MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The AEL Goes AudioVisual (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:

Maybe the Earth fluctuates in diameter. Before the dinosaurs it was small, and the largest creatures were about the size of a horse. Then it expanded and the gravity reduced to 80% of its present level allowing the dinosaurs to grow so big. Since then it has been contracting (or oscillating?).


Not quite there yet Grant.

Gravity is a property of mass -- the more mass the stronger gravity works.
In a particle accelerator a particle gains mass when it is accelerated.
To do this it is contained within an electromagnetic field
The stronger the field the more the acceleration.

Stationary field > accelerated particle = more mass = more gravity

BUT! What if this was tried?

Stationary particle > accelerated field = _______? = _______?

Now substitute the real world

______________? > _____________?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
It's amazing that someone who professes such unorthodox thought can use such orthodox statement when a pet theory is at stake.


Komi. Should you ever once develop an original notion of your own, on that day you will have earned to right to pass judgment.

As for me, I am confident that my work will ultimately be found to be consistent with whatever evidence is available from tree-rings or conch shells. It is only the present interpretation of such evidence that appears inconsistent.

Do you really think it wise for me to close the books on my own work because of tree rings? I rather think I ought to follow my own investigation where it leads and discover whether, at some point, it can be rationalized with material from other sciences or whether the paradox must be tolerated.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ish wrote:

I rather think I ought to follow my own investigation where it leads and discover whether, at some point, it can be rationalized with material from other sciences or whether the paradox must be tolerated.


You can start by rationalising the fact that the Earth's gravity has changed. And with it its rotation rate.

The reason you don't believe the Earth's rotational rate has changed is because it is a requirement of your 'original notion' and anything contrary will consign your grand theory to the dustbin. I'm confident the fossil evidence and the dinosaur/variable gravity theory will be validated.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
The reason you don't believe the Earth's rotational rate has changed is because it is a requirement of your 'original notion'


Again Komori. Still waiting for you to come up with one original thought.

For the record, the reason I'm not dumping my material on the basis of a few tree-rings is that my work eliminates an enormous number of astronomical anomalies and it isn't even the slightest bit speculative. It all works using established laws of physics. I'll go further: The established rules of Newtonian physics appear to make my conclusions necessary.

It is my hope that one day, the tree-ring evidence will be shown to be consistent with my conclusions. But we won't find out if I'm supposed to stop looking now.

...and anything contrary will consign your grand theory to the dustbin.


Oh for god's sake. We could do with a little less drama. One can't help but feel you're practically salivating at the thought.

I'm confident the fossil evidence and the dinosaur/variable gravity theory will be validated.


Look my friend. I've read On Growth and Form as well and I am more than familiar with the arguments concerning the necessity of reducing Earth's gravity to support large creatures like Dinosaurs and giant insects. I am keeping an open mind on the subject. I'm not committed either way.

Moreover, it is actually quite easy for me to place a smaller, gravity-reduced planet within my system and keep its rate of rotation constant. Not only is it easy to do that, keeping even an expanding Earth's rate of rotation constant is what we would expect to happen within the gravitational context I've established for the Earth.

But because the expanding Earth is not necessitated by my work, it is best not to mix these parallel and not necessarily conflicting theories.

HOWEVER....you should note that expanding Earth will not solve all of the gravitational problems alleged to be associated with megafauna. Just 12,000 years ago (by conventional chronology), this creature flew in the skies:






Not even the most ambitious Earth-expander will suggest the planet ballooned in just the past 12,000 years.

But what if there was another way to reduce gravity on the Earth?

I'm keeping my eyes open.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ish wrote:
Not even the most ambitious Earth-expander will suggest the planet ballooned in just the past 12,000 years.


Who said anything about an expanding Earth -- not me

But what if there was another way to reduce gravity on the Earth?


There is -- you change its mass -- some time in the last 12,000 years.

I'm keeping my eyes open.


Great. Glad to hear it, now all you have to do is look in the right direction.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why would changing the mass prompt a change in the rotation rate?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

For Chrissake! The far more staggering question is how did the earth change its mass in the last 12,000 years? Is it not subject to the Law of Conservation of Mass?
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote

BUT! What if this was tried?

Stationary particle > accelerated field = _______? = _______?

Now substitute the real world

______________? > _____________?


But why then has no-one built an anti-gravity machine?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
For Chrissake! The far more staggering question is how did the earth change its mass in the last 12,000 years? Is it not subject to the Law of Conservation of Mass?


Well I'm not an advocate of the proposition.

What notions I have entertained for reducing gravity concern net reductions in the surface experience of gravity. No reduction in mass. But even this is not any primary focus of my thoughts.

Nevertheless, as a thought experiment, it's valid to ask what effect reduction or increase in mass might have, just so we'd know what to look for if such a thing occurred. Explaining how it happened is secondary.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
For Chrissake! The far more staggering question is how did the earth change its mass in the last 12,000 years? Is it not subject to the Law of Conservation of Mass?

In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves.

The assumption of orthodoxy and the bulk of this forum is the Earth and all the other ponderous bodies in our Solar System are ISOLATED bodies affected only by gravity and have been stable for a very, very long time.

Why did only the Dinosaurs die out?
Why did only the Megafauna die out?

In a ball game between giants and midgets who wins the game if there is NO BALL?

The reason the big stuff died out is because something happened that only affected the big stuff.

Wham! Bam! Thankya Mam! The Bigoid one buries itself into the Gulf of Mexico and starts a chain reaction that caused a nuclear winter. No sunshine, no photosynthesis, no herbage regeneration. When the last herbivore dinosaur macerated the last bit of herbage and died leaving no prey for the carnivores to prey on thus bringing about their own demise. What did the inheritors of this landscape survive and thrive on if everything was dead, including the biosphere?

That was the dinosaurs several million years ago, but what of the Megafauna just 10,000 years. Where was the asteroid, the nuclear winter, the destruction of climate? Nowhere to be seen. The ice melted. And through a series of improbable scenarios that orthodoxy can neither agree on nor find evidence for, we are expected to believe that only the big stuff died out.

And you thought astronomy was full of holes.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The reason the big stuff died out is because something happened that only affected the big stuff.


I can see an increase in gravity killing off the giant dinosaurs...but what about all the little dinosaurs, medium sized dinosaurs and elephant sized dinosaurs that became extinct with them?

I'm not keen on the idea of having one event killing off the large members of the family and another seeing off the little ones (but coincidentally at the same time)...much better to look for a single event that would account for the entire family's demise.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
The assumption of orthodoxy and the bulk of this forum is the Earth and all the other ponderous bodies in our Solar System are ISOLATED bodies affected only by gravity and have been stable for a very, very long time.

Komori. Please give the attitude a rest. No one here assumes anything of the sort.

When I began my own investigations, I searched in vain for a reason to invoke electro-magnetism. I simply never found a place (except one important place!) where it was needed. Everything else could be explained using good old fashioned Newton.

When I get somewhere that won't fit Newtonian physics, no one will be more happy than me. I truthfully was hoping to find some mechanism that would supercede Newton. Instead, I found that Newton has never been applied with suffiicent rigour for, when he is, many anomalies in our Solar System go away.

The reason the big stuff died out is because something happened that only affected the big stuff.

Of course, many of the dinosaurs were small.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ish wrote:
When I get somewhere that won't fit Newtonian physics, no one will be happier than me. I truthfully was hoping to find some mechanism that would supersede Newton. Instead, I found that Newton has never been applied with sufficient rigour for, when he is; many anomalies in our Solar System go away.


It is not that Newton can or can't be applied. It is who decides what is an anomaly and what is not. We went through this with SCUM only to find in the end, despite a well conceived theory and movie, that the entire premise is built on an increasingly ill-founded orthodox assumption -- that stars are degenerating fusion reactors that will one day expend all their THEORISED hydrogen fuel.

The science facts are that orthodoxy can neither prove the hydrogen content nor the method by which it is consumed. NOT EVEN IN A THEORETICAL MODEL.

I told you before 'just because a theory can explain an observation does not mean the observation proves the theory'. This is the old logical fallacy of mistaking correlation with causation.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No matter how sexy the variable, I can't introduce it where it is unnecessary to the equation.

So far, everything is working with Newton. Well... Newton plus a little simple magnetism (the origins of which support the proposition that the cosmos does have electrical charge).
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Then let's see it.

It's about time you put your Theory where your mouth is.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Page 6 of 9

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group