Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: js1138
You make a false dichotomy, between reducing gravity, and changing the weight estimates.

I agree that gravity didn't change much since the earth formed as a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock about 4.6 billion years old. Roughly the same mass, give or take a factor of two the same diameter, and always the same gravitational constant.

But ... why do you dismiss the "faster spinning" possibility?

93 posted on 03/22/2008 12:54:21 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow (By their false faith in Man as God, the left would destroy us. They call this faith change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: ThePythonicCow
But ... why do you dismiss the "faster spinning" possibility?

For the reason given by another poster. To produce that reduction in weight called for by Ted's conjecture, The earth would have needed a day of two or three hours, and would have needed it 65 million years ago, roughly.

Any reduction in rotation rate sufficient to produce the current day length would have released enough kinetic energy to melt the crust. Only the tidal effects of the moon are slowing the earth, and not by enough to account for twenty hours per rotation.

There is also the minor problem that mega-dinos account for just a few species out of millions. Why does every other line of evidence point to unchanging gravity?

100 posted on 03/22/2008 6:12:25 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson