Dinosaurs and Treetops

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

Ray14dot4:

Gee, what did we say? (Good thing he didn’t stumble into any of our really good nit-pickers, huh?)

Ray, you posted a link to a site that presents a fairly unfamiliar theory. Your defense appealed first to “they laughed at. . . .” and then appeared to call for matter simply popping into existence with no further explanation.

As noted, I do not dismiss the “exapnding earth” idea out of hand, but it would help your position if you did more than throw out little tidbits and then pout when they weren’t accepted or admired.

Since the site that you did linked contains several historical errors regarding the time-line and the currently accepted mechanisms for plate tectonics, (which I am willing to ascribe to the author of the web site, rather than to S. Warren Carey), I see no reason to simply fall down and worship at your postings. If you have an actual argument that you can lay out in a coherent fashion, feel free to do so. I’d enjoy seeing it. If you are going to wander off in a huff because you got tweaked for bad analogies and incomplete information, I doubt that we’ll miss you.

Tom~

22

Ray14dot4, I’ll certainly check the site out. Sounds interesting, even if it flies in the face of what I’ve taken for granted all these years. We’ll see if I can be convinced.

23

Not to mention that the site is the work of an obvious loony. It has all the classic signs – paranoia, insistence that the orthodox side is going to collapse any day…

Now, of course, the fact that the theory is supported by a loony doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.

But it sure as hell doesn’t improve the chances of it being right.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

24

I couldn’t resist returning here for a peek. Yes Tom I was in a huff mainly due to having skipped lunch and breakfast and partly because of JWKjr’s totally ignoring the topic.

Momotosa I admire your openmindedness.

Auraseer you’re stating ONE theory. But you helped make my point. You said (stars are) “constantly generating more energy”. I think Albert proved E=M (we don’t need the C^2 here). Hmm, just where is all of this energy (matter) materializing from? Has it existed since the beginning of time and if so where was it before then? Don’t tell me about the dust cloud theory because then I’ll ask where the dust came from
and why dust should be mysteriously congealing to form stars. And a heck of a lot of dust must be balled together to form a supernova.

Also, it seems to me that in order for a massive star to become a black hole it would have to be ADDING more mass until the point of implosion. Otherwise it would ALWAYS have been a black hole. The original theory was that no energy could escape from a black hole. But now we know that they emit enormous amounts of radiation. And so on.
One look at a volcano or earthquake (especially in the Pacific Ocean) tells me our Earth is a producing massive amounts of energy/matter. If our planet’s core was just an inert mass of molten rock and iron one would expect it to be cooling not erupting. (Maybe we would be experiencing global cooling not warming?)

Tom, if I seem impatient talking about the subject it’s because I’ve been following it for years, I’m not a very good teacher, and I hate repeating theories when that can be easily accessed elsewhere. As you can see we have diverged from the original expanding earth/ dinosaur subject on to cosmology, philosophy and physics. This what makes the subject so exhausting and a facinating.
Again, I strongly urge anyone whose interested to read the work of Professor S. Warren Carey a preeminent geologist who brilliantly addresses many of these ideas. Amazingly, (I guess they cleared the copyright with him) his latest book is on the web in toto at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/HomePage.htm#Earth Universe

The geological stuff is a bit heavy but the latter half of the book dealing with universal theories is lucid.
BTW, there are many other books related to this subject in one way or another. P.A.M. Dirac for example wrote about the multiplicative creation of matter in his book “Directions in Physics”.

JWKjr. go away. You haven’t added anything here except your recital of high school science history and calling a webmaster a loony. Read S. Warren Carey’s book. Be careful you don’t fall off the edge beyond your horizon. And please lose that pseudointellectual signature quote.

25

Ray14dot4 wrote:

If you think that, you’re sadly mistaken.

You’re misinterpreting my statement, as well as the concept of energy/mass equivalence.

The sun is not “creating” energy out of nowhere. A helium nucleus contains less energy than a pair of independent protons (helium nuclei). When hydrogen fuses to form helium, it falls to that lower energy state; the extra energy has to go somewhere, and is thus emitted as protons.

Yes, the mass has been around since the beginning of time. Asking where it was “before that” is meaningless, because we’re talking about the beginning!

I’m sure you have heard of the Big Bang theory, and it’s apparent that you don’t accept it. I don’t even want to attempt an explanation of Hawking’s theories on imaginary time, so we’ll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

I tried to explain this in my post above, but apparently you didn’t get it, so I’ll be a bit more explicit this time.

In a big cloud of hydrogen, every atom exerts a gravitational force on every other atom. This pull causes the cloud to slowly collapse. Since its mass stays the same as its size decreases, it increases in density and pressure. Also, the distance between particles shrinks, so the gravitational force grows, making the collapse accelerate.

Over a long period of time, the pressure at the center of the cloud continually rises, which also increases temperature (pv=kt). Eventually, if the cloud was big enough to begin with, the temperature and pressure become high enough for hydrogen to begin fusing. At this ignition point, the cloud is now called a star.

Understand yet?

Of course I don’t fit in; I’m part of a better puzzle.

26

Eh, why were dinosaurs so big?

Only humans do inhuman things.

27

See what I mean Tom and Momotosa? The topic has been lost and some people are going wild with their narrow tangential “expertise”.
BTW, I have to confess I never read the whole Expanding Earth site I posted. I scanned it and noticed that S. Warren Carey’s excellent stuff was contained there so I assumed the entire site was well written. Apparently I was wrong and I apologize to all if the webmaster is somewhat of a shrill loony.
Speaking of which, Auraseer you’re starting to sound a bit shrill:

You never mentioned “dust” you mentioned hydrogen clouds. Does dust = hydrogen in your vocabluary? Good God, there was a special about stars on the Discovery channel last night which made the differences quite clear. Read you own words before you bite someone’s head off:

OK, I’m through nitpicking.
Let’s bury the hatchet and acknowledge that we all roughly know the current, conventional explanations for most of the popular physical phenomena. We’re here to explore alternativetheories.
Part of what I set down here is my opinion
and part is the opinion of others I’ve read.

To explore the possibility of whether the earth could have been smaller in the time of the dinosaurs (hence less gravity), let’s start with the dust cloud theory:

Dust clouds gravitationally coalesce to form
stars.

My question to you Auraseer is:
If sufficient dust (mass) collects to form a star large enough to become a supernova why does the supernova have to undergo an explosion before it can implode and become a black hole? If it is burning up it’s “fuel” it should losing mass and never become a black hole. If it had sufficient mass from
beginning it should have become a black hole instantly.
I submit that the nuclear creation of matter in the core of the star causes it’s mass to increase to the point where it explodes and then collapses. A similar nuclear reaction is taking place in our earths core.
Your reply?

28

Quite obviously, Ray, you do NOT understand “the current, conventional explanations” for star formation or star evolution. Let’s try one more time.

DUST DOESN’T FORM STARS!

Stars form from coalescing gas. Dust and rocks and such are thought to form planets of rocky nature (such as Earth).

As for the bit about black holes and supernovae, you are not reading what people are writing, nor, apparently, have you taken the time to read a simple astronomy text. Now perhaps someone here has the patience to tutor you in basic astrophysics, but, frankly, I don’t feel like it when I know you don’t want to listen. But if you are going to question accepted theories (a practice I encourage - it forces the mainstream to actually support theories with logic and evidence), then you MUST start by understanding the processes involved. There are some reasonable ways to attack mainstream astrophysics. Starting the attack by talking about dust forming into stars doesn’t help.

29

DSYoungEsq:

Glad you’re not my lawyer. You interpret theories as fact and you’re condecending which makes this trait even more amusing.
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/95/44.html

Dust and gas are clearly mentioned here. Even
the scientists writing these press releases call star formation theory “speculation”. If it were simply hydrogen (per Auraseer) we’re talking about we’d have a photo of nothing (since H is colorless except under spectrography).
That’s why the scientists use the term EGG’s.
I was using the term “dust” generically, you use “gas”.

All pure theory and once again we’re not getting anywhere on the original topic due to parrot-like recitations and obsessive semantics.

Thank you Mr.“Tutor”

LOL

30

Ray, do you even READ what you link? <lol>

That is from your link. Note that, while there is dust in the nebula, there is no dust in the EGG’s. I recommend actually READING what the site says about star formation. :wink:

As for not seeing hydrogen (sigh), you really should learn a thing or two about what happens when light from inside or behind a cloud of interstellar molecular hydrogen (or any other gas) excites the gas. One of those things is that it GLOWS. Hence, the fact it can be seen. :wink:

Of course, if you had read the site, you would know that too, since it talks explicitly about this in discussing ‘photoevaporation.’

Every post like this you make makes you more clear, I’m thinking… <giggle>

31

[[All pure theory and once again we’re not getting anywhere on the
original topic due to parrot-like recitations and obsessive semantics. ]]

Hey Ray, chill babyman. I appreciate your contributions on this thread muchly, but people are free to take the topic (almost) anywhere they like.
Jill

32

Ray14dot4 has exactly six posts on the MB, all of which are in this thread. His profile is blank, including his email address.

I don’t want to accuse him of being a troll, but I’m not going to waste any more time trying to educate him.

33

The reason why Dionsaurs are so big is more simple than everyone thinks. Dinosaurs were on Earth for millions of years, they have all that time to evolve. Just the same way Humans are getting bigger so did Dinosaurs they just had alot more time to do it. All Dinosaurs probably started out small and over the eons evolved to get bigger so they could survive. Many animals go through Gigantism, its a sign that they are nearing the end of thier species.

34

Oh my God! We’ve got a believer in orthogenesis!

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

35

Hey! Who let that Irish Elk in here?

36

Except we are getting smaller.

Cro-Magnon was 6 feet tall. We are averaging 5’11" for males and 5’5" for women. We did get taller to make up for poor nutrition in the middle ages but we haven’t grown a bit in decades.

Our bones aren’t as thick as Cro-Magnons, either. We were called “gracile” but we are boardering on dainty.

We can’t even fit our allotted number of teeth in our gums anymore.

See, you’ll never grow up to be a dino. Find another dream.

Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley

37

[[We can’t even fit our allotted number of teeth in our gums anymore.]]

Speak for yourself. I never had wisdom teeth.
Jill
more highly evolved.

38

Jill says, “Speak for yourself. I never had wisdom teeth.”

That’s right! That’s right!

Jill is more highly evolved. Woo!

And it is purely natural selection (unless you come from a place that gets you jaw X-ray before marriage) for teens often died of serious infection before antibiotis and dental surgery arrived. Got to breed more often…

15% of Europeans have 2 wisdom teeth missing.
In Asia it goes up to 30% in some regions.

From Stringer, of course, “African Exodus” pp. 228

Jill, you need to add this to your sig line.

Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley

39

Cro-Magnon?! Cro-Magnon are vastly different then modern man. Once modern man moved into Cro-Magnon territory the Cros disappeared. Therefore useing Cro-Magnon to compare modern man against is a flawed argument. We are not decendents of Cro-Magnons. Also, there is a column of this site that Cecil answered, titled Are humans still evolveing? And guess what Cecil said…Yes humans are getting bigger, stronger and faster. Thus it stands to reason in a few more thousand years if the human species is “challenged” enough people on the whole will get even bigger and stronger.

40

I’m not going to be the one to send them a post card and tell them.

Maybe you shouldn’t either. Early Europeans, anatomically modern humans, called Cro Magnons from the site in SW France where first discovered, are Homo sapiens sapiens.

The real McCoys–

Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley