Expanding Earth and Gravity

[MercurySunlight]

Something I've been wondering about for over ten years.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/P38FtnSf9CXx/

In my study of animals, something bothered me when watching a documentary on dinosaurs. Their size just didn't seem possible relative to the earth's present day gravity.

Animals are shaped to fit into their environments. Something didn't set right with me. But how could we explain how gravity may have increased since the time of these giants and what was the evidence?

My comments are on the BitChute page.

Any thoughts?

[MercurySunlight]

Additional information:

 

[barn]

Hi @MercurySunlight

Not sure why size would be a matter if a light but supportive enough skeleton structure could allow for it, given the Co2 rich atmosphere(lush vegetation, they were probably cold bloded), couple it with a few thousands if not millions of years headstart for the herbivores.

 

(Fun facts. The gravity on earth's various points differs less than 1% due to density and the oblate spheroid shape of earth. Also, the centrifugal force, strongest at the equator makes you less heavy by a third of a percent roughly.)

Have you seen any evidence that the mass of the earth has changed since the age of the dinosaurs?

 

[MercurySunlight]

4 hours ago, barn said:

Hi @MercurySunlight

Not sure why size would be a matter if a light but supportive enough skeleton structure could allow for it, given the Co2 rich atmosphere(lush vegetation, they were probably cold bloded), couple it with a few thousands if not millions of years headstart for the herbivores.

 

A more oxygen rich atmosphere has been explored and is currently accepted as an explanation for the large growth of insects. I remember there were some lab studies done that did show certain insects could be grown slightly larger in a more oxygen rich environment. However, I see gravity as a force which shapes, whereas oxygen is a sustaining element of the organism. We also need to compare and understand the differences between animals with exoskeletons and vertebrates.

4 hours ago, barn said:

Hi (Fun facts. The gravity on earth's various points differs less than 1% due to density and the oblate spheroid shape of earth. Also, the centrifugal force, strongest at the equator makes you less heavy by a third of a percent roughly.)

 

Could help explain why the largest skeletons of air born birds have all been found in South America. I'll do some digging regarding the pterosaurs.

(Note to self: Move to to Northern Chile instead of going on Paleo Diet. Brilliant.)

4 hours ago, barn said:

Hi

Have you seen any evidence that the mass of the earth has changed since the age of the dinosaurs?

 

Some additional discussion on this is waiting in The Fuschia Zone...

It's been awhile since I've looked into this stuff. Here's a site I don't remember seeing before:

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html

(Barn, I will get to opening a thread re: canine vs human communications. Didn't forget.)

 

[barn]

4 hours ago, MercurySunlight said:

A more oxygen rich atmosphere has been explored and is currently accepted as an explanation for the large growth of insects.

Sure, besides their successful strategy of adaptative and reproductive measures, compared to other creatures.

I asked about the mass gain of the earth, because the concepts of weight and gravity are closely related. (i.e. a balloon rising in the atmosphere expanding-inflating, doesn't gain any mass while its weight is being reduced, resulting from the gravity affecting it less as it moves 'up')

Tectonic movements are still part of an active debate, the 'expanding earth theory'... not so much. {Keary and Vine’s (Global Tectonics, Blackwell, 1990)}

10 hours ago, MercurySunlight said:

But how could we explain how gravity may have increased since the time of these giants and what was the evidence?

I have not seen any evidence of it being the case. Not seeing, doesn't mean it can't exist. Although, seeing evidence of the cooling of the earth doesn't help the notion neither as objects when cooled seem to shrink rather. And as with the radioactive decay (amongst other factors) providing fuel for the core but with a limited lifespan, the process is somewhat going to be measurable with a greater accuracy of the mantle-core composition. All in all, we do speak in terms of 10^9, 1 000 000 000 years, right?!

4 hours ago, MercurySunlight said:

Could help explain why the largest skeletons of air born birds have all been found in South America. I'll do some digging regarding the pterosaurs.

(Note to self: Move to to Northern Chile instead of going on Paleo Diet. Brilliant.)

Giggles. I don't think less than a percentage of difference is the main driver.

4 hours ago, MercurySunlight said:

Some additional discussion on this is waiting in The Fuschia Zone...

Fuschia - FF0080 (Couldn't help but notice, it, tagging along for a while now.)

Okay.

4 hours ago, MercurySunlight said:

It's been awhile since I've looked into this stuff. Here's a site I don't remember seeing before:

Thanks, gonna have a peek at it.

4 hours ago, MercurySunlight said:

(Barn, I will get to opening a thread re: canine vs human communications. Didn't forget.)

I consider that thoughtful, I suppose.

p.s. (Really? Over ten years? Uncommon.)

[MercurySunlight]

Oh, at least ten years.

I did find Ramin Mardfar's old discussion group on Yahoo. I was member DinoGiger3000. Don't remember my password and it may not even be active anymore. There were only 30 members total in 2015 and less when I was a member around 2008. When I joined I remember posting that I had first wondered about a lesser gravity at the time of the large dinosaurs for five years.

So, some of my first thoughts on this could go as far back as 15 years.

Again, this only came to mind because I study animals and how they move. Nature is thrifty, and dinos in today's gravity just didn't add up.

Strictly a gut feeling.

[ofd]

What caused the change in gravity?

[MercurySunlight]

24 minutes ago, ofd said:

What caused the change in gravity?

The possible answer to this question lies within this thread.

Start with the title of this thread, read all data and arguments carefully.

It's a fascinating journey which I will not deprive you of by answering this question directly.

Wink.

 

[barn]

19 hours ago, barn said:

On 03/12/2018 at 8:13 PM, MercurySunlight said:

It's been awhile since I've looked into this stuff. Here's a site I don't remember seeing before:

Thanks, gonna have a peek at it.

Fascinating read. Very interesting.

So, giraffes wear compression socks if I understood it correctly. Fab! (Just kidding)

The answers, as I see it regarding size, lie in the physiological-adaptative manifestations and the reproductive strategies the Dinos 'used'.

[The following article isn't as varied but upon searching around for a bit, seemed like a good start to give you a rundown on the physics (a little bit, not too dense). It'll explain why gravity hasn't changed much since after the Hadean period (Hades, mythology), after the end of 'heavy-bombardment' basically.]

Fun facts (hopefully I'm not annoying anyone... do tell, if so)

° the earth is actually weightless, unless we introduce a perspective that needs another object with mass.

° the earth has a healthy ~ 6 * 10^24 Kg mass

° spacedust and charged particles are what increase earth's mass(mainly) , while escaping hydrogen and helium that accounts for the losses...

roughly 'guestimated' = 1 * 10^6 Kg loss per year, compared to the total weight 6*10^24,... not sure if this is of an issue, was, will ever be.

caveats (not constant, very hard to count flying helium atoms or label spacedust particles... too boring)

[Jsbrads]

What if the mass of the planet hasn’t changed at all in 65 million yrs? What if the speed of time changes as the umiverse expands?

Then if the value of time changed, the attractive force could be the same but the difference in the speed of time could alter the acceleration, less acceleration, less pressure on the bones, larger creatures would have been competitive. 

[A4E]

Thanks for the mindblow. Never heard about it before. I've Heard about hollow earth,  but not this.

[Jsbrads]

Hollow earth would still not change in mass. 

[MercurySunlight]

Here's another one of my reference sites:  http://www.dinox.org/index.html

 

[barn]

Without inviting too much debates regarding pole shifts, it's been well established that hematite and other magnetic minerals can be used to date geological samples, establish past magnetic fields... etc.

If there was a different gravity pulling on the surface millions of years ago, we should observe different distances between sediment layers compared with earlier/later samples in similar circumstances. Heavier materials wouldn't have compacted the same for example.

Has that been demonstrated to be the case? (I haven't seen it, yet)

[barn]

Hi @Jsbrads

 

9 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

What if the mass of the planet hasn’t changed at all in 65 million yrs? What if the speed of time changes as the umiverse expands?

Then if the value of time changed, the attractive force could be the same but the difference in the speed of time could alter the acceleration, less acceleration, less pressure on the bones, larger creatures would have been competitive. 

If that was the case, shouldn't we have picked up on it when using triangulation or if not luminosity measurements?

I mean, plotting the data over the observable space, we'd have already noticed uniform or not shifts in brightness. Isn't that true?

[Jsbrads]

I don’t think so. My premise is that velocity of time changes very slowly while tied to the expansion of the universe, so 65 million yrs ago it was just different enough, but not vastly different. Also the velocity of time would have changed very rapidly in the first few seconds during inflation, then slower after first 100,000 “yrs”. Slower change yet after 1 billion... currently it would be negligible over long periods of time, either 1. as a ratio to the entire age of the universe, or 2. to the current size of the universe. If tied to the size, we don’t know if expansion is accelerating, slowing, or asymptotically approaching some non-“crunch” stable value. (There is no reason to believe the velocity of time isn’t tied to either of these 2 values, or perhaps a 3rd value or a combo.)

Light shouldn’t be impacted by this at all, or if it is, no source of light is so constant that the changes we might seek would be visible above the noise for a very long time (perhaps many millennia).

Perhaps a longitudinal study over 100,000 yrs we might notice a sample of mass like the roundest silicon sphere might be slightly heavier on some force transducer circuit, that isn’t calibrated with mass samples. Perhaps it can even be designed that the electrical circuit would amplify that change, eg the circuit would read a higher value because of the same change in the velocity of time.

I would note that even if some Mammoths were bigger than African elephants, that wouldn’t have been due to differences in acceleration due to gravity (over the last 10,000 yrs) but far more likely due to temperature, our current theory why many large creatures went extinct recently or it could be over-hunting by humans who became more intelligent very recently.

Other examples that might support this theory, may include whales. They might have been fairly big, walking on land was getting harder, they moved to shallows, then deeper water adapting, etc. This isn’t evidence of anything, merely a curious investigation point. Access their mitochondrial ancestral DNA, enter the data into a simulation program (which doesn’t exist today) and see what they looked like, body mass while they were walking [assumption] and what kind of stresses were their legs under...

[ofd]

Quote

The possible answer to this question lies within this thread.

Can you point me to it? I haven't found it.

[MercurySunlight]

On 3/13/2018 at 10:17 AM, ofd said:

What caused the change in gravity?

Earth's gravity is relative to it's mass.

In studying dinos and speculating that gravity must have been less at the time of their existence, there needs to be an explanation that something has changed from the past to present time.

The Expanding Earth Theory, gives gives us one possible explanation for the earth's increase in mass over time. This gradual increase in mass would affect the weight of the animals living on the earth over time. 

So, the answer to your original question: The change in gravity is tied to the Expanding Earth Theory.

The ongoing question: Is this theory correct and how can it be proven?

[ofd]

Where did the gradual increase in mass come from?

[barn]

Hi @Jsbrads

 

On 03/16/2018 at 9:51 AM, Jsbrads said:

I don’t think so. My premise is that velocity of time changes very slowly while tied to the expansion of the universe, so 65 million yrs ago it was just different enough, but not vastly different. Also the velocity of time would have changed very rapidly in the first few seconds during inflation, then slower after first 100,000 “yrs”. Slower change yet after 1 billion... currently it would be negligible over long periods of time, either 1. as a ratio to the entire age of the universe, or 2. to the current size of the universe. If tied to the size, we don’t know if expansion is accelerating, slowing, or asymptotically approaching some non-“crunch” stable value. (There is no reason to believe the velocity of time isn’t tied to either of these 2 values, or perhaps a 3rd value or a combo.)

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. I would be curious to see if you had any proof supporting whether time itself changed or if it was an idea of yours. Let me ask a few questions regarding the foundations here.

1.    If there was a car with it’s headlights on, would the light being emitted by them travelling at c + V1 (V1, vehicle’s velocity and c, lightspeed)? Alternatively, how about  if that same car was backing up, its light being emitted was travelling at c-V1 now?

2.    If you took a deflated balloon and drew some dots on it, when inflating it you’d observe the points `gaining distance´ relative to each other. Similarly, did matter move faster than lightspeed in the early expansion stage of the universe or did the space in which it belongs expanded to make it seem like matter travelled at, faster than lightspeed?

3.    If time itself slowly accelerated, wouldn’t it affect everything simultaneously and so we wouldn’t have anything to measure against anything?… irrelevancy? (inaccuracy = using your body as a ruler, measuring things with your arm's length when an adult, doesn’t mean things got smaller compared to when being a child)

4.    If some things were affected by time slowing down (other than time dilatation) in some parts of our universe (e.g. bus with a walking passanger, pedestrian onlooker’s perspective...), why haven’t we simply picked it up using triangulation/spectograpy for example(*2)?

[MercurySunlight]

On 3/16/2018 at 8:04 AM, ofd said:

Where did the gradual increase in mass come from?

This is the unknown which is being discussed by the scientists which support this theory. And, it's not just the scientists. If you listen to the audio in the link I provided in my second post in this thread, one of the primary people who started this discussion back in the early '90's was a structural engineer. I'm not an academic, I'm a layman in the field research of animals and their environments. But I somehow felt that dinos in today's gravity, just didn't make sense.

A lot of questions come to mind based on some of what we already accept (yet sometimes still challenge):

1. If the entire universe is expanding, why would our solar system itself be static and not part of this expansion?

2. If heat expands, why would the earth not expand if it had a molten core, even though it's surface has cooled over time?

3. If the sun is itself expanding, could it be possible that our planet is gradually moving away from the sun as an adjustment and/or part of the expansion?

4. If our moon is moving slightly away from the earth at a constant rate. Isn't this a possible adjustment relative to the earth's expansion?

I do see a conflict if you accept the Big Bang Theory, but see our solar system as static within it's bounds.

 

 

 

[Jsbrads]

The size of dinosaurs discussed above triggered me to think of how gravity could be the same yet acceleration due to gravity could be different. The square-cube law makes them fairly unbelievable.

Barn, 1 my theory doesn’t contradict relativity light departing a moving vehicle moves at c and is blue or red shifted. Not plus V.

2 the expansion of the universe had inflation before there was matter, expansion was “faster” than light, but didn’t break relativity because nothing actually moved. There are galaxies that are moving away from us right now that are “moving” faster than light. 

3 yes, that is a problem, which is why you would have to use a electric method of weight measurement and record that info for later.

4 The theory is that time speed changes everywhere in the universe at the same time, making it impossible to see changes without very dedicated longitudinal reasearch into the changes of weight on a planet, using non-mass based measure to record data.

Universal expansion is universal, includes our moon orbit too, but on too small a scale to affect the trajectory of the planets before the heat death of the universe.

Its really funny how we take so many things for granted with how we measure things. Simple metal springs for weight calibrated by other weights, but now new modern force transducers also calibrated by weights. Length, use something of known length. Force? Back to weights... Time? Use base 60 Babylonian numbers to divide the day. Temperature? We are cavemen with that...

[lorry]

On 3/17/2018 at 6:47 PM, MercurySunlight said:

This is the unknown which is being discussed by the scientists which support this theory. And, it's not just the scientists. If you listen to the audio in the link I provided in my second post in this thread, one of the primary people who started this discussion back in the early '90's was a structural engineer. I'm not an academic, I'm a layman in the field research of animals and their environments. But I somehow felt that dinos in today's gravity, just didn't make sense.

A lot of questions come to mind based on some of what we already accept (yet sometimes still challenge):

1. If the entire universe is expanding, why would our solar system itself be static and not part of this expansion?

2. If heat expands, why would the earth not expand if it had a molten core, even though it's surface has cooled over time?

3. If the sun is itself expanding, could it be possible that our planet is gradually moving away from the sun as an adjustment and/or part of the expansion?

4. If our moon is moving slightly away from the earth at a constant rate. Isn't this a possible adjustment relative to the earth's expansion?

I do see a conflict if you accept the Big Bang Theory, but see our solar system as static within it's bounds.

 

Odf was being polite. This theory contradicts conservation laws, it is unphysical (incorrect). 

[MercurySunlight]

4 minutes ago, lorry said:

Odf was being polite. This theory contradicts conservation laws, it is unphysical (incorrect). 

Odf provided a question which helped me expand on some questions of my own. Thanks Odf.

As far as conservation laws, let's talk about the conservation of energy regarding animals moving about in their environments.

Animals are shaped to fit their environments. Land, sea, air, or underground, there is plenty of evidence in the shapes of animals and how they move in their particular environments to confirm this. Gravity is a significant force which we all must take into account with every step we take as land animals. I see both a structural conflict in dinosaurs moving about in earth's present gravity, and a conflict in their conservation of energy which would not exist in a lesser gravity. 

Did you actually read and listen to all of the links provided in this thread?

Would you like to provide some arguments by the opponents of this theory?

[lorry]

21 minutes ago, MercurySunlight said:

Odf provided a question which helped me expand on some questions of my own. Thanks Odf.

As far as conservation laws, let's talk about the conservation of energy regarding animals moving about in their environments.

Animals are shaped to fit their environments. Land, sea, air, or underground, there is plenty of evidence in the shapes of animals and how they move in their particular environments to confirm this. Gravity is a significant force which we all must take into account with every step we take as land animals. I see both a structural conflict in dinosaurs moving about in earth's present gravity, and a conflict in their conservation of energy which would not exist in a lesser gravity. 

Did you actually read and listen to all of the links provided in this thread?

Would you like to provide some arguments by the opponents of this theory?

No, I read that this theory requires a violation of conservation laws w.r.t. the earth / solar system, etc. I saw Ofd try to lead you to see that the mass of the earth can not change without cause, viz., where did the mass come from? I did not believe you would put together that this theory violates conservation principles so I pointed to exactly that. You can learn a bit about some fundamental physics, and what this theory is incorrect from the ground up, or not. My sense of noblesse oblige is satisfied, I care not either way.

[MercurySunlight]

1 hour ago, lorry said:

You can learn a bit about some fundamental physics, and what this theory is incorrect from the ground up, or not. My sense of noblesse oblige is satisfied, I care not either way.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward126.htm

[ofd]

There may be a simplier explanation that doesn't violate the law of physics. We know from engineering that H-beams are as structurally sound as a beam that is not cut out to the form of a H.

In short, the forces acting on the beam focus on the H part of the beam. If you add more, the beam doesn't become structurally better. Since bones make up a big portion of the weight, it's reasonable to assume that having lighter bones is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps dinosarus had porous bones, the equivalent of H-beams that were as structurally sound as 'our' bones at a much lower weight. You can see the same effect with bones where having light bones is also selected for. Birds have tubular bones filled with air that are much lighter than mammal bones.

[MercurySunlight]

Ofd,

I get what you're saying here.

This was covered in the Legalize Freedom Channel discussion I provided in the second post of this thread. Stephen Hurrell is a Mechanical Engineering Designer. In the interview he talks about the Scale Effect of increased weight on supporting structures.

Here is a page which contains a diagram of this principle as it would apply to dinosaurs: http://www.dinox.org/sizelimit.html

Did you listen to the audio cast? 

 

[ofd]

I did not listen to it. The article you linked to makes the assumption that larger animals share the same building plan as smaller animals. My argument is that the larger an animals, the more pressure there is on saving mass. You can see that in other areas as well where optimisation for weight is important: the anatomy of bats is different from that of other mammals bc of different pressures. They are not rats or mice with wings.

[MercurySunlight]

14 hours ago, ofd said:

I did not listen to it.

That is your choice in exercising your free will.

14 hours ago, ofd said:

The article you linked to makes the assumption that larger animals share the same building plan as smaller animals.

Actually, it does not. It compares the largest four legged animals of today with the largest four legged animals of the prehistoric past. However, in the Legalise Freedom audiocast, Stephen does mention squirrels at one point as part of his interview. 

In order to make rational comparisons of the animals of today with the animals of the past, we should compare the animals which are the most similar to each other along with the environments in which they existed. Creatures of the sky, land, water, underground, and also the arboreal animals are best compared with their closest prehistoric counterparts. Also, there is a lot of evidence in the relatively more recent past of animals which exist today having distant "cousins" which were quite larger. Examples would be Titanoboa, Super Crocs, Megaledon, Mastodons, Paracerathierium, Giant Slothes, Short Faced Bears, Pelagornis Sandersi, Argentavis, the Terror Birds...

14 hours ago, ofd said:

My argument is that the larger an animals, the more pressure there is on saving mass.

This is a good point. Exploration of your argument can be found in the Legalise Freedom audiocast. Even with everything which has been taken into account to make prehistoric creatures lighter, it's not enough. Gravity still remains the primary force which governs the size of animals of the past, present, and possible future.

14 hours ago, ofd said:

You can see that in other areas as well where optimisation for weight is important: the anatomy of bats is different from that of other mammals bc of different pressures. They are not rats or mice with wings.

Hahaha. (<---Not sarcastic laughter. Just had an image of flying mice trying to carry a one pound coconut...in present day gravity, of course).

Yes, optimism for weight and anatomy are important in all forms of nature. Nature is thrifty. Nature will not allow an animal to grow to a size in which every step or flap of a wing would be a struggle and/or burn more calories than an animal could consume in order to stay alive and keep moving.

 

[MercurySunlight]

Here is another Expanding Earth related audiocast from Legalise Freedom:

Fascinating channel. 

[MercurySunlight]

Just found this. Presenting Dracula, the largest Pterosaur ever. Recently found in Romania:

 

[Jsbrads]

On 3/22/2018 at 11:46 PM, ofd said:

There may be a simplier explanation that doesn't violate the law of physics. We know from engineering that H-beams are as structurally sound as a beam that is not cut out to the form of a H.

In short, the forces acting on the beam focus on the H part of the beam. If you add more, the beam doesn't become structurally better. Since bones make up a big portion of the weight, it's reasonable to assume that having lighter bones is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps dinosarus had porous bones, the equivalent of H-beams that were as structurally sound as 'our' bones at a much lower weight. You can see the same effect with bones where having light bones is also selected for. Birds have tubular bones filled with air that are much lighter than mammal bones.

Yes, lightweight bones are good, if you have a lightweight body to go along with it. TRex haunches would crush lightweight bones.

[ofd]

Quote

Also, there is a lot of evidence in the relatively more recent past of animals which exist today having distant "cousins" which were quite larger.

Sure, I don't dispute that. Are any of those impossible with today's gravity?

 

Quote

Gravity still remains the primary force which governs the size of animals of the past, present, and possible future.

The metabolism plays a huge role too. Warmblooded animals need a lot more food to keep a constant temperature. Poikilothermic dinosaurs had no such problem. The other major factor is the availability of food.

 

Quote

Yes, lightweight bones are good, if you have a lightweight body to go along with it.

The argument is that lightweight bones can be as structurally sound as heavy bones.

[MercurySunlight]

On 3/16/2018 at 1:51 AM, Jsbrads said:

Other examples that might support this theory, may include whales. They might have been fairly big, walking on land was getting harder, they moved to shallows, then deeper water adapting, etc. This isn’t evidence of anything, merely a curious investigation point. Access their mitochondrial ancestral DNA, enter the data into a simulation program (which doesn’t exist today) and see what they looked like, body mass while they were walking [assumption] and what kind of stresses were their legs under...

This brings to mind something else I've been wondering.

What is the possible affect on water in a reduced gravity environment? How much would gravity impact the Atmospheric Conversion? This is something all scuba divers and deep sea explorers must learn about in order to avoid the dreaded bends upon resurfacing or being crushed in their submersibles. I originally learned about this long ago when I took a scuba class.

Here is some basic info: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

If we study the water experiments in space in a non gravity environment, it appears that a living being would simply be suspended in water and be able to move about freely with little to no pressure. But what about water in the oceans of the earth if gravity was less at the time of the dinosaurs? Would it affect sea levels? Ice crystals? I haven't been able to find any research, probably due to the fact that a lesser gravity experiment would be difficult to accomplish.

I think lesser gravity would change the Atmospheric Conversion Formula, but not remove the need for it as a zero gravity environment might.

In studying the sea dwelling animals of the past and present, whales have reduced their bone structure to a minimum and have enough blubber to make them neutral in water. I notice this myself when my Body Mass Index changes. More fat and I become more neutral, easily floating without having to move in order to stay afloat, thus saving energy. If my fat ratio is down, I lose bouyancy and have to keep more air in my lungs (not fully exhale) to compensate and/or keep moving (expending more energy) to stay afloat.

A greater muscle and bone ratio to fat in some aquatic prehistoric animals would be much more functional in lesser gravity, depending upon the impact lesser gravity had on Atmospheric Conversion.

If anyone can find a water in lesser gravity (not zero) experiment, please post it.