Earthling

Moontanman, You wrote, in response to my quoting an article in the NY Times: "You are actually going to offer a reference to an article in the "popular press", (not the article it's self by the way or even a link to it) with cherry picked "quotes" from no specific scientist " You do know how to google a phrase don’t you? Just google part of one of the quotes in order to see the article. I also gave the name of the book about sauropod biology being referenced. Can’t help you much further than that. Swansont, You wrote, in response to scientists not believing physical conditions were responsible for sauropod gigantism: "Oh, and physical conditions would include gravity. Your source contradicts your thesis. " No, the physical conditions would not include gravity because most folks assume that gravity could not have changed on the surface of the Earth, as you well know. A lot of books will have to be revised when they realize that the theory, not thesis, of a change in surface gravity is true. michel123456, I have not researched the subject of vegetation size during the Mesozoic. The Brachiosaurus was an extremely tall sauropod (close to 50 feet) with a near-vertical neck. I would think the vegetation it consumed was also extremely tall. 　 　 　

michel123456, Great photo........was that the skull of Sarcosuchus imperator? You wrote: "It looks like vegetation of that period was uninfluenced by gigantism." I think you meant it the other way around. Again, quoting from the NY Times article: "Then the investigators found no evidence that availability of food and the physical and chemical conditions in the Mesozoic era were sufficiently different to have accounted for sauropod gigantism."

Moontanman, You wrote (in response to the NY Times summary of sauropod experts) : "So you claim, so what! I claim I am god so what! Give us some sources to show your claim is better than mine.... " It’s not what I claim.... the experts disagree with you, as do I. michel123456, Your calculation of earth contact pressure for the T-rex vs. an elephant is misleading. All of the weight of the T-rex would be on the toe area of one foot when it is running. The elephant, I believe, would have its total weight on three, flatfooted feet.

Moontanman, I went back to look at some of your postings. In one of them you wrote: "Dinosaurs and mammals both evolved at about the same time, dinosaurs were superior to mammals for at least two reasons, they had better respiratory systems and stronger bones, both of which allowed them to exploit larger body size better than other animals, no need for lower gravity." Your statement is contradicted by scientists who recently wrote a book about sauropods (‘Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs’). The NY Times wrote an article about this subject and here is what they wrote: "...scientists in the German-Swiss group proposed that sauropod bone had superior mechanical properties compared with large mammal bone, which would have given dinosaurs stronger skeletons to support their heftier bodies. The hypothesis was tossed aside after tests showed sauropod and cow bone tissue had the same strength."

Moontanman, No expert on dinosaurs am I but I probably know a little more about them than you do. Dinosaurs appeared about 230mya. They were held in check by the crurotarsans until the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction. During that event, the crurotarsans (at least the largest of them) became extinct. Do you know why they became extinct? The GTME is the only theory that provides a reasonable explanation......which follows: The T-J extinction was the result of a major rapid increase in surface gravity. That increase was due to the major continental separation which started the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. Reread my prior posts if you don’t remember the relationship between continental movement and core element movement (and therefore changes to surface gravity). The crurotarsans had splayed legs, similar to extant crocodiles. Dinosaurs had legs similar to existing large mammals (i.e., they were straight beneath their bodies, not splayed). Which of the above two leg structures would be adversely affected by an increase in surface gravity?????? Yes, the splayed leg crurotarsans! That’s why the larger, terrestrial crurotarsans became extinct at that time while the smaller ones that inhabited bodies of water (like the crocodile) survived. Your statement: "Probably because you don't have a clue as to what dinosaurs were or how they evolved and there is no reason what so ever why land animals as large as dinosaurs could not live on land today....." This proves that it is you who have "no clue" about animal morphology. If I could post a life-size image of a Brachiosaurus next to a giraffe, you would eat your words. I would ask you to explain how blood was pumped to that dinosaur’s head when a giraffe has an oversized heart, special flesh membranes on its legs to deal with the high blood pressure, etc. Reasonable people would not support the belief that Brachiosaurus could exist today.

michel123456, I have read similar websites/articles about the giant dragonflies (Meganeuropsis permiana) and they also attribute their large size to higher oxygen levels. I seriously doubt (as you might expect) whether that is the primary reason why they attained their gigantic size. If they "made their living" in the same way extant dragonflies do, they would have to move at tremendous speed, in start and stop mode. This would generate a tremendous amount of heat in order to move an insect this size causing overheating......insects don’t have the muscle structure to dissipate heat. However, if its weight were half (or less), things would be less problematic. The same applies to the 10 pound frog (beelzebufo ampinga) of the Cretaceous. They can’t attribute its size to oxygen levels........so what could it have been and why did it go extinct?

michel123456, Yes, there were other life forms that were huge in the distant past: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Eurypterid The fossil remains of one of these was reported to be 8 feet long. Of, course, some people will attribute that to a host of reasons.......none of which will be lower surface gravity. Also, under the current theory, surface "g" was lower on Pangea (than current value) and higher (than current value) antipodally to Pangea. Therefore, "thinning of air" would have been mitigated or absent on this spinning planet.

Moontanman, You wrote: "Dinosaurs and mammals both evolved at about the same time, dinosaurs were superior to mammals for at least two reasons, they had better respiratory systems and stronger bones, both of which allowed them to exploit larger body size better than other animals, no need for lower gravity. There is no evidence that animals the size of dinosaurs are impossible or even improbable at the surface gravity of today. If you think creatures the size of dinosaurs were impossible i suggest you give some evidence of this, current knowledge disagrees with you." Dinosaurs and mammals did not evolve at the same time. If you think dinosaurs that come close to the size of whales could live on land today, you are entitled to your opinion.....I will not ask you to prove that. You wrote: "I suggest you reread this link http://en.wikipedia...law_for_gravty and this one http://en.wikipedia....i/Shell_theorem and read this one as well http://www.solarview...ng/earthint.htm What' s your point concerning the first two links? The third link gives an opinion as to the size of various components of the Earth. That opinion is different from other websites. You wrote (in response to my opinion that surface "g" was 40-50% of what it is today: "Again. do you have any evidence for this? Your guess is not good enough and is based on false data as is pointed out in the link i provided." Which link is that? Specifically, what is the "false data." You wrote: "So far you have not given any evidence that this shift of 0.375% of the earths mass occurred or could have occurred much less that it would have changed the earths gravity." First of all, your statement is erroneous. Unless you are denying the formation of Pangea, this shift is well documented. It looks like you still don’t understand the conservation of angular momentum. You wrote (i n response to my explaining the global gravitational gradient): "Again you have shown no eviedence of this happening other than the size of the dinosuars which is false." The evidence is: 1. The unusually high sea levels near Pangea during the Phanerozoic. 2. The largest sauropods were only found in near equatorial regions, consistent with the proposed gravitational gradient. Again, the irrelevance of the size of dinosaurs is your opinion. You wrote: "then i have falsified your claims unless you have some evidence of your claims other than your guesses." Hardly! I would suggest you study the concepts of angular momentum, particularly the conservation thereof. Then explain what happened when Pangea formed (with the bulk of its mass moving south of the equator. If you can come up with an answer that doesn't involve movement of the core elements, then you might have falsified the claims I have made.

swansont, You wrote: "It's fairly well established that the speed has changed. As I said, the burden of proof here is yours." I’m not going to go around in circles on this. If you are not willing to admit that the Earth’s angular velocity did not change significantly during the formation of Pangea, which is the only time relevant in this thread, then I won’t waste any time responding to your comments. Moontanman, My comments follow your statements: #1. The Earths gravity must have been lower during the time of the dinosaurs, more or less 200,000,000 years ago to 65 million years ago because you claim the dinosaurs were too large to have existed if the gravity was the same or similar to what we experience now. Yes, although the time period is probably closer to 250,000,000 to 65mya and surface gravity didn't abruptly change to today's level 65mya. The rate of increase was high at that time but continued to gradually increaseafter that. #2. This lower gravity was caused by a shift in less than 0.374% of the Earth's mass. No, the movement of the continental plates latitudinally (because only that would alter angular momentum) caused the core elements to shift to conserve angular momentum. The continental plate mass, if I would estimate, would be about 1%. In addition, as I posted earlier, as surface gravity lowered near Pangea (and correspondingly increased antipodally to Pangea), sea levels rose substantially near Pangea (and lowered antipodally). The additional mass of the higher sea levels must be added to the ~1% of continental mass. I do not know what % would have to be added to account for this. The core elements (inner/outer cores and densest part of lower mantle) I estimate to be ~85% of the mass of the Earth. Therefore, movement of 1% + x% of the plates/water resulted in a shift of the core elements in order to maintain constant angular momentum. #3. This shift caused the molten mantle and core of the Earth to be offset so much the earths gravity was changed to 40% of what it is now during the 200,000,000 years ago to 65,000,000 years ago which is the time the dinosaurs evolved and diversified. Basically yes, whether it was 40% I don’t know but I would guess 40-50%. #4. This offset of the Earths mass lasted more or less 150,000,000 years. It would have lasted much longer, and of course, the amount of offset would depend on the continental positions. 65mya, the plates were moving toward today’s position so that surface gravity gradually increased during that period. #5. This reduction in the Earths gravity was limited to more or less the continent of Pangaea. No, the effects were global and there was a gravitational gradient around the Earth. To see this, use a compass to draw a circle. Then move the point of the compass horizontally about half of the radius and widen the compass arc so that it is tangent with the furthest arc of the original circle and draw a second circle. The gap between the two circles is an indication of relative surface gravity....the wider the gap the higher the surface gravity. Therefore, lowest surface gravity was on Pangea (lowest near equator, higher near poles) and highest antipodally to Pangea, which was ocean. Am I on track so far? Yes.

moontanman, You have provided Wiki links related to gravity but you have still not explained how any laws of physics have been broken. You wrote: "You also falsely suggest that the mass of the crust can significantly change the gravity if it shifts....." You have to study the concepts of moment of inertia and angular momentum (including conservation of) to understand how continental movement could cause the internal redistribution of mass within the Earth. 　 michel123456, I was able to download the the file using the new link. The basic point is that: 1. During the last 12,000 years the GAD model is accurate within 3 degrees (95%). 2. During Cenozoic and late Mesozoic (about 65mya) the accuracy of GAD drops to 5 degrees. 3. Before the above period the paper doesn’t give GAD accuracy figures. In general, this supports the GTME because after Pangea started breaking apart the core elements would have been returning to their current geocentric position. And therefore, while returning to the current GAD status, one would expect to see decreasing (degrees) accuracy numbers, which is what this paper shows. It’s when you go back to the period when Pangea was fully consolidated (and the core elements were displaced the most) that they have problems, proven by the Pangea A, A1, B and a few other configurations. These multiple configuration problems disappear when the shifting core element theory is examined. Swonsont, You wrote: "Sure you did. I made a claim, that we know that the earth's rotation rate has changed, and you redefined the conditions. Since we know that the earth's rotation has changed over time, there's no reason to think that it did not do so at some specific time in the past, i.e we assume that the laws of physics still worked. Since it's your contention that the interior reshuffled itself, it's up to you to provide evidence. It's your burden of proof." You provided a link to a summary of a paper that suggests that the Earth’s angular velocity was higher over 600 mya. While I have no way of verifying this, I’ll assume it is correct. I also have no way of knowing if this change in AV was the result of bolide impact, whether it occurred over a long or short period, whether AV was that value for hundreds of millions of years before then, etc. because you have not done any research.... you have just searched for site that seems to indicate a change in the Earth’s AV in the past. Again, it is not relevant because it is over 300 million years before Pangea consolidated and you have no explanation why the change took place. Your statement: "Since we know that the earth's rotation has changed over time, there's no reason to think that it did not do so at some specific time in the past..." Your logic is faulty here unless you know why AV changed in the past. You wrote: "But you should be able to estimate this. You take the mass of the continents, and change their location, which changes the moment of inertia of the planet. You can then calculate how much mass you'd need to move around to compensate. Then see what effect it has on gravity." It’s not a simple calculation.....we’re not using point masses. Estimating the mass of each continent, without knowing the topography at that time or even the surface area would give questionable results. As I stated in an earlier post, as Pangea consolidated, surface gravity decreased causing very high sea levels. One would have to include the mass of the additional sea levels, and that would be latitude-dependent (i.e. a gradient...higher sea levels near the equator). Finally, we can’t assume that the core elements maintained their current spherical symmetry as they moved off-center.

Moontanman, You wrote: "No, all you have done is make claims that are contrary to the laws of physics, you made the strange claims, it's up to you to support it with more than ‘I said so’. " I have asked you previously to state the law(s) of physics that I have violated. You have not provided a substantive answer yet. If you cannot answer the question then please admit your statement is wrong. michel123456, I tried to download the pdf link you provided but was not able to retrieve the file. Could you identify the statements you are referring to? Note that I used the word "fudge" in the earlier post because the paleomagnetists assume that the core elements were always geocentric. They then introduced new types of magnetic fields (quadrapolar and octupolar) to explain the Pangea ‘A’ vs. Pangea ‘B’ overlap. What they never explain is how or why a GAD (geocentric axial dipole) field could morph to the quadrapolar or octupolar fields and then back again. As I mentioned, if the core elements shifted (per this theory), there would not be a GAD magnetic field and no need to introduce the two anomalous magnetic fields. Swansont, I have not "moved the goalposts", you have picked a time period not relevant to the subject at hand, which is the GTME theory. This theory posits that as Pangea formed, the core elements moved away from their current geocentric position and that total angular momentum DID NOT CHANGE because one of two things occurred to prevent that change: Either: 1. The Earth’s angular velocity changed (i.e., increased, meaning a shorter day) or 2. The Earth’s core elements moved off-center. Therefore, it is you who have "moved the goalposts." You wrote: "How much reshuffling of mass do you contend will happen by moving the continents around? How big of an effect on gravity will there be as a result? " I can’t give you an accurate answer because it depends on the displacement of the core elements. Also, the lowering of "g" near Pangea increased the height of sea levels near Pangea, effectively increasing the mass (in addtion to continental mass) that came into play. The surface gravity would have varied around the planet because the distance from the new center of mass to points on the surface would be different. Lowest "g" on Pangea would be in the region near the equator and highest "g" at high north and south latitudes. One could guess at "g" based on the size of the largest dinosaurs or largest pterosaurs....but this would only be a guess.

Moontanman, In response to my reply to michel123456, you wrote: "You are suggesting we over turn the laws of physics...." Please explain ths statement. You also wrote : "...you cannot, in any way supported by natural processes, move the mass of the Earth around to make the surface gravity stronger or weaker unless you change the diameter of the earth." As I have posted previously, this statement is not true. The theory in question has proven this. If the Earth’s core elements never moved away from their central position, then there would always have been a geocentric axial dipole (GAD) magnetic field. If you study the Pangea ‘A’ vs. Pangea ‘B’ controversy you will find that there wasn’t a GAD magnetic field on the Earth during most of Pangea’s existence. Why not????? Paleomagnetists came up with a "fudge" scheme to try to explain this. The current theory explains this very simply: If the Earth’s core elements moved off center, then by definition, there was no GAD during the period when the core elements were displaced. Swonsont, You wrote: "But there's good evidence that rotational speed has changed over time. " Please provide references to support the change in the Earth’s rotational speed during the existence of Pangea. You also wrote: "Again, there will be no change in angular momentum. The mass distributions you are discussing are in the roundoff error of the gravitational acceleration — it currently varies by just a fraction of a percent due to deviations from uniformity. Plate tectonics won't cause that big of a change. " If you read my earlier posts I stated that the condition in which angular momentum could change, is a bolide impact. I do not understand your second "roundoff error" statement. However, as I have also stated several times, latitudinal movement of large continental plates would change angular momentum(AM) if there was nothing to offset the change in AM. Since we know that AM must be conserved I listed two possible offsets, one of which was the rotational speed of the Earth, which in the first statement of yours that I quoted above, seems to be your choice. Please provide an answer to the question I posed.

michel123456, Your calculation for the displacement of the Earth’s center of mass of about .41 r (r=radius of Earth) is reasonable. Considering that the Earth’s "core elements", inner/outer core and densest part of lower mantle, make up about 85% of the Earth’s mass, this would not be unreasonable in order to halve the weight of an object at the surface (as in the case of Pangea) as the core elements moved away from Pangea. Since the center of rotation still remains unchanged, the spinning Earth is balanced by the equal moments of inertia: Pangea (low m and high r^2) Earth’s shifted core elements (high m and low r^2) ...where r is distance from spin axis to mass swansont You wrote: "Reshuffling the mass would change the angular speed, but not the angular momentum. Changing angular momentum requires an external net torque." Redistribution of continental mass would change angular momentum if neither of the following happened: 1. The Earth’s spin rate (i.e., angular velocity) did not change. 2. There was no internal redistribution of mass. [i think I posted this previously] We know that total angular momentum cannot change unless, for example, a bolide impact occurs. Unless someone has proof that (1.) above occurred, then (2.) must have occurred. When I use the term "redistribution" of continental mass, I’m specifically referring to a latitudinal change because that would change angular momentum. If you read the prior postings, you will find that the continental redistribution of mass that we are addressing (i.e., the formation of Pangea) is not the "spherically symmetric" one you stated. We are concerned with gravitational changes at the surface of the Earth when there is a major non-symmetrical redistribution of mass within the Earth resulting from the continental redistribution. Based on the above, the core elements had to move off center resulting in a change in surface gravity.

Moontanman, It’s all about rotational physics. Anyone not familiar with that will have trouble understanding this. Your statement : "No Earthling, unless the actual diameter of the Earth changed drastically no amount of reshuffling of the Earth's mass would have changed the pull of gravity at the surface..." is incorrect. If you are familiar with angular momentum (and the conservation thereof) you would know that any redistribution of mass on/in the Earth would alter the total angular momentum (AM). In order to conserve AM when the continents coalesced to form Pangea, what mechanism do you suggest acted to maintain total AM? A change in the Earth’s diameter is not necessary for a change in surface gravity. Shifting of the core elements (the densest part of the Earth), based on Newton’s law, must alter surface gravity.

If you search the web for info about the effect of the movement and/or melting of the Antarctic ice cap, you will find various opinions about the induced wobble associated with that mass redistribution. Clearly, the Antarctic ice cap mass is insignificant compared to the total continental land mass which was redistributed when Pangea formed. It follows that a massive wobble occurred when Pangea formed, and the question is: what mechanism dampened out that wobble? Also, when Pangea formed, the total continental center of mass did not remain at the near-equatorial plane where it is today; it was well south of that plane. This movement would have changed the Earth’s total angular momentum (AM), violating a basic law of physics, if nothing happened to offset this lowering of AM. Only two ways of offsetting this change in AM come to mind: 1. The Earth would have to spin at a faster rate (i.e., a shorter day) or 2. Internal shifting of the densest part(s) of the Earth away from the center. I know of no support for ( 1.) above. That leaves the alternate, shifting of the Earth’s inner/outer cores and the densest part of the lower mantle. If this happened, it follows from Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, as expressed mathematically in an earlier post, surface gravity on the Earth would have changed. And, it would have lowered on Pangea because the core elements would have moved away from Pangea. Therefore, as Pangea formed: The Earth, in a series of incremental steps over many millions of years, started to wobble as the continental plates of the Earth moved toward Pangea. As the center of mass of the plates moved south of the equator, the (nutation) damping of the wobble forced the displacement of the core elements from their current central position to maintain constant AM. No mass change is needed; no change in the Earth’s volume is needed; no densty change is needed.

I don't believe any laws of physics must be revised: Briefly, the GTME (Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction) posits the following: 1. Today, the Earth's continental land masses are disributed fairly uniformly around the globe. In the distant past (e.g., when Pangea existed) the distribution did not have this uniformity. When there is a change in continental distribution, several things happen concurrently: a. A wobble of the Earth will occur. b. Nutation damping of the wobble will commence in order to return the Earth to a minimum energy status. c. The nutation damping can take different forms. If the continental redistribution changed the latitude of the total continental center of mass (which would alter the Earth's angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy) then one or both of the following would occur to maintain the conservation of the above two quantities: - The Earth's rotational velocity would change (i.e., the length of a day would change). - The Earth's core elements (inner/outer cores and densest part of lower mantle) would move. d. There is no proof that the Earth's rotational velocity changed during the Mesozoic (disregarding the insignificant effect of the moon's gravitational pull on this planet), therefore, the Earth's core elements moved away from their current geocentric position. 2. When the core elements moved away from their geocentric position, by definition, the surface gravitation changed; lowest "g" the furthest distance away from the core elements, which would have been at the center of mass of Pangea. 3. The lowered "g" on Pangea accounts for dinosaur gigantism. 4. The core element(s) movement accounts for the massive flood basalt volcanism of the Mesozoic. This type of volcanism is produced by plumes initiated at the core/mantle boundary. 5. The resultant surface gravity gradient around the globe (i.e., lowest at Pangea and highest antipodally) accounts for the extremely high sea levels near Pangea during the Phanerozoic Eon. 6. The core element(s) movement accounts for the Kiaman Reverse Superchron and the Cretaceous Normal Superchron. These are two anomalously long periods when the Earth's magnetic field did not reverse. 7. The changing continental configuration and corresponding core element movement was responsible for many mass extinction events prior to the K-T extinction. Finally, the most powerful support for the GTME comes from the science of paleomagnetism, which I believe substantiates this theory. This is described in detail in the second edition of the book: .................................................................................................