The impossible solution to Big Dynosaur Size

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
That is not a "simpler" answer in the slightest...

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


If the earth enlarges itself, according to NASA, by 0.1mm a year. That's one hell of a mass it gets, and don't forget the addition of density inside the earth ... you have to take planets mean density, and then move the earth along that line, when it aquires mass.

Instead, I suggest you fill up a balloon with air. Then you take this balloon, and put it in a room, where the atmospheric pressure is less than 1bar.

Did the balloon get bigger? ... sure did.

That is exactly what happens in a cooling universe. The earth is filled with condensed electromagnetised gas, called plasma. This plasma will seek to expand, when it cools ...

It's elementary, Dr. Watson ...




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Megapixel
 


Where do Balochitheriums fit in with that?

That's the problem with these 'theories' - like Neal Adam's silly 'expanding earth' hypothesis, it's based on very basic schoolboy science. And not on reality. Which is actually rather more complicated.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


Where do the largest mammals, including intricotherium and others, fit into to the theory?

If you read the theory thoroughly, you will know that as the core elements move away from Earth-centricity, surface gravity lessens. One major clue that this happened at a specific time is a rapid rise in sea level (see the figure at the end of the PDF).

If you study sea level change, you will find that a major sea level rise occurred around 33-35 mya, the time during which these mammals attained their largest size. This is in agreement with the theory.

This rise in sea levels reversed and a major drop in sea level occurred, signifying a rapid increase in surface gravity. The largest mammals disappeared at this time.

Also, the theory posits that a rapid increase in surface gravity is also accompanied by flood basalt volcanism, which is initiated at the core/mantle boundary. This happens because the core elements are moving back toward Earth-centricity, initiating the volcanic plume. Flood basalt volcanism did occur after the drop in sea level (the Afar flood basalt eruptions).



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

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.


Several good discussions about that here on ATS. I think I've been involved in a few. Count me in as a skeptical believer that it's a possibility.

The Expanding Earth hypothesis

Growing earth theory explains a few things



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Megapixel
 


Interesting.

I'm seeing a poster saying that the Earth is filled with Plasma, which is interesting considering seismic waves indicate that a large majority of the Earth's interior is fluid.....not thermal ionized gas (unless it's cold plasma....but then I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense to me).

And you are stating that at one time, the heavier elements at the Earth's core moved outward.......and then traveled back.........

Exactly why would they travel outward?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (GTME) posits that the 3 core elements moved off-center and away from Pangea. In a simplified view, think of them moving without any change in volume or shape.

To understand why this happens, think of the ice skater that is often used in physics to illusrate the concept of conservation of angular momentum. As the skater spins with outstretched arms, and then withdraws the arms so that they are close to the body, the spin rate of the skater increases.

Pangea's latitudinal movement is comparable to the skater's arms. As Pangea's center of mass moves from the equator (i.e. "outstretched arms") to higher latitudes (i.e., "arms closer to the body") one might expect the Earth to spin faster. However, the Earth's interior is malleable and it can shift to compensate instead of spinning faster.

The shift of the core elements is that compensation.

One point that is strong support for GTME is the episodes of flood basalt volcanism, i.e., volcanism that originates at the core-mantle boundary. GTME posits that each time the core elements move back toward Earth-centricity, the movement initiates flood basalt volcanism. This movement also signifies increasing surface gravitation, and therefore, extinctions. History supports this. I have to point out that scientists have noticed this coincidence but haven't been able to explain it because the eruptions post-date the extinctions, therefore they can't be the cause of the extinctions. It may take a million years or more for the plume to travel from the core-mantle boundary to the Earth's surface. Based on the above, the GTME explanation is reasonable. In other words, the movement of the core elements back toward Earth-centricity caused a pulse of increasing surface gravity causing extinctions and the appearance of the flood basalt eruptons at the surface lags by a considerable amount of time.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Oh jesus, that ain't even the same physical process!

You're comparing an expanding balloon in a room with lowering air pressure to the earth?

Yes, I am aware the earth gathers up a fair amount of crap from space, but even over millions of years, you're not going to accrete that much mass to triple the size of the planet, which is what is being claimed! In fact, it hasn't gathered up that much mass since it's formation.

The "size of the earth" as you put it, has no bearing on it's gravity. You're assuming that simply because the earth has expanded the gravity has increased. No has gravity anything to do with density. Gravity is a product of mass and mass only, regardless of the objects relative size or density. The fact you are not aware of this calls into question pretty much everything you say.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Megapixel
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (GTME) posits that the 3 core elements moved off-center and away from Pangea. In a simplified view, think of them moving without any change in volume or shape.


So what happened before Pangea?

As I said before, the 'theory' is based on basic schoolboy knowledge and ignores most of the known facts about the history of the Earth.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

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.
thank you!! god!!! my head was about to explode while waiting to read all this stupidity.before replying with the same answer.some people need to lay off the crack.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by spacejosh
 


Yeah, they all glossed over that post. The fact we had animals bigger then Elephants a few thousand years ago puts a spanner in their fanciful theory, so they ignore it.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Megapixel
 


I have been unable to find any data which corroborated this.
Also, the bit about gravity being a cause of extinction is not a scientific theory, its a hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


There is a difference between Mass and Volume.
Size is volume. That being said-the earth is always getting hit by debris such as meteors etc.
Unless I misread your post (possible) sounded like you were implying the earth was getting bigger which proved a separate hypothesis.

Only thing it shows is that planets get bigger as they get hit with space rocks. Or, if its volume only, it would indicate things like.. dunno pockets forming causing plates to push out.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


What happened before Pangea? Google "Rodinia."

"Most of the known facts about the Earth?" Do you want to explain your statements or are you going to just keep making empty comments? If you have substantive comments about the theory I will be glad to respond but I won't waste time with someone who only wants to denigrate the theory.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Megapixel because: spelling error



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Data which corroborates the theory is found in the PDF cited earlier. Of course, being a new and revolutionary theory you will not find other references supporting the theory. I attempted, in an earlier posting, to give a strong supporting aspect of the theory by mentioning flood basalt volcanism.

Scientists, such as Vincent Courtillot ('Evolutionary Catastrophes') goes to great length in his book to show the correlation between extinction events and episodes of flood basalt volcanism. However, no scientist can explain what triggers these volcanic events. The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction (GTME) is able to explain precisely why they occur and why they accompany extinction events.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Megapixel
 


The amount of gravitational acceleration that one feels on the surface of a planet would not change, even if you moved the center of the planet's mass from off center.

At any given point on the surface of this planet, you have approx. 7,000 miles of mass between you and the other side. This does very by a small amount due to mountains and rifts, so the gravitational density will change in certain areas, but nothing extremely drastic (IE like one spot on Earth is at 1.3 Gs and another is only 0.7 Gs). It changes in very, very small amounts.

First, ignoring that the "heavier elements of the core" have shifted closer to the surface (something that your skater analogy will not work......we're talking about gravity...not centrifugal force...as one depends upon angular momentum while the other depends purely upon an object's mass), even if those elements did get closer to the surface, the total mass of the Earth has not changed. Things on the surface would still experience about 1 G of Earth gravity.

Your statement seems to allude to the idea that these elements at the core are so dense that they act like Degenerate Matter, or matter that is so dense that only a small amount of it will have huge amounts of mass.

I'm afraid that the interior of the Earth is not made up of degenerate matter. What it is made up of is normal matter, that if it did shift, would still not have a huge affect on the gravity that is experienced on the surface of our planet.

The only way to decrease the Earth's gravity is to reduce it's mass, and the only way to reduce it's mass is to remove large amounts of the matter that makes up the Earth. So one would have to say that the Earth was much smaller in size in the past so that the amount of matter making it up would have it's mass as such to have a weaker gravitational force.

The problem here is, that we know very large creatures roamed the Earth's surface only 65 million years ago (and some very large mammals, some that were the same size as many dinosaurs only 22 to 23 million years ago).
Saying that the Earth's gravity had to be weaker in order for them to exist means that the Earth's mass was much less, and that means it's size too.

The Earth's mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg. Let us say that 65 million years ago, the Earth had only the same mass as Venus, which would be 4.8685×10^24 kg.

That is a HUGE amount of matter that the Earth would need to increase to, in order to increase it's mass and "grow" in size.

Care to explain where it came from? Certainly not from asteroids. The amount of bombardment the Earth would need for increase it's mass that much in just 65 million years would have pretty much wiped out everything, leaving the surface completely molten (forget finding fossils of any kind).



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Your analysis is not correct. You stated:

"The amount of gravitational acceleration that one feels on the surface of a planet would not change, even if you moved the center of the planet's mass from off center. "

By definition, the center of mass (COM) of an object is the point at which one can consider the total mass of the object to be located at. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the surface gravity at a point on the surface of the Earth, the distance from the COM to the point on the surface is used. It is clear that using Newton's equation for gravity would result in a lowering of surface gravity at a point (i.e., on Pangea) as the core elements moved away from Earth-centricity and away from Pangea. All three core elements comprise a total of approx. 80-85% of the Earth's mass.

No change in the amount of mass of the Earth is necessary for this change in surface gravity. Just about everybody is under the false impression that a change in the Earth's mass or volume is necessary to change surface gravity. That is why no one has been able to explain the gigantism of dinosaurs and other life forms in the past before the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction. The mass of the Earth has changed very little over the past few hundred of millions of years.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

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.


Several good discussions about that here on ATS. I think I've been involved in a few. Count me in as a skeptical believer that it's a possibility.

The Expanding Earth hypothesis

Growing earth theory explains a few things

What if the earth itself was bigger meaning that the everything on it was capable of larger sizes

Over time the earth became small then it previously had been meaning everything living on it could no longer be as large as before
Killing off creatures to large to continue to in habit a world that over thousands and millions of year decreased in size

This would leave behind only fossilized remains of what sizes those living things where at the time of their demise
Being turn into stone preserving them in a substance that takes the longest to atomically lose size over time

This explains the various sizes of large plants animals and insects that are found today



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Megapixel
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Your analysis is not correct. You stated:

"The amount of gravitational acceleration that one feels on the surface of a planet would not change, even if you moved the center of the planet's mass from off center. "

By definition, the center of mass (COM) of an object is the point at which one can consider the total mass of the object to be located at. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the surface gravity at a point on the surface of the Earth, the distance from the COM to the point on the surface is used. It is clear that using Newton's equation for gravity would result in a lowering of surface gravity at a point (i.e., on Pangea) as the core elements moved away from Earth-centricity and away from Pangea. All three core elements comprise a total of approx. 80-85% of the Earth's mass.

No change in the amount of mass of the Earth is necessary for this change in surface gravity. Just about everybody is under the false impression that a change in the Earth's mass or volume is necessary to change surface gravity. That is why no one has been able to explain the gigantism of dinosaurs and other life forms in the past before the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction. The mass of the Earth has changed very little over the past few hundred of millions of years.


You are going to have to demonstrate with calculations the following:

1) How much the core would have to move to significantly affect the surface gravity on one side of the planet.

2) What amount of force would cause that much mass to move in the first place.

Then you'll need to show that dinosaurs bone density was different than say elephants of today (from what we know of biology, organisms evolving in a higher gravity field would have a higher bone density than those who evolved in a weaker gravity field.

Then show why over 40 million years later, there were mammals who also reached gigantic proportions, some the size of T-Rex (only 20 million years ago).

Pangaea existed 510 to 200 million years ago. Then between 200 to 180 million years ago, it broke up into Laurasia and Gondwana. Another super plate existed prior to Pangaea called Rodinia.

During the Jurassic period (200 to 145 million years ago) you have many large dinosaurs. However, after the Jurassic, going all the way to the late Cretaceous (up to 65 million years ago) you had T-Rex around.

You will also have to explain why certain mammals grew large after this period, for about 35 million years. A good example of that is the Hyracodontidae family, that ended up growing to huge mega mammals such as the Indricotheriinae.

The reason you need to explain the last one is: if the Earth's core had moved, increased gravity on one side, but making surface gravity weaker on the other side, and the main evidence for this is mega growth of animals on the land surface of the Earth, then it did this and stayed that way for over 200 million years. Yet during that time, Pangaea broke up, and those different plates drifted apart.....meaning that the fauna that lived on them would not have stayed only in the weaker gravity field to grow to huge sizes.

Then what made the core go back to being centered again? If it was a case of, it corrected itself slowly over time, then we would see a decline in size in all animals and plants. But that is not what we see. After the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, mammals literally exploded with growth...and this was well after the break up of Pangaea, with the different plates drifting well apart.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


1) How much the core would have to move to significantly affect the surface gravity on one side of the planet.

2) What amount of force would cause that much mass to move in the first place.

First of all, all three core elements moved. The resulting surface gravity reduction would be determined by the amount of movement. In the book, with the same name as the theory, a calculation is done using a 50% reduction in surface gravity resulting in a movement of about 1/4 of the diameter of the Earth.

Your second question about what force would be required to move the core elements is confusing. The movement of the core elements is a response to maintain the Earth’s total angular momentum.

3)Then you'll need to show that dinosaurs bone density was different than say elephants of today (from what we know of biology, organisms evolving in a higher gravity field would have a higher bone density than those who evolved in a weaker gravity field.

This is an assumption on your part unless you have data on animals that have evolved in a lower gravity environment.

4)Then show why over 40 million years later, there were mammals who also reached gigantic proportions, some the size of T-Rex (only 20 million years ago).

The theory, if you read the PDF, explains this. The position of the core elements (either 1,2 or all 3 of them) depends on the position of the net center of mass of all continental masses relative to the equator. Whether all continental masses are combined (as in Pangea) or broken apart the same rule applies. Therefore, for example, when Indricotherium existed about 30-35mya, the Earth’s core elements had moved further away from Earth-centricity than they are today. It is no coincidence that at that time worldwide sea levels rose to very high levels (which is an indication of lowering of surface gravity levels as explained by GTME).

5)Pangaea existed 510 to 200 million years ago. Then between 200 to 180 million years ago, it broke up into Laurasia and Gondwana. Another super plate existed prior to Pangaea called Rodinia.

Your dates are a little misleading. Pangea gradually formed from about 350mya to 300mya (see www.scotese.com). 200mya was the initial fracture which started the breakup and forming the beginning of the Atlantic Ocean. It still remained basically a supercontinent into the Cretaceous (although pieces were starting to separate then. In other words, even though continents were separated by small distances, relative to today, their effect on changes in surface gravity was still strong.

6)During the Jurassic period (200 to 145 million years ago) you have many large dinosaurs. However, after the Jurassic, going all the way to the late Cretaceous (up to 65 million years ago) you had T-Rex around.

The Jurassic Period is when the largest dinosaurs appeared (in the western USA) and in that region they began to get smaller in the Cretaceous (in that region). T-Rex was around to late in the Cretaceous but did not make it to 65mya.


7)You will also have to explain why certain mammals grew large after this period, for about 35 million years. A good example of that is the Hydracodontidae family, that ended up growing to huge mega mammals such as the Indricotheriinae.

See my response to 4) above.

8)The reason you need to explain the last one is: if the Earth's core had moved, increased gravity on one side, but making surface gravity weaker on the other side, and the main evidence for this is mega growth of animals on the land surface of the Earth, then it did this and stayed that way for over 200 million years. Yet during that time, Pangaea broke up, and those different plates drifted apart.....meaning that the fauna that lived on them would not have stayed only in the weaker gravity field to grow to huge sizes.
When Pangea existed surface gravity varied from low to close to what it is today. If you read the PDF, the strength of surface gravity coincided with the position of Pangea’s center of mass relative to the equator. Therefore, as Pangea’s COM moved from well below the equator onto the equator about 260-250mya, surface gravity increased to close to what it is today. See the graph at the end of the PDF, the date comes from the French study of magnetic reversals). Therefore, surface gravity did not stay the same for 200 my.

As the plates broke up, the lowest surface gravity would be in the (equatorial) region with the largest net continental mass. It’s not easy to estimate exactly where this would be but logically since the African/Asian continental mass was probably the largest, I would guess that this equatorial region maintained the lowest possible surface gravity well after the breakup of Pangea. This is probably why Indricotherium existed closer to that region than in either North America or South America.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Cotinued..............
9)Then what made the core go back to being centered again? If it was a case of, it corrected itself slowly over time, then we would see a decline in size in all animals and plants. But that is not what we see. After the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, mammals literally exploded with growth...and this was well after the break up of Pangaea, with the different plates drifting well apart.

Again, the position of the cores is dependent on one thing, the net location of the center of mass of ALL continental mass relative to the equator. As the continent moved apart, some moved north and some moved south. Some (like South America) rotated. Therefore, as the net center of mass of all continents moved both north and south since 65mya we would expect corresponding increases and deceases in surface gravity and that is what the record shows. As I have indicated many times, global sea level changes are a very good indication of changes in surface gravity....high sea levels indicating a lowering of surface gravity. If you want to compare periods of megafauna and sea levels (and therefore surface gravity) here’s data for the last 100my:

www.petrodynamics.com...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join