Monday, December 8, 2008

Magic Dinosaurs Loved The Freezing Cold



Even though dinosaurs were reptiles and their alleged descendents the birds migrate during the winter, "scientists" are once again ignoring Anaxagoras, Empedokles, Herodotos, Leukippos, Demokritos, Platon, Seneca, Plutarchus, Diogenes Laertius, and Velikovsky and telling us the poles have always been in their same places and the Earth's axis of rotation has never changed in the past 4 billion years: Polar Dinosaurs Endured Cold Dark Winters.

Polar dinosaurs such as the 3.3-ton duckbill Edmontosaurus are thought by some paleontologists to have been champion migrators to avoid the cold, dark season. But a study now claims that most of these beasts preferred to stick closer to home despite potentially deadly winter weather.
The dinosaurs must have had white scales to camouflage themselves in the Antarctic snow. That's why all the invisible snow lizards of today have white scales and live at the poles.

21 comments:

Quantum_Flux said...

Yeah....

OilIsMastery said...

I found the best quote ever: "If Dr. Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy." -- Harlow Shapley, astronomer, 1946

Quantum_Flux said...

No, the dinosaurs stayed warm by constantly moving and eating in the cold. They weren't hot blooded animals, but they preyed on the warm blooded animals everyday to stay warm.

OilIsMastery said...

So you think dinosaurs and warm water corals lived in snow blizzards on the North Pole and Antarctica?

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, there are these huge methane plumes that catch fire coming out of the ground. That's where the prehistoric giants onced gathered for ceremonial purposes, hungry carnivores though they be.

Quantum_Flux said...

If the dinos had opposible thumbs then they probably would have even had tools for getting things done so they wouldn't have to do a lot of work on Saturdays.

Quantum_Flux said...

But of course, an asteroid hit the gulf of Mexico which was at that time the north pole, landing right on one of thier massive religious ceremonies, kicking up dust into the atmosphere which ascended into the sky and stayed up hydrostatically in the air for 3 days before re-descinding back to the ground. That is when the mice became the top of the food chain (the meek shall inheret the Earth, you know). Anyhow, the Bible is meant to be read in reverse, starting with armagedon and ending with paradise.

Quantum_Flux said...

After reviewing the list of books on your profile, I assume you don't have a solid grounding in what modern physics really says. That is tantamount to scientific hubris (although, sometimes both the "gods" and the scientists are wrong though), but not knowing what they say makes you a shot in the dark at times. You should check these videos out to make your aim and accuracy more precise though, instead of throwing out bad fish to me to refute you should be in the know of conventional thought yourself.

Physics for Future Presidents

OilIsMastery said...

Physics says warm water corals and dinosaurs loved snow blizzards?

Quantum_Flux said...

No, but physics says that gravitation explains why things fall....pardon my Jewish Hubris here, but Physics says you are doing work on Saturdays simply by breathing.

W=PdV.... so the amount of work being done on the air is more or less equal to the change in volumetric lung capacity times atmospheric pressure, ergo God's not really happy unless yo're dead.

OilIsMastery said...

17th century physics and gravitation do not explain why the elements in the atmosphere do not sort themselves according to atomic weight, why ozone defies gravity, and why water vapor and clouds defy gravity. Furthermore, Mercury and Neptune are in the wrong places according to the Pre-Space Age, pre electromagnetism, 17th century theory of gravitation.

Quantum_Flux said...

They do not fully explain it, but the atmosphere IS stratisfied as you go up according to atomic weight.

OilIsMastery said...

The atmosphere is not stratified according to atomic weight because ozone which is heavier than oxygen defies gravity where it says "ozone layer."

Anaconda said...

STOP THE PLANET!

Just kidding...

I've seen this idea before, and it's one of the most provocative ideas of the Electric Universe theory.

The idea is that during a cataclysmic stellar electrical discharge event (large "flows" of electrical current emitted by the Sun) disruption and explosive arcing of electrical currents "threw off" the orbit of the planet as seen in the Oil Is Mastery post: Mystery Chemical On Venus, December 9, 2008 specifically, here, "retrograde rotation"

Or there were other "nearby" planets and one or more "short circuited" with the Earth causing cataclysmic results (pushing the planets apart in the process).

The theory does nothing to explain how Earth "got back on track" to the current orbit. Or if this current orbit is "back on track" at all, but, rather, was "just the luck of the draw" after the electrical discharge event subsided to a stable equilibrium.

There are many "unknowns" with this most provocative aspect of the theory.

But consider this: The Expanding Earth theory explains "dinosaurs in the polar regions" quite nicely; a smaller Earth with more dynamic sea currrents and other factors due to a smaller Earth would explain why dinosaurs could be found in "temperate climate" polar regions.

Assuming dinosaurs are related to birds, they were warm blooded and migrated -- there is solid paleontology evidence that dinosaurs did migrate in herds: Fossil remains at river crossing sites where dinosaur bones were jumbled up as if there was a mass die off (think wildebeest crossings of rivers in Africa, I know the readers have all seen).

And paleontology records of plant fossils in the same age as the dinosaurs suggest a temperate climate in the polar regions.

This is all consistent with Expanding Earth theory.

So, while Venus's retrograde orbit suggests the theory implied in this post is possible it isn't necessary to explain "Dinoos of the Noorth...(say it with a 'Rin Tin Tin' rhythm)".

And, OilIsMastery, consider this: This particular Electric Universe theory is at least partially an attempt to explain the dinosaurs WITHOUT an expanding Earth explanation in my opinion, so be careful how the Electric Universe advocates detail their theory.

(I could be wrong, but I think that is why Louis Hissink is reluctant to embrace Expanding Earth theory because it contradicts some of the views of the "high priests" of Electric Universe theory.)

This may be an instance where proponents of a theory try and shoehorn every unique phenomenon into their own theory in order to grab attention.

(If there is one weakness of Electric Universe theory, it is the tendency to "gobble up" every "outstanding" phenomenon into their own theory.)

But certainly there are two alternative theories and they don't have to rival each other, some combination of the two may have occured -- we just don't know for sure.

There is a substantial body of scientific evidence for both theories.

Dinosaurs raise many interesting questions and there are still many "unsolved mysteries" related to this "Lost World".

Louis Hissink said...

Another explanation is the tippe-toppe earth hypothesis in which the earth careens to a new axis of spin after an interaction with another force, (whether from another planetary body/bolide etc or otherwise).

There is no rule which says that the Earth's axis of spin is inviolate.

400,000 years ago the island of Spitzbergen hosted tropical species.

How to explain that?

Louis Hissink said...

Expanding Earth Theory - the mechanism of the expansion is THE issue - and if one takes in account the presence of continental rocks in the so-called oceanic areas, then the expanding earth theory starts to become problematical.

It is assumed that the ocean floors are solely comprised of basalts exuded from the ridges.

There has not been too much outcrop mapping or drilling to verify this.

While expanding earth seems plausible, the seismic evidence of a cooling earth, ie. Vadim Anfiloff's ideas, are also backed by hard data.

The problem reduces to one of the three blind fakirs and the elephant parable.

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Apparently, there are many different theories, as you point out.

Louis Hissink states: "400,000 years ago the island of Spitzbergen hosted tropical species. How to explain that?"

Maybe, this is awkward, but I recalled seeing a post on your blog dealing with this very issue. I wanted to link to it, so Oil Is Mastery readers could consider your post, but couldn't find it. Can you help me?

Louis Hissink states: "Expanding Earth Theory - the mechanism of the expansion is THE issue..."

Yes, you are quite right.

I have provided a hypothesis stating that Birkeland currents supply the matter (an adaptation of Plasma Cosmology) and you have provided a hypothesis which is intriguing about chemical reactions that cause expansion with "no additional" matter required (basalt formation) which also happens to be the mineral that forms oceanic crust and possibly under granitite continental crust as well, a new shell if you will, triggered by some unknown cause.

Louis Hissink states: "[A]nd if one takes in account the presence of continental rocks in the so-called oceanic areas, then the expanding earth theory starts to become problematical.

It is assumed that the ocean floors are solely comprised of basalts exuded from the ridges.

There has not been too much outcrop mapping or drilling to verify this."

Louis, you mentioned this on your blog (that's where I saw it first). Are there specific links you could provide?

Also, if there is granitite continental crust interpersed out in the oceanic basins, couldn't that be fragmented remnants from splintering continental edges?

After all, Expansion involves stretching, which could conceivably cause some granitite continental crust to splinter and possibly subside.

Expansion likely would be an uneven process with some subsidence, even as the overall Earth expands.

Also, what about the evidence of inland seas over continental areas? And much higher sea levels generally in relation to the continents, higher than can be accounted for even if all the polar ice were melted?

I'm mostly kidding, but I wonder if you aren't getting political on me, here, because you have "legs" in more than one camp.

I hope I'm not being "impolitic", but I know you understand.

Quantum_Flux said...

Plasma is constantly pumping out photons to cool off. This is why you can tell the temperature of a star by the wavelengths that it emits (hold your horses here before you say something incorrect)....The frequency of a photon is dependent on relativity and your velocity relative to that object since light travels at C by the formula.

C=(wavelength)*(frequency) .... if you are moving toward an object emitting a wave, the the wavelength will contract and the frequency will increase, or vice versa. Hence it is concluded that space is expanding via observation and the Hubble Constant.

Louis Hissink said...

Anaconda

"Louis Hissink states: "400,000 years ago the island of Spitzbergen hosted tropical species. How to explain that?"

Maybe, this is awkward, but I recalled seeing a post on your blog dealing with this very issue. I wanted to link to it, so Oil Is Mastery readers could consider your post, but couldn't find it. Can you help me?"

Ooh, I must have forgotten about that - I raised it in one of the Marohasy threads but got zilch reaction from it - so it is an extremely inconvenient fact for the global warmers.

I'll see what I can do on this over the next few days.

Thanks

Louis Hissink said...

Anaconda:

Link is below.

http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!381.entry

I am still working out where the 400,000 years ago reference appeared - it was on another site (Science daily?) as I recall and stuck in my memory.

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Thank you. That is the link I was looking for but missed.

I appreciate your time and help.

Louis Hissink's Crazy World: Palaeoclimate reconstructions, October 9, 2008.