Dinosaurs And The Gravity Problem (by Ted Holden)

[siteseer]

I would like to remind folks that we cannot really compare dinosaurs and giant reptiles of the mesazoic with mammals today. They were simply so vastly differant animals.

But if we must, 45 millian years ago, there was a carniverous whale that exceeded 100ft long.

Which whale was over 100 feet long? If you're talking about Basilosaurus, where did you read that? I've seen estimates of its length from 50 to 80 feet, which is a wide range. I don't think I have a technical reference on archaeocetes.

[Mike_H]

Which whale was over 100 feet long? If you're talking about Basilosaurus, where did you read that? I've seen estimates of its length from 50 to 80 feet, which is a wide range. I don't think I have a technical reference on archaeocetes.

perhaps I over estimated the length. But it was nearly as large as a blue whale. And I got to thinking, the large battle ships and aircraft carriers are even heavier then the blue whale and yet they still float. True they are not animals but the same basic principle still applies. When in water, gravity is less effective due to mass/water displacement.

This certainly doesn't apply to the sauropods but it cettainly does for the whales.

As far as dinos, I'll have to think about that for a bit. It's a big question, needs a big answer. =D

[Theorist]

PTERODACTYLS WERE TOO HEAVY TO FLY, SCIENTIST CLAIMS

This is the headline of an article in the www.telegraph.co.uk in January 2008. It describes the research of a Japanese scientist who studied the flight of the albatross. His conclusion, as noted in the headlines, is that the large pterosaurs could not fly. I should rephrase that and say that they could not fly if they were here today.

I don't think most people who have seen the re-creations of the pterosaur would believe they could not fly over 65 million years ago. Therefore, something was significantly different. I believe that difference was gravitational.

Neither Expanding Earth nor spin variations can account for significant variations in surface gravity. The only reasonable theory is the one that links the movement and positions of the continents to the movement of the Earth's core(s). That movement would have a significant influence on surface gravity because of the inverse square (of distance) effect. The consolidation of the continents (i.e., Pangea) would cause a significant change in surface gravity. If this theory is correct, and I think it is, surface gravity began to slowly increase as Pangea rifted and increased significantly when the continents moved apart rapidly about 65mya. It would have increased after that and gradually increased to its present value as the core(s) returned to their central, current position.

[Mike_H]

PTERODACTYLS WERE TOO HEAVY TO FLY, SCIENTIST CLAIMS

This is the headline of an article in the www.telegraph.co.uk in January 2008. It describes the research of a Japanese scientist who studied the flight of the albatross. His conclusion, as noted in the headlines, is that the large pterosaurs could not fly. I should rephrase that and say that they could not fly if they were here today.

I don't think most people who have seen the re-creations of the pterosaur would believe they could not fly over 65 million years ago. Therefore, something was significantly different. I believe that difference was gravitational.

Neither Expanding Earth nor spin variations can account for significant variations in surface gravity. The only reasonable theory is the one that links the movement and positions of the continents to the movement of the Earth's core(s). That movement would have a significant influence on surface gravity because of the inverse square (of distance) effect. The consolidation of the continents (i.e., Pangea) would cause a significant change in surface gravity. If this theory is correct, and I think it is, surface gravity began to slowly increase as Pangea rifted and increased significantly when the continents moved apart rapidly about 65mya. It would have increased after that and gradually increased to its present value as the core(s) returned to their central, current position.

Now, There have been experaments with live size models that proven they could. Dr. Robert T. Bakker devotes an entire chapter in "The Dinosaur Heresies" to this. He gives many reasons how pterosaurs can fly and he assumed on present day gravity. And of course Mr. Holden miss quoted Dr. Bakker. Pterosaurs had a bone stucture similar to birds. Even the largest probably weighed only a few tens of pounds probably no more the 70 at the heaviest. Let me remind you of the Hirst Eagle of New Zealand as in excess of 50 pounds and still flew.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Mike_H

[Auspex]

..The only reasonable theory is the one that links the movement and positions of the continents to the movement of the Earth's core(s). That movement would have a significant influence on surface gravity because of the inverse square (of distance) effect. The consolidation of the continents (i.e., Pangea) would cause a significant change in surface gravity....

Please define what you mean by "significant" here; a rough percentage will suffice.

Even allowing for the possible effects of coalescent continental plates (the least dense rock, BTW) and wandering cores, I think the theoretical difference would be very small (as in measurable by sensitive instruments only).

[32fordboy]

Also, don't forget, the larger a wing is, the easier it is to fly. Take a small Cessna's wing loading and compare it to, say, a 747's wing loading. This is an extreme example with the very different flight speeds not taken into consideration, but this applies also to planes with similar flight speeds. Anybody who flies radio control aircraft will understand this very well. A six-foot-wingspan radio control aircraft with the same wing loading as a Cessna will be VERY difficult to get into the air.

Wing loading = Weight / Square foot of wing area.

I look at small birds and think it's unbeleivable they actually can fly. By the way, I agree with Auspex (as usual).

Nick

Edited September 11, 2009 by 32fordboy

[tracer]

<walking through this ueber-deep conversation with his food bowl on his head>

[fig rocks]

<walking through this ueber-deep conversation with his food bowl on his head>

[lordpiney]

good lord...can you imagine cleaning that things litter box? yikes!

[Theorist]

Mike_H,

I think your estimate of 70 pounds as the weight limit for the largest pterosaurs is far too low. I'm relying on memory here; I believe 200 to 300 pounds, if not more, is in line with what the experts agree on. Did you have a refrence for the 70 pound figure?

Auspex,

Because of the inverse square law, shifting of the core(s) would have a much greater effect than any mass change (per Expanding Earth Theory). I can only guess at the change.....and that guess would be in the 30-40% range.

32fordboy,

You can't compare a plane, or a helicopter or a man-made model to a live pterosaur. Larger wing sizes demand larger muscles to flap those wings. There are limits.

[32fordboy]

Good point. The point still works for gliding, I suppose, though-but then again, you can't glide if you can't get into the air in the first place. With the sizes of dinos that existed, I think the pterosaurs still had the muscle to flap their wings-guess we'll never know.

Nick

Edited September 11, 2009 by 32fordboy

[Auspex]

I think your estimate of 70 pounds as the weight limit for the largest pterosaurs is far too low. I'm relying on memory here; I believe 200 to 300 pounds, if not more, is in line with what the experts agree on....

A 2002 study (Atanassov1, Momchil N.; Strauss, Richard E. "How much did Archaeopteryx and Quetzalcoatlus weigh? Mass estimation by multivariate analysis of bone dimensions". Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) suggested a body mass of 200–260 lb. for Quetzalcoatlus.

[32fordboy]

I think 300 pounds for that big feller sounds very doable. So with some assumptions made about wing area, the loading could be as low as 3-3.5 lbs/sq ft. Extremely low. It doesn't take much to get something with that kind of wing loading going. He easily could have glided under 20 mph, granted he could get into the air. Most of that weight would have been the chest muscles?

Edited September 11, 2009 by 32fordboy

[Mike_H]

My source was coming from the extras of Walking with Dinosaurs. Don't remember who the paleontologist was.

Pterosaurs where hollow boned just like birds. And the largest was about the size of the average human. I cannot see how such a creature was 200+ pounds of the skeleton was so light.

Still not sure on dino size though.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Mike_H

[Auspex]

I think 300 pounds for that big feller sounds very doable. So with some assumptions made about wing area, the loading could be as low as 3-3.5 lbs/sq ft. Extremely low. It doesn't take much to get something with that kind of wing loading going. He easily could have glided under 20 mph, granted he could get into the air. Most of that weight would have been the chest muscles?

The salient point here is that it had the biomechanics to fly today; variable gravity is not needed to explain their existance.

[fig rocks]

I read somewhere one theory that allowed dinos to get so big was that the atmospheric pressure on the earth was much higher and that would allow for the size and muscle mass spoken of in the past.

Enhancement of Atmospheric Pressure. The Earth expanded in diameter. This expansion was due to the continued disruption of radioactive elements in the planet’s structured interior.[87] In an attempt to determine Earth’s original size, environmental engineer Neal Teague has calculated the planet’s original diameter to be approximately 90% of its current measurement. The total mass would remain the same; however, the planet’s volume was originally 10% to 12% smaller. This would render greater gravitational attraction of the atmospheric gases at sea level, and would increase the absolute atmospheric pressure to approximately 28 psi, compared to today’s 14.7 psi.[89]

Higher ratios of oxygen[90] and carbon dioxide[91] in the enhanced atmospheric pressure further multiplied the benefits under these optimal conditions. Hyperbaric oxygen specialist William Fife (Texas A & M University, A.P. Beutel Health Center) has run extensive laboratory experiments using two atmospheres of pressure. Applying appropriate oxygen under these conditions, the entire blood plasma is quickly saturated with oxygen.[92] [93] National Geographic reports the phenomenal overnight healing of an aquanaut who cut his hand during long-term exposure to elevated atmospheric pressure and elevated oxygen.[94] Living under these conditions human beings would receive adequate oxygen supply to the fetal brain, providing retention of all 200 billion brain cells that are genetically produced during fetal development. Each living human would thus be provided with normal functioning abilities, as well as the phenomenal gifts of the savant.

Elevation of oxygen ratio, and its saturation in a fluid medium, explains the large size of some insects in the fossil record.[95] This further solves the long-standing dinosaur mystery of their small lungs being able to sustain tremendous bulk sizes. Due to the effects of Boyles Law, the water table was saturated with free oxygen. Anaerobic bacteria would not thrive under these conditions, and marine life could grow to gargantuan sizes, such as those found in the fossil record.

Research physicist Sherwood Idso has found that plants, when enriched with more CO2, “grow bigger and better, much like the plants of past geological epochs of biological prominence...[T]he efficiency with which plants use water to produce organic matter, essentially doubles with a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Moreover, for a tripling of the amount of CO2 in the air, it nearly triples!”[97] Researcher Suan-Chin Wong grew cotton plants under normal ambient partial pressure of CO2, and under enriched partial pressure of CO2. Thirty-five days after planting, the total dry weights of high CO2-grown plants were 2 to 3.5 fold greater than plants grown in normal ambient CO2.[98]

We are only now beginning to realize a measure of the orchestration involved. Interdependence among all forms of life is now recognized as common in nature.[99] One contextual benefit would be the natural healing of the human body.[100]

[87] H.G. Owen, “Has the Earth Increased in Size?” New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, 1992, p. 289

[89] Ibid.

[90] Robert A. Berner and Gary P. Landis, “Gas Bubbles in Fossil Amber as Possible Indication of the Major Gas Composition of Ancient Air,” Science, Vol. 239, p. 1406

[91] J.C.G. Walker, “Atmospheric Evolution,” Science, Vol. 230, p. 164

[92] William Fife, Personal Correspondence, March 29, 1995

[93] Arthur J. Vander, James H. Sherman, and Dorothy S. Luciano, Human Physiology: The Mechanics of Body Function, p. 315

[94] Jacques-Yves Cousteau, “At Home in the Sea,” National Geographic, Washington, DC, 1964, p. 496

[95] Jon Harrison, “Air’s Oxygen Content Constrains Insect Growth,” Science News, Vol. 170, October 21, 2006, p. 270

[97] Sherwood B. Idso, “Carbon Dioxide Can Revitalize the Planet,” OPEC Bulletin, March 1992, pp. 22-27

[98] Suan-Chin Wong, “Elevated Atmospheric Partial Pressure of CO2 and Plant Growth,” Photosynthesis Research, Springer Netherlands, Vol. 23, Number 2, Feb., 1990, pp. 171-180

[99] Ann Fausto-Sterling, “Is Nature Really Red in Tooth and Claw?” Discover, April 1993, p. 24

[100] Sherry Baker, “Internal Medicine,” Omni, New York, Jan. 1991

Edited September 12, 2009 by fig rocks

[Guest Smilodon]

A 2002 study (Atanassov1, Momchil N.; Strauss, Richard E. "How much did Archaeopteryx and Quetzalcoatlus weigh? Mass estimation by multivariate analysis of bone dimensions". Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) suggested a body mass of 200–260 lb. for Quetzalcoatlus.

I call this photo "Ron for Perspective"

[Mike_H]

Ok, 300 pounds doesn't seem so far fetched now.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Enhancement of Atmospheric Pressure. The Earth expanded in diameter.

More crackpot nonsense.

Chris Rowan eloquently, and succinctly, refutes that ideal using real science.

http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/01/supercontinent_cycles_3_expand.php

EDIT: by me

[Theorist]

I was able to find some more information on Quetzalcoatlus. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, by Dougal Dixon, states that Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of about 37 feet and

"Despite its great size the skeleton was lightly built and the whole animal may have weighed not more than 100kg (220 lbs)."

The Japanese scientist, Katsufumi Sato, who concluded that the pterosaurs would not be able to stay aloft, concluded that the maximum weight for a flying animal is 40kg (88lbs). What is interesting is the ratio of the two weights 88/220. If the basis of this analysis is correct, this would imply surface gravity was almost 1/3 of today's value at the end of the Cretaceous.......a stunning conclusion and even less than what I assumed.

There are a few assumptions here. The first one is that both the pterosaurs and the birds the scientist is studying use a vertical, and not a running, takeoff. Actually, the scientist does not address takeoffs. He asserts that these large pterosaurs could not flap their wings fast enough to stay airborne.

Also, the core-shift theory would entail variations in surface gravity.....the maximum low gravitational value at the center of mass of Pangea, basically in an equatorial location. If true, then we would most likely find the remains of Quetzalcoatlus in what was equatorial regions in the late Cretaceous.... not in places like Canada, Australia or other higher latitude locations.

[tracer]

any of ya'll ever sell timeshares?

[Boesse]

That was the stupidest ....... thing I've ever read - I realized that even before he mentioned 'the flood'. I didn't even bother to read the article. I seriously hope noone on here believes an ounce that this madman is saying. He should just go back to wearing tin foil hats. I was going to jot down some counterarguments, but given what the article devolved into and other reader comments, I hardly think its worth the time.

EDIT: edited for profanity

S.S.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Also, the core-shift theory would entail variations in surface gravity.....the maximum low gravitational value at the center of mass of Pangea, basically in an equatorial location.

While, gravitational anomalies are real, nowhere do they exceed more that about 0.3% from the mean. And, as far as I know, there is no data to support any kind of large(1-2%)deviation from the norm during the Phanerozoic. Too, there is no "core shift theory". There are hypotheses to explain the wandering of the poles, but there has never been a radical abrupt change in location of the poles as some of as some of the "2012" crackpots would have us believe.

[Gatorman]

Scientist also said bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.

[siteseer]

Scientist also said bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.

That line about bumblebees was something attributed to scientists but no one has been able to track it to the original quote. If it was stated by a scientist, it was probably before the invention of helicopters and Roombas.