From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Applauses to Ted
Organization: FMI/GEO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:17:18 GMT

   After following this discussion around Ted's theory I have to say it would
be most desirable to have many more theories of the same kind posted to this
newsgroup. Not only to mention all the amusement it brings to a dull day at
work, it equally well teaches a lot of new things. Well...not the theory itself
but the contradicting explanations for why the theory is incorrect.
   OK, Ted, you are primarily concerned about the question how those good ole
saurs managed with their enormous body mass. A simple calculation gives the
answer that they wouldn't have been able to even lift themselves off the
ground. You have brought up a theory that explains the existence of the
monsters by adjusting the Earth's gravitational field. Now, how could it have
happened. Unfortunately there was another theory hanging out there which
predicted that the Earth has been circulating a different "star" at the time of
dinosaurs. Clinging to this funny theory you have missed all the alternative
theories which could be much more harder to be proven totally bogus.
   Why not, for example, say that the Earth has been bigger and less dense by
that time? That would give the gravity difference you are looking for. It's
only to say, that the gravitational force has pulled the Earth into a smaller
planet than it was before. It would also give to you some anomalous mountain
formations as the surface area shrinks.
   No, that is too obvious. Just mention, that the gravitational effect of
circulating a massive object is not due to the pull of that object (remember,
we are in free fall) but to the divergence of the gravitation field i.e. tides.
Let's now define the hemisphere that is towards the "sun" as northern one. So
to say, that "sun" wouldn't cause a "pull" that collected all masses to this
hemisphere but a equal force could be felt to "pull" from the equator to the
southern hemisphere. Having all the land masses collected to "one point" by
this "sun" is therefore totally bizarre idea that can instantly be proven
false. Yes, we have tides also on the opposite side of the Earth than where the
Moon currently is. Besides, considering the land masses to be less dense than
the underlying stuff, hence floating like foam in the water, wouldn't we get
them staying near the equator, in the "upward" end of the gravitational field
rather than near the poles, in the "bottom" of the field.
   So, the gravitation doesn't help us a bit. What about electromagnetics then.
Again an absolute no-help answer. Why indeed should electric or magnetic field
reduce the effect of gravity? And when considering the field strength needed to
guide an earth-sized planet or whatsoever it is supposed to do, then the
radiation field would ultimately destroy all the living forms on the Earth.
Gzzz, never visit near Jupiter, I would advice.
   As having access to the real-time data from outer space I can only say that
the desperate suggestions about magnetohydrodynamics inside the heliosphere
don't even make me laugh any more. Hey, people are doing serious work on the
subject!
   So what next? Nuclear force, colour force, superforce or something even
better? To conclude what is said above: Clinging to one theory despite of how
ridiculous things it brings along is a sure proof of anti-science. Which one is
bigger wonder if chosen between planet-juggling against nearly all physical
laws and the possibility of Ted having missed some essential information hence
making the "simple calculation" invalid to prove anything? Which one you would
bet?

Teemu Makinen  ---- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi

P.S. Sorry if my english is incorrect. Hope you get the idea.
Newsgroups: talk.origins