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: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


I have read some replies but not all. So if anyone come with this explanation later then sorry.
Here is my understanding.

The Earth rotates - this causes one force. This force depends on the speed of rotation. This force has opposite direction to the gravity force and so it compensates the gravity.

If the speed of the Earth was much higher than at present then it would compensate the gravity force at much larger extent.

Next fact. The speed of Earth rotation decreaces every year.

My theory is following.
In the past when dinosaurs lived the Earth rotated at much higher speed.
Then some catastrophic event occurred (possibly Earth was hit by some large object) and this caused reduction of momentum (the principle of momentum conservation: force cases momentum change) and as a result Earth's speed decreased. Smaller rotation means smaller compensation of gravity force which is force of attraction and depends on bodies weights and is constant. The result was relatively higher gravity force.

If course there could also be some other effects of this catastrophic event - change in air density which additionally caused changes.

Or maybe there was also the flood effect (from the water accumulated above) which caused increase of Earth's weight and thus reduced the rotation speed.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by vip867
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


We could land on them at night!!!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacekPL
reply to post by MysterE
 

My theory is following.
In the past when dinosaurs lived the Earth rotated at much higher speed.
Then some catastrophic event occurred (possibly Earth was hit by some large object) and this caused reduction of momentum (the principle of momentum conservation: force cases momentum change) and as a result Earth's speed decreased. Smaller rotation means smaller compensation of gravity force which is force of attraction and depends on bodies weights and is constant. The result was relatively higher gravity force.


That's actually one of the better theories I've read in this thread, as far as the physics goes (but perhaps not the geological evidence)! The earth has a circumference of roughly 24,000 miles and rotates one every 24 hours so that's about 1000 miles an hour at the furthest point from the rotational axis. The space shuttle travels a slightly larger distance once every 90 minutes or so, and that is enough to cancel out the 95% gravity at that altitude. So if the earth were to rotate every 2 hours, a creature near the equator would be not quite weightless but would have far less apparent weight than the same creature at the poles.

It's logical to think the Earth has slowed down, it probably has, but not much from natural deceleration. So if there was a catastrophe which slowed it down, where's the evidence for that? The dinos disappeared 65 million years ago, and that's recent enough in geologic time such that the evidence for an impact might still exist. The further back in time we go, the more likely it is the impact evidence would be erased by geologic forces.

I've suspected the Earth may have started spinning due to an impact like the one that formed the moon perhaps, so another large impact could speed it up or slow it down. But if there had been an impact that large within the last 65 million years, I think it would have been even larger than the impact at Chicxulub which is thought to have caused the last dinosaur extinction. For a long time we couldn't even see these impacts but we are getting better at it as this image shows:

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...



The outlines of the structure, called the Chicxulub crater (named for a local village), are visible in the above representation of gravity and magnetic field data from the region. In addition to having the right age, the crater is consistent with the impact of an asteroid of sufficient size (6 to 12 miles wide) to cause the global disruptions.


So now all your theory needs is some evidence, such as that.

Also one thing to consider is that an impact that significantly changed the speed of the Earth's rotation would have an effect which could be estimated with some accuracy based on the mass and speed of the impactor. Depending on how much you want to change the rotational speed, the impact could be so large as to wipe out 99.99% or maybe even 100% of life instead of just 75% of species like the Chicxulub event, and the crater would be far larger.

So I would summarize my opinion of your theory as follows:

-Did the earth's rotational speed ever get affected by impactors?
Almost certainly.

-Did such an impact happen in the last 65 million years?
There's no evidence for this and even the Chicxulub impact would have had a very tiny effect on the Earth's rotational speed. So, probably not, but I reserve the right to change my opinion if a new discovery is made of an impact site thousands of miles across, which is about what I think it would take to make a big change in rotational speed. (In contrast the Chicxulub crater is 112 miles across).



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Interesting post thank you


This is not my area of expertise but I think the answer to your questions, which apply to some and possibly all dinosaurs are:

- They were constructed with hollow bones like birds of today. Try comparing the mass of a similarly sized modern bird and mammal.

- They had much more efficient lungs than mammals, again like birds with their 'breath through' design with air storage in the bones.

- As reptiles they carried little body fat and has much lower energy requirement per kg than mammals.

- Humans are often used for a comparison for strength vs mass. First of all humans are mammals with dense bones and an inefficient respiratory design. Secondly humans have a genetic defect that gives us weak muscles. A chimp with lower diameter muscles is approx 6 times stronger than a human.

As is usual with science, having enough source data can make the difference between impossible and possible. It was once told that it was 'impossible' for bumble bees to fly.

I'm not sure any of the more exotic environmental conditions postulated are required.


[edit on 8/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to JacekPL & All posters in this thread
 


Another great theory! This is the reason I am a member of ATS. When I constructed this thread, I thought I had it all figured out, but there have been so many excellent posts that have opened my eyes to other options. Sure there are some posts that were not very constructive (to say the least), but for the most part we have had an intelligent discussion on an ancient mystery!

Bravo ATS!
-E-

[edit on 8-12-2009 by MysterE]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JacekPL
 


I'm no scientist ... but common sense (and I believe basic physics too) would dictate that any impact, large enough to slow the earth's rotation by any SIGNIFICANT amount, would have also changed it's trajectory/orbit ... Think pool/billiards/snooker.

I'm talking about an impact large enough to cause a large enough rotational speed reduction to in turn reduce gravity substantially.... Those dinosaur bones are damn BIG!!


But I'm probably wrong



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE

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?


I think the people who worked on the theory never laid hands on a dinosaur bone and don't know beans about anatomy and physiology. I have.





They're huge (that's a single neckbone you see there, and the beast stood about the height of a 3 story building.)

So how were they able to move? Their bones are "penumatacized" -- built like a cheeto but on a large scale. Individual bones (when not fossilized) would have been fairly light, and there was a system of air sacs (I have found traces of them myself) throughout the body. When alive, my Alamosaurus weighed considerably less than a blue whale. I haven't uploaded (and won't) all 100+ pictures I took while working on the fossil, but I do have crossections of the bones and in places there's only 15% bone and 85% hollow space. The bones are fairly light -- I uncovered a lot of strands of bone that were the thickness of a human hair.

It's the same reason that an eagle weighs only 7 pounds in spite of its rather large size.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
reply to JacekPL & All posters in this thread
 

This is the reason I am a member of ATS. When I constructed this thread, I thought I had it all figured out...
Bravo ATS!


Yes sometimes ATS threads can elicit a great discussion and a varied range of interesting theories that give food for thought. And no 'supernatural' responses so far.

I'm off thinking how we can determine the past rotational speed of the Earth now...



[edit on 8/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Years ago, and I mean years ago, I watched a tv show/documentary and they showed regular sized piranha in one tank, and giant piranha in another. The reason provided as to why the oiranha in the other tanked experienced gigantism was due to increased oxygen. I've been searching google and youtube, and if I find the vid I'll make sure I post it.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Great pics Byrd, and if the name "alamosaurus" is an indicator of where it was found, then i'm its neighbor! My only question is even if the bone were able to shed (optimisticly) 50% of its weight with an honey-comb-esq pattern, houw would the rest of the body be supported? I presume the majority of the mass of a dinosaur would rest in the muscles, organs, skin, etc. which i doubt had weight shedding characteristics.

-E-



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
duplicate post

[edit on 8-12-2009 by MysterE]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EMPIRE
 


I agree, increased oxygen will produce lager animals. I once read that after a workout you should drink water b/c it gets oxygern to the muscles and in turn promotes growth. But the question that has me on the fence is could the massive dinosaurs have functioned without a signifigantly lesser gravitational pull, or much more dense atmosphere? We know that water can support the piranah, but by todays standards a massive dinosaur could not survive... i think

-E-



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Since we have the fossils of giant insects, dinosaurs, and mammals we must conclude that the environment they lived in had a higher percentage of oxygen, and higher atmospheric pressure. Since insects breathe through holes in their exoskeletons, their size is limited by the surface area to volume ratio. For instance, a cube's surface area is greater than its volume, until the sides have a length of 7. An 18 inch wingspan dragonfly would simply sufficate in our current atmosphere. The largest dinosaur's nostrils are no bigger than a current horse's, so they would sufficate as well.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
reply to post by Byrd
 


Great pics Byrd, and if the name "alamosaurus" is an indicator of where it was found, then i'm its neighbor!


Comes from the cottonwood tree (Spanish name, alamo) at a spring near where the first one was found. This one's from Big Bend and is the very first sequence of adult vertebra found. It's huge. I just got a new one to work on today and it's much larger than the one shown in the picture (about 1 1/2 times the size of that, which was near the head.)


My only question is even if the bone were able to shed (optimisticly) 50% of its weight with an honey-comb-esq pattern, houw would the rest of the body be supported? I presume the majority of the mass of a dinosaur would rest in the muscles, organs, skin, etc. which i doubt had weight shedding characteristics.


Same as birds. The muscle mass may not be as great as you think. Estimates of the weight of large tricerotopsians are in the range of 2 tons, T Rex and others like it ran 2-3 tons, Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus at about 25 tons, and I believe we estimated Alamosaurus at 10-12 tons.

The bones are beautiful, with all sorts of bracings and channels that enabled efficient distribution of force. You'd love having a look in the lab where I volunteer -- the detail on the bones is amazing.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
well im not sure were to start

first the official story about dinosaure is that they die in a cataclysm
so my question is would a massive meteor craching on earth would increas3e the size and mass pf the planet

and second by what i understand

the bones we find are fossilize(petrified)so how do we determine how strong they where whene they are not compose with the same meterial

just a few question.....



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I'm not going to lie, I thought you were refering to San Antonio (Alamo)! Big Bend is a beautiful place, been there twice (not enough) Funny thing,the first time I went in 89' as a kid our car broked own next to a bear crossing sign! I was a bit freaked out. But nevertheless, I am envious of your work, and certianly have alot to learn about the ancient inhabitants of the earth. I wonderis there anything anomylous about the geology surrounding the fossils you find?

-E-



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
nice thread.

i just cant rap my head around simple physics.

how such a huge creature lets say Trex (he had to run fast) would be able to do fast turns w/o breaking its neck?

it would work in lower gravity.

dense atmosphere makes alot of sense too since 65mil y ago earth had 1000ppm but its just my brain rambling
i have no clue how gases are captured in ice
nor i have any clue how you would be able to tell by ice density about pressure and gravity is said era/time frame.

are there a ways to measure such things?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Regarding expanding Earth theory - it is a very valid one, yet official "science" ignores it completely...why? It is funny how "it is not possible to create matter out of nothing" is a ground stone of science when they need it...yet, it is possible to create the Universe out of Big-Bang, out of ABSOLUTE NOTHING...and we are SURE that nobody ordered, coded, created the "Big Bang", but it came out of chaos, without any will. Science KNOWS that. How, exactly?

They KNOW what is inside the Earth, and they KNOW how Universe was NOT created. That is some serious knowledge...I wish I had that.





[edit on 9-12-2009 by herbivore]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SorensDespair
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.



Maybe large dense asteroids hitting earth would increase the density over millions of years. Sorry if this point has been already raised I have not had time to read all of this fascinating thread.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by tarifa37]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by herbivore
Regarding expanding Earth theory - it is a very valid one, yet official "science" ignores it completely...why?


Because anyone who took geology in high school can tell you that the "theory" falls to pieces if you walk out to the road cuts or quarries in your area and looking at the layers of rocks -- while holding a book on the geology of the area. He wouldn't know an igneous from a metamorphic rock.

Everything -- from the fossils in the rocks to the depths of the bodies of water to the difference in animals on the globe -- proves how lame the idea is.

I'm trying to be kind, I really am. But he's so arrogant and he's so convinced that he doesn't need to read up on anything at all ... he just needs to come up with a great idea and it MUST be right because it was his idea.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join