Posted on 03/21/2008 2:01:20 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Try reading what I said rather than what you imagine I said.
Thank you for providing that link to that video. It was fascinating.
In your opinion, what would happen, what would be the physical effects if the earth began to contract?
Thanks. I guess a lot of folks didn’t get the Chicxulub memo, too.
And muscle structure is not a part of reality?
The same intriguing geological evidence exists for a egg shaped planet with the majority of the landmass on the smaller diameter point of the egg. The Sea of Tethys disappears from Pangea when it is placed on the smaller end of the egg shaped Earth that is formed by a constant tidal pull of a large gravity source.
What evidence would you like to present that points to unchanging gravity?
All right, we have fossil skeletons or partial skeletons of animals that were that big... do we toss out the Square Cube Law to make them weigh less as you suggested?
My point is that we have "Laws" in conflict with the observed facts. Something has to give. Either way, there are cosmological implications that will be impacted.
Oh, and the reality is the world is flat, too. The assumption of local flatness -- over the area a man may walk in a day, is an accurate one.
What *is* your explanation for how the massive sauropods could have lived? We know that all physics and biology as known today would NOT support such massive sizes.
The square cube law does not state that larger objects are more massive than smaller objects. The problem of weight arises if we reconstruct large dinosaurs on the assumption that they are simply scaled up without any structural compensations. That is equivalent to scaling up a model airplane or model car without adjusting the thickness of the structural members.
Now I have said I don't have a solution to the weight problem. I think, however, that conjecture would more reasonably start with scaling of components rather than by assuming Newton and Einstein are wrong.
They once thought Galileo was wrong, too. They have been eating crow ever since.
The square cube law does indeed state that larger objects that are identically proportionally constructed of the same materials will actually be more massive... more massive by the cube of the size multiplier. As Wikipedia puts it:
Engineering
When a physical object maintains the same density and is scaled up, its mass is increased by the cube of the multiplier while its surface area only increases by the square of said multiplier.
The problem of weight arises if we reconstruct large dinosaurs on the assumption that they are simply scaled up without any structural compensations. That is equivalent to scaling up a model airplane or model car without adjusting the thickness of the structural members.
But, you see, that is exactly the problem. Many of these observations are based on skeletons AS THEY WERE FOUND... far larger than modern equivalents that are at the extreme edge of functionality... but without the stress modifications that would be expected with the doubling or trebling of size. Its like scaling up a mouse to the size of an elephant and still having it look and work exactly like a mouse.
The scaled up beasties are larger and apparently more massive without the compensating adjustments of the structural members that should be required to handle their larger weight and muscle requirements. That's why I mentioned the unadjusted and uncompensated breastbone keel of the Teratorns, the bone to which the flight muscles connect...flight muscles that would have to be huge to allow a 500-600 pound bird to fly... and the wings are also not compensorally larger to provide the added lift required to carry a bird that large - while it is only 3 times larger than its modern cousin is 27 times more volumetric and 27 times heavier. Again referring to the Wikipedia article on square cube law:
BiomechanicsThere is no evidence what-so-ever that the density is any different between modern animals and extinct animals.
If an animal were scaled up by a considerable amount, its muscular strength would be severely reduced since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while their mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular functions would be severely limited. In the case of flying animals, their wing loading would be increased if they were scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. This would be difficult considering that muscular strength was reduced.
If constants can change, why not biology?
The kind of “biological” change required would seem more unrealistic than big G changing.
prove it.
Searcher look for it.
interesting ping
That is, of course, the central theme of my post. We don't find skeletons. we find fossils, and in the case of mega-dinos, we find a few bits and pieces.
Much of the compensation for the weight problem would be found in the internal structure of bones. Are they bird-like?
Again, you assume that because bio-physics is not a mature science, the uncertainties require overturning Newton and Einstein. I say bullshit.
In other words, you made an assertion but are unable to prove it.
My opinion is that no known biology under current physical conditions would allow creatures to live on land. Plus I like the thought experiment of varying G — I never liked Hubble’s redshift.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.