The Impossible Size of Dinosaurs

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
Is it not law that all heat creates expansion, and the center of our earth, hollow or not, seems pretty damn hot to me. With this thought in mind I'm not so certain how we can believe that the earth is 'not' growing in size over time, especially with the events which are happening daily in hawaii.

Another thought is how much space dust falls into our planet every million years, how many comets have smoked through our back yard and left billions of tons of debris for us to pick up as we complete 65 million cycles around our sun.

65-80 million years, and we think this earth is the same then as it is now?

Change is constant, and it would be very interesting to pin point just how it was different it has become and why.

Everything in this universe grows.

You also have to take into account gravitational pressure...outgassing...etc. We have rocks on Earth blasted off from Mars, and the Moon is part of the Earth blasted off into space. The amount of mass added to the Earth from impacts since the solar system has 'calmed down' is actually rather small to the point of being almost meaningless. This is especially true when you look at the density of our planet and the density of your average asteroid. Earth has the highest, average, density of any known object orbitting the Sun. Coming in a close 2nd is Mercury and after that is Venus.

Hawaii is just further evidence to the molten core of the planet...it's a repositioning of material, not necessarily anything that can be considered an expansion of the planet overall. I would be more apt to believe that the size of the Earth is in a flux between the highs and the lows, but the average remaining roughly the same.

Originally posted by Longtimegone
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

You can't have mass magically appear. I do believe you are wrong on this one.

Well may be it could. Dwarf star matter is so incredibly dense a teaspoonful of it would weigh many tons. Is it just possible that what fall to Earth and killed the Dinosaurs was a chunk of dwarf star matter which now sits at our planets core. If it was dense enough it could cause the mass increase needed for the gravity jump and the chunk could only be a foot across or so.
I am gald I found this thread even if it is an old one. I always wonder how they kept from sinking in the ground if they were that big and heavy. The size we know from the remains but the weight we can only guess at.

reply to post by fixer1967


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08035a9e8e7e.jpg[/atsimg]

Welcome G1.9+03 a dwarf remnant which has entered our system,,,shhhhhhhhhhh,,,they think its elenin,,,hehehe

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by Longtimegone
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

You can't have mass magically appear. I do believe you are wrong on this one.

Well may be it could. Dwarf star matter is so incredibly dense a teaspoonful of it would weigh many tons. Is it just possible that what fall to Earth and killed the Dinosaurs was a chunk of dwarf star matter which now sits at our planets core. If it was dense enough it could cause the mass increase needed for the gravity jump and the chunk could only be a foot across or so.
I am gald I found this thread even if it is an old one. I always wonder how they kept from sinking in the ground if they were that big and heavy. The size we know from the remains but the weight we can only guess at.

And what, exactly, would cause this chunk of matter to break off of it's parent star to end up hitting the Earth? Something that dense would be way harder to break than even a diamond (to give a more terrestrial reference).

Also "Dwarf star" matter? What kind of dwarf star? The Sun is a Yellow Dwarf. Brown dwarf stars are slightly more massive than Jupiter but just not quite enough mass to kick off fusion. Red dwarfs are low mass main sequence stars. The general term 'dwarf star' by itself is just a reference to any main sequence star which is defined by the star's luminosity.

I really don't think we need any mysterious mass increase or anything of the sort to explain dinosaurs, so I'm a bit confused by some trying to use this sort of tangent in the first place.

reply to post by Dashdragon


I find that some like the Argentinosaurus at over 120 feet long and 100 tons or more walking around without sinking up it it knee caps with every step a little hard to understand. From what I have read the size of its feet are not big enough to displace enough of its weight over a large enough are to prevent that. Either one of several things is wrong. Either one gravity was a lot less then for some yet unknown reason or the weight is all wrong and they did not weight any wheres near the stated weights found in books. Even at 120 feet long maybe they weighted only 50 tons instead of the believe 100 tons. May be they were just simply not as heavy as believed.

Same with Pterodactyls - some had wingspans of nearly 50ft - it is ludicrous to imagine that things of that size could fly in todays gravity!

Either gravity was less or air pressure was several times that of today.

Pterodactyls were too heavy to fly, scientist claims

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I just found some that may help explain this mess. If it is true then gravity back then may in fact been less and then it to day and without any change in mass. It could even explain the flying problem of the Pterodactyls. You just simply change the laws of physics.

Law of physics

Earth travels not only around the sun but thought space with the sun and the rest of the solar system. Now if the Earth was in a region of space millions of years ago where the laws of physics were not the same as today then anything is possible. All the rules go out the window.

reply to post by fixer1967


Or/

"Brown Dwarfs - down to 0.085M the number of stars increases dramatically as you go to stars of lower mass. Does this trend continue as one goes below the cutoff for the ignition of nuclear reactions? If so, failed stars, called Brown Dwarfs, might account for a significant fraction of the Dark Matter. Brown Dwarfs are hard to spot since they are cool and very low in luminosity. Recent infrared studies are finding Brown Dwarfs, but not in sufficient numbers to make up the dark matter needed in the Milky Way. "

A reverse gravity well,,,

Fast Facts for G1.9+0.3:


Credit X-ray (NASA/CXC/NCSU/S.Reynolds et al.); Radio (NSF/NRAO/VLA/Cambridge/D.Green et al.); Infrared (2MASS/UMass/IPAC-Caltech/NASA/NSF/CfA/E.Bressert)
Scale Left panel is 5 arcmin across.
Category Supernovas & Supernova Remnants
Coordinates (J2000) RA 17h 48m 45s | Dec -27° 10' 00"
Constellation Sagittarius
Observation Dates 2 pointings between 02/10/2007 & 03/03/2007
Observation Time 14 hours
Obs. IDs 6708, 8521
Color Code X-ray (orange); Radio (blue); Infrared (yellow/white stars)
Instrument ACIS
References Reynolds, S. et al. 2008, ApJ Letters (Accepted)
Distance Estimate 25,000 light years
Release Date May 14, 2008

Me


Welcome G1.9+03 a dwarf remnant which has entered our solar system.

Dinosaurs were largely reptiles, reptiles never stop growing.*Your nose and ears never stop growing but your eyes are the same size your entire life* (That's another thread, sorry). A warmer more highly oxygen per carbon dioxide atmosphere on earth then lent itself for the growth of larger reptiles in a similar way bugs are bigger in Florida than in Wisconsin (sort of). Earth then rotated faster and the moon was closer, by a good measurable amount of 2 to 3 hours less a day, when a year was about 400, 22 to 21.5 hour days long. I don't think that effects gravitational pull on their structures but the oxygen in the air did help them grow larger, so did the temperature. (hence where do the largest land animals live? closer to the equator?).

Whales are still bigger. Most of the oxygen in our air comes from the oceans, not plants and trees.

There is a limit to carbon based life forms physical self-sustaining size which is more chemically stable than ammonia or methane (or whatever) based life forms can achieve, which is a chemical reason life cannot evolve beyond us (our size or complexity) in alien atmospheres other than the most stably structured carbon base on a oxygen nitrogen liquid water planet.

reply to post by BobAthome


Don't mean to steal the thread, but had to comment on this.

Link

snrRog

reply to post by snrRog


No problem,, guy at nasa might want to check here though,, ohh and you can watch the video of the fake blue ball with flames,,,
Leave it too nasa too put there foot u know where,,

chandra.harvard.edu...


That does say nasa right??????????????????????
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bcda0a8ff485.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by BobAthome


Your Chandra link (correctly) agrees with snrRog and NASA that the photo you posted is of a supernova remnant 1000+ light years away and not anywhere near our solar system as you suggested in your post?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Hey,, THEY SAID THE PHOTO WAS FAKE TOO,,,

Discusion over.

Me.

And check how far too the CENTRE OF OUR GALAXY,,,,its Distance Estimate 25,000 light years

So ya its in our system..

reply to post by BobAthome


So in ending the discussion you admit that your point has been invalidated and that your original assertion that the photo of G1.9+0.3 being a "dwarf remnant which has entered our system" was false?

Good form.

Its refreshing to see someone around here admit they had no idea what they were talking about when posting unfounded nonsense.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


So then this is a lie as well or maybe its just a misprint? after all it is info from nasa?

Credit X-ray (NASA/CXC/NCSU/S.Reynolds et al.); Radio (NSF/NRAO/VLA/Cambridge/D.Green et al.); Infrared (2MASS/UMass/IPAC-Caltech/NASA/NSF/CfA/E.Bressert)
Scale Left panel is 5 arcmin across.
Category Supernovas & Supernova Remnants
Coordinates (J2000) RA 17h 48m 45s | Dec -27° 10' 00"
Constellation Sagittarius
Observation Dates 2 pointings between 02/10/2007 & 03/03/2007
Observation Time 14 hours
Obs. IDs 6708, 8521
Color Code X-ray (orange); Radio (blue); Infrared (yellow/white stars)
Instrument ACIS
References Reynolds, S. et al. 2008, ApJ Letters (Accepted)
Distance Estimate 25,000 light years
Release Date May 14, 2008

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


your right i appoligize the centre of OUR GALAXY is:


The Galactic Center is the rotational center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is located at a distance of 8.33±0.35 kpc (~27,000±1,000 ly) from the Earth[

So it was ALREADY IN OUR SYSTEM AND DID NOT enter our galaxy.


Thats this Galaxy

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8ba0e844d13.jpg[/atsimg]

And that NASA info is 3 YEARS old so i guess it would be 3 earth years, closer,, hey u do the math.

Me.

Which brings us back too this:

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by Longtimegone
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

You can't have mass magically appear. I do believe you are wrong on this one.

Well may be it could. Dwarf star matter is so incredibly dense a teaspoonful of it would weigh many tons. Is it just possible that what fall to Earth and killed the Dinosaurs was a chunk of dwarf star matter which now sits at our planets core. If it was dense enough it could cause the mass increase needed for the gravity jump and the chunk could only be a foot across or so.
I am gald I found this thread even if it is an old one. I always wonder how they kept from sinking in the ground if they were that big and heavy. The size we know from the remains but the weight we can only guess at.

And pray that it's not attracting,,,,,G19+03 quote "what fall to Earth and killed the Dinosaurs was a chunk of dwarf star matter which now sits at our planets core." unquote

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
There is of course massive amounts of supporting evidence - it is rejected because it treads on too many sacred cows,and Pangea was just the originalcrustof the earth.

Ah yes, the old argument-by-conspiracy. Buddy, I dunno if you understand just how cutthroat and competitive scientific fields actually are. Botanists - freaking botanists for christ's sake, plant scientists - have gotten into fistfights over the nomenclature of petunias. There will never be a worldwide silence conspiracy among every scientist in every field, as you propose, for the same reason there will never actually be world peace; some dude's always going to show up and knock over the applecart.

Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets espace.library.curtin.edu.au...
WCU20020117.145715

Interesting student thesis. I must confess, i skipped ahead to chapter seven, "conclusions." Wherein hte author mentions that while expanding earth could viably explain the movement of continents, the problem remains to explain exactly where all this extra matter is coming from. The author points out that Plate tectonics as we understand it is equally likely an explanation. of course, with the current theory of plate tectonics, we don't have to conjure trillions of tons of matter every year out of thin air with absolutely no detectable effect at all. Occam's razor shaves expanding earth and leaves plate tectonics.

Recurvature of the original crust.

Unfortunately for this hypothesis, we can actually tell that these things are caused by moving plates of crust. it's really not hard. Put a satellite somewhere in space, with a geosynchronous orbit. Put a station on, say, South America, and another on, for convenience's sake, Africa. Fire lasers towards your satellite. if the continents are moving apart, it should be detectable - and it IS! if the earth is expanding, this data would also show that those continents are moving closer to the satellite - which is not the case.

Also if the movement of the continents were caused by steady expansion of the earth, then they would all be moving apart. Again, this is not the case; Australia is steadily moving towards Asia, and North America is slowly grinding towards the Caribbean and South America. Similarly with an expanding earth, we would expect the continents themselves to be stable; again, this is not the case. Eastern Africa is pulling away from the rest of Africa, and seems to be taking southwest Asia with it. meanwhile the Indian subcontinent is still plowing northward at a steady pace.

There were no deep oceans! - try finding any ocean floor older than 200 mil yrs!

Not too hard. This covers the vast majority of ocean floors. ofcourse, when you reach areas near, say, the mid-atlantic ridge, you find newer rock. This is, of course, convergent with plate tectonics.
The average life of a species is a few million yrs - there is a progressive increase in size as you go back in time!

Matter out of nothing? - and just where do you suppose it all came from in the first place!? - personaly I believe it may be condensing in episodic fashion from the lower astral - but there are other possibilities. Though this is a seperate issue.

No, actually, the origin of this extra matter is absolutely critical to the expanding earth hypothesis. The "lower astral?" okay, exactly what is that? And how does all that stuff - and to make the earth grow, that's a lot of stuff - get here without any trace?

Does it really!? - you realise that as you get beyond 20% O2 levels, things tend to burst into flame far more readily! -

Yup. Did you know that the plant fossils of the period showthe same sort of adaptations towards afire-prone environment that we see in modern species of plant that live in areas that tend to erupt in flame regularly? Thick bark, especially, seems to have been a major component. Also worth mention is that this era is termed the "carboniferous" due to the very large amounts of coal formed in rocks of this age; perhaps regular fires contributed to that. Of course, both fire and the decay it causes tend to consume oxygen; by the Permian, the globe's oxygen was more or less where it is today.

how would that have helped 300 ft tree ferns with primitive vascular systems from raising water to the top of their canopy - hmmmm?

There's a pretty common illusion that, the higher something is, the more force gravity has on it. That's not the case at all. Gravity exerts the same force on everything, regardless of mass, height, or speed. That is, if the fern you have on your windowsill can absorb a water molecule and pull it up six inches to its tallest point, then it could just as easily lift the same molecule hundreds of feet. it helps to that plants do not work like animals; They suck, rather than pump. Imagine a dishtowel. if you hang a dishtowel over, say, Lake Superior, in such a way that one corner of the towel is always in contact with the lake, then eventually the entire towel will become soaked. The dry threads of the towel pull water from their wet neighbors, and so long as the towel remains in contact with the water, it will continue to do so until it is entirely inundated. This would be the case even if your towel were a mile high. it's osmosis, and plants work the same way.

In fact, this would function the same way even if our gravity were much, much higher. Try the same experiment on Jupiter, and you still end up with a soaked towel.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by fixer1967

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08035a9e8e7e.jpg[/atsimg]

Welcome G1.9+03 a dwarf remnant which has entered our system,,,shhhhhhhhhhh,,,they think its elenin,,,hehehe

Quote from Nasa

"This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake."

From the link above