The Laws of the Universe

[Hespera]

I don't know what you are going on about. If the conclusions from the study are false then show that they are:

Impossible Dinosaurs:

"This same look requires that dinosaur lifting requirements be compared to human lifting capabilities. One objection which might be raised to this would be that animal muscle tissue was somehow "better" than that of humans. This, however, is known not to be the case; for instance, from Knut Nielson's, "Scaling, Why is Animal size So Important", Cambridge Univ Press, 1984, page 163, we have:

'It appears that the maximum force or stress that can be exerted by any muscle is inherent in the structure of the muscle filaments. The maximum force is roughly 4 to 4 kgf/cm2 cross section of muscle (300 - 400 kN/m2). This force is body-size independent and is the same for mouse and elephant muscle. The reason for this uniformity is that the dimensions of the thick and thin muscle filaments, and also the number of cross-bridges between them are the same. In fact the structure of mouse muscle and elephant muscle is so similar that a microscopist would have difficulty identifying them except for a larger number of mitrochondria in the smaller animal. This uniformity in maximum force holds not only for higher vertebrates, but for many other organisms, including at least some, but not all invertebrates'

...An ultrasaur or seismosaur with a neck 40' - 60' long and weighing 25000 - 40000 lb., would be looking at 400,000 to nearly a million foot pounds of torque were one of them to try to hold his neck out horizontally. That's crazy. You don't hang a 30,000 lb load 40' off into space even if it is made out of wood and structural materials, much less flesh and blood. No building inspector in America could be bribed sufficiently to let you build such a thing."

I think the point is that base on the size and structure of the muscle either those dinosaurs had supernatural strength to lift their own body weight in 1G gravity or we can infer a reduction in gravity. If you have an alternative explanation then I’ll be happy to hear it.

if the premises are false then the conclusion is.

His 75 ton 'brontosaurus" would be a simple example of his false premises.

 

[Hespera]

Who said anything about "suddenly"?

the point if you missed it is when it was supposed to have changed.

 

[SharpSolaris]

Really? Can you show me the evidence?

For example, we observe the interaction between Whirlpool Galaxy and its satellite - NGC 5195.

 

[Doveaman]

I think there might be another problem that's been overlooked. Let's say that gravity was half the strength it is now. All else being equal the Earth would be orbiting somewhere similar to where Mars is today.

I think what is being overlooked is that there is more than one scientific model of the universe. I can think of one that allows for different orbits in the past and different gravity.

The pressure and temperature in the Sun would be lower, reducing the rate of fusion. The frozen Earth would probably be incapable of supporting the kind of life we know, certainly dinosaurs would be practically impossible.

We are talking about the earth gravity, not the sun's.

Besides, in the alternative model of the universe we once orbited a brown dwarf star, perhaps Saturn in it's former state, before being captured by our present sun.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I think what is being overlooked is that there is more than one scientific model of the universe. I can think of one that allows for different orbits in the past and different gravity.
We are talking about the earth gravity, not the sun's.

Besides, in the alternative model of the universe we once orbited a brown dwarf star, perhaps Saturn in it's former state, before being captured by our present sun.

Are you turning into Agonaces of Susa?

 

[Doveaman]

We can see that your idea that gravity was lower is bunk.

Evidence please.

 

[Doveaman]

if the premises are false then the conclusion is.

His 75 ton 'brontosaurus" would be a simple example of his false premises.

Since when is 70,000 lb the same as 75 tons.

the point if you missed it is when it was supposed to have changed.

It doesn't really matter when if it was a gradual change from low gravity in the past to 1G in the present.

 

[Doveaman]

For example, we observe the interaction between Whirlpool Galaxy and its satellite - NGC 5195.

I don't see how this is relevant. The interaction is said to be caused by "dust".

 

[Nostromo]

I think what is being overlooked is that there is more than one scientific model of the universe. I can think of one that allows for different orbits in the past and different gravity.

I'm sure you're just gasping to walk me through the equations.

We are talking about the earth gravity, not the sun's.

Are you kidding me? I suppose your alternative model has a little section for making physical constants different by just the right amount at one particular place and time in order to solve a specific problem. There wouldn't be a problem if you didn't take everything the religious and/or anti-science crowd say as absolutely true without checking it first.

Comparing dinosaur biomechanics with human lifting capabilities is pretty silly, perhaps you've already seen it, but there's a rough counter to the claims at:
Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters: Structural Issues

Besides, in the alternative model of the universe we once orbited a brown dwarf star, perhaps Saturn in it's former state, before being captured by our present sun.

I almost wish we could just go back to "goddidit".

 

[sandwiches]

Evidence please.

I had a longer reply for you but seeing your response above with "dust," I can see this is another game where you'll simply ignore the evidence, move the goalposts, be purposefully obtuse, or keep claiming that the evidence isn't enough. SharpSolaris already gave you some clear evidence. We can measure their movements, speed, etc and we can see that gravity works the exact same way today as it did 23 million years ago.

 

[Hespera]

Since when is 70,000 lb the same as 75 tons.
It doesn't really matter when if it was a gradual change from low gravity in the past to 1G in the present.

standing corrected on the weight.

did you just try looking yourself for some commentary on this guys ideas?

 

[LanceCohen]

Why do you guys always want to believe the fringe guys, with no credentials, no credibility, no data, and ignore everything else?

Look at what it says about general level of credulity and why you believe a talking snake book.

But you are here debating aren't you?

 

[Hespera]

But you are here debating aren't you?

i some times try to set you guys on track, but you keep tipping off.

is that debate?

do you know why you guys love the fringe / nutcase guys so much, like the hydroplate guy? maybe you can explain it.

no grasp of the most basic stuff, and you want to leapfrog "ahead" into weird science.

why?

 

[SharpSolaris]

I don't see how this is relevant. The interaction is said to be caused by "dust".

Correctly. We see how the galaxy is distorted. It is the force of gravity... You still do not understand ... We do not need any of your thoughts. We see what was the gravity in the past - right now! We see how they interact in the past. We see the force with which they influence each other. Colliding galaxies in the past. We see the force with which the galaxy tear one another. etc What do you not understand?
---
I was curious (If you don't want - don't answer). What could change the gravity about the God?

 

[LanceCohen]

Jesus is said to have said this. Whether he was "son of god" as many others have also claimed of themselves, is another matter. And whether he really said it is completely impossible to verify. Considering all of his supposed words were written many many years alter... who knows?

Yes, I agree. Who knows?

The question was, do you think they are all false. Can you answer that?

I cannot. And do you think they are all true instead? Who knows?

... a theory is to explain data. you have no data.

I don't see anything to stop anyone coming up with a theory first and then look for data. Anyway is not the particle zoo, the standard model, now all theory seeking data, eg the Higgs Boson? And was not Einstein theory the reason people went all over the world seeking for sun eclipses? It is oft said that you see then you know, but I think there are more evidences to suggest the reverse is truer, you know then you see.

And I do see orthodoxy in science, whether you agree or not.

And then there is no need to engage religion in debate if you believe in science, is there? Or get so worked up just because others are generating alternative hypotheses based on non traditional sources and inspirations. You don't have to know that such things are even happening, or just ignore them, it if it goes against your values, or whatever the reasons are for your agitation.

If you know you have the truth, fine. Walk with it, or whatever. I am not going to disturb or upset you by telling you its hogwash. On contrary, I , in fact, do hold the view that science do give us glimpses of truth, and significant ones too, here and there, but of course by my measure of truth, which is not necessarily yours, or anyone else's.

 

[cerad]

I had a longer reply for you but seeing your response above with "dust," I can see this is another game where you'll simply ignore the evidence, move the goalposts, be purposefully obtuse, or keep claiming that the evidence isn't enough. SharpSolaris already gave you some clear evidence. We can measure their movements, speed, etc and we can see that gravity works the exact same way today as it did 23 million years ago.

Nice try but dinos pretty much died out 65 million years ago. Plenty of time for gravity to have evolved to a different strength.

 

[Hespera]

Yes, I agree. Who knows?

I cannot. And do you think they are all true instead? Who knows?

I don't see anything to stop anyone coming up with a theory first and then look for data. Anyway is not the particle zoo, the standard model, now all theory seeking data, eg the Higgs Boson? And was not Einstein theory the reason people went all over the world seeking for sun eclipses? It is oft said that you see then you know, but I think there are more evidences to suggest the reverse is truer, you know then you see.

And I do see orthodoxy in science, whether you agree or not.

And then there is no need to engage religion in debate if you believe in science, is there? Or get so worked up just because others are generating alternative hypotheses based on non traditional sources and inspirations. You don't have to know that such things are even happening, or just ignore them, it if it goes against your values, or whatever the reasons are for your agitation.

If you know you have the truth, fine. Walk with it, or whatever. I am not going to disturb or upset you by telling you its hogwash. On contrary, I , in fact, do hold the view that science do give us glimpses of truth, and significant ones too, here and there, but of course by my measure of truth, which is not necessarily yours, or anyone else's.

A theory, in some informal sense, can be whatever you want to call it I suppose.

A scientific theory tho.........A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

No data, no theory. simple.

Any reason to make up insulting / condescending things about my emotional state?

Did you forget this or just cant explain it? i am kind of curious...

do you know why you guys love the fringe / nutcase guys so much, like the hydroplate guy? maybe you can explain it.

 

[Doveaman]

Are you turning into Agonaces of Susa?

I'm not a uniformitarianist, if that's what you mean.

 

[LanceCohen]

i some times try to set you guys on track, but you keep tipping off.

That is condescending and gratuitous isn't it? It is uncalled for. As I've said I won't try to set you "on track". You be whatever you be. If we tip off, you can't rest to let us be?

do you know why you guys love the fringe / nutcase guys so much, like the hydroplate guy? maybe you can explain it.

who are "you guys"? Who are the "nutcase guys"? Everyone can be what they want, nutcase it may seem from another's view. Well you could be a nutcase to me, for all you know, wasting so much of your time here talking to what you called nutcases. Maybe you can explain that!

no grasp of the most basic stuff, and you want to leapfrog "ahead" into weird science.

Since when are things just linear? And need I repeat, let the weird be weird? What is that to you?

And I do not think I am "insulting" you, am I? But if you feel so, my unreserved apologies then.

 

[Hespera]

That is condescending and gratuitous isn't it? It is uncalled for. As I've said I won't try to set you "on track". You be whatever you be. If we tip off, you can't rest to let us be?


who are "you guys"? Who are the "nutcase guys"? Everyone can be what they want, nutcase it may seem from another's view. Well you could be a nutcase to me, for all you know, wasting so much of your time here talking to what you called nutcases. Maybe you can explain that!


Since when are things just linear? And need I repeat, let the weird be weird? What is that to you?

PS: If you're merely curious, just ask whatever as your curiosity needs, and if you think you can be of value, such as putting people on "track", don't you think you need to ask first, even if you are offering to "help"?

Welll, so, what am I to you? You are not obligated to read or respond.