Gravity killed the dinosaurs

[DarwinX]

You haven't included the possibility of dark matter (aether) accretion at the Earth's core. This is what causes gravity. Gravity is the result of aetheric or dark matter pressure being applied to the Earth. This has been verified by a number of the world's top astronomers. Reference - Prof Brian Schmidt at Mount Stromlo Observatory (Nobel prize winner)

Dark matter might be all around us (the search for it continues); however, the amount is so tiny that the gravitational effect on Earth and Earth-bound objects is unmeasurable. If it was measurable, the gravitational constant would be different. So, dark matter remains almost exactly as spread-out as it started. Because it can't collapse into dense objects, there's just not very much around the earth.

According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.

-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 2:11 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

Dark matter might be all around us (the search for it continues); however, the amount is so tiny that the gravitational effect on Earth and Earth-bound objects is unmeasurable. If it was measurable, the gravitational constant would be different. So, dark matter remains almost exactly as spread-out as it started. Because it can't collapse into dense objects, there's just not very much around the earth.

According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.

-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 2:13 pm to add the following --

You haven't included the possibility of dark matter (aether) accretion at the Earth's core. This is what causes gravity. Gravity is the result of aetheric or dark matter pressure being applied to the Earth. This has been verified by a number of the world's top astronomers. Reference - Prof Brian Schmidt at Mount Stromlo Observatory (Nobel prize winner)

Dark matter might be all around us (the search for it continues); however, the amount is so tiny that the gravitational effect on Earth and Earth-bound objects is unmeasurable. If it was measurable, the gravitational constant would be different. So, dark matter remains almost exactly as spread-out as it started. Because it can't collapse into dense objects, there's just not very much around the earth.

According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.

-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 2:11 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

Dark matter might be all around us (the search for it continues); however, the amount is so tiny that the gravitational effect on Earth and Earth-bound objects is unmeasurable. If it was measurable, the gravitational constant would be different. So, dark matter remains almost exactly as spread-out as it started. Because it can't collapse into dense objects, there's just not very much around the earth.

According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.

-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 2:14 pm to add the following --

You haven't included the possibility of dark matter (aether) accretion at the Earth's core. This is what causes gravity. Gravity is the result of aetheric or dark matter pressure being applied to the Earth. This has been verified by a number of the world's top astronomers. Reference - Prof Brian Schmidt at Mount Stromlo Observatory (Nobel prize winner)

Dark matter might be all around us (the search for it continues); however, the amount is so tiny that the gravitational effect on Earth and Earth-bound objects is unmeasurable. If it was measurable, the gravitational constant would be different. So, dark matter remains almost exactly as spread-out as it started. Because it can't collapse into dense objects, there's just not very much around the earth.[/quote]



According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.[/quote]


-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 2:14 pm to add the following --

Dark matter might be all around us (the search for it continues); however, the amount is so tiny that the gravitational effect on Earth and Earth-bound objects is unmeasurable. If it was measurable, the gravitational constant would be different. So, dark matter remains almost exactly as spread-out as it started. Because it can't collapse into dense objects, there's just not very much around the earth.

According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.[/quote]
[/quote]


-- Updated October 10th, 2014, 2:15 pm to add the following --

According to the laws of logic and infinity. The universe is infinity large and infinity small. The infinity small aspect is repeatedly overlooked by scientists and others. Because you can't see or detect anything in space, doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing there. Gravity, light, electricity and magnetism all reveal to us that there are invisible particles which hover around us constantly. They are pushing against us in the form of gravity and magnetism. The visible universe is an illusion - matter is empty and space is full. Galactic spin causes aetheric bubbles to form which we call matter. Gravity is just a pressure imbalance correction force.

[Atreyu]

I'm glad to see that someone else on these forums has picked up on one of the most cutting edge and important ideas in the realm of science. The Growing Earth theory is bound to upset many established ideas, including big bang theory, and it has much evidence in its favor, which modern science is adamant about ignoring.

I agree with your ideas, DarwinX. A growing Earth explains both the dinosaurs large size as well as their eventual extinction. And it also explains the formation of mountain ranges, the Great Lakes, the stratified age of the younger ocean floor and its obvious rifting, and many other things.

Nice post Darwin.

[DarwinX]

I'm glad to see that someone else on these forums has picked up on one of the most cutting edge and important ideas in the realm of science. The Growing Earth theory is bound to upset many established ideas, including big bang theory, and it has much evidence in its favor, which modern science is adamant about ignoring.

I agree with your ideas, DarwinX. A growing Earth explains both the dinosaurs large size as well as their eventual extinction. And it also explains the formation of mountain ranges, the Great Lakes, the stratified age of the younger ocean floor and its obvious rifting, and many other things.

Nice post Darwin.

I am glad there is at least one other person on planet Earth that sees what I am saying is true and real. You can get a copy of Stephen Hurrell's book - Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth online for further information and data to confirm your thinking and to reveal the scientific evidence in full.

[Bohm2]

The Growing Earth theory is bound to upset many established ideas, including big bang theory, and it has much evidence in its favor, which modern science is adamant about ignoring.

What is this "much evidence"?

[Gulnara]

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.

The arthritis then killed them? I heard something of that sort.

-- Updated Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:49 pm to add the following --

Dinosaurs were probably living half time in a water, like hippos , and water would make their bodies lighter. When water would dry up, or get shallow, they'd suffer from overheating and bone problems.

[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.

The arthritis then killed them? I heard something of that sort.

-- Updated Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:49 pm to add the following --

Dinosaurs were probably living half time in a water, like hippos , and water would make their bodies lighter. When water would dry up, or get shallow, they'd suffer from overheating and bone problems.

If dinosaurs were living half their life in water, then, they would look like hippos and not like dinosaurs. Your conclusions are illogical.

[Atreyu]

Just so you know, Darwin, we Growing Earth theorists are heavily leaning towards pair production (Wikipedia has a good link to get started) as being the cause of new matter/mass being generated in the cores of planets. The high temperatures and densities we find in the cores of planets are the perfect environment for pair production to occur. Accretion and meteorites cannot explain this new mass.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

There are many factors involved when a species or a society fails to thrive. To argue which one was most important is probably futile. For instance there is probably no single factor that caused the decline of Rome, or Babylon. Currently the so called western civilization is probably being supplanted by other cultures. Why, ascendancy of Muslim thought? Education of the masses? Ebola? Homosexuality?

However gravity may make it impossible for large animals to survive now. Whether it killed them is less likely. Just one factor among many

I've often thought that the gravity was less when the big reptiles roamed. Or that the air was thicker somehow so the pterodactyls could fly. I think it's a idea worth considering but the conversation is pretty ugly here, chryssake. I'll just lurk.

[PeterKinnon]

That an increase in surface gravity was responsible for the demise of very high mass terrestrial animals is a most interesting proposition. I have always been rather skeptical of the catastrophic scenario!

I am very busy at present but will take this issue up in the new blog I will be setting up in conjunction with my latest book "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill". which is in the process of publication.

Status on this will be found on the "Unusual Perspectives" website, where my previous books are also available for free download in e-book formats.

[Rederic]

That an increase in surface gravity was responsible for the demise of very high mass terrestrial animals is a most interesting proposition. I have always been rather skeptical of the catastrophic scenario!

I am very busy at present but will take this issue up in the new blog I will be setting up in conjunction with my latest book "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill". which is in the process of publication.

Status on this will be found on the "Unusual Perspectives" website, where my previous books are also available for free download in e-book formats.

Someone else with books to sell.

[RenDaHai]

The Expanding Earth theory does have some attractive points.

But gravity is inversely proportional to radius. F=GMm/r^2, For example the 'surface' gravity of Jupiter is only about 2.5 times that of Earth despite being over 300 times the mass.

On a smaller planet of the same mass, gravity is much higher. If you assume that the Earth was originally such a size that all the current continents fitted together without an ocean in between, then the figure comes out about 3.5 times the current gravity.

Mass accretion doesn't make sense for many reasons, a visual one is it would change the shape of the continents, Expanding Earths most attractive point is that earth expanded at the ocean trenches, like a balloon expanding from inside. Mass accretion simply doesn't fit. And it would have to be a lot more than people think because even a lesser mass Earth would still have higher gravity at such a small radius.

However I am not suggesting to completely abandon the expanding Earth theory, it has some amazing points. Mountain formation because of flattening of the originally more curved continents is a very attractive mechanism and there are many things that fit. Even recent discoveries of water locked in minerals inside the Earths crust can explain away some of the water problems.

But how does this work with Dinosaurs? On an earth with 3.5 times gravity the surface atmosphere would be considerably thicker. Maybe dinosaurs 'swam' through it, it helping to support their bulk. Alternatively maybe there were more shallow seas and dinosaurs walked through water a lot of the time.


All in all Plate tectonics certainly wins the day, but there is room for the Expanding Earth theory and it should be investigated further. However I do believe 'mass accretion' is a dead end and Expanding Earth theorists should accept that gravity would be much higher on a smaller Earth, but that of this fact itself not all the implications are understood.

[DarwinX]

But gravity is inversely proportional to radius. F=GMm/r^2, For example the 'surface' gravity of Jupiter is only about 2.5 times that of Earth despite being over 300 times the mass.

On a smaller planet of the same mass, gravity is much higher. If you assume that the Earth was originally such a size that all the current continents fitted together without an ocean in between, then the figure comes out about 3.5 times the current gravity.

Tell that to the astronauts that walked on the moon. They would have a good laugh.

Mass accretion doesn't make sense for many reasons, a visual one is it would change the shape of the continents, Expanding Earths most attractive point is that earth expanded at the ocean trenches, like a balloon expanding from inside. Mass accretion simply doesn't fit. And it would have to be a lot more than people think because even a lesser mass Earth would still have higher gravity at such a small radius.

The shape of the continents has changed. Note - At the equator there is a slight twist (Indonesia and Central America)both in the same direction due to the spinning earth.

[RenDaHai]

Tell that to the astronauts that walked on the moon. They would have a good laugh.

But the fact that they 'walked' on the moon at all is entirely because of this principle. The moon has just 1/80th the mass of the Earth and yet a startling 1/6th the gravity of the Earth. If it had just 1/80th the gravity they would not be able to walk on it at all, they would fly. It has such a high gravity because gravity is inversely proportional to the radius SQUARED.

Gravity α Mass/Radius squared

For example, for the Earth to have half the gravity AND half the radius it would have to have 1/8th the mass. Meaning if say the original Earth was in this state, the current Earth would be 7/8th accreted matter. All in the space of time since the dinosaurs (65 million years). Some quick maths tells me thats equivalent to a 2 mile diameter sphere of pure lead crashing into Earth every single day for 65 million years.

Accretion is a dead end. But thats no reason to abandon the idea. The effects a higher gravity would have on life are not really that predictable and I don't think anybody has tried investigating it (by say, growing fruit flies in a centrifuge) so I am not sure anyone could say with confidence what life would be like on a high gravity Earth, there are too many unknowns. For all I know, it could be dinosaurs.

[DarwinX]

Tell that to the astronauts that walked on the moon. They would have a good laugh.

But the fact that they 'walked' on the moon at all is entirely because of this principle. The moon has just 1/80th the mass of the Earth and yet a startling 1/6th the gravity of the Earth. If it had just 1/80th the gravity they would not be able to walk on it at all, they would fly. It has such a high gravity because gravity is inversely proportional to the radius SQUARED.

Gravity α Mass/Radius squared

For example, for the Earth to have half the gravity AND half the radius it would have to have 1/8th the mass. Meaning if say the original Earth was in this state, the current Earth would be 7/8th accreted matter. All in the space of time since the dinosaurs (65 million years). Some quick maths tells me thats equivalent to a 2 mile diameter sphere of pure lead crashing into Earth every single day for 65 million years.

According to Stephen Hurrell, mechanical engineer and author of Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth. Smaller planets than Earth have lesser gravity not more. The moon's gravity is 1.62 pounds /cubic cm. Its size is also only 1/6 th the size of Earth, therefore, your calculations are incorrect.

Accretion is a dead end. But thats no reason to abandon the idea. The effects a higher gravity would have on life are not really that predictable and I don't think anybody has tried investigating it (by say, growing fruit flies in a centrifuge) so I am not sure anyone could say with confidence what life would be like on a high gravity Earth, there are too many unknowns. For all I know, it could be dinosaurs.

The moon's gravity is 1.62 meters per square second. It's radius is 1,738km. Earth's gravity is 9.798 and its radius is 6,371 km. The Moon's gravity is 1/6th of Earth's gravity and the size difference is 1/4th.

Mars would be a good model of what Earth looked like 200 million years ago in terms of size and gravity. Mars' gravity is 3.71 and its radius is 3,390km. That's about 50% of Earth's gravity! Perfect!

Both the moon and Mars have riffs occurring around their equators as predicted by the Expanding planet theory. The moon - Valley of the Alps and Ariadaeus Rill and Mars has Valles Marineris.

[TimBandTech]

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.

I used to entertain a theory that Pangaea was a second moon (M2) of Earth which crashed gently into Earth. This is partially consistent with your theory, but does not rely upon the accretion of material. Another detail that I have heard divergent opinions on is the accumulation of fossil fuels and where they are found. Whether their presence is due to plate tectonics may be challenged.

I suppose the weakest part of an M2 crash type of theory is the violence of the encounter. Well, if atmospherics are involved than the drag could be such that an elliptic path gets corrected into a circular path due to the drag effect being maximum at minimum distance. This would establish a gentle crash even for an initial elliptic orbit, and the time taken of such a collision could be quite lengthy, though still there would be some awful violence when the fluid friction drags the supposed M2 down to the point of material collision. Well then too that supposedly solid material would be acting as a fluid, so as long as the bodies were tidally locked we would be looking at rather a strange planet for a period of time. It's a bit mickey mouse isn't it?

Humans are becoming more aware of the lack of stability of the solar system, and these theories that we play with are pushing against steady state presumptions, which are not necessarily even stated as such. Whether life could survive an M2 gentle collision would be an interesting analysis, but one that I am not honestly equipped to perform. Whether there are conundrums within the existing science that it would resolve... or your own theory... that is an important matter. I do believe that you may find some interesting factors in the presence of fossil fuels and perhaps in the presence of high density materials at the earth's surface.

If nothing else it is great fun to come up with our own theories and discuss them. I am in agreement that science and the course it has taken and the momentum of its position are cause for pause. If nothing else is so convincing let's not forget that we are humans working on these details, and humans are generally gullible. We come from a blank slate that our culture fills out. Little is actually re-derived from the past works. It is instead mimicry which we practice, and our abilities to discern the truth are obviously so limited.

I'm glad to see that someone else on these forums has picked up on one of the most cutting edge and important ideas in the realm of science. The Growing Earth theory is bound to upset many established ideas, including big bang theory, and it has much evidence in its favor, which modern science is adamant about ignoring.

I agree with your ideas, DarwinX. A growing Earth explains both the dinosaurs large size as well as their eventual extinction. And it also explains the formation of mountain ranges, the Great Lakes, the stratified age of the younger ocean floor and its obvious rifting, and many other things.

Nice post Darwin.

I am glad there is at least one other person on planet Earth that sees what I am saying is true and real. You can get a copy of Stephen Hurrell's book - Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth online for further information and data to confirm your thinking and to reveal the scientific evidence in full.