Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?

It was impossible for the largest dinosaurs to have supported their own weight under round earth conditions as there is no mechanism for round earth gravity to have varied over the ages.

The U.A., in the past, may have been a lower force, gravitation would have been lower than today, so under flat earth conditions the larger dinosaurs could have existed.

Please discuss.

For anyone wondering what the OP is speaking of:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/biganims.html


It would be a lot easier to show a change in something such as the UA, which is based on energy flow, as compared to gravity, which is based on mass. The only way to change past gravity on a round Earth would be to lessen its mass. The UA, however, could be shown to have a varying energy flow that has strengthened since the time of the dinosaurs.

For anyone wondering what the OP is speaking of:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/biganims.html

Thank you, I was about to modify my post. You beat me to it.

Are you sure that the fossils did not grow over time?  Besides, dinosaurs could not have existed in the 5000 years that the Earth has been around.

Are you sure that the fossils did not grow over time?

Many fossils are made out of very dense bone material. They do not expand over time.

  Besides, dinosaurs could not have existed in the 5000 years that the Earth has been around.

We're working hard on improving the quality of upper discussions. These sort of silly statements need to stay in the lower forums.

I degress.  Damn damn pain meds.

Holden's calculations are based on assumed weights of dinosaurs that are way out of date. More recently, large sauropods have been estimated to be much lighter. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/9312462/Dinosaurs-much-lighter-than-previously-thought.html

Holden's calculations are based on assumed weights of dinosaurs that are way out of date. More recently, large sauropods have been estimated to be much lighter. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/9312462/Dinosaurs-much-lighter-than-previously-thought.html

Did you read what they came up with, though? Their estimation is still larger than any other land animal in the world. A little over four times larger. That still leaves their paradoxical existence intact.

For anyone wondering what the OP is speaking of:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/biganims.html


It would be a lot easier to show a change in something such as the UA, which is based on energy flow, as compared to gravity, which is based on mass. The only way to change past gravity on a round Earth would be to lessen its mass. The UA, however, could be shown to have a varying energy flow that has strengthened since the time of the dinosaurs.

There is overwhelming evidence that an advanced breed of dinosaur (Troodon) which has evolved over time, is still amongst us today..  Their empire of tunnel networks just large enough for their body size have been discovered along with eye witness accounts.

Why exactly would the Dinosaurs not have been able to support their own body weight? A skyscraper does not collapse under it's own weight. This is because it's structurally sound. Large dinosaurs had large, dense bones, and presumably had the strong muscles to go along with such large bones, otherwise they would have been crushed under their own weight regardless of the gravitational force exerted upon them. If something lives in an environment, it must be because it has evolved/adapted the that environment over time. This means that the Dinosaurs could, and in fact did, support their own body weight under the ~9.8m/s² of force exerted upon them throughout their lives. There would have been no proportional difference between a dinosaur then, and a bird today. Each can support their own weight under the gravitational force. If they could not have, they would not have grown so large.

Comparing a biological creature to a building made of reinforced concrete and steel is one of the most absurd analogies I have ever seen on this forum. The rest of your post appears to be made of the oh-so-common "I'm making this up as I go" argument. Try again.

Comparing a biological creature to a building made of reinforced concrete and steel is one of the most absurd analogies I have ever seen on this forum. The rest of your post appears to be made of the oh-so-common "I'm making this up as I go" argument. Try again.

It is not that absurd.  Long ago, dinosaurs used to construct various edifices using other dinosaurs.  Fossil remains indicate that structures containing up to 15 stories is not something to be excluded from what is feasible.

Well, the RE'ers who believe that the Earth is expanding might have some way round the problem, but they're a minority group within RET.

Why exactly would the Dinosaurs not have been able to support their own body weight? A skyscraper does not collapse under it's own weight. This is because it's structurally sound. Large dinosaurs had large, dense bones, and presumably had the strong muscles to go along with such large bones, otherwise they would have been crushed under their own weight regardless of the gravitational force exerted upon them. If something lives in an environment, it must be because it has evolved/adapted the that environment over time. This means that the Dinosaurs could, and in fact did, support their own body weight under the ~9.8m/s² of force exerted upon them throughout their lives. There would have been no proportional difference between a dinosaur then, and a bird today. Each can support their own weight under the gravitational force. If they could not have, they would not have grown so large.

Wow, okay. This is a fail across many disciplines. Physics, mathematics, general biology, and evolutionary biology strike me as the most offended. Follow this link and understand why there is a finite limit to the size of dinosaurs.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw

A quick summary, because I know learning hurts many people's brains, is that volume increases to the cube. Or, a bone that could hold X amount of weight, cannot simply scale up to accommodate each pound of weight added. This is why all the neognaths can only grow so large while maintaining the ability to fly and this is why the size of dinosaurs is such a crippling problem for round-earthers.

A possible solution to the Dinosaur Paradox?
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/solution.html

I understand the square cubed law, but the fossils are there. That's enough to show that if man can figure out a way around it, so can nature. The dinosaurs were there, they were that big, and they supported their own weight.

I understand the square cubed law, but the fossils are there. That's enough to show that if man can figure out a way around it, so can nature. The dinosaurs were there, they were that big, and they supported their own weight.

Of course that assumes that we know how to properly interpret the fossil record.  That may not be a safe assumption.

The problem is, even if the size of certain dinosaurs does create a problem, it doesn't actually prove the earth is flat. The "paradox" of a dinosaur not being able to support its own weight is the same on both a flat earth and a spherical one. If the only explanation to the dinosaur paradox is that the earth's gravity must have been less, there is no evidence for any mechanism present in Universal Acceleration to account for this change in upward velocity, and the paradox remains.

The only reason you think it's a win is because unlike Gravity, Universal Acceleration is completely made up and therefore you can change any or all of its parameters to suit you, without having to prove it. You can claim anything you like about it and because it's not reliant on any historical evidence or confirmed scientific theory it will always be "true" for whatever you need it to do at the time. It's a magical force that can be anything it wants and therefore will always give you the answer you want to hear.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 11, 2012, 06:07:41 AM

I understand the square cubed law, but the fossils are there. That's enough to show that if man can figure out a way around it, so can nature. The dinosaurs were there, they were that big, and they supported their own weight.

Of course that assumes that we know how to properly interpret the fossil record.  That may not be a safe assumption.

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting. Perhaps we put the wrong bones together? Perhaps (as has been suggested and thoroughly researched by others) we miscalculated body mass/proportions of the animals?

Quote from: markjo on September 11, 2012, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 11, 2012, 06:07:41 AM

I understand the square cubed law, but the fossils are there. That's enough to show that if man can figure out a way around it, so can nature. The dinosaurs were there, they were that big, and they supported their own weight.

Of course that assumes that we know how to properly interpret the fossil record.  That may not be a safe assumption.

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting. Perhaps we put the wrong bones together? Perhaps (as has been suggested and thoroughly researched by others) we miscalculated body mass/proportions of the animals?

I'm not really suggesting anything other than pointing out that the fossil record is notoriously incomplete and can be interpreted many different ways.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 11, 2012, 06:47:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 11, 2012, 06:11:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 11, 2012, 06:07:41 AM

I understand the square cubed law, but the fossils are there. That's enough to show that if man can figure out a way around it, so can nature. The dinosaurs were there, they were that big, and they supported their own weight.

Of course that assumes that we know how to properly interpret the fossil record.  That may not be a safe assumption.

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting. Perhaps we put the wrong bones together? Perhaps (as has been suggested and thoroughly researched by others) we miscalculated body mass/proportions of the animals?

I'm not really suggesting anything other than pointing out that the fossil record is notoriously incomplete and can be interpreted many different ways.

Gotcha. Well it's obvious, for some reason, the animals were quite large. I don't think it has to do with a lower gravitational force though.

The only reason you think it's a win is because unlike Gravity, Universal Acceleration is completely made up and therefore you can change any or all of its parameters to suit you, without having to prove it. You can claim anything you like about it and because it's not reliant on any historical evidence or confirmed scientific theory it will always be "true" for whatever you need it to do at the time. It's a magical force that can be anything it wants and therefore will always give you the answer you want to hear.

Absurd. You cannot "claim anything you want about UA". It is a measurable force. The dinosaur question is interesting because it is suggestive of a time in the past when UA may have been less. Perhaps UA is gradually increasing over time. That is a valid scientific hypothesis. Perhaps we can deduce an approximate value for this constant increase in UA over time by determining from the dinosaurs sizes what the rate of UA was millions of years ago.

Of course, another possibility exists: instead of a gradual change in UA over time, there may have been an abrupt one. Perhaps even.... this abrupt change in UA is what killed off the dinosaurs. Sounds a lot more plausible than the "they were all hit by meteors" theory.

Quote from: Tristan on September 11, 2012, 06:40:53 AM

The only reason you think it's a win is because unlike Gravity, Universal Acceleration is completely made up and therefore you can change any or all of its parameters to suit you, without having to prove it. You can claim anything you like about it and because it's not reliant on any historical evidence or confirmed scientific theory it will always be "true" for whatever you need it to do at the time. It's a magical force that can be anything it wants and therefore will always give you the answer you want to hear.

Absurd. You cannot "claim anything you want about UA". It is a measurable force. The dinosaur question is interesting because it is suggestive of a time in the past when UA may have been less. Perhaps UA is gradually increasing over time. That is a valid scientific hypothesis. Perhaps we can deduce an approximate value for this constant increase in UA over time by determining from the dinosaurs sizes what the rate of UA was millions of years ago.

Of course, another possibility exists: instead of a gradual change in UA over time, there may have been an abrupt one. Perhaps even.... this abrupt change in UA is what killed off the dinosaurs. Sounds a lot more plausible than the "they were all hit by meteors" theory.

Wouldn't it be possible for a big meteor impact to change the UA?

Of course, another possibility exists: instead of a gradual change in UA over time, there may have been an abrupt one. Perhaps even.... this abrupt change in UA is what killed off the dinosaurs. Sounds a lot more plausible than the "they were all hit by meteors" theory.

Much in agreement with my thinking. This theory explains why no large dinosaurs continue to this day, and some small dinosaurs, in bird form, still exist.

Wouldn't it be possible for a big meteor impact to change the UA?

It wouldn't change the UA, per se, but adding a large amount of mass would require more force from the UA in order to maintain a constant acceleration.

It could be that a large meteorite impacted the Earth, knocking off a large piece, the remaining Earth would then accelerate more rapidly thereby increasing gravitation

This would explain everything.

..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

I'm not sure if you've read anything about the extinction theories of dinosaurs or not, perhaps you just scanned through. It was not "they were all hit by meteors." That would require numerous meteors of the perfect size to break through the atmosphere and make it down to the surface and strike each individual precisely where it would kill them, suggesting an intelligent design and a planned genocide, which is highly unlikely. The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Quote from: Dino on September 11, 2012, 08:06:05 PM

..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Correct. It knocked of a large piece which is why the Earth started to accelerate more rapidly.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 12, 2012, 08:14:38 AM

Quote from: Dino on September 11, 2012, 08:06:05 PM

..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Correct. It knocked of a large piece which is why the Earth started to accelerate more rapidly.

And where did this piece of the earth go? Can you substantiate this claim?