Gravity killed the dinosaurs

[DarwinX]

I'm sympathetic to your theory too. I am not practiced in plate tectonics so my opinion is just that. Still, it is known that construction in certain materials limits the constructible size so for instance wooden buildings will only reach to five stories as I recall. If such structural engineering can be applied to bone and its accretion within the animal itself, then support for reduced gravity during the life of dinosaurs would exist.

Nobody is practised in plate tectonics because plate tectonics doesn't exist. The study of the Moon and Mars shows that early planet formation involves riff band formation around the equator. This accounts for why oil reserves are located around the equator on Earth.


(Nested quote removed.)


In Australia there is a large iron ore deposit in Western Australia. This deposit suggests that a large moon or asteroid crashed into Earth and deposited the iron ore. The Earth's rotation also suggests that a large body indirect collision which created the spin.


(Nested quote removed.)

Steady state theory is not so steady as one would expect. The universe is constantly changing but I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything began with a big bang. The Big Bang Theory is too convenient and doesn't fully satisfy logical thinking. There are currently too many presumptions and fragile egos in the scientific community for any sensible conclusions to be drawn.

[…]

[Bobkolker]

I propose that the dinosaurs didn't go extinct because of a meteor crashing to Earth. But, instead, that the gradual increase of the size of the earth over a period of millions of years has caused a gradual shrinking of the size of all animals. I have plenty of proof and evidence to prove that this is in fact true and that the meteor theory is a load of rubbish.

I would not quite say rubbish. There is the matter of the Big Thing that struct the planet some 65 million years befor e present leaving an Iridium line buried in the rocks. Dinosaurs below the line. No Dinosaurs above it. It looks the the Dinosaurs we done in in a limited time interval. If mere bigness were killing them then the fossils would not have stopped forming so abruptly.

The Dinosaur population my have been thinned by prior climate changes, but the abrupt cut off at the KT layers gives some credence to the collision hypothesis. And besides, a big bad crater was found just of the Yukkatan Peninsula. I would not call the collision theory rubbish also so questions might be raised it.

Bob Kolker

[DarwinX]

I propose that the dinosaurs didn't go extinct because of a meteor crashing to Earth. But, instead, that the gradual increase of the size of the earth over a period of millions of years has caused a gradual shrinking of the size of all animals. I have plenty of proof and evidence to prove that this is in fact true and that the meteor theory is a load of rubbish.

I would not quite say rubbish. There is the matter of the Big Thing that struct the planet some 65 million years befor e present leaving an Iridium line buried in the rocks. Dinosaurs below the line. No Dinosaurs above it. It looks the the Dinosaurs we done in in a limited time interval. If mere bigness were killing them then the fossils would not have stopped forming so abruptly.

The Dinosaur population my have been thinned by prior climate changes, but the abrupt cut off at the KT layers gives some credence to the collision hypothesis. And besides, a big bad crater was found just of the Yukkatan Peninsula. I would not call the collision theory rubbish also so questions might be raised it.

Bob Kolker

If being big was a such a genetic advantage, then bigness would have return soon after the so called 'meteor' hit the Earth. The fact that animals or dinosaurs haven't increased significantly in size over time suggests that the gravity theory is more likely to be correct. You have failed to mention the fact the belated megafauna which has recently disappeared without the help of any convenient meteors to help them on their way.

[Bohm2]

There is the matter of the Big Thing that struct the planet some 65 million years befor e present leaving an Iridium line buried in the rocks. Dinosaurs below the line. No Dinosaurs above it. It looks the the Dinosaurs we done in in a limited time interval. If mere bigness were killing them then the fossils would not have stopped forming so abruptly.

Not only dinosaurs were affected but there was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of all plant and animal species on Earth. This is also inconsistent with this "gravity killed the dinosaurs" scenario. And afterwards mammals evolved rapidly to fill the niches left vacant by the dinosaurs. And the evolving mammal species were significantly larger after this line than before.

[DarwinX]

There is the matter of the Big Thing that struct the planet some 65 million years befor e present leaving an Iridium line buried in the rocks. Dinosaurs below the line. No Dinosaurs above it. It looks the the Dinosaurs we done in in a limited time interval. If mere bigness were killing them then the fossils would not have stopped forming so abruptly.

Not only dinosaurs were affected but there was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of all plant and animal species on Earth. This is also inconsistent with this "gravity killed the dinosaurs" scenario. And afterwards mammals evolved rapidly to fill the niches left vacant by the dinosaurs. And the evolving mammal species were significantly larger after this line than before.

If the asteroid theory is correct there would be a massive amount of dinosaur bones found right on the K T boundary line, as yet, not one bone has been found on this line. In fact, there have been very few dinosaur bones found within a metre of the KT boundary. This suggests that most dinosaurs went extinct 100 million years before the impact of the asteroid. It is thus, more likely that increasing gravity, separation of continents, cooler climate and changing plant species was responsible. Not to mention evolution which favours more mobile, smarter and more adaptive creatures which can tolerate cold climate, drought and generally changing conditions and circumstances.

[Bohm2]

If the asteroid theory is correct there would be a massive amount of dinosaur bones found right on the K T boundary line, as yet, not one bone has been found on this line. In fact, there have been very few dinosaur bones found within a metre of the KT boundary. This suggests that most dinosaurs went extinct 100 million years before the impact of the asteroid. It is thus, more likely that increasing gravity, separation of continents, cooler climate and changing plant species was responsible. Not to mention evolution which favours more mobile, smarter and more adaptive creatures which can tolerate cold climate, drought and generally changing conditions and circumstances.

The KT mass extinction may have been triggered by several different agents (I'm not disputing this). What is relevant is that the "expanding earth" theory isn't consistent with the massive extinction of at least three-quarters of ALL plant and animal species on Earth both on land and in the seas. How does the expanding earth model explain the extinction of all these other species?

Moreover, cosmic infall onto the Earth amounts to many orders of magnitude short of what expanding earth model requires. That’s why those advocating Expanding Earth theory have to resort to creating matter out of magic to make their model work.

[DarwinX]

If the asteroid theory is correct there would be a massive amount of dinosaur bones found right on the K T boundary line, as yet, not one bone has been found on this line. In fact, there have been very few dinosaur bones found within a metre of the KT boundary. This suggests that most dinosaurs went extinct 100 million years before the impact of the asteroid. It is thus, more likely that increasing gravity, separation of continents, cooler climate and changing plant species was responsible. Not to mention evolution which favours more mobile, smarter and more adaptive creatures which can tolerate cold climate, drought and generally changing conditions and circumstances.

The KT mass extinction may have been triggered by several different agents (I'm not disputing this). What is relevant is that the "expanding earth" theory isn't consistent with the massive extinction of at least three-quarters of ALL plant and animal species on Earth both on land and in the seas. How does the expanding earth model explain the extinction of all these other species?

Moreover, cosmic infall onto the Earth amounts to many orders of magnitude short of what expanding earth model requires. That’s why those advocating Expanding Earth theory have to resort to creating matter out of magic to make their model work.

Before I defend my side of the debate, how about answering some of the questions that I have already posed about the shortcomings of the asteroid theory.

1. Why hasn't anybody found a large deposit of dino bones directly under and within the K T boundary?

2. Why have only a very few dino bones only ever been found in the one metre zone beneath the K T boundary?

3. Why is the Iridium thinly scattered around the Earth when it should be in the meteor?

4. What about the recently departed megafauna? There was no asteroid which coincided with this extinction event that I know of?

5. Why haven't large animals re-evolved since the K T extinction?

[Bohm2]

Before I defend my side of the debate, how about answering some of the questions that I have already posed about the shortcomings of the asteroid theory.

The shortcoming or total falsity of the asteroid theory is irrelevant to the criticism of the expanding earth view.

[DarwinX]

Before I defend my side of the debate, how about answering some of the questions that I have already posed about the shortcomings of the asteroid theory.

The shortcoming or total falsity of the asteroid theory is irrelevant to the criticism of the expanding earth view.

In other words, your argument is totally without evidence and facts and is based on a religious type belief system which abhors facts and reality.

[Bohm2]

(Nested quote removed.)

The shortcoming or total falsity of the asteroid theory is irrelevant to the criticism of the expanding earth view.

In other words, your argument is totally without evidence and facts and is based on a religious type belief system which abhors facts and reality.

You are confused. There are 2 different issues. Whether the asteroid theory is true or not has little bearing on the truth or falsity of the expanding earth model. There are scientists who aren't fully convinced that the asteroid theory is the best and/or only explanation for the demise of the dinosaurs but still view the expanding earth model as total whacky nonsense with zero evidence for it.

[DarwinX]

(Nested quote removed.)


In other words, your argument is totally without evidence and facts and is based on a religious type belief system which abhors facts and reality.

You are confused. There are 2 different issues. Whether the asteroid theory is true or not has little bearing on the truth or falsity of the expanding earth model. There are scientists who aren't fully convinced that the asteroid theory is the best and/or only explanation for the demise of the dinosaurs but still view the expanding earth model as total whacky nonsense with zero evidence for it.

99 % of all species has become extinct since life first began. This is just a natural process and doesn't require any special events to speed it up. The gradual downsizing of all species is a clear indication that gravity is a key factor which influences evolution. The continental drift theory is also a difficult theory to accept because of inconsistencies and irregularities.

If you find matter accretion difficult to understand, then you must also find the Big Bang Theory difficult to understand also because it depends on the incredulous proposition that matter was created from nothing. Therefore, gravity which is equivalent to aetheric pressure, is pushing us down and not pulling us down as would be commonly thought. Thus, matter accretion is a natural process of dimensional change which is occurring all the time. Thus, one dimension is continually falling into another dimension which we call gravity.

[Bohm2]

99 % of all species has become extinct since life first began. This is just a natural process and doesn't require any special events to speed it up. The gradual downsizing of all species is a clear indication that gravity is a key factor which influences evolution.

The demise/extinction of dinosaurs was not gradual as 1 of literally 100 if not 1000 of papers on the topic concludes:

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/geology/c ... /cret1.pdf

And there was no gradual downsizing of all species. The size of mammals exploded after dinosaur extinction:

http://phys.org/news/2010-11-size-mamma ... ction.html

I'm not fully convinced that the asteroid theory is the main cause but the EE theory is on the fringes for good reasons: there is zero evidence for it.

[DarwinX]

99 % of all species has become extinct since life first began. This is just a natural process and doesn't require any special events to speed it up. The gradual downsizing of all species is a clear indication that gravity is a key factor which influences evolution.

The demise/extinction of dinosaurs was not gradual as 1 of literally 100 if not 1000 of papers on the topic concludes:

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/geology/c ... /cret1.pdf

And there was no gradual downsizing of all species. The size of mammals exploded after dinosaur extinction:

http://phys.org/news/2010-11-size-mamma ... ction.html

I'm not fully convinced that the asteroid theory is the main cause but the EE theory is on the fringes for good reasons: there is zero evidence for it.

You disagree with the gravity theory yet, you are unwilling to say what exactly you do believe in. Then, you keep referring to the 3/4 of all species annihilation at the KT boundary theory. Therefore, it is time to come out of your hiding place and tell us all what you do believe in. You can't keep saying that you don't believe any theory and then go on keep using evidence from the KT boundary theory as your evidence. Graphs on extinction rates since life began follow an exponential growth pattern as would be expected. The KT boundary doesn't significantly disrupt the smooth flow of gradual extinction rates. If the asteroid landed in America, then one would expect that a local extinction event may have taken place, but there would have been no general global extinction event. If you are going to support the KT boundary theory you might as well answer the 5 questions that I have posed previously.

[Atreyu]

That’s why those advocating Expanding Earth theory have to resort to creating matter out of magic to make their model work.

This is simply false. We now have a good explanation for how this new matter is being generated. It's called pair production, and has been known since the 1930's. It requires a lot of energy, and it consists of a new elementary particle being created along with its anti-particle, such as an electron and a positron, or a tau and an anti-tau. It normally occurs when a photon interacts with a nucleus, but it can also occur with any other neutral boson interacting with a nucleus, another boson, or itself.

Our current model posits that this is exactly what is going on in the cores of all large cosmic bodies, and the environment there is perfect for such a phenomenon to occur. There is lots of energy in the core of the Earth due to the high density and heat, and there is every reason to think that this process could be a natural consequence of the given conditions. The newly generated matter is then pushed outwards towards the surface, causing volcanoes, earthquakes, and the obvious stratified rifting we see on the ocean floors.

I'm not fully convinced that the asteroid theory is the main cause but the EE theory is on the fringes for good reasons: there is zero evidence for it.

This is also quite false. There's plenty of evidence for it, and we've linked it on this thread. The obvious stratified rifting of the ocean floors, the fact that all fish fossils are found on land, the fact that all of the continents will fit together like a 3-D jigsaw puzzle once you remove the oceans, the fact that animals were bigger in the past, the fact that the same tree species are spread across Siberia and North America, and many other things. Just look at a Google world map and see how the western edge of Japan fits into western Canada. Then see how the Phillipines and Papau New Guinea fit in with Central America. Also note how Australia fits in to the western side of South America. Now look at Antartica and you can see the fitting points for South America, Africa, and Australia. Go ahead and look, really. See it? Now tell me that's all just a coincidence, because if standard Pangaea theory is correct, that's exactly what it must be.

Plenty of evidence for it, if one is not afraid to see it, and if one's mind is open to questioning established models allegedly beyond question....

-- Updated November 14th, 2014, 6:17 am to add the following --

[DarwinX]

More evidence of the Aether Theory being correct.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v