h a l f b a k e r yChewable.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
World-wave
I've had a bit of a rare thing happen.While daydreaming about an idea I posted when I first stumbled in here, three more recent ideas kind of meshed together to form a way of possibly reshaping the planet we live on and literally unifying all of humanity...I think. | |
So I was trying to come up with a clever way to revive my dinosaur extinction theory by turning it into a valid idea. This theory was the idea which spawned the MFD for theories and I've always wanted to resurrect it somehow because I think it bears studying, so I dust it off every once in a while
and see if anything has clicked yet.
The theory is this:
The Earth once spun a whole lot faster than it does right now which created the equatorial bulge that made the continent of Pangaea possible.
It also made objects on the surface of the planet weigh substantially less than those same objects do today, because centrifugal force was trying to fling them off of the planet much more strongly than it does at present.
I believe this slowing happened because of a massive impact at a tangent opposite the direction of the Earth's spin, slowing its rotation and decreasing this centrifugal force.
Anything massive would have dropped where it stood long before any ice age took hold.
Whales lost their legs, Mastodon shrunk to mammoth and then to elephant, and dragonflies with two foot wing spans became the tiny things they are now.
The loss of the equatorial bulge broke apart Pangaea and our modern continental plates still ride the interference ripples of that impact upon the Earth's molten core to this day.
I think that these unacknowledged ripple patterns need to be analyzed.
Recently I read that the plate tectonics resulting in North America's rocky mountains have reversed direction which leads me to think it may be the end of just such a series of ripples and therefore an excellent time to gather data.
aaanyway, the only way to turn this hairbrained theory into an idea is to figure out a way to prove it, right?
Well, after several years of on again off again contemplation I decided that dis jus ain't gonna hap'n.
I do not like this.
I've been gnawing on this theoretical bone for quite a while now and I just... I 'know' there's some marrow in there dangit!
Then I thought of my Gyrosphere idea, (don't read it, it's long, it's wrong), which made me picture the Earth as just one big spherical gyroscope, this got me to thinking about the Mass of Humanity idea, in which the whole population jumps vertically at the same time to measure the effect using laser interferometers, which made me think of Gyroscillation and how it is possible to speed up or slow down a gyroscope using the tiniest of movements if a sinusoidal wave is created which led to this idea.
<reaches end of run-on sentence and draws long breath>
The course of the 'tiniest of movements' which would create harmonic resonance and generate the sinusoidal wave needed to increase the speed of a gyroscope as massive as Earth is plotted and a series of satellites are launched to orbit the planet in line with this wave front.
Every town siren, intercom system, car radio and television would be programmed to emit a certain tone as the wave front is passing over, alerting people as to the fact that NOW is the time to jump to the west.
If you are driving in a westerly direction you'd punch the gas for a second if it was safe to do so. Easterly traffic would tap their brakes.
This wave would amplify, and over the stretch of a single generation we should be able to notice a measurable change in our planets rotational speed.
Over the course of several generations, the equatorial bulge will begin to reform, causing the continents to drift together resulting once again in a super continent...or at least an equatorial archipelago.
It may even be possible to create our own interference patterns in the wave to align the equator along whatever tilt we choose.
We'll all weigh less while living longer, with plenty of rainforest and beaches for all.
What If Earth Started Spinning Twice as Fast
https://www.youtube...watch?v=zRbFuIctTEU
Google it & you'll find many more that all say much the same. [Skewed, Oct 12 2019]
https://www.dinosau...y.com/solution.html
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 13 2019]
Exercise Is For The Birds
Exercise_20Is_20For_20The_20Birds
Sports wings [Skewed, Oct 13 2019]
Dreadnoughtus - 59 tons
https://www.britann...nimal/Dreadnoughtus
Encyclopedia Britannica [Skewed, Oct 13 2019]
Dreadnoughtus - 30 or 40 tons
https://www.nationa...downgraded-science/
National Geographic [Skewed, Oct 13 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Does this mean we have to do the jump every day for the
rest of our lives? That sounds a little too much like fitness to
me... |
|
| |
What about unforeseen consequences? This could be the end
of mankind! |
|
| |
I must give you a + just because it seems that you've agonized over the evolution of this. I don't know about the logistics, but I approve of anything that messes with time standards. |
|
| |
//Does this mean we have to do the jump every day for the rest of our lives? // |
|
| |
Maybe even several times a day, but only for anyone who cares enough to bother. If I am right and the change is noticable then more and more folks will jump on the westward bandwagon. |
|
| |
Hmm, I thought this name would refer to something else... I
think I'll post it. |
|
| |
You finally did it 2fries! Congratulations. One of the very best halfbakery ideas ever+ |
|
| |
Really?
Or am I overlooking the Sar chasm? |
|
| |
Really, I love your gyroscope idea and have been thinking about it sometimes. These theories you present are pretty out there but I like them. Most of all I like the way you create an idea with other ideas. |
|
| |
Well in that case, cool,
: )
I'm kind of tickled by it m'self, but would it work? |
|
| |
Yeah, it would, you basic premise is sound. |
|
| |
Would not all the world's faults buffer the insey
winsey cars' momentum transfer. |
|
| |
//Be normal! Crawl back in the box and shut the damned door! // |
|
| |
Even if I could wriggle my way back into the bag the box came in, I don't think I would. |
|
| |
//Would not all the world's faults buffer the insey winsey cars' momentum transfer.// |
|
| |
If I'm right about this then, yes.
Faults, tides, movements of the molten core, and opposing nudges would all damp wave until it amplified enough to effect these forces.
The wave will also travel at different speeds through different substances and would need many cycles to begin sychronizing into a coherent self sustaining pattern. |
|
| |
My main concern is the effect this would have on the Pacific rim. It would take thousands of years for the continents to drift towards the equator so I don't forsee massive catastrophies or mountain ranges sprouting up in weeks or anything.
Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions seem like a distinct possibility, but I can't help but wonder if the new equitorial bulge wouldn't quell much of the PacRim activity because the land masses would all now be farther from the core, though the core itself would bulge as well, so...who knows? |
|
| |
I don't think the wave would amplify. Old mother
earth is just to complex, thankfully. I think a more
uniformly made heavenly body would be needed. |
|
| |
One hell of a super computer would be needed to
guess at timings to help the amplification. |
|
| |
You may be right on both counts.
I nominate the moon for a test run, but how to generate the wave? |
|
| |
//I believe this slowing happened because of a massive impact
at a tangent opposite the direction of the Earth's spin// |
|
| |
No it's just the moon, it's gravity is like a brake pedal ever so
gently wedged against the rim of your wheel, or the earth in
this case. |
|
| |
Well I sort of revised that opinion and am now leaning towards the theory that the Earth once spun so fast that it had a pyriform or pear shape accounting for Pangaea, the size of the dinosaurs and the completely irradiated mountain-of-the-gods separating from the Earth causing the remainder of the previously pyriform shape to assume the more spherical shape we now enjoy, dinosaurs to drop where they stood, and shattering Pangaea into glacially rebounding fragmental continents riding a magma ocean, while becoming our moon due to the gravitational disturbance from a planetary close-call fly-by which increased our rotational rate to the breaking point explaining why one side of the moon always faces us... but that's another story. |
|
| |
No new theory needed, we already have a well respected one
[linky] @ about 4:06. |
|
| |
I contest that theory. They have not taken planetary bulge into account at all!
Beneath our continents is magma. It will bulge as does the water keeping continents at their current water levels. |
|
| |
If begun at exactly the right time and in exactly the right way... we could re-form Pangaea minus the dinosaurs. |
|
| |
// explaining why one side of the moon always faces us // |
|
| |
Doesn't tidal locking already explain that adequately? |
|
| |
The flaw I see in this idea is that the wave must be centered
about zero; i.e. the change in rotational rate will be only
momentary, and it will immediately afterward go back to
normal. |
|
| |
The problem with the "glancing blow" theory is that it
doesn't really work unless you have two glancing blows more
or less at the same time, of roughly equal magnitudes and
on opposite sides of the Earth; or a single impact of
*exactly* the right speed, direction and point of impact. |
|
| |
Most impacts between Earth and other large objects might
well change its rotation speed, but would also change its
orbit quite a lot, making it more or less uninhabitable. Not
to mention the fact that Earth would be sterilized by such
an impact. There was a very early collision with a small-
planet-sized body that resulted in the formation of the
moon, but that was well before life. (To be precise, it was
well before Earth's current life. I don't know if Earth was
cool enough to have evolved life before the moon-making
impact, but if it was any traces would have been
eradicated, since the whole mess melted in the impact.) |
|
| |
Earth's rotation was indeed faster in the past and, as
[Skewed] pointed out, we've been slowing down ever since
as the Earth transfers momentum to the moon (and, hence,
the moon is moving further away). But the dinosaurs and
giant dragonflies happened just last week (geologically
speaking), when the Earth was spinning only a little faster
than it is now. |
|
| |
There's also the fact that dinosaurs' skeletons are adapted
to roughly the current gravity. |
|
| |
// But the dinosaurs and giant dragonflies happened just last week (geologically speaking), when the Earth was spinning only a little faster than it is now.// |
|
| |
You say that like it's been proven. |
|
| |
//There's also the fact that dinosaurs' skeletons are adapted to roughly the current gravity.// |
|
| |
That's just it, no they are not.
There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science: |
|
| |
Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs.
Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs.
Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs.
Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown. |
|
| |
A faster rotating pyriform Earth would account for the gravity discrepancy. |
|
| |
Also;
A controversial paper was written by geoscientists Gerta Keller of Princeton University and Thierry Addate of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Both researchers knew that challenging the impact doctrine would not be easy. The asteroid charged with killing the dinosaurs, after all, left more than the Chicxulub crater as its calling card. At the same 65-million-year depth, the geologic record reveals that a thin layer of iridium was deposited pretty much everywhere in the world. Iridium is an element that's rare on Earth but common in asteroids, and a fine global dusting of the stuff is precisely what you'd expect to find if an asteroid struck the ground, vaporized on impact and eventually rained its remains back down. Below that iridium layer, the fossil record shows that a riot of species was thriving; above it, 65% of them went suddenly missing. |
|
| |
But Keller and Addate worried that we were misreading both the geologic and fossil records. They conducted surveys at numerous sites in Mexico, including a spot called El Peñón, near the impact crater. They were especially interested in a 30-ft. layer of sediment just above the iridium layer. That sediment, they calculate, was laid down at a rate of about 0.8 in. to 1.2 in. per thousand years, meaning that all 30 feet took 300,000 years to settle into place. |
|
| |
Analyzing the fossils at this small site, they counted 52 distinct species just below the iridium layer. Then they counted the species above it. The result: the same 52. It wasn't until they sampled 30 feet higher — and 300,000 years later — that they saw the die-offs. |
|
| |
"The mass extinction level can be seen above this interval," Keller says. "Not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact." |
|
| |
Well, dinosaurologists should know the strength of dinosaur
bones (at least as calculated from their dimensions), and
they don't generally see a problem. It's worth noting that
dinosaurs use much the same tricks as birds to keep weight
down. I've also seen documentaries where they built a
radio-controlled pterosaur, and it seemed to fly OK. For
the blood pressure thing, we don't know but we can guess
that they used similar tricks to the giraffe, which has some
cool mechanisms for getting blood up to its head. |
|
| |
Regarding the time of extinction of the dinosaurs in relation
to the Chicxulub impact, I know that's a source of
contention; most dinosaurologists believe that it led to the
mass extinction, but a few don't. BUT it doesn't really
matter either way in the context of this discussion. The
point I was making was that any impact big enough to
significantly alter Earth's rotation would (a) almost certainly
mess up its orbit with devastating effect and (b) would in
any case have to deliver enough energy to melt the planet*.
So, if such an impact happened, it had to have happened
before the start of life as we know it. |
|
| |
Incidentally, if you look at plants (and especially trees),
they're pretty good evidence that effective G has remained
roughly constant since there have been plants. Plants lay
down cellulose and lignin in response to stresses, so their
structure is a very, very good way of measuring the G at
which they grew. |
|
| |
(*Don't take my word for it. Go calculate the rotational
energy of an Earth spinning 2, 3 or 10 times faster than it is
today; then calculate the energy needed to raise the
temperature of one Earth's worth of rock by 1000°C**.) |
|
| |
(**Or, if you find the maths too difficult, use your finely-
honed Tesla-like intuition about physical processes. Stop
and think for 30 seconds. Then tell me what _you_ think
happens if you take take a planet with a mass of
6,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000kg with an equatorial
speed of, say 5000mph and abruptly decelerate it to its
current 1000mph.) |
|
| |
// The point I was making was that any impact big enough to significantly alter Earth's rotation would (a) almost certainly mess up its orbit with devastating effect and (b) would in any case have to deliver enough energy to melt the planet*. So, if such an impact happened, it had to have happened before the start of life as we know it.// |
|
| |
That's why I think that it was not an impact that altered our rotational rate but a close call with another planet sped us up enough to break off a piece of our previous pear shape. This enormous lifeless and irradiated mountain jutting off of our pear shape became our moon and the continent of Pangaea broke apart as Earth reformed into a more spherical shape as it's rotational speed drastically slowed. |
|
| |
//Incidentally, if you look at plants (and especially trees), they're pretty good evidence that effective G has remained roughly constant since there have been plants. Plants lay down cellulose and lignin in response to stresses, so their structure is a very, very good way of measuring the G at which they grew.// |
|
| |
Indeed, that's why there is such a debate about how it could have been possible to have 20 foot tall lichen. |
|
| |
//use your finely- honed Tesla-like intuition about physical processes. Stop and think for 30 seconds. Then tell me what _you_ think happens if you take take a planet with a mass of 6,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000kg with an equatorial speed of, say 5000mph and abruptly decelerate it to its current 1000mph.)// |
|
| |
Okay.
Everything dies. Earth reforms it's shape. Life claws its way back and adapts to its new environment. |
|
| |
//a close call with another planet sped us up enough to
break off a piece of our previous pear shape. This enormous
lifeless and irradiated mountain jutting off of our pear
shape became our moon and the continent of Pangaea
broke apart as Earth reformed into a more spherical shape
as it's rotational speed drastically slowed.// Ah, well,
there's a bunch of problems with that one. |
|
| |
//20 foot tall lichen. // I have shocking news - I have a
tree in my garden over 40ft tall. |
|
| |
//Everything dies. Earth reforms it's shape. Life claws its
way back and adapts to its new environment.// Now, that's
OK. But the "clawing back" from a molten ball is, obvs,
before the origin of any life forms that we know of. So, you
still got your dinosaurs running around at [today's] normal
gravity. |
|
| |
Not if we lost a big chunk of our mass and the rotational rate of Earth decreased all at once. |
|
| |
oh and we had 30 meter tall horsetail plants. |
|
| |
So, what happens to conservation of angular momentum? If
you have an Earth with some kind of weird sticky-out bit, and
you suddenly chop off the sticky out bit, the bit that's left will
have the same rotation rate. What you'll bugger mostly is the
orbit. Seriously, it's hard to have this discussion without some
basic physics as common ground. |
|
| |
Also, I don't understand what the problem is with tall plants.
They're just a thing. Apparently some trees these days
exceed 100m. As far as I know, there are no 1km fossil trees. |
|
| |
I found what I think is the most objective look at the whole enchilada if you'd like to see it, [link] It makes a very good argument for the atmospheric density of Earth explaining everything and so Occam's razor style must be right...
...but many of the refutations made and arguments for the basis of this assertion are complete assumptions. |
|
| |
For example;
"The vast majority of craters on the Moon are over three billion years old. Thus we can conclude that there have been relative few meteorite impacts hitting either the Moon or the Earth over the last three billion years. Likewise, for all practical purposes, we conclude that the mass of Earth has been constant for at least three billion years. Thus the mass of the Earth has not changed by a significant amount between the Mesozoic era and the present." |
|
| |
No. The length of time since we were constantly bombarded in no way proves that the mass of Earth has not changed. |
|
| |
Sorry you beat me with your last anno. |
|
| |
//So, what happens to conservation of angular momentum? If you have an Earth with some kind of weird sticky-out bit, and you suddenly chop off the sticky out bit, the bit that's left will have the same rotation rate. What you'll bugger mostly is the orbit. Seriously, it's hard to have this discussion without some basic physics as common ground.// |
|
| |
No need to get all insulty. I don't have your education but I see physics just fine in my head... I just don't have any math with it. |
|
| |
A spinning pyriform object in microgravity doesn't spin so much as wobble. The side of the planet to have a single continent would have been the base of this wobble and it's rotational speed, being much closer to the center of gravity than the pokey outey side of the planet, would be significantly faster than the peak of the enormous mountain about to break free. |
|
| |
//pterosaurs present a paradox to science// |
|
| |
Only to junk science that fails to model things correctly. |
|
| |
From my earlier link (& other sources I can't be bothered
to go look for). |
|
| |
1. The earth was spinning faster (days
were about 22 hours long), so they weighed less than they
would now. |
|
| |
Though it's worth noting this weight decrease from spin is
more
pronounced the closer to the equator you get. |
|
| |
2. Atmospheric pressure was also thicker, providing more
'buoyancy'. |
|
| |
3. Oxygen content of the air was higher making the muscles
they had more efficient. |
|
| |
Put it all together & dinosaurs work just fine, the 'scientists'
who say dinosaurs bones & muscles were too
small for their bulk & they shouldn't have been able to walk
(or fly in the case of pterosaurs) generally aren't worthy
of the title. |
|
| |
They left one or more of those out &
their models are wrong is all. |
|
| |
//Unacceptable high blood pressure// |
|
| |
Look to the giraffe, it has that one nicely solved & all with
soft structure & cartilage that naturally isn't preserved with
fossilized bone. |
|
| |
Even ignoring the fact air pressure was
higher that idea is the very epitome of junk science. |
|
| |
//The earth was spinning faster (days were about 22 hours
long), so they weighed less than they would now. // |
|
| |
At present, with a 24hr day, centrifugal force reduces your
effective weight by about 0.3% if you're standing at the
equator. With a 22hr day, it'll be a whisker over 0.3%. |
|
| |
Re. the thicker atmosphere (which seems to be the main
thrust of [2fries] link) - I was surprised that we know so
little about past atmospheric densities. The evidence that
does exist (from trapped bubbles; and from raindrop
imprints on sedimentary rock) is very noisy. So, if you tell
me that past densities were 2 or 5 times higher than today,
I might believe it. That's relevant to flying animals
(including pterosaurs and dragonflies maybe), but still
nowhere near high enough to provide significant buoyancy
for land-based animals. |
|
| |
Re. radical reshaping of the Earth in the past - anything
that's major (like losing a big chunk of the planet) is going
to involve such fantastic energies that the planet is
basically going to melt - whether from an impact or from
tidal forces on the rock. So, clearly this hasn't happened
since the origin of life as we know it. |
|
| |
Re. the supposed impossibilities of big tall dinosaurs under
normal g, I agree with [Skewed] - the vast majority of
palaeontologists don't see them as "impossible". If we only
knew of giraffes and elephants from fossils, no doubt some
minority would argue that they were also "impossible". |
|
| |
Re. insulty - yes, and my apologies - that was snarky.
However, your "intuition" seems to lead you wildly astray
and, in such cases, a touch of physics is the cure. |
|
| |
A whisker is a whisker & every little counts :) agreed that
the
atmosphere is probably the bulk of the answer (for the
Pterosaur at least), plus the fact that physical models in
the
current world environment have actually flown of course. |
|
| |
Besides any other (noisy) evidence for atmospheric density
we also
have some math we can apply, current density & the known
incremental loss of atmosphere & higher levels of
outgassing that have dropped as the core cools
calculated backwards |
|
| |
//still nowhere near high enough to provide significant
buoyancy for land-based animals// |
|
| |
With all 3 factors I'm aware of added together? |
|
| |
//With all 3 factors I'm aware of added together?// w.r.t
buoyancy the only relevant factors are effective g and air
density. I very much doubt that the Earth was ever spinning
say 5x faster (which would reduce effective g at the
equator by about 8% - still not much; and only near the
equator). And if the atmosphere were 100x greater than
now, it would give a buoyancy of about 13% compared to
water (ie, a dinosaur would have just 13% of its weight
supported by buoyancy). |
|
| |
13% isn't nothing, but it's not a lot. If something can fly in
that 100x denser atmosphere, it's not far off being able to
fly in today's atmosphere. It might explain how dragonflies
got so big, but not why dinosaurs got so big. |
|
| |
Well there is one other factor of course, those of you who
weren't
here won't remember. |
|
| |
The hydrogen filled bladders like huge bullfrog throats
on their backs, they all looked real funny bouncing along
under their balloons (& of course none of those soft
structures
made it into the fossil record). |
|
| |
Where do you think I got the idea for my sports wings?
[linky]. |
|
| |
Dragonflies & other insects was just down to the higher
oxygen content, the hard limit for insect size is the ability of
their (largely non-existent, in comparison to mammals &
others) respiratory system ... I'm sure you're aware ...
shouldn't
have let myself be drawn :) |
|
| |
'Most' dinosaurs weren't actually that big, it may depend
which ones you're thinking of, I vaguely remember reading
an article decades ago that led with the 'scientists (used
to)
say (some) dinosaurs were too big' trope (& that some
postulated the largest species lived in water
like
hippopotamus to explain how they supported
their bulk), but then went on to say that was wrong. |
|
| |
iirc more atmosphere, more oxygen so muscles were more
efficient & lighter bones than assumed in early models
were given as the cause of the confusion. I don't think
lighter gravity from faster spin got a mention. |
|
| |
If the idea (the big) dinosaurs were too big isn't simply a
revisit of very early ignorance by people reading old text
books getting a little excited & not bothering to check up
on more recent stuff (my assumption) then perhaps a revisit
of the
hippopotamus idea is in order for the really big ones. |
|
| |
Spurious weight estimation & models made with incomplete
data
are the most likely
culprits though. |
|
| |
See the 2 Dreadnoughtus [links] for an example, downgraded
from 59 (or 60) tons to 30 or 40 tons by one 2015 modeling
attempt. |
|
| |