It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Impossible Size of Dinosaurs

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snrRog
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Don't mean to steal the thread, but had to comment on this.

Link

snrRog


Quote from nasa link "This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake. "

lol




posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
Well may be it could. Dwarf star matter is so incredibly dense a teaspoonful of it would weigh many tons. Is it just possible that what fall to Earth and killed the Dinosaurs was a chunk of dwarf star matter which now sits at our planets core. If it was dense enough it could cause the mass increase needed for the gravity jump and the chunk could only be a foot across or so.


You may be thinking of neutron star matter. Anyway, here's the problem with your theory. The only reason neutron star matter can get so dense is that it is inside of the star. The compressive force from the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter causes that huge density. If you somehow managed to pull an Earth-weighted chunk of matter out of a neutron star, it would no longer have the huge compressive force keeping it in a small package, and it would basically explode. And even if you somehow managed to stop it from exploding, it would eventually settle into a "normal" density.

There's an additional problem too. If you really want to double gravity (g = GM/R^2), you'd either have to double mass without significantly increasing volume (and thus radius), or really increase both by a large amount. So you would want really, really dense elements to come calling. Interestingly enough, iridium is one of the densest elements (if not the densest), and is connected to the "impact which killed the dinosaurs." Just for fun, I ran the math on how much iridium it would have taken to double Earth's gravity (assuming no change in gravitational constant G) and it would have required an addition of 3.28 * 10^24 kg of iridium to the "old Earth", or a chunk of iridium almost twice the diameter of the moon. (lol.)

Of course, this seems preposterous. However, another possibility to reduce the apparent gravity of the Earth (at least near the Equator) would be if the Earth had been spinning much faster. We do know that the early Earth MUST have been spinning faster, to conserve angular momentum, since the moon was closer then. With Earth's current rotational speed, you are currently .034 m/s^2 lighter than at the poles, or only about 0.34%. To feel 50% lighter at the equator, assuming about the same radius, Earth would have to be spinning about 12 times as fast as it is now, making for about a 2-hour day!

I could try to calculate just how long ago the Earth might have been spinning that fast, but I fear it would be based on too much speculative archaeological data. IMO, more concrete evidence for this theory of a faster-spinning Earth reducing apparent weight, would be if there is a correlation between the size of land creatures and proximity to the equator. Anyone know if there is such a thing?



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome

Originally posted by snrRog
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Don't mean to steal the thread, but had to comment on this.

Link

snrRog


Quote from nasa link "This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake. "

lol


You may want to provide a link to that statement as I have yet to see it on the NASA site linked previously.

I also fail to understand what you are getting at by saying it's "in system". As before where you and I were going back and forth because I misunderstood your intent, I do not wish to do so again. I, and most-likely others, can only assume that you mean in our solar system.

Your enlarged text statements said that the supernova remnant (not dwarf remnant) is 25,000ly away and the galactic center is ~27,000±1,000 ly (which means Approximately 27,000 Light Years plus or minus 1,000 Light Years). So if this supernova remnant is approximately 25,000 Light Years away, then it's located near the galactic center and is most definitely NOT in our solar system, nor would it be approaching us as it's way too far away and too close to Sagittarius A* (the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy)

Our solar system extends out for a decent bit...but the edge of it isn't even 1 Light Year, let alone 25,000...so if I'm mistaken in what you're meaning, there might need to be some clarification.



new topics
 
31
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join