"The idea of an earth which is constant and unchanging has been restated so often throughout history that it has now become established as a firm fact. It needs no proof -- which is lucky since there is none." -- Stephen Hurrell, engineer, April 2006
The bozo clowns of mainstream pseudoscience are confused about the cause of the giant size of the dinosaurs. A smaller Earth and less gravity explains the giant size of the dinosaurs, not McDonalds: Jurassic Fast Food Was a Key to Giant Dinosaurs.
ScienceDaily (May 11, 2010) — Why were the sauropod dinosaurs able to get so much larger than today's terrestrial animals?For a scientific explanation see here: Hurrell, S., Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth, 1994
A research group led by the University of Bonn seems to have solved this puzzle. According to this research Jurassic fast food culture was a key to gigantism. The giant dinosaurs did not chew their food -- they just gulped it down.
The results of the researchers' years of work are now being published in the journal Biological Reviews.
And also see here: Dinosaurs and Gravity.
Smaller Earth explains a whole lot of things, especially if you extend the concept to include other planets as well. Size of dinosaurs, size of gigantic sloths, glyptodonts, camels, paraceratherium, elephant birds, pteranodons with 60 ft wingspans, impossibly large arthropods, 900 ft tall trees, missing granite on 2/3 of the earth, continents that fit together well on a smaller earth, ocean basins on the moon, ocean basins and continents on Mars, cracks on the moon with no sign of subduction, trees and flowers and dogs and marsupials and apes and monkeys and lizards that are spread over numerous continents and islands and sometimes across the Pacific, and if all those don't fall into place smoothly enough to prove it, then have a look at the surface of Ganymede and try to name a substance that could be in the core that could expand THAT MUCH, just by cooling, to produce what is so obviously a cracking of the crust caused by global expansion that even mainstream science acknowledges it (but they don't go so far as to suggest *growth*). But judging from the content of the left side of your main page, I gather that you already know these things...
ReplyDeleteWhat I wonder is how it happens/happened. The best explanation I have heard is Neal Adams' theory, but as of now I don't buy it because it seems so conjectural, and so far unsubstantiated.
Try this.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if density remains constant with respect to diameter, gravity increases on a smaller earth:
ReplyDeleteGravity Radius Earth Masses
1.5.....0.65....0.65
2.......0.5.....0.5
4.......0.25....0.25
Oils fails again!
Amphicoelias,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the website...:)
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteIf Dirac was correct, then you are insane. Keown fails again!
I don't see how. Assuming a constant, steady density, chibi-earth has more gravity.
ReplyDeleteAt .65 "Modern Radii" you'd need a density of .422 to have 1g. The density has to drop off very fast to get anything approaching tenable.
If the density is higher on a more compact earth, your gravity problem only gets worse.
You and all the other batty EE's have to show that not only does Plate Tectonics not explain observations, but must account for some pretty interesting density issues as well.
Besides, Hurrell is an idiot.
There is one further interesting thought. Today, most people accept the basic concept of evolution of all life into superior forms. There was, and still is, one major problem with evolution, in that sometimes life appears to evolve in the wrong direction. It actually seems to evolve into inferior instead of superior forms. Hurrell, S., Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth, 1994
There are no such things. But its nice to see you acknowledging that evolution (even cartoon versions of it like Hurrell's) is true.
That's progress!
These calculations indicate that gravity was about 0.3 the present gravity 300 million years ago, increasing to 0.5g during the dinosaurs’ time with gravity gradually increasing over time to its present day value. Stephen Hurrell, dinox.org
ReplyDeleteThis means when earth was half its "current" radius, and had a mass of about 7.5% of it's "current" mass.
Expanding Earth must account for 92.5% increase in mass. For a hypothesis with no mechanism, you have your work cut out for you!
Good luck with that.
My theory is that dinosaurs are still alive but invisible. This is the only way to explain the "gusher" in the Gulf of Mexico spewing oil.
ReplyDeleteThere can't be any high pressure because according to Peak Oil all our reservoirs are running dry.
This is because oil comes from dinosaurs and there aren't any of those so the pressure could not be high and there could not be a blow out and there is no oil slick on the Gulf.
The science is settled and the theory says so...so don't believe your eyes.
A smaller and less massive Earth?
ReplyDeleteJohn, your theory is no doubt unquestionable.
ReplyDeleteQF, you are forgetting to make the same erroneous and false assumptions as Jeffery.
ReplyDeleteQF, you are forgetting to make the same erroneous and false assumptions as Jeffery.
ReplyDeleteI'm not making unfound assumptions. You just have no answer to them. You can't explain your position, especially when I've used your own source. Hurrell gave me the figure of .3 G. I didn't make that up.
To get .3G at .5 diameters, what is the mass of the earth?
Further, what is the mechanism by which you propose this huge amount of mass is accreted?
Answer: There is no mechanism, it is not happening.
Nothing wrong with the size of giraffes which are still living on Earth today, correct?
ReplyDeleteJeffery,
ReplyDelete"I'm not making unfound assumptions"
In fact you are.
"if density remains constant"
That's called an assumption. It doesn't.
"Assuming a constant, steady density"
FYI: assuming is an assumption.
"If the density is higher on a more compact earth"
That's called an assumption. It doesn't.
John,
ReplyDeleteNo dinosaur fossil has ever been found in any ocean on Earth. So much for biogenic retardation.
The only assumptions made used data provided by Expanding Earth proponents.
ReplyDeleteIf those are unfounded, I suggest you re-examine your hypothesis.
If they cannot stand the rigors of a little Excel spreadsheet, then they are as scientifically vacuous as their champion.
But I'll ask again:
.:Where does the mass come from?
.:What is the mechanism?
.:What observations lead to this conclusion?
.:Where can one find physical evidence of expansion?
.:Why does GPS data not confirm this, but show continental motions predicted by Plate Tectonic Theory?
Jeffery, the reality of the Expanding Earth is not an assumption but a conclusion. Your questions have been answered ad nauseum but you deliberately choose to ignore them beause subduction is a religion for you.
ReplyDeleteOIL
ReplyDeleteThanks for the urls!
Oh, but you say the same of Evolution, and you're wrong about that, too.
ReplyDeleteIt is a mark of a denialist to label the other guy as religious, as dogmatic and fanatical. None of these is true of me.
Again, your EE nonsense has been shown, by use of your own sources, to be nothing but a quaint delusion. Enjoy.
There is a way of reconciling the alteration in the force of gravity within EU theory. The red shift problem is that the stupid consider that all red shift is due merely to velocity and that greater velocity is akin to greater distance, all based on theist big bang theory.
ReplyDeleteGod created the universe and is still expanding!
But if red shift indicates the state of energy of the atomic matter of objects observed, then not only does it become obvious that linkages exist between stellar and galactic objects, but that some material is created by older material. As time passes, the red shift declines. We cannot view the earth and sun from astronomical distances, but if we could, we might see that the red shift values have changed since the times of the dinosaurs. We now have atoms with greater energy density, and the attraction that they exert on one another via electrical forces or otherwise, is greater!
This suggests that our descendants if they survive, had better consider becoming smaller .... and stronger. Batteries may last longer though!
ReplyDelete