The dinosaurs extinction explained by a proof of earth's gravity change

[Laurent GRANIER]

:doh:The most probable theory about the Dinosaurs Extinction by Laurent GRANIER, Master Philosopher, Theoretician.

 

The One Multi- Hypothesis: Domino Effect about Dinosaurs Extinction (DEDE)

The explanation of the Dinosaurs Extinction by a Variation of the Earth Gravity

« The HypothesiS »

 

...How and why the Earth gravity has necessary changed.

 

The first cause was the meteor collision.

This impact was always considered with a vertical direction.

But, there is less chance to have been like this than to have an angle. It’s logical, there are more angular values than the one 90 °!

An impact can be with a perfect perpendicular axle, of near, under two possibilities :

Its original way is like this, or its way has been changed before.

For the first possibility, the probability is low on a curve area ( 2 dimensions), and lower on a spherical area ( 3 dimensions), where there is only one place.

For the second one, the gravity changes the direction. But its influence is smaller that the object’s ratio speed/ weight is high.

To know the masterpiece of the theory, go to it.

[insane_alien]

the impact that caused the extinction was taken to impact at roughly 45 degrees, the most likely angle. get your facts straight.

 

i can't read french but from the picture/map you missed the impact point by over a thousand miles. we have images of the crater, what you indicated with the red arrow is not a crater, also even an impact at an angle would produce a circular crater, no a drawn out line. well, not unless is was very very low angle (1 degree or less)

[swansont]

url removed. If you want to discuss things, do it here. And 'here" will be in speculations

[Phi for All]

[quote name=LaurentG;401106...How and why the Earth gravity has necessary changed.

 

The first cause was the meteor collision.

How was gravity changed? More? Less?

This impact was always considered with a vertical direction.

But' date=' there is less chance to have been like this than to have an angle. It’s logical, there are more angular values than the one 90 °! [/quote]This seems correct, as insane_alien said.

An impact can be with a perfect perpendicular axle, of near, under two possibilities :

Its original way is like this, or its way has been changed before.

For the first possibility, the probability is low on a curve area ( 2 dimensions), and lower on a spherical area ( 3 dimensions), where there is only one place.

For the second one, the gravity changes the direction. But its influence is smaller that the object’s ratio speed/ weight is high.

Are you saying the impact affected the spin of the Earth and therefore it's gravity? Are you saying gravity was increased and that's why the larger dinosaurs died out?

[Laurent GRANIER]

Sorry, for the moment, there is only a very small part of the theory in english language. In few weeks, there will be all.

The explanation is over 40 pages, and we can understand it more easily, and appreciate the value of it. it's not one quick idea jump in the air. It was studied for one year.

Otherwise, I found the Einstein's mistake about the theory of relativity vs Quantum. I know what about I talk even my english is not good.

 

Unfortunetly, I can't read all of it on this website, and I wrote the URL of it, but unfortunetely, the webmaster has erased it.

If you want to see it: http://www.thedinosaursextinction.com.

Please, reply on SFN to share your idea about it.

 

I'm inventor with 25 patents in several domains, I know if the idea is good or not, reliable or not. It's, perhaps, not the truth but the feet of it are real. And if it's wrong, try to explain what tou can see in this part of earth.

 

For the moment, to answer:

The gravity was weaker before, just cause the speed of the earth's rotation was lower.

A meteore impact is not necessary like a circle, and if it seems long, think there was a movement of tectonic after, during millions years. And so, the shape became long and curve ( close to honduras).

 

It's a part of the extinction, begun by the crash. In fact, it's more complicated, it's a "domino theory".

I hope give you all in english, asap.

Tks to everybody.

[Sayonara]

Are you saying the impact affected the spin of the Earth and therefore it's gravity? Are you saying gravity was increased and that's why the larger dinosaurs died out?

 

Spin gravity? Dinosaurs? It's like having Adam and Zarkov back. Hurrahs!

[JohnB]

LaurentG, it's nice to have a new idea, but it needs to be grounded in fact.

 

I looked at your website and as has been said, you are way off with the impact area. I'll add that you also have the meteorite coming from the wrong direction entirely.

 

Rather than from the West as you show it, the object came from a more South Easterly direction. We know this from the damage caused in the US by the blast front. Excavations of fossils from the time of the event (and by that I mean the day it happened) show the animals were carbonized in an ovalish area running roughly from the SouthEast to NorthWest.

 

This is consisent only with an impact from the SouthEast, not the West.

[herpguy]

Is there any fossil evidence to show that there was less gravity? Like thinner dinosaur bones?

[HenryFicher]

:doh:The most probable theory about the Dinosaurs Extinction by Laurent GRANIER, Master Philosopher, Theoretician.

 

The One Multi- Hypothesis: Domino Effect about Dinosaurs Extinction (DEDE)

The explanation of the Dinosaurs Extinction by a Variation of the Earth Gravity

« The HypothesiS »

 

...How and why the Earth gravity has necessary changed.

 

The first cause was the meteor collision.

This impact was always considered with a vertical direction.

But, there is less chance to have been like this than to have an angle. It’s logical, there are more angular values than the one 90 °!

An impact can be with a perfect perpendicular axle, of near, under two possibilities :

Its original way is like this, or its way has been changed before.

For the first possibility, the probability is low on a curve area ( 2 dimensions), and lower on a spherical area ( 3 dimensions), where there is only one place.

For the second one, the gravity changes the direction. But its influence is smaller that the object’s ratio speed/ weight is high.

To know the masterpiece of the theory, go to it.

 

 

 

I have come to the same conclusion as you have, through the following reasoning:

 

Any increase of the Earth's gravity implies an increase of the Earths mass. So I concur that it is plausible that a meteorite impact could add so much material to the Earth total mass as to increase the Earth's gravity.

.

Also, subsequent animal species that evolved after the dinosaurs never were able to develop nearly as much body mass as the great lizards, and that certainly implies that large animals, weighing more than 3 tons, could no longer be sustained by the Earth's environment,.

 

It has also been rather difficult for modern paleontology to make a credible model of dinosaur speed and motion, It was believed that dinosaurs were slow moving animals, judging from their bone-mass, but more recently the opposite view has been accepted, The debate whether dinosaurs where cold blooded like reptiles or warm blooded like birds further implies that much is still to be known about dinosaur metabolism.

 

It would be interesting to address these issues taking into account a lower Earth gravity. How would it affect the current models of dinosaur movement?

 

[Edtharan]

I have come to the same conclusion as you have, through the following reasoning:

 

Any increase of the Earth's gravity implies an increase of the Earths mass. So I concur that it is plausible that a meteorite impact could add so much material to the Earth total mass as to increase the Earth's gravity.

.

If an impacted by an asteroid large enough to cause a significant increase in the gravity of the Earth, it wouldn't just make the Earth more massive, it would blast a lot of the Earth apart.

 

For example, the asteroid impact that occurred 65 million years ago, at the time the dinosaurs went extinct, was around 10km in diameter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater ).

 

An asteroid this large would have a mass around 216 X 10⁹ tons. Where as the Earth is around 6×10²¹ tons. That means that the Asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was around 0.0000003 % of the mass of the Earth.

 

So while it did add to the Earth's mass, it was so insignificant that it would not have made any difference to the ability of the Dinosaurs to stand up.

 

Also, subsequent animal species that evolved after the dinosaurs never were able to develop nearly as much body mass as the great lizards, and that certainly implies that large animals, weighing more than 3 tons, could no longer be sustained by the Earth's environment,.

Actually two things here:

 

1) There were many more smaller dinosaurs species that never grew very big (about the size of a horse or smaller), however these species also died out. Your "gravity" hypothesis does not account for them going extinct.

 

2) There have been large animals bigger then 3 tons after the dinosaurs when extinct, such as the Paraceratherium ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraceratherium ). Not only was this about the size of a medium Sauropod dinosaur, it was also a Mammal and evolved long after the dinosaurs went extinct.

 

So the facts as shown by palaeoclimatological record disprove your "gravity" hypothesis.

 

It has also been rather difficult for modern paleontology to make a credible model of dinosaur speed and motion, It was believed that dinosaurs were slow moving animals, judging from their bone-mass, but more recently the opposite view has been accepted, The debate whether dinosaurs where cold blooded like reptiles or warm blooded like birds further implies that much is still to be known about dinosaur metabolism.

The "slow moving dinosaurs" originated in the belief that only animals that were not any good would go extinct. At the time this was proposed, they didn't believe that mass extinctions could occur, let alone that the Earth could be hit by an asteroid.

 

Even if you look at cold blooded reptiles that exist today, we know that the can move quickly. Crocodiles and Alligators can move very quickly over a short distance, the Frilled Lizard of Australia can run very quickly. The Monitor lizards can also move quickly over quite long distances too, such as the Australian Perentie ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perentie ) Goanna, and such. There are even lizards that can achieve such a high speed that they can run across water.

 

So, this argument that they were thought to be slow because cold blooded animals are slow does not even hold up to modern animals. Even the term "Cold Blooded" is not accurate because some of these animals can operate at body temperatures above that of mammals. All being "Cold Blooded" means is that the animal does not generate their heat internally, but gets it from outside (usually the sun, but it can also be warm environments near hot springs, etc). As such, they can, once they have their warmth, equal or even exceed the activity of mammals.

 

So, even the uncertainty about dinosaur metabolism does not equal an argument for your "gravity" hypothesis.

 

It would be interesting to address these issues taking into account a lower Earth gravity. How would it affect the current models of dinosaur movement?

Actually, based on the bone structures and movement analysis done on them, a lower gravity would not help the dinosaurs move. Look at how the astronauts moved on the moon. They were clumsy and had a difficult time achieving a stable gate. This is because the length of limbs, the weight of the animal and the mass of the animal all interact to determine how it can move.

 

Simply put, dinosaurs are not designed to move in significantly lower (or even higher gravity) than the gravity we experience today.