I Dinosaur question -- Was Earth's gravity lower in the past?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter GregM
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theory that lower gravity in Earth's past could explain the large size of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. One participant speculates that as Earth cooled, it may have shrunk, increasing surface gravity, but questions the feasibility of significant changes in size over 100 million years. The conversation also touches on the potential implications for Earth's rotation and day length if it were larger in the past. Participants are encouraged to provide academic references to support their claims, highlighting the importance of peer-reviewed sources in the discussion. The thread was ultimately closed for moderation due to a lack of citations.
GregM
Messages
18
Reaction score
4
New poster has been reminded that links to peer-reviewed papers or mainstream textbooks are required in the technical PF forums.
Hello everyone,
I have researched about dinosaurs and pterosaurs and a theory by various authors claiming the only way to explain their great size is with ancient lower Earth gravity . If this is supported theory among scientists then the next question is: How could the Earth have lower gravity? One idea I've had is as the Earth cooled it also shrunk and therefore by the inverse square law the same mass would have stronger surface gravity. However it seems unlikely the Earth shrunk so much in 100 million years, also if the Earth was much larger in the past, wouldn't shrinking cause a massive speed up in spin rotation? The Earth may had very long days in the past.
Can it have happened this way? Or is there a better simpler theory of why the dinos got so large? Any links to acedemic debates and conclusions on this question?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would look into the climate side of things. Temperature, O2 CO2 levels.
@jim mcnamara @BillTre very knowledgeable on this
 
GregM said:
I have researched about dinosaurs and pterosaurs and a theory by various authors claiming the only way to explain their great size is with ancient lower Earth gravity .
Do you have references for these claims?
 
GregM said:
I have researched about dinosaurs and pterosaurs and a theory by various authors claiming the only way to explain their great size is with ancient lower Earth gravity
Here of PF it is not acceptable to say "I read that ... " (or your "I have researched ... " . You have to provide specific citations from refereed journals otherwise we might just be discussing nonsense.
 
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
Thread will remain closed. @GregM -- check your PMs. You may start a new thread about this question if you can find links to peer-reviewed journal articles about your question.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, BillTre and jim mcnamara
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top