Jump to content

Dinosaurs And The Gravity Problem (by Ted Holden)


lordpiney

Recommended Posts

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.

You are probably correct that there is no (known) data to support any kind of large gravitational changes during the Phanerozoic. But, this subject, to my knowledge, has not been studied. We're not addressing the conventional "gravitational anomalies" caused by variations in sub-surface densities. And, your statement that there is no "core shift theory" is not correct, although it might not be formally known by that name.

As far as the locations of the poles is concerned, there was substantial wandering of the poles during the Mesozoic, although not abrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Hey Siteseer,

FYI, here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Myths - a fellow grad student informed me that the problem is caused by scaling up the insect to the size of an aircraft. If you do not do this, than there is no problem

Bobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus

You are probably correct that there is no (known) data to support any kind of large gravitational changes during the Phanerozoic. But, this subject, to my knowledge, has not been studied. We're not addressing the conventional "gravitational anomalies" caused by variations in sub-surface densities. And, your statement that there is no "core shift theory" is not correct, although it might not be formally known by that name.

As far as the locations of the poles is concerned, there was substantial wandering of the poles during the Mesozoic, although not abrupt.

There have been numerous paleo-magnetic studies done through out the years, and "conventional" gravitational anomalies are the only kind that occur; proposing anything else, without a shred of evidence(at least that employing the scientific method) is little more than inane ramblings from crackpots.

And no, there is no "core shift theory"; there are the inane ramblings of crackpots, but a theory that don't make. Too, there has been substantial wandering of the poles throughout history, but that is an entirely different beast from what the "core shift theory" psuedo-scientists propose. For example, in the last century and a half:

54556main_nmppath2001_med.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that the condition of today and back when dinosaurs lived were very different. Our atmosphere has changed a lot from the air mixture to the weather conditions. Gravity was different and the size of things has change look at the size of humans from the 1600 to today we are taller. As for flight over 30 percent of a hummingbird's weight is in its flight muscles. Trumpeter Swan weight up to and at times more than 30 pounds but you are talking about flight think more towards dinosaurs gliding. Gliding is dependent on the wind currents thus, a high perch is necessary. I do not think flying was possible but gliding would be and it evolved into flying, as the dinosaurs got smaller. Gliding we can even do. Most birds have hollow bones and air sacs between heavier muscles to reduce weight. There body and wing feathers smooth airflow keeping air drag keeping minimum. The heaviest flying birds cab weighs barely 30 pounds and includes trumpeter swans, and condor. The amount of wing and speed necessary to lift heavier weights makes bird flight impractical beyond that upper limit. Swans run across the water to gain airspeed but once in flight they can beat their nearly seven foot wings for hours. They can cover several hundred miles and condors have nearly ten-foot wings and depend on rising air currents that are present in the mountain habitat. They do not have the muscle power to flap their wings for long periods, but they soar for hours. They perch on high cliffs where they do not have to flap wings and they launch into flight. Bird’s lungs are much different from human lungs. Bird’s lungs connected to a series of air sacs run throughout their body into their breast muscles. Each breath is a processed that extracts more oxygen per breath than human lungs. Bird hearts are larger and stronger than mammals per size. Birds that migrate have larger hearts then birds that do not.

I would then assume that dinosaurs may have had an even more efficient respiratory system because of their size and the atmosphere was different and that has to be taken in to consideration. Also a study out shows that atmosphere can be seen from the past in the deep ice core samples that have been taken most recently. They do not go back to the dinosaur’s age but they do show how our atmosphere changed and the direction in which it has changed. The ice core studies would be worth looking into and the statistic they show to obtain more information about what the air mixtures were. Speculation at best is all dependants on the point of view one wants to make. At one point T Rex was a predator the next he was a scavenger and on and on. To answer the question and to prove them 100% we first must build a time machine.

The best days are spent collecting fossils

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus
Gravity was different...

NO IT WASN'T!

Gravity is a function of an objects mass(ignoring relativity for simplicity's sake); the Earth's mass has been relatively constant for 4.6 billion years. THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support that expanding Earth nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO IT WASN'T!

Gravity is a function of an objects mass(ignoring relativity for simplicity's sake); the Earth's mass has been relatively constant for 4.6 billion years. THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support that expanding Earth nonsense.

CAN YOU PROVE THAT? That is, that gravity was not lower in the past.

In addition to your statement about gravity being a function of mass, IT IS ALSO A FUNCTION OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE MASSES. A change in distance between the masses has a much greater impact (per the inverse square rule).

Do you agree with the Japanese scientist who claims an animal weighing more than about 60 pounds cannot fly today? Or, is he a crackpot too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get too involved in this..but common sense says that, when you have no evidence..go with the simplest explanation and you're probably going to be correct.

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAN YOU PROVE THAT? That is, that gravity was not lower in the past.

In addition to your statement about gravity being a function of mass, IT IS ALSO A FUNCTION OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE MASSES. A change in distance between the masses has a much greater impact (per the inverse square rule).

Do you agree with the Japanese scientist who claims an animal weighing more than about 60 pounds cannot fly today? Or, is he a crackpot too?

Theorist, site your sources. By saying "a japanese scientist", you give total doubt to the claim. We need names, dates, periodical titles and so forth. Siting sources is what makes or breaks an arguement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cris - the simplest solution is for you to find the gas leak in this forum and turn it OFF!

auspex - please go find one of our more robust members and convince them that the world will end if they don't streak through this thread wearing nothing but a pink tutu!

nicholas - isn't there some non-controversial "newsy" little bit of something up your sleeve that you can throw down in here as a distraction?!

gatorman - where are the software glitches when you really need them?!

<strapping on ww1 leather flying helmet; putting on goggles>

well, i weigh more than 60 pounds, but i'm gonna get some big air abandoning this particular thread - watch this!!

<snoopy-dancing toward the exit, gaining speed, and actually achieving a teensy bit of visible space underfoot and wobbling like a drunken butterfly as he exits on a thermal of hot air>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAN YOU PROVE THAT? That is, that gravity was not lower in the past.

Pretty tough to prove a negative...

If one were to undertake to disprove the null hypothesis in this case, all existing empirical data would line-up with there having been little-to-no gross variation in earth's gravity since it's accretion. Further, Mesozoic gigantism does not need the occurrence of weaker gravity to explain it; known bio-mechanical principles do so rather nicely. The whole thing is a non-problem in search of an extraordinary solution.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus

CAN YOU PROVE THAT? That is, that gravity was not lower in the past.

Can you prove that it wasn't? It is you that is making extraordinary claims: the burden of proof lays at your feet. You, apparently, have found one study that suggests something different, but there are mountains of evidence(including 400 years of Newtonian Physics) to support the standard model.

In addition to your statement about gravity being a function of mass, IT IS ALSO A FUNCTION OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE MASSES. A change in distance between the masses has a much greater impact (per the inverse square rule).

Curious??? Have you ever had an introductory physics class? Because, what you wrote doesn't make a bit of sense. I you had, you should realize that the "R" in F = GMm/R² is a statistically negligent number relative to the ΔR obtained between the surface and a few hundred meters above it. Too, the differences of "M", relative to "m", is nothing(6.0 x 10²⁴kg vs. a few hundred kg... do the math!). You're trying to confuse the issue with a bunch of non sequitors, and to me, that demonstrates that you have little grasp of the knowledge at hand, or...

Do you agree with the Japanese scientist who claims an animal weighing more than about 60 pounds cannot fly today? Or, is he a crackpot too?

I haven't read the paper, but it means absolutely nothing- see my first response, above.

I have come across you, or your type before. Your type cherry pick a few anomalies to support some nonsense, and totally ignore the mountains of data that contradict your "theory". It is classic psuedo-science, and I, for one, won't allow you to post those kinds of lies unchallenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm guessing you couldn't find the streaker, huh?

i, personally, DID have an introductory physics class, which is why i quit school and joined the circus.

and a fifth point - there are a bunch of times when i know somebody's wrong, but i also know that there's no way to make them see they're wrong, and the fact that they're wrong isn't hurting anything, because their thoughts are not relevant to whether i have gas or food or electricity or anything, and so i just let them be wrong.

i learned that from trying to teach my cat to sing. it didn't work, and it annoyed him.

wait a second - what the snarge am i doing?! i never have been good at practicing what i preach...

<walking out, shaking his head>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jeeze louise...when i originally posted this, i never thought it would get everyone's knickers in a twist! i just thought it was an interesting take on a theoretical subject. sorry if my post caused any bad feelings among members here. i'll try and keep it a little less controversial next time. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...i just thought it was an interesting take on a theoretical subject....

It is an interesting take on a theoretical subject, and I am reading each and every post with interest. The process of debate is interesting in itself; without it, what would science be? Where would it be? It is as useful for quelling misconceptions as it is for institutionalizing new concepts. Passionate beliefs not withstanding, great claims require great proof. That proof must follow the scientific method, and not ignore reproducible, long-standing refutations.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus

and a fifth point - there are a bunch of times when i know somebody's wrong, but i also know that there's no way to make them see they're wrong, and the fact that they're wrong isn't hurting anything,

... but their thoughts can do harm, sometimes. When people spout nonsense in a public forum , there are others, less informed, that might think that those bogus ideas have some merit. The current controversy in American school systems is a prime example of the dangers that can result when psuedo-science isn't confronted head on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but their thoughts can do harm, sometimes. When people spout nonsense in a public forum , there are others, less informed, that might think that those bogus ideas have some merit. The current controversy in American school systems is a prime example of the dangers that can result when psuedo-science isn't confronted head on.

i'm not so sure about that premise. people who are raised in a sterile environment of accurate information become complacent in their analysis of information they process. my kids question and wonder about everything because i've blown so much smoke at them.

the internet, and the schools, will always be full of misinformation, because there will never be sufficient fact-checkers to have one present for every utterance. but basically everyone i know have been the products of public schools, and i have not discerned any particular bents of mind affecting their lives materially as a result.

the "current controversy in public schools" centers almost exclusively around who's got a date for homecoming and whether they're buying them a mum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike_H

Google "Pterodactyls were too heavy to fly, scientist claims"

All comments that I made came from these sites.

Auspex,

What is an exmaple of "all existing empirical data" relating to past surface gravitation? Just one example would suffice.

Solius,

Wrong Again!

400 years of Newtonian physics is the basis of the shifting core theory.

One of your earlier posts claims that gravity is only defined by mass. You omit distance as a factor. This is the same error that Expanding Earth theorists have made. They have erroneously, as you did, failed to realize that mass is not the only factor;distance is a more potent factor.

"A few hundred meters." I think you should get a book on geology to find the possible distance the inner core could move within the outer core, let alone the shift that the outer core could make.

See my above comment to Mike_H about the Japanese study. I would like your SPECIFIC comments on that study.

And, in reference to proving a negative:

There is substantial circumstanial evidence for lower Mesozoic surface gravity including those mentioned in this thread. Dinosaurs that approach the blue whale in size, pterosaurs that some believe couldnt fly today, etc.

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.

Let me repeat:

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it and it seems like crackpot science. For one, you can't compare pterasours and birds. They are nothing alike. If anything, pterasouars and bats would be better to compare since the wing stucture is similar. Two, Albatros' can have sustaned flight, it's easier to conserve energy by souring on thermals. Sato seems to try to prove a point, not to disprove one. And that's the entire point to science, to disprove ideas and theories.

I'm sorry Theorist, this Sato doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.

You're kidding me; that statement (not it's content mind you, but the "logic" of the test), is so completely alien to the scientific method as to defy rebuttal. Try this for fun, and you might see what I mean; pick some random nouns and adjectives, and substitute them where indicated:

"There is no circumstantial evidence to support the claim that <random noun> was not <random adjective> in that era."

If that's the sort of logic that is driving your passion, then there is little I can say to rebut your beliefs.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus

Solius,

Wrong Again!

400 years of Newtonian physics is the basis of the shifting core theory.

The only basis for that nonsense is a poor understanding of basic principles of Physics, and reliance upon an appeal to ignorance. If you have any evidence, let us see it(not in some popular magazine, or newspaper article, but in a peer reviewed journal). I'll be waiting...

One of your earlier posts claims that gravity is only defined by mass. You omit distance as a factor. This is the same error that Expanding Earth theorists have made. They have erroneously, as you did, failed to realize that mass is not the only factor;distance is a more potent factor.

Nice attempt at setting up a strawman. I didn't write that it was "only defined by mass", I wrote that it was a function of mass. See "conservation of momentum", below.

"A few hundred meters." I think you should get a book on geology to find the possible distance the inner core could move within the outer core, let alone the shift that the outer core could make.

I have read a few books on geology in my day, and while Structural isn't my forte, I was fortunate enough to study under one of the preeminent researchers, and writer, in the field. What you seem to be omitting from your analysis is the law conservation of angular momentum. If there were a shift, that shift would put a torque on the system. The results of that torque would be a radical variation in the lengths of the day, or precession of the poles; that would lead to evidence in the stratigraphic record(something that is my forte). That evidence just ain't there, because IT NEVER HAPPENED.

See my above comment to Mike_H about the Japanese study. I would like your SPECIFIC comments on that study.

I haven't read the study. Maybe some day when I have the time. Though, one study does not prove anything when it is up against a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.

Let me repeat:

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.

Dude, google "appeal to ignorance"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This research by Sato hasn't been published yet and submitted to the rigors of peer-review. This is preliminary, uncriticized, unchecked speculation. Auspex (and others?) is correct that using a bird as an analogy is bad methodology. Pterosaurs had a fundamentally different anatomy than birds, so it is not clear that birds are useful analogues at all for pterosaur biomechanics.

Alright, I'll give you an example: angle of repose of sediment. This is something that has not varied at all throughout earth's history. If you change the gravity, the angle of repose will change (depending on wetness and cohesion of the sediment, of course). I.e. lower gravity conditions will allow steeper sediment 'slopes' (i.e. slipfaces of dunes). The maximum angle of repose has not changed through earth's history (i.e. under the same sedimentologic conditions). I'll brainstorm about other gravity-dependent processes.

"Dinosaurs that approach the blue whale in size" 1) Dinosaurs did not get the size of blue whales. 2) There is not one credible study that indicates lower gravity conditions are necessary for sauropod dinosaurs to 'work'. This claim is so ridiculous it makes me laugh - not some little giggle, but a deep guttural howl from the depths of my bowels. Some studies have attempted to show that if we assume dinosaurs had a mammalian physiology sauropod dinosaurs may have had difficulty lifting their necks vertical. That's all, and many researchers don't buy that at all (in fact, there was a recent paper that came out that refutes this: http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app54/app54-213.pdf, and see the review at http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/sauropods-held-their-necks-erect-just-like-rabbits/

Keep in mind that the majority of dinosaurs were smaller than an african elephant (which, magically, can live under current, non-changing gravity!). All theropods, ceratopsians, stegosaurs, most ankylosaurs, most hadrosaurs, so on and so forth were all smaller than african elephants (and a far cry smaller than really big fossil mammals like bronthoteres and those gigantic asian rhinos).

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA

On the flipside - as SS stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one making extraordinary claims - so, give us data that support it (as opposed to 'well, nothing disproves it, so it happened' - which, by the way, is not embracing the method of multiple working hypotheses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, the thread finally got interesting. bobby - your "angle of repose" thing once again illustrates why i just love it when you post. you know an awful lot and your contributions to conversations can be huge.

ya'll may have read this theory many times, but i just thought it up, so if it hasn't been used, feel free to steal it, and if it's old news, then, well, i don't hang with the scholars, so whatever.

there are multiple "gravity-equivalent" situations on the planet, and there always have been. astronauts simulate and practice dealing with lower gravity in water tanks. long-neckedness (i love saying stuff like that) is a whole 'nother issue underwater than on land. certain blubbericious aminules that hang on beaches seem to barely be able to move, but get them in the water and they become fred astaire (sorry fred's associates - it's just a lousy analogy). so anyway, amid the plethora of variables that i believe impact upon the relative size reached by any given type of critter over eons, how long they were in the water before they looked at the land, and decided to buy a landyak and go exploring, to me might impact on how big they got. i mean, if walruses suddenly decided that water was yucky and they were never going in it again, would they shrink, or just get stronger legs and develop some hustle?

what do you mean, is that it?! what the heck were you expecting?! i'm tracer! be kind - ya'll have shot down every theory i've ever had, without the slightest regard for comedic license. and bear in mind that gravity has been used for comedic purposes for many years. first there was that kid's school joke about how you turn a fruit into a vegetable, or something like that. you know, a watermelon - you throw it in the air and it comes down squash. and then there's all those road runner cartoons, where it seems that they ought to have to pay royalties to gravity for starring in them all.

i give up! <walking toward the exit - falling down into a hole and disappearing>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOESSE,

I started reading the MSU site you posted but stopped when I saw the words "Expanded Earth." I assume you read my prior posts in which I stated that I did not believe in E.E.

Your Head and Neck posture of Sauropods site is interesting but I have to rely on the statement in the introduction:

"Horizontal necks seems to have been accepted as the new orthodoxy, not through independent replication........but SIMPLY THROUGH LACK OF PUBLISHED COUNTER-ARGUMENTS."

Anle of Repose of sediment? Are you stating that erosion, wind, rain and other factors over millions of years would not have affected this? Myabe on the moon this might have some veracity. Please give a peer-reviewed reference that concludes that surface gravity was unchanged based on Angle of Repose.

In your reference to sauropod neck position, sauropods are being compared to extant animals. Yet, others on this thread seem to object to pterosaurs being compared to extant birds, the only living descendants of dinosaurs. Hypocritical?

How do you know Sato's work has not been submitted to peer review? That makes it "unchecked speculation?"

SOLIUS,

I know you like to dance, so that explains why you danced around my request for comment on Dr. Sato's analysis of bird flight. I'll give you one last chance to comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...