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.
Originally posted by Helmkat
Though I am not 100% convinced that if 65 million years were to pass after our extinction anything would be left to say "These animals had a civilization".
Anyway I've been watching some new Dino programming on the Discovery channel. Fun stuff, I'd never heard before the notion of Hadrosaurs using low frequency sound as a weapon. Still skeptical on that but it does sound cool.
Additionally there was lots of refernces to the bone structures that allowed for the great size, while I knew that already it is cool to see cgi anatomical models.
Originally posted by MysterE
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.
[edit on 7-12-2009 by MysterE]
Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by MysterE
When do scientists say the moon came to be?, I can't remember. Does science really know?
If a new twist on a decades-old theory is right, conditions in the early solar system suggest the moon formed inside Mercury's orbit and migrated out until it was roped into orbit around Earth.
Paluxysaurus' massive pelvis and its sacrum have never before been viewed by the public, he says. Its ilium, the largest bone in the pelvis, is similar to that of titanosaurids of the Late Cretaceous, mainly found in South America. However, one titanosaurid, called Alamosaurus, entered North America and is known from Big Bend National Park in southwest Texas.
Originally posted by sirnex
@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.
A smaller expanding Earth does not necessarily mean more denser Earth.
@SorensDespair
Hell, even a black hole, which is a singularity but has massive gravitation.
This site is a trip sometimes.
Does a pebble have more gravitational mass than a mountain? Please keep logical fallacies out of the discussion, especially unfounded one's.
@SorensDespair
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.
The extra mass could be accreted from space.
I'm not about to go through everything you posted in that tirade about ignorance (which itself is riddled with ignorance). But I will point out a few things.
I personally don't know how they got to be that size, and really any explanation at this point is possible until one is proven to be true.
I don't know if the expanding earth theory is valid, I've only recently looked into it and am still researching it, but the implications of the electric universe theory does imply a possibility to an expanding earth being valid.
First, the electric universe hypothesis is not valid and has been shown to be false many times. Any physicist will tell you so.
www.tim-thompson.com...
A smaller, expanding Earth would certainly mean a "more denser"(sic) Earth, unless the mass was added later. You suggest that it is being added from "space", but don't provide any actual source, as if "space" was a magical place that does magical things.
And I don't even know what you're talking about with the pebble/mountain comment, but I'll try to address it anyway. The reason your analogy doesn't work is because the density of a pebble and a mountain are roughly the same. The density of a neutron star and Earth are vastly different. More mass = more gravity.
F = G * (m_1 m_2)/(r^2)
Originally posted by SorensDespair
First, the electric universe hypothesis is not valid and has been shown to be false many times. Any physicist will tell you so.
www.tim-thompson.com...
Originally posted by SorensDespair
reply to post by sirnex
A mountain contains more mass than a pebble, but the density is roughly the same. If you compressed the mass of a mountain into the size of a pebble, the gravitational pull would remain the same as it was when it was the size of a mountain.
Of course it's mass that affects gravitational force (remember F=G(m_1*m_2)/r^2 )
What I said was that if the mass of a mountain were compressed to the size of a pebble, the gravitational force of the mountain (in pebble size) would remain the same because the mass is the same. That's why the neutron star example is important.
the abstract problems with the Electric Universe model is the same with all pseudoscience. I'm not going to get into an EUM debate here, but there's little evidence supporting it and plenty of evidence against it. Although I'm going to assume you hold a bias, going by your avatar.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SorensDespair
Of course it's mass that affects gravitational force (remember F=G(m_1*m_2)/r^2 )
What I said was that if the mass of a mountain were compressed to the size of a pebble, the gravitational force of the mountain (in pebble size) would remain the same because the mass is the same. That's why the neutron star example is important.
OK, I'm still not getting what you are saying. Despite compressing to the size of a pebble, the mass is still the same. That mass being more than the mass of the pebble, so even if the density of the pebble remains in an uncompressed state in comparison to the compressed state of the mountain, the mountain still has more mass despite being the size of a pebble. If mass is what affects gravitational force, then how is the same mass despite compression all of a sudden equal to the less massive pebble that isn't compressed?
Originally posted by SorensDespair
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SorensDespair
Of course it's mass that affects gravitational force (remember F=G(m_1*m_2)/r^2 )
What I said was that if the mass of a mountain were compressed to the size of a pebble, the gravitational force of the mountain (in pebble size) would remain the same because the mass is the same. That's why the neutron star example is important.
OK, I'm still not getting what you are saying. Despite compressing to the size of a pebble, the mass is still the same. That mass being more than the mass of the pebble, so even if the density of the pebble remains in an uncompressed state in comparison to the compressed state of the mountain, the mountain still has more mass despite being the size of a pebble. If mass is what affects gravitational force, then how is the same mass despite compression all of a sudden equal to the less massive pebble that isn't compressed?
??? that's what I'm saying. The mass is different, therefore the gravitational pull is different. Size doesn't matter. That's why a neutron star is more massive and has more gravity despite it being about the same size as Earth. That's why a smaller, denser Earth would keep the same gravitational force. I don't think we're really arguing here.
I don't think we're really arguing here.
@SorensDespair
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.
The extra mass could be accreted from space.