DINOSAURS HAD WEAKER GRAVITY
Large Dinosaurs Could Not Live in Today's Gravity
CLOSE PLANET/S. I’m posting excerpts from 3 sources about the idea that large Dinosaurs lived when Earth’s gravity was weaker, so they were able to grow bigger than they could if they lived now. The Moon or other bodies could have reduced the weights of animals on Earth in the past, if it or they were much closer to the Earth for a long time. The tidal forces would have countered the effect of gravity. I’ve been trying to find info online that would tell me how close any of them would have had to be to reduce weight substantially, but I haven’t had much luck. The moon gets a little farther away from Earth each year, but it’s miniscule, but it could have been much closer in the past. Other planets (Saturn, Venus & Mars) were also close. Electrical forces as well as tidal forces may have contributed to weaker gravity on Earth in the past, but I need to find out how to calculate all of those forces. I tried to get ChatGPT and Bing Copilot to help figure it out, but I found that they’re no good at complex math.
TIDAL DISTANCES. Well, someone on Craigslist did a calculation for me. This was my question. Here’s the calculation with his/her comment. “Mass of moon: 7.34767309 × 10²² kg; Mass of earth 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg; Radius of earth 6.3781×10⁶ m; Dm ≈ √[2•(7.34767309 × 10²² kg)•(6.3781×10⁶ m)² / (5.972 × 10²⁴ kg)]; Dm ≈ √[0.02482321989865• (6.3781×10⁶ m)² ]; Dm ≈ √1009812547511.21m; Dm ≈ about 1,000,000 meters. But the Moon has a radius of more than 1,700,000 meters meaning 50% weight reduction is impossible, the moon would have to overlap the earth by around 700km into the ground.” I assume that Dm means distance of the Moon. So, if I can figure out or learn that formula, I’ll try to find out how close a larger object would have to be to reduce the weight of an object on Earth by half or more. ——————— ChatGPT found the above formula. It said: “The formula used in the provided equation is for calculating the distance Dm at which the gravitational attraction of the Moon on a point on Earth's surface would be equal to the gravitational attraction of the Earth on the same point, assuming the Moon's mass and the Earth's mass are considered. Here's a breakdown of the formula: Dm ≈ √(2⋅M"m"⋅R"e"^2 / M"e") where: Dm is Distance of the Moon; M”m” is Mass of the Moon; R”e” is Radius of Earth; M”e” is Mass of Earth. The 2 is said to find 1/2 of Earth’s pull. But the formula doesn’t seem to work out. I substituted the Mass of Venus for that of the Moon and got 2,577 km, which would make Venus overlap Earth, like the Moon did. Then I substituted Saturn’s Mass and got a distance of 31,620 km, which would have Saturn overlapping Earth too.
NOT EARTH EXPANSION. Quite a few people believe that the Earth has expanded a lot over a long time period to try to explain the large dinosaurs on a smaller Earth and continental drift by expansion, but they ignore the evidence that the dinosaurs likely existed just before the Great Flood about 5,300 years ago, when continental drift also occurred. There’s no evidence that the Earth is expanding now and there’s no known source for the matter that would have needed to be injected into the Earth to make it expand. There has likely been a small amount of expansion due to asteroids impacting the Earth mainly at the time of the Great Flood. Mike Fischer’s NewGeology.US site shows how rapid continental drift occurred and it’s not how Expanding Earth theorists imagine.
OTHER CHANGES TOO. There were giant bugs and things before the Flood too. Earth had more oxygen and CO2 before the Flood, as well as a much denser atmosphere, which all contributed to larger and more abundant life, apparently. Earth lost a lot of air due to the many asteroid impacts.
THUNDERBOLTS.INFO TPOD
Jun 23, 2005
Impossible Dinosaurs
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050623impossible-dinosaur.htm
_The giant dinosaurs are fascinating. How did they get so big? Why are there none alive today? Their size rivals that of modern whales, which cannot survive without the buoyancy of water. So early paleontologists postulated that the biggest dinosaurs must have spent most of their lives wading in the shallow seas of the Mesozoic Era.
_Then dinosaur footprints were discovered. Not just a few, but thousands of footprints. Somehow, even the largest of dinosaurs were walking around on land, not even dragging their enormous tails behind them. So wading in shallow seas was replaced by grazing in herds and the original reason for the wading -- that a dinosaur on land would have been a beached whale -- was forgotten.
_Catastrophist Ted Holden has resurrected the controversy by examining the relationship of size, weight, and strength in animals. (His analysis was the basis for a documentary televised in Japan in Feb, 2004. See photo above.) The strength of muscle tissue is fairly constant among all species. Strength is proportional to the cross section of the muscle: If one muscle is two times the diameter of another, the first will be four times (the square of two) as strong. But weight increases with the volume: A muscle that's twice as big will weigh eight times (the cube of two) as much.
_Holden computed the weight/strength ratio of a well-trained human weightlifter and scaled it up to the size of a dinosaur. The weightlifter soon became too big to lift his own weight. Strength, in its relationship with weight, imposes a limit on size. Holden's calculations indicate that the heaviest elephants of today approach that limit.
_The largest dinosaurs are many times the size of an elephant. And dinosaur skeletons aren't as well-designed for bearing weight as elephant skeletons. Dinosaurs are impossibly large for planet Earth, but their bones are proof that they must have existed. How could that be? The limit on size depends on weight, and weight depends on the force of gravity. Most conventional theories assume that gravity throughout the universe has always been and will always be a constant property of matter. But that's only an assumption, and it must be verified empirically.
_The Electric Universe offers a different point of view. Gravity is not a constant. It's a variable that depends on the plasma environment. So Earth in the Mesozoic Era may have had less gravity than it has today. Holden calculates that in order for the largest dinosaurs to function, gravity must have been at least
1/3 (and possibly as low as 1/4)
what it is today. He also postulates that gravity increased suddenly at the close of the age of dinosaurs but not to the present value. Lower-than-present gravity continued into the following ages of giant mammals and possibly even to the days when early humans were building giant monuments like Stonehenge.
TED HOLDEN’S ARTICLE
Dinosaurs And The Gravity Problem (by Ted Holden)
https://www.thefossilforum.com/topic/8663-dinosaurs-and-the-gravity-problem-by-ted-holden/
Posted August 27, 2009
_Why in all of the time claimed to have passed since the dinosaur extinctions, has nothing ever re-evolved to the sizes of the large dinosaurs? If such sizes worked for creatures which ruled the Earth for tens of millions of years, then why would not some species of elephant or rhinoceros have evolved to such a size again?
_Could it be that some aspect of our environment might have to be massively different for such creatures to exist at all? A careful study of the sizes of these antediluvian creatures, and what it would take to deal with such sizes in our world, has led me to believe that the super animals of Earth's past could not live in our present world at all.
_A comparison of dinosaur lifting requirements to human lifting capabilities is enlightening, though there might be objections to doing so. One objection that might be raised is that animal muscle tissue was somehow "better" than that of humans. This, however, is known not to be the case. According to Knut Schmidt-Nielson, author of Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important?, the maximum stress or force that can be exerted by any muscle is independent of body-size and is the same for mouse or elephant muscle.
_A final objection might be that dinosaurs were somehow more "efficient" than top human athletes. This, however, goes against all observed data. As creatures get bulkier, they become less efficient; the layers of thick muscle in limbs begin to get in each other's way and bind to some extent. For this reason, scaled lifts for the superheavyweight athletes are somewhat lower than for, say, the 200-pound athletes. By "scaled lift" I mean a lift record divided by the two-thirds power of the athlete's body weight. As creatures get larger, weight, which is proportional to volume, goes up in proportion to the cube of the increase in dimension. Strength, on the other hand, is known to be roughly proportional to the cross-section of muscle for any particular limb and goes up in proportion to the square of the increase in dimension. This is the familiar "square-cube" problem. Consider the case of Bill Kazmaier, the king of the power lifters in the 1970s and 1980s.
_No animal the same weight as one of these men could be presumed to be as strong. Kazmaier was able to do squats and dead lifts with weights between 1,000 and 1,100 pounds on a bar, assuming he was fully warmed up. Any animal has to be able to lift its own weight off the ground, i.e. stand up, with no more difficulty than Kazmaier experiences doing a 1,000-pound squat.
_How heavy would Mr. Kazmaier be at the point at which the square-cube problem made it as difficult for him to stand up as it is for him to do 1,000-pound squats at his present weight of 340 pounds? The answer is 20,803 pounds (the solution to: 1,340/340^.667= x/x.^667). In reality, elephants do not appear to get quite to that point. Christopher McGowan, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum, claims that a Toronto Zoo specimen was the largest in North America at 14,300 pounds, and Smithsonian personnel once informed me that the gigantic bush elephant specimen which appears at their Museum of Natural History weighed around 8 tons.
{A.I.: The largest elephant ever recorded was the “Giant of Angola.” This male elephant stood at an incredible height of 13 feet at the shoulder, taller than any other recorded elephant in history. His weight was estimated to be over 24,000 pounds—making him one of the heaviest elephants ever recorded.}
_A study of the sauropod dinosaurs' long neck further underscores the problem these creatures would have living under current gravitational conditions. Scientists who study sauropod dinosaurs now claim that they held their heads low, because they could not have gotten blood to their brains had they held them high.6
_University of Pennsylvania geologist Peter Dodson remarked that while the Brachiosaurus was built like a giraffe and may have fed like one, most sauropods were built quite differently. "At the base of the neck," Dodson writes," a sauropod's vertebral spines, unlike those of a giraffe, were weak and low and did not provide leverage for the muscles required to elevate the head in a high position. Furthermore, the blood pressure required to pump blood up to the brain, thirty or more feet in the air, would have placed extraordinary demands on the heart and would seemingly have placed the animal at severe risk of a stroke, an aneurysm, or some other circulatory disaster." The only way to keep the required blood pressure "reasonable," Dodson goes on to add, is "if sauropods fed with the neck extended just a little above heart level, say from ground level up to fifteen feet..." One problem with this solution is that the good leaves were, in all likelihood, above the 20-foot mark; an ultrasaur that could not raise its head above 20 feet would probably starve. Dodson ... entirely neglects the dilemma of the brachiosaur.
_The large flying creatures of the past would also have had difficulties in our present-day gravity. In the antediluvian world, 350-pound flying creatures soared in skies which no longer permit flying creatures above 30 pounds or so.
_The bird's great size and negligible weight must have made for a rather fragile creature. "It is easy to imagine that the paper-thin tubular bones supporting the gigantic wings would have made landing dangerous," writes Desmond. "How could the creature have alighted without shattering all of its bones? How could it have taken off in the first place? It was obviously unable to flap 12-foot wings strung between straw-thin tubes.
_There are other categories of evidence, derived from a careful analysis of antediluvian predators, to show that gravitational conditions in the distant past were not the same as they are today. It is well known, for example, that elephant-sized animals cannot sustain falls, and that elephants spend their entire lives avoiding them. For an elephant, the slightest tumble can break bones and/or destroy enough tissue to prove fatal. Predators, however, live by tackling and tumbling with prey. One might think that this consideration would preclude the existence of any predator too large to sustain falls. Weight estimates for the tyrannosaurs, however, include specimens heavier than any elephant. That appears to be a contradiction. Moreover, elephants are simply too heavy to run in our world. As is well known, they manage a kind of a fast walk. They cannot jump, and anything resembling a gully stops them cold. Mammoths were as big and bigger than the largest elephants, however, and Pleistocene art clearly shows them galloping.
_The laws of physics do not change, nor does the gravitational constant, as far as we know. But something was obviously massively different in the world in which these creatures existed, and that difference probably involved a change in perceived gravity. This solution derives from the continuing research of neo-catastrophists, that is, followers of the late Immanuel Velikovsky, and is known as the "Saturn Myth" theory. The basic requirement for an attenuated perception of gravity involves the Earth being in a very close orbit around a smaller and much cooler stellar body (or binary body) than our present Sun. One pole would always be pointed directly at this nearby small star or binary system. The intense gravitational attraction would pull the Earth into an egg shape rather than its present spherical shape, so that the planet's center of gravity would be off center towards the small star. This would generate the torque necessary to counteract the natural gyroscopic force and keep the Earth's pole pointed in the same direction.
_The consequences of this intense gravitational pull would be dramatic. It would allow, first of all, for gigantic animals like the dinosaurs (just as any change in gravity to the present situation would likely cause their demise). It would also tend to draw all of the Earth's land mass into a single supercontinent (Pangea). Why else, after all, should the Earth's continental masses have amassed in one place? And finally, with the Earth's pole pointed straight at this star or binary system, there would be no seasons. All literature of the distant past points out that the seasons did not appear until after the flood. The state of the present solar system indicates that this previous system was eventually captured by a larger star, our present Sun. But the pieces of this old system have not vanished. The influential small star or binary system of the past remains, though its reign of power has ended. The star or stars are Jupiter and Saturn, the next largest objects to the Sun in our present system. It is instructive that the ancients worshiped Jupiter and Saturn as the two chieftain gods in all of the antique religious systems. If the present solar system was present in the distant past, one would expect primitive peoples to have worshiped the most visible of the astral bodies: the Sun, the Moon, and Venus. There is no conceivable reason they would worship as gods two planets which most people cannot even find in the night sky -- unless, of course, these bodies occupied a far more prominent place in the heavens than they do today.
SCIENCE PAPER
A palaeogravity calculation based on weight and mass estimates of Giraffatitan (=Brachiosaurus) brancai
_There have been many estimates of the body mass and weight of {Brachiosaur} and the estimated mass has varied by a very large amount. Different studies have given results from at least 28 to 78.3 metric tonne.
_One of the first and most popular scientific methods to estimate {Brachiosaur}’s mass was to make a physical scale model based on the skeleton. The volume of the model was measured, scaled up and multiplied by the presumed tissue density to give a mass estimate.
_Colbert (1962) was one of the first researchers to issue a scientific report on the mass of {Brachiosaur}. Using a model as a basis for his estimate he obtained an estimate of 78.3 metric tonne.
_The bone dimension equation predicts the legs of {Brachiosaur} evolved to carry an animal that weighed 31.59 metric tonne(f), yet the volume method predicts this specimen’s mass was 58 metric tonne. These two methods can be compared to calculate gravity {at shortly before time of deposition}. Palaeogravity at {just before time of deposition}:
g152 = w152 / m = 31.59 / 58 =
0.54g
Gravitational acceleration is calculated as 54% (5.3 m/s^2) of our present surface gravity (9.81 m/s^2) {at the time of deposition} based on this specimen of {Brachiosaur}.
_Since this specimen is relatively well preserved, it is considered that this result will be accurate to within ±20%.