Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction

[imatfaal]

I dunno about T-Rex being faster than an elephant - they move pretty quickly when they want to and one of the articles referenced by the earlier Nature article on TRex mass was called Tyrannosaurus was not a runner

 

From the abstract

However, models show that in order to run quickly, an adultTyrannosaurus would have needed an unreasonably large mass of extensor muscle, even with generous assumptions. Therefore, it is doubtful that Tyrannosaurus and other huge dinosaurs (6,000 kg) were capable runners or could reach high speeds.

From the article

Tyrannosaurus shows the most extreme cursorial (that is, locomotion-related) specializations of larger theropods, but even it was probably a slow runner, at best.

[Earthling]

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.

 

 

[michel123456]

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.

 

Yes, I was thinking about that, amongst other things.

Anyway there is no hope. Even if one could demonstrate that T-Rex had a double ratio of pressure on the ground than [insert your preferred animal here], so what? There are too many variables in order to get a conclusive result.

 

I dunno about T-Rex being faster than an elephant - they move pretty quickly when they want to and one of the articles referenced by the earlier Nature article on TRex mass was called Tyrannosaurus was not a runner

 

From the abstract

However, models show that in order to run quickly, an adultTyrannosaurus would have needed an unreasonably large mass of extensor muscle, even with generous assumptions. Therefore, it is doubtful that Tyrannosaurus and other huge dinosaurs (6,000 kg) were capable runners or could reach high speeds.

From the article

Tyrannosaurus shows the most extreme cursorial (that is, locomotion-related) specializations of larger theropods, but even it was probably a slow runner, at best.

 

This is water for Earthling's watermill.

Can you reasonably imagine a slow running predator? (if it was a predator: one of the variables).

 

And still, images like this make me think something must have changed drastically from ancient times to allow that kind of gigantism.

 

Note: on this picture one can see it is regular scale-up, it is not what one would expect following the square-cube law.

-----------------

edited: Nothing about plants. It looks like vegetation of that period was uninfluenced by gigantism.

Edited May 28, 2011 by michel123456

[Earthling]

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]

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.

 

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

NY Times summary of sauropod experts

as a scientific source? Edited May 29, 2011 by Moontanman

[michel123456]

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."

I ment that after looking on the web, i found nothing about gigantism in vegetation at that period of time. There are mention of gigantism in earlier periods, but not at the time of dinosaurs.

Or I missed something.

[swansont]

"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."

 

Food availability is not the same thing as food size. Did trees grow higher, as one might expect if g were reduced?

 

Oh, and physical conditions would include gravity. Your source contradicts your thesis.

[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.

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

 

[Moontanman]

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.

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

 

This is your strange claim earthling, not mine and as such it's up to you to support it, not for me to search the net to check to see if your claims are real or nothing but male bovine excrement.

[swansont]

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture. For it to be a theory, it would have to have a model and scientific evidence to support it, which you have declined to give despite repeated invitations and reminders that speculations rule 1 demands that you provide these things.

 

Accordingly, the topic is closed.