The Impossible Size of Dinosaurs

What is the largest animal on earth today? To properly answer that question you have to break it down into 2 different categories. The first being land animals, and secondly, the sea dwellers. The largest land animal is the African Bush Elephant
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11245816e1ff.jpg[/atsimg]

The African Bush Elephant is the largest living terrestrial animal, normally reaching 6 to 7.3 metres (19.7 to 24.0 ft) in length and 3 to 3.5 metres (9.8 to 11.5 ft) in height at the shoulder, and weighing between 6,000 to 9,000 kg (13,000 to 20,000 lb).

On the other hand the largest sea animal is the Blue Whale

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7e5157ac8a1.jpg[/atsimg]

At up to 32.9 metres (108 ft) in length and 172 metric tons (190 short tons) or more in weight

Why is it that the largest sea animal today is nearly 10 times heavier then the largest land animal? Simple, the seas buoyancy supports much of the weight of the whale allowing the body to grow much larger.

With this in mind, why is it that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such massive sizes?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/73a294ff6d0e.jpg[/atsimg]

The largest dinosaurs are many times the size of an elephant. And dinosaur skeletons aren't as well-designed for bearing weight as elephant skeletons. Dinosaurs are impossibly large for planet Earth, but their bones are proof that they must have existed

Impossible Dinosaurs

in order for the largest dinosaurs to function, gravity must have been at least 1/3 (and possibly as low as 1/4) what it is today

But how is it possible that the gravity of earth was only a fraction of what it is today? Well one theory coinscides with the electric universe theory.

The Electric Universe offers a different point of view. Gravity is not a constant. It's a variable that depends on the plasma environment. So Earth in the Mesozoic Era may have had less gravity than it has today

Another theory is the expanding earth theory.

The fossil record is full of animals that could not survive in today's gravity. Arthropods bigger than humans. 3-ft long dragonflies. 2M millipedes. Giant claw reveals the largest ever arthropod" (2007). To say nothing of the dinosaurs -- 350lb flying creatures, enormous saurapods, etc. No way in the world they could make it in today's world. Yet somehow, they used to. A smaller Earth would explain reduced gravity.

There are other theories that incorperate lowered gravity such as the hollow earth theory, and the Nibiru theory, but no theory has been validated.

So is it possible that 65 million years ago the earth had substantially less gravity then it does today? Does the sheer magnitude of the dinosaurs point to a lesser gravitational field?

A popular theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is an asteroid impact. Could it be possible that the impact not only extinguished the dinosaurs, but added a signifigant amount of mass to the earth as to dramatically increase the mass, and therefore increase the gravitational field?

What do you think ATS?

-E-

[edit on 7-12-2009 by MysterE]

I must admit that I'm a fan of the expanding earth theory, even though it still has a few major holes that need to be filled. A smaller earth with lower gravity seems to be the most obvious answer (to me anyway).

I'm also a fan of the electric universe theory. It's more simplistic than the current model and works for me!

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


I lean a bit more towards the electric universe theory, but admittedly I have not fully researched it. Whatever theory you subscribe to, it is interesting to think that the earth's gravitational field was much less.

-E-

I still think it has more to due with the air mixture. For example:

Nitrogen is an essential component of all proteins. Nitrogen deficiency most often results in stunted growth.

Given that the worlds atmosphere was higher in nitrogen, it caused plants and animals of all type to be bigger.

Animals and plants are still essentially the same, based on the "higher life form" principle. When say essentially, I mean we are made from the same building blocks.

For a simple selection of life forms requirments, see search results. you can also replace "Plant" with "Animal" in the linked link.

Point being, gravity as we know it to be, is based on mass and the energy of said mass. the earth has maintained the same approximate mass for eons. Suggesting it to have had a lower gravity based on none solid energy is a theory that needs plenty of work.

Not saying it is impossable, but based on science as we now it, at least how I know it, it is close to not very likely.

I haven't read too much into it, but I thought that there was a much higher level of oxygen in the atmosphere in prehistoric times, due to the larger vegetation. I know this resulted in much larger insects.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Certianly the atmosphere must have been dramatically different in the mesezoic era, and seems like another possible explaination for the dinosaurs massive growth. I would think that we would be able to get an idea of the conditions of the time through geologic evidence, but still we can only hypothesize as to how and why they existedas they did.

-E-

reply to post by MysterE


Too bad gravity is based on mass and not on size. Wow, some of the things on this site amaze me.

reply to post by ADVISOR


I agree, I also think it has to do with the ratio of elements in the air. We know for a fact that the oxygen ratio allowed for larger sizes of invertebrates such as arthropods. I don't see why this wouldn't also correspond for vertebrates.

However, I think it could just be how the animals evolved. Larger animals require much larger amounts of resources. If the number of resources became limited, size would eventually need to decrease. The reason why blue whales do not follow this rule is because krill is their primary food source, and there is a massive quantity of krill, even when calculated with the huge amount that blue whales consume and the number of blue whales around.

The Earth is not magically bigger today than it was millions of years ago. As others have correctly stated, the size of the dinosaurs is down to a different atmospheric composition. More oxygen providing for much greater muscular potential.

Exactly, think of neutron stars, tiny yet so extremly dense that we could not stand on or land anything on them without being crushed instantly.

Neutron Star

reply to post by SorensDespair


Like ADVISOR's post the oxygen theory is very plausible, but the possibility of a lower gavitational field remains possible.

A related issue, how did the Pterosaurs fly?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/371faa9ee6b4.jpg[/atsimg]

This study suggests that if pterosaurs larger than 41kg (or 5.1m wingspan) utilized narrow, albatross-like wings they would not be able to obtain sustainable flight in environments similar to the present. Therefore, if environmental factors such as strength of gravity and density of air have not changed over geological time

-E-

reply to post by vip867


Hell, even a black hole, which is a singularity but has massive gravitation.

This site is a trip sometimes.

reply to post by MysterE


Are you suggesting that the Earth's mass has greatly increased? Where did the extra mass come from? Expansion isn't an option, since that would imply that the same stuff was here, it's just getting bigger. So we'd need new stuff to be coming from somewhere else.... and a lot of it.

reply to post by Longtimegone


Surely in your infinite knowledge, you are aware that the further you are from the mass the less the effects of gravity are felt. Reguardless, I was meerly stating a current theory, not advocating it. Thanks for the obnixious post though.

-E-

Originally posted by Longtimegone
reply to post by MysterE

 

Too bad gravity is based on mass and not on size. Wow, some of the things on this site amaze me.

The expanding earth theory suggests the earth grew in size and mass. Do some research on the expanding earth theory before sounding off with assumptions. It's clear you are not familiar with it.

Back On Topic.

Regardless of the oxygen content, many have suggested that under our current gravitation, the weight of T-Rex's head would have snapped it's neck in two with any kind of abrupt movement, such is suggested in the predator model...

Even as a scavenger or forager it would have needed to be slow and deliberate in it's movements... and it would have needed to avoid fights at all costs.

Sure it's speculative, but so is our current understanding of earths past. I see no difference in supporting a new model over the old.

IRM

reply to post by SorensDespair


I was meerly posting an anomilous characteristic of the dinosaurs and showing some of the current theories. The atmospheric theory seems most plausible, but I like to keep an open mind.

-E-

well, we have bones, but do we have anything with actually how much tissue was connected to those bones? that would seem to be one factor. just how much muscle was packed on these beasts. I know we have some rather well preserved specimens here and there but is their structure the exception or the norm. actually i ask because i don't really know. has there been anything on the structures of the bones, could they have been formed different, like the variations we see here in the now?

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


I think that they are able to tell by examining the densities of different areas on the bones. Areas with greater density or strength are able to carry more weight. And through that I think they are able to come up with a pretty good idea of body structure.

That's getting into biomechanics, which isn't really my area of expertise. I'm sure someone on this forum is well versed, though.

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


Excellent point, this is from the linked article in the OP

Catastrophist Ted Holden has resurrected the controversy by examining the relationship of size, weight, and strength in animals. (His analysis was the basis for a documentary televised in Japan in Feb, 2004. See photo above.) The strength of muscle tissue is fairly constant among all species. Strength is proportional to the cross section of the muscle: If one muscle is two times the diameter of another, the first will be four times (the square of two) as strong. But weight increases with the volume: A muscle that's twice as big will weigh eight times (the cube of two) as much.

Holden computed the weight/strength ratio of a well-trained human weightlifter and scaled it up to the size of a dinosaur. The weightlifter soon became too big to lift his own weight. Strength, in its relationship with weight, imposes a limit on size. Holden's calculations indicate that the heaviest elephants of today approach that limit

-E-

reply to post by MysterE


If Dinosaur size were impossible every single paleontologist would either be incompetent or a liar or both. They might not have 100% cracked WHY the dinosaurs were so large but the bones and fossil evidence show that the dinosaurs definitely were that large.

I really don't like the expanding Earth theory because it requires new matter to be created and fundamental science tells us matter doesn't just spring from thin air, especially not complex matter like thousands of square miles of minerals gold oil and dirt that the crust of Earth is made from.

Whether it's Nitrogen in the atmosphere, an evolutionary defense mechanism, or the result of their coldbloodness (not sure where to stand on the cold versus warm blooded dino debate) I think it's safe to say dinosaurs could have and did exist at the size they appear without needed to rework everything we know about Earth's history and physical science in general.

I like the Electric Universe Theory, not sure how they would effect the whole dinosaur thing though (random image of a Dinosaur Ben Franklin flying a kite with a key popped into my head).





[edit on 7-12-2009 by Titen-Sxull]