Posted on 03/04/2010 1:37:39 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Life changes and adapts and reproduces and consumes energy. I don't know that it “proceeds” or that it can be said to do so “linearly”, or why its ‘procession’ would necessitate a linearity. If by the ‘procession’ of life you mean evolutionary change, that has not been found to occur in a linear fashion.
Gravity is constant. Your blather about other dimensions doesn't change that you have no mechanism for this supposed gravity increase at the K-T period, or any observations that would support it. Moreover your supposition for the necessity of this gravity change is predicated on the unsupported and ignorant notion that a dinosaur skeleton is insufficient to support its mass.
What do you mean by “life proceeds linearly”
All life grows. Growth is either linear or non-linear. Whether plants, animals, or people, life grows in size and then recedes a little then dies (returns to zero). The universe is growing (see Doppler). If it didn’t it would collapse (entropic theoretical supposition). Growth can be seen as linear (i.e., 1,2,3,4,5) and constant or non-linear (i.e., 1, 3, 5) and jerky. The work of Fibonacci and Mandlebroit suggest all growth is non-linear (spurts and recessions). Growth requires energy. For the universe to expand it needs to exert energy. All energy and matter is fixed in totality and was released at the same time (big bang). String theory claims energy is unevenly distributed between 11 dimensions. So, if the universe grows in spurts (non-linearly) it is reasonable to assume that pushing dimensions will need to tap all energy sources for the growth spurt (much like a young child and teenagers need more sleep during growth spurts). We already know electro-magnetic energy varies in intensity and flips polarity over time, the question is can the pushing/growing dimensions borrow energy from the static dimensions? If so, static dimensions would experience a reduction of total energy (this would result in less gravitational energy in the donor dimension). When universal growth spurts go dormant and recede, energy would flow back to the static donor dimensions causing an increase of energy (this would cause an increase in gravitational energy). This temporary diminishment of gravitational energy would explain the capability of lifeforms to grow to extremely large proportions. The return (especially sudden return) of G energy to the donor dimension would cause a killing/crushing effect targeted specifically to those lifeforms who got “too big for their britches” (see Dinos), but would not have affected smaller and more densely built creatures. This, if true, would explain the selectivity of your “mass extinction”. Lifeforms were culled for size based on G energy deficits and surpluses cause by growth spurts and recessions (non-linearity) in the universe. (As identified earlier, this would also affect a lot of meteor/astroid weak orbits that were formed during the G energy deficit period. Stronger orbits would be affected simply through the tightening of there circuit but not destroying their orbit. Finally, as universal growth goes into extended consolidation periods between spurts, we would see periods of incrementally increasing G energy. This would cause all plants, animals and geography to proportionally downsize. When you look at the fossil record, you see a disappearance of “extremely large animals” from the earth, you see a noticeable downsizing of current know species through time as well. The later could plausible be explained through increased competition for food as species multiplied and became more efficient(throw a bone to Darwin).
Gravity is constant. Gravity is energy, see String Theory and see above. As energy, it can move around pretty quickly (see speed of light as example).
Your blather about other dimensions doesn’t change that you have no mechanism for this supposed gravity increase at the K-T period, or any observations that would support it.
I have a theoretical “speculation” of whats going on. I, like you can’t measure energy activity in other dimensions (no tool). Further, the vehicle for interdimensional travel of energy is most likely sub-atomic (await findings from quantum mechanics).
Example - was there an increase in meteors loosing orbit hitting earth during this period? Example - did all extremely large life forms on earth cease to exist, while smaller denser life forms persisted?
You are going to have to go quantum here, the ability of sub atomic matter to move through time and space and dimension is the frontier of science. Stay tuned.
Moreover your supposition for the necessity of this gravity change is predicated on the unsupported and ignorant notion that a dinosaur skeleton is insufficient to support its mass.
This is not my supposition, but the opinion of paleontologists. Can’t source this one, but have run into it many times (don’t read much on dinos). The paleos have been noting the similarity of dinos bone structure to bird bone structure for many years. Recently, they have found dino fossils clearly indicating that species of dinos thought to have been reptilian was actually covered in feathers. So the question before paleos is whether dinos were reptiles or birds? The paleos observations of the inadequacy of dino birdlike bone structure to carry the tons of dino weight is what originally got me started to wonder about the constancy of gravity.
I believe this is where you call me a creationist. I wish you would stop that, I don’t know of any creationist that spends time wondering about time, gravity and dimensional space. I would understand the label if I was talking about heaven all the time. Just sayin.
I wonder why?
Because nobody credible thinks that, and there is no data to support it perhaps?
All life grows? OK, well there is absolutely no support then that “life proceeds linearly” if by “proceeds” you mean growth. My own growth pattern was not linear by any means, it was quite rapid and first, and has held constant now for the past 20 years or so.
Liquid CO2 falling to earth, unsourced contentions about what paleontologists supposedly believe, your inability to understand that your unsubstantiated off the wall assertions are not in any way a scientific theory, your idea that a theory can be “proven”; and you wonder why I scoff at your “skepticism” of actual science?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.