A New Spin
"Ask not how dinosaurs got extinct, ask how they existed":
A New Spin
By: Joel Tepper
http://www.hightechbuzzwords.com/spin.htm
"I'm astounded by people who 'want' to know the universe
when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown."
-- Woody Allen
"What is this?"
-- The short answer:
Its an attempt to rationalize the existence of the giant dinosaurs
in the past even though their viability on the earth as we know it,
is puzzling. WARNINIG! This is not a theological (i.e., creationism/intelligent-design) point of view.
-- The long answer:
The following is not meant to introduce yet another theory for the demise
of the dinosaurs. Rather, it explores the past basic physical
parameters of the earth (not necessarily its environmental condition) that could enable
animals, weighing some 100 tons, to thrive for millions of years. Inevitably,
it will lead to conclusions about the dinosaurs' ultimate end when these
parameters suddenly changed, but that aspect is only secondary to the more
fundamental question, namely: given their enormous size, what made it possible
for these creatures to live and function in the first place?
For the impatient:
Given what we know about the size and function of the various giant dinosaurs,
their existence in the past is far from trivial. Can an eight ton
predator --nearly twice as big as the African elephant-- stalk
and give chase to prey similar to how a lion or a tiger would? (Apart from Jurassic Park III, that is.)
A simple analysis based on fundamental physics seems to suggest that nature sets a limit on
how big animals can grow and still remain viable. This, in fact, refers
to the weight of a creature rather than its sheer size which leads to
an inescapable conclusion that despite their size these animals must have
weighed no more than the corresponding big animals alive today.
From the three factors that determine the weight of an object, the only
one that realistically may have been different at the time of the dinosaurs
is the speed of the earth's rotation. If we are to conclude that the earth
was indeed spinning faster at that time, it would have given rise to a higher
centrifugal force. This force, which opposes gravity, would cause these big animals
to weigh no more than what their big counterparts weigh today and everything would
"fall in place," so to speak (including 40 feet wingspan, cold blooded birds).
"What is next then?"
The following will attempt to prove that big creatures of a given size
could not have existed and functioned on the surface of the earth as we
know it. A condition that could make it possible for them to exist, will
then be outlined and a hypothetical event which could have changed this
condition will be proposed. Last, but not least, a simple procedure
that can be carried out by an informed reader to either prove or disprove
the suggested hypothesis, in part or in whole, will be described.
(See also why dinosaurs remained cold blooded and
how a bird with 40 feet wingspan could fly, in the comments section.)
Contents
i. "What is this?"
ii. -- The short answer:
iii. -- The long answer:
iv. For the impatient:
v. "What is next then?"
1. The bigger they are ...
2. Is there a limit to growth?
3. Not
convinced yet? What does rate have to do with it?
4. Why aren't any such big animals alive today?
5. What, then, made it possible for them to take their place in the earth's
history?
6. But aren't weight and size one and the same?
7. Are we talking change in gravity, then?
8. What is centrifugal force and how could it affect the weight?
9. What is it that made earth's spin to slow down?
10. Where is the proof?
11. What is there left to do?
Acknowledgment.
Comments.
Appendix: documented evidence from independent sources.
1. The bigger they are ...
During the court case that followed the super-tanker Exxon Valdez environmental
disaster, it was revealed that the crew initiated a change-of-course maneuver
which would have taken some 45 minutes to complete (it was never
completed since the ship ran aground shortly thereafter). A kayak could
have turned around in a matter of seconds, once on a dangerous course,
but for a super-tanker it is just not possible.
Why can't a super-tanker turn on a dime like a kayak can? In
order to answer this question you may have to go back to your high school
days. You may remember a physics experiment of a mass hanging on a spring
performing a "simple harmonic motion." You may recall that when the mass
was increased it still bobbed up and down, but more slowly. It was
said that as the mass increases, the "physical system" takes on a lower
"natural frequency".
Nature clearly dictates that as size increases, the natural frequency
decreases,
and hence the system slows down. Therefore, one would expect a big
bell to have a low tone (a sound of a low frequency) i.e., having slow-changes;
and a small bell to have high tone (a sound of high-frequency) i.e., having
fast-changes.
The next time you have a chance to peer into a grand-piano’s entrails,
notice that the strings on the left side (corresponding to the low keys)
are long and thick, i.e., having high mass (big) while those on the right
(the high keys) are short and thin, i.e., having low mass (small).
The same principle applies to animals. We intuitively associate a deep low-pitched
bark with a big dog and a high pitch as belonging to a yappie little fellow.
It follows that whether for objects or animals, the bigger they are, the
more sluggish they have to be.
2. Is there a limit to growth?
As animals grow in size there must be a point where they can no longer
sustain life since they become too slow to function. In order to test the
validity of this statement we need to conduct a little "thought experiment."
Let's assume that this 100-ton plant-eater, which is often characterized as not
having to move much, is just doing precisely that. Namely, it is just lying
there on its fat stomach amidst the lush vegetation which literally grows
into its mouth. All it has to do is just bite mouthfuls of the stuff to
feed itself.
Since the animal is cold blooded we can safely disregard any energy
it may require for its normal bodily function. The only energy it expends
is directed to its mouth muscles moving its enormous jaw up and down constantly
in the process of feeding itself. Every mouthful it takes, on the other
hand, contains exactly that amount of energy in vegetation so that the energy expended
is equal to the energy gained and the animal is doing fine-thankyou.
Now, let that animal grow to twice its size. In order to maintain its
proportion, it grows eight times in volume and weight (it has to grow twice
in length, twice in width... you get the picture). Since the jaws become
eight times their size and weight, their muscles require eight times the
energy in order to make them function. However, the volume of the
mouth also grows eight times and every mouthful contains now eight times
the amount of vegetation and energy, so there should not be any problem, right? Wrong!
Having grown considerably larger, the animal becomes slower as we
have seen above. Although, its mouth can deliver the required energy in
each mouthful, it does that at a much lower rate than the jaw muscles
require to constantly operate. Consequently, unless that animal can transform
itself to a government or to a major corporation (both of which can thrive
on a deficit) it is doomed!
3. Not convinced yet? What does rate have to do with it?
Let's make the following analogy to clarify the situation:
Assume you moved into a big cottage which takes a truckload of firewood a day to keep warm.
You hire a truck which delivers the needed firewood every day. Your place
is nice and cozy.
You then build some extravagant additions to the cottage
and as a result it now takes eight loads of firewood a day. You go ahead
and hire a bigger rig that can deliver eight loads in one trip. However,
it does that only once a week instead of every day. Pretty
soon your place is going cold.
When it comes to animals, mother Nature with help from Physics, her daughter,
together with granddaughter Engineering, seem to suggest that there is
definitely a limit to growth.
4. Why aren't any such big animals alive today?
There doesn't seem to be any direct evidence to suggest that the limit
to growth has been reached with the African elephant (at least no evidence
that is likely to stand in a court of law) but there is plenty of circumstantial
evidence. Perhaps the jury, employing just their common sense, can yet be convinced.
It can be argued that it is just an accident of nature that no animal
bigger than an elephant evolved since the age of the giant dinosaurs.
The fact is that such animals actually have evolved although not on land.
There are big whales alive today (provided the last one hasn't been
hunted down, that is) which are nearly double the size of
the biggest dinosaurs that ever lived! It appears that some animals
will always grow to the maximum size possible in their given environment.
It suggests that the African elephant, small as it
may be in comparison to the giants of the past, is just the maximum
an animal can grow on land today and still remain viable. (Okay, somewhat of
a leap of faith if not of logic here, perhaps a better case can yet be
made with the following arguments.)
A case can be made by looking at the constrains that a horse faces. As
the saying goes: "They shoot horses, don't they?" (At least they used to,
let's hope they don't need to do that anymore.) This saying refers to a situation
where a horse, which had the misfortune to injure a leg to the point where
it couldn't bear weight, had to be euthanized to prevent it from dying in
agony. It is not so much that the leg wouldn't heal, rather, the horse
was not expected to live long enough for the leg to heal. The rationale
was that since the leg can't bear weight, the horse will have to lie down
and that will cause its lungs to collapse under its own weight. But, don't
horses lie down from time to time? Yes, they do, but they must be
doing it for "recreational purposes" only and for short periods. The fact
remains that a horse has to spend its days (and nights!) standing up or it will
be crushed under its own weight.
If such a "tiny" animal, by comparison, is facing such severe restriction to its
"lifestyle" due to weight; how can an enormous beast (whose weight is equivalent
to the combined weight of an entire herd of some 200 horses) is expected to have any
kind of lifestyle to speak of?
A whale, comparable in size to a big dinosaur, which is pulled out
from the sea and left on the beach is known to get crushed under its own weight.
This should not come as a surprise on the face of it since the whale,
literally, does not have any legs to stand on. However, it mustn't come
as a surprise should a Structural Engineering analysis of a 100 ton
dinosaur suggest that it had to be in the form of a giant centipede (if not a
millipede) in order to adequately support such a structure. Similarly,
it shouldn't come as a shock if a Material Strength study concludes
that the legs had to be made-up from stone to begin with (on the live animal,
that is!) in order to withstand the compression imposed on them
by the overlying structure.
Unable to substantiate these last statements, the jury will have to be
instructed to ignore them. But even without these statements, the jury may
already have serious doubts about the possibility that such animals could survive
under the earth's present physical parameters, let alone function and thrive
the way they did for millions of years.
5. What, then, made it possible for them to take their place in
the earth's history?
In one word: weight or rather, lack of it!
It is the weight, not
necessarily the size, which gives rise to all the restrictions discussed above. It
was the weight that slowed down the mass which hung on the spring in the high
school physics experiment; and it is the cause for slowing down the big
animals and, of course, the ultimate limit to their growth.
It follows that if we take for granted the existence, in the past, of the big lizards
(the size of which can exist only on a world many times smaller than
the planet Earth) their weight must have been much lower than what their
size suggests.
6. But aren't weight and size one and the same?
Not necessarily! You must have seen the grainy black-and-white video-clip
of an astronaut hopping like a jack rabbit with all his gear on his back.
His size hasn't changed on the moon but his weight has.
Take the case of the whale discussed above. When its weight is stated it
refers, no doubt, to its "virtual weight" on land, not in its natural
environment (i.e., in the sea) where it would be much lower (which by the
way, explains how it could grow to such a size without violating the limit-to-growth).
The big dinosaurs’ size is given but their weight is only deduced. After
all, when their remains are dug up, they never come wrapped and labeled
stating their weight like a package of beef on the shelf of your neighborhood supermarket.
The weight is only estimated and is based on the size of the finding;
and on the assumption that weight was then what it is now. This assumption
could of course be wrong. As we have seen above, it is most
likely wrong.
The size of a single big dinosaur may have been equal to the combined
size of a herd of 20 elephants, but its weight must have been no more than
that of a single member of the herd, so that it complied with the limit-to-growth
and remained viable. Such an animal could roam around, forage and do what
elephants do today despite its huge size.
There is an added bonus to this. It explains how a giant predator could have
functioned. The weight of what is usually considered to be an eight-ton beast,
would proportionally fall somewhere between that of a lion and
a grizzly bear, which would render it well suited to its role.
7. Are we talking change in gravity, then?
Yes and no! Generally speaking, gravity is responsible for a given body
weight. But this is somewhat of a generality. In fact there are two more
factors that participate in determining the weight. These are buoyancy
and centrifugal force.
Both of these factors act in diminishing the weight of the
body, but their effect is so minimal that it can be safely neglected.
The centrifugal force constitutes less than one percent of the force of gravity
and buoyancy even way less than that. Therefore, it is not a terrible
mistake to say that gravity determines the weight.
This is the situation nowadays. If we are to investigate the possibility
that weight was different in the past, we ought to examine all the factors
involved, not just gravity, in order to try and determine the reason for
the lowered weight. Take for example buoyancy. While its effect is negligible
on land, it is a major factor in the sea and is the main reason for the
weight of a whale to be what it is in its environment. (A way less than what it
would be on land.) Buoyancy, therefore, should not be dismissed off hand
without any consideration of its possible cause for the weight change.
Let us examine gravity itself first. In order to bring the weight
of a big dinosaur to that of an elephant, gravity in the past had to be
one twentieth of what it is today. That suggests that the earth,
subsequent to the time of the dinosaurs, gained mass by either colliding
or somehow merging with an extraterrestrial body some 19 times its own original mass.
Experts, however, can point to permanent marks in the form of craters as a result of
collisions with very small objects relative to the earth. Therefore,
it is impossible that a collision with a body, 19 times more massive than the
earth, has not left any mark whatsoever on the earth's surface. Hence, an
increase in gravity must be ruled out as a cause for the weight change.
Next we look at buoyancy. Every object on earth is immersed in air (in
essence, a form of fluid) just as it would be if immersed in water for a sea creature.
Buoyancy constitutes a major factor in water but only a minor one in the air.
The reason is that the density of water is nearly
a thousand times that of air. While the air could have changed throughout
that time in composition and concentration, it could not have changed in
density in any significant way to make much of a difference. Therefore
buoyancy can also to be ruled out as the cause for weight change.
The only factor that is left is the centrifugal force. Although there is no
direct proof that the centrifugal force was any different in the past,
there is equally no proof to the contrary. The mere existence of big animal
fossils may, by itself, constitute such a proof.
8. What is centrifugal force and how could it affect the weight?
The centrifugal force arises due to rotation. The classic example is a
rock tied to one end of a rope. As the rope is held at the other end and
is being rotated fast in the horizontal plane, the rope becomes tight.
The centrifugal force tends to pull the rock away from the center of rotation.
Now, those of you who are card-carrying members of the "Flat-Earth-Society,"
will have to take my word for the next statement: The earth is rotating
on its axis. How fast does it rotate? Fast is of course a relative
term, and as far as we can tell, it doesn't move at all since everything
around us moves at the same speed. But to compare it to, say, a ticket-carrying
driver (speeding ticket, that is) it is way faster. In fact, at the region
of maximum speed, any point is zooming by at a velocity due to the earth's
rotation which exceeds that of a supersonic jet going at Mach-1.
The rotational velocity gives rise to a centrifugal force which opposes
that of gravity. Consequently, its effect is to reduce somewhat the gravitational
pull and hence, the weight of any object on the surface of the earth. However,
as things stand now, the centrifugal force effect is minimal and is usually
neglected.
As for everybody out there (with or without membership cards) you have
to take my word for it that at the time of the dinosaurs the earth was spinning
on its axis approximately 17 times faster than it does today. How did the
earth come to spin so fast? For all we know, there is no reason why
it didn't do so from the "beginning" but more on that later.
A faster spinning earth would have constituted a strange world indeed. You
could have been persuaded, in such a world, to consider "working
from home" (also known as: "Telecommuting" or, "Telework") since by the
time you would have made it to the office most of the day would have gone
by. It would have taken only around three-quarters of an hour from dawn
to dusk. But other than that, not much of a difference.
It wouldn't be possible to tell that the earth is spinning fast more
than than it is today.
It did make all the difference for the giants
of the time though. It enabled them to carry on with their lives
and function as intended. (And there is no need to constantly try to "shoehorn" them
into functioning in the present state of slow spin.) The biggest land
animal ever would have weighed just as much as an African-elephant, which
most likely was the limit-to-growth on land then, as it is now.
9. What is it that made earth's spin to slow down?
It may have been decaying with the passing eons, but that is not very likely
(besides of not being very exciting). On the other hand, there is no reason
to think that slowing down happened all of a sudden. In fact, there may
not be any direct evidence whatsoever, and it may never be known for sure
what caused the earth to slow down. All that can be done to answer this
question is to suggest a way that it could have happened (perhaps
even likely to have happened) and no more. Hence, the following
attempt to explain the cause for the earth's diminished spin is purely
speculative (not that the forgoing lacked this element...) and
if you don't buy it feel free to substitute your own version.
Clearly, the hypothetical event that will be described below is in no way essential
to the forgoing, the goal of which has been to outline the physical conditions
which made it possible for the dinosaurs to exist on earth.
So, here comes a take on a possible cause for the earth's slow spin. It may appear objectionable
and bizarre to some. Remember: this is not an eye witness account; I was not there when it happened.
In an article, titled: When Stars Collide, Michael Shara describes
a hypothetical scenario whereby a super-dense star, such as a "white-dwarf",
slices through the sun in a matter of a single-hour and continues on its
way unperturbed. Taking this at its face value, and assuming that
such a small and dense extraterrestrial object happens to zoom very fast
through the solar system, it may have proportionally passed by the earth
in a matter of seconds.
If you are all set to go and look for the marks
left by such an encounter, good luck! There may not be any. The above article
seems to suggest that a grazing encounter, or a near-miss, can affect
the stars involved and even fling a star from its location. Such an encounter
could no doubt affect the earth's spin.
The scenario for the earth loosing its fast spin is, therefore, set.
A small object of high-density could have passed by the
earth at a very fast speed (fast even for bodies of this sort) in a direction
which happened to be opposite to the earth's rotation. To visualize, think
of a wheel rotating fast in a certain direction. If the wheel is hit with the
palm of the hand in a glancing angle opposite to the direction of its rotation,
the wheel may slow down, come to a complete halt, or even end up rotating in the
opposite direction.(Warning! Don't try it at home, just take my word for it,
unless you happened to own a workman's heavy-duty leather glove.)
This extraterrestrial body could have done just that to the earth by moving very
fast in a direction opposite to the earth's rotation. Its trajectory could
have been very close, but not too close to entangle itself in the earth's
atmosphere. The effect of the encounter on this dense object may have been
only of academic interest but the earth could well have been
left with a new spin.
This event could have lasted only a few seconds, but the hell it inflicted
on the earth is just mind boggling and defies any imagination. Try to imagine
a tidal wave which comprised the entire ocean as a result of the whiplash
the ocean underwent. In fact, every object which was not firmly attached
to the ground, including all the creatures that inhabited the surface of
the earth, must have suffered a similar fate and the bigger they
were the harder they were hit.
The biggest dinosaurs fared the worst. The force of the whiplash
could have literally ejected them into space. They may have been completely
incinerated in the atmosphere, fallen back to the ground scorched or, ended
up soaring in space forever. The implication of this may be that no remains
of "live" animals were ever found and all the fossils ever uncovered have been
of those animals which were already long dead and buried prior to this encounter.
Terrible as the end of the big lizards may sound, the
alternative for them on an earth with a new slow-spin, would have been
an agonizing death from lethal overweight with no hope for the future.
10. Where is the proof?
Should humans ever undertake space travel a' la Star Trek, they may
come across a scorched dinosaur floating in space which would constitute
the ultimate confirmation of the above scenario. In the mean time, it
can only be used as a topic of a science-fiction story.
There is, however, a shorter prospect for proving (or disproving) this theory.
In order to visualize it we need to examine more closely the encounter outlined
above and appreciate the fact that it would have caused not only a change
in spin, but in all likelihood, a change in the axis of rotation as well.
Hence, It would have established a new equator and new poles.
The rationale is as follows:
The earth was modeled above as a two-dimensional flat wheel (perhaps
something like a bicycle-wheel). The reality is that the earth is a three-dimensional
sphere, more like a playground ball than a bicycle-wheel. Also the trajectory of the body
which zoomed by can be modeled by a vector having three components corresponding
to a three-dimensional space. Although this trajectory was basically aligned with
the earth's rotation and indeed pointed in the opposite direction, it was
in all likelihood, pointing also sideways however slightly.
This would have been enough to cause the ball to flip on its side and, therefore, make it spin on a
different axis as well as with a different speed of rotation.
The scenario of the trajectory having a small diversion from a perfect alignment
is by far more likely to happen than a perfect alignment with no sideways component.
In order to test the validity of this theory the following steps need to
be taken. First, all the locations where the remains of the biggest animals (either predators or
plant-eaters) were discovered are marked on a globe. Next, a straight
line is drawn throug all these marked points. The line should go around
the globe and close on itself. This line outlines the [old] equator which was in
place before the onset of the catastrophic event described above. Accordingly,
the [old] axis of rotation and the [old] poles were perpendicular to the
drawn line.
Such a line could tentatively be drawn from Australia through India,
passing Europe, going through the Atlantic ocean to Argentina and from
there passing by Antarctica back to Australia. This would possibly outline
the [old] equator. While it may explain how dinosaur remains were found in
polar regions, it misses locations such as in the USA where large animal
remains were found. The remoteness of these locations from the [old] equator
could perhaps be due to continental drifts or, the findings in these
locations will turn out to be after all, of animals not as large as originally thought.
Alternatively, the line could be drawn from Argentina passing through
Oklahoma in the U.S. and from there through Alberta in Canada (places which
are known for their dinosaur findings.) The line continuous along
the West cost of the Pacific Ocean and through Japan to Australia.
From there, it goes through Antarctica and back to Argentina. Alas, this
option leaves India somewhat in the "cold" to say nothing of Egypt which
is too close to the pole for comfort (there have been findings of big animals
reported in both of these places.)
It would conceivably be possible to draw the equator differently in
order to accommodate all the locations in question with the proper compensation
for continental drifts or final determination of the weight of the
biggest animals found in these locations.
For the next step of the test secondary concentric lines need to be
drawn parallel to the [old] equator progressively toward the [old] poles.
The first two of these lines next to the [old] equator, the one to the
[old] north and the one to the [old] south, should join locations
where the biggest animals found were not as large as those found at the
equator itself. As more such lines are drawn, away from the [old] equator,
each successive line should intercept locations where the biggest animals
were smaller than at the preceding one. This process ends at a point where the
biggest animal remains found is of a size comparable to that of a contemporary
elephant. The rationale for this process is as follows.
The centrifugal force which was in the past a major factor in determining
the weight (equal to approximately 95 percent of the gravitational force)
was at its maximum only at the equator and rapidly diminished toward the
poles. Consequently, the weight along the latitude-lines increased just
as fast which accordingly, allowed for only smaller and smaller animals
progressively north and south away from the equator. As for an animal of
the size of an elephant, we already know it can manage well without
much help from any centrifugal force.
This last step, as well as the first, are left, however, as an exercise for the
reader. (Translation: The author of this blurb has no idea how one might actually go
about it.)
If you decided to carry out the test and tackle these issues, great!
You stand to win no matter what.
Well, did the distribution of animal remains pan out? Good show!
You won. You just proved the theory. It didn't work out? You
still win, since you managed to prove that the whole thing is baloney.
You've got to admit though that a fast spinning earth provides a great
way to lose weight. Beats going on any diet! There is just one more thing
left for you to do in this case.
11. What is there left to do?
Carl Sagan, the celebrated late astronomer, teacher and writer used to
recount a story from his childhood growing up in Manhattan. When looking
up and seeing the night stars (it must have been still possible to see
the stars in Manhattan nights at that time) he kept on wondering about
them. Asking his "know it all" adult neighbors "what are the stars?"
he would get the patronizing response: "Kid" – they would say in a deep
authoritative voice of adults – "the stars are just there!" Luckily for
us, the kid didn't quite buy this "scientific explanation" and the rest
is history.
It left for you to explain to me how animals, weighing some 20 times more
than the maximum limit for survival on land, walked on the earth and how a predator, double
the size of a full grown African elephant, got its prey; and please, don't tell me they just
did and their time has passed.
Revised since originally posted on 31 of December, 2003.
Comments anyone?
If you care to comment on any of the above email your comments
to: telejt+spin@shaw.ca
Your comments will be posted in the Comments section (that
is, provided that you don't happen to subscribe to the notion that it is
the devil who planted the dinosaurs fossils in order to confuse the believers).
Acknowledgment
The author is indebted to Paul R. Abrol, P.Eng. for his helpful critique and for editing the manuscript.
Comments
To add a comment write to: telejt+spin@shaw.ca
You may, of course, also comment on the comments. ;-)
----- Richard E. J. Driskill's comments ------
Hmmm... cute.
The Earth is presently 24,901.55 miles in circumference, at the equator, at
sea level, and it is along that point it spins (rotates) at a rate of
1,040.4547 mph (mean speed), which is judged over a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and
4.09 seconds. If your claim of an increase in spin of 17 fold for the period
is extrapolated, that would mean the earth would have been spinning at the
equator at 17,687.729 miles per hour (all things being equal). In both cases the
poles, as pin points (minus any relative wobble) would experience a 0 mile per
hour spin rate. Additionally, the rotation rate would deliver periods of
light and darkness, that if evenly divided would span roughly 42 minutes and 21
seconds each. I fear this would play havoc on the photosynthesis process of most
plants (past and present), and you might want to check this out with a
botanical scientist. Due to the near constant twilight-like condition of the planet,
I would also extend that the lack of relevant cycles of heating and cooling
would have impacted weather conditions to the point that the planet would be
more arid than lush.
And now we come to something called escape velocity. The present escape
velocity for the Earth is 11.2 km/sec (25,053.69 miles per hour) and is the same
for a molecule of hydrogen or a huge dinosaur. Your aforementioned spin rate of
old would have induced a condition wherein 70.599% of the escape velocity at
the time (all things being equal) would have been negated. This would be in
direct reference to your comment on centrifugal effects upon weight, and by
extension, its interaction upon animal size viability. In fact it would impact
much, much more.
The atmospheric pressure (and all that that implies) of the planet would have
been catastrophically reduced (ballooning outward) to the point that ALL
cellular growth and design between the 2 periods in time would surely be quite
noticeable, including the internal bone matrix of long dead dinosaurs.
To the best of my knowledge, this has not been discovered to be the case.
[Author's note: actually it has been, albeit, somewhat indirectly and in the growth
of tree-rings instead. See David Cantrill's findings in the Appendix section. J.T.]
This leads me to conclude, that although your hypothesis is initially
interesting, it is unsupported in relative facts to the degree it becomes
implausible. BUT... I must say I am impressed with your thinking process. Never stop
banging at the door. ;)
Mr. Richard E. J. Driskill
Electromagnetic Spectrum Authority (retired)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Author's comments on Richard E. J. Driskill's comments -----
REJD's observation that the atmospheric pressure would have been reduced as a
result of the reduced weight, brings to light an interesting point that could,
by the way, explain why the dinosaurs remained cold blooded throughout their reign.
With hundreds of millions years of evolution under their belt, a question may
well be asked how come they never evolved from the "primitive" status of being cold blooded
to the more "progressive" state of being warm blooded. After all, warm blooded animals
do not depend for their function on the temperature of their environment and are able to
better cope with changes in temperature.
The extremely low barometric pressure at the equator must have resulted in tremendous winds
blowing from the high pressure points at the poles and pushed on by the low-pressure
gradient throughout, all the way to the equator of that time. It is similar to your
occasional local weather picture, with centers of high and low pressure, but with two
big differences: the winds were permanent and must have been tremendously strong.
(Well, don't look at me. Didn't I tell you it was a strange world indeed?)
How strong were these winds is yet to be determined and such terms as "extremely"
and "tremendous" may turn out to be huge understatements. It would also remain to be
explained how the plants and animals managed to survive under such
a permanent storm.
Similar to natural convection that distributes the heat in a heated living-room (actually,
more like a gigantic forced-air fan) the possible effect of these perpetual winds was
to even-out the temperature throughout the globe so as to make it
practically the same at all latitudes. It probably was the same
day and night and throughout the year's seasons.
It is yet to be determined what was this temperature.
(Likely, a comfortable midpoint somewhere
between the temperature in Hell and that in Heaven.)
With such fixed temperature why bother to become warm blooded? A cold blooded creature is
by far more efficient from the standpoint of energy and food requirements. Animals
such as crocodiles and snakes are known to do with a single meal per several months since they
don't have an internal furnace requiring a constant feeding of fuel.
So, why didn't the dinosaurs become warm blooded? There was simply no need for them to do so.
But the saga of the winds doesn't just end there...
The low-barometric pressure caused wind may also bring the big birds, of that time, to finally
come home to roost.
Any attempt to rationalize cold blooded birds, in general, is in trouble.
Birds expend very high energy in the process of flying. It is not likely
that a cold blooded bird could posses the ability to generate the power
required for flying. Big birds, with a wingspan of up to 40 feet (12 m),
are even in a bigger trouble to place.
The pre-historic age biggest animals, of all sorts, can have a
one-to-one correspondence to the big animals alive today. The biggest
plant-eaters correspond to the big elephants. The big predators correspond
to something between the lions and the grizzly bears. However, applying the
same factor of weight reduction to the big birds would imply that there
should be alive today birds with a wingspan of 15 feet (4.5 m).
Not only those birds don't exist at present, it's unlikely such large birds
could fly at all. It seems to suggest that the large pre-historic birds were
too big even for their own time and their existence can't be explained on the
same basis as the rest of the big animals.
So what is going on here? Is the whole theory in big trouble? Not, if we
consider the unique winds which were constantly blowing. Anything could
takeoff in such a wind provided it had a sufficient wingspan much like
a "747" taking-off, with one difference – the 747 capable of generating
its own wind.
It is questionable if these flying animals deserve to be classified as birds
altogether, since they most likely didn't propel themselves by flapping their
wings, but simply relied on the power of the wind to glide. Much like a sailor,
who can travel in any desired direction – including against the direction of
the wind – by skillfully deploying and orienting his sails, these giant birds could "fly"
using their elaborate wings (probably, more of sails than wings) without expending
any significant energy in the process.
– J.T.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- B. Shipham's comment ------
I like the general gist of it, especially as it has been established
that the earth's spin is still (albeit minutely: approx. 2 seconds every
100,000 years) slowing. There is one thing that I just can't really buy
into: your theory concerning the astronomical body that passed by the
Earth thus slowing its spin is plausible enough, I guess, however, the
fact that it tilted the earth's polar axis is somewhat tricky. After
all, this implies that at some point something else of a similar
magnitude occurred which exerted just enough force to halt this motion
again. Otherwise, why should the earth not still, even if ever so
slightly, be rotating around a lateral axis in addition to its polar
axis? The sun's gravitational pull on the Earth can't be responsible for
a slowing of rotation around an axis that lies - more or less - on the
plane of the earth's orbit. But considering that the Earth is not
rotating around a polar axis that is parallel to that of the sun, then
the direction of the polar shift your theory is based upon implies that
that its axis must lie (at least fairly closely) parallel to the plane
of orbit.
Just a thought... ;)
B. Shipham
The author's response:
One way of looking at it is that, indeed, the earth keeps on
rotating around (the old) lateral axis and this rotation is what
constitutes our present earth's spin.
One thing is for sure: it can not spin on one axis and at the same time
rotate also on another. Gyroscopes (of which the earth is one) just don't do that!
The celestial event that caused all of that shifting of spin is rare enough.
To consider another similar event would be too much even for this author,
don't you think?
Nice try, but no cigar.
– J.T.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- Matt Weed's comment --------
I enjoyed your article very much.
Could the earlier spin rate be attributed to the earth being much smaller than
it currently is? Similar to a ballerina pulling her arms, and thereby spinning
faster, could an ancient, smaller earth have simply spun more quickly due to
the fact that its mass was closer to the center point? However, would the
centrifugal forces on a smaller globe be cancelled out somewhat due to the
smaller angular size?
I have been reading many articles regarding the "Expanding Earth" theory, with
which I'm certain you're familiar. The theory itself is interesting, and
compelling, but I can't find any explanations to handle why such an expansion
would have occurred so recently (within the last 200 million years or so) and
given the generally acknowledged age of the planet, this would seem to be a
sticking point. I.E. why would the earth stay at a relatively small size for so
long, and then "suddenly" start expanding. Still, while the mechanism might be
unknown currently, it all seems to fit what you're postulating. Perhaps planetary
expansion is a common event in the evolution of planetary systems.
Some potential causative factors:
- A miniature black hole passes by the earth's orbit, and its strong gravitational
effect begins the "thinning out" process of our planet, and thus slowing down the
spin. I really can't see ANYTHING surviving such an event, as it seems the entire
planet would have been resurfaced in magma, but still...
- Moon capture - how long has our moon been in Earth orbit? Given its small mass,
it might not be capable of slowing down the Earth's spin in accordance with your
theories.
- Little green men?
Anyway, great article, well thought out, and I would love to hear your thoughts
if you have a moment.
Take care.
Matt Weed
http://www.filmmunition.com/
[What can I say... Everything is possible until proven otherwise... -J.T.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Peter Steinbach's comment ------
Nice.
I'm still spinning :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Joe's comment ------
My comment was simply to say that I find the observation that large
dinosaurs would be too heavy to survive interesting. I agree with the
physical basis described in this article.
-Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Ian Tulloch's comment ------
Thank you for putting New Spin for public
consumption. A very interesting reading ...
Have there been any developments on the subject?
Ian Tulloch, (an interested observer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Documented evidence from
independent sources
The observations and findings bellow are provided by independent sources.
This information seems to support various aspects proposed in "A New Spin". If you
are aware of any other factual material that can serve for a
compelling evidence, please advise (telejt+spin@shaw.ca).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1239175.htm
"...The fossilized tree rings in the Glossopteris trees revealed they grew steadily
each summer and abruptly stopped for winter, as if a switch had been thrown.
'They probably reacted to light (rather than temperature) to switch off,' said
Cantrill..." [Emphasis added, J.T.]
[See: "Author's comments on Richard E. J. Driskill's comments" J.T.]
(David Cantrill, curator at the Swedish Museum of Natural
History in Stockholm, http://www.nrm.se/welcome.html.en)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.polar.org/antsun/oldissues2002-2003/Sun111002/dinosaurs.html
"...Paleobiologists Tom and Edith Taylor found forests of fossilized
tree stumps... Despite the dark winters, the trees had growth rings
10 times the size found on trees growing now in
Alaska. The Taylors were surprised to also find
cycads, a tree with a spongy trunk that now grows
in tropical areas..." [Emphasis added, J.T.]
[See: "10. Where is the proof?" J.T.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/788.html
"...Within Alaska, there have been recently confirmed fossil
finds of hadrosaurs, or duckbilled dinosaurs, north of
Kotzebue ... the primary question still arises: even if the global
climate was far warmer then, how could these animals and the plants
on which they depended for survival have lived in an environment
where it's dark half of the year? Continental drift, putting the lands in which the fossils lay
closer to the sunny equator, doesn't seem to work--at least not for the High Arctic islands. Of all the
land masses on earth, they seem to have been among those that have
shifted the least. Could it have been a tilting of the rotational
axis of the earth, bringing more sunlight to what is now
the Arctic? There is no known mechanism to account for that..." [Emphasis added, J.T.]
[See: "10. Where is the proof?" J.T.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Pterosaur.shtml
"Genus Pteranodon - 23 feet (7 m) wide wingspan [during the late Cretaceous period]
...It glided along rather than flapping its wings..."
[See: "Author's comments on Richard E. J. Driskill's comments" J.T.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://tornado.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/lwhite/fly.htm
"...Birds have feathery wings that are attached to the forearm and hand and
Pterosaurs have membrane wings that are attached to 1 long finger."
[See: "Author's comments on Richard E. J. Driskill's comments" J.T.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/10433phys.htm
"...some [dinosaurs] had means of rapidly oxygenating their blood to be "turbo-charged" and
thus function temporarily as highly active animals."
[See: "6. But aren't weight and size one and the same?" J.T.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, August 2006, page 30.
"...North Pole's mean annual temperature: -20 degrees C.
Temperature 55 million years ago:
[on the eve of the "big-event", just about, J.T.]
23 degrees C."
[See: "Author's comments on Richard E. J. Driskill's comments" J.T.]