The impossible solution to Big Dynosaur Size

reply to post by Megapixel


Interesting replies. And just so you know, I'm not dismissing this theory out of belief in some scientific dogma, etc. I'm just actively debating you on this Gravity Extinction Theory is all, in an attempt to see if the idea fits with things we know or other theories about the Earth.

I've even entered into discussion about this with a friend of mind who is a geology teacher up in Virginia in a college there (we've worked together before on computer simulations).

Our discussion on this may be off topic of the thread however, since the main thrust of the thread deals with the Expanding Earth theory where as this Gravity Extinction theory seems to not be related (IE gravity changing due to the Earth's mass and therefore size increase as compared to the core shifting). It might be better for you to start another thread using your topic instead, but that's up to the mods of course.

The "3 core elements" as you and the paper that you linked for a read, I am assuming is the Inner Core, Outer Core and Lower Mantle.

The inner core is solid, the outer core is liquid and the lower mantle is semi-solid, sort of like hot plastic or play-doe is how I've heard it explained.

However, the outer mantle is made up of ridged, solid rock. And of course the crust is a very thin layer on top of that.

I'm trying to understand how the Inner core, Outer core, and Lower Mantle could move at all if they are surrounded by a very thick layer of ridged, solid rock.

The solid inner core moving in the outer liquid core I can understand and see (whether or not I agree with that is not at issue). I could also see the liquid outer core "deforming" the soft, lower mantle possibly so that it's closer to the upper mantle.

But I don't quite see how they are going to move through the Upper mantle to get closer to the Earth's surface.

I'm also still unsure of how it all would want to move in the first place. From the reading I did, it sounds like (however I could be wrong in my understanding) that the land mass of Pangaea is used to cite a "wobble" in the Earth's spin, causing the 3 core elements you are talking about to move outward.

Again, I could be misunderstanding that, however, if that is the case, it also makes no sense because the amount of mass of Pangaea wouldn't be enough to make the Earth do that. Many pictures showing topography are very exaggerated, and the crust of the Earth is very thin (about 35 km). The amount of mass of a super continent is extremely small compared to the rest of the mass of the Earth.

reply to post by Megapixel


Precisely, Rodinia (and other supercontinents before then). The smoking gun that shot Expanding Earth.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
As most people should realize, is that Dynosaurs would never have been able to live in the current earth. Simple laws of physics puts up a delimiter for that.

The solution that has come up, is that the earths atmosphere was so thick, that it reached 2/3 of the density of water. That sound logical, a simple solution to the problem? Boyancy to counter the gravity? Where did the gravity come from, that attracted such dense atmosphere in the first place? Volcanic eruptions, similar to venus?

No, it doesn't. The most obvious problem with this solution, is that an animal wouldn't need wings to fly in such dense atmosphere. It would be much more logical for it to swim through it. Thus, if this was true, you should be able to find remnants of animals that were "swimming" rather than "flying" through the air. That is, their body/wing ratio, was such that it was swimming rather than flying. A dragon fly, even with 70cm in size, would never be able to swap it's insect wings. The insect wing, is designed for speed through less dense air, and not the devil fish wings, to flap itself through dense water. This, is the most obvious problem with it.

Not to mention, it's skeletal body would not sustain itself in such an environment. Remember that the insect has an exo-skeleton.

So, whereas the boyancy would certainly solve the wieght problem. The form of the animals living during this era, certainly does not. Imagine a brochosaurus moving it's huge neck upwards, in such dense atomosphere. This would be an act in slow motion, and the mammals motions would be incapable of speed. Why would nature, design creatures with legs designed for speed ... in an environment, where speed is not possible.

Animals living in such an environment, would be more hybrids living between waterworld and airworld. Drawing in air, in such thick atmosphere would require an enormous strength that it wouldn't be possible.

The amount of strength needed, to move a mammal in such an environment ... would make such a creature impossible.

For the land mammal equivalent animal, reptile, bird or insect to live in such an environment is just as much impossible, as it living in the current environment.

Sorry, this is not the solution to the equation.

edit on 7/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

Excellent posts Erik

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Megapixel

 

I'm also still unsure of how it all would want to move in the first place. From the reading I did, it sounds like (however I could be wrong in my understanding) that the land mass of Pangaea is used to cite a "wobble" in the Earth's spin, causing the 3 core elements you are talking about to move outward.

Again, I could be misunderstanding that, however, if that is the case, it also makes no sense because the amount of mass of Pangaea wouldn't be enough to make the Earth do that. Many pictures showing topography are very exaggerated, and the crust of the Earth is very thin (about 35 km). The amount of mass of a super continent is extremely small compared to the rest of the mass of the Earth.

There is some evidence that long before Pangea, a previous supercontinent ~800ma may have caused true polar wander to occur. Not quite what is being proposed here, but showing that an accumulation of continental mass on one part of the Earth's surface may have consequences

phys.org...

(this TPW - if it occurred - took place over millions of years. If it started again today, we might start noticing the effects by 200012AD)

I think this theory isn't worth the paper it is written on (or bandwidth). If creatures can survive miles deep in the ocean with all that crushing weight above them, then the large dinosaurs could have existed on the earth today as well.

Glad the OP came around and realized these "experts" are only experts in their own minds.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Actually, the upper mantle is deformable. We know this because the mid-ocean ridge is where magma rises to the surface to form new ocean crust. Also, in subduction zones, cold dense oceanic crust dives into the upper mantle and slowly descends. Flood basalt volcanism is initiated at the core/lower mantle boundary and rises until it domes below the surface and then breaks through.

It is true that the mass of Pangea is small compared to that of the Earth. However, its distance from the axis of rotation and angular velocity that makes it a powerful influence on core displacement. Another factor, which can be seen in Fig. 2 (page 9) of the PDF comes into play. As Pangea's center of mass (COM) moves away from the equator, surface gravity is lessened and sea levels rise. Therefore, the mass of not only Pangea but that of the higher sea levels are involved. This is a kind of positive feedback mechanism. The further Pangea's COM moves away from the equator the higher the sea levels (around Pangea) and the greater the force displacing the core elements due to conservation of angular momentum.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
As most people should realize, is that Dynosaurs would never have been able to live in the current earth. Simple laws of physics puts up a delimiter for that.

The solution that has come up, is that the earths atmosphere was so thick, that it reached 2/3 of the density of water. That sound logical, a simple solution to the problem? Boyancy to counter the gravity? Where did the gravity come from, that attracted such dense atmosphere in the first place? Volcanic eruptions, similar to venus?

No, it doesn't. The most obvious problem with this solution, is that an animal wouldn't need wings to fly in such dense atmosphere. It would be much more logical for it to swim through it. Thus, if this was true, you should be able to find remnants of animals that were "swimming" rather than "flying" through the air. That is, their body/wing ratio, was such that it was swimming rather than flying. A dragon fly, even with 70cm in size, would never be able to swap it's insect wings. The insect wing, is designed for speed through less dense air, and not the devil fish wings, to flap itself through dense water. This, is the most obvious problem with it.

Not to mention, it's skeletal body would not sustain itself in such an environment. Remember that the insect has an exo-skeleton.

So, whereas the boyancy would certainly solve the wieght problem. The form of the animals living during this era, certainly does not. Imagine a brochosaurus moving it's huge neck upwards, in such dense atomosphere. This would be an act in slow motion, and the mammals motions would be incapable of speed. Why would nature, design creatures with legs designed for speed ... in an environment, where speed is not possible.

Animals living in such an environment, would be more hybrids living between waterworld and airworld. Drawing in air, in such thick atmosphere would require an enormous strength that it wouldn't be possible.

The amount of strength needed, to move a mammal in such an environment ... would make such a creature impossible.

For the land mammal equivalent animal, reptile, bird or insect to live in such an environment is just as much impossible, as it living in the current environment.

Sorry, this is not the solution to the equation.

edit on 7/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

Earth could have been larger back then (see asteriod belt for the rest of Earth), prior to the rebellon of Lucifer.


God Bless,

Think Hollow Matter instead of hollow earth

So matter being what composes atoms which make up what we see in the visible universe
These atoms contain mostly empty space
And for all measurable purposes theirs technically more empty space contained in a single atom
From nucleus to orbiting electrons comparing them their relative size to the solar systems-sun, planets and the distances between them both or the space encompassing the whole of the suns Heliosphere
And atom still has more comparably empty space within it.

This makes the one constant of movement or flow of energy/matter to be inward
This is gravity all other forces of the universe work against gravity to slow the movement of energy
Which comprising matter is moving down within the empty space that is within us all and everything we know
The electromagnetic, strong, weak nuclear forces conservative the energy that creates the perception of time and allowing for perceived existences’.