Anche se consideriamo tutte queste immagini come false (e possono tranquillamente esserlo):
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp
Ci sono due ipotesi che mi “intrigano”.
Una è questa (che, tra l’altro, concorda con l’Ipotesi Nemesis):
Una è questa (che, tra l’altro, concorda con l’Ipotesi Nemesis):
L’altra è stata elaborata
da un geologo statunitense, John Stojanowski.
Prima edizione:
Seconda edizione:
I suoi commenti (nickname
“Theorist”) sono disponibili online, qui:
1. The Earth’s cores’
position (both inner and outer) are dependent on the positioning of the
continental plates.
2. The plates have
rearranged their position throughout time, sometimes coalescing to form a
supercontinent, such as Pangea.
3. The Earth’s surface gravity
is directly and primarily determined by the position of the cores.
4. When the cores shift
from their central location, surface gravity decreases at points furthest away
from the shifted cores and simultaneously increases at surface points that are
closest to the shifted core. A surface gravity-gradient results.
5. When Pangea formed,
surface gravity was much lower on Pangea but much higher on the opposite
oceanic side of the Earth.
6. The gravity gradient
would result in the lowest surface gravity near the central, or equatorial,
part of Pangea. Therefore, the largest life forms for a specific species, for a
specific time period, would be in this region. (Note: this is why I made the
comment that Quetzalcoatlus remains, which were found in Texas would not be
found in either high northern or southern latitudes).
7. Larger terrestrial and
marine life forms became possible. As in the current time, there is always a
diversity of size regardless of the strength of surface gravity. In other
words, lower gravity does not force all life forms to grow larger.
8. As Pangea broke
apart, surface gravity on Pangea increased and the rate of increase was
greatest when the continents started rapidly moving apart longitudinally
approx. 68-65mya. The result was an accelerated extinction rate for both
terrestrial and marine life.
9. Since the time of the
K-T boundary, the rate of increase of surface gravity has decreased as the
continents have attained a more even global distribution as the cores have
returned to a central position.
10. When the cores were
shifting, they magnified the effects of flood basalt volcanism. This type of
volcanic activity originates at the core/mantle boundary. This is why the massive
Deccan Traps volcanism was active 68-65mya.
*****
The idea of variable
gravity is not preposterous as someone has stated. The blue whale cannot be
compared to Mesozoic sea-going reptiles for one basic reason. The reptiles were
carniverous, unlike the blue whale. Some of them were very large but being
carniverous, they had to move quickly. Whether in pursuit or ambush mode, they
had to move at a speed that the blue whale could not. Thus, their size and
shape were constrained. I don't agree with some of Holden's conclusions. The
basic premise that gravity was less during the reign of the dinosaurs......I do
agree with.
The size of some of the
dinosaurs gradually increased and was at a maximum near the end of the Jurassic
Period, as was pointed out. Their size diminished until the transition period
(of about 65mya). Clearly, if the gravity explanation is viable, the Earth's
surface gravity (on Pangea but not necessarily the entire surface) had to be
increasing from the end-Jurassic through the transition period. And, the rate
of change of the increase had to be much higher at the transition period to
account for the final demise of the dinosaurs, pterosaurs and other Mesozoic
life forms.
*****
PTERODACTYLS WERE TOO HEAVY
TO FLY, SCIENTIST CLAIMS
This is the headline of an
article in the www.telegraph.co.uk in January 2008. It describes the research
of a Japanese scientist who studied the flight of the albatross. His
conclusion, as noted in the headlines, is that the large pterosaurs could not
fly. I should rephrase that and say that they could not fly if they were here
today.
Qui l’articolo scientifico:
I don't think most people
who have seen the re-creations of the pterosaur would believe they could not
fly over 65 million years ago. Therefore, something was significantly
different. I believe that difference was gravitational.
Neither Expanding Earth nor
spin variations can account for significant variations in surface gravity. The
only reasonable theory is the one that links the movement and positions of the
continents to the movement of the Earth's core(s). That movement would have a
significant influence on surface gravity because of the inverse square (of
distance) effect. The consolidation of the continents (i.e., Pangea) would
cause a significant change in surface gravity. If this theory is correct, and I
think it is, surface gravity began to slowly increase as Pangea rifted and
increased significantly when the continents moved apart rapidly about 65mya. It
would have increased after that and gradually increased to its present value as
the core(s) returned to their central, current position.
*****
I was able to find some
more information on Quetzalcoatlus. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs,
by Dougal Dixon, states that Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of about 37 feet and
"Despite its great size the skeleton was lightly built and the whole
animal may have weighed not more than 100kg (220 lbs)."
The Japanese scientist,
Katsufumi Sato, who concluded that the pterosaurs would not be able to stay
aloft, concluded that the maximum weight for a flying animal is 40kg (88lbs).
What is interesting is the ratio of the two weights 88/220. If the basis of
this analysis is correct, this would imply surface gravity was almost 1/3 of
today's value at the end of the Cretaceous.......a stunning conclusion and even
less than what I assumed.
There are a few assumptions
here. The first one is that both the pterosaurs and the birds the scientist is
studying use a vertical, and not a running, takeoff. Actually, the scientist
does not address takeoffs. He asserts that these large pterosaurs could not
flap their wings fast enough to stay airborne.
Also, the core-shift theory
would entail variations in surface gravity.....the maximum low gravitational
value at the center of mass of Pangea, basically in an equatorial location. If
true, then we would most likely find the remains of Quetzalcoatlus in what was
equatorial regions in the late Cretaceous.... not in places like Canada,
Australia or other higher latitude locations.
*****
You are probably correct
that there is no (known) data to support any kind of large gravitational
changes during the Phanerozoic. But, this subject, to my knowledge, has not
been studied. We're not addressing the conventional "gravitational
anomalies" caused by variations in sub-surface densities. And, your
statement that there is no "core shift theory" is not correct,
although it might not be formally known by that name.
As far as the locations of
the poles is concerned, there was substantial wandering of the poles during the
Mesozoic, although not abrupt
*****
THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.
Let me repeat:
THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SURFACE GRAVITY WAS NOT LOWER IN THAT ERA.
*****
I challenge you, as I
requested previously, to supply a reference to a peer-reviewed source that
concludes, based on angle of repose or anything else, that there was never any
fluctuation in the Earth’s surface gravity.
*****
I posed the question about
the Superchrons, not to obfuscate, but to provide one of the strongest pieces
of evidence that the G-Theory is correct. The foundation of G-Theory is the
movement of the Earth’s cores. If the cores did not shift, then G-Theory can be
tossed in the trash bin of theories that have not panned out. All the other
circumstantial evidence, such as the gigantism of dinosaurs, the anomaly of
giant pterosaurs flying, the decline and disappearance of many terrestrial and
marine life forms toward the end of the Mesozoic, including all the sea-going
reptiles and the ammonites, would have to be explained by some other theory.
I have given one other
supporting piece of evidence concerning the shifting of the cores and that was
the massive flood basalt volcanism which occurred during the periods in
question. I think it is reasonable to assume that some major core anomaly,
which has not happened with the same intensity in the last 30 plus million
years was responsible. What could that be? I don’t believe anyone responded to
that evidence.
G-Theory posits the
following concerning the shifting of the cores:
1. When Pangea was being
formed, from basically the Carboniferous through the Permian Periods, the
consolidation of the continental plates caused a corresponding movement of the
cores in the opposite direction.
G-THEORY ATTRIBUTES THE
KIAMAN LONG REVERSED SUPERCHRON TO THE CORE(S) MOVEMENT.
No other theory can explain
non-polar-magnetic-reversal for a period of about 56 million years. There was
no other process that has been identified that could act continuously over such
a long time period.
2. When Pangea began to
break apart, another long term event, the rate of plate separation was much
higher during the Cretaceous Period, the time of massive extinctions.
G-THEORY ATTRIBUTES THE
CRETACEOUS LONG NORMAL SUPERCHRON TO THE CORE(S) MOVEMENT.
No other theory can explain
non-polar-magnetic-reversal for a period of about 40 million years. There was
no other process that has been identified that could act continuously over such
a long time period.
Is it
just a coincidence that the REVERSED magnetic polarity of the first Superchron
occurred when the cores, according to G-Theory, moved away from the Earth’s
center and the second Superchron’s NORMAL magnetic polarity occurred when the
cores, according to G-Theory, moved toward the Earth’s center?
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento