consistent with a warm blooded status.
3) Increasing evidence for feathers on some dinosaurs is consistent with a trend to preserve heat.
There were, I think on more than one occasion, good review articles of the concept in Scientific American.
 
a good percentage in my opinion was not wiped out, dinosaurs merely evolved into the creatures you see before you today, i think all of the volocor raptor (pardon my spelling) type creatures evolved into birds, many birds resemble dinosaurs in amazingly accurate ways. even the skin around there talons indicates previously in evolution that this creature was reptilion like due tot he tough snake/reptile like feet.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
a good percentage in my opinion was not wiped out, dinosaurs merely evolved into the creatures you see before you today, i think all of the volocor raptor (pardon my spelling) type creatures evolved into birds, many birds resemble dinosaurs in amazingly accurate ways. even the skin around there talons indicates previously in evolution that this creature was reptilion like due tot he tough snake/reptile like feet.
Click to expand...
All modern day birds (Aves or Avians) and also indirectly crocodiles and the like (the taxa Crocodylomorpha) are descendents from dinosaurs. All other descendents of dinosaurs went extinct.
 
Ophiolite said:
1) Phsyiological: extrapolating life styles from a variety of clues and comparison with modern predators, makes it highly probable that some were warm blooded.
2) The internal structure of the bones is consistent with a warm blooded status.
3) Increasing evidence for feathers on some dinosaurs is consistent with a trend to preserve heat.
Click to expand...
That's an excelllent assumption. I don't think point 1 would be a clue because many birds and mammals are not predators, but 2 and 3 certainly are! It has been proposed that endothermic animals may require a heart with seperated cardiac chambers. Only birds and mammals have a four chambered heart that evolved from the two chambers (atrium and ventricle). If these bird-like dinosaurs had already evolved feathers and were not warm-blooded, they certainly must have at least been in that transition stage. If paleontologists have found any fossil evidence of a dinosaur with a four chambered heart, or at least one with anatomical seperations of the two chambers, that would in my opinion be pretty darn good conclusive evidence.
 
valich said:
Only birds and mammals have a four chambered heart that evolved from the two chambers (atrium and ventricle). If these bird-like dinosaurs had already evolved feathers and were not warm-blooded, they certainly must have at least been in that transition stage. If paleontologists have found any fossil evidence of a dinosaur with a four chambered heart, or at least one with anatomical seperations of the two chambers, that would in my opinion be pretty darn good conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...

Some hearts are made out of stone, but a dinosaur's heart apparently is made out of flesh. [insert sarcasm] tissue fossilizes very easily [end sarcasm].

Claims been made, claims been refuted

[insert sarcasm] You know what real convincing evidence would be? If they would find a living dinosaur in the jungle of Borneo! [end sarcasm]
 
valich said:
That's an excelllent assumption. I don't think point 1 would be a clue because many birds and mammals are not predators.
Click to expand...

Bob Bakker published some work around 20 years ago, looking at the predator-prey ratios in different ecosystems. (Many dinosaurs weren't predators either.) In modern ecosystems, where the top predator is endothermic then you have around 1 predator for every 20 prey. Anything much less & the system can't supply the predator's energy demands. If the top predator is an ectotherm, eg a crocodile, then it's closer to 1 predator to 5 prey animals. The dinosaurian systems that Bakker looked at had predator-prey ratios similar to those for a modern endotherm-dominated system.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Some hearts are made out of stone, but a dinosaur's heart apparently is made out of flesh. [insert sarcasm] tissue fossilizes very easily [end sarcasm].

Claims been made, claims been refuted

[insert sarcasm] You know what real convincing evidence would be? If they would find a living dinosaur in the jungle of Borneo! [end sarcasm]
Click to expand...
Some mammals have been completely been preserved intact through freezing of swamps and marshes, as in recent discoveries of whole finds of mammoths. However, I was just informed by one of my colleagues that I must be wrong about four-chambered hearts necessitating warm blood because Crocodilia (Crocydlidae) also have four-chambered hearts. Ophiolite's three assumptions thus have no support for the theory of warm-bloodness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top