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: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

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".


I've seen those specials, and as an anthropologist who has done some archaeological field work I want to go find the person who wrote the script and whack them over the head with some of the papers describing temporary campsites and artifacts that date back millions of years -- a culture which had only fire and some stone tools (and possibly shells worn as jewelry and skins or grass clothing.)


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.


Some of the programming on the dinos is REALLY (really!) bad. The bit about hadrosaurs using sound as a defense mechanism has actually been around for awhile and is a little misleading since there are a whole buncha different types of hadrosaurs (including flatheaded ones.) The lambeosaurines are the ones thought to use sound, while the hadrosaurines had flat heads and no resonating chambers.

They're pretty cool dinos, and reasonably big. Shantungosaurus was 40 feet tall or so... think "three story building."




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

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]


Mabey because in those times the Earth was further away from the sun preventing the sun from influencing the Earths gravitational field. As Earth came close to the sun the creatures began to be influenced by the sun and earths gravitational pulls. Just my 2 cents


[edit on 12/15/09 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 

No this is a very good theory. I believe the only way for these guys to be so big is lesser gravity and possibly combined with a different mix of atmospheric components.
No moon would lessen the earth's gravity. Could the sudden existence of the moon account for their extinction? When do scientists say the moon came to be?, I can't remember. Does science really know? How do we know there wasn't another planetary body that affected our gravity, we don't. I am so tired of hearing it was their metabolism and large consumption of food. If that were true, people with high metabolism that consume a lot of food would be the giants, well as we all know this is not the case.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

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?


Funny you mention that, I had a thread on an alternative theory about the moons origion. The theory suggests the moon origionated in Mercury's orbit!
Controversial Moon Origin Theory Rewrites History

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.


-E-



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



You may be interested in this article.
World's first skeletal mount of Paluxysaurus jonesi reveals new biology


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.


-E-



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Yes I know what you mean when you say "really bad". I should imagine that if I hear something that makes me go "no, no, no!" then at your level of knowledge you hear even more. Sorry I mixed up my duckbills, I forgot the crested ones were Lambeosaurs (ack spelling hurts!)

One of my pet peves, refering to all prehistoric life as Dinosaurs!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I take back my last statement saying the earth is not hollow.

After reviewing seismology data on the subject, the earth may very well indeed be hollow.

The transmission and distribution of p-waves around the globe can be explained in a hollow earth model, s-waves stopping are also well explained by a hollow earth model.

I do know the earth is expanding, that much is blatantly clear by the sea floor data.

Gravity however is not well explained by "bent space". Electric gravity theories are superior and well explain how the gravitational force of earth could have drastically changed over the course of earth's history.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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.

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)

______________________________________________________________________



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SorensDespair
 



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.


If you don't take out of context and misrepresent me, then there is no 'ignorance' on my behalf at all.

here, let's explain a little better for those who lack reading comprehension and just feel the general need to irritate me.


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.


Here is where I am reserving judgment. This is called open mindedness to different possible scenarios. I am ignorant for being open minded.... wonderful, I can't win when it come's to ATSIS.


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.


Here is where I explain that I don't know if the theory is valid, but that if it were then it would allow for such a scenario. Whereas the ATSIS members who responded just regurgitate ignorance rather than open mindedness. *IF* it were valid, then I can understand the OP's point.

So, by treating the OP with respect to his views, I am ignorant. ATSIS strikes again! Am I on the most top wanted board at the ATSIS Headquarters?


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...


I never claimed it was valid, if you were capable of comprehending what you read, you would realize this was never an assertion of mine.


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.


I never discussed space as no such magical place doing magical things. Do you understand what accretion means? Perhaps that is the problem?


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)


A mountain contains more mass than a pebble.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

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...



That's not true.

Tim Thompson is an idiot.

He mixes and matches models in a vain attempt to discredit the overwhelming facts that indicate the Sun is indeed electrical in nature.

You can read a full rejoinder on the subject written by an electrical engineering professor here.


And a rebuttal of the BAUT criticism here. This link also provides additional links to the actual models in question as well as a layman's explanation.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

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.


I could have sworn it was mass that affected gravitational pull, not density alone.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


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.

And to the electric universe guy:

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.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
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?


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.


From my reading and understanding of the two viewpoints, plasma cosmology makes a lot of sense and analogous patterns emerge in plasma fields. We can't deny that the sun IS plasma. The standard model has always been a pretty poor representation in my opinion, and this was before learning about plasma cosmology. How does cold dust coalesce into stars and planets?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

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.


Mass and weight are confused to be somewhat the same, but are actually different properties. Think of mass as how much gravitational force an object has and weight is the influence of that gravity, so though your mass does not change your weight will change based on the gravity, or lack of, around you.This is why size does not matter when it comes to mass, and if you look at a star, whether it is the size of our sun or compacted down into a brown dwarf, it has the same mass, and so the gravity is the same, but the size has changed as did the density. So unless the earth has gained a lot of mass in some way it is basically the same mass/gravity for billions of years.

The earth has a liquid core and due to its spinning we have magnetic poles that protect the atmosphere. When you look at a planet like Mars that is smaller and also less dense than earth, its core had solidified a long time ago, and so it has lost it magnetic protection and also the majority of its atmosphere/water, and one day the earth will be like Mars too.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Once a student in my physics class confused weight and mass when asking a question and my professor flipped out. I'd never confuse the two.

My mass will never change, but floating in space, I am weightless.

Edit: Rather, my weight would be greatly decreased compared to what it is on Earth, depending on how close I was to another massive body.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by SorensDespair]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SorensDespair
 



I don't think we're really arguing here.


I agree as I didn't raise any issue over density or so I thought.


@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.


Doesn't seem to be an aspect of my reply. In the expanding earth theory, they aren't discussing a smaller earth with today's mass at all. I think the misunderstanding and argument between you and I arose directly from a misunderstanding of the theory itself.

Expanding Earth Theory doesn't postulate a smaller denser Earth with today's mass. Hopefully now we can come to some degree of understanding?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Are you guys still going on about this? Jeez, dinos were bigger because there was a lot more energy going around back then. Plants were simpler to eat (hence bigger herbivores) and prey was simpler to hunt and kill.

Heck, it's even been said that the famous T-rex was nothing more than a scavenger. It just needed to sniff out were something had died and go there, scaring off everything else with it's immense size.

The only reason a dino that size wouldn't survive today is because it's pray would've gotten so adapted (read: hard to catch) it'd die within days.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The Earth is not expanding. I suggest you look up "plate tectonics" at some point because the concept is not especially difficult to grasp. Every year we can measure by satellite continental drift. Everywhere on earth where new crust is being extruded (such as mid-atlantic rift), there are other areas in which it is being pushed down. That is why there is no portion of the ocean floor that is older than 100 million years. The crust found under the oceans is particularly thin compared to that under land masses, so it is naturally driven underneath the continents. The Earth cannot grow in size because that would require the introduction of new matter.

The reason dinosaurs grew so large is because at the time they existed, the continents were all located close to the equator and were home to abundant supplies of edible plants, and the climate was much warmer and the atmosphere far richer in oxygen - all essential requirements for sustaining a large animal. Dinosaurs skeletons were strong but not massive, so their weight could be supported without any help from water. Brachiosaurs great neckbones, for example, are so deeply excavated that they function as a lightweight framework of struts and plates.

The OP and source obviously know nothing about dinosaur skeletons or the Earth at the time the dinosaurs lived. I don't have any respect for people who purposely try to spread ignorance. If you don't understand something, why don't you try to educate yourself rather than inventing ridiculous scenarios? With all the time wasted writing up this nonsense, you could have actually learned something. Dinosaur size was not "impossible." You just don't care to learn how or why they they grew so large. In my opinion, you're only one step above the idiots who think man and dinosaurs coexisted in a Flintstones world.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by andrewh7]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join