The Impossible Dinosaurs - Megafauna and Attenuated Gravity

Kronia.com ^ | Ted Holden

[Swordmaker]

Hi Akb,

I tried to read your website, but it’s obvious that English is not your first language. I had trouble understanding many of your basic points of how gravity changed. Do I understand you that Earth wandered from its normal orbit, changed its angle of orbit relative to the ecliptic, then this somehow effected the internal lithosphere and caused Pangea to break apart, causing gravity to increase by approximately a factor of three?

What caused the change in orbit? Shy did we settle into a new circular orbit in the “sweet” range that supports liquid water and life again? How?

[varmintman]

"16. Sole of legs of giants like brachiosaur was too small for dwelling in marshlands under their weight in modern Gravitational conditions..."

This is the sort of thing which will keep human translators in business forever. Нога means foot and/or leg in Russian but in English this has to be more like "The soles of the FEET were too small for dwelling in marshlands under their weight in modern gravitational conditions", i.e. they'd have needed much wider feet, the feet they actually had would just sink into mudder river/marsh bottoms.

What is starting to look like the best explanation as to how/why gravity was attenuated in prehistoric times is Ralph Sansbury's description of gravity itself as an electrostatic dipole effect of some sort, rather than as a basic force of nature or an intrinsic property of matter.

[akb]

Hi, Swordmaker
Yes, English isn’t my native language.
I had used on-line translator for my article.
Some phrases I translated manually.
To explain gravitational changes, which had place on the Earth 65 mln. years ago, I used conclusions of my hypothesis in my own Theory of relative gravitational changes.
Accordingly to this hypothesis, if the intensity of outer gravitation field (of central star, e.g. our Sun) increases, the own gravitation of planets (ON THEIR SURFACES) decreases. See the picture (http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/ris-stat/st700.gif) for understanding the principle: nearer to Sun the planets have smaller gravitational subsystem area, than if they placed far of Sun, but its diameter is constant - it is a disproportion for the general gravitational function for local system. In other words, it looks as their gravitation can dissolve in the Sun’s one, that causes relative gravitational changes. And by another other words, it looks like if gravitation of planets slows down when they placed nearer to the Sun, accordingly to time-space changes in the Einstein’s General Relativity.
Because the mass of Sun cannot be changed, the only way to change its gravitation on the Earth’s orbit - is change the distance from Sun to Earth.
Having such correlation motivated me to make hypothesis, that Earth at far past was nearer to Sun.
The evidences for this hypothesis I found in one book (I don’t remember it title)
Accordingly to that book, there are many fact in archeology and paleontology that the climate on the Earth was more warmer in the past. In the polar areas was tropical and subtropical flora and fauna.
And accordingly to that book, it is possible that in that time around the Earth existed continuous steam cover.
Therefore if in some case, the Earth with its warmed athmosphere and steam cover was changed its orbit, it is possible (by my hypothesis) that the Earth’s gravity (which before was “dissolved” in the gravitational field of Sun and its strength on the Earth’s surface was much weaker) after it had left the Sun, was much increased.
In the new orbit far from the Sun, the Earth’s athmosphere was cooled down, and its steam cover was condensed and falled down by strong rains, floods etc.
The increased (by gravitational changes) pressure to inner layers of lithosphere caused the increasing of vulcanism, transgression etc.

PS. Hope to your quick reply ;)

[akb]

Hi again, Swordmaker!
In previous message I have explained my hypothesis.
But I have to answer to your questions too.
1) I don’t know exactly what was a cause to change Earth’s orbit. But it could be most possible cause for relative gravitational changes, accordingly to my theory, which defines such changes. And the climatic difference in the past and tomorrow is a fact, especially for the polar areas of the Earth. Other changes simultaneous with Earth’s orbit change, defined in my article, are “just possible”.
2) Elliptical orbit was caused by increasing Earth’s orbital speed in case if there are was impact with e.g. asteroid. Also, elliptical orbit have good correlation with some facts in paleontology (eggs of last dinosaurs have regular structure caused by regular climatic changes).
3) The solar system as gravitational one is very stable. Therefore, it is very possible that elliptical orbit can easily reach the stable circular one.
4) The “sweet” range for the Earth with its oceans is very wide. Nearer to the Sun warmed oceanic water of the Earth increases steam in the athmosphere, which is the best defense against radiation. More, the “greenhouse effect” makes the climatic conditions on the Earth very stable, without large deviations between equator and poles.
Such conditions were on the Earth in the past.
After increasing the distance between Sun and Earth, steam cover was broken, and it was condensed by massive floods and rains which are known facts in the paleontology.

[akb]

Correction:
“climatic difference in the past and TODAY”

[SunkenCiv]

This topic was posted 3/21/2008. Thanks Swordmaker.