Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
UM-Bot

Why did dinosaurs grow to such a large size ?

33 posts in this topic

The key to explaining why some dinosaurs were so big may lie in the structure of their bones and joints.

Scientists have long pondered over what made it possible for some dinosaurs to grow to immense sizes and why land-based mammals have never been able to do the same. Some sauropod dinosaurs weighed up to 30 tons, far heavier than the largest land mammals.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/256909/why-did-dinosaurs-grow-to-such-a-large-size

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about dealing with the obvious. ALL giant flora and fauna including Dinosaurs and Hominids in the Geological record grew to a size that was biologically feasible for the attenuated gravity of that time. A 'lighter' or 'less dense' gravitational effect ('G' force) would allow all flora and fauna to increase in relative size compared to the 'G' force of today. As ALL larger flora and fauna died out across the mid Holocene, it is logical to assume that gravity increased in 'density' during that same period. The only problem with the above logical statement, means that IF true, then Einstein was the charlatan that Tesla said he was. And that folks, puts an end to theoretical Physics because Gravity is NOT a fixed Law as Newton postulated. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and when the reality can no longer be ignored, my oh my, what will we do?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about dealing with the obvious. ALL giant flora and fauna including Dinosaurs and Hominids in the Geological record grew to a size that was biologically feasible for the attenuated gravity of that time. A 'lighter' or 'less dense' gravitational effect ('G' force) would allow all flora and fauna to increase in relative size compared to the 'G' force of today. As ALL larger flora and fauna died out across the mid Holocene, it is logical to assume that gravity increased in 'density' during that same period. The only problem with the above logical statement, means that IF true, then Einstein was the charlatan that Tesla said he was. And that folks, puts an end to theoretical Physics because Gravity is NOT a fixed Law as Newton postulated. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and when the reality can no longer be ignored, my oh my, what will we do?

That's a very interesting post and I've often wondered why organisms don't grow to the immense size now as they did in earlier ages I always thought it was something to do with higher oxygen levels but after some reading I've found that there doesn't seem to be a definite consensus about this matter. If humans existed back then could maybe they too have also grown to such sizes which reminds of me of the vague stories I've read about giant footprints being found which go against established theories.

Edited by aimlesswalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do some species grow large and some small? Maybe several factors come into play. Diet, genetics, enviroment, (etc) Why is an African elephant larger then an Indian elephant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading somewhere years ago that it at least partially had to do with the fact that oxygen levels where as high as 36% during the age of the dinosaurs compared with the 21% level we currently have....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, what Euphorbia said ! I read this also, I think it was on new scientist site, but can't be sure.

Edited by Aten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they ate all their vegetables?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were higher levels of both Oxygen and CO2. That caused both plants and animals to grow huge.

The air was a lot different to how it is now. A human (or any modern lifeform) wouldn't be able to breath the air from that era for long. The planet changed a lot after the big one of 65 million years ago :P

Edited by Finity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size difference is because of "ozone". Ozone of that era was 200% greater than it is now. This was because there was an ice shield, or layer surrounding the earth long ago above the atmosphere. Makes you think about the great flood and such...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How curious, the post counts of all the people in agreement here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about dealing with the obvious. ALL giant flora and fauna including Dinosaurs and Hominids in the Geological record grew to a size that was biologically feasible for the attenuated gravity of that time. A 'lighter' or 'less dense' gravitational effect ('G' force) would allow all flora and fauna to increase in relative size compared to the 'G' force of today. As ALL larger flora and fauna died out across the mid Holocene, it is logical to assume that gravity increased in 'density' during that same period. The only problem with the above logical statement, means that IF true, then Einstein was the charlatan that Tesla said he was. And that folks, puts an end to theoretical Physics because Gravity is NOT a fixed Law as Newton postulated. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and when the reality can no longer be ignored, my oh my, what will we do?

What?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 'lighter' or 'less dense' gravitational effect ('G' force) would allow all flora and fauna to increase in relative size compared to the 'G' force of today.

Why do you believe gravity would have a significant effect on plant growth?

Incidentally, G force is a metric used to indicate the force a body is subjected to during acceleration. It has nothing to do with weight or...density.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is going on in this thread?

I haven't seen this much stupid on UM since the two-legged dogman database thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that except for the sauropods (the ones with the long necks and tails and where we understand the ecological reasons for the size) group that was long extinct before the dinosaurs disappeared most of the larger dinosaurs were on the same order of magnitude as modern mega-fauna (rhinos, hippos and of course elephants). Some bison get up into those ranges too.

In other words there is no need to go looking for special reasons. Evolution naturally produces a lot of variation.

It seems that oxygen levels were a good deal higher in eras preceding the dinosaurs, which produced some pretty big bugs, but that has to do with insect respiration. The way vertebrates breathe allows big size with much less oxygen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is going on in this thread?

I haven't seen this much stupid on UM since the two-legged dogman database thread.

So, you read the thread, call people's posts stupid, and then not give an answer or an opinion?

What the hell......it's the equivalent of coming on and saying "you're wrong" and then leaving without responding to the OP....or saying why we're wrong...or even who is wrong.

Edited by Euphorbia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you believe gravity would have a significant effect on plant growth?

Incidentally, G force is a metric used to indicate the force a body is subjected to during acceleration. It has nothing to do with weight or...density.

Since gravity is, as I understand, a combination of the Earth's rotation, mass and speed. The earth's rotation has gradually getting ever so slower as is the relative speed in the galaxy. So wouldn't gravity be slightly less now than it was during the DSino era?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you read the thread, call people's posts stupid, and then not give an answer or an opinion?

What the hell......it's the equivalent of coming on and saying "you're wrong" and then leaving without responding to the OP....or saying why we're wrong...or even who is wrong.

You're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong.

Without reasons, your posts on this thread are meaningless.

Anybody can come onto a thread and say "you're wrong".......that takes no intelligence. Please provide an answer or you're just going to come off as a jerk. The thing is, I know you're an intelligent man as you have proven in many posts I have read, so I don't understand why you are calling everyone stupid without something to back it up.

I simply gave an opinion of something I heard years ago without looking it up.....so I'm stupid?

And what does a person's post count have to do with anything? Even you had a first post. I know this wasn't your post, but you liked it.

Are you in a bad mood or have you just gone into jerk mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without reasons, your posts on this thread are meaningless.

Anybody can come onto a thread and say "you're wrong".......that takes no intelligence. Please provide an answer or you're just going to come off as a jerk. The thing is, I know you're an intelligent man as you have proven in many posts I have read, so I don't understand why you are calling everyone stupid without something to back it up.

I simply gave an opinion of something I heard years ago without looking it up.....so I'm stupid?

And what does a person's post count have to do with anything? Even you had a first post. I know this wasn't your post, but you liked it.

Are you in a bad mood or have you just gone into jerk mode?

I never said your post was stupid. I have read the same thing myself. My comment was i no way directed at you, it was directed at those making up things about gravity, giant humans and the like.

I am sorry if you felt my disdain was directed at you.

As for the content of my post, I do not feel that I need post something thought provoking nor even intelligent all the time.Sometimes it's more fun to poke at the crazies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said your post was stupid. I have read the same thing myself. My comment was i no way directed at you, it was directed at those making up things about gravity, giant humans and the like.

Great! I feel better now.

I am sorry if you felt my disdain was directed at you.

We're good!

As for the content of my post, I do not feel that I need post something thought provoking nor even intelligent all the time.Sometimes it's more fun to poke at the crazies.

Understood, there was a questionable post or two early on which made me shake my head.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, now that I know they were so big I'm starting to have my doubts that they were all able to fit on the ark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, now that I know they were so big I'm starting to have my doubts that they were all able to fit on the ark.

HUH??????????????
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since gravity is, as I understand, a combination of the Earth's rotation, mass and speed. The earth's rotation has gradually getting ever so slower as is the relative speed in the galaxy.

Not quite, but it gets fairly complex. In all cases, neither the rotation of the Earth nor the speed has anything to do with gravity. Gravity is solely a product of the mass of the Earth.

So wouldn't gravity be slightly less now than it was during the DSino era?

Not really, no, at least, not in any signifigant way that would affect life on Earth. Incidentally, I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but you may want to look into tidal acceleration and tidal decceleration, as I suspect you have heard some incorrect information stemming from both of these phenomena.

The question, however, was not about why you believe gravity was different, but rather why you believe plant growth would be affected by it. Have you simply assumed that a plant under less gravity would grow larger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they got big because... That's how they were made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.