ImagingGeek,
I’ll try to keep my responses as brief and to the point as possible:
Yes, no one has measured the relationship between core movement and distribution of the Earth’s mass (that I know of) which is why this theory is a radical one.
Mantle viscosity near the core being very high???.....need a reference for that. Hot-spot volcanic plumes originate there.
The forces on the core(s) (in reaction to the creation/dismantling of Pangea) are not dependent on the proximity to the center of rotation, they are the result of Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which you stated earlier.
Continental drift today is on the order of .5 to 1.5 inches per year. I doubt whether core-shift movement couldn’t keep pace at this rate. We’re addressing processes that took place over millions of years.
“In picture 3 we have restored equilibrium - the core is now off-set towards pangea's antipode. Since the core is denser than the mantle, this shifts mass towards pangea's antipode. The net effect is the amount of mass (i.e. in kg) between the center of rotation and pangea is now the same as the amount of mass between the center of rotation and pangea's antipode.”
How could this be true? The Center Of Rotation (COR) remains at the Earth’s geographic center with both cores displaced toward’s Pangea’s antipode (i.e., to the left of the COR in your picture). Clearly, there is more mass to the left of the COR than to the right.
My statement that the ratio of Pangea’s lowest G (near Pangea’s equatorial region) to current G is not wrong. The value of the ratio ( r^2/d^2) is dependent upon the Earth’s new center of mass, and therefore the amount of movement of the cores. THE GTME POSITS A VERY LARGE MOVEMENT OF THE CORES.
“1) Your math is wrong, ergo your last response is invalid.
2) Even if we take your case at face-value, without values your claims are meaningless - you would need pretty large movement of the core to get a d2/r2 ratio to provide a 1-2% change in surface gravity.”
Your math is wrong, plug in some numbers into the above ratio or review the last part of this response.
In reply to my statements about the rapid breakup of Pangea around 65mya resulting in pulses if increasing surface gravity and extinction, you wrote:
“Still doesn't fit the fossil record. The major periods of breakup were not associated with mass-extinctions, but rather increases in species diversity:
No extinctions around 65mya???? The graph you provided shows otherwise but a clearer image is:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/03/10/mn_extinction.jpgOn the reduction in size of the sauropods, you wrote:
“The shifts in body shape you claim occur were not universal across all large caldes - which is what would have to happen if gravity was the cause.”
Do you have any references to support this statement? The effect would have been most obvious on the largest and tallest dinosaurs......and that’s what we see.
“Large sauropods are found at all elevations near the KT-boundary; picking the one continent where there numbers appear to have dropped doesn't bolster your argument, but instead is a clear-cut case of you cherry-picking data to "prove" your model.”
I assume you meant “latitudes” when you wrote “elevations.”
I’m not “cherry-picking”...if you have any references to prove otherwise, I’d like to see them.
“Sauropods are found upto the KT boundary, but not beyond it. So it is fair to claim they all disappeared at the KT boundary. “
Your link seems to be broken, here’s one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-dinosaur-lost-world.htmThis is consistent with the GTME. The dinosaurs that survived the K-T boundary were found in a near-equatorial region where surface gravity would be at minimum values compared to other parts of Pangea, ie., not in Canada, Australia, Siberia, New Zealand, etc. And, their survival for only another 500,000 years has to be explained......increasing surface gravity is my explanation.
You wrote:
“But in this context, rapid can be very well defined. For your model to work the breakup must occur faster that the core can shift.”
No, they are simultaneous........one is a reaction to the other in small increments.
I have to echo my previous statements that the breakup of Pangea was at its most rapid rate around 65mya, primarily in a longitudinal direction. Study the movement of the subcontinent of India at this time. It moved from the southern tip of Africa to current position of Reunion Island (the location of the hot-spot volcano that formed the Deccan Traps) in a geologically brief period.
On Courtillot and his views, no “cut and paste from wikipedia” involved. I have his book right in front of me as I type this. Nothing I’ve written here has been copied from anywhere.
I won’t debate the volcanic vs. asteroid extinction theories because, as you might have guessed, I believe surface gravitational changes caused the extinctions. BTW, your link theorizes that multiple asteroids fell during the K-T period, I didn’t see any support for extinction. I introduced Courtillot’s work not to support the volcanic theory of extinction; his pointing out the connection between hot-spot volcanic eruptions and extinction periods actually supports the GTME. I’ll explain this in a subsequent posting.
On the lack of a “bone pile” at the time of impact I would repeat my view, which is:
The impact should have created sand storms, mudslides, tsunamis, etc. which would have buried large numbers of land vertebrates, including dinosaurs. I have not heard of any, have you?
In answer to your references about an “abrupt end to dinosaur fossilization at the K-T boundary I would refer you back to my link describing Fassett’s so-called “lazarus dinosaurs” that made it past the K-T boundary and survived for 500,000 years.
Your statement that the rapid gravitational changes would be accompanied by changes in the formation of sedimentary rocks is incorrect. There might be changes in slumping of mud or volcanic flows, which would probably be weak evidence to pursue but not sedimentation. Paleomagnetic data verifying gravitational change?? Please explain.
Glad you mentioned Paleomagnetic data because there is some that support the GTME. The two superchrons, the Kiaman long reversed superchron and the Cretaceous long normal superchron were extremely long periods when the Earth’s north and south poles did not reverse polarity. Clearly, something unusual was happening related to the cores and/or the core/mantle boundary. I have not found a credible explanation for this. The Kiaman superchron occurred as the continents were in their final consolidation phase forming Pangea, meaning (according to GTME) the core(s) were moving to their furthest distance away from the Earth’s center. The Cretaceous superchron occurred as Pangea was breaking up, the core(s) moving back toward their central location. And, very significantly the polarity of the two superchrons are reversed. Could the movement of the core(s) in two different directions during these two periods, per GTME, explain the difference in polarity? Quite possible and shifting cores could explain the supershrons.
On computer modeling vs. experiments using extant birds, I have to repeat my belief that the latter will produce more accurate results. Aeronautical programs are probably very accurate for designing and testing fixed wing aircraft powered by constant energy supplied means, not for flapping pterosaurs. Yes, “ pterosaurs are not birds” but they are more like birds than airplanes.
The same applies to computer models for sauropods. How did the models handle the high blood pressure required to pump blood to the brains of the dinosaurs? Did they provide for the additional mass of gastroliths? Did they use bone, muscle, ligaments of extant mammals as a reference? If they did, that has to be rejected per your “pterosaurs are not birds” analogy.
Dr. Roger Seymour of the Adelaide University believes that the large sauropods could not position their necks vertically to feed:
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news180.htmlYet other scientists said they did: just google the words dinosaurs held head high
and you will get many websites.
I only know of one way to reconcile the two views.....I think you know my answer.
Your inner/outer core calculations are superfluous and incorrect. All that is needed is the ratio I supplied earlier:
r^2/d^2 Where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance from the center of mass of Pangea to the new center of mass of the Earth after the core shifting. YES, I BELIEVE THE CORE SHIFT WAS SUBSTANTIAL WITH THE INNER CORE NOT REMAINING AT THE CENTER OF THE OUTER CORE.
A simple example should suffice:
The Earth has a diameter of 12 units
The Earth’s center of mass shifts from position 6 to position 8 (i.e. 8 units away from Pangea)
The ration of the new G to the old G is r^2/d^2= 6^2/8^2= 36/64= 56%
A shift from position 6 to position 9 gives 44%.
Laze
