If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
So there was less gravity back then?
Might answer my “why were they so big” question.
This is a very heavy load of BS.
Without some kind of theory, or even speculation, as to how the gravitational force of a planet of basically constant mass changes over time, this is like some kind of “aliens abducted my wife and got her pregnant” story.
Even that page lacks the images you show. Do you have any further information on the origins of this post?
Interesting questions.
Nothing in normal experience is ballpark for that sort of a torque figure; that would be roughly ballpark for the combined maximum torque of all of the engines of a large WW-II battleship or one of our largest modern carriers, i.e. the torque needed to drive a 55,000 ton ship through the water at 30 - 35 knots.
A somewhat childish example of reasoning from consequents to ground, a formal logical fallacy.
Oh God! Teh Stupid! It Burns! It Burns!
Looking at the bible, there has been representations in the heavens of situations and entities that are on earth. The Moon and Saturn have represented Satan in some places in the bible...for instance, in Revelation, the antichrist's reign is given in months and Christ's reign is given in years.
The bible says that in ancient times (pre-Adam times), Satan was the "Cherub that covereth" so was Saturn the planet that covereth I wonder. If the earth used to be in a close orbit around Saturn or some kind of close diamagnetic lock with Saturn somehow, the gravity of Saturn would offset the earth's on the surface of the earth and pave the way for these huge dinosaurs to survive.
Oooh, the “Thunderbird”:
http://www.lightmission.com/Admin.Web/Images/Teratorn-25ft.jpg
BTW, let me be the first (I guess, I didn’t read any comments yet) to accuse you of being, in reality, Ted Holden / medved. ;’)
I’ve never found this particular argument to be compelling; it is rooted in the idea that the “bronto”saurus had to wade to allow the water to support some of their weight, then eventually got stuck in the mud, died, fell over, and became fossilized. :’)
The missing Tripod image is hosted on GeoCities now:
http://www.geocities.com/anthrosaurs/DinoList.html
http://www.geocities.com/anthrosaurs/Pteranodon.html
The existence of the Blue Whale proves that this piece is nonsense in the very first sentence:
Accretion. The Earth and all bodies with sufficent mass gain more, and as they gain, their mass increases, causing more accretion. The figure I’ve seen most is 0.1%/year(dust, meteors, and water), but even at a magnitude less(.01%), it adds up.
bookmark for later
http://microlnx.com/dinosaurs/OriginOfDinosaursAndMammals.html
On the Origin of Dinosaurs and Mammals - Excerpt:
...Dynamical principles of locomotion indicate that a gravity reduction will lower the speed at which animals change gait. In adapting to reduced gravity, the advanced thecodonts may have shifted from a bipedal symmetrical running gait to a bipedal asymmetrical hopping gait, much as the Apollo astronauts did on the Moon. This behavioral shift by the thecodonts engendered fundamental structural changes, including the fully erect gait and obligatory bipedal pose that characterized primitive and many advanced dinosaurs. Like kangaroos, the ectothermic archosaurs may have relied on elastic storage and rebound to hop at high speeds over long distances at a low metabolic cost, which gave them a competitive edge over the proto-endothermic therapsids...
(HEY, CIV, I TOLD YOU THEY HOPPED!)
Dinosaur Giantism
http://microlnx.com/dinosaurs/Giantism.html
At 20 tons, Baluchitherium, a rhinoceros from the late Oligocene and early Miocene, was the largest of all land mammals, living or extinct. Compared to a modern rhino or elephant, Baluchitherium was truly gigantic. But according to Bakker, 20 tons was only the average size of Morrison sauropods. Larger sauropods, of 50 or even 100 tons, are known to have lived. How did they support themselves? Economos, together with an earlier generation of paleontologists, opted for the amphibian solution: “Apparently, the buoyancy of water has made possible the evolution of sea mammals much larger than the largest land species. (This was also true of dinosaurs.)”20 Bakker, however, has shown that sauropods were land-dwellers; hence, they could not rely on buoyancy to support their bulk. Thus, we have a paradox: either 20 tons is the maximum size for a land animal, in which case Bakker is wrong about the terrestrial habits of sauropods, or else Economos is wrong and land animals larger than 20 tons can exist.
There is, of course, a simple solution to this paradox, a solution that validates Bakker’s empirical findings without violating Economos’s theoretical analysis. Reduced gravity during the Jurassic would have permitted land animals to achieve body sizes not possible under present-day conditions. In a previous section, it was argued based on the skeletal scaling Equation (3) that a 20% reduction in gravity would permit an order of magnitude increase in body mass of the very largest land animals without any increase in the fraction of body mass devoted to the skeleton. The mass of the largest sauropods was probably about 100 tons. It is therefore worth noting that for Gmax= 0.8G, Economos’s Equation (6) yields a maximum body size of about 100 metric tons.
Nonsense. An adult chimp smaller than these power lifters could rip their damn arms off and beat him over the head if they want too. The average chimp could bench press over 1000 pounds and not even strain.
IMHO, the antedeluvian world was of smaller diameter.....there are “giant” human remains that may suggest this as well.
