A new theory about Extinction of Dinosaurs

The theory of the increasing of the earth's gravity


From the earliest days that the big bones of past animals were found, some questions about their decline came up, which continued up to this day. By observing the fossils of giant dinosaurs, about several million years ago, this question comes up that, which factors caused them to decline?

Scientist has made many efforts to answer this question, and they suggested many theories in this case. Theories like the outbreak of diseases, decreasing food and eating of their eggs by other smaller mammals.

Among these theories, there is one theory which is of more acceptance for scientists and attracts the attention of more acceptance for scientists and attracts the attention of most people, this theory which came up by two American geologists from California’s university (Berkeley), Luis Alvarez and his son Walter at recent years of seventh decade, is about the collision of meteorite with earth. This theory says that: A rock with 10-15km diameter and about one thousand billion ton weight, with 150 thousand km/h entered earth's atmosphere and friction of this giant rock on the air caused the sublimation of its outer layers. Four or five seconds later the big core of this big meteorite collided the surface of sea and made a big wave with height of 1km. This wave was distributed on the oceans and cover seashores. Collision of meteorite sent a mixture of steam and dust and stones on the earth. All of these stems, smokes and dusts made a big curtain on earth and for several months or perhaps years the earth was in an absolute dark. These events occurred about 65 million years ago and declined dinosaurs.

If the decline of animals was related to a special period, it was possible to rely on this theory, but as we knew, animals at every time, have lost some species. Perhaps, at one time, these declines were very much, but in any case, declines were existed at every periods of time. If we accept that the collision of a giant meteor it with earth and formation of dust and smoke in 65 million years ago caused the decline of dinosaurs, how we can explain of Endocras with 4.5m diameter, about 500 million years ago. At that time did a giant meteorite collide with earth and declined them? Did another meteorite collide with earth 330 million years ago and declined Eogyrinus? Did the collision of meteorite, about 250 million years ago caused big insects to decline? In this case how we can explain the decline of Lepidodendrales plant, Calamitales and giant tree ferns. Did they was destroyed when a big meteorite collide the earth 300 million years ago. The decline of Macropustion and big Diprotodon in Australia, and decline of the awful bird, Phorohacos, which had a head as big as a horse's and length of 3/6m and big beak of 60cm, about 40 million years ago was because of the collision of meteorite? Did the decline of giant Dinornis maximus and Aepyornis maximus in these years was because of the collision of the big meteorite?

All of these shows that, such a theory can not explain declines animals during the long years. But there is another question, which shows the voidance of this theory! The question is that: assume that the big meteorite collide the earth 65 million years ago, and declined the big dinosaurs, why the remained reptiles couldn’t get bigger. The earliest reptiles, which were amphibious, were very small, but they could get bigger and made the dinosaurs. With the collision of didn't meteorite, dinosaurs was destroyed, but some of small reptiles survived. Why they make bigger animals!

Then, it becomes clear that, the factor, which caused them to decline, is still remained and doesn’t allow big reptiles to get bigger.

So, the collision of the big meteorite with earth and the formation of dust and smoke in atmosphere can not be supposed as the factor of dinosaurs' decline, because, that collision occurred at that time and the effect of dust and smoke have been disappeared and there was no later effect on animals.

Although the theory of the collision of the big meteorite and the formation of dust and smoke can not explain of the animals, but, at the same time, scientists hadn't made a mistake by suggesting this theory, in fact they are close to reality. Because in fact, decline of animals is some how related to meteorites, but not in a way that Luis Alvarez and his son explain.

The theory of the increasing of the gravity says that the fall of meteorites in long periods of time caused the gradual increase of earth, and by increasing of the gravity the ability of blood system of these animals decreased gradually. So those animals which had weaker blood system become smaller or declined. For this reason, after decline of dinosaurs, other reptiles couldn't get bigger, but small mammals which get stronger blood system were able to get their bodies bigger and made the big mammals of 20 million years ago. So, we see that, the scientists are not wrong, and they are right in thinking meteorites as an important factor in this phenomenon. But in the way of explaining and the quality of the extion of the meteorites, they are wrong. Scientists are looking for a big meteorite, which have been able to from such great dust and smoke on earth. But as we know it is not necessary to find a big meteorite, and small meteorites can also increase the gravity provided that their number is large.

People, who accept the theory of the collision of a big meteorite with earth, think that by revivaling the existing genes in the remained eggs of dinosaurs they can rebuild them, or by using the sperms of frozen Mammoth they can rebuild them. They think that the decline factor, which was the big meteorite, collided at the time and everything is finished, and they can form new giant animals. These scientist are unaware of the earth which they put their foots on it, and they don't as far the gravity of earth is like the gravity this time, it is impossible to revival such giant animals. Perhaps this is possible in Moon, the gravity of which is 1/6 of that of the earth.

Ramin Amir mardfar
http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap3-1page.html

Hi Ramin,

Interesting post.
I still have to read it more attentively as it is long and complex but from what I've read so far it is really interesting

An increase in gravity comes with an increase in size of the Earth. The Earth has stayed the same size since it's origin. Your theory" isn't really likely and isn't even a theory. Sorry.

Prove it!! How can the Earth Grow?

Raptor Lewis

----------

Hi Raptor,

With an increase in mass.


Ramin

Okay, how is the earth increasing in mass? You still ahven't proved it to me.

http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap2-1page.html


How can the gravity increase?


At the first look the increase of gravity may seem some strange, but by taking some care, we understand that it is not as impossible as it seem. The Earth can increase its gravity by several methods. In fact the Earth can increase its gravity by using for method.
One of the methods, by which the earth can increase its gravitation, is to decrease the speed of its rotation. We know that the earth rotates around itself once a day, and by the effect this rotation centrifugal force is exerted on its inhabitants. The most the speed of the rotation, the most will be the increase of the centrifugal force. And because this force is against the direction of earth's traction, when calculation the gravity of earth's surface its value is deducted from the earth's traction, and the remainder indicates the gravity on the earth's surface. So the greater the centrifugal force, the less the weight of its inhabitants, and the less this force, the more the weight of its inhabitants. If we are to accept that the gravity has increased from past up to now, we should observe the deduction of centrifugal force from the past up to now. That is we should accept that in the past the earth rotated faster around itself, and now it rotates slowly. Have such an act been done in the past really? The scientists believe that, because of the loosening of the earth's energy with the effect of friction, the rotation of the earth around itself becomes slower at the time of tides. That is the past the earth rotated faster around itself but by the passage of time its rotation became slower. So we see that such an action occurs in reality, and we can accept the increase of gravity with high degree of insurance.
Another way, by which the earth can increase its gravity, is to increase its mass. The earth is able to increase its mass by two methods: one method is to receive mass from the outside of the earth, and the other one is that this mass is added to it inside the earth. In the first method which the mass must be added from the outside, we can see the meteorite, the annual amount of which is 5 million ton. It means that this amount of material is added to the mass of the earth each year. The sun also distributes some part of its mass, in the from of particles, to the space around it, and 2.1kg of this amount is added to the earth per second. And also, the earth receives 14-ton cosmic dust from the space around. So we see that, in fact, the earth receives mass from the space surrounding it.
But what about the increase of earth's mass inside it? Assume that we are pumping a ball by a pump. In fact we increase the air inside the ball. Because the ball's shell has a certain volume, but if we want to pump it very much, the additional air will exit from its hole or it will be torn up and the air will exit. The earth's sell has a certain volume like the ball, and if the mass inside increase, the additional materials will exit through a hole or crack from the inside of the earth. Does such an action occur in reality? We know about the outflow of molten materials from the inside of the earth to its surface. These materials exit either from the volcano, which are like holes on the earth's shell, or through the long cracks, which are under the oceans. So, in fact, we observe the increase of the earth's mass. So we can accept the increase of the gravity with high degree of insurance.
The third method for the increase of the gravity is related to the following law:
"Mass of material increases by the effect of movement."
Of course this law is related to high speeds? Can the earth have high speeds? We know that there are so many galaxies in the world, and the theory of "expanding universe" says that these galaxies become far a way from each other, every moment. The speed of their going away depends on their distance. That is, the remoter the two galaxies are from each other, the higher is the speed of their going away. If the distance between two galaxies is very much, those two galaxies will go away with very high speed. If we consider tow objects in these two remote galaxies, they will be moving with very high-speed relation to each other. Now, assume that, one of these galaxies, is our Milky Way, and the other one is another certain galaxy which is very distant from Milky Way. Also assume that, one of those two objects which are on the galaxies, is our own earth which is on the Milky way, and other object is another certain sphere on the other galaxy. In this case the earth has a very high speed relative to this certain sphere, and the earth is moving with a very high speed relative to that certain sphere.
So we see that there are numerous objects in the world around us, that the earth is moving with a very high speeds relative to them. So, according to the law of the law of increase mass because of the movement with very high speed, the mass of the of the earth can increase each moment. And as result, its gravity can increase. The fourth method, by which the gravity of ears can be increased, is the decrease of the earth's ray with fixed mass. That is, the earth should be denser. In this case, the earth, like some other starts must be more compressed and smaller.
So, by approaching the surface of the earth to its center, the gravity on the surface will be more. But in fact, the evidences do not show such an action, and the earth doesn't use this method to increase its gravity.
So, we notice that, at the first look the increase of the earth's gravity seems some strange, but in fact it is possible, and this action occurs in reality, and the earth increase its gravity, gradually, by the passage of time, and we can understand the increase of the gravity by its effects on the body size of the animals.

Ramin

Okay, I admit it's possible. But, do we have proof that this happened 65 million years ago? No, I don't think so. We have found large quantities of iridium in rocks from the Late Cretaceous. Iridium is rare on Earth but, is abundant in meteors. This indicates that a meteor hit the Earth 65 million years ago somewhere in Central America causing the K-T Extinction. There is evidence to support that. The mass extinciton seems to have been caused by an impact in space. As it was a massive and sudden extinction, geologists and paleontologists assume it wasn't gradual and they went extinct because of a major catastrophe.

Hi Raptor,

Earth gravity is increasing, in the past, now, and future. Not only, in 65 million years ago.
-----------------------
http://www.geocities.com/ramin1102000/chap3-1page.html


The extinction of dinosaurs and the gravity increase

From the earliest days that the big bones of past animals were found, some questions about their decline came up, which continued up to this day. By observing the fossils of giant dinosaurs, about several million years ago, this question comes up that, which factors caused them to decline?

Scientist has made many efforts to answer this question, and they suggested many theories in this case. Theories like the outbreak of diseases, decreasing food and eating of their eggs by other smaller mammals.

Among these theories, there is one theory which is of more acceptance for scientists and attracts the attention of more acceptance for scientists and attracts the attention of most people, this theory which came up by two American geologists from California’s university (Berkeley), Luis Alvarez and his son Walter at recent years of seventh decade, is about the collision of meteorite with earth. This theory says that: A rock with 10-15km diameter and about one thousand billion ton weight, with 150 thousand km/h entered earth's atmosphere and friction of this giant rock on the air caused the sublimation of its outer layers. Four or five seconds later the big core of this big meteorite collided the surface of sea and made a big wave with height of 1km. This wave was distributed on the oceans and cover seashores. Collision of meteorite sent a mixture of steam and dust and stones on the earth. All of these stems, smokes and dusts made a big curtain on earth and for several months or perhaps years the earth was in an absolute dark. These events occurred about 65 million years ago and declined dinosaurs.

If the decline of animals was related to a special period, it was possible to rely on this theory, but as we knew, animals at every time, have lost some species. Perhaps, at one time, these declines were very much, but in any case, declines were existed at every periods of time. If we accept that the collision of a giant meteor it with earth and formation of dust and smoke in 65 million years ago caused the decline of dinosaurs, how we can explain of Endocras with 4.5m diameter, about 500 million years ago. At that time did a giant meteorite collide with earth and declined them? Did another meteorite collide with earth 330 million years ago and declined Eogyrinus? Did the collision of meteorite, about 250 million years ago caused big insects to decline? In this case how we can explain the decline of Lepidodendrales plant, Calamitales and giant tree ferns. Did they was destroyed when a big meteorite collide the earth 300 million years ago. The decline of Macropustion and big Diprotodon in Australia, and decline of the awful bird, Phorohacos, which had a head as big as a horse's and length of 3/6m and big beak of 60cm, about 40 million years ago was because of the collision of meteorite? Did the decline of giant Dinornis maximus and Aepyornis maximus in these years was because of the collision of the big meteorite?

All of these shows that, such a theory can not explain declines animals during the long years. But there is another question, which shows the voidance of this theory! The question is that: assume that the big meteorite collide the earth 65 million years ago, and declined the big dinosaurs, why the remained reptiles couldn’t get bigger. The earliest reptiles, which were amphibious, were very small, but they could get bigger and made the dinosaurs. With the collision of didn't meteorite, dinosaurs was destroyed, but some of small reptiles survived. Why they make bigger animals!

Then, it becomes clear that, the factor, which caused them to decline, is still remained and doesn’t allow big reptiles to get bigger.

So, the collision of the big meteorite with earth and the formation of dust and smoke in atmosphere can not be supposed as the factor of dinosaurs' decline, because, that collision occurred at that time and the effect of dust and smoke have been disappeared and there was no later effect on animals.

Although the theory of the collision of the big meteorite and the formation of dust and smoke can not explain of the animals, but, at the same time, scientists hadn't made a mistake by suggesting this theory, in fact they are close to reality. Because in fact, decline of animals is some how related to meteorites, but not in a way that Luis Alvarez and his son explain.

The theory of the increasing of the gravity says that the fall of meteorites in long periods of time caused the gradual increase of earth, and by increasing of the gravity the ability of blood system of these animals decreased gradually. So those animals which had weaker blood system become smaller or declined. For this reason, after decline of dinosaurs, other reptiles couldn't get bigger, but small mammals which get stronger blood system were able to get their bodies bigger and made the big mammals of 20 million years ago. So, we see that, the scientists are not wrong, and they are right in thinking meteorites as an important factor in this phenomenon. But in the way of explaining and the quality of the extion of the meteorites, they are wrong. Scientists are looking for a big meteorite, which have been able to from such great dust and smoke on earth. But as we know it is not necessary to find a big meteorite, and small meteorites can also increase the gravity provided that their number is large.

People, who accept the theory of the collision of a big meteorite with earth, think that by revivaling the existing genes in the remained eggs of dinosaurs they can rebuild them, or by using the sperms of frozen Mammoth they can rebuild them. They think that the decline factor, which was the big meteorite, collided at the time and everything is finished, and they can form new giant animals. These scientist are unaware of the earth which they put their foots on it, and they don't as far the gravity of earth is like the gravity this time, it is impossible to revival such giant animals. Perhaps this is possible in Moon, the gravity of which is 1/6 of that of the earth.

Ramin amir mardfar

Message from a dino-people
7 December 2008, 12:41

I'm impressed...

I am not a scientist but a computer Systems Administrator but I have a theory as everyone else does.
I was watching a program on television called ‘Time Warp’, a great visual oriented program that slows down different events with a high-speed camera (up to 6000 fps). On that session they were photographing a drop of water falling into a pan of water. The water drop carves out a depression, and then the cornet comes up and then the pillar of water and finally the concentric rings emanating from the center of the event. This is also the basics functions of the Chicxulub impact though it did not replicate the actual size and environmental scaling of the actual event.
Time Warp also did other demonstrations and one was dropping a drop of water into very shallow water. The physics of the demonstration was the same as the first demonstration, until the pillar of water was to rise from the center which was not much higher than the coronet and then the concentric rings occurred.
The Scientist that was assisting the demonstration team also had a high speed camera and had been experimenting with variations of dropping water into water to study impacts. He made the statement that when the water was shallow (no mention about size of the object or the depth ratio) you would get the depression being carved out and then the cornet but because of the shallowness of the water the pillar of water never develop much higher than the coronet. Even though the exact same physics would not coincide with the physics of an Asteroid impact exactly but would still follow the same basic physics. If an object hits solid ground it will dig out a crater, Coronet then pillar, and finally the concentric ring but the harder the surface of the impact the shorter the pillar. Without the tall column of water and debris raising up from the Chicxulub event high into the atmosphere there would not be the world wide firestorm (probably more localized than world wide and the main portion of the sea was on one side) that would have burned up everything (there has been no world wide charcoal layer, though there has been soot found at most KT Boundary sites, associated with the KT boundary or the Chicxulub Impact Event) which indicated no world wide firestorm or no world wide vegetation to burn. Also the acid rain which was supposed to have been world wide would have killed most of if not all of the frog, salamander and other amphibian species (which are extremely susceptible to acid/alkaline changes) that actually survived the extinction event as well as most of the fresh water species.
The iridium layer could have come from something more than the actual impact event, such as a portion of the asteroid being burned off as it blasted through the atmosphere (as well as from the burning up of sucker asteroids moving along with the main asteroid) and distributed across Pangaea or wind patterns from west to east would have spread much of the dust from the actual impact since it occurred on the western end of the Continental group there are also several other impacts other than the Chicxulub impacts that occurred which I will talk about later in this article. At this time the continents were grouped much closer together so that a smaller plume could have distributed the deposits seemingly more wide spread. A group of small sucker asteroids (most large astral bodies have moons or sucker asteroids, collected along their trajectory) following the main asteroid might also account for the irregular distribution of iridium as each of their trajectories might have differed.
Plate tectonics, weather, erosion, volcanism, and other large natural disasters (including seas being created and/or destroyed) also caused iridium layers and spherules may have been displaced which can account for any discrepancies in the dating and the closeness of the continents would have allowed the dispersion to look larger than it would if looking at the present continent arrangement.
The Chicxulub impact was not in the same environment that is always displayed when they do an animation of the Chicxulub event. The Continents had not really separated (no Atlantic Ocean at this time but the shallow enclosed Tethys Sea) very much and the sea that the Chicxulub asteroid fell into was a shallow continental shelf sea in the far west of the continents. The Chicxulub impact is actually on continental shelf and possibly did not even disturb the Methane Hydride layers. Maybe the Chicxulub event was not the whole cause of the dinosaur extinction or even a major effect at all.
If the scenario that is put forth where the Impact was in deep sea bed, which caused the Carbonate Layers to heat turning them into Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide (Which are heavier than air) which circled the earth and killed only the Dinosaurs and a few other plants, and some of the fish and animals picking and choosing who is to go extinct seems a little far fetched. This is like changing the extinction event to fit a theory rather than fitting the extinction event to the outcome of the event. If we look, at the Lakes in Africa that released Carbon Dioxide from reservoirs, dissolved in the cold deep-water layers, that event killed every animal in the area above and below ground, and just those that flew above the Carbon Dioxide levels lived. Following their premise the Chicxulub Impact Event would have killed everything but all plants and fish that were not in the inland sea where the impact occurred.
According to paleontologist the Dinosaurs had been in decline for at least 10 to 3 million years prior to the Chicxulub Impact Event when most of the animals and many plants and fish became extinct. At this time there are dramatic changes going on. These changes include lowering of sea levels which a new study correlates Sea Level Changes and Extinction Events. Even though there are sea level changes in relation to extinction events, I do not believe that these are the ultimate cause. When I look at the records there are extinction events with both ocean raising and lowering, but I think that this is all part of the real cause loss of food. Climatic change, such as the melting of the glaciers, the lowering Oxygen levels, changing weather patterns as well as growing and birthing cycles on land and in the sea initiates the extinction event. Some data point to an average rise in temperature of 8 °C (14 °F) in the last half million years before the impact at Chicxulub. In refering to a program that was presented on television (6 ° that could change the world) that 6 °C raise in temperature would cause the extinction of the human race what would 8 °C (14 °F) do compounded by lowered oxygen levels and climatic changes?
If the Methane Hydride layer at the bottom of the ocean was release (methane is lighter than air) it could have left a layer of good or better air close to the surface. An infusion of a massive quantity of Methane could leave indications geologically that could be construed as an oxygen decline. Bubbling up out of the oceans, along with an ocean temperature rise, it might not have killed but weakened the environment and resources. Ocean species that lived in areas of the ocean that did not release the Methane Hydride or no Methane Hydride occurred (where water still had a cooler temperature) or fresh water. Though many fresh water species also went extinct, these might linked to other causes. As a side note various fish species that go to sea then return to fresh clean water to spawn maybe caused by Methane Hydride residual in the seawater. The extinction occurred to about 60% of life terrestrial life, up to 90% of Ocean life. Many insect species even went extinct. The release of methane into the atmosphere does not mean that it poisoned and killed any dinosaurs but it at least weakened their environmental and resource systems.
Events are like a tree where many previous events support the following events. The large amount of carrion that would have been occurring in the ocean and on land would have poisoned many a drying water hole or diminishing streams and rivers purity. Some species that are fresh water can also exist in salt water and could have brought into the fresh water environment, bacteria that could harm or kill other species.
If enough of the Methane Hydride is released combining with the high moisture level in the atmosphere, a heavy cloud layer of Methane and water which would have dramatically increased the global warming that had been occurring for the last 10 million years. Most of the animals that lived close to the surface or below would have been better able to survive the environmental changes (temperature and diminished oxygen levels would have less effect directly as apposed to environmental changes and those that could not adapt to them) and diminished resources. While the ocean fish and plants, land plants and animals that were large and/or in the areas where the methane hydride had higher concentrations, the effects of diminishing resources in their environment if not poisoning would cause the most damage. Even when the methane hydride washed out of the air (Methane can stay in the atmosphere up to 11 years), it would have left various weakened species as well as accelerated the climate change that had been occurring for the last10 million years.
There is also the fact that for some distance below the K-T Boundary there are no fossils. This in itself would lend anyone to believe that the extinction event occurred prior to the Impact event. Except for The Signor-Lipps Effect states that evidence of extinction my come before the actual extinction but how long before the event would the effect take place? If there were an instant mass extinction by an impact event there should be some evidence (i.e. massive amounts of dead carcasses all together or even by themselves are not found). Why do we find dinosaur fossils prior to the impact event but not at the impact (it killed and then destroyed all the dinosaurs evidence) layers?
If plants, animals and ocean species go extinct by this impact event, why no interruption in some of the insect and frog species, that would have been affected by a worldwide asteroid impact event and acid rain.
The fact that, many other large object impacts events have occurred on earth without an extinction event occurring, makes this event suspect. The fact that Impact events occurred near the same time as an extinction event occurred does not necessarily link it. The likely hood of an impact event that caused the mass extinction (of only a select 60% percent of the species on land, in the sea and air) even the size of the Chicxulub (110 mi) event seems not very likely or at least not with fire raining, acid raining event that has been described. I feel that it is very unlikely the killer was the Impact Event. There are several other, larger impacts events occurring about the same time as the Chicxulub event among these are the Boltysh crater, a 24 kilometers (15 mi) diameter impact crater in Ukraine (65.17 ± 0.64 Ma), and the Silverpit crater, a 20 kilometers (12 mi) diameter suspected impact crater in the North Sea (60–65 Ma). Other craters that may have formed in the Tethys Ocean, have been obscured by tectonic events, like the relentless northward drift of Africa and India. Maybe the impacts turned the climate changes around allowing the cooling of the environment rather than being a killer a seed of life.
The heating up of the atmosphere had many causes. The Caribbean large igneous province flood Basalt eruption from 139 to 69 million years ago with a total volume, which has been estimated approximately 4 x 106 km³. The Brito-Arctic province, the first occurred ~61 million years ago with 2 x 106 km³ in total volume. Then the Deccan Trapps right at the 65 million year mark with a present volume of directly observable lava flows estimated to be around 512,000 km³. The estimated are the original lava flows were as large as 1.5 million km², approximately half the size of modern India. These events caused massive amounts of gases to be vented into the atmosphere as well as the heat being vented raising the temperature. The Flood Basalt Events are not Antipode to the Chicxulub Event there for probably not antipodally related but occurred at the same time range as the extinction and Chicxulub event occurred.
The Flood Basalt Eruptions did not cause the extinction event but the heating of the atmosphere was their part in the extinction event. Due to the flood basalt eruptions just prior to and during the extinction event (all having occurred at least in part within 5 million years of the extinction event) would be releasing large quantities of fresh water, locked up in ice caps and glaciers into the Ocean. This would slow then stop the Ocean Conveyor. This would allow the deep-sea water to heat enough to release the Methane Hydride layers. No matter what the methane layers had to have released. The temperature of the atmosphere would have trapped a large amount of water in vapor and clouds.
There is also evidence indicating a lowering of the ocean levels (here is a real curiosity the glaciers and ice caps are melting but geologic evidence seems to indicate the ocean levels were lowered. This might be due to the mass loss of the Methane Hydride layers, lowering the level of the ocean floor (water levels depend on the amount of water available and the size of the collection bowl the liquid is held in) and levels of moister in the atmosphere (a heavy cloud layer). Life that was not affected did not exist at this time everything was affected, only a few made it through the changes.
What probably occurred is that the environment changed so dramatically that those that could not adapt died out while others were weakened and/or over come by Methane and became prey and carrion. Dinosaurs having adapted over millions of years became specialized in what they ate. Like what we have today, there are certain creatures that only eat a specific food (i.e. The Koala Bear). The Koala Bear is a perfect example. They can only eat from certain eucalyptus tree and not just from any eucalyptus tree. Over millions of years prior to the extinction, the climate was changing. As with any climate changes the environment changes, bringing on a change in the biodiversity. Certain plants start to die out, found in smaller and smaller quantities or only in small pockets. No matter which way each of the lower plant and animal species were changing the larger dinosaurs were not. The longer a species is able to maintain a status quo in their environment, food source, and way of life the longer it takes them to modify and change these parameters. The world was changing faster than the dinosaurs could change. As the lower plant and animals were able to modify themselves to the changing environment the dinosaurs were real laggers. Those that could adapt or the environmental changes did not effect their environment or resources survived. The food chains for many creatures broke, changed or at least diminished as well as their environments were changing, though the interior was arid lush forests, swamps and savannas along the coast gave way to a dryer more arid climate. Plants, animals and ocean creatures needed to adapt to their new environment. A small band of life was able to make it through, omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters, on land those that ate anything and everything and those that ate carrion, weighting under 50 lbs., are the winners and survived the extinction event.
The ocean is different only those creatures that were deep-water creatures or interacted with them went extinct. If you cannot evolve then you go extinct and the environment was changing so much that many creatures were unable to adapt to their new environment or resources. With the Ocean Conveyor and Methane Hydride release, the Oceans are the first to see the changes certain species of lower organisms are devastated by the changes in the Ocean temperature as well as the atmospheric climate. The start of the extinction starts on a microscopic level and starts to spread. Everything links together in a great symphony of life but is stacked like rows of dominos. As the lower life, starts to change the creatures in the next level up start losing their food supply and the dominos start to fall. Because the extinction event in the ocean had been going on longer than on land is the reason that more extinctions occurred in the ocean than on land.
When a species starts to be weaken by environmental changes they become susceptible to disease and plagues, which they cannot then defend. Those species that are dependant on these creatures for food then have to start to change their food supply or die. If the species cannot change then they start to weaken and as the changes progress they start in spiraling down towards extinction. Diseases, which could have been around for millions of years, (generally they were able to fight off these infestations until their environmental system weakened them) could now disseminate their population.
To put the extinction event pivoting on a single event that did not sanitize the earth but just picked and chose the creatures to go extinct without explanation is not a good working hypothesis. The release of the Methane Hydride Layer, Sea Level changes, Climatic changes, Asteroid Impacts, Flood Basalt eruptions all pull together to change the environment. These changes had been taking place over the last 10 million years prior to the extinction and near the end tip over the tipping point where all the changes would pickup momentum and the extinction would have accelerated. The event is a culmination of numerous events (some we probably will never be know until we get a time machine to go back in time and see for ourselves) but the ultimate cause is environment.
The fact that almost everything over 50 lbs. went extinct lets one see the real issue, FOOD. Omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters are the creatures that survive. This show that only those that could eat everything and anything or rotting flesh lived. Major environmental changes caused lower plant and animal species to die off and birthing and flowering cycles to disrupt there by causing a FOOD shortage so the dinosaurs starved to death and nothing else.
If everything else is ruled out, no matter how improbable what is left is the answer. Nothing occurred that did not have a preceding or interconnecting event that initiate and/or helped the next or concurrent event along. To try to associate a global event to a single event shows a myopic view of the world and science. I am not saying that this or any impact event does not have any effect on the environment but that they are only part of the event and not the whole event.
If anything, the Impact event actually marked the end of the extinction event, and may have been a major fact in the recovery of life.

well technically , the earth has increased in size due to meteors landing here. not sure if population increase can be counted, do humans increase the mass of the earth or are we only other parts of what was already here?

what da hell?

These are fascinating discussions. I'm still on the wall however for many reasons. Of course the data is so limited it's hard to make any kind of a true analysis. Lets keep in mind that only a minute amount of dinosaur species have ever and probably will ever been preserved/identified in any way.

That being said, making assumptions regarding asteroid impacts has always seemed to be speculative at best to me. On the other hand, 100 to 250 million years ago the moon would have been much closer to Earth and should have had a much greater impact/influence on the Earths gravity. Many years ago while I was a still a student at College Prep (I'm not sure but it was so long ago now I think dinosaurs may have been teaching there), we had to calculate the orbit of the moon during the various ages of the Earth for our Physics class and I do recall the significant gravitational differences. Those papers are long gone (or maybe buried beneath all my university ****), but I'd be curious if someone looked at those numbers.

I also question the question regarding greater/lesser gravity on biological growth. As we have seen over hundreds of years of biological systems studies, the way biological systems react always surprises us to the point that we should have learned by now just to expect the unexpected. What I'm trying to say is I would expect a certain number of animals within a very large sample (which describes the dinosaur situation perfectly) to grow extremely large when exposed to greater gravitational forces as well as lesser forces. This makes perfect sense as a biological system would have to fight/struggle against the greater force developing greater bone mass, followed by larger muscles, and eventually larger size. It follows that this would start with the carnivores and then move to the species most sought after by the carnivores.

listen, I know many peple belive in evoliton because if you belive that you don't have to obey the loveing God thats out there.but there is so much more! and all you have to do is belive! please, I encrage you read the bible once and thats it.please I beg you because I care and I know why you belive in evolution becuse I have been there! but God left prof that the flod wept the diosaurs out!just look at the prof there is for a crater God! when the flod waters subsided, many of the water creaters landed in places they shouldent be. look around you and wake up! if you say I am rong prove it! because I've got prof! here are some guestions I want to ask you before you say I am rong: tell me why is there a large boat exactly the size the bible say the ark is, resting on a mountin? why have people found ouysters on mountins? what other explation do you have for the coral found on thops of moutins? a kid asked the qustion on diosaur home why he found coral on the mountin and all people could say was an indin put it there.I know that god has a plan for me and what said about the flod is true and I know it. but do you?

There's plenty of evidence of a massive flood in almost all the ancient writings out there including the bible. There is also evidence in the terrain as you stated. There are remnants of a big ship on top of a mountain also which is similar to the Noahs Ark. If the earth did a massive shift in elevations back in the time of the great flood, the seas creatures could be on mountains and many cities would be in the seas. We will never know exactly what happened for sure, most people don't argue of the existance of the flood, they debate about what caused it. There is no way anyone can know exactly what happened long ago unless they were there. I don't question that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago myself but I see evidence of big creatures that are pretty accurate on temples and ancient pictographs. They don't look like mammoths either. There is also text in writings that deplict creatures they call dragons and other big creatures <email> in the sea. The last known elephant bird was killed off about five hundred years ago. That was a big turkey!.
So I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of science and religion. Ancient people didn't understand exactly what they saw or heard and associated it to things they knew just as we still do today. I see they were very intelligent and I question if we have really evolved that much from then. We have created big weapons and are destroying our environment for reasons that aren't justifiable. I don't think we evolved from monkeys either, I think there was another species of being out there that we evolved from. In both the bible and the Ruins there is stated that the sons of god went with the daughters of man. All of us are descendants of that race. I don't understand that totaly but that's ok. I am a firm believer in god but think some of the ancient writings have been altered or edited over the years or just plain interpreted to fit peoples way of thinking.
Specific religion isn't usually discussed here because it causes conflict. We don't like conflict here.

Mary: I have read the bible several times and as a matter of fact received a first rate classical 12 year primary and secondary Catholic school education. I urge you to read read some books on the history of the Earths geology. This will hopefully explain your questions regarding flooding, ancient corals and ancient remains of sea life found atop what are now mountain ranges plus a whole lot more.

There is much more to Science than evolution. Just because one believes in God does not mean one has to disregard science. The two are not mutually exclusive. The bible is not meant to be taken literally. Please note the words of Jesus himself who said that he used metaphor to explain things to the masses.

Those currently in the media, in academia, and in many churches who are telling others that one must believe in either science or God, are doing so for socio-political reasons. Please have an open mind and examine both sides as always by considering ALL the facts.

ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/web_ingv/37th%20Course/pdf% 20presentations/07-October-2011/MARDFAR%20Ramin.wmv
http://istituto.ingv.it/resources/conference-archive/ conferences2011/37th-course-of-the-international- school-of-geophysics/?searchterm=None
http://istituto.ingv.it/resources/conference-archive/l- ingv/convegni-e-seminari/archivio-

The issue(s) I have with this theory and a couple of others is the relitive rapidity of the extinction events (geologically speaking).

The second point I'ld like clarification on is the lack of evolutionary change to counter that effect in the animals at this time. Now we know that the event marked the end of the cretatious period, surely the change to the earths gravity would be gradual (if it was caused by an accreation of stelar debris, or a slowing of rotation) this would have had the effect of reducing the size of the dinosaurs. - It didn't. At the end of the cretatious we had the largest and heaviest of the Theropods, the Hadrosaurs, the Ceretopsians, and IIRC the Sauropods...

But that wasn't the end of the megafauna..
Right after the KT event the largest land animal was about the size of a dog, as I've heard it put.

If the earths gravitational attraction was the cause of this case, then it would have to gradually reverse in order for subsequent megafauna to evolve to the size they became.

Or does the theory ignore the Elasmotherium?

I have a theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs. I think they are extinct because they are all dead. Another thing, it seems to me that the only thing that could make something grow so fast in a short period of time is what we percieve as cancer. I wonder if somehow something like cancer cells could have been incorporated into their DNA? The giantism gene before it got messed up geneticly?

Then again perhaps they (the dinos) were killed off on purpose and we were an introduced species. After all, we constantly say all mythology has a basis on fact and our "gods" all seem to come from the "heavens" and to have "created" us. There have been so many other "myths that have been proven to been true (much more than you know actually) so why not consider it.

Naw the growth rates (at least for T rex) were about the same for large mamals and birds if you average it out.

However between 2-10 they went from 60lbs to about 5-7 tonnes. And all of that was muscle

so boring get a life....

Hello, I'm the author of the Increase Gravity theory, and I can explain the cause !
You can read it a part translated on my website www.thedinosaursextinction.com
and the entire of my theory on my ebook (in French for the moment) you can find on Amazon under the title:
"L Effet « Domino » de l&# <email> la Météorite dans la Mer des Caraïbes et l Explication de l Extinction des Dinosaures par une Hausse de la Gravité"
The Multi- One Theory : Domino Effect of Meteorite's Impact in Caribbean Sea (DEMICS) and the Explanation of the Dinosaurs Extinction by an Increase of Earth Gravity (EDEIEG)
Laurent GRANIER (theoretician, master philosopher)

The brief explaination:
...How and why the Earth gravity has necessary changed.
The first cause was the meteor collision.
This impact was always considered with a vertical direction.
But, there is less chance to have been like this than to have an angle. It's logical, there are more angular values than the one 90 °!
An impact can be with a perfect perpendicular axle, of near, under two possibilities :
Its original way is like this, or its way has been changed before.
For the first possibility, the probability is low on a curve area ( 2 dimensions), and lower on a spherical area ( 3 dimensions), where there is only one place.
For the second one, the gravity changes the direction. But its influence is smaller that the object's ratio speed/ weight is high.
A system like the Earth has several conjugated speeds:
By order from the most important energy needed (far) to the lesser (close) :

Its trip in the Universe (general view)
Its trip around the sun.
Its rotation.

To give an easy change (with the lesser energy) of the value of « G », it's by the closer range, and so, by this last speed.
The rotation is the most sensible part of physics involvements, the part needed the lesser power to offer a strong effect.
To give an acceleration to this speed, it's necessary to have a distribution of the impact's energy more favourable to the transfer of pure energy than to the one for the material destruction.
To get this maximum effect, it's logical and necessary to have an impact :

About location, the closer to the equator.
About direction, the most parallel with the one of the rotation.
About acceleration of rotation, the same way of the rotation.
About angle, the closer to the tangent but not too much to avoid the bounce.
To find a material proof, we have to use the reverse reasoning.
So, if we want to get this maximal result, we have to get an association of each of these parameters.
And so, if it was real, we could see, not a circular and clean print, but rather a long furrow.
Now, see the topographical map of Yucatan.
The Red Arrow shows very well the mark of an extended impact.
The Green Ones show very well the rolls made by a longitudinal
push in a way.
The print explains a probable impact near to the Earth's tangent.
In this case, the Tsunami created was stronger, by a transfer of
pure energy under a way of direct push, than the one thought bef
ore made by a vertical collision.
With all these factors, it's sure, the rotation speed of the Earth,
and perhaps the axle, has changed.
And, of course, the value of « G » has changed too.
The study of this impact in Yucatan.
What concrete and scientific knowledge we get, to can explain a sure cause ?
By a real observation of the impact print in Yucatan, we can see:
1. The shapes of the print :

A long furrow, with a little depth
Several rolls on each sides and at the end, explaining a longitudinal push
And so, we can say :
The impact trajectory was close to the Earth's tangent

2. The consequences of this kind of collision :
An impact with an angle close to the tangent gives a special physics transfer.
In this case about the meteor collision with the Earth, and knowing each of theirs constitutions, it's sure that the most quantity of the power was transferred in pure energy,
to the detriment of the energy used to destroy materials by a spread effect (spraying, dispersing) .
The materials distribution shape (green arrows), by its small relief and its uniformity, proves very well :
è A weak intensity of energy was given for material destruction
And, so :
A very important intensity of pure energy transmitted

3. The location of the impact :
If we come back to the study of the impact print, we get too:

A geographical location close to the equator
The same way than the Earth rotation
A parallel direction with the Earth longitude
And so, we can say :
The power of the impact has pushed the Earth rotation

CONCLUSION
With all these observations, we can say a real fact :
è The acceleration of the Earth rotation speed occurred,
and by this way,
the value of G has grown !

It is an interesting theory, and is a little out of my field of experience. Having said that I will try to get to grips with the specifics.

I would however like to ask you as the propounder of this theory,
1. How did it effect the size of the fauna. As at the end of the cretatious is when we have evidence of the largest of the Titanosaurs.
At the KT event those died out. But the fauna continued to grow from the small size immediatly after the event to the largest of the mammals who have ever lived.

2. How does it fit the other physical evidence, such as the Siberian/Deccan traps flood basalt eruptions and their effect on climate?

The opening post suggest that this theory explains a multiple of extinctions. - However we think that evolution is continuious. As such species extinction is actually part of the process. They are replaced by more efficent fauna. Take the tyrannosaurs for example:
Gorgosaurus and Daspletasaurus were in replaced by Albertasaurus, who in turn was replaced by T. rex.

A normal progression from a more basal animal to a more derived. Sometimes it's just that simple. Sometimes the entire family dies out almost over night. Such can also be explained by invasive species. Look at the American interchange for example. Or even today the Thylocene (sp) or Marsupial wolf...

Sean Marshall wrote:

This makes perfect sense as a biological system would have to fight/struggle against the greater force developing greater bone mass, followed by larger muscles, and eventually larger size. It follows that this would start with the carnivores and then move to the species most sought after by the carnivores.

The problem is material strength while following the same basic bodyplan. ie four legs body head, neck and tail. You see, bone is bone. It's built the same way from the same material. The problem with staying big when the gravity of the earth (g) increases is that your bone is now subject to increased stress without having undergone any radical change in construction.
One could say that it was achievable prior to this because the value of g is less. However that would infer that there was a new maximum size. About the size of a dog, I've heard it put. And that just simply isnt true.

But lets not look solely at bone....
Gravity effects every particle in the body. Atoms molecules cells, everything.
You know what a sudden increase in gravity (as described by the theory) does?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JTPg_boNw

So the question remains, if such a radical physical change was responsible for the extinction of the sauropods, then how did subsequent megafauna evolve as we know there was not a radical redesign of the fundementals. And following on from that, why is that size not still current?
Why is there no Elasmotherium or like animal today?

Ok, Ive read through the post, and I think I understand the point you are trying to make.
And I will agree with the principal that the colision had some effect on the rotational speed of the earth. But there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up.

Firslty the theory if I have it correct, proposes that the impact trajectory was perpendicular to the earth. As far as we know it was. Or at least a very shallow angle.
But it was orientated at 90 degrees to the direction of rotation. The crater is North-South. The Earth rotates East-West. So rather than transferring that energy to the rotation, it actually works against it.

Secondly, I think the theory assumes that the earth behaves like a billard ball, in that the kinetic energy was transferred directly. It conceedes that some of the energy was lost in ejecting debris transferring pure energy (heat, sound?) but essentially transferring the remaining into the earth.

The earth is actualy more like a tyre. It deforms. It absorbes the impact. - Sure it caused massive concussion waves through the mantle, but essentially the impact was absorbed.

Thirdly, The reletive size of the object was tiny compared to the earth. It was less than 10KM in size. Granted it was traveling at a great rate of knots, but essentially even that kinetic energy is totally dwarfed by the kenetic energy of the rotating planet. So if it did have an effect (as I conceede) it was and is infinitessimal.

And fourthly: Rotational speed has nothing to do with acceleraton due to gravity if I recall correctly.
Gravity is a function of mass, not energy.

This theory has been published in 2000 by Amirmardfar.

Relationship between Earth’s Gravity and Evolution of animals/plants
(The Theory of the Increasing of Earth’s Gravity)
http://www.geocities.ws/ramin1102000/bookpage.html

Either I do not understand the physics, or the theory cited as it is above is incorrect. It doesn't fit the evidence, and appears to make several logical assumptions which are dubious at best.

I would like to be corrected if I have it wrong, but as yet, I don't think so.

There is a theory that posits a change to surface gravitation (actually many changes) during the age of dinosaurs. If interested go to www.dinoextinct.com and click on 'The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction' to view a PDF summary of the theory.