The dinosaur in the room is an issue so massive, if you don't mind the pun, that it could by itself turn much of what is considered settled science on its head. Even more unbelievable is that the physics are actually not disputable, as I will show in a moment the physics prohibiting any possibility of the largest dinosaurs surviving for 10 minutes by todays conditions are impossible. Let me say that again, the largest dinosaurs could not last 10 minutes on the earths surface today with the same gravity we experience every day of our lives.
Furthermore, the notion of the largest pterosaurs like the modestly sized pterodactyl and other larger species actually flying is absurd. It would be a stretch proposing such creatures being able to walk for that matter, or even being able to carry their heads upright without breaking their necks instantly or snapping their wings.
We only encounter such exaggerated imbalances at the extremities with far smaller creatures today. Creatures such as crustaceans and insects that do not face gravity as the primary force to overcome. A small enough creature may find water surface tension or mechanical forces such as wind far more consequential on its structure and evolution.
Dreadnoughtus, the largest dinosaur whose size can be calculated reliably. A very complete fossil of this sauropod was unearthed in 2009. In life Dreadnoughtus was 26 metres (85 feet) long and weighed about 65 tons in current conditions. However new finds on the South American Continent are now shaping up to significantly exceed that because shorter 60 foot dinosaurs are now, because of the large bulk and bone thicknesses, shaping up to be monstrosities with 2 species heading up to 77 and 80 tons. (Below)
By pure mass we can already see that elephants, which seldom exceed 8 tons, looking paltry by comparison. That's now basically TEN TIMES smaller! Yet elephants are approaching what is realistically nearly three quarters of the largest theoretical size for structural integrity, ability to find food and the functioning of peristaltic movement or vascular maintenance. An animal any larger would also be prone to overheating, yet they are proposing they thrived during some of the warmest periods in earth history.
Even more remarkable are the pressures and forces required for a giraffes heart to pump blood up to its head, it requires such immense force and pressure that its hard to imagine a biological being getting any taller without its blood vessels exploding or heart failing as soon as its pulse rate rises when running.
None of these factors would pose as serious a problem in the sea. It's telling that we still have enourmous sea creatures, but our terestial creatures are notably smaller, even the insect's.
I personally don't chalk it all down to the limiting factor spiracles have with distribution of oxygen
Pictured Above: Here is a published scientific paper calculating 41kg as the upper limit for winged flight, and why.
The square-cube law.
The square–cube law (or cube–square law) is a mathematical principle that is applied in a variety of scientific fields (and engineering, physics, sport, industry, biology etc).
What it describes is the relationship between the volume and the surface area as a shape's size increases or decreases. It was first described in 1638 by Galileo Galilei in his Two New Sciences as the "...ratio of two volumes is greater than the ratio of their surfaces".[1]
This principle states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its surface area. When applied to the real world this principle has many implications which are important in fields ranging from mechanical engineering to biomechanics. It helps explain phenomena including why large mammals like elephants have a harder time cooling themselves than small ones like mice, and why building taller and taller skyscrapers is increasingly difficult.
In this clip David Dr Hilster reviews a book by a specialist mechanical engineer in materials, the perfect expert to evaluate the shocking discovery that dinosaur bones would snap under current surface gravity conditions. All sorts of experiments and scenarios conclusively illustrate this point which could make the case on it's own.
This case above is made based on an expanding earth scenario, where in order for the surface gravity to increase the earths mass would increase. There are many scenarios for such as particle bombardment, additions of large volumes of water etc but also solar charge environment scenarios are worthy of exploration.Sinclair Coefficient – Formula and What It Means
For a sport that seems like it should be super simple, weightlifting sure has made itself pretty complicated. In theory, weightlifting is nothing more than lifting as much weight as you can in both the snatch and the clean & jerk. In competition (again, in theory), weightlifting is a group of people all trying to lift as much as they can in the snatch and clean & jerk, and whoever lifts the most on that particular day is the winner.
Of course, it can’t be that straightforward. “Lifting more weight” isn’t just dependent on the athletic ability of an athlete. Generally, bigger people can lift more weight. Age, gender, height, body type, flexibility, and even length of arms and legs also come into play. In short, the only constants in weightlifting are the weight on the bar and gravity itself. Everything else is variable.
The Sinclair coefficient: https://barbend.com/sinclair-coefficient-formula-total/amp/
But it is more than just the Sinclair Coefficient or square cube law that tell us once we project to the size of the largest dinosaur the joints become difficult to sustain with biological materials, the blood and lymph systems won't function,the lymphatic system has no pump an relies on muscular movement to avoid pooling. The pressure and forces will become so immense that no foreseeable biological adaptations could actually account for them, and produce such things as a heart pumping with the power of a battleships engine pumping with the pressure of a Gazprom pipeline.
What conclusions are we forced to draw?
1) We do not understand gravity or have a reasonable definition.
2) We do not understand mass or have a reasonable definition.
3) Due to the mass/energy equivalence principle we use we therefore do not understand energy or have a reasonable definition. We already knew this when e=mc2 yeilded massless photons that somehow carry momentum energy that is wavelength specific in violation of p=mv.
4) We cannot assume the history of our planet or solar system has been 4.8 billion years of uninterrupted gradualist tranquility. There may chapters do sensational and unforeseen that we are never able to come to terms with them.
This just shows how the assumed universality of our equations can get us into trouble.
The dinosaur mass/weight issue is one example but there are others. There are fundamental flaws with scientific mainstays everywhere, from carbon dating to tides. there are flaws from redshift to orbital mechanics, from the big bang to gravitational waves and we are just getting warmed up.
I suggest we explore the theme of overhyped or oversight consensensus science and keep poking around at the weak areas. Not only does it take us to interesting places but that attitude in society will have mitigating effect on the nature of establishment in science.
I highly recommend you watch the media clip by Ted Holden below. You will get a comprehensive sense of the issue if your interest is peaked.
If you are interested in possible explanations that account for this idea of our scientific assessment of earths history and physics, then click here for some sound yet radical speculation on the possibles alternates for both the history and science of our solar system. And here is some possible clarity on why the science is so off.