Posted on 03/21/2008 2:01:20 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Good name.
I know it’s a very different theory. That’s my point. There is a growing (though not GW-style political) consensus among astronomers and earth scientists that there was a collision 4.5 billion years ago that created the moon. You can find hundreds of articles on the net, both from science popularizer sites like the two I posted and from the scientific papers themselves in which a lot of peer-reviewed research points to the existence of that collision. Doesn’t make it absolute Truth, but it does carry a lot of weight.
Right now, like I said, this 65-million-year-ago story of the creation of the moon sounds like Däniken-style “science” to me.
Just my opinion. For what it’s worth, and all that.
Sam. It’s from ancient Hebrew.
It means “he who would lead the followers of the False God Python back to the Purity of Perl”.
To create new understandings, one has to hold several conflicting theories, and a variety of facts, hints and speculations in ones mind at once, playing with them like lego bricks, looking for ways they might fit together, having fun, unafraid of the silly, the unknown, the crazy.
Hmmm, I wonder. Could that have done something to the inner earth?
I named my American Bulldog puppy Sammie. Samson, actually.
Actually, I don’t know either Python or Perl. I was just kidding around. I’m an old-fashioned c++ guy.
But I do want to learn Python. Is it true what they say on the python.org website that you can “learn it in a week”?
Do you have a recommended site, or tutorial or book?
A far more dramatic event than a simple asteroid hitting the Yucatan with the power of a few thousand nuclear bombs causing a century long winter.
a good chunk of the good stuff, and 100 times as much garbage, lies outside the respected halls of accepted scienceThat's true. Everything that is currently now in the "respected halls of accepted science" has its origins in some theory that was once on the outside.
But as you said, there's 100 times as much garbage as good stuff on the outside. I would say 100,000 times, not 100 times.
To me, one of the tests if an outsider's piece is "good stuff" or "garbage" is how many links s/he can build between the outsider theory and the accepted stuff. On those grounds, the article posted here fails my own personal smell test. Though I admit, I myself am no scientist.
Did you look at the YouTube video in my Post #11 above? It’s a visually suggestive presentation that the earth’s continents, rather as we know them now, covered the entire surface of the earth ... a smaller surface without the great expense of oceans we have now (though likely with water covering much of what is now land.)
Interesting questions.
Only in the movies, and thanks for the ping.
I had read it before, but thoroughly enjoyed reading it again. Asking the questions remains far more important than knowing the answers. Without questions, there can be no answers. What we can be certain of however, are the final six words:
In our world, that can't happen.
Nothing in normal experience is ballpark for that sort of a torque figure; that would be roughly ballpark for the combined maximum torque of all of the engines of a large WW-II battleship or one of our largest modern carriers, i.e. the torque needed to drive a 55,000 ton ship through the water at 30 - 35 knots.
The real question: If those kinds of sizes were such a winning ticket for creatures which supposedly dominated the planet for tens of millions of years.... then why in the 70,000,000 years which supposedly has passed since they went away, has nothing else ever re-evolved to such sizes? Evolving to different sizes should be fairly easy.
Well the Earth was spinning faster, but at best the day would have only been an hour shorter at the K/T event. The tidal effects of the moon slow the Earth down some but even that is slowing as the Moon gets further away.
As for the oxygen, it could have been up to 28% before the K/T event but you’d probably only find concentrations that high before the Triassic...long before the dinosaurs mentioned here evolved yet.
This article is BS...period. If there were no giraffes, people like this would be saying that they would be biologically impossible. We simply don’t know enough about the biology of dinosaurs to understand how the large sauropods functioned and automatically jumping to the conclusion that the gravity was somehow less back then is just stupid beyond belief.
I heard the guy who's pushing these theories about the earth being smaller, in the past, and growing on Coast To Coast AM a while back. It didn't really pass my personal smell-test, but was interesting enough to file away with a big "?" on it. He actually posits that the increasing gravity is and size is coming from mass appearing through a multidimensional conduit in the center of the earth. I suspect he has found some interesting nuggets of truth amonst all the other stuff he's talking about.
I'm pretty sure from what I've read that a dinosaur would not survive one standard gravity, and there has to be some explanation for this, because they do, in fact, appear to have lived.
I knew I shoulda read the whole thread before responding. I'm pretty sure Fry was the guy on C2C.
Not enough time for any sort of an expanding Earth theory to account for large dinosaurs. They also find ancient stone structures which neither ancient nor modern technologies could account for (200-ton fitted stones etc.). Those also require reduced gravity, and were not created by dinosaurs and are not 70,000,000 years old.
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.