Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth
Archived Comment Page (December 1998-July 2000)
  • Add a Comment
  • Current Comments Board
  • Newer Archived Comments (Dec 1998-July 2000)
  • Return to Main Page

    • Archived Comments

    Re:
    date May 2, 1998
    From (not given) in Romania
    Web site found: Other.

    COMMENT:
    I believe that gravity has increased, the Earth has not expanded and gravity has increased since the Dinosaurs time.


    Re: THE GRAVITY FACTOR
    date Jun 25, 1998
    From FRANCIS O'SHEA at in Vancouver Canada
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    I have often wondered about the depiction of dinos in books, film magazines etc. The scale of the trees and plants are usualy shown as they are today. I dont realy understand how some of the larger dinosaurs would have moved about in a forest without trampling whole groves in their wake. If there where herds of sauropods I can imagine the wreckage caused to trees today. Were the trees bigger? Or did they grow faster? Or were they pliable and soft like grass so they could just bend? I can imagine sauropods and the large carnivors moving about on large open expanses but I have a hard time seeing large numbers of animals this size trundling through the bush. The other question I have is what did they eat. Saoropods that is. Maybe they where grazers of a type of grass. Any ideas? Francis O'Shea

    Reply to THE GRAVITY FACTOR from DinoX
    date July 1, 1998

    A reduced gravity during the Dinosaurs time would affect all land based life, so the plants should grow larger. All the forms of land based life should have still have been in proportion to each other but larger. The reduced gravity would have affected the Dinosaurs, Plants, Insects and any Flying Creatures. I've looked for data on the scale of Plants in support of my theory but I've been unable to find any information. This is probably due to the fact that Plants don't fossilize very well and are not studied in great detail. I believe grasses evolved after the Dinosaurs became extinct. The Plants were mainly ferns during the Dinosaurs time.

    Re:
    date Jul 7, 1998
    From Utahrraptor at in Spain
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    I think that is not correct this explanation the expanding earth. The true is that the dinosaurs has a different metabolism

    Reply to a different metabolism from DinoX
    date July 11, 1998

    It used to be a common theory that the Dinosaurs were reptiles with slow metabolisms and it was this slowness that allowed them to become as large as they did. However, the reptiles of today are smaller than mammals. If a slow metabolism tended to produce large animals then I would expect today's reptiles to be among the largest animals alive today. This is not the case.

    Re: About how dinosaurs became extinct
    date Jul 7, 1998
    From Brian Lewis Ledgerwood at don't have one in United States of America
    Web site found: Not given..

    COMMENT:
    I have studied dinosaurs all my life ever since I was 8 now I,am 16.I Think it was in their cell to be so huge because I believe that back then the world was smaller so it caused them to be larger. I also think that a comet hit the earth an destroyed all life of the dinosaurs. AND IT WILL HAPEN AGAIN!!!! by Brian Lewis Ledgerwood 7/7/98

    Reply to how dinosaurs became extinct from DinoX
    date July 11, 1998

    There is certainly a growing body of evidence that massive comets have regularly hit the Earth every 30 million years or so. One of the conclusions of my theory is that the Earth must have been bombarded with a massive amount of cosmic material. I'm thinking of something in the region of over a million times more than the present. Just to give you an idea of how much I'm talking about imagine you spend an hour tonight looking for shooting stars and are lucky enough to see five. If you looked during one of these cosmic bombardments you would see over 1000 every second. You might well wonder why the cosmic material should increase so much, but if you look at any good astronomy book it will describe the cosmic dust lanes that are present in the galaxy. These are over a million times more dense than the space the earth is presently traveling through. Once the Earth enters the next dust lane the amount of cosmic material hitting the Earth will increase by an unbelievable amount.

    Re: Dinosaur Bones
    date Jul 20, 1998
    From James at in Southeast Asia
    Web site found: Other.

    COMMENT:
    Boreing talk about a can collection! Why couldn't it at least be interesting t-rex blood guts all that stuff maybe even a raptor or something cool like that it needs to be like Jurrasic Park or even the Lost World, at least it was interesting

    Re: t rex
    date Aug 17, 1998
    From teddytwo at in austrailia
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    I don't know.

    Re: Fossil Dino tracks
    date Sep 9, 1998
    From Mark C in Norway
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    You should be able to prove your theory fairly easily. Estimated mass of dinosaurs are known. Compare this to the depth of the imprint of a fossilised dinosaur track. Most tracks are found in shale/mudstone which is still being formed in tidal estuaries etc. today. From the depth of the imprint and the estimated mass, Figure out the creatures' weight required to make the imprint. From that figure out the gravity - All fairly easy and obvious I would have thought..

    Reply to Fossil Dino tracks from DinoX
    date Sept 12, 1998

    I seem to remember some Dinosaur experts pointing out that the depth of fossilised footprints don't seem deep enough for the size of the larger Dinosaurs. An argument presented in support of this was that if the largest Dinosaurs drank at a typical waterhole the animal was in great danger of sinking into the mud and sand beside the water. It would most probably become trapped whenever it tried to drink. This problem is removed in a reduced gravity of course. In my book I've shown a few graphs of the changing force of gravity estimated from sizes of prehistoric life. You may be able to request the book from your local library if you are interested. I know there are some copies in Europe but I'm not sure where they are. Look at pages 79,80 & 129 if you do get to look at a copy.

    Re:
    date Oct 24, 1998
    From me at in Canberra
    Web site found: Not given..

    COMMENT:
    I think insanity would be fun, but I've never tried it. Any comments from all you people out there who take this page seriously?

    Re:
    date Oct 25, 1998
    From the kondo at in eire
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    i am sorely confused as to why someone would be cofused about the dinosaurs size...consider the facts......they had no real predators....no-one has ever said how long it took them too reach their enormous size....reptiles live considerably longer than we do.....perhaps they merely survived to their great size through luck..that is natural selection at its best....and only appeared to have a stable size when they died from being unblanced in mobility and availablity of ntuaral food suppliments.....then again I could be totally wrong...it could be just a huge scam? remember the truth is not out there but in here......!
    Re: Increased surface is NOT equal to increased mass
    date Nov 13, 1998
    From Digital at in US
    Web site found: In a newspaper.

    COMMENT:
    There are a few "Faults" (excuse the pun) in your arguement. First, the surface of the Earth has been expanding due to the upwelling of magma from the Earths core. This "Expanding" of the Earth from midocean rifts causes the spreading of the continents - not increasing size (mass as you use the term). Gravity is a direct relation to mass, in order to increase gravity, you must increase mass. This would entail adding several tons of mass to the Earth every second to account for the increases you cite. This could only be acheived by the bombardment of several mountain sized meteroites every few minutes. This bombardment would result in an equal increase in heat from the energy released through friction and impact. Such a bombardment would heat the surface to equal that of a small star. This would not only have ended dinosaur, but ALL life on the Earth. A much more plausible answer would be that in the age of dinosaurs Earth had much more oxygen in the atmosphere. This has already been confirmed from plant samples of the time. Oxygen has an opposing effect on plants and animals. Animals get larger, and plants get smaller. This is exactly what the evidence shows. Animals were larger because of increased oxygination rates (metabolism) not decreased gravity. Next time try a little more physics and a little less math.

    Reply to Increased surface is NOT equal to increased mass from DinoX
    date Nov 21, 1998

    I quite like maths. I can use maths to calculate what gravity must have been at the time of the Dinosaurs to allow them to grow to such massive sizes. It’s bio-mechanics that allows me to look at the stress levels in the skeletons of these long extinct animals to point out that they are much too high for today’s gravity. And it’s physics which allows me to point out that gravity would be less on a smaller, and reduced mass, Earth.

    Re: Questions...
    date Nov 13, 1998
    From John R. Rybock at in Hyde Park, NY
    Web site found: Other.

    COMMENT:
    Expanding earth is an interesting theory I've just been introduced to on this page thanks to a CNN link. However, looking over a few articles (and I have not been able to read them at depth), I have a couple Qs. The book that this page links to mentions that as the earth expand, the density increases. It says this matter- of-factly, as if it is a given. However, as volume increases, density DECREASES (mass/volume). What studies are there concerning mass gained and lost by the earth over the years? Because for the density to increase, the mass would have to increase at a greater rate than the volume). And for the changes proposed by the theory, I would think, from a quick glance, it would need to be a good sized increase. Anyone have any further info I can find on that?

    Reply to Questions from DinoX
    date Nov 21, 1998

    My whole book is about why I believe the mass of the Earth must have increased. To my knowledge I’m the first one to suggest this theory.

    Re: Dinosaur size
    date Nov 14, 1998
    From Blake Boles in Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    Dear Sir, Your theories on the reason for dinosaur mass are extremely intriguing; I've often wondered if the Earth's mass and or density could have an effect on an ecosystem's fauna. However, there's still something else to consider, particularly in sauropods. Despite their gargantuan proportions, their heads were still miniscule by comparison. Even if Jurassic Earth would allow the size of such creatures, how could they possibly keep such mass properly nourished? I believe that the botanical fauna of the time may have been super-nutritious, and not necessarily a plant that's been discovered yet. Also, their gastrointestinal processes must have usurped every last molecule of nourishment from their fodder. I want to compliment you for elaborating on such a bold idea. The world of paleontology could use more minds like you. I would be honored if you would e-mail me back; I don't get to talk about dinosaurs with anyone around here (being 25, most of my peers are intensely involved with the process of procreation). I wish you the best of luck, and hope to hear from you in the future. By the way, is it me, or is Suchomimus so similar to Baryonyx that it's scary?

    Reply to Dinosaur size from DinoX
    date Nov 21, 1998

    You raise an interesting point about the Sauropods’ small size heads in relationship to their massive body size. It’s interesting to note that because they would effectively weigh less in a reduced gravity they would expend less energy and therefore need less food. It is therefore logical to surmise that the Sauropods would only need small heads to consume this reduced volume of food.

    Re: energy source for expansion and increasing gravity
    date Nov 17, 1998
    From E.-J. Achterberg in Netherlands
    Web site found: Other.

    COMMENT:
    The expanding earth theory seems to offer an interesting and consistent explanation for continental drift. However there seem to be two very basic problems with the physics. 1. What would the energy source for the expansion be? In order to expand the earth a trmenedous amount of energy is required. The earth is kept at it's present diamter by pressure from the inside. This pressure would have to increase to expand the earth. If the earth has been cooling since it's formation this would decrease pressure, and shrink, not expand the earth. 2. Increasing the earth's diameter while keeping earth's mass constant would decrease gravity, not increase it. alternatively, where would the mass come from?

    Reply to energy source for expansion and increasing gravity from DinoX
    date Nov 21, 1998

    Explaining the physics behind the Earth’s expansion has been the major stumbling block to understanding what is happening. My proposal that gravity has increased since the Dinosaurs time indicates that the mechanism for this expansion is mass increase. In my book I have proposed a number of possible reasons for this mass increase: new matter creation, cosmic particles, and cosmic dust bombardment but I’m still far from certain what is causing this increase in the earth’s mass.
    Re: Dinosaur pictures
    date Nov 26, 1998
    From David at none in England
    Web site found: Not given..

    COMMENT:
    I think a dinosaur picture gallery would be good especially for a student like me

    Re:
    date Nov 29, 1998
    From tamara in utah
    Web site found: Through a search engine..

    COMMENT:
    i had never really thought about the size of dinosaurs before the subject of you web site just caught my attention and made me think now i guess i will have to do more research on the subject

    Re: Just some raw arguments
    date Dec 9, 1998
    From in Australia
    Web site found: Other.

    COMMENT:
    I'd like to present some arguments about your theory. I believe that increasing mass of the earth is happening. This would be due to the followings: - meteors hitting the earth - minute cosmic materials attracted by earth gravity - the decrease in temperature, which means lost of energy,in which the energy might have been converted to mass. However this alone could not possibly change the gravity as much as you have proposed. There must have been other significant factors that support the gigantic sizes of the Dinosaurs. I suppose you'll have to include this in your proposal, instead of going berserk, so as to make the theory more presentable.