About Theodore

Bio

On Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=55301735&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

Languages

English, Russian

Areas of Expertise

Software Development, math, History of Languages

An idea worth spreading

A radical new thesis of human origins: www.cosmosincollision.com

I'm passionate about

Ancient History, modern languages, archery, hunting, sporting clays

Comments & conversations

196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
What about Dinosaurs in the future?
In simplest possible terms... Weight is proportional to volume, a cubed figure, while strength is proportional to cross section of bones and muscles, basically a squared figure. Double your physical dimensions, and the factor of two gets cubed for volume and weight but only squared for cross section and strength; you'll have cut your power/weight ratio in half. That's why you don't get 200-lb gymnasts and why we no longer have sauropod dinosaurs. You can get a rough size limit for the planet by solving for the point at which one of your top heavyweight power-lifters becomes dysfunctional because of this square/cube thing, that is, by solving for the point at which just standing up becomes the same effort as a 1000-lb squat or dead-lift at his normal weight which you'd assume to be around 350, that is: 1350/(two-thirds power of 350) = x/(two-thirds power of x) You get a number around 20,000 lbs which would be a theoretical size limit for our present world. In real life the biggest elephant around 15,000 lbs and that's around 1% of elephants. That's the real world limit. 2/3 power of weight is the normal scaling factor for lifting events, i.e. it eliminates the effect of different sizes and lets you see who, amongst the champions of various weight divisions, has actually done the best lift for a particular event.
196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
What about Dinosaurs in the future?
There is no way to start with what Newton and/or Einstein ever said about gravity and believe that it could have ever undergone a major change near our own planet's surface, but it is a very simple demonstration that it has. The familiar square/cube problem prohibits animals any larger than elephants in our present world. Gravity is an electrostatic dipole effect of some sort, it is not a basic force in nature.
196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
Sonia Shah: 3 reasons we still haven’t gotten rid of malaria
One simple word: DDT http://junkscience.com/ddt/ http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/ http://junksciencearchive.com/malaria_clock.html A friend of mine once took a course in ornithology under America's greatest expert on birds of prey i.e. Dr. Heinz Meng. Asked about DDT point blank in the classroom in front of 30 people, Meng replied that everything my friend had ever heard or read about it was a bunch of BS, that it had zero effect on any kinds of birds or bird eggs including birds of prey. They all but had malaria and polio wiped off the planet by 1965 or thereabouts and that was too good for them. They had bedbugs totally wiped off the south 48 states, that was also too good for them. Nothing ever developed any sort of a real immunity to DDT, the ONLY problems aroe from it gigantic use as an area pesticide for crops. Using it to protect human habitats would have no downside.
196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
What about Dinosaurs in the future?
The larger dinosaurs could not function in present gravity. You'd have to find a smaller planet or a planet with its gravity attenuated by electromagnetic/electrostatic phenomena to put them on. Minimal discussion of gravity in first few minutes of Red Ice interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p10PiJPEq4
196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
An rigorous case can be made for the proposition that modern humans cannot be native to this planet.
Saturn would have been a brown dwarf star and planets (Earth/Mars) orbiting a dwarf star typically do so inside the heliosphere of the dwarf star. Radiant energy would bounce back from that heliosphere to all points of the planet so that you wouldn't freeze, but you'd be living in a deep, dark purple sort of a world, ideal for hominids but not for humans. Again a sense of smell is crucial for land animals, particularly prey animals, but not for aquatic mammals. Elaine Morgan's "Aquatic Ape" thesis is the best theory ever yet put forward for human adaptation. Morgan describes a fairly long list of traits which we share with the aquatic mammals, and which are rare or non-existent amongst land animals. It's never gotten any traction in academia for two reasons, there is no fossil evidence of such a development, and there's never been a body of water on this planet which would be safe for humans to live in. Wonderful theory, all it really needs is another planet to happen on... A view from Ganymede, some tens of thousands of years ago: http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/image059_zps10faf866.png
196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
An rigorous case can be made for the proposition that modern humans cannot be native to this planet.
Minus the other gas giants, Jupiter would have been in a much closer orbit in ancient times, and Ganymede would have been a very bright, warm, wet, and safe sort of a world. I've mentioned this here before... Schools teach that planets form up from swirling masses of solar material. That being true, you'd expect the spin axes of the planets in our own system to all be roughly perpendicular to the plane of the system. Our sun, Jupiter, and Mercury in fact do look like that, but the others don't. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt Sun 7.25 (to the Ecliptic) Mercury ~0.01 Venus 177.4 Earth 23.439281 Moon 1.5424 Mars 25.19 Ceres ~4 Jupiter 3.13 Saturn 26.73 Uranus 97.77 Neptune 28.32 Pluto 119.61 The explanation which the data suggests is as follows: Our sun, Jupiter, and Mercury with their near zero axis tilts, amount to an original system. Uranus and Venus are special cases with their own separate stories. Mars, Earth, Neptune, and Saturn with their roughly 26-degree axis tilts must have comprised a separate small system which was captured by our sun as a group. This would result from flying into the plane of the sun's system in the form of a Herbig/Haro string at a 26-degree angle from the South. Those planets kept the ~26-degree tilt as they began to orbit as they do now.
196342
Theodore Holden
Posted about 1 year ago
An rigorous case can be made for the proposition that modern humans cannot be native to this planet.
It may really be that the format of TED is not adequate for discussing this one... TED strikes me as interesting for several reasons but it doesn't have forum/BBCODE capabilities and the 2K-byte limit is clunky. Again humans have the smallest relative eye size of advanced creatures and are adapted to a bright world. The Earth in past ages was a very dark world, hence the huge eyes of hominids and dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. The combination of lack of fur, lack of a decent sense of smell, and lack of the kinds of eyes needed for Earth in ancient times rule this planet out as an original human home world.