Prove the temperature during the time of the dinosaurs or before

[Realitycheck]

I have a hypothesis brewing that makes the sun burning a lot hotter (50-100 degrees) back in the time of the dinosaurs and before.

[ecoli]

Care to elaborate?

[insane_alien]

so was it the sun that was 50-100*C hotter or the earth? i have a feeling you mean the latter.

[jackson33]

the sun would have a great deal more to do with temperatures on earth, if there were another form or no atmosphere. maybe this condition would have given reason for the total ice ages of apx. 900mya, 300mya and thought warm spell during the Dino period. many do think CO2 in that atmosphere was at levels to maintain heat levels, or if you prefer a form of global warming happened.

 

keep in mind there are currently four levels of atmoshpere, acting as a cushion or retainer of energy from the sun, in differing ways.

[Realitycheck]

Based on my still somewhat brewing hypothesis, temperatures would be 50-100F degrees hotter. Is there any scientific basis for this type of phase in our sun?

[Sisyphus]

You still haven't said whether you mean the Earth or the Sun. But...

 

It is impossible that it was 50-100F hotter on Earth, for many reasons. For one thing, that's way too hot for anything to live. (Well, too hot for dinosaurs, anyway!)

 

50-100F hotter on the sun would be totally insignificant and have no measurable effect.

 

But what is your hypothesis? Please elaborate, and we can discuss it.

[insane_alien]

it does sound like he means earth. in that case, no. there would be evidence of such a temperature rise (like thinner polar ice caps for one).

[Realitycheck]

Well, the hypothesis has pretty much been shot down. I have shot it down myself in the past, revived it, amended it, the whole nine yards, but finally it is where it belongs.

 

The most current version was this. Since there was no way that man could move 800 ton blocks of stone 1/3 mile over a hill and so forth and so forth, little green men evolved on Mars .5-1 billion years ago since the sun was hotter which made Mars a livable planet. Then, when it got a lot colder, they simply moved to Earth. If primitive dinosaurs can evolve in 4 billion years, what difference does a few hundred million years make? This could only happen since there was a very large mass of frozen ice discovered on Mars recently which has a lot of dirt blown over it, the water being enough to cover the planet if melted. They came and brought civilization to earth because they were the only ones who possibly could have since I have a hard time believing in warp drive, force fields, and all of that stuff that makes interstellar flight feasible, even though water-filled planets 150 light years away sounded inviting. With the gravity on this Jupiter-sized planet, these humanoids would be pretty tough, possibly even giants. I hear that there were supposedly lots of giants walking around the earth in the infancy of creation. If you really want to go far out on a limb, you can go with the author who says that the asteroid belt formerly known as the planet which had its own heat source and an elliptical orbit which extended far past the orbit of Pluto (though this could be construed as a spaceship if you read into the hidden code of it) right before the inhabitants bailed out of the planet or was it the other planet that this planet collided with and then colonized Earth and lived for tens of thousands of years genetically engineering hybrid humans that could live for 900 years before the DNA gradually became watered down near his humble abode with the great snake standard hanging from atop his flagpole. Note that the previous sentence is how his books would read. This is of course derived from 10,000 year old Sumerian tablets displaying king lists of gods who descended from heaven living to be tens of thousands years old until the great flood washed them all out with all of their great technology, after which they could only live for hundreds of years, including the great Gilgamesh, son of a phantom.

 

But now, all of this junk (and not quite junk) is where it belongs.

[Realitycheck]

Look at this picture:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baalbek-Bacchus.jpg

 

How are they going to get those giant stones at the tip 120 feet in the air on top of everything else without knocking anything down? I suppose if there was extraterrestrial technology involved, the cuts in the stone would have looked a lot more professional and they wouldn't have cut the columns into segments.

[foodchain]

Look at this picture:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baalbek-Bacchus.jpg

 

How are they going to get those giant stones at the tip 120 feet in the air on top of everything else without knocking anything down? I suppose if there was extraterrestrial technology involved, the cuts in the stone would have looked a lot more professional and they wouldn't have cut the columns into segments.

 

I think if such people had the technology to leave mars for earth moving stone would be hardly the only thing you could try to gauge for the existence of such. That being said evolution is a not a nice little math algorithm that makes perfect sense in every aspect. Such as how long did it take for the first single celled organism to appear to how long it took for multi celled organisms, to the emergence mammals. You actually kind of have to get down and dirty with it is all, like most anything its a high degree of rigor to it really.

 

I think the highest temperatures for something to live in naturally on the planet as occurred completely away from anything human wise is sea vent communities, where some things live in temperatures deadly to anything else known to be living, then again life in those places does not use the sun and so much else is different ecologically speaking.

 

As for the sun being that much hotter then, I really cant say with any confidence from what I know that such could be true.

[jackson33]

Based on my still somewhat brewing hypothesis, temperatures would be 50-100F degrees hotter. Is there any scientific basis for this type of phase in our sun?

 

many feel the earths mean temperature reached +10 to +20 of todays mean at some point during this Dino period (240-65MYA). they attribute the, what should have been large areas of tropical conditions, rain forest and so on to the expansions of mammals and primates.

 

some do think the sun heats up to the maximum from its formation and at mid-life begins to cool, very slowly. but, this alone would make little difference.

 

on your migration hypotheses; there are a few that think mankind came from Mars, or even elsewhere in the universe. genetics and now DNA, pretty much says we are all (life) from the same basic evolutionary process.

 

the stones and things you thinking are not thought to be from the Dino period, or at least i think your thinking. generally 4 or 5 thousand years ago, when things should have been pretty much like today. natural rock formations are pretty interesting as natural forces carve what we can see today. also keep in mind continental shift and mountain formations continue to today. there are large, very large ones in places where they seem should be and in some cases can be tracked to distant places.

[1veedo]

WIkipedia has information about this. Temperature estimates from that long ago rely on carbon/oxygen/atmospheric gas concentration levels found in fossils. There are other indicators for temperature, such as ocean salinity and whatnot, but I think it's funny cause most of the information about historical temperature levels for this planet come from fossils dug up in my own state (Appalachian mountains).

 

We're also the worlds largest exporter gensing, and we burn a lot of coal, but that's about it

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

[Realitycheck]

the stones and things you thinking are not thought to be from the Dino period, or at least i think your thinking. generally 4 or 5 thousand years ago, when things should have been pretty much like today.

 

I suppose I might have looked pretty unbalanced. This "hypothesis" was still very undeveloped and it could only have been held up by the weak possibility of the presence of little green men intruding in our affairs still today. I already knew that 300 million years was quite a long time for little green men to kill. I can't believe that I actually submitted that for peer review, but what can I say, that's kind of what recovering from a coma is like.

[ecoli]

moved to speculations...

[JohnF]

Look at this picture:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baalbek-Bacchus.jpg

 

How are they going to get those giant stones at the tip 120 feet in the air on top of everything else without knocking anything down? I suppose if there was extraterrestrial technology involved, the cuts in the stone would have looked a lot more professional and they wouldn't have cut the columns into segments.

 

They probably did it from the inside of the building. The pillars and the building wall could have been built in unison.

 

I do find it strange though that extra-terrestrial involvement is quite often called for simply because an ingenious building method is not understood.

[ecoli]

so let me get this 'hypothesis' straight -

 

Certain architectural would have been really difficult to build by themselves -> Aliens must have helped us -> these aliens came from mars -> in order for these aliens to evolve the sun must have been hotter -> therefore, during the time of the dinosaurs, then sun must have been hotter.

 

 

There are so many flaws in the above reasoning, I hardly know where to begin... I'm hoping I have it wrong.

[jackson33]

I suppose I might have looked pretty unbalanced. This "hypothesis" was still very undeveloped and it could only have been held up by the weak possibility of the presence of little green men intruding in our affairs still today. I already knew that 300 million years was quite a long time for little green men to kill. I can't believe that I actually submitted that for peer review, but what can I say, that's kind of what recovering from a coma is like.

 

No, actually your not appearing unbalanced. the questions asked are very common, been discussed many times and some today feel even the pyramids were built from an outside source. there are many natural and rock formation, some believe were left by space aliens as well. i personally do not agree, but you are certainly not alone.

[Realitycheck]

There are so many flaws in the above reasoning, I hardly know where to begin... I'm hoping I have it wrong.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. I was kind of shooting wildly in the dark, knowing that it really didn't add up, but I didn't really think that someone flew 4.3 light years to do it. However, I'm still not completely convinced that the Romans actually did do it, for purely technical reasons (though it is a lot easier to just submit to more knowledgeable people). People have tried to reenact stuff like this with disastrous results and it is very difficult even today with 1,000 ton capacity moving cranes.

[Edtharan]

IIRC, they have found remnants of dirt ramps that the Egyptians used to construct the pyramids, so, this Dirt ramp building technology existed long before the Romans came on the scene, so why could the Romans not just appropriated the construction techniques?

 

I am not saying that the Romans did use this methods, but there did exist known methods of building these monuments that did not involve Aliens/Atlantians/etc.

 

Since there was no way that man could move 800 ton blocks of stone 1/3 mile over a hill and so forth and so forth, little green men evolved on Mars

Actually there is. There is this little invention called the wheel. They could make them out of stone, wood, or even metal. But lots of rollers/wheels, would allow the blocks to be moved.

 

IF you were just using rollers (the most basic form of the wheel) then as the rollers become available at the rear of the block, you would then rush them forward (being lighter than the block you can move them faster) and place them in position.

 

Once you work out how fast you can replace the rollers, it is a simple matter of mathematics (or at worst trial and error with ever larger blocks) to work out how many rollers you need to keep the block supplied.

 

You can get some hard woods tough enough to damage even modern steel saw blades, so trees like this would have been tough enough (especially if used en-mass) to move these 800 ton blocks.

 

As for over a hill, well the did know about leavers and pulleys, so it is quite probable that they could rig up a pulley system to allow them to move it up the hill (or they could just have simple gone around it ).

 

This could only happen since there was a very large mass of frozen ice discovered on Mars recently which has a lot of dirt blown over it

Not exactly. The dirt is not just "Blown over it". The water lies beneath rock in aquifers (much like the aquifers here on earth) and frozen solid.

 

the water being enough to cover the planet if melted.

No. They don't exactly know how much water there is on Mars. It might be only a little bit, or it could be a lot. Estimates put it at enough to cover the Northern basin (less than 1/3) the surface of Mars, and only in a shallow sea at that (nowhere near the depth that the oceans of Earth are).

 

I hear that there were supposedly lots of giants walking around the earth in the infancy of creation.

I have also heard about Elves, Unicorns, Dragons, etc, but there is no evidence for them. Big creatures need tough bones and tough bones fossilise easier (like with the bid Dinosaurs).

 

Note that the previous sentence is how his books would read. This is of course derived from 10,000 year old Sumerian tablets displaying king lists of gods who descended from heaven living to be tens of thousands years old until the great flood washed them all out with all of their great technology,

You know what. If I could fly between planets, and there was a big flood coming, I would do my best to fly away, not just let the technology get washed away. Or at the very least, put it in orbit where i could get it again and would not be subject to flooding.

 

How are they going to get those giant stones at the tip 120 feet in the air on top of everything else without knocking anything down? I suppose if there was extraterrestrial technology involved, the cuts in the stone would have looked a lot more professional and they wouldn't have cut the columns into segments.

And they wouldn't necessarily used stone. If you have the technology to fly between planets, then you are going to need some form of material engineering. You would have had to use it to make your spaceship.

 

Making materials strong and light enough to build a space ship requires an advanced understanding of material engineering. So these "Aliens" would have had the knowledge to construct something like concrete (or other "artificial" stone). They could have constructed the building much as we construct buildings with concrete today.

 

So then, why would they resort to laboriously hacking lumps of rock out of quarries (we can see the tool marks on the rocks), dragging them around (and marks on the rocks where they have done this too) and then using their superior technology to lift them up? It just does not make sense.

 

However, I'm still not completely convinced that the Romans actually did do it, for purely technical reasons (though it is a lot easier to just submit to more knowledgeable people). People have tried to reenact stuff like this with disastrous results and it is very difficult even today with 1,000 ton capacity moving cranes.

Yes, it is difficult and these re-enactments don't have hundreds of years to experiment and work out all the problems associated with their techniques. However, the fact that re-enactors have been able to do it means that these ancient peoples could have done it too.

[insane_alien]

when the romans did it they would have been skilled craftsmen in that field with the craft being passed on from father to son so it had plenty of time to develop. the re-enactors are basically just reading then trying. since they can do it reasonably well we can safely assume that the original builders could do it better.

[Pangloss]

Not to change the subject, but one of my favorite stories about the life of Julius Caesar is a little tale about how one day he and Cleopatra were traveling up the Nile, and decided to stop and have a picnic at a famous spot that had been a quarry for the stone used in the pyramids. Cleo showed Gaius around for a bit, and at one point Nice-Head-of-Hair asked his honey "How did they build the darn things anyway?"

 

"I have no idea," she replied.

 

And she really didn't. The idea had been lost for thousands of years already. (Not that the ancient Egyptians would have stooped to telling a Greek pretender like Cleopatra anyway.)

 

Human beings have a long freaking history.

[JohnB]

The Temples of Bacchus and Jupiter were added by the romans to foundations laid much earlier by an unknown people. The Temple part itself while impressive was not structurally dissimilar to other large buildings of the time and wouldn't have posed too much of a problem. Dirt ramp and Earth fill was a common technology of the time. As in, you fill the building with dirt to provide a stable building platform and remove it when you are finished. The high arches on Roman aquaducts were generally made in this fashion.

 

The foundation stones by an "unknown" people means just that, we don't know who they were. Nor do we know anything about their technology except that it was very effective.

This huge piece was left near the quarry. It is one of the largest worked stone on Earth. I've read estimates of the weight being anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 tons. Cutting this stone free and moving it uphill to the building site is no small matter and implies an "advanced" society. (Advanced as in Bronze or Iron Technology and Society because of the workforce needed.) So far, no known society in the region could have done it. If you're wondering, the stones are Granite, not the easiest thing to cut with bronze tools.

 

The truly bizarre part of Baalbek is that these gigantic stones are actually the top course of the foundations. A rather good series of photos showing the foundations are found here.

 

The mystery here is that a society that can cut, shape, move and position these stones must meet certain criteria. It must have a large available workforce with the spare time to actually do the work. It must have the neccessary architectural skills and experience in large stone architecture. It must have the management skills to mobilise and coordinate the workforce. It must have a ready and large supply of tools.

 

In short, they should have left some other evidence of their existence as a society. But so far the only evidence they left is Baalbek itself. Also there is no "Developmental" stage. Engineering on such a scale doesn't spring from nowhere, a society has to have had practice on smaller constructions. There are no smaller edifices in the region that show a similar building style. Baalbek exists by itself with no context to put it into accepted history, it is an anomaly. It's things like this that make me wonder if Plato's Atlantis was more than just a story.

As for over a hill, well the did know about leavers and pulleys, so it is quite probable that they could rig up a pulley system to allow them to move it up the hill.

Edtharan, the pulley was still unknown for the building of the Giza Necropolis in 2450 BC. The Baalbek stones predate Giza by at least 1,000 years, possibly much more. All we have found at Giza for the 4th dynasty are some "proto-pulleys", not much more than a grooved rock. Nor AFAIK is there any evidence that any Mesopotamian culture of near that time had any knowledge of the pulley. Moreover, Mesopotamian cultures didn't have a demonstrated ability of stoneworking on such a scale, they built in mud brick. ( It would appear that the compound pulley which would help move these great loads was invented by Archimedes some 3,000 years after Baalbek was laid. )

 

Rollers are no use unless they are the same diametre, which requires a knowledge of wood-turning on a large scale, or extremely exact wood shaping skills, we are talking about shaping tree trunks here. there is no evidence of such abilities in the region. Even the Egyptians didn't use rollers all that much, probably because of the lack of hardwood. They used sleds with oil poured in front of the runners. There is a good depiction (in one of the tombs) of this method being used to move a statue.

 

While the remains of earth ramps have been found at Giza, they are not on the scale needed to build the Pyramids. The theory has been around for a while but seems flawed in two areas;

1. Engineers have pointed out that such an earth ramp would collapse under it's own weight.

2. The fill needed to create such a ramp would weigh in at around 7 million tons, roughly 3 times the weight of the Great Pyramid itself. So where is the rubble? There is no evidence of such a large amount of fill ever being at Giza.

 

agentchange, always remember that just because we can't work out how it was done doesn't imply ET or other outside intervention. Our ancestors were brilliant and they didn't think the same way we do now. I believe this difference to be the root cause of why we can't work out their techniques.

[Edtharan]

All we have found at Giza for the 4th dynasty are some "proto-pulleys", not much more than a grooved rock.

That is what I meant. I did not mention compound pulleys.

 

What I was meaning was that they could change the direction of the force needed. Then using the leaver, they could use that to offset the mass of the stone.

 

While the remains of earth ramps have been found at Giza, they are not on the scale needed to build the Pyramids. The theory has been around for a while but seems flawed in two areas;

1. Engineers have pointed out that such an earth ramp would collapse under it's own weight.

2. The fill needed to create such a ramp would weigh in at around 7 million tons, roughly 3 times the weight of the Great Pyramid itself. So where is the rubble? There is no evidence of such a large amount of fill ever being at Giza.

Yes, if the ramp just led straight out from the pyramid that would be the case, but they could use the pyramid its self as part of the ramp foundations and have the ramp circle the pyramid. The same use for the pulley (to change the direction of the pulling force) would allow the large teams to get it to the corners (and then it is just a matter of spinning the sled to reorient the stone for the next leg of the journey.

 

Rollers are no use unless they are the same diametre, which requires a knowledge of wood-turning on a large scale, or extremely exact wood shaping skills, we are talking about shaping tree trunks here.

Well, as you said, runners could be used instead.

[Realitycheck]

The truly bizarre part of Baalbek is that these gigantic stones are actually the top course of the foundations. A rather good series of photos showing the foundations are found here.

 

This is a good and persuasive site. I am pretty sure that it was built by either magic or telepathy.

[JohnB]

That is what I meant. I did not mention compound pulleys.

Sorry mate. When you said "pulley system" I thought you were refering to compound pulleys.

 

The Spiral Ramp is another theory but even with proto pulleys the ramp doesn't work. There is nowhere to place the pulley to bring the sled to the corner of the ramp so that it can be turned.

 

Where the GP messes up theories is in the time taken to build the damn thing. 2,500,000 stones cut, moved, laid and finished in 20 years. That is 125,000 blocks per year. If they only worked 6 months of the year (During the flood times) then that is 20,833 blocks per month. Call it a 31 day month (it wasn't) then it's 672 blocks per day. If working a 10 hour day (these were workers remember, not slaves) then that's 67 blocks per hour, more than 1 a minute. No theory using ramps has yet been able to demonstrate that it would allow for this sort of speed.

 

Even multiple ramps with bases at the foot of each face would mean 1 block every 4 minutes per ramp. The number just don't add up.

 

The lever was well known at the time and was used for irrigation. I've sometimes wondered if there wasn't a small army of lever type cranes lifting the blocks from one level to the next. If you could put some sort of sling under the stone then you would lift the block one level, unhook the sling and rehook it to the next crane. Then up you go. Sort of a cascade effect. With an original base length of 230 odd metres, there is room for a lot of cranes.

 

There is still the problem of quarrying. If I may quote from the Wiki article.

In contrast, a Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying of the stone was performed in 1978 by Technical Director Merle Booker of the Indiana Limestone Institute of America. Consisting of 33 quarries, the Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s leading authorities on limestone. Using modern equipment, the study concludes: “Utilizing the entire Indiana Limestone industry’s facilities as they now stand [for 33 quarries], and figuring on tripling present average production, it would take approximately 27 years to quarry, fabricate and ship the total requirements.”

Booker points out the time study assumes sufficient quantities of railroad cars would be available without delay or downtime during this 27 year period and does not factor in the increasing costs of completing the work.[7]

For now, it's seems to have everybody beat as to how the heck it was done.

This is a good and persuasive site.

How is it persuasive? The author of that page simply lists the facts concerning Baalbek. He may try to push a theory on some other page but the one I linked to simply showed the lack of evidence linking Baalbek to any known culture.

I am pretty sure that it was built by either magic or telepathy.

Oh Dear.