It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The Impossible Size of Dinosaurs

page: 4
31
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:31 PM

Hmmmm.... Some interesting theories

Have you ever heard about the multiple moon theory?

I remember learning in college that without the moon, gravity on the Earth would be completely different, and even the weather would be extreme, causing all creatures to grow low to the ground like snakes and crocs

My point being, if the moon was at one point at a different distance from the Earth, or if we had multiple moons, perhaps this may affect the size of creatures you speak of

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:48 PM

I just want to point out that the Earths mass is ALWAYS growing.

On average, the earth gains 40,000 metric tons per year from space debris.

So to do some math.

65 million years x 40,000 tons per year = 2,600,000,000,000 meaning since the time of the dinosaurs, earth has gained roughly 2.6 trillion metric tons. Although, compared to the current weight of earth that is roughly only a 3% gain.

so the earth has always been gaining mass. Who really knows how much the average was millions of years ago before man. It could be a lot more?

so my guess we could an increase in gravity, and a change in the atmospheric conditions that previously allowed much larger life forms to grow. However i do believe the earth could have many times gained much more than the average 40k tons a year. Just due to the fact that (or so ive read) the dinosaurs would need a much lower gravity for their bone integrity.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:10 PM

I havn't heard that one yet, another moon would certianly have huge effects on the life on earth. I guess the question would be where did the moon go?

-E-

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:51 PM
Oh sorry, I had to leave for a while.....

Had a conversation with a friend of mine who knows more details on this than I do... but I will give it my best shot.

Theorizing that in the prehistoric age, the pressure of the atmosphere was at two bar which would result in the larger than 'normal' size of animals and plants. After all, at the size dinosaurs would grow to, the vegetation on earth had to be quite a bit different in order to sustain such large life forms.

Have any of you heard about that man who grew a tomato plant in a two bar pressurized warehouse? He eventually had to move in scaffolding to hold the plant as it grew to such a humongous size under that pressure.

In medicine, the two bar pressure system is used to heal bones and wounds at a much faster rate than it would normally heal in our current air pressure.

Another example, if you put a human being in a two bar pressurized room on a treadmill, you can run for extended periods of time without tiring.

There is almost no way dinosaurs would have been able to survive and breathe with the size of their nostrils in our current atmospheric pressure...

I will have to look this up, but the theory is that there used to exist a crust of ice around the earths atmosphere in the prehistoric ages. Hence, the great flood and the referral in the bible to 'waters above the firmament.'

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:17 PM
its simple. there was much much more oxygen in the air back then. higher oxygen levels = bigger animals.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by MR BOB]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:18 PM

Very intriguing! Sounds like a possibility

-E-

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by MR BOB
its simple. there was much much more oxygen in the air back then. higher oxygen levels = bigger animals.

If you had taken 5 minutes to read the thread you would have seen that the increased oxygen alone could not account for the increased growth since the large animals would not be able to support their massive weight.

-E-

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:47 PM

Originally posted by VonDoomen

On average, the earth gains 40,000 metric tons per year from space debris.

65 million years x 40,000 tons per year = 2,600,000,000,000 meaning since the time of the dinosaurs, earth has gained roughly 2.6 trillion metric tons. Although, compared to the current weight of earth that is roughly only a 3% gain.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.sciencedaily.com...

Each year nearly 40,000 tons of cosmic dust fall to Earth from outer space. Now, the first successful chronological study of extraterrestrial dust in Antarctic ice has shown that this amount has remained largely constant over the past 30,000 years

So that amounts to 2,600,000,000,000 tons of mass gained by the Earth over the last 65 million years if that rate was constant and if anything it was probably slightly higher in the past so that number is probably a little bit larger. So could that make a difference? While that sounds like a lot, compare that to the Earth's mass of 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 short tons hypertextbook.com... and it's not enough to make a lot of difference, the percentage increase is so small it's insignificant.

When I do the math I get 3.94 x 10^-10 which is about 0.0000000004 or 0.00000004%

You got 3%, one of our maths must be wrong. We agree on the numerator but you didn't show what you used as the denominator.

I think the rate was probably higher in the past, but even if that number was twice as large it's still insignificant.
-------------------

The denser atmosphere theory is interesting and its possible the Earth had a denser atmosphere in the past, we know that is true for Mars so why not Earth?

But the problem is that even if the atmosphere was denser, an object only gets the buoyancy equal to the amount of air it displaces:

en.wikipedia.org...

The net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body.

So even if air was denser back then which seems possible, it was still relatively light, and not enough to provide much buoyancy like a denser fluid such as water would. The buoyancy effect of a 2 bar atmosphere would be significant for a balloon, but not that big a deal for land animals. Just compare the density of air at 20deg C to water at 20deg C:

en.wikipedia.org...
water: 998.2071 kg/m^3
air: 1.204 kg/m^3

So air is 829 times less dense than water now,and even at 2 bar, it would have still been over 400 times less dense than water.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by SorensDespair
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.

I recall watching a Discovery show on the 'largest insects' and it said that the largest bugs are as big as they could get because of all the energy required with their multiple legs and exoskeletons, their limitations I recall had to do more with gravity.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:05 PM

This would also explain the "gaints". You might wanna do some research on them too. There are many reports and newspaper articles about them, but this is suppressed archeology, no remains have been made public.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:07 PM
LOL,

Dinosaurs were extremely well designed. There is no need for hollow Earth or weaker gravity theories. Their bones are filled with air holes, they are light and strong, just like birds (because Birds are Dinosaurs and Dinosaurs are Birds). Their enviroment lead to some species reaching great size. Lots of food and escalating size war with predators can do do wonders for evolution to push the bounds of size.

Additionally land Mammels have grown to much larger sizes then we see today as well.

I present a really big Mammal

A Rhino?

Changing atmospheric (enviromental) conditions also allowed insects to grow large at least once in Earth history.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Helmkat]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Longtimegone

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

Mass doesn't dictate density, but density dictates size.

Peace

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:21 PM

When typing the thread I kept thinking about the quote from the Bible, "there were giants in those days". The only reason I didn't include it was that the time of the dinosaurs was so much longer ago.

From what I read, and quoted in the OP, the dinosaur skelatons were not as well designed as the elephant, who's size is largest land animal today

Damn!

-E-

[edit on 8-12-2009 by MysterE]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by MR BOB
its simple. there was much much more oxygen in the air back then. higher oxygen levels = bigger animals.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by MR BOB]

How could there have been more oxygen?

I mean unless gasses dissipate into space, the only thing they can do is be changed through the atmosphere.

The oxygen would of been more dense but there wouldn't be anymore then there is today, just a more robust version.

Peace

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:35 PM

Sorry to say that Elephants are not better designed then Sauropods.

Clear Mammel bias at work

Dinosaurs have some of the most elegant design to carry weight that mother nature has ever created.

Sauropods

While Elephants are certainly a fine animal and fit their niche well, they are not any better designed then any other animal for its own niche. Right now conditions do not favor Elephants growing larger but if they did you can bet convergent evolution would push them to some of the same design solutions Sauropods developed.

Dinosaurs have been a lifelong interest for me, I can't get enough

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:42 PM

hey i skimmed it... i was looking for the word oxygen.

i think it played a big part in their size. and the 2 bar thing. thats interesting i think that they are both interlinked.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:49 PM

Several scientists have attempted to address the question of why sauropods attained such huge sizes. Gigantic sizes were reached early in sauropod evolution, going back to the first true sauropods in the late Triassic Period. According to Kenneth Carpenter, whatever evolutionary pressure caused large size must have therefore been present from the early origins of the group

So we really don't know why they grew so large. Are you saying that the large dinosaurs could exist in todays conditions?

-E-

[edit on 8-12-2009 by MysterE]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:54 PM
anyone ever considered that fossilisation actually makes the bones bigger?
...as the bones are replaced with rock magically. they grow?

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by MysterE

Several scientists have attempted to address the question of why sauropods attained such huge sizes. Gigantic sizes were reached early in sauropod evolution, going back to the first true sauropods in the late Triassic Period. According to Kenneth Carpenter, whatever evolutionary pressure caused large size must have therefore been present from the early origins of the group

So we really don't know why they grew so large

-E-

With any extinct lifeform we can only use science to guide our speculations. When I was a little guy I used to grab any willing adult and have them read to me about prehistoric life. Dinos, Pterosaurs, Sea creatures, Amphibians, fish, Mammels! I could not get enough. When science began to rediscover (yes it was rediscovered) the connection between birds and Dinos I was soooo thrilled.

As Humans we have this stereotype of Dinosaurs as these huge lumbering "creatures" who got knocked out of the race because they were stupid. Now we see the reality a little closer to the truth, We Mammels lost out because Dinosaurs were better designed for the enviroment in which they lived. However they didn't all go splat! Only the big land dwellers did (oh and lets not forget this happens to any large land animal, we mammels are not excluded from extinction events).

In fact Dinosaurs are still around us and very successful. Every time you feed your Canary or Admire the Bald Eagle as the symbol of America, you are in fact looking at a dinosaur.

Dinosaurs are Birds?

Sure there are still some questions but it expands the mind to throw away old notions and see things in a different light.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Helmkat]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:12 PM

Kent Hovin speculated that earth may have had an higher atmospheric pressure to, and may have been under an ice canapee, as the moon of Jupiter Europa.

if it possible there, one cant exlude the possibility of it could be here also.

Remember the solar sytem was not like it is now since forever, it chances, planets move etc.
The Tiamat/Lucifer theory..

new topics

top topics

31