It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven meters, managed to fly,...
It's not an issue at all - the ability to fly is largely determined by wing loading.
ImagingGeek is, as usual, incorrect here. What is true is;
"the ability to fly soar is largely determined by wing loading."However, the ability to fly, involves being able to get off the ground, as well as soaring.
And both the ability to takeoff, and soar, are highly determined by wing loading. The higher the wing loading, the faster the air speed over the wing must be to achieve flight. The faster the air speed, the more difficult takeoff is, and (generally speaking) the muscle mass required for takeoff is also larger.
No one has a clue as to how argentavis magnificens got off the ground unless it was taking off from a steep slope with no obstacles, like shrubs, long grass or rocks.
To be accurate, YOU don't know how
argentavis magnificens took off - that question was answered by scientists
back in the 1980's. Argentavis magnificens has sufficiently strong enough legs to manage takeoff, although it likely took advantage of the near-constant winds in its home territory to aid in its takeoff.
I don't bother to point out ImagingGeek's many errors any more, as he is the most dishonest arguer I have ever come across.
LOL, and you were 100% wrong in the one "error" you did address...doesn't exactly support the above statement.
Besides, why address all the points, where there is one obvious one you NEED to address - the scientific literature which directly discredits your model by showing there has been
no significant increases in the earths mass over the past 4 billion years:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf
I see him as simply a propagandist, with zero interest in the truth of the matter.
And I see you as a coward, completely unwilling to try and address the arguments and citations made against your hypothesis.
And you wonder why arXiv didn't accept your "paper".
Bryan
