Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    12455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. 18 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

    Rather than exciting speculation about exotic super heavy elements in super dense asteroids what is needed is dull and ordinary astronomical observations to get more accurate estimates of their density. As well better observations of everything else that can be determined about them - which should be standard practice, to add to the inventory of known asteroids and their characteristics. Confirmation of unusual characteristics would give cause to investigate further, including with probes. If very unusual it would be very good cause.

    But without that confirmation it is like an anomalous experimental result - worth finding out why but it seems much more likely to be mistake than breakthrough.

    Yes, I have my doubts about a stable element at atomic number 164, in fact I was under the impression that the so called island of stability was supposed to be around element 124 and the stability was somewhat less than... stable. 

    More important than simply speculating is getting an accurate measurement. However, the margin of error is so great on this one it makes you wonder how such a extreme error could be taken seriously at all. Even if the asteroid was 100% Osmium the density is far and away from anything you would expect from a reasonable measurement. A pure Iron Nickel asteroid should have a density of around 7.8 grams per CC  even a pure Osmium asteroid, 22.59 grams per CC, which is wildly unlikely, wouldn't come close to the claimed measurement of 75 grams per CC.

    Lots of unknowns in science, various readings, findings, measurements that do not comport with reality was we think we know it. I think it's important to investigate these things when possible, remeasure when possible, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming something is impossible because we can't explain it.  

    Is there some other possibility which would make this measurement a bit closer to reality? 

     

  2. Do super dense asteroids point to the possibility of heavy elements not found on Earth? 33 Polyhymnia is thought to be 3 times as dense as the densest element on the earth Osmium. Osmium is 22.59 grams per cubic centimeter with an atomic number of 76 but 33 Polyhymnia seems to be made of something close to three times as dense as Osmium. This would correspond to an element that has an atomic number of around 164. 

     https://earthsky.org/space/ultradense-asteroids-polyhymnia-cudos-superheavy

    Quote

    osmium, the densest stable element on the period table? Osmium has a density of 22.59 grams per centimeter cubed (g/cm3). Scientists think Polyhymnia has a density of around 75 g/cm3. So the team was looking for stable, superheavy, ultradense elements that could explain Polyhymnia’s suspected composition.

    Their calculations confirmed the prediction that atoms with around 164 protons in their nuclei (elements with atomic numbers of around 164) were likely to be stable. They also found that a stable element with atomic number 164 would have a density between 36.0 and 68.4 g/cm3. While not a slam dunk, the range does approach the suspected density of Polyhymnia.

    Should we be thinking of visiting this asteroid to see if we can obtain samples of this unknown element? 

  3. One of the most often sighted cryptids and or sea monsters is the sea serpent, sailors, for centuries, gace reports of giant sea monsters that were large enough to endanger their ships and other wise scare the bejesus out of otherwise brave men. Some of the examples were the giant squids, now days we know that giant squids exist, maybe not as big as reported but still big enough to be monsters. Sea Serpent sightings are now days thought to be the result of Oarfish being mistaken for Sea Serpents but there are sea serpents alive today, real snakes that live in the sea, one of which is reputed to grow to 9 feet long. But has there ever been a real giant sea serpent like the one of legend? 

    Yes! Yes around 50 million years ago there is thought to have been a sea snake that could have been as long as 40 feet or more! Palaeophis colossaeus was this snake! From the description 

    Quote

    Abstract: Palaeophis maghrebianus belongs to the Palaeophiinae (Palaeophiidae). This snake subfamily is relatively poorly known, and it is mainly represented by disarticulated vertebrae and ribs and by a few vertebral segments. Its intracolumnar variability remains also poorly understood. The discovery of new isolated vertebrae and vertebral segments of Palaeophis maghrebianus in the Ypresian (Lower Eocene) Phosphates of Morocco enables us to provide a more detailed diagnosis of this species and to describe its intracolumnar variability. Moreover, the new material reveals that this species could reach gigantic size being, with Palaeophis colossaeus, one of the two longer palaeophiids. The microanatomical and histological analysis of some vertebrae illustrating diverse positions along the vertebral column reveals the presence of osteosclerosis, especially in the anterior and mid-precloacal regions. The occurrence of this osseous specialization implies a role in buoyancy and body trim control in this taxon, which is considered a shallow marine dweller based on its anatomical features and geological data. Palaeophis maghrebianus also displays a dense vascular network suggesting a growth speed, and thus a metabolic rate, much higher than in the biggest extant snakes.

    With all the "cryptid" enthusiasm for Megalodon I am quite surprised this snake isn't being blamed for sea serpent sightings, possibly it's relatively new discovery or maybe it is still to obscure, for whatever reason it remains true that giant sea serpents once existed... and old time sailors reported seeing them. I doubt there was any real connection but it remains an interesting coincidence. 

    Now, if we can just find one washed up on shore 😁

    Sea_serpent.jpg

  4. 18 hours ago, martillo said:

    I think in a long path of evolution from a swimming aquatic lifestyle to after walking land lifestyles and yet after flying air lifestyles. I could think in tyrannosaurus as an amphibious descendant of crocodiles adapting to the walking land lifestyle for instance. Of course several branches of descendants could be opened from crocodiles. Tyrannosaurus could be just one of them I think. Why not to think in such possibility? Seems a very natural one.

    You can speculate anything you want but if you are going to tear down a complete evolutionary tree I think you need to find out a little about the evolutionary history of life on Earth. T-Rex was not a crocodile, T-Rex was a Dinosaur, both are archosaurs, but crocodiles are not Dinosaurs. The last common ancestor of both existed before there were either. 

  5. 1 hour ago, martillo said:

    This is quite what I'm talking about:

    (from a page of National geographic in Spanish I have just found: https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/ciencia/unas-huellas-fosiles-encontradas-rioja-revelan-que-algunos-dinosaurios-podian-nadar_20929

    image.thumb.jpeg.a1ca43c584093baf66646bc52ad6f6a0.jpeg

    This is a spinosaurus not a tyrannosaurus of course but well illustrates my point of view.

    As you said this is a spinosaurus not a T-Rex, compare the two then get back to me. 

    2 hours ago, martillo said:

    From Wikipedia:

    Deinosuchus: "Using more complete remains, it was estimated in 1999 that the size attained by specimens of Deinosuchus varied from 8 to 10 meters (26 to 33 ft) with weights from 2.5 to 5 metric tons (2.8 to 5.5 short tons).[15]"

    Tyrannosaurus: "The most complete specimen measures up to 12.3–12.4 m (40–41 ft) in length, but according to most modern estimates, Tyrannosaurus could have exceeded sizes of 12.4 m (41 ft) in length, 3.7–4 m (12–13 ft) in hip height, and 10 tonnes (9.8 long tons; 11 short tons) in mass."

    In a fight of both I would surely bet on the T Rex!

    And I think Tyrannosaurus could be well adapted to live in grass-flooded areas. Not immersed, I agree now, just leaning his so heavy body on the water and sliding on it pushed by his strong legs and feet. Yes, I can quite "see" them in that lifestyle of a total ape predator on those areas...

    Size has little to do with this, a T-Rex in water is about as helpless to large water carnivore as an elephant is to a great white shark. Elephants can swim more than 30 miles and can stay in the water for many hours but they are not going to try and take habitat away from dugongs just because elephants are bigger. 

    You are aware that a T-Rex is, metabolically, akin to birds (they even had feathers)... an endotherm that needs but lacks the traits that makes crocodiles such successful predators in their cool watery habitats. Crocodiles are endotherms, need far less food and can afford to waits for days and or weeks and months between feedings... right? Spinosaurus was a totally different animal, shaped more like a crocodile and only some were adapted to a watery habitat and even that is still debated. Spinosaurus has been redesigned so many times and at this time is considered to have been a quadruped adapted to a lifestyle very similar to the quadruped crocodiles while T-Rex was a biped with almost nonexistent front limbs.  

  6. 21 hours ago, martillo said:

    All hunters need to compete with other hunters in nature but they find a way for existing, isn't it? Fighting sometimes happens but even those which would lose still exist. That is not a reason for the T Rex not being an amphibious one.

    For the same reason lions do not spend much time hunting in water occupied by crocodiles nor do crocodiles hunt on land occupied by lions. Large carnivores do not fight, populations compete with each other over resources and habitats. Yes individuals occasionally interact but it's the overall competition between them over resources that limit their occupation of habitats. So far you have given no reason to think a T-Rex would would want to take up a lifestyle it is obviously not adapted to anymore than crocodiles would decide to take up hunting zebras on the grasslands.

     

    21 hours ago, martillo said:

    A question: I know about giant crocodiles but I thought that was in the seas. Are you sure so big crocodiles as you mention have existed at the not so deep wetlands? Doesn't seem so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus

  7. The Main impediment "IMHO" to a amphibious T-Rex is the carnivores it would have to compete with. The wetlands were not empty places just waiting to be exploited by a big predator. There were giant sized crocodilians that lived in those wetlands, crocodiles more than big enough to take down a T-Rex... in fact they probably were a big danger to a T-rex trying to take a drink from a waterway BITD (back in the day) You have to remember that Crocodiles are powerful predators, well adapted to their environment, exothermic, so their food intake was lower than a exothermic T-Rex. Unlike a T-Rex Crocodiles can go long periods without food and so can afford, metabolically, to sit and wait for food to come to them. A T-Rex with its bird like metabolism had to eat much more and to go out and hunt down large prey items on a regular basis. A T-Rex wes adapted to hunting down prey and was probably fast enough to do so with its huge muscular hind legs.  

    T-Rex was not well suited to semi aquatic living in its body plan, it's metabolism, or its behaviors and was as vulnerable as any other land creature to the true dominating predators of the wetlands... Crocodiles. 

  8. On 10/13/2023 at 1:14 PM, studiot said:

    I'm not sure about squid, octpi and cuttlefish but I learned recently that jellyfish have no brain.

     

     

    Squid have brains as do cuttlefish but an octopus has nine brains. 

  9. This video describes how the use of an RTG to keep warm in the wilderness resulted in their deaths. The harrowing thing is the number of orphaned sources just in the USSR state of Georgia... 300 were found and in the USA one source is lost everyday. Most people wouldn't know what was happening anymore than the three men who found this one. Radiological sources like this are used in hospitals to generate x-rays and other radiations. The number of people and the effort required to just pick and and remove this orphaned one source is incredible but the idea of how many such sources might be lying around, not just in junkyards or near military bases but left abandoned in the wild is super frightening.   How many of us would recognize the danger and how obvious would the danger be? In this case the steaming mud in the middle of winter should have been a clue that something wasn't right but the amount of radiation being emitted was enough to damage these men, for them to feel it the next day!  Death soon followed. 

     

     

  10. 5 hours ago, daniel j lavender said:

    Key phrase is “but the end is still to come”.

    That time is now.  Transition begins now.

     

    Again, you fail to identify the supposed cherry picking, you fail to sufficiently identify specific details which do not meet criteria.  This is not confirmation bias.  This is an extensive sequence of coinciding events.

    The Creator is not a “sky prince”.  The Creator is not hovering in the sky just above the clouds.  That is a silly, childish view.  The Creator is on another level.  The Creator is beyond this plane of existence.  It’s analogous to us residing within a petri dish upon a countertop with the Creator as a scientist in a laboratory.

    No wonder the world is in the state it is when people possess such contempt for the Creator, for creators, for creation in general.  No wonder such level of destruction persists when that is the perspective possessed.  If more respect was held for the Creator, if more significance was placed upon creation perhaps destruction, perhaps destructive tendencies would cease.

    Improve.  Grow.  Otherwise enjoy your eradication.

    I've always wondered what does the red crayon taste like? Is it better when you dip it in the glue? 

  11. 57 minutes ago, daniel j lavender said:

    Yet you fail to identify them.

     

    You speak of jelly rolls and pianos.

    I speak of God and Biblical prophecy.  I speak of the Kingdom of God.

    The internet is operational and widely available.  Rather than amusement it should be used as a tool, it should be used as an instrument to dissolve division, conflict and military formation around the world.

    Funding, human resources, energy should be reallocated from military pursuits to healthcare, to construction, to more positive things.  Stop wasting resources and lives.  Stop championing conflict.  Stop cheering as your sons and daughters perish on the battlefield.  You create the society you create.  You are responsible for your losses.  Grow up.

    “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Isaiah 2:4

    So far you have presented no evidence of design, nothing but "speaking the word of men who wrote about what they thought god should be like" How about you present some empirical evidence that supports your proposition instead of speaking the word of your imaginary best friend? 

  12. On 10/2/2023 at 10:45 AM, joigus said:

    Don't forget prokaryotes and eukaryotes are worlds apart in almost every sense conceivable.

    If I had to bet, I'd say life that's similar in organizational level to prokaryotes is relatively common in the universe. But eukaryotes are a completely different kettle of fish, my friend.

    It took many eons, ( a whole boring billion years at least) for them to appear when Earth already looked like there was gonna be nothing but bacteria and archaea forever and a day. This concept of deep time takes a while of ordinary human thinking time to sink in.

    The most likely thing out there is some kind of mush, just because the most likely thing around here is some kind of mush. The world we see now is anecdotal in comparison.

    Ants rule the world. we are just onlookers. 

  13. 17 hours ago, mistermack said:

    Of course, humanoids wouldn't be new. Jesus of Nazareth was half man half alien, two thousand years ago. He looked human, but had very alien powers, including walking on water, turning water into wine, and multiplying solid objects like loaves and fishes. And regeneration after apparent death.

    The Greeks had gods that were humanoid too, but they were just superstitious stories. 

    Well gods, like aliens, are created by humans in their own image. 

  14. Would a Centaur like creature be considered humanoid if the raised portion of the creature, human part in mythological centaurs, was indeed more or less human in appearance would that be considered humanoid? John Varley raised this question, IMHO, in his books Titan, Wizard, and Demon. The aliens are so human in appearance that we found them sexually attractive and could mate with them but they were centaurs with three sexes but only two individual sexes were readily apparent. But Gorillas are humanoid but not exactly sexually compatible with us fragile humans. Would sexual attraction cause less than humanoid aliens to be considered humanoid?   

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.