michel123456

I am suspicious. Marat and Tar2?

what i found in the litterature is that current estimations may be over-estimated. If that is correct, the calculation should be redone with a lighter T-Rex, very very bad for speculations about low gravity. Too bad, I liked the idea.

I went on digging for more information. With the idea that gravity is suspected to have changed, I searched for traces. A footprint of T-REX has been found in 1984 in New Mexico (identified though disputed). The following is an attempt to put it to scale in relation to a large existant animal, the elephant: area calculation has been done after putting pictures to scale in Cad programm. _An average indian elephant weights 4160 kgs to 5400 kgs _Current accepted estimation of T-Rex weight ranges from 5400 kgs to 6800 kgs By simple calculation we get 1.for the 4 legged elephant low value 4160kg / (0,122m2 x 4) = 8254 kg/m2 large value 5400kg / (0,122m2 x4) = 11065 kg/m2 which is an approximation of the pressure exerted on the soil by an equal repartition of its weight on 4 feets. 2. for the bipedal T-Rex low value 5400kg / (0,289m2 x2) = 9342 kg/m2 large value 6800kg / (0,289m2 x2) = 11764 kg/m2 Although with a lot of cumulated approximations, the result shows that pressure exerted by the 2 feets of T-rex is quite close to that of the elephant. Which is a good point for existing knowledge and very bad for the "lower gravity speculation". Of course, one could argue that T-rex identification was based upon the same principle, making all the above a circular argument. But that is over my head. I leave the field for specialists. sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/kt/footprint.html http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/theropod/walk.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Elephant this image

Very logical approach, Marat. That makes me think we don't act logically in life. As for teaching suicide, it is forbidden by the law I think. One could at least learn how to avoid stupid ways of dying horribly, like by burning, hanging or drowning.

You are part of the 0,01% population of this thread who didn't introduce himself by "Hi, Hey, Hello, it's me". I find that interesting. Welcome to all.

To be loved.

I have to get used to that. yes. Like enantiomorphism or chirality. IIRC we have gone through this already.

This is derailing a little bit: Sometimes copyright is upon the picture, not upon the original author (which is some Arab mathematician, since the original Ptolemy's work in Greek has been lost). I see that in Architecture, where photographers put copyright upon pictures of buildings made by others.

Yes. About insects i found this picture in this link from a blog. The text is a copy-paste of an article from Science-Daily you can find here. Here gigantism is explained through a change of ogyxen concentration in the atmosphere. I found nothing about plants. Still searching.

I have a completely different concept of symmetry. To me symmetry acts like a mirror. Take an object A, and his mirrored image B. If the above equation from post#2 is represented by A , under time reversal the result is A (not B). Which is not what I call symmetry, I'd rather call that invariance (I guess I am wrong somewhere)

That is too far over my head. I understand that multiple observations of the one and same phenomena can be valid, but I cannot accept the concept of a multiple phenomena happening. IOW, when you state "Since there is no preferred frame of reference, the "other frame of reference" is just as valid." I say Yes. When you state I say Yes. but when you state "Because they do happen.", I say ????????? There is a huge step between those statements.

Yes. Although force is the question, not g. One should make a complete model before jumping into conclusions. Maybe a slight change could have big effects, I don't know.

I am not sure. I think that current g has been considered as an axiom, and is a corner stone for all reconstruction of ancient animals. Not that our knowledge of the ancient animals can be used to deduce an hypothetical g. --------------------------- Since the thread has been broken into pieces, just to make a reminder about the scale we are talking about. Also, IIRC, gigantism of early Earth is not only about dinosaurs, but about insects & plants as well. Some difficulty to find links though.

Thank you for this very clear explanation. Then why do scientists argue that time dilation and space contraction do truly happen? As I read your explanation, it appears to me that both effects are the result of observation and measurements from another Frame Of Reference, nothing else.

I feel so naive. Is that what T-symmetric means? that the result is the same for t positive and t negative?

I must be blind. Where is it T symmetric?

This is the full link. It is a 22 pages pdf, I cannot post it here. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Paleomag/book/chap10.pdf only some excerpts

I have to say here that someone that continuously "gains" negative votes without being banned is more respectable that someone gaining positive votes for posting jokes. Adding that the anonymous negative voters that apply on posts only because they disagree are totally irrespectable to me.

Incoherent, inane, irrelevant, maybe. But certainly not nonsensical. If one remain to his actual experience and sensitivity and refuses to embark into concepts like "curved space" or "expanding space" while the word "space" represents [insert here what you think], then there is no hope for common understanding.

I cannot answer the question. To me LightStorm's answer is a clever way to say it is that way because it is that way. I like to question why are there continents at all, and not random points, like polynesia, all around?

Very interesting. I found some interesting articles about GAD. Including this one from University of Arizona. I haven't got the time to read it completely, but it seems to disagree with your statement.

Precedent link broken (thanks Ewmon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry_heater

OTEC combined with Gulf stream. Yes for energy production. I doubt about global climate influence.

Cyclone, you have a Greek foot.

If you put that mathematically, you will see that you need a huge difference in distance. In the formula Taken G is constant m1 is constant (Earth's mass) m2 is the mass of the animal (an elephant) You may want to double m2 and keep F constant: it is a situation where an elephant is twice as big (has twice the mass) but feels the same force (has the same weight). Doubling m2 and keeping F the same means you need to double r^2 as well, which gives an increase of r of a factor 1,41 1,41 Earth's radius means an increase of about 2600 km, which is a huge value IMHO in regard to the doubling of an elephant's mass. I don't know how you can account for such effects only by moving the center of mass and without changing Earth's radius. Besides, I don't know how could the Earth remain a spherical object when its center of mass is not at the center anymore (Or do I misunderstand your proposal?)