The impossible solution to Big Dynosaur Size

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Elephants are so big and heavy, they cannot even run. Their fastest gait is more like a lumbering fast walk.


For some reason, it only clicked now: Smaller animals are nimbler that larger animals, and so there should be a size limit where the difficulty in movement negatively affects 'life'.


Originally posted by CaptChaos
The only possible explanations are: gravity was somehow less back then, or the Earth was smaller, as in the Expanding Earth theories.


As I understand, the science community isn't that clued up on gravity to begin with? I gave the expanding earth theory a read a while back, but maybe this is cause for a re-visit.
Great Post, good read




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
It's true that with even the LEAST BIT of research, such as a quick Google search, you will find out this is TRUE. Not the ten foot unicorns, the FACT that an elephant is about as big as it can get.


No it isn't, Mammoths were bigger along with a great many of the mega fauna of only a few thousand years ago, like the giant Rhino, some species of which were bigger than mammoths and that is without the added oxygen of the Triassic or Jurassic periods. (interestingly, the Triassic extinction event saw a drop in oxygen levels which killed off a large amount of the big dino's)

It isn't a fact at all that gravity would prevent such large animals as the oxygen count in the atmosphere (over double today's levels) would have made it much easier to do the same amount of work.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


i admit that with a little more digging i have come to a different conclusion than at first. i have decided that all the papers ive read are b.s.. they all make way to many assumptions for me. and with math that can lead to a 100 tonne difference to fast for my liking . so for now ill sit on the fence i withdraw my statements and apologize for misleading everyone.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Sorry guys, but it is a FACT that nothing anywhere near the size of the larger dinosaurs would even be able to lift its head in today's gravity. "Scientists" just conveniently ignore this FACT.


T-Rex = 9 tons
Elephant = 5 - 8 tons and heaviest recorded 13.5 tons.

Not that much difference.


An elephant is about the upper limit of size possible in this gravity.


Nothing to do with gravity, it's amount of oxygen, I too once made this silly error in thought.


Elephants are so big and heavy, they cannot even run.




They are very reluctant to go down steep hills, since if they fall they could break their own bones.




Large bull elephants cannot even get up again without help if they lie down, thus they never lie down.




Whales are the biggest things on the planet now. They are fully supported in the water. When they beach themselves, they break their own bones, and suffocate since they cannot even take a breath against their own weight crushing them down.



Anyway, as I was saying more oxygen, not more gravity, I would explain the science, but someone else already has.

Baby elephant walk.......gravity unrelated



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Lol, you sure schooled him.

Cool song too.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk





i thought the elephant walk was the theme song for the movie Hatari.
they had elephants in there to

.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
WHy not a simpler answer ? like the Earth 500 million years ago was 1/3rd its current mass with a much smaller gravity enabling larger bodied animals to roam ?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mazzroth
 


That is not a "simpler" answer in the slightest...

How on Earth (pardon the pun) can the earth gain that much mass?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Could something have caused the gravity of earth to increase so much that it caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs?

Could something have caused the oxygen levels of earth to decrease to such an extent that it caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs?

I really don't know if either of those questions is valid but would like to understand how gravity could suddenly increase or how oxygen levels could suddenly decrease.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelkhall
Could something have caused the gravity of earth to increase so much that it caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs?


No. Well, yes but it would have ended all life as such a mechanism could only be very large body smashing into the Earth, such as when the moon was formed.


Originally posted by mikelkhall
Could something have caused the oxygen levels of earth to decrease to such an extent that it caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs?


It did. At the end of the Triassic there was a mass extinction event which jived with a perceptible loss of atmospheric oxygen. As a result, many large species of animal (dinosaurs, insects etc) died off. Of course, we are also pretty sure that dino's were finished off at the end of the Jurassic by a meteor.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Thanks for the answer but I am still a little confused as to the gravity vs. oxygen issue.

Since we really don't know what gravity is, except that it may be a wave and may be composed of something called gravitons, I feel that it is possible, and as a total non-scientist I could be totally wrong, that whatever really causes gravity just kicked it up a little higher for some reason and caused the gravity to be greater.


As for the asteroid crashing and causing the mass extinction I can believe that also as it could have displaced a lot of material and even caused flash fires that destroyed a lot of the biosphere on earth.

I just have a problem with a brontosaur lifting it's huge neck to eat out of the top of a tree in the gravity we have on earth today. That's a lot of neck to be moving around. Hell I have a problem just moving my fat a@@ around and I'm not even close to the size of an elephant.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Gravity makes smaller sized trees and creatures. Giants are more related to lower gravity, giant creatures and fauna. Like Mars.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


they didn't live on current earth..


they lived on earth...65 million years ago..

Earth is that old...and so many civilizations and animals have existed for millions of years.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelkhall
 


We understand Gravity well enough to know what causes it, mass. Mass causes a displacement of space-time, curving it. This is gravity. Imagine a ball in the middle of a rubber sheet, it depresses it and anything on the rubber sheet will be drawn towards the depression.. A simplistic analogy, but if Prof Brian Cox can use it, so can I


As for your question about a Brontosaur, it isn't outside the realm of physics that they could hold their heads up. The mechanisms are not fully understood, however, but you really should read some proper articles from Palaeontologists to get a better idea.

Many people imagine them holding their heads up high, this was only true when in an alerted state. Normal posture was to have the neck parallel to the ground with the head pointing downwards, which would make it easy for the heart to pump blood and to move it around. I also recall that the vertebrae in their necks were quite light and they had tiny heads.
edit on 7/8/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelkhall
Thanks for the answer but I am still a little confused as to the gravity vs. oxygen issue.

Since we really don't know what gravity is, except that it may be a wave and may be composed of something called gravitons, I feel that it is possible, and as a total non-scientist I could be totally wrong, that whatever really causes gravity just kicked it up a little higher for some reason and caused the gravity to be greater.


As for the asteroid crashing and causing the mass extinction I can believe that also as it could have displaced a lot of material and even caused flash fires that destroyed a lot of the biosphere on earth.

I just have a problem with a brontosaur lifting it's huge neck to eat out of the top of a tree in the gravity we have on earth today. That's a lot of neck to be moving around. Hell I have a problem just moving my fat a@@ around and I'm not even close to the size of an elephant.


The extinction event of the late Triassic is not understood very well and there are several theories, ranging from massive volcanic eruptions as this was also when the super continent Pangaea began to break up, and the amount of green house gases released caused massive global warming, which in turn affected sea life too.

However there have been theories of impacts happening too, and even more theories suggesting that instead of one massive ELE, there were several smaller ones that over time added up to look like one massive ELE.

During the Jurassic period both Oxygen and CO2 levels were higher than they are now. Studies have shown that plants tend to increase their size of growth when grown in an environment such as this.

In my opinion the Expanding Earth people that claim that physics is on their side have a tendency to concentrate on muscle mass as a crux of their argument, yet they seem to fail to take into account bone density variations.
They also seem to ignore biochemistry and biology. Increase the amount of oxygen intake and you supply more oxygen to the muscles, the more work they can do. Have a lower bone density and you decrease the amount of mass that needs to be lifted or moved around.

I've also heard the argument that long necked dinos would have passed out if they raised their heads all the way up, or had too much blood flow to their heads if they dipped them down the ground if in 1 G of Earth gravity.

Apparently those that believe that have never read up on Giraffes and how the blood going to and from their heads is controlled by special valves in they circulatory system......


Saying that the Earth HAD to be smaller back then because it's a "fact" that Elephants are the largest land animals today, is flawed logic. There were actually species of mammals that grew to dinosaur proportions well after the Jurassic period, like the Indricotheriinae, who was around up to only 22 million years ago.

There have been many species of other animals that have much larger ancestors going back only 4,500 years ago.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by adrift
As I understand, the science community isn't that clued up on gravity to begin with? I gave the expanding earth theory a read a while back, but maybe this is cause for a re-visit.
Great Post, good read



There is a serious reason to re-visit the Expanding Earth theory. For numerous reasons.

First, life on earth is Unique, as are the vast oceans. And even if we take NASA's 0.1mm/year seriously, and think of it as statistically insignificant. It is in fact, a confirmation that the earth grows. Because it means, that 4.5 billion years ago, the earth was smaller than Venus. But unlike Venus, that spews out its volcanic gases and causes enormous atmospheric pressure, the earth does not have it. Neither does Venus have dynosaurs, living in boyancy in it's thick atmosphere. And mars does not have any atmosphere, worth talking about.

And more to the point, the Dynosaurs that could fly, have a wingspan/body ratio similar to that required for today. In an environment, where their body wieght was kept up by boyancy ... such wingspan wasn't needed, it would have been a negative effect, rather than a positive one.

Evolution simply proves the theory wrong, because there are no animals, with the nature of "swimming" through thick atmosphere. You have only two types,. landwalking animals in little aerodynamic resistance and water swimming ones, in strong resistance of movement.

Even if many disgard the expansion theory, and look at other planets for support. Those other planets do not support life. But those other planets, do show support for expansion. No where equivalent to the expansion we're talking about on earth, nowhere can you see entire ocean floors younger than the crust. And the ideology that earth must accredit mass, to increase in size or increase its gravity. Both, are wrong.

The only thing that is needed for increase of size, and increase of gravity on the surface of the earth. Is that density of the inner most plasma core, is less. And that the crust has thinned. The latter, is a known fact, supporting the other. The nature of volcanic eruptions, also suggest the former is more than possible. The only thing that is needed, for this to occurr, is for the crust to break like an eggshell, and a cooling environment to exist. Both of these, are true.

More to the point, volcanic eruptions occurr because of cooling of the planet, and the inner plasma material seeks to expand itself. With the earths crust, being tectonics ... it's inevitable that the inner plasma material, seeks expansion. And that the material that is used to patch up the oceans, is "correctly asumed" melted material from the earths lower crust. Thinning it out, with time.

And as the crust thins, and the mass of the earth being 90% in its core. Gravity will also increase, as the radius to the mass, decreases.

That the core of the earth, is different from that of other planets, should be obvious. This is the only planet sustaining life, with electricity in abundance ...Where two legged mammals, use this electricity from it's plasmatic inner, for communications through computers.

But, more to the point, in my opinion. Is that the wishful thinking, that this planet is given to us by God, and that it's been stable for billions of years, and will be stable for billions of years more. No reason to panic, is absurd. This is something that needs to be understood, correctly, and worked upon ... life on this planet, is fragile. So fragile, it is almost unique, and most certainly unique in our known universe. Whatever life is out there, is so dinstant, and/or, so different, that it is irrelevant to us as species.
edit on 8/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


"earths atmosphere was so thick, that it reached 2/3 of the density of water" where did you read this? but besides this i struggle to find a person credible who writes a post on dinosaurs yet cant spell the word. surely you had to do some reading on the subject before posting? also as the majority know, dinosaurs were not all around at the same time, there were several periods of life and dinosaurs evolved to survive.

on the basis of your argument then a whale is not possible as how can a whale swim the depths of the ocean and survive such pressures considering its size?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Another solution was simply that earth was moved, which is what I believe, earth fell.

Or simply, the gravitational field was changed as the vibrational field changed and made Earth like it is today. Perhaps a Dinosaur could not live on Earth today, but they did live here in their own time. The fossil evidence is more than clear on that. Let's face it, in Ancient Times most everything was quite different than today.

I did once have a preacher try to convince me that Satan put all those bones in the ground so Christians would be tested on Earth's "true age," which, according to him, was a mere 5-6000 years. I remember I told him I had a rock in my yard older than that.

I do agree with your theory that Earth may have been moved, I too have considered that possibility. Also, there are the Destruction's that came before, a Polar shift could, and would change everything. It would also fully explain why Woolly Mammoths were found frozen solid, standing up, with fresh flowers in their stomach. How else could this happen if not for a catastrophic event?
edit on 8/8/12 by autowrench because: For content



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


The mechanism as I understand is a simple mechanical baricenter created by the tail.

Also, I have no idea where people are getting the idea Gravity has increased on earth. If this is true why is the moon receding at the rate of ~1mm a year?


Also, all this "move" and "fell" talk... Guys, the earth is in freefall in space. It also moves around the galaxy constantly. There is nothing to indicate it beyond that...
edit on 8-8-2012 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Surface gravity on the Earth has increased and decreased over the past few hundred million years. This is the reason why life forms have periodically become oversized, including dragonflies, dinosaurs, indricotherium (large mammals), etc.

The changes in surface gravity was not caused by increasing mass, impacts or changes in volume of the Earth. Although it might not seem like it is possible, the reason for changes in surface gravity is that the Earth's core elements (inner/outer cores and densest part of lower mantle) have moved away from their current central position. Without getting into the conservation of angular momentum, when Pangea consolidated on one side of the Earth and moved latitudinally, it caused the core elements to to move off-center and away from Pangea, thereby increasing the distance from Pangea to the shifted center of mass of the Earth and, by definition, reducing surface gravity on Pangea.

This is explained by the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (www.dinoextinct.com/page13.pdf). Just about every mass extinction, major and minor) can be explained by this theory. If you thoroughly read this theory, cited above, it will become clear why megafauna appeared throughout the history of the Earth.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join