[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 384: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 1056: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4762: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4764: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4765: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4766: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Are the planets growing?

Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:55 am

Another problem to consider; the denser atmosphere hypothesis is comparing dinos, flying pterosaurs, etc. to aquatic animals, but that logic is flawed. Aquatic animals either breathe using gills or surface and hold their breath while swimming underwater.
Dinos, pterosaurs definitely used lungs and that is the problem. Atmospheric density reaches a point where lungs do not work, hence the need for gills or to periodically surface. If the atmosphere were dense enough to support a sauropod's enormous body weight the animal could not breathe using lungs.
Also, sauropods could not use their long necks as a snorkel. Think of it this way, imagine trying to submerge yourself in 10 feet of water and breathe through a 12 foot snorkel. It is not possible. That is why diver's snorkels are limited in length to a foot or so.
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=2253
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:35 pm

sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:15 pm

Wow, sketch1946,

It took me a while to understand your post, but it seems that you are claiming the atmosphere was once 2/3rds the density of water, and somehow did not kill all life on the planet. How can I explain this to you.

wiki - Underwater habitat

wiki - Oxygen compatibility

wiki - Oxygen toxicity

wiki - Destruction of chemical weapons

wiki - Venus

The bottom line is called "oxidation." Organics and everything else would literally burn up under the gas densities and pressures with the "hypothesis" that you are "suggesting."

Decades ago, they considered "burning" toxic chemicals in water, under pressure, along with oxygen at high pressure. The levels of pressure and oxygen were very low compared to what you are "suggesting" for an atmosphere that is 2/3rds the density of water. The reason they did not continue the process is that the pipes would have been oxidized along with the toxic materials. Meaning the pipes were starting to "burn" at those oxygen and pressure levels, which are orders of magnitude below what you are "suggesting."

Why did I have you wiki "Venus" as well? Simple, it has a really thick, dense, atmosphere, equal to 92 atmospheres. Still orders of magnitude below what you are "suggesting." Still a dead planet.

Just for fun:

wiki - Dead Sea

and notice what just 1,412 ft below sea level is like. At the lowest elevation on Earth, the atmosphere is thick enough to massively reduce ultraviolet, so you don't have to wear sunscreen while you float on the high density salt water.

On a fun personal note:

I have a series of novels I have plotted out where the Earth has doubled in size from where it is now because of GET. I have the continents floating well above the surface of the vast ocean below. I'm using a kind of air coral(Think the floating rocks in the movie Avatar, but continent size. Neat!) that was developed by an advance AI that runs the Solar System. Earth is a low tech preserve for natural Humans. The people travel around using sky boats. When someone dies they drop the bodies into the ocean, and they burn as they fall into the high oxygen levels in the lower atmosphere. Only their ashes reach the ocean far below. Very moving ceremony.

And that atmosphere is still magnitudes less dense than what you are "suggesting."

BTW, one of the many things that the sky boats do is hunt sky whales. This video is close to how I see the sky whales, but the sky boats are not high tech like in the video.

The Leviathan -- Teaser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-45NTlgp-o

I always laugh like a madman at the end of the video. You'll see why. HA!
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:49 pm

sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:13 am

Hi Allynh,
I just checked out the current world record for 'saturation diving'
an ordinary modern human could breath at 70 bar provided the gas mix is right...

"In 1992 Greek diver Theodoros Mavrostomos achieved a record of 701 msw (2300 fsw) in an on shore hyperbaric chamber. He took 43 days to complete the scientific record dive, where a hydrogen–helium–oxygen gas mixture was used as breathing gas...

So it's not too far fetched to imagine animals adapted to a high pressure atmosphere could survive OK
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:42 am

allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:24 pm

"The density of the air at the surface of Venus is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth. The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea that covers the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfers heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day..."

For an atmosphere to have a density of ten times that, at 670 kg/m3 the atmosphere would have to be ten times more massive.... that's ***one order of magnitude greater than the Venus example above... not 'orders' of magnitude higher...

My intuition tells me Allynh doesn't believe such a dense atmosphere could have existed,
(I too find it too hard to believe that such a huge difference could have existed in atmospheric pressure...)
indeed that's exactly what that guy Esker said:

Esker:"It may be difficult for some people to imagine how the Earth could have had such a dense atmosphere. But nevertheless, the wonders of our reality often exceed the limitations of many people’s imagination."

If you read Esker's dinosaur giantism proposal carefully, he is using a 'scaling factor' approach, which he says clearly is just a tool to try to estimate what conditions might have been different in the age of the giant dinosaurs and pterosaurs... he uses the difference in length of the modern giraffe's neck, and the allosaur's neck, and multiplies the value of the modern atmospheric density to come up with a value for atmospheric density to provide a nearly floating dinosaur.

To put the theory into very very simple terms, our body is made of meat. (A missionary once was told, if God didn't want us to eat people, why did He make them out of meat?)

Meat has a density approximately the density of water, which is roughly a ton per cubic meter.
Mammals immersed in water are close to equilibrium, ie they float.
The immense pressure on an immersed mammal of the pressure of the water is counteracted by a force of buoyancy, which acts against water's pressure, so the apparent weight of an object in water is less than in air... the principle of buoyancy kicks in, where the volume of our dinosaur and density of it's body is directly proportional to to the flotation value...

The dinosaur volume, and the density of dinosaur meat and bones, and atmospheric pressure are factors in the apparent weight of the dinosaur and hence viability...

However hard to prove the possible reasons for each individual change in hypothetical past physical changed conditions, it's useful to look at some numbers:
Changes that would make the dinosaur float completely in the atmosphere would be to have the atmosphere as dense as water, ie one ton per cubic meter
Esker's hypothetical 2/3 of water atmospheric density would have the dinosaur only 1/3 of its weight... why does it have to be so floaty, why not a lesser degree of buoyancy help from a denser atmosphere?

The same reasoning could be modified to allow the dinosaur to be just 10 to 20 percent lighter, if we have an atmospheric density similar to or double that of Venus. Since the volume of the atmosphere and the composition can theoretically change with time, this is a reasonable beginning point to speculate on possible causes for giantism in the past....

The atmosphere of Venus is nearly 100 times as dense as Earths, which is so different to Mars, which is so different to Jupiter... the atmospheric pressure of Venus being *two orders of magnitude greater than earth's...

Scientists speculate that it wasn't always so, for various reasons they guess it may have had water, hydrogen etc.. but this was 'lost to space'... slow and steady or catastrophy?

Has Earth's atmosphere always been the same? Apparently not.
Scientist speculate that Earth's atmosphere was once ***more dense than Venus...

Of course these just speculations, but they're quite mainstream:

"...[in] Earth’s history, the composition of the atmosphere has changed from a hazy, unfamiliar mix to today’s mostly blue skies. As the atmosphere developed, life began and evolved. The evolution of living things changed the atmosphere, and those changes in turn altered life. As far as we know, the relationship is unique to our planet."

"To deduce what the atmosphere [of the earth] has been like for billions of years, paleontologists, geologists, and paleoclimatologists study rocks, ancient soils, and fossils. With every new find, they improve and refine their understanding of ancient atmospheres."

'improve and refine' = change hypotheses... :-)

In the past, Earth's atmosphere:"...It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ***ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. "
mmm there's that 'multiple orders of magnitude' thing again... :-)

"...the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere reached ***one percent of today’s level, which is 21 percent."
mmm another couple of 'orders of magnitude' ...

".... the sun was only about 70 percent as bright as it is today. Earth should have frozen over, but it didn’t. Why not? Because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, trapped enough of the sun’s heat to keep temperatures above freezing."

More changes in atmospheric composition are speculated, scientists (who really be called natural philosophers) have generally a presumption of slow and steady gradual changes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism

But then some scientists have tried to reconcile the lack of satisfactory evidence for slow and steady change, with the more likely catastrophic sudden changes that have left evidence in the forms of impact events, tsunamis, extreme volcanism, flooding, mass extinctions, huge beds of coal, limestone sediments etc...

"....Gould—...—uses a variety of strategies from literature, political science, and personal anecdotes to substantiate the general pattern of punctuated equilibrium in the context of natural science (long periods of stasis interrupted by rapid, catastrophic change)..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Animals adapted to changed conditions, presumably also humans did so too....
"...the oxygen in the atmosphere reached about one-fifth of today’s level (21 percent). The oxygen boom favored the evolution of lifeforms that could use oxygen to create energy. For other organisms, oxygen was poisonous..."

The only thing that's permanent is change....

"...The atmospheric content of oxygen also reached their highest levels in geological history during the period, 35% compared with 21% today, allowing terrestrial invertebrates to evolve to great size. [???]
A major marine and terrestrial extinction event occurred in the middle of the period...."

A catastrophic event?

The composition of the atmosphere changes, then becomes denser, the earth has a shorter day... quicker rotation... associated with some catastrophic changes...

"The thicker atmosphere and stronger coriolis effect due to Earth's faster rotation (a day lasted for 22.4 hours in early Carboniferous) created significantly stronger winds than today."

"The cooling and drying of the climate led to the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse (CRC) during the late Carboniferous. Tropical rainforests fragmented and then were eventually devastated...."

Huge beds of carbon-based lifeforms get laid down:

"Carboniferous rocks in Europe and eastern North America largely consist of a repeated sequence of limestone, sandstone, shale and coal beds."

Could the atmosphere have been modified or partially ripped off by cosmic encounters or blown away in a similar way as the atmosphere of Mars?

"A mysterious, catastrophic event tore away the atmosphere of Mars, according to the first detailed analysis of the make-up of the air on the Red Planet."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... rover-mars

So how can we be sure that the volume and composition and pressure of the atmosphere hasn't changed ****also during these prehistoric times, we have seen above, changes in Sun's luminance, length of the day, composition of the atmosphere, density of the atmosphere, extinction events, smashed-up plant life forming coal beds, and limestone rocks with billions of sea shells and other forms of catastrophic carbon sequestration....

Since we know these giants animals lived, and walked and breathed, in conditions different to today's conditions, why not look at these models with an open mind?
Why not discuss theories of changes in the gravitational constant, changed atmospheric pressure, catastrophic changes like impact events, orbital changes, as well as the uniformitarian assumptions of most mainstream theories.... somewhere amongst these possibilities could be the most reasonable solution....
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:36 pm

Among these theories, the notion of a change in the gravitational constant with time, a simple idea, leads to many observed physical things, like earth expansion, explosive vulcanism, expansion cracks in the earth's crust, orbital changes, etc

One simple thing, the gravitional 'constant' decaying with time, the gravitational attraction of each molecule for the next was stronger in the past when the molten earth formed its crust under a pressure that was higher than today.. over time the decay in gravity leads to cracks in the crust, upwelling magma fills the gaps, cools, and you have a slightly bigger earth. Earthquakes are the result of the geometry of the earth's sphere adjusting to this intermittent process... the continental 'movements' are explained as the expansion cracks shift the continents apart...

This hypothesis was put forward by P.A.M.Dirac, and the book I read was written by Pascual Jordan.

Neither of these men could be considered nutters, or crank cases, or fringe dwellers, or pseudo-scientists, as many comfortable, secure, mainstream quantum high-priests describe anyone with alternate views or theories...

In fact Dirac and Jordan are in the very elite of modern science, among the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, they knew each other, talked, discussed, argued:

Most people genuinely interested in real pure science will already know Dirac and Jordan, but for those who don't:

"In the three-year period from January 1925 to January 1928:
1. Wolfgang Pauli proposed the exclusion principle, providing a theoretical basis for the Periodic Table.
2. Werner Heisenberg, with Max Born and ***Pascual Jordan, discovered matrix mechanics, the first version of quantum mechanics. The historical goal of understanding electron motion within atoms was abandoned in favor of a systematic method for organizing observable spectral lines.
3. Erwin Schrodinger invented wave mechanics, a second form of quantum mechanics in which the state of a system is described by a wave function, the solution to Schrodinger’s equation. Matrix mechanics and wave mechanics, apparently incompatible, were shown to be equivalent.
4. Electrons were shown to obey a new type of statistical law, Fermi-***Dirac statistics. It was recognized that all particles obey either Fermi-Dirac statistics or Bose-Einstein statistics, and that the two classes have fundamentally different properties.
5. Heisenberg enunciated the Uncertainty Principle.
6. ***Paul A.M. Dirac developed a relativistic wave equation for the electron that explained electron spin and predicted anti-matter.
7. ***Dirac laid the foundations of quantum field theory by providing a quantum description of the electromagnetic field.
8. Bohr announced the complementary principle, a philosophical principle that helped to resolve apparent paradoxes of quantum theory, particularly the wave-particle duality."

This book below, was where I was introduced to the concept of 'Expanding Earth':

International Series of Monographs in Natural Philosophy, Volume 37: The Expanding Earth: Some Consequences of Dirac’s Gravitation Hypothesis focuses on the applications of Dirac’s gravitation hypothesis.

The book first discusses objections to Dirac’s hypothesis and expansion cracks, including geological chronology, astrophysical objections, rift valleys, rills of the moon, deep-sea trenches, and oceanic rifts. The text then looks at the origin of the oceans, as well as growth and shrink of continents, expansion and formation of oceans, growth of land areas, and paleomagnetism.

The manuscript examines the physics of the earth-moon system. Topics include rheology and seismic exploration of the earth's interior; quantitative data about the earth's expansion; and Dirac’s hypothesis and the many-body problem. The book also offers information on volcanoes, lunar craters, folded mountains, and ice ages. Topics include Binge’s explanation of volcanism, folded mountains, and submarine tablemounts and currents.

The Expanding Earth: Some Consequences of Dirac's Gravitation Hypothesis Paperback – January 1, 1971
by ***Pascual Jordan (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Expanding-Earth- ... 1483123456

Page 2:"This book will be confined to the question of whether is is possible to find empirical arguments for or against Dirac's proposal...."

Page 17: (Jordan in answer to a criticism of Dirac's hypothesis):
"This critique of Dirac's hypothesis lacks rigour because it takes the cosmic spatial mean value of x (in the case of the Friedmann timescale), instead of the value of x significant in determining the luminosity L (namely the value of x at the centre of the Sun)."

"That this is a really fundamental mistake follows, even without setting out the field equations in detail, from the following argument. It is a fundamental law of physics that there is no action without a corresponding reaction. This indicates an inconsistency in Newtonian mechanics, before it was modified in the Einsteinian sense, in that the space-time continuum has a dominant influence on the motion of masses, while these masses do not exert any corresponding reaction on the continuum."

"In a physically credible theory, therefore, we cannot imagine such a strong influence of x on L as shown by equation (7), without there being some corresponding influence of L on x. In fact, the theory would require that in the vicinity of strongly luminous stars there is a local decrease of x due to the influence of the radiation..."

"The results of palaeontological investigations definitely do not contradict ter Haar's supposition that during the Palaeozoic (up to its end?) there was a closed cloud cover in the atmosphere of the Earth, in conjunction with a solar constant considerably larger than that of the present. The enormous cloud masses...."

An interesting comment, BTW: :-)
Page 109: "... the much-discussed theory that the Moon was captured by the Earth should then be settled. The laws of mechanics permit of only two possibilities for such a capture process. The first is that there must have been a close encounter between ***three heavenly bodies. This would have enabled two of the bodies to remain as close companions, while the third took up the remaining energy and angular momentum."

In fairness to Pascual Jordan, he only suggests further investigation of the possible environmental conditions that may have led to the development of giant insects...

Page 94: "If then, there was some circumstance favouring the development of giant insects, could it perhaps have been due to a combination of a stronger gravitational field at the Earth's surface and a higher atmospheric density - factors that might favour the flight of heavier insects?..."

When respected scientists like Dirac and Jordan with world-wide reputations are willing to put forward ideas about how things might have been on earth during the time of the allosaurs and pterosaurs, and ideas like the possible causes of an expansion of the earth, we should give their ideas serious consideration, in my view...
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:29 pm

Looking back into the past and trying to imagine how animals could survive under drastically increased atmospheric pressure...

Today it has been found that some animals, mammals like seals and whales have adapted to survive in much higher pressures than normal... even to 299 bar!
That's 299 times more than earth's atmospheric pressure, and 3 times more dense than the atmosphere on Venus, they dive down to 2992 meters:

"To stop using so much oxygen, diving mammals can stop their breathing and shunt blood flow from their extremities to the brain, heart, and muscles. They also shut down digestion, kidney and liver function."

"Finally, they lower their heart rate. Most mammals can do this when they dive, even humans. But in marine mammals the slowdown can be extreme. Scientists have measured the heart rate of diving Weddell seals at a mere four beats per minute."

"Then in 2013, Berenbrink made a startling discovery about diving animals' muscles. Like all mammals, their muscles contain a protein called myoglobin that stores oxygen and gives meat its red colour. Myoglobin is ten times more concentrated in the muscles of diving animals than it is in human muscles. It is so concentrated in whales that their flesh appears almost black."

"...Berenbrink found that the myoglobin of diving animals is positively charged. Since like charges repel each other, the positively-charged myoglobin molecules don't stick together. This means that huge amounts of myoglobin can be packed in, supplying plenty of oxygen..."

So do we really know enough to positively rule out that the giant animals could not have developed in a denser atmosphere, under increased, not decreased gravity, and were buoyed up by a thick dense atmosphere under greater pressure than exists today and simple adapted to live, move and breathe in this environment?

Today, whales, seals diving to depths where the pressure is nearly 300 times our normal atmospheric pressure at sea level, show that living under extreme pressures is theoretically possible for relatively giant creatures like sauropods and pterosaurs given that could have simply been adapted differently to suit these conditions.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150115 ... xplanation

When it comes to numerical estimates, mainstream scientists speculate, estimate, and are not ashamed to revise their figures when necessary to fit different theories:

Indeed Dreadnoughtus was first estimated to be about 65 tons, then scientists didn't like that figure, so changed the 'scaling' factor by revising the hypothetic bone and muscle density.. a bit of selective adaptation in the modern world... and so re-estimated this creature down as low as 'only' 30 tons...

"Using this scaling equation, they concluded that the Dreadnoughtus type specimen weighed about 59.3 tonnes (58.4 long tons; 65.4 short tons). By comparison, this would mean D. schrani weighed more than eight and a half times as much as a male African elephant and even exceeded the Boeing 737-900 airliner by several tons. This very large mass estimate was quickly criticized, though unofficially, by some other sauropod researchers."

"Matt Wedel used volumetric models that yielded a much ***lower estimate between 35–40 tonnes (34–39 long tons; 39–44 short tons), or even as low as approximately 30 tonnes (30 long tons; 33 short tons), based on a 20% shorter torso.

A formal re-evaluation of the animal's weight was published in June 2015. In it, a research team led by Karl T. Bates compared the simple scaling equation results with results found using a volume-based digital model with various amounts of soft tissue and "empty space" for the respiratory system."

"They found that any model using the scale-based weight estimate would have meant the animal had an impossible amount of bulk (fat, skin, muscle, etc.) layered onto its skeleton. They compared their D. schrani volumetric model to those of other sauropods with more complete skeletons and better understood mass estimates to conclude that the D. schrani type specimen must have weighed in the range of 22.1–38.2 tonnes (21.8–37.6 long tons; 24.4–42.1 short tons).

Not everyone agreed with the selective adaption :-)

"Lacovara disputes the methods used by Bates et al., arguing that the new study treats Dreadnoughtus as an exception to well-established mass estimate methods proven on living animals, and that the limb bones would be unnecessarily large if the new mass estimates were correct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus

No-one knows much about the respiratory system:

"To calculate the animal’s mass, Lacovara and his colleagues used a well known scaling equation based mostly on the circumference of the dinosaur’s limb bones. The outcomes made Dreadnoughtus the most important dinosaur with probably the most full skeleton on report, the researchers stated."

"Yet one thing appeared off, the researchers on the brand new study stated. Two different sauropods (herbivorous, long-necked, four-legged dinosaurs) had comparable skeletal proportions to these of Dreadnoughtus, however their calculated [weight must?] have been much less — simply 55,000 to 77,000 lbs. (25,000 to 35,000 kg), the researchers on the brand new study stated."

"So, they used a 3D skeletal modeling technique to get a greater concept of Dreadnoughtus‘ mass. The method makes use of a mathematical mannequin to reconstruct the quantity of the dinosaur’s pores and skin, muscle mass, fats and different tissues across the bones, they stated."

"The reconstructed measurements are based mostly on knowledge from [modern animals in existing atmospheric environment] dwelling animals, They explored a range of body sizes to foretell how heavy Dreadnoughtus may [have?] been, which is how they reached their 30- to 40-ton estimate."

“No one knows whether dinosaur bodies were particularly fat, particularly skinny or somewhere in between,” he stated. “Also, ***very little is definitively known about the respiratory system of sauropods. Therefore, ***no one knows how much volume should be subtracted for the lungs [and] any system of air sacs.”

http://www.dailyrover.com/dreadnoughtus ... tudy-says/

For contrast, the weight of a Blue Whale is 140 tons :-) and can dive to 2 km deep to a pressure of 200 atmospheres...
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

note for the dirac doubters :-)

Unread postby moonkoon » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:07 am

It might be somewhat counter intuitive, but Jordan's suggestion of a denser atmosphere (based on Dirac's decreasing gravitational constant idea) deserves serious consideration, for as sketch1946 has pointed out, Dirac knows his onions :-).

A denser atmosphere would need a much smaller proportion of oxygen than the present atmosphere's 20% (200,000 ppm), otherwise oxidation would get very difficult for life to deal with. Compare this with the much denser abode of the finny fish, which gets by with about 10 ppm. Carbon dioxide would also need to be adjusted downward somewhat I suspect.
The 'filler' would have to be relatively inert, e.g. nitrogen or perhaps argon (about 2% of our current atmosphere).

Another alternative is an actual watery world which is so often depicted in the myths. Much of the fossil record is fairly obviously water world stuff.
moonkoon
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:25 am

sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:41 pm

Attachments
chicken-opisthotonic.jpg
arc 2.jpg
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:19 pm

Attachments
Turkish composite recurve bow with dinosaur.jpg
Prof Stevens says sauropod vertebrae form a very straight line.jpg
Prof Stevens says sauropod vertebrae form a very straight line.jpg (4.76 KiB) Viewed 5791 times
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:54 pm

I love my disaster films. HA!

Geostorm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raUghGHrSTg

Let's hope it's as good as it looks.
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:29 pm

Attachments
Ice.jpg
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests