September 29th, 2006, 01:45 PM
This observation can be very interesting to have some information about gravity...
There are 5 planets with the same gravity and gravity changes linearly from Mars to Jupiter:
Mars-Mercury gravity X 2.5 = Earth-Venus-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune gravity
Earth gravity X 2.5 = Jupiter gravity
Someone?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????
I must also admit that I was (am) confused as well....
October 15th, 2006, 03:27 PM
in the event you interested in this I'll start a response. w/o double checking earth gravity is not the same on any other planet and properly stated you want to say earth = 1 and then the relationship to that one, if its twice 2, five times 5 or half .5.Originally Posted by Goldrake
gravity is not explainable as yet and theory is all over the place. most think that, mass, core construction, magnetic fields (N&S poles) are involved and is an internal action. my personal thought is, it also as to do with motion and atmospheric conditions. that is the all the above affect a condition created by a friction of atmosphere (and its contents- in our case
primarily nitrogen 77% and oxygen 21%), based on our mass and planet
materials. and is an external action of traveling around the sun, thru space around our Milky way and the galaxy movement, through space.
i justify my THOUGHT, to what could have been 60k years ago when the likely much thinner atmosphere (apx .7-8 of earth today) was changed almost over night to a very thick and much more carbon than today and gravity increased to say 1.2 or even 1.4 of todays. this was no doubt from
unusual volcanic eruptions and a very large meteor landing near what is the Gulf of Mexico, today. now is i am correct, and a 100 pound thing would weigh about 140 pounds, almost overnight and the T-Rex for instants would just lay flat till dead and the animal chain mostly down would be dramatically affected. Birds couldn't fly and so on...then as the atmosphere clears and over some time, the gravity is back to 1 and stabilized.
just a thought to encourage a question...
October 15th, 2006, 03:52 PM
None of your response bears any resemblance to physics on earth, or events that have occured in the past.in the event you interested in this I'll start a response. w/o double checking earth gravity is not the same on any other planet and properly stated you want to say earth = 1 and then the relationship to that one, if its twice 2, five times 5 or half .5.
gravity is not explainable as yet and theory is all over the place. most think that, mass, core construction, magnetic fields (N&S poles) are involved and is an internal action. my personal thought is, it also as to do with motion and atmospheric conditions. that is the all the above affect a condition created by a friction of atmosphere (and its contents- in our case
primarily nitrogen 77% and oxygen 21%), based on our mass and planet
materials. and is an external action of traveling around the sun, thru space around our Milky way and the galaxy movement, through space.
i justify my THOUGHT, to what could have been 60k years ago when the likely much thinner atmosphere (apx .7-8 of earth today) was changed almost over night to a very thick and much more carbon than today and gravity increased to say 1.2 or even 1.4 of todays. this was no doubt from
unusual volcanic eruptions and a very large meteor landing near what is the Gulf of Mexico, today. now is i am correct, and a 100 pound thing would weigh about 140 pounds, almost overnight and the T-Rex for instants would just lay flat till dead and the animal chain mostly down would be dramatically affected. Birds couldn't fly and so on...then as the atmosphere clears and over some time, the gravity is back to 1 and stabilized.
just a thought to encourage a question...
I think I have hear about this once, but was not as interested as Goldrake is about it. Apparantly, there is a pattern of planet mass that occurs for the solar system.
First of all, the post is awkwardly stated and gravitational inverse square action is not discussed for comparison with the linear pattern of planet mass (to make it interesting?).
Overall, to describe this is a planetary dynamics question and this pattern is not too special in that it is not characteristic of planetary system formation; observe close orbiting "roasters" (hot Jupiters) of exoplanetary systems--but note that exoplanet mass detection is difficult below Jupiter mass. However, in looking at the pattern one can see the strangeness of Mercury, the influence of Jupiter, and the position of the asteroid belt.
In my prior experiences I observed patterns with names, but not the "general" rigorous investigation about orbital resonance. Saturn's ring divisions are named (i.e. cassini division), as well as Jupiter and the asteroid belt interaction. I think the naming culture seems to bypass the signficance of orbital resonance (and physics on the whole?) for the layman.
October 16th, 2006, 09:57 AM
no and i made it quite clear it was a thought. i would not discard it however as there are questions as to why certain life died off when other did not. it is also not possible the atmosphere was always as is and maybe there is a link to gravity, also likely to have changed.None of your response bears any resemblance to physics on earth, or events that have occured in the past.in the event you interested in this I'll start a response. w/o double checking earth gravity is not the same on any other planet and properly stated you want to say earth = 1 and then the relationship to that one, if its twice 2, five times 5 or half .5.
gravity is not explainable as yet and theory is all over the place. most think that, mass, core construction, magnetic fields (N&S poles) are involved and is an internal action. my personal thought is, it also as to do with motion and atmospheric conditions. that is the all the above affect a condition created by a friction of atmosphere (and its contents- in our case
primarily nitrogen 77% and oxygen 21%), based on our mass and planet
materials. and is an external action of traveling around the sun, thru space around our Milky way and the galaxy movement, through space.
i justify my THOUGHT, to what could have been 60k years ago when the likely much thinner atmosphere (apx .7-8 of earth today) was changed almost over night to a very thick and much more carbon than today and gravity increased to say 1.2 or even 1.4 of todays. this was no doubt from
unusual volcanic eruptions and a very large meteor landing near what is the Gulf of Mexico, today. now is i am correct, and a 100 pound thing would weigh about 140 pounds, almost overnight and the T-Rex for instants would just lay flat till dead and the animal chain mostly down would be dramatically affected. Birds couldn't fly and so on...then as the atmosphere clears and over some time, the gravity is back to 1 and stabilized.
just a thought to encourage a question...
The asteroid was 60 million years ago not 60 thousand. The atmosphere was not much diferent 60M yrs ago than it is today. As to why mammals and birds survived - some think that mammals were nocturnal then and as they could keep their bodies warm and live off all those dead frozen dinosaurs... Overall though there is much speculation. There is no evidence that the earth's mass increased by 0.2-0.4 as you suggest.
my error, 60m correct. the rest is still an accurate version of my thought.
no i don't think the atmosphere was = of today, or even close, the main
purpose of the post. my thought is concerned with the content of the mass, not the mass, with reference to gravity and neither mass or content would have changed. i might also add the birds of that period were much larger than those after that period and would add substance to my thought, and my higher and thinner atmosphere could allow this and the .7 or so gravity. there needs to be reason natures ironies to explain what evolved from the period other than dead dinosaurs and we agree on "much speculation" and why i offered a possibility.
the Arizona meteor did hit about 60k years ago, caused no major problems and no excuse for my error. thanks...
But gravity is a function of mass, so if you think the gravity was 30% or so less then the mass would have also been that much less.
What makes you think the birds of that era were larger than they are today? So far as I know the largest bird existed from about 55 to 2 million years ago 1100 lbs 10ft tall flightless. Ostrich's & emu's are far bigger than any pteradactal (which were about the same size as pigeons). It may be that hollywood has influenced you to think they were much larger.
Prehistoric birds were poor flyers simply because they had solid bones and jaws full of teeth which made them much heavier than anything around today. Some believe that they could only fly/glide short distances and probably just launched themselves from cliffs or trees to escape danger.
to make a point, lets assume 60m years ago gravity was 1/2 what it is today. birds by all indications had wing spans thought to be up to 6 feet
and down to, makes no difference. some flying reptiles were very heavy but thought is they could fly, short distances. the dinosaurs were very large and weights really must have been great. (the elephants and whales
did not exist). now some major event or combination of events creates an atmosphere very thick and and heavy in carbons. this in turn changes something that causes an extreme increase in gravity. the gravity went to 1.5 and what was 100 pounds became 300 pounds. even the smallest birds would not be able to fly long distance, but because of a major imbalance in the food chain most life did die off, not necessarily all and not likely much plant life, since plant life thrives naturally in carbon monoxide. time passes and this thriving plant life gives back the oxygen and uses up some carbon monoxide, giving for first time or giving back the nitrogen/oxygen based atmosphere, whales and many forms of animals appear as the force of gravity draws down to just over one and oxygen levels increase. any explanation based on the accepted cause of animal extinction and reformation is no more plausible than that of gravitational changes and this is explained to atmospherically change and out side forces on gravity, though small and based on a combination of all that is thought to produce gravity and friction based on the content of the atmosphere. i have used large changes in gravitation, only for explanation.
to compare if there were a .05 change today (about 20 times that of the moons affect) people would drop dead like flies, from all sorts of reason and life would instantly change for the rest.
as to the ostrich, it is thought they quit flying for the lack of need. much as the African male elephant has been eliminating tusk, to survive. other words, biological evolution.
the above is a synopsis of my opinion, on a possible addition of friction to the theory of gravity. i am not pretending its based on any known facts or that your feelings on extinction of anything is not a valid one.
At which point I will leave you on your own, having shown you the facts you are determined to ignore them, I suggest this thread should be moved to psuedoscience.
From what i understand the reason reptiles, birds and insects were much larger back them was down to more oxygen in the atmosphere and nothing to do with gravity
Birds being larger is a hollywood myth, most were no larger than pigeons. When oxygen gets above about 25% then forest fires just keep raging till the o2 goes down to around 16-18% at which the fires extinguish, this has been a regular cyclic action since oxygen first achieved these levels. Gravity has been about the same for 4.5 billion years.
Jackson, I do not wish to discourage you. It is clear you have a real interest in science and a great imagination. However, much of what you are posting is nonsense.
As others have pointed out the force of gravity at the Earth's surface is determined by two things - the distance from the centre of the Earth; the mass of the Earth.
Now, if we want to be picky, we can note that it will also be influenced (at many decimal places) by the distribution of the mass. Gravity is not the same over the Himalayas as it is over the oceans, for example. This is a very minor effect. (And the gravitational force will be counteracted to a very small amount by the rotation of the Earth.)
The factors you are trying to account for with a variation in gravity - volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes, bird size, etc - can all be accounted for in much simpler ways, without needing to throw out five hundred years of physics.
actually i was giving a hypothetical explanation as to what could cause, the nature of life on earth, to take such a dramatic shift, 60b years ago.
i do think there is an unknown factor, in what gravity actually is the result of and suggest it could be an external rather than internal, but i do not argue the mass or magnetic fields influence. on the effects of gravity by small degrees, i would take issue, if were talking quick and to things in one state for their existence. i drove a truck into the mountains, NW of Denver; it and i had problems. athletes train at high elevations with success and so on...i would suggest a 2 ton animal raised on Mt. Everest,
would not survive long in death valley or vice versa.
my answers, i hope cause some thought, to a persons question. if i were trying to impose a view id create a post, which i have not done here and rarely do elsewhere. for instance i have strong opinions and oppose the concept of the BB and feel i could argue any point, but the accompanying
or following theory and assumptions as to the act are so strung out in support or justification, that it would seem a vicious circle with no end.
thank you, for your indulgence and i will try not to irritate anyone.
I understand that. I simply wanted to point out that your explanation was to counter several basic physical principles and offered nothing that we do not have better, well validated hypotheses for. (I think you mean 60 million, by the way).
What is your justification for this peculiar idea.
Take issue all you like, but gravity anomalies are a basic research tool of gephysicists. They are factual. They are easily measured. (I've measured them myself.)
That has bugger all to do with gravity. The air is substantially thinner at altitude. Engines and humans underperform, until the mix is adjusted on the engine and until the human increase his red blood cell count.
I am sure my posts are far more irritating than yours. I just want to encourage you to look long and hard at the conventional explanations before indulging in wild speculation.
i would like more involvement on this subject, but I'll give you a little jump start. from 205mya to about 65m/y/a, a form of life existed and survived a good deal of the formation of planet earth itself. this form of life was nearly 100% eliminated in a very, very short time, as was 50 % of animal and plant life. you are telling me Physics, basic at that, is comparing the
Yucatan meteorite impact, into what was and is, the Gulf of Mexico about the same time created a cloud that ended the 140 million year reign of the T-Rex types and this even though the formation of most giant mountain ranges, massive volcano activity, quakes and many other known or unknown strikes from meteor or asteroids could not wipe them out. on top of this and the overwhelming probability, that the atmosphere or any other element that could have been present, was not involved and because the physics community agrees on the accepted hypothesis.
there is nothing peculiar about, suggesting some factor not currently in a theory or hypothesis or even law, is possible. you don't want the list and i don't have the time to list the revisions, additions, canceled or material based on assumption, on the BB theory. this all started on an explanation of one and a hypothetical suggestion to another. also nothing wrong in that. neither was offered as hypothesis and neither was suggested, more than opinion. it does happen that, i am working on both, but not in connection with each other.
you are correct on the thin air and effects, but it goes to the heart of atmosphere changes that could have happened over the past 200my.
again, i look for individual opinions. i have read a good many books on the sciences, but become more skeptical then convinced on a good many.
on gravity, for instance, Newton was probably well ahead of his time, certainly in math, however he nor many that followed couldn't know what is known today and there seems to be a consorted effort to disregard the possibilities.
Jackson I am going to focus on a single statement from your post and explain why I find your writing so frustrating. This is not the only statement you make in your last post with which I could take issuse, but I think it will be more productive for us both if we zero in on one thing at a time. You said:This is wrong. The formation of the planet Earth itself occured 4.5 billion years ago. Even if you wish to include the modifications brought about by bolide impacts of the Late Bombardment Phase, then it occured 3.8/3.9 billion years ago. So the forms of life present in the time preiod you specify had most certainly not "survived a good deal od the the formation of the planet earth itself".
Either you don't understand the facts, or you are expressing them so badly as to making incorrect statements. Either way it makes it difficult to develop the discussion.
I welcome your further comments.
those figures all came from "encyclopedia encarta" time line, and i was very careful to keep millions straight. you will have to jump on Microsoft, not me, but the figures are generally the same in other works. there were some very aggressive events during this period 65m to 205 m years back and the formations of of much through volcano activity such as Greenland and the western Rockey Mountains, just a couple. a good many would have had affects on life, as much or more so than one asteroid, which gets all the blame...
When we refer to "the formation of the planet Earth itself" this choice of words very definitely means we are talking about the origin of the planet and the events that occured shortly after its origin.
In the case of the Earth this means its formation from planetesimals in the accretion disc around the proto-sun; the differentiation of the resultant proto-planet into core and mantle; the probable impact by a Mars sized planet, as a result of which the moon was formed; the ongoing accretion of further material, especially during the late bombardment phase; the formation of the primeval crust, atmosphere and oceans.
The phrase most certainly is not used, as you appear to have done, to describe routine orogenisis and associated vulcanicity occuring as a result of plate tectonics. Such events have nothing whatsoever to do with 'the formation of the planet Earth', except inasmuch as they are a consequence of it.
I hope you see the difficulty that your choice of words has created in my efforts to understand your ideas.
Taking up your last point. It is certainly inaccurate to say that one asteroid gets the blame for the KT boundary mass extinction event. Several researchers argue for
a) A second bolide strike
b) The effect of massive volcanic eruptions
c) A general climatic change associated with continental repositioning
The one aasteroid explanation is the popular one, beloved by the media. And it is favoured by a majority of researchers, but it is certainly not the only option on the table.
i really think you knew what i was saying and my point was what you have added. the demise of a near total form of life, that had survived for
millions of years in the climate that they did, was not likely because of the one asteroid and my suggestion was atmospheric condition changes to what is more like todays was responsible. another way to phase it, those species of 80 millions years ago, if could have been transported to the earth today, would ALL be dead in sixty seconds.
no, the Yucatan Asteroid, is given basic credit for this and in many writings. the opponents don't all give add ons, but other reasons. atmosphere is a general reason, for or opposed to this event, but not for the reasons i suggest. in fact there are suggestions of mass extinctions of sea and land life prior to this and they are totally atmospheric, generally from volcano activity.
we are talking about species that are thought to have weighed up to 24,000 pounds and walked on two legs. why is it so hard to imagine a small degree of gravity for whatever reason could have disrupted the food chain of the time causing basically and explainable results.
the continental shifts were primarily over by 65m BC, mountain formations from the shifts, no. keep in mind these shifts are ongoing today.
i also think much more consideration should be given to food chain and the effects on all species when this is broken. the thought 99% of all species that ever existed have ceased, is as much to do with food chain as any other reason. for instance, the Panda Bear prefers a particular food, that is not common but w/o it is thought will perish. animals are not as flexible as humans and regardless of size will die before trying something new.
on my choice of words; my object in even being in these forums is to hear opinions of those w/o established opinions on a subject. i can relate to a visionary view well ahead of an established view or i could google a subject and get that view. the last time i ran across this problem, it was my blamed on my punctuation or not capitalizing the first letter in a sentence.
The climate then is very little different from the climate now, the evidence is in the fossilised record.
The exact causes of earlier extinctions (occurring roughly every 65 million years) may have been lost through the actions of subduction (the sliding of one tectonic plate beneath another) and or surface erosion.
There is no evidence of a massive change in gravity. Anyway I'd bet if there was a sudden increase in gravity of even 50% most species would recover in a few years, animals perhaps even in months as they would merely grow more muscular. Many speices of birds and insects (such as bees) may come close too or even become extinct, but there would be no mass extinction. Since fish mostly have neutral bouancy they would hardly be affected. Since most animals can easily carry half their bodyweight they'd all just slow down a bit.
The himalayan mountains are still rising, I think about 5mm a year as tectonics continues in full swing. The US is moving at around 4cm/year further west. As far as I now the actual amount of continental shift activity has been fairly constant for some 3.5 billion years.
No doubt there is some merit in this. Perhaps you might like to start a thread on "How was the food chain affected by the alleged asteroid 65 million years ago?" or similar
It's a science forum, there is a psuedo forum where you might better post your revolutionary ideas, but here, they will be corrected with science fact.
forgot i'd posted in this thread, fair enough with the birds maybe a bad example. but what about the huge dragonfly,centipedes and millipedes wasn't that an oxygen thing?Birds being larger is a hollywood myth, most were no larger than pigeons. When oxygen gets above about 25% then forest fires just keep raging till the o2 goes down to around 16-18% at which the fires extinguish, this has been a regular cyclic action since oxygen first achieved these levels. Gravity has been about the same for 4.5 billion years.
Yes there were dragonflies up to some 30 inches in length, before the birds, it is thought such a large juicy meal would not grow that large today with all those sleek flyers around. But the gen I gave on the oxygen going between about 15-18% and 25% is good stuff. My hypothesis on huge dragon flies is they became 'meals on wings' for the early birds. I'll try and check that one though...
Edit:
A quick look shows the dragon flies at 325-220 Million years ago, up to 30CM in length, earliest record (I can find) to birds is about 150-180 million years ago.
i think your concept of "Hollywood Birds" are actually flying or gliding reptiles. the only quick reference to birds i found had wing spans from 8 to 60 inch and no guesses on size other than span. you have just given an example of insect size, suggesting they were juicy meals for those little "Twinkies--small parakeet" which makes no sense. makes me wonder how big mosquitoes were???
the worst extinction of animal life ended the Permian period 240 m/y/a
and began T Rex period...so to speak and the next was 65 m/y/a and i guess thats about every 65 million years? 80+ % of all sea and land life ceased as its though carbon dioxide levels exploded.
you really need to restudy you physics on affects of gravity. an increase of 50 % would kill off 95% of all animal life and completely disrupt the food chain. that sudden change could not biologically be compensated for in a few or a thousand years.
your original feeling, after the asteroid hit, were the smaller animals fed off and kept warm using the frozen dinosaurs. 1- i can't find any suggestion the temperatures were anything but the warmest in the history of earth, 2- of the six or seven larger species, they were meat eaters and
its hard to imagine my little dog taking on a 8 ton foe. more likely those would have been the survivors.
your arguments have changed around somewhat, but this suggest to me a change of something that affected first the giants and worked it way down.
gravity constant for 4.5 billion, is highly unlikely. more likely is if mars, Venus or mercury had a substantial atmosphere, as the sun warmed they had a gravity substantially higher, at least to what is now.
one question, since this is your area; mass is directly linked to gravity as i think you understand it, mass of the earth and so....now the atmosphere is also mass and the components of this atmosphere will also add or subtract from this total mass. that is an atmosphere of three heavy components should equal three times that of components 1/3rd the others density. i am not confusing weight and density and inferring only that the density of some elements are higher than others.
another thought, if all water were to dry up and there were a total loss of
atmosphere, say to a solar flare, what percentage of mass would be lost and then what would the comparable gravity be to current -1-..?
Let's see now, accepted mass of the earth = 5.97 * 10 ^ 24 Kilograms
Weight of the atmosphere let's work it out, 14psi or approx 1Kg per centimetre squared = 10,000kg/sq metre. radius of the earth (Km) = 6378100 Metres, surface area = 5.11*10^14 square metes, * 10000kg =
5.11*10^18 Kgs
So the earth's mass is (according to my calculations) some 1.17 Million times more than the mass of the atmosphere.
I don't have figures for the mass of the ocean but it is likely to be less than 1% of the mass of the earth, If you said the earth was totally covered with 2KM thick ocean then it's 5.11*10^14*2*1000 metric tonnes.
or 1*10^21 tonnes I think, which is about 1/6000th the mass of the earth.
If you lost all the water and atmosphere you'd need a pretty accurate set of scales to notice the difference (and an oxygewn supply for yourself!)
should have checked b-4, total atmo of 5000 trillion mt over mass of planet- 6,2 bunch of 0's ends up 1/120 m, your correct and no point to question. the water was for a Mar's thing and nothing to do with earth,
but thanks for answer.
If I really knew what you were saying I would not have invested the time and effort in explaining what in your posts was confusing and contradictory.This is completely wrong. There is a greater difference today between the oxygen content at sea level and that at the altitude of say Mexico City, than there is between the content today and that back in the Cretaceous. If you brought a dinosaur back from then she would be out of breath - nothing more.
Firsly, a small change in gravity would have effected all life. So just as the ten ton predator would be moving more slowly, so would the 200 pound prey.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is no reason to think there has been any significant change in mass of the planet. No reason whatsoever. You have some whirlygig notion that somehow a change in atmospheric composition could effect planetary gravity by a significant, even a measurable amount. Megabrain has demonstrated quite precisely why this is poppycock for the Earth. The same is true for Mars and Venus. Please don't make me demonstrate this to you - accept it, or even better, do the calculations for yourself.
Clearly you have never studied rats or seagulls, to name but two.Jackson, your written English is excruciatingly painful to read. I would welcome an effort on your part to make it more intelligible. The alternative is that I may start calling you Zelos II.
I am all for visionary views, but I prefer it when these are not part of a hallucination.
we are now down to personal attacks, you and i, have better things to do. to argue what my views are, would be to infer i am something, i am not.
in the event some are reading all this nonsense, let me reiterate; i had two points in the entire discussion.
1-that to me something is missing in the accepted formula for gravity in total. this may be as simple as actual make up or it may be an external entity, not currently discussed, for lack of need.
2-the termination of T-Rex types was not the result of an asteroid, meteorite, the combination of events. i suggested gravity, not commanded it and my other cause reasoning, you have come around to.
actually i have used rats and roaches in explanations of escaping extinction.
seagulls; no. the Panda, is showing no signs of transformation and simply lays back and dies.
as for gravity increase of 50%; we travel into space and incur near zero gravity for a week or longer and have programs designed to allow this. we also have activity to allow an easy entrance back into gravity -1-.
now if we were in the year 65 million BC and animal life had for all practical purposes not changed that much for millions of years, was subjected to a gravity change (not added fat to imply slowdown) and the mechanisms for life support (the heart-kidney etc.) could not handle the additional weights of all fluids and the plants would prematurely drop seeds and fruit as stems designed to hold x pounds and drop at that point would not hold. since my point was the 4-6-8 ton life forms, i would suggest the additional weight of 1/20th, in blood weight would shut down the heart. remember we are talking about the largest species that ever existed and for longer than most anything else, before or since.
i do think IT IS POSSIBLE, the atmosphere in some way COULD play a roll in gravity. i also think friction is in the answer. it may be as simple as the natural wind currents over land causing some action the two forms of mass somehow produce. but i can not currently explain this, so will not pursue the issue.
Come on Jackson, you have no plausible explanation for an increase in gravity. If the earth's gravity did increase 65 million years ago by 50% or so it could only have been by the introduction of extra mass from space in the form of very large meteorites and trillions of them over millions of years, the pressures and heat generated by adding that much extra mass together with the collision energy, would have wiped all life from the planet and the entire fossil record up to that point and, it would have melted the surface back to liquid - it would still be molten today, with an enormously thick shell of CO2 around it. Myth - Busted.
I am sorry if you see my questioning of your statements and demonstration of certain errors in your thinking as a personal attack. Perhaps you would prefer I sit silently while you make statements, in a science forum, that are without scientific basis.
You have suggested, consistently, that you feel some change in gravity could have contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out (as I attack your idea, but not you), a small change in gravity would not cause this effect. Offer up, if you will, a single piece of evidence to support your contention.
Moreover, and this is surely the key point, you have offered absolutely no mechanism by which the Earth's gravity could increase. Waffle about friction and atmospheric effects simply will not do. They will not alter the gravity one iota.
Now you may view the next as another personal attack. It is not. I do not know you. I know virtually nothing about you. I do know, however, that this statement is devoid of any scientific sense at all:
"i also think friction is in the answer. it may be as simple as the natural wind currents over land causing some action the two forms of mass somehow produce. but i can not currently explain this, so will not pursue the issue"
Come on Jackon, share with me just what you think mass is. At least give me some hint why you hold such bizarre beliefs in relation to mass and to the Earth's mass in particular.
your correct, i have no explanation or claim, extra or add on, of matter to the degree that would be needed to kill a 100 ton anything. frankly that would be counter productive to what i do think. the fifty percent thing was a response to the "even if 50%" statement posed.
now i do think something is not counted or currently figured into the formula for gravity. with regards to those poor dinosaurs, trying to rest in peace, it may be that factor could account for there demise, but i am satisfied is was probably environmental changes similar to the mass extinctions of 240 million BC. i will say, it is just as possible the forces of gravity could change to a percentage to take out very large beast and the end result was, a product of food chain disruption, creating the apparent
extinctions of much of life (not near that of 240m BC) 65mya.
again; this discussion has stemmed from a hypothetical situation, when i linked gravity to a possible extinction of life 65m ya. it was and remains hypothetical. my foundation, was based on by premise gravity is not correctly formulated, not with regards to mass or gravitational or magnetic fields or anything necessarily within the planets structure.I am sorry if you see my questioning of your statements and demonstration of certain errors in your thinking as a personal attack. Perhaps you would prefer I sit silently while you make statements, in a science forum, that are without scientific basis.
You have suggested, consistently, that you feel some change in gravity could have contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out (as I attack your idea, but not you), a small change in gravity would not cause this effect. Offer up, if you will, a single piece of evidence to support your contention.
Moreover, and this is surely the key point, you have offered absolutely no mechanism by which the Earth's gravity could increase. Waffle about friction and atmospheric effects simply will not do. They will not alter the gravity one iota.
Now you may view the next as another personal attack. It is not. I do not know you. I know virtually nothing about you. I do know, however, that this statement is devoid of any scientific sense at all:
"i also think friction is in the answer. it may be as simple as the natural wind currents over land causing some action the two forms of mass somehow produce. but i can not currently explain this, so will not pursue the issue"
Come on Jackon, share with me just what you think mass is. At least give me some hint why you hold such bizarre beliefs in relation to mass and to the Earth's mass in particular.
my problem comes from some inconsistency i see in this formula with regards to gaseous or objects with no atmosphere and possibly (since its all hypothetical) black hole theory and movements of systems- solar and galaxy with regards to each other, with in the universe.
the friction caused from fields in cross motion, does create some interesting results and i have not seen any results for gaseous and solid mass, cross (opposite) motion. magnetic fields can be created from friction,
and this magnetic field will attract much more than the common magnet.
as i have mentioned, when i get on some nerves the result is usually an attack on my penmanship, vocabulary or punctuation. i do not always proof read my post, for lack of time, but i try to make my point so obvious, all that would seem of no importance. no, i relish your input and others. if i am forced to rethink a subject or drop it, it would be my pleasure. it takes little effort to accept science-space-time or physics, as is written and question nothing. after all 99.99%, of all mankind does...
I can vouch for Ophiolite that he is not attacking you personally (although he did send me a love letter once...). He simply wants clearer presentation. He also does this with members other than you.
Cheer up,
wm
I just read through all 3 pages of this post, and I'm really confused. I thought it was pretty well established that gravity was a function of mass, and compared with other natural forces, is very weak (i.e. it takes a boatload of mass to create a small amount of gravity...that's why I don't have rocks orbiting my backside) I don't see how atmosphere would have anything to with it, as Megabrain pointed out, our atmosphere's mass is infintesimal compared with the overall mass of the Earth.
I also thought there was something called "Conservation of Mass". Even if there were massive changes in the atmosphere or sea, that mass would have to go somewhere...it doesn't just dissappear. The net mass of the Earth would stay the same...and so would the gravity.
I also don't understand why, if there was a 50% increase in gravity, that this would kill most species. It takes 7-10 g's to cause a human to blackout. Fighter pilots regularly experience this and can grow acustom to it. If there was such a great change in gravity, it would occur rather slowly compared to the life span of most animals. It only takes weeks for aerobic conditioning to increase...the same with muscle strength. Some species might be effected more than others, but life adapts.
Jackson, Please..please..please don't take the following as a personal attack. It is merely a suggestion. When I read the 3 pages of this post, I had some difficulty understanding some of your wording. In many cases, I had to re-read a sentence several times, to try to understand exactly what you were trying to relate. I don't think this is caused by a lack of intelligence, but by trying type as fast as your brain is putting out the words...I know..I do it all the time. Here's what I do: I first type out my post to get the thoughts down, before they dissapate, then I go back and carefully re-read my post and insert words that I forgot to type, correct any mis-spelled words or dropped letters, and insert any punctuation that would allow the reader to know when to pause. If you write for your reader, it makes communication of your thoughts much more easy to understand, without having mis-interpretations. No one here expects perfection..I'm sure there's some mistakes in this post..but a 30-second proof-read can make all the difference in the world. Please feel free to tell me to go to hell.
Ex:
The panda eats shoots and leaves.
Where should the pause be in this sentence? Am I talking about it's diet, or am I saying it consumes food, discharges a firearm, and departs. A simple comma or two makes a world of difference in meaning.
Jackson are you happy now that gravity did not perceptively change?
If you are, then is the basic problem that you are unsure whether a single meteorite could have caused the catastrophe?
If you are not happy that a single meteorite of gigantic proportions was totally responsible then you are far from alone.
I have seen speculation that since the 'extinctions' occur every 65Mys (OMG There's one due!!!), it may be that every 60Myrs or so the orbit of the sun around the galaxy takes us into a dangerous area(even though the orbital period is around 250Myrs), since it seems to be 'regular' it is thought likely to have been a period of bombardment rather than just a single meteorite. I will try and find a credible reference and post it if I can.
It's NOT my theory, and extinctions are not my subject so if anybody else can shoot it down or provide links pls do.
mac; i thank you for the intended, constructive criticism and will work on it.
also i appreciate the fact you looked through three pages, before coming to your conclusions.
your understanding of gravity is no doubt correct and certainly the accepted one in science. my reluctance to totally concede the possible
addition of another factor is based on newer items in the understanding of gravity. Black Holes and the apparent gravitational pull of something that was, about 25 times our sun in mass and reduced by its own weight (assumed by its gravity) and produces for a time a product so strong it is thought to pull light faster than it can travel (total?) along with inconsistencies in galaxy movements to each other, with regards to gravity gives me, in my mind, cause to look for another factor in the formula for gravity. i use the word friction since its the only thing that comes to mind, that all matter must put up with and i do have some reason to feel friction could be a universal force, not considered.
correct, total mass is in itself not changed by whats atmosphere or planet.
it is either-or and total the same.
my premise on the 50 %, was to an assertion, "even if 50%"...that is these
10 to 20 thousand pound beast would not only become 15 to 30 thousand pounds, but all the life giving biological elements would have to change and the operating organs could not adjust. this is probably true, but the 50% was never intended a suggestive degree.
i do think you may have mis-read or misunderstood some of the material since so much was hypothetical and not in any way my opinion. i will look forward to your future thoughts and will input into your and suggest you stay here on earth.
we currently have a dwarf galaxy leaking systems into the MW, that i am sure will generate some debris. think its a few years from total absorption and the last i heard the activity was a about 10 million years from causing us problems. i really think were getting close to being able to handle much of what space catastrophes would offer and short of a giant solar flare or losing the moon, we should be ok for a while.
3 pages of this?
Ok ,, say,, that the earths gravity somehow increased,, 5 % today.
All life forms would adapt, and in the far future, the fossil record would indicate this.
The dinosaurs , along with most every other form of life, were well on the road to decline millions of years before the yucatan event. Yucatan was merely the whipped cream on the sundae.
When the monkeys running this planet get through the next hundred years, Ill be a wee bit more confident about us being able to handle "big problems"
| « Mercury transit -- November 8 | snowball theory » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
