Dinosaurs And The Gravity Problem (by Ted Holden)

[Gatorman]

Theorist, please be mindful of your wording. A great debate such as this one is extremely interesting and intelligible, this can lead to everyone gaining insight. But when statements are made in a way that is negative towards a certain person it can become tiresome and offensive. You are not the only one getting close to this line but you happened to be the one in which I am responding to.

Please keep this subject as a intellectual debate and not an argument. That goes for everyone. If you need an example of a great debater look no further than Harry Pristis I for one believe he could win any debate whether he is wrong or not.

On a side note just because one doesn't "believe" in something does not make it completely wrong. There may be evidence in the subject that is in fact true while the remainder is false. So perhaps reading the entire article would bring more insight into what one is trying to prove, thus giving you ground to either prove or disprove your own theory.

[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."

Regardless of whether or not you believe in EE, the post still has some relevant information about gravity through time. It's not my problem you didn't finish reading the article.

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."

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

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.

I'm not sure you're 100% understanding this. Angle of repose is the highest angle that unconsolidated sediment will sit at before collapsing/avalanching. For example, slipfaces of eolian dunes occur at the angle of repose (for dry sand), and sand grain avalanches occur when the slipface is steep (it steepens from sand being transported up the stoss side of the dune). The angle of repose is preserved in cross bedding in the rock record, and can be directly measured in outcrop. The maximum dip angle of cross bedding through geologic time has not decreased. I challenge you to demonstrate that I am wrong.

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?

Hypocritical? No, and here's why. First off, pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs. Second, if extinct and extant organisms have similar adaptations, then the functional morphology and anatomy of the two should be compared in order to shed light on analogous structures and adaptations in the extinct organism. Sato did not compare bird and pterosaur anatomy, which is vastly different. Sato took measurements of flapping from live birds and calculated that pterosaurs theoretically couldn't fly. He scaled up an albatross to the size of a Quetzlcoatlus and it magically didn't work (Gee, the same thing happened when bumblebees were scaled up to the size of a plane...).

Here's the big problem: Sato did not take into account functional morphology of pterosaurs at all. In fact, he didn't say it was impossible for large pterosaurs to fly at all: "The present study does not deny the possibility that they might rely on warmed rising air of thermals using vulture-like broad wings. Precise flight performance of thermal soaring birds such as vultures, condors and frigate birds should be monitored under natural conditions." This is called wiggle room. And there's a lot of it in this paper.

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

I double checked this, and Sato has since published this in the journal PLOS one:http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005400. My remark was in response to the news pieces I read which stated the research was presented at a conference. Research presented at conferences is not peer reviewed. Trust me - I'm giving a poster presentation at a conference in england next week, and it isn't peer reviewed. I've seen some real snarge that has been presented at conferences that never makes it into a veritable journal.

Bobby

[Guest solius symbiosus]

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.

In my post, previous, I wrote that I haven't read the article, and that I probably won't. Verts are outside my "realm", and I rarely take notice. That being said, any fringe "theories"/quackery/pseudo-science/conspiracy theorists,... ect. gets my blood pumping... especially, if I am sucking down some corn squeezin'.

Now, I probably came across as a bit harsh... even boorish, and for that I offer my apologies. I made the assumption that we have done "battle" before, maybe we have, perhaps we haven't.

Generally, I am of a mild temperament, but when I perceive that someone is misrepresenting established scientific principle through trickery, or fraud, I tend to shoot first, and ask questions later. For that, once again, my apologies.(for shooting first, but I think that my aim was dead on)

No hard feelings. <as he drinks to your health>

... But when statements are made in a way that is negative towards a certain person it can become tiresome and offensive. You are not the only one getting close to this line but you happened to be the one in which I am responding to.

Noted. See above. I agree that ad homs are both tiresome, and offensive, but I must ask, if one has made a careful, and somewhat meticulous study, and then proceeds to ignore all the salient points while "cherry picking" a few anomalies, and then proceeds to misrepresent the data as qualifying some mistaken position, is it wrong to call them out on, what I consider, a lie?

Some would consider that mollycoddling ignorance(or worse) is the best way to achieve a scientifically literate public; I disagree. I think that the cold hard slap of reality is the best route. For those entrenched in dogma will never understand anything but their own perceptions; hopefully, the others will recognize the folly...

[tracer]

to me, people's "temperament" in a debate is like the air conditioning - if it is noticeable, then it simply becomes a distraction from the ideas at hand. intentionally causing temperament to become an issue to me implies a concern regarding potential lack of substance in the ideas being used in the debate and/or a desire to "win" something other than the debate, ie. the inter-personal conflict being intentionally created. it's kinda like putting a straightened paperclip through the center of a cigarette so that the burning ash won't fall off it, and using that as a distractor when talking to someone about an important matter. if you count that as "winning", then you and i keep score differently.

i used a couple of semi-lame analogies above to make a point. in the weighty issue here (hah), we heard an analogy drawn between a bird and a pterosaur, where "scaling up" the bird was used to make the analogy, as if size was the only parameter that didn't match between the two. then we had an oft-mentioned fallacious analog, that of the bubblebee compared to all other flying things. and somewhere in all that, we have both analogies thrown together, it seems, and i believe i actually saw an assertion that the problem with doing all this is that some things compared are extant and some are extinct.

wow. i have a passing interest in aerodynamics and fluid dynamics. an associated annoyance is that, although i don't consider myself a dummy, it is categorically impossible for me to understand those two realms of the physical world, because they are hopelessly complex and apparently in many instances can only be described with volumes of arcane equations. what this means, is that there is no way to simplify the flight capabilities of an organism, or a machine, and compare them to a different organism or machine which achieves flight in a different manner. there is no analogy between a bumblebee flying and a bird flying. there is no valid analogy between a helicopter flying and a cessna 150 and a harrier and a f-22 raptor, etc. etc. ad nauseum. and there is definitely no analogy between pterosaur flight and anything else, unless one first establishes that one has somehow been able to find a currently flying organism that has more or less identical skeletal structure, implying (very possibly falsely) similar biomechanics between the two, even though only one piece of the puzzle is present and musculature, skin, skin surface features, etc. are all missing.

i don't want to lose my point with all the above. i'm not here to prove anything regarding the topic so far, except to assert that it is pretty much invalid except when being discussed by aeronautical and mechanical engineers. i really have begun to feel pretty much like paleo people are too emotionally vested in the outcomes of their observations and really love filling in the blanks. there now! we're done! wait, what?

here's what people do in the real world and on the internet that helps them get through their day but causes problems. they take complex subjects, arbitrarily simplify them, invalidly compare them to other arbitrarily simplified ideas, and "build" on the card houses of others who've done similar things, and then make decisions and act based on these sorts of thoughts. it doesn't matter in this venue, in my opinion, because no actions will be taken regarding these discussions. but it matters a heck of a lot in the real world. "fireworks should be banned!" um, which ones, sparklers or 12" mortar shells? "just say no to drugs!" we talking aspirin or heroin?

"this isn't rocket science!"

yes, sometimes it really is, and you can't make it anything else, just because you can't deal with it as it is.

this is why i snoopy-dance. there are times when i feel like it is the only appropriate thing to do.

<snoopy dancing, while observing his feet, trying to figure out how it works>

<tripping, falling, holding bleeding nose and walking out of the topic>

[Guest solius symbiosus]

... we heard an analogy drawn between a bird and a pterosaur, where "scaling up" the bird was used to make the analogy,

Maybe, I have misinterpreted something here, but I saw that analogy as some kind of attempt at justifying one of those "fringe" "theories". See above.

Really, I could care less whether some reptile flew, or not. That ain't the issue... it is rather, or not, that the core made some radical changes that circumvent all known processes, and an explanation of how those processes occurred.

[Theorist]

BOESSE,

“Keep in mind that the majority of dinosaurs were smaller than an african elephant (which, magically, can live under current, non-changing gravity!”

The majority of dinosaurs were probably smaller than an African elephant. How is this relevant? Are you making the erroneous assumption that all living things under lower gravity would automatically be scaled up?

Your comment “non-changing gravity” is just your opinion.

“Regardless of whether or not you believe in EE, the post still has some relevant information about gravity through time. It's not my problem you didn't finish reading the article.”

What is the “relevant information?”

“The angle of repose is preserved in cross bedding in the rock record, and can be directly measured in outcrop. The maximum dip angle of cross bedding through geologic time has not decreased. I challenge you to demonstrate that I am wrong.”

I challenge you, as I requested previously, to supply a reference to a peer-reviewed source that concludes, based on angle of repose or anything else, that there was never any fluctuation in the Earth’s surface gravity.

“Sato did not take into account functional morphology of pterosaurs at all. In fact, he didn't say it was impossible for large pterosaurs to fly at all: "The present study does not deny the possibility that they might rely on warmed rising air of thermals using vulture-like broad wings. Precise flight performance of thermal soaring birds such as vultures, condors and frigate birds should be monitored under natural conditions." This is called wiggle room. And there's a lot of it in this paper.”

My point about (large) pterosaurs is that they had to be able to takeoff in a basically vertical flight pattern. If they weren’t able to do this they would have been lunch for the predators. Gliding on thermals is irrelevant.

“I double checked this, and Sato has since published this in the journal PLOS one:http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005400.”

So, you agree that his study is not “unchecked speculation?”

TRACER,

“...there is definitely no analogy between pterosaur flight and anything else, unless one first establishes that one has somehow been able to find a currently flying organism that has more or less identical skeletal structure, implying (very possibly falsely) similar biomechanics between the two, even though only one piece of the puzzle is present and musculature, skin, skin surface features, etc. are all missing.”

I think this is “wiggle room” because one would never be able to compare extinct species to currently extant ones. Someone would always be able to find some small difference and elevate that to a perceived level of “biomechanical” difference.

“i don't want to lose my point with all the above. i'm not here to prove anything regarding the topic so far, except to assert that it is PRETTY MUCH INVALID EXCEPT when being discussed by aeronautical and mechanical engineers.”

Wrong! It is never invalid, regardless who discusses any subject!

SOLIUS,

“I could care less whether some reptile flew, or not.”

This is the crux of the whole thread! If that reptile couldn’t possibly takeoff from the ground today, then a lot of folks have a lot of explaining to do.

[Boesse]

The majority of dinosaurs were probably smaller than an African elephant. How is this relevant?

Uhh... it's relevant because 95% of known dinosaurs would work under today's conditions. The other 5% are only a little bigger than gigantic Oligo-Miocene mammals.

What is the “relevant information?”

Read it again. Most of it is relevant.

I challenge you, as I requested previously, to supply a reference to a peer-reviewed source that concludes, based on angle of repose or anything else, that there was never any fluctuation in the Earth’s surface gravity.

No... It doesn't work that way. I'm too busy as it is (doing science) to do this. I'm not interested in proving non-changing gravity, because it is universally accepted within the scientific community. You don't accept it, and thus it is your job. Or stop moaning about it. Pick one.

My point about (large) pterosaurs is that they had to be able to takeoff in a basically vertical flight pattern. If they weren’t able to do this they would have been lunch for the predators. Gliding on thermals is irrelevant.

Actually, it really isn't. I want you to think long and hard about why it might possibly be relevant. Then come back and say something intelligent.

So, you agree that his study is not “unchecked speculation?”

Trick question! I was referring to his presentation, which at the time was 'unchecked speculation'. His paper is peer-reviewed. Do the math.

Now, I have to get back to packing for my trip to England, where I'm going to be presenting research (at this point, I'll admit, 'unchecked speculation') at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and (you know) do science.

[Theorist]

BOESSE,

“Uhh... it's relevant because 95% of known dinosaurs would work under today's conditions. The other 5% are only a little bigger than gigantic Oligo-Miocene mammals.”

What does “work” mean? Does it mean that they could run as fast today as they did then? Does it mean they could jump as high today as they did then? The fact that most (I’m not sure of your 95% figure) dinosaurs were not giants does not mean that they would “work” today.

“The other 5% are only a little bigger than gigantic Oligo-Miocene mammals.”

A little bigger? How about a lot bigger. Also, if surface gravity was gradually increasing from the end-Mesozoic until today, one would expect a corresponding gradual decrease in size of terrestrial animals. I think that’s what we see.

“Read it again. Most of it is relevant.”

I will do that.

“Actually, it really isn't. I want you to think long and hard about why it might possibly be relevant. Then come back and say something intelligent.”

I don’t understand your answer, let me repeat my statement:

“My point about (large) pterosaurs is that they had to be able to takeoff in a basically vertical flight pattern. If they weren’t able to do this they would have been lunch for the predators. Gliding on thermals is irrelevant.”

“Trick question! I was referring to his presentation, which at the time was 'unchecked speculation'. His paper is peer-reviewed. Do the math.”

Thank you, you’ve answered my question.

Bon voyage. May the wind always be at your back.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

BOESSE,

“Uhh... it's relevant because 95% of known dinosaurs would work under today's conditions. The other 5% are only a little bigger than gigantic Oligo-Miocene mammals.”

What does “work” mean? Does it mean that they could run as fast today as they did then? Does it mean they could jump as high today as they did then? The fact that most (I’m not sure of your 95% figure) dinosaurs were not giants does not mean that they would “work” today.

“The other 5% are only a little bigger than gigantic Oligo-Miocene mammals.”

A little bigger? How about a lot bigger. Also, if surface gravity was gradually increasing from the end-Mesozoic until today, one would expect a corresponding gradual decrease in size of terrestrial animals. I think that’s what we see.

“Read it again. Most of it is relevant.”

I will do that.

“Actually, it really isn't. I want you to think long and hard about why it might possibly be relevant. Then come back and say something intelligent.”

I don’t understand your answer, let me repeat my statement:

“My point about (large) pterosaurs is that they had to be able to takeoff in a basically vertical flight pattern. If they weren’t able to do this they would have been lunch for the predators. Gliding on thermals is irrelevant.”

“Trick question! I was referring to his presentation, which at the time was 'unchecked speculation'. His paper is peer-reviewed. Do the math.”

Thank you, you’ve answered my question.

Bon voyage. May the wind always be at your back.

Thus far the only thing that you have presented is a specious argument that you contrived from one paper, that apparently, hasn't even made it through peer review. Is that all you have? And your trying to build a "case" from that???

[JohnJ]

Following this thread has been, at times, entertaining and educational. Yet, like most discussions, it sometimes tends to lose focus. So Theorist, for the sake of review and clarity (primarily in my mind ), could you "bullet point" the fundamentals you are asserting? Thanks.

Edited September 22, 2009 by JohnJ

[Theorist]

Following this thread has been, at times, entertaining and educational. Yet, like most discussions, it sometimes tend to lose focus. So Theorist, for the sake of review and clarity (primarily in my mind ), could you "bullet point" the fundamentals you are asserting? Thanks.

John,

I will do that tomorrow.

[tracer]

allow me to throw yet another wrench into things scientific. i've noticed since i've been on this board that people pull "peer-reviewed" like a gun. i guess "peer-reviewed" must be as good as it gets, but i can't help but wondering which peers are up on that nosebleed pedestal whose thoughts more or less give a concept validity. i mean, i figure ya'll aren't talking about peers of england or anything, so you must be talking about fellow science buddies. do these fsbs have some sort of stamp like engineers do or something where they get together and vote on the deal and say, "well, you know, ralph peer-reviewed my idea and gave it the old thumbs up, plus he bought the beer at the faculty picnic, and hey, wasn't that scotch he brought with him tenured? yeah, i think he gets the old stamparoonie." and <whunk!>, you're good to go!

i mean, let's face it. pretty much everything on this board isn't dancing around the subtle nuances of maybe yes, maybe no. most of it is either completely right (the stuff i say, for instance), or total bullcrap - actually usually fake bullcrap made out of plaster and auto body putty and stuff like that.

i don't know particularly doodley regarding gravity, but if the earth is puffing up like a big ole toad and getting heavier, i figure we'd notice it from some change in our cable tv reception. and as for them pterosaurs or whatever they were, they could obviously fly just fine. what else would their physique be good for? do you figure they had solar panels on those wings and just used them to power their recreational vehicles with?

yeah, these ole card houses get built pretty darn high around the ivory towers of academia. to me, it's just a way of keepin' score, but it doesn't change anything. a turnip's still a turnip.

(hey ya'll - pssst!! - um, how come i get all folksy sounding sometimes when i'm on a soapbox and being full of snarge? my family asked me to ask you that. you can pm your answers if i'd be too horribly embarassed by your public replies. BAAAAhahahahahah!)

(p.s. - my family didn't either really ask that! it was the freakin' cat! baaahahahahahah!)

[fig rocks]

allow me to throw yet another wrench into things scientific. i've noticed since i've been on this board that people pull "peer-reviewed" like a gun. i guess "peer-reviewed" must be as good as it gets, but i can't help but wondering which peers are up on that nosebleed pedestal whose thoughts more or less give a concept validity. i mean, i figure ya'll aren't talking about peers of england or anything, so you must be talking about fellow science buddies. do these fsbs have some sort of stamp like engineers do or something where they get together and vote on the deal and say, "well, you know, ralph peer-reviewed my idea and gave it the old thumbs up, plus he bought the beer at the faculty picnic, and hey, wasn't that scotch he brought with him tenured? yeah, i think he gets the old stamparoonie." and <whunk!>, you're good to go!

i mean, let's face it. pretty much everything on this board isn't dancing around the subtle nuances of maybe yes, maybe no. most of it is either completely right (the stuff i say, for instance), or total bullcrap - actually usually fake bullcrap made out of plaster and auto body putty and stuff like that.

i don't know particularly doodley regarding gravity, but if the earth is puffing up like a big ole toad and getting heavier, i figure we'd notice it from some change in our cable tv reception. and as for them pterosaurs or whatever they were, they could obviously fly just fine. what else would their physique be good for? do you figure they had solar panels on those wings and just used them to power their recreational vehicles with?

yeah, these ole card houses get built pretty darn high around the ivory towers of academia. to me, it's just a way of keepin' score, but it doesn't change anything. a turnip's still a turnip.

(hey ya'll - pssst!! - um, how come i get all folksy sounding sometimes when i'm on a soapbox and being full of snarge? my family asked me to ask you that. you can pm your answers if i'd be too horribly embarassed by your public replies. BAAAAhahahahahah!)

(p.s. - my family didn't either really ask that! it was the freakin' cat! baaahahahahahah!)

Well put tracer.....Another gem of wisdom geminating from your keyboard!

[tracer]

Well put tracer.....Another gem of wisdom geminating from your keyboard!

well, yeah, but i didn't say anything.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

allow me to throw yet another wrench into things scientific. i've noticed since i've been on this board that people pull "peer-reviewed" like a gun. i guess "peer-reviewed" must be as good as it gets, but i can't help but wondering which peers are up on that nosebleed pedestal whose thoughts more or less give a concept validity. i mean, i figure ya'll aren't talking about peers of england or anything, so you must be talking about fellow science buddies. do these fsbs have some sort of stamp like engineers do or something where they get together and vote on the deal and say, "well, you know, ralph peer-reviewed my idea and gave it the old thumbs up, plus he bought the beer at the faculty picnic, and hey, wasn't that scotch he brought with him tenured? yeah, i think he gets the old stamparoonie." and <whunk!>, you're good to go!

i mean, let's face it. pretty much everything on this board isn't dancing around the subtle nuances of maybe yes, maybe no. most of it is either completely right (the stuff i say, for instance), or total bullcrap - actually usually fake bullcrap made out of plaster and auto body putty and stuff like that.

Those that study some discipline of science, seriously, might consider your response flippant, but I assume you were going for facetious???

[tracer]

Those that study some discipline of science, seriously, might consider your response flippant, but I assume you were going for facetious???

well...since you asked...

i'd prefer you think of it as a verbal metaphor for those really abstract, really expensive paintings that people do who make huge amounts of money off of "art" that's so out there that you interpret it any way you want based on your own biases and dysfunctionalities, and they never let on that their five-year-old actually painted it.

[Theorist]

John,

Here are the basics of what I’ll call the “G Theory”:

1. The Earth’s cores’ position (both inner and outer) are dependent on the positioning of the continental plates.

2. The plates have rearranged their position throughout time, sometimes coalescing to form a supercontinent, such as Pangea.

3. The Earth’s surface gravity is directly and primarily determined by the position of the cores.

4. When the cores shift from their central location, surface gravity decreases at points furthest away from the shifted cores and simultaneously increases at surface points that are closest to the shifted core. A surface gravity-gradient results.

5. When Pangea formed, surface gravity was much lower on Pangea but much higher on the opposite oceanic side of the Earth.

6. The gravity gradient would result in the lowest surface gravity near the central, or equatorial, part of Pangea. Therefore, the largest life forms for a specific species, for a specific time period, would be in this region. (Note: this is why I made the comment that Quetzalcoatlus remains, which were found in Texas would not be found in either high northern or southern latitudes).

7. Larger terrestrial and marine life forms became possible. As in the current time, there is always a diversity of size regardless of the strength of surface gravity. In other words, lower gravity does not force all life forms to grow larger.

8. As Pangea broke apart, surface gravity on Pangea increased and the rate of increase was greatest when the continents started rapidly moving apart longitudinally approx. 68-65mya. The result was an accelerated extinction rate for both terrestrial and marine life.

9. Since the time of the K-T boundary, the rate of increase of surface gravity has decreased as the continents have attained a more even global distribution as the cores have returned to a central position.

10. When the cores were shifting, they magnified the effects of flood basalt volcanism. This type of volcanic activity originates at the core/mantle boundary. This is why the massive Deccan Traps volcanism was active 68-65mya.

[ashcraft]

Oh my goodness, where to start......

1. The Earth’s cores’ position (both inner and outer) are dependent on the positioning of the continental plates.

How?

4. When the cores shift from their central location, surface gravity decreases at points furthest away from the shifted cores and simultaneously increases at surface points that are closest to the shifted core. A surface gravity-gradient results.

In my humble opinion, shifting of the core is unlikely. The earth is spinning, like a giant centrifuge, if the core is as significant to the mass of the earth as you are saying, the earth would be out of balance, causing a serious wobble. Try throwing a ball of some type with a significant mass attached to the outside, and see how well it flies. Certainly not in a straight line, what would that have done to our orbit?

5. When Pangea formed, surface gravity was much lower on Pangea but much higher on the opposite oceanic side of the Earth.

6. The gravity gradient would result in the lowest surface gravity near the central, or equatorial, part of Pangea. Therefore, the largest life forms for a specific species, for a specific time period, would be in this region. (Note: this is why I made the comment that Quetzalcoatlus remains, which were found in Texas would not be found in either high northern or southern latitudes).

So everything would have generally moved away from the continent into the ocean, like rainfall. Bad time to be alive if you need water.

7. Larger terrestrial and marine life forms became possible. As in the current time, there is always a diversity of size regardless of the strength of surface gravity. In other words, lower gravity does not force all life forms to grow larger.

Large size in the ocean is dependent on lungs giving bouyancy. That is why bony fish have never gotten as large as whales, and sharks, with their much less dense skelton, can also gain some size.

8. As Pangea broke apart, surface gravity on Pangea increased and the rate of increase was greatest when the continents started rapidly moving apart longitudinally approx. 68-65mya. The result was an accelerated extinction rate for both terrestrial and marine life.

I thought the ocean side opposite of Pangea had more gravity, wouldn't the oceanic organisms that lived there have had an adaptive advantage and not gone extinct? Not to mention that somewhere in your band of changing gravity there would have been an area of identical gravity to today, where organisms wouldn't have noticed any change.

9. Since the time of the K-T boundary, the rate of increase of surface gravity has decreased as the continents have attained a more even global distribution as the cores have returned to a central position.

Any yet the mammals grew to enormous sizes. How about the trees? The maximum a tree can grow today is around 300 feet because of capillary action, its ability to move water from ground level to its tops. Tree growth has never exceeded this maximum. Which should have happened if the gravity had been significantly lower without any change in genetics (redwoods are alive today and back then).

I have been following this thread, and trying to stay out of it, but I couldn't resist, hopefully it will die soon.

Brent Ashcraft

[Guest solius symbiosus]

well...since you asked...

i'd prefer you think of it as a verbal metaphor for those really abstract, really expensive paintings that people do who make huge amounts of money off of "art" that's so out there that you interpret it any way you want based on your own biases and dysfunctionalities, and they never let on that their five-year-old actually painted it.

So, the flippancy was intended... for shame!

A good read that illustrates, nicely, how the glorification of ignorance has pervaded a country that once led the world in innovation and intellectual thought.

[Mike_H]

I have been following this thread, and trying to stay out of it, but I couldn't resist, hopefully it will die soon.

Brent Ashcraft

It started to. Went a couple of days without a post. then someone decided to valitdate Theorist by posting.

Guys, it's obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Lets just ignore him and hopes he goes away.

[Seldom]

It started to. Went a couple of days without a post. then someone decided to valitdate Theorist by posting.

Guys, it's obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Lets just ignore him and hopes he goes away.

I agree 100% the guys a wacko getting info from wacko web sites trying to prove something that he can not with what little good info he has. Ignore him

[Theorist]

Oh my goodness, where to start......

1. The Earth’s cores’ position (both inner and outer) are dependent on the positioning of the continental plates.

How?

4. When the cores shift from their central location, surface gravity decreases at points furthest away from the shifted cores and simultaneously increases at surface points that are closest to the shifted core. A surface gravity-gradient results.

In my humble opinion, shifting of the core is unlikely. The earth is spinning, like a giant centrifuge, if the core is as significant to the mass of the earth as you are saying, the earth would be out of balance, causing a serious wobble. Try throwing a ball of some type with a significant mass attached to the outside, and see how well it flies. Certainly not in a straight line, what would that have done to our orbit?

5. When Pangea formed, surface gravity was much lower on Pangea but much higher on the opposite oceanic side of the Earth.

6. The gravity gradient would result in the lowest surface gravity near the central, or equatorial, part of Pangea. Therefore, the largest life forms for a specific species, for a specific time period, would be in this region. (Note: this is why I made the comment that Quetzalcoatlus remains, which were found in Texas would not be found in either high northern or southern latitudes).

So everything would have generally moved away from the continent into the ocean, like rainfall. Bad time to be alive if you need water.

7. Larger terrestrial and marine life forms became possible. As in the current time, there is always a diversity of size regardless of the strength of surface gravity. In other words, lower gravity does not force all life forms to grow larger.

Large size in the ocean is dependent on lungs giving bouyancy. That is why bony fish have never gotten as large as whales, and sharks, with their much less dense skelton, can also gain some size.

8. As Pangea broke apart, surface gravity on Pangea increased and the rate of increase was greatest when the continents started rapidly moving apart longitudinally approx. 68-65mya. The result was an accelerated extinction rate for both terrestrial and marine life.

I thought the ocean side opposite of Pangea had more gravity, wouldn't the oceanic organisms that lived there have had an adaptive advantage and not gone extinct? Not to mention that somewhere in your band of changing gravity there would have been an area of identical gravity to today, where organisms wouldn't have noticed any change.

9. Since the time of the K-T boundary, the rate of increase of surface gravity has decreased as the continents have attained a more even global distribution as the cores have returned to a central position.

Any yet the mammals grew to enormous sizes. How about the trees? The maximum a tree can grow today is around 300 feet because of capillary action, its ability to move water from ground level to its tops. Tree growth has never exceeded this maximum. Which should have happened if the gravity had been significantly lower without any change in genetics (redwoods are alive today and back then).

I have been following this thread, and trying to stay out of it, but I couldn't resist, hopefully it will die soon.

Brent Ashcraft

Brent,

You have asked some good questions. I will try to answer them tomorrow.

Theorist

[tracer]

can anobydy tell me what the asbolute value of pi is?

<singing> "this is the song that doesn't end....it just goes on and on my friend..."

i hope ya'll realize the gravity of this situation.

<effortlessly sliding out of the thread as if on an air hockey table>

<calling as he leaves>

siliconed socks...

[Hawkeye]

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.

I can't believe I missed this one!

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DINOSAURS WERE NOT PINK WITH BLUE POLKA DOTS AND FLOATED AROUND LIKE WEAK HELIUM BALLOONS

Let me repeat:

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DINOSAURS WERE NOT PINK WITH BLUE POLKA DOTS AND FLOATED AROUND LIKE WEAK HELIUM BALLOONS

Gosh, this is fun! When you ignore science you can theorize anything!

I would also have to agree with Tracer's not so subtle hits that crackpots cannot be convinced by facts and that they crave the attention they are given, including, currently, by me.

[lordpiney]

can anobydy tell me what the asbolute value of pi is?

i bought a french apple pi the other day at the supermarket...it's absolute value was $2.99