And both the ability to takeoff, and soar, are highly determined by wing loading.
Look,... if flight only depended on wing loading, then by your perverse reckoning, there would be 10 ton (22,400 lb) birds with 22,4000 square feet wing spans,... since such a bird would only have a 10 lb/ft^2 wing loading.From a purely aeronautical point of view, there is no reason such an animal could not fly. However, due to limitations in what a circulatory system can provide, as well as weight/strength ratios of tissues such as bones, such an animal is highly unlikely. Megafauna in general are rare, because such large size puts all kinds of stresses on biomaterials that they simply did not evolve to accommodate. And then there are the ecological issues as well - something that big would need a tremendous amount of food.
So from a flight point-of-view, it works. From a biology point-of-view, it doesn't.
And I see you as..., completely unwilling to try and address the arguments
So, then lets start at the beginning;Remind me again, how does the earth and its continents survive an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon?
It's obvious that you have nothing behind this weird claim of yours.
Typical velocity assumed in Theia collision = 10 km/s
Maximum velocity assumed in Heaven-PreEarth collision = 2.5 km/s
If Theia and Heaven had the same mass, then;
Kinetic Energy of the Theia collision
= 16 (i.e., 4^2) times Kinetic Energy of the Heaven-PreEarth collision.
You know as well as I do that kinetic energy is only one part of the energy involved in these types of collisions. There is two sources of energy - kinetic energy (if the objects are moving relative to each other) and the change in gravitational energy. I provided the math in the other thread, showing that the change in gravitational potential energy alone was greater than the impact that formed the earth. Any kinetic energy only
ADDS to that energy.
My post on
the gravitational potential energy in your system.The amount of gravitational potential energy lost (and therefore transformed into some other form of energy - heat, elastic, kinetic, etc) when your two planets merge - starting with them in contact, ending with them fused into one - is 5.95 X 10^31 J.
Adjusting for the differing masses;
Kinetic Energy of the Theia collision
= 16 x 6.42 x 10^23/2.48 x 10^24
= 4.14 times Kinetic Energy of the Heaven-PreEarth collision.
Add that to the 5.95 X 10^31 J and you get... 5.95 X 10^31 J. The kinetic energy is but a meager part of the total.
Where; Mass of Heaven = 2.48 x 10^24 kg.
Mass of Theia = Mass of Mars = 6.42 x 10^23 kg
So your statement "an impact several orders of magnitude larger than the one that formed the moon" is simply BS.
To be accurate, if you only look at one of the energy sources in the impact - kinetic energy - then you still get enough energy to completely liquefy the surface of the earth.
Doesn't exactly help your position much.
Of course, when you account for
all the energy in the system you get the correct answer - and one which is ~6 orders of magnitude greater than the collision in your hypothesis.
But, as per usual, I don't expect blatant falsehoods to slow you down.
Nope, your blatant falsehoods didn't slow me down for a second. Its amazing how a basic grasp of science can allow one to see right through pseudoscientific BS like your "hypotheses".
So, the MAXIMUM energy released from the PreEarth collision is about one quarter that of the Theia collision.
Nope, the kinetic energy of the collision is about 1/4. But since that is one of two sources of energy - the other being gravitational potential energy - the number is meaningless.
And I notice you still managed to not address the biggest hole in your "hypothesis" - the fact that at least two scientific studies have directly shown it to be false. Once again:
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
To quote the latter:
Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and paleorotational data can be used to explore whether Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological time. Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s radius has increased significantly with time, as required by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s moment of inertia would increase with secular increase in radius
...
These figures are the only available direct estimates of I/I 0 for the Precambrian and argue against significant overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ϳ620Ma. Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mechanisms, particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion since the Paleozoic [Carey, 1958, 1976]
...
Hence the rhythmite data and the astronomical and astrometric observations together argue against significant change in Earth’s radius by any mechanism at least since ϳ620 Ma
(emphasis mine)
Strangely enough, you didn't have the balls to address that gaping hole in your hypothesis, but instead put up some incorrect math as your defense.
LOL
Bryan
