She swallowed the goat to catch the dog

Advertisements

About fenbeagleblog

Just a small bog dog scent hound
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to She swallowed the goat to catch the dog

  1. A little snippit of information for Chris Huhne. When you turn fridge/freezers off and then back on they automatically turn on heaters to defrost the fridges. Technical fact. When the heaters are turned on they use a great deal more elecricity. Technical fact. Therefore Chris Huhne and the DECC are numbskulls. Demonstrable fact!

  2. alexjc38 says:

    Excellent as always, fenbeagle! I must say GM looks very dashing in his armour, cape and eye-patch. And the theory expounded on dinosaurtheory.com is a very interesting one, although it implies that if we brought dinosaurs back to life, we’d need to keep them in a sort of giant aquarium, which would be a bit disappointing.

  3. Amanda says:

    Alex-and-all-those-other-bits: Enjoyed your comment.

    Fenbeagle: Alex is right. I had no idea George was so good-looking. Is he, in fact?

  4. manonthemoor says:

    Thank you fen

    Your work as usual is a pleasure to behold

    A bright light in the coming perhaps dark days

    motm

  5. Amanda says:

    Fen: Never mind about making GM look great. Maybe you can do my portrait some time! Ha ha!

  6. meltemian says:

    I’m getting worried – Amanda’s right, I actually quite fancy your impression of G.M.!!
    Unfortunately Mr. M. looks more like David Bellamy……..

  7. Amanda says:

    Hi Meltemian.

    Well, Melt and Fen, I have seen Monbiot on the telly with James (a YouTube clip), and I would say that in fact Fen has got Monbiot pretty well. What is not apparent in your work, Fen, is a certain lack of humour, a stiff-neckedness, a don’t-dare-make-light-of-my-principles attitude. I only watched him for a minute or two but that was my distinct impression. He almost seems grave, so heavy is the weight of his virtue(!)

  8. Amanda says:

    P. S. Calling him the ‘Moonbat’ is the best thing we could do for him. He *desperately* needs a balloon-pricker like that. People who won’t allow jests about themselves (jests, not abuse) have that much in common with tyrants….

  9. adrianS says:

    When Moonbat said he has now changed his mind on Nuclear, I would love to have been a fly on the wall in Caroline Lucas’s Eco friendly shit house to watch the expression on her face. I reckon it would have been just the same as if she had been forced to eat museli with a pint of lemon juice

  10. Luton Ian says:

    Hi Fen,
    a thick soupy atmosphere?

    That’s even easy to falsify than a hockey stick graph, just show us the deposits of wind blown cobbles from the Mesozoic.

  11. David Esker says:

    Hi Fen,

    Thank you again for mentioning my website in your blog. You are correct in that your readers that make an effort to think first before putting their foot in their mouth are most welcome to contact me.

    As for Ian – who never contacted me – if you wish to disprove something then it is your job –not mine – to come up with the evidence to support your argument. An extremely thick atmosphere does not imply that the wind will be so strong that can pick up a cobbler; that is your claim, not mine.

    The ability of the wind to pick up sand or other small particles actually decreases with the thickness of a planet’s atmosphere. For example Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere and yet there is almost no wind or dust at all at the surface, while at the other extreme, the atmosphere of Mars is about a thousand times thinner than that of the Earth’s and yet the thin atmosphere of Mars often produces dense dust storms that can last for months.

    Final advice, in our present atmosphere it is best not to piss into the wind.

    David Esker

  12. Luton Ian says:

    Hi David,

    Please correct me if I am mis stating your basic position here:

    You are invoking an atmosphere of approximately 600 kg /m^3 density to provide the bouyant support you assume to be required for the large dinosaurs to exist on land and the larger pterodactyls to fly, and you also find that a denser atmosphere would help account for the observed ice free climate existing at high latitudes up until the late Tertiary.

    If we leave aside for the moment, discussion of where we guess the additional gasses came from, went to and the rate of change of atmospheric volume in the approximately 2.7G years that plate tectonics appears to have operated over, and in which we have had an oxidising atmosphere (and over which we can perhaps apply Lyell’s principal of “uniformitarianism”, (“the present is the key to the past”) in which geological processes observed in rocks are the same processes observably occurring at the present, though the recorded processes are usually at higher than usual intensity, as say a once in a century storm intensity may rework several centuries’ worth of sediment deposition), we should still have some interesting effects which we can empirically observe.

    The first of those effects is the size of particles which can be entrained by the wind.

    Contrary to your comment, The Soviet lander, Venera 10 is supposed to have recorded surface wind speeds of around 3.5 m/s (around 8 mph) during the 65 minutes which it survived on the surface of Venus, we really do not have sufficeint observations to discount wind in high density atmospheres. I suspect that the absence of observed dust on Venus is more to do with sintering and agglomeration of any silicate dusts at the surface temperatures of around 750 K.

    Fortunately we do have lots of exposure of terrestrial, esturine and marine sediments in Britain from the late Palaeozoic and into the Mesozoic.

    Of particular interest for your theory are the terrestrial Permo-Trias sediments of places like the Vale of Eden in Cumbria, where there are exposures of clearly windblown deposits.

    These are identifiable as wind blown by;

    the well rounded sand grains, air (at least at current atmospheric density) offers less cushioning to grains as they bounce allong, so they become rounded and frosted, whereas it takes considerable water working to round quartz grains, and in Britain, frosted, rounded, sand grains usually implies a period of wind transport. a probable exception to this is the extremely texturely (and compositionally) mature Cretaceous marine (: they contain starfish and sea urchin fossils and glauconite, all indicating a marine environment) white sand stones at Loch Aline in Scotland, and Collin Glen, near Belfast.

    The formation of higher angle and thicker cross bedding sets than seen in water lain deposits.

    The much cleaner separation and sorting of the different size fractions by the less viscous medium of wind transport.

    The interesting point is, that the aeolian deposits are of similar grain size to current sand dunes, despite the availability of coarser particles in the exposed carboniferous sediments.

    I’m less familiar with the “Bunter Pebble Beds” seen in Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and around Birmingham, which do contain well rounded coarse sands and gravels, but which show thin, low angle channel bedding, typical of sheet wash in desert alluvial fans, rather than aeolian sand dunes. The grain size sorting is also typical of water rather than wind deposition.

    With an atmospheric density of around 600 kg/m^3, I would have expected to see coarser grained wind blown deposits than those which we see with today’s atmosphere. I haven’t seen them, I accept that they may exist – previously unrecognised as aeolian, because of their coarse grain size, but they would nevertheless posses an unusual combination of steeply dipping, thick cross bedding and very closely graded grain size distribution, which would make them noteworthy and easily found in the geological literature.

  13. Dr. Dave says:

    Ian,

    You took him to school! I don’t know shit from fat meat about dinosaurs, but I actually do know a thing or two about living organisms. In more recent decades, the reconstruction of dinosaur bones has paid special attention to the effects of gravity on the skeletal structure. These paleontologists have concluded that a lot of these critters moved rather slowly (especially the big ones). My problem with the high density atmosphere theory is that it does not take into account the necessary diffusion gradient in lungs. Cellular membranes don’t respond well in terms of the exchange of gases when working uphill against a high pressure gradient.

    • Has the Thicker atmosphere theory been felled with a pebble Dr David?….I’m not so sure. I’d be interested to hear David Eskers views. I’m not convinced that any of the predatory dinosaurs moved slowly, whatever their size. But that’s just my gut feeling based on the look of their legs, which seem to me to be designed for speed.
      Diffusion gradient in lungs, and high pressure?……Has this been researched mr Esker?

  14. Luton Ian says:

    I was hoping to stay well clear of the partial pressure of oxygen. Nitrogen solubility could be interesting too. I’m not sure whether other critters have adaptations to deal with the nitrogen narcosis which humans get at about 2 atmospheres pressure. I’ll leave that one for the divers.

    You only have to add about 10% more oxygen to air at current sea level pressures to get interesting effects like green foliage and flesh burning (don’t try smoking a cigarette with an oxygen mask on, or even worse, greasing an oxygen line fitting).

    There’s a whole can of worms once you start calculating the percentage of oxygen needed to support life and not get run away firestorms in green vegetation at higher pressures. I’ve seen plenty of charred wood in carboniferous sediments, and you don’t need much pressure of compressed air to get charcoal burning at white heat (think of a foundry cupola or a blast furnace) which would have destroyed that charcoal.

  15. Dr. Dave says:

    Ian,

    Whales and similar marine mammals have adapted to prevent nitrogen narcosis. But then, we’re only talking about a few atmospheres and they have to surface at regular intervals at a much reduced ambient pressure to blow off gases or they’ll die. Adaptive changes or not, the cellular membrane is the rate limiting step with regard to oxygen transport across a pressure gradient.

  16. David Esker says:

    Hi Ian,

    Your entire argument depends on your claim that the Soviet lander, Venera 10, recorded surface wind speed on Venus of around 3.5 m/s. I am not sure where you are getting your information. I checked five internet sources and two astronomy textbooks to find all of them stating essentially the same thing: On the surface of Venus the wind speed is typically less than 2 m/s.

    You may have strong opinions on an issue, but if you wish to present yourself as a real scientist then you have to show that you are respectful of the facts. That means that you can not just fudge the numbers whenever they tell you information that you do not want to hear.

    Something else that is not science is your process of speculating and then drawing conclusions based on your speculations. To discover the truth you have to run experiments or at least conduct an objective fact finding missions to test your hypothesis. Only through experimentation or sincere objective research will you discover answers that you never could have anticipated.

    For the record, I did not like the idea when I first had the thought that an extremely thick atmosphere might explain how the dinosaurs grew so large. The challenge seemed impossible. For the thick Mesozoic atmosphere hypothesis to be true I would not only need to produce the evidence supporting its existence but I would also need to come up with explanations and supporting evidence for where did this thick atmosphere come from and where did it go. Yet, as a scientist, I had to investigate the hypothesis of there being an extremely thick Mesozoic as the possible solution to the paradox of how the dinosaurs and pterosaurs grew so large. To my surprise, everywhere I looked I found the evidence support the Thick Atmosphere Solution. Because I dared to test a hypothesis that many would consider to be impossible, I have made some of the most important scientific discoveries in the history of science.

    There is something here regarding science that everyone needs to focus on. Science is based on the premised that we exist in a rational universe and yet from time to time paradoxes pop up that challenge that premise. If we as scientists take up those challenges we give ourselves the opportunity of making great scientific discoveries. But on the other hand if we put our effort into denying these obvious scientific paradoxes, then science loses its credibility while society as a whole becomes more irrational. Seriously, do you really believe that there is nothing odd about the previous existence of horse-size pterosaurs flying about, and if so who believes you?

    Ina, you have had over a month to read DinosaurTheory.com and check the references, and yet your comments show that you have not. While I do not mind addressing questions regarding my scientific theory, this places a requirement on you to first read my theory before spouting off your beliefs. As a college physics instructor I have always found that my worst students were those who already know everything the first day of class.

    David Esker

  17. David Esker says:

    Hi Dr. Dave,

    You will need to clarify your argument regarding diffusion gradient in lungs. Since the density of the extremely thick Mesozoic atmosphere is still lower than the density of the body fluids how can this be any different from the present? In both cases the blood inside the body has a higher density and pressure than the air in the lungs. I do not have a degree in biology, yet is it not correct that the diffusion takes place both ways, the oxygen going one way while the carbon dioxide goes the other. For that matter how is it that a fish does not have problems as you claim when the situation for it is even worse by having the pressure inside its body the same as the surrounding water. I fail to see your claim that it is an uphill gradient pressure when 2/3’s the density of water is clearly less than the density of blood.

    I thank you for your comment, but it seems to me that you are trying to present a problem that does not exit.

    David Esker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s