Intuition is not science.

yes of course not. but they're not wholly unrelated either. i've actually been curious for quite some time if one has been more useful than the other, in the evolutionary sense, to how we got to where we are today... but that's another story...i'm personally in favour of a strong-anthropic principle.

The problem, my friend, is you have no sense of scale.

[/QUOTE]
hey that's unfair. i saw ibm's "powers of 10" film.

i am of course well aware of the giant dinosaur killing asteroid theories and the scales proposed. this could have been a singular impact or (perhaps even more likely), a series of impacts over a longer period of time.

What your source actually says is this:
Quote: For small changes in mass, the radius would not change appreciably, and above about 500 M⊕ (1.6 Jupiter masses)<snip>

ah yes. thanks for the correction, i read that wrong.

 

Hi All, first post.
The theory which, in my view, correctly explains the massive dinosaurs is the one which explains that surface gravity was lower in the Age of Dinosaurs, not due to Earth expansion but the movement of the Earth's cores.

Briefly, when the continental plates coalesced to form Pangea, the core(s) and densest part of the lower mantle shifted away from their central position and away from Pangea. Since surface gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, the result was a lessened gravity which rapidly increased as Pangea split apart.

Oxygen levels don't seem to be important because there were also massive reptiles in the sea at that time. There aren't any today; increased surface gravity would also mean higher water pressure per depth. Higher WP per depth makes it harder for a reptile, that must constantly surface to breathe, to exist today.

No renouncing of plate tectonics, no Earth expansion necessary, no oxygen level variation needed, no over-abundant flora needed.

 

That just doesn't make sense at all. Have you submitted the theory for publication and peer review?

John

 

Pseudo science needs no peer review. I think we've pegged the science level here pretty thoroughly, don't you?

Faith and science don't coexist well, and don't bother with facts.

 

The theory which, in my view, correctly explains the massive dinosaurs is the one which explains that surface gravity was lower in the Age of Dinosaurs, not due to Earth expansion but the movement of the Earth's cores.

Not all were huge - the larger ones had bones and muscles consistent with their mass under very close to 1 g. If the animal can walk under 9.8 m/s/s, it is not necessary to posit less gravity to make possible what is already done.

Cores? Have you been reading Edgar Rice Burroughs? Or was that H. Rider Haggard?

Oxygen levels don't seem to be important because there were also massive reptiles in the sea at that time. There aren't any today; increased surface gravity would also mean higher water pressure per depth. Higher WP per depth makes it harder for a reptile, that must constantly surface to breathe, to exist today.

What does that say about sperm whales? - http://www.oceanicresearch.org/education/wonders/spermwhales.htm They are oxygen breathers too, you know.

Briefly, when the continental plates coalesced to form Pangea, the core(s) and densest part of the lower mantle shifted away from their central position and away from Pangea. Since surface gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, the result was a lessened gravity which rapidly increased as Pangea split apart.

We are dealing with a body that very nearly attains sphericity. How do you propose that a shift in the core (never mind what any conceivable explanation might be) could affect the mass of the planet? You are already roughly 4000 miles from the center of mass. Imagine how much further you have to go before shedding significant weight.

 

@Bill Marsden: On that we agree completely. Science involves quantitation. I would love it, if that OP could put some numbers behind his assertions. For example, the density of water does not change appreciably with gravity or pressure. Dinosaurs came in all sizes. The blue whale is still considered a very large animal.

John

 

since surface gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, the result was a lessened gravity which rapidly increased as Pangea split apart

<snip>

Science involves quantitation.

yes exactly.
i think there are meta-physical limits to what science can achieve, but we can do some pretty cool stuff with it. i'd agree with judge syner's (simpsons) restraining order between science and religion: no closer than 500 feet please.
humans, by nature are just prone to magical thinking... we're made that way. we somehow need to conceptualize the universe and would, it seems, tend to revert to a higher authority in doing so. whether our chosen 'god' comes through scientific-consensus, story-books, or whatever, there's still an appeal to forces greater than ourselves (beyond our control), and a great deal of imagination necessary in forming a picture of the world.
that various religious authorities would attempt to pass off their traditional stories as literal descriptions of the universe is actually a bit of a sad joke and very much undermines the allegorical and metaphorical value of such material.
there's a certain political power reserved for those who would assume the authority to create meaning, to be keepers of the 'truth' so to speak. if science can liberate people from forms of arbitrary domination then great... but it might be a stretch to suppose this as an inherent quality of scientific discipline... it's equally useful in domination. we are social beings after all, and technology as we know it a rely on it would bare witness.
but yeah, anyway. science is very useful of course, but sometimes it actually is better to just go with intuition and gut reactions (to step out of the way of a charging bull rather than calculate its mass and velocity might be one (though perhaps rather dumb) example).

 

If I missed any questions, please repeat.

We can't compare the blue whale to Mesozoic seagoing reptiles. The latter were carnivorous and had to rapidly pursue their prey in the sea, a task that becomes difficult as water pressure per depth increases. Also, the blue whale being a mammal has a much greater lung capacity than a reptile. Today's reptiles can only sprint for a short distance because if their less robust lung capacity.

Yes, increasing gravity means increasing water pressure with depth. Water pressure is directly proportional to depth, water density and "g." It's "g" that increased, not density.

How to you submit a paper for peer review? Would they accept a layman's theory? Have you done so?

When Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of Continental Drift, the "experts" of his time probably said something like "Pseudo science needs no peer review."

Yes, there were small dinosaurs. Just as there is a diversity in the size of present day mammals, there was a similar size diversity in dinosaurs.

The cores and lower mantle comprise over 80% of the Earth's mass. Since gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, it doesn't take an extreme amount of movement (of core/lower mantle) to affect surface gravity. Unlike mass, which affects gravity in direct proportion to m and not m^2, distance has a much more profound influence.

<snip>
please post in English.

 

We can't compare the blue whale to Mesozoic seagoing reptiles.

How about them sperm whales? They are carnivorous. How is it that you know mesozoic aquatic reptilian lung capacity? How is it that you know those reptilian carnivores had to pursue their prey at significant depths?

You keep using the term "cores" in reference to structures at the center of the planet. We know of only one now. Where did the other/s go? Given that no evidence of such structures exists, how is it that you know of this?

I notice that the concept of the planet expanding/contracting seems to have got misplaced. Can anyone contribute a mechanism for that?

At any rate, we are still struggling with some significant change in surface gravity on the earth. The mechanism is a displacement of the core/s. How could this have taken place?

It seems that gravity depends on the mass of the earth, and that the force is perceived as an acceleration towards the center of mass. How far would the core (or the collection of cores) have to displace in order to produce an effect on the entire surface of the planet? I seem to recall an assertion that water pressure was significantly higher due to a higher force of gravity. How much higher was this pressure? How much mass had to displace by what distance in order to increase surface gravity? In other words, pleas quantify this:

Unlike mass, which affects gravity in direct proportion to m and not m^2, distance has a much more profound influence.

 

DoctorKnow is showing some suspiciously sockpuppet-esq behaviour.
anyway, i think i've outlined my reasons for entertaining an expanding earth theory. be it merely science-fiction or an actual tenable theory is perhaps a bit besides the point.
in my personal relationship to science, i tend to be most interested in the creative aspects, how sets of data will lead to vast genesis-stories such as the big-bang and that sort of thing. it seems that contemporary investigations in science are pointing to a nature of reality which is far far beyond our abilities to even begin to comprehend. the role of metaphor and allegory seems just as important as it ever has in attempting to describe the universe.

 

"uncle"

You win. By sheer power of will alone, you have convinced me that you know everything there is to know about the structure and size of the earth billions of years ago.

Can I get your autograph?

 

anyway, i think i've outlined my reasons for entertaining an expanding earth theory. be it merely science-fiction or an actual tenable theory is perhaps a bit besides the point.

It would seem that supporting evidence is a bit light for this one, too...

I guess studying a bit of geology and physics is probably not likely to happen.

 

It would seem that supporting evidence is a bit light for this one, too...

I guess studying a bit of geology and physics is probably not likely to happen.

why the insulting posture?

 

Actually no one has insulted anyone, though you have abused my intelligence. I've pretty much shown why your scenario is impossible both mathematically and historically. I've dropped out because there is no point, facts have long ceased to matter in this discussion. It isn't science, but opinion (and intuition) at this point.

The universe, and history of this earth, is so much more interesting than make believe. A real scientific hypothesis, a viable one, solves more problems than it creates. This does neither, and contradicts those that do. I'm waiting for the hollow earth theories to be trotted out next.

 

Can you point to any supporting evidence? Some means needs to have existed in order for the planet we now inhabit to have significantly increased its volume.

Geology and physics are disciplines that have let us learn about the world and how things work. I was commenting that, despite an apparent interest in the conditions in past times, you have not been interested in looking into the most pertinent subjects that could held confirm/disprove your musings. We have libraries for this purpose.

 

Perhaps best to close down this one. I see it as a pointless discussion. And a never ending story.

 

I wish I was a dinosaur

 

It seems to have reached a point unsatisfactory to all.