jimmywalter wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 9:13 am
Sorry, I missed your point. And where are your calculations?
10 m height x 1 m wide x 5 cm/year = ½ m^3 accumulated per year, on a 1 m wide section.
½ m^3 per year x 200 million years = 100 million m^3 of sediment accreted, or 10 km x 10 km of sediment, still on a 1 m wide section.
It doesn't pile up into a square ofc. I assumed a parabolic shape in my first calculation (on a different forum), but I'll do double rectangle here:
Imagine a 10 x 10 km square split into two rectangles, with side length 10 km.
That's instead a 10 km high mountain range, with a 20 km wide base.
I am not opposing tectonic plates.
I am not either. I am opposing subduction.
I would point out that the dinosaurs would not have been able to stand with today's gravity.
I agree with that.
The video link I included with my original post on this indicates that there might have been periods of the solar system passing through huge amounts of debris which would have produced huge meteor showers that not only wiped out most life, but, I think, could have significantly increased the earth's mass.
Increased it enough to basically double the gravity?
I don't think such a "Ragnarok" would've left us with any remains of dinosaurs whatsoever, or for any life to have survived it, for that matter.
The main EU view, is that gravity has an electrical or electromagnetic explanation, and that Earth was in a different electrical environment
back then, with a lesser electrical field strength, with a corresponding lower gravity.