On 22 Feb, 20:05, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
*Jan Panteltje wrote:





On a sunny day (Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:32:48 -0800 (PST)) it happened Ian Parker
wrote in
:

Maybe the old earth was much smaller, with
hardly any water, and some big comet hit it,
driving the continents apart, creating oceans,
increasing gravity, that killing all the huge
animals.

If the Earth was smaller gravity would be HIGHER

No, no, smaller = less mass = less gravity.
If you were thinking the same mass, compressed in a smaller volume,
then at the surface you would be heavier.

The idea I was suggesting, is that if some huge comet did hit the earth,
it would get into the core, and increase the mass, causing volcanism all over
the place,
and the swelling would push the continents, the solid surface layer
fragments, apart.

The resulting increase in gravity due to increased mass, would kill only the
big heavy lifeforms.

***{Hi Jan. I don't know if you have seen the material at the following
links, but it is very relevant to your line of thought.

The first supports the idea of a growing Earth, which would produce the
increase in gravity that you are speculating about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjgid...eature=related

Note that during the time of the dinosaurs, according to this theory,
the Earth was about the size that Mars is today. Result: less gravity,
hence larger animals.

The second link concerns the "small comet theory," according to which
the Earth is, in fact, sweeping up vastly more debris from space than
conventional scientists believe:

This has all been measured. The Earth indeed grew from being a small
body, but this was in the Hadean period. The amount of accretion for
the Moon, Mars and Earth has been accurately estimated

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000M&PSA..35..173Y

Estimate based on the amount in Antarctica.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q3g783684l353052/

History of the Earth reconstructed by isotopes.

http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/

The two theories, taken together, are vastly stronger than either taken
by itself. Each, within the context of the other, makes perfect sense:
if either is true, then so too must be the other.

Bottom line: Truth Seekers--i.e., those who value truth more than social
expediency--will give very, very serious consideration to both of these
ideas. As for the others, well, let them howl. Turning their volume down
is why killfiles were invented, after all. :-)

We should, of course always have an open mind. There is no reason to
suppose that the rate from the time of the dinosaurs to the present
was vastly different from the antarctic rate. Only in Antarchtica can
dust be foung. Elsewhere it is simply churned into the crust.


- Ian Parker